(no subject)
Mar. 27th, 2006 04:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentia...[A]mong those celebrating the prominence of these two Darwinians [Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett] on both sides of the Atlantic is an unexpected constituency - the American creationist/intelligent-design lobby. Huh? Dawkins, in particular, has become their top pin-up.
How so? William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"
... Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher (and an agnostic) based in the US, with a string of books on the subject, is exasperated: "Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."
Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins (Thanks tosupergee for the link)
Say it with me, now: atheism is not a religion. There is no doctrine, no scripture, no church, no congregation, no priesthood, no tradition, no temple, no ritual, no prayerbook, no dietary restriction, no almsgiving, or any other religious trapping, associated with atheism.
Disbelief in God is not a religious belief. This assertion presumes that "belief in God" is normal and standard, such that disbelief thereof requires maintenance of faith and positive reinforcement. No, "God" is an assertion made by most religions, the burden of proof for which rests on those who promote religion. Not subscribing to someone else's assertion is not an act of faith.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:24 pm (UTC)*boggle, headshake, facepalm*
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:31 pm (UTC)Thank you. That's what I thought when I saw this too.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:36 pm (UTC)Then the self-proclaimed "moderates" say we have to have the discussion on their terms and compromise. All that's gotten us is increasing fundamentalist control of our government. SOmeone needs to stand up to these whack jobs.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:40 pm (UTC)"Even moderate Muslim clerics... have said that death is the only fair and logical punishment"
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:44 pm (UTC)I wonder if they would be saying anything about it if he'd been sentenced to death for converting to Judaism or Wicca or Buddhism?
(That was a rhetorical question, of course - we all know the answer to that.)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:56 pm (UTC)When men were men and d20's were plentiful...
(sorry about that)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:46 pm (UTC)I can see where they are coming from; they want to believe in the goodness of human nature. Such people make no provision for the people on one "side" of a debate being utterly psychotic accomplished liars.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:10 pm (UTC)An extremely thankless quest. You'd think that mainstream/liberal Christians would be foaming-at-the-mouth furious about what is being done in their name. But when i've tried to point this out, in a very polite and matter-of-fact way, all it has ever gotten me is complaints that i am being nasty. After having this happen several times i'm convinced that liberal religion is at best a pacifier which makes people blind to injustice being done in their name.
or that only people who aren't 'brights' are theists
I initially thought that this whole idea of calling humanists and atheists "Brights" was begging for trouble, but the more i see religion as an utter disaster i'm warming up to the idea. The political and social situation has gotten so bad i feel we literally have nothing left to gain by being democratic and can only lose by avoiding the confrontation that is being foisted upon us.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 05:15 pm (UTC)I am hoping that more libral christians will only step on and speak out as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 09:18 pm (UTC)http://www.tcpc.org/
Just for shitz and giggles.. this is what they define themselves as;
The Eight Points by which we define Progressive Christianity
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:
1. Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus;
2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us;
3. Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples;
4. Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):
believers and agnostics,
conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
women and men,
those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
those of all races and cultures,
those of all classes and abilities,
those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope;
5. Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe;
6. Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes;
7. Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; and
8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 09:25 pm (UTC)same stuff :-D
no subject
Date: 2006-04-03 02:54 pm (UTC)I have a number of concerns about liberal religion, having been a member of various liberal churches for many years. It looks great on paper, but in practice what i've seen is that people in liberal churches pat each other on the back a lot and talk about how enlightened they are.
I guess some people need that for healing, but it becomes a kind of cocoon. People in that cocoon are not prepared to acknowledge the real problems being caused by religious conservatives. For example, they think that reasoned discussion or public debate will solve the problem, and wring their hands over evidence that conservatives are using lies and force to get their way. In general, i have not seen much reason to trust religious liberals to be effective allies.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-03 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-03 08:45 pm (UTC)Perhaps my experience is unique due to my work environment, but I will relate a story here dealing with something from work. (I am a massage therapist at a spa)
A girl at work became "born-again" in November. This was encouraged by the fact that a couple months earlier she had a few drinks and made a pass at a fellow employee (another female) which was rebuffed. She freaked herself, I guess. By January/Feburary she was doing "missionary" work AT work. Passing out flyers for revivals, leaving books, pamphlets and other things about our sins, hell, and whatnot. She was "witnessing" to clients while giving them massages.
Now silly ole me had no clue it had gone this far from being in the post-death of my father haze, so I innocently invite her to my church. I was met with a "What does YOUR CHURCH BELIEVE.." Then the usual.. God created MAN AND WOMAN. She stormed out. I then find out she had been passing around a petition against gay marriage at work. I went to my boss. My boss then heard from various clients and employees her fanaticism had increased. She gave her a good talking to this week.
However, she must of confronted several women at work. Over the last week, strangely enough, many of them have come to me asking about my perspective on scriptures, and to help them understand stuff. To quote one from last night "I find the Bible very confusing, conflicting and the stuff "name" says to me scares and confuses me more, can you explain such-n-such" I proceed to give her some history of biblical times, politics, and the customs. And also helped her with some issues with her mother-in-law.
It is by example, I lead where I work. I am very out, honest, and known for a big heart and some unusual healing abilities with clients. I remain true to my beliefs, have no trouble speaking my mind and standing up for what I believe but it is by my behaviour that I seem to draw more. The old fire and brimstone sets most people back. Everyone is spiritually hungering for something. And I know it is easy to get discouraged by those who YELL louder. I truly believe actions do speak louder than words.
Statistically, though the conservatives may have more joining, they have just as many if not more, running away in fear. This girl I have been referring to was an infinite loving spirit who I see as being squeezed into a tiny box. Sooner or later she will have to break out, or break down, as I told one of her friends who told me how "she missed her friend." I just pray for people to be willing to see, hear and experience the truth. There are two things. Love God (and all that God is in and around) and Love each other. It IS upon these two things, humanity depends.
It is the same with the political climate, it is time to stand up without lowering ourselves to the levels of name-calling, and the tactics they use. Knowledge/truth eventually prevails and all the fire and brimstone is scaring the hell out of plenty of folks, including ones within their own congregations. It is time to be involved with the politics of your area, elections are coming up. Supporting political and religious beliefs and organizations that promote truth, fairness, and understanding.
By actions, they will know us.
I can hope, and I gotta believe that is true.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 10:11 pm (UTC)You as a Catholic do not belong to a religion that consists of "rejecting the Quran." In fact i would imagine that you would strenously object if someone told you that you belong to "Religion X" which has as its belief "rejection of the Quran." The Quran is someone else's assertion, and you as a rejector of it do not thereby subscribe to a belief.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 10:21 pm (UTC)Some strong atheists may have come to their position through the rejection of a particular concept of god(s), but must go further for it to be strong atheism. And yes, I have met many people who profess not just a lack of belief in any god(s), but the belief that no god(s) exist.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 12:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 02:10 pm (UTC)I believe that God created everything, the means doesn't really matter all that much to me, nor affect all that much the fundamental importance of the "who" over the "how." Evolution may or may not be right, but it certainly seems to have passed muster as a scientific theory. Hell, Catholic schools were the first ones in the US to teach evolution.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:17 pm (UTC)You objected before that the "trappings" of religion -- doctrines, congregations, rituals, temples, etc. -- are only trappings, but that is how we know what a religion is. A religion is a fundamentally social phenomenon. You cannot have a religion of one person.
And if the various political atheist organizations qualify as "temples" then so do companies, governments, financial institutions, political parties, and so on... which they might be from an anthropological perspective i suppose...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:32 pm (UTC)Only if the dictionary is one of their detractors. It's a simple dictionary definition, not the primary or even secondary one, but still: "a principle or doctrine devoutly held and pursued." Not all atheism is religious. But when you think about it, strong atheism requires not an absence of faith but quite a quantity of faith to believe that no god(s) exist(s). Proving that no god(s) exist(s) is quite a tougher proposition than proving that a god does exist. It is belief in the absence of proof, the most prosaic definition of faith.
A religion is a fundamentally social phenomenon.
No, a religion is fundamentally an institution of ideas. A congregation is a social phenomenon, but modern history has shown exactly how widespread the "religion of one" actually is. For example, Christianity is no longer one religion, but a family of related religions, same as Hinduism and Buddhism.
I find more that binds the strong atheist to the typical "religious" than separates them: the proselytizing, the zealousness, the formulation of a doctrine, etc.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:44 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, but this is just ludicrous.
It's been proposed that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you disagree, does that disagreement require faith on your part? After all, you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation. I'm willing to bet that you believe quite devoutly that the world was NOT created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that lots of people believe in God does not in itself make the theory of God more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. This is the fallacy of appeal to popularity. The truth value of a statement does not change with repetition.
I said this in my initial reply: the burden of proof for the existence of any sort of deity rests with people who assert that it exists.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 06:47 pm (UTC)I don't see why. Strong atheism isn't just the rejection of a particular concept of god or handful of concepts, it is the absolute rejection of *any* god(s). It is the active belief that god(s), no matter how conceptualized, do(es) not exist. This requires disproving or reasonably dismission not just a particular concept of god, but all concepts of god(s). Disproving or dismissing the existence of a god of a particular conceptualization is easy or hard depending on the strength of that specific concept, but the disavowal of *all* concepts of god(s) is quite another matter entirely.
If you disagree, does that disagreement require faith on your part? After all, you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation.
It does. I buy into a concept of God which excludes such an alternate concept. But it requires no more faith than the belief that there is no god(s), not just a particular god(s) but any god(s) as strong atheism does.
The fact that lots of people believe in God does not in itself make the theory of God more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
That's a red herring, I never made anything resembling that claim.
I said this in my initial reply: the burden of proof for the existence of any sort of deity rests with people who assert that it exists.
No, the burden of proof for any assertion rests with the people who make that assertion, regardless as to whether it is the assertion of existence, or non-existence of a something. Again, lacking belief and actively disbelieving are two very different things. If you assert that there is no such thing as god - not just lack belief in any god, but assert that there is no such thing as god - then the burden of proof is on you. This is what strong atheism does.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 07:13 pm (UTC)I do not believe that this conception of "strong atheism" exists in practice.
Atheists are not dreaming up gods in which to disbelieve. There are only so many possible variations on the theme of "omnipotent and omniscient supernatural being." For someone to say, "I cannot believe in any omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being, no matter what claims you make about it," is *not* the same as making an assertion of belief.
No, the burden of proof for any assertion rests with the people who make that assertion, regardless as to whether it is the assertion of existence, or non-existence of a something.
So, no matter what wild claims i make, you're burdened with disproving them?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 07:17 pm (UTC)It does, I have met many people who espouse it.
So, no matter what wild claims i make, you're burdened with disproving them?
No, I said that *you* are burdened with proving them, no matter what that assertion is. As I said before, strong atheism steps out of the realm of just declining to assent/assert a concept, it is the positive assertion of a concept, the concept that no god(s) exist(s).
reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-28 07:51 pm (UTC)And their assertion is that they can't imagine an omnipotent supernatural being in which they could believe?
No, I said that *you* are burdened with proving them, no matter what that assertion is.
Unless your statement is to express doubt towards someone else's statement. If i state that i doubt that Catholicism is true, it remains the Catholic church's burden to prove to me that its teaching is true. Otherwise, i could make any wild claim i like, and if you express doubt, i could demand you have the burden of proving your statement.
Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-28 08:09 pm (UTC)No, their assertion is that no supernatural deity, no matter how conceptualized, exists. It is not doubt, it is certainty.
Unless your statement is to express doubt towards someone else's statement.
That's simply not the case with strong atheism. It's not just doubt about someone else's statement, it's making a statement of their own.
Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-29 04:01 pm (UTC)People have believed in and talked about supernatural beings for thousands of years. It's one of the few cultural universals there are. But as far as anthropologists can tell, people have always been able to grasp that ancestor spirits and ghosts and zombies and dieities have a different sort of existence. The also appears to be a cultural universal.
So the ideas of supernatural existence, and the various sorts of supernatural beings that people talk about, have been talked about for a long time. And there have always been people who doubted their existence.
So modern-day atheists are not doing anything new. They are not imagining or constructing or proposing ideas and then forming a belief about them. They are expressing firm doubts about beings which other people have described, things which have long been a cultural fixture.
I know you want to believe that disbelief in God is just the flip side of a coin from belief in God, but that's not how it cashes out, philosophically, intellectually, or rationally. It's not "the same except for the minor detail of adding the word not in there." It does not take faith to disbelieve in something that you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel (in ANY sense of the word), something which so far as you can tell exists only in the minds of someone else.
Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-29 06:02 pm (UTC)It is. You're missing that I'm not talking about all atheism here. I am not talking about those who doubt. I'm not talking about those who simply lack belief or are suspending belief until proof or sufficiently compelling evidence is found or feel that no compelling evidence has been found. There are plenty of atheists who only do this, but not the ones that I am talking about
Strong atheists are making an assertion about reality. They are claiming that there is no supernatural element to reality. It's like saying that there is positively no Greenland. They are not just doubting the assertion that God exists, or declining to embrace that assertion themselves, they are actively making an assertion about the nature of reality. Since they are making an assertion about the nature of reality, it is on them to demonstrate it.
If I assert that there are no such thing as space aliens, it is on me to substantiate it. It is something quite different from me saying that I find no reason to believe that aliens exist. The latter is just doubt, just lack of belief, the former is itself a belief that is held.
Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-29 08:07 pm (UTC)No it's not, because as you said, you cannot provide proof of a negative. There is already the absense of obvious space aliens, and that's enough in itself to back up your statement. Unless, of course, space aliens show up tomorrow. It's up to those who say there ARE space aliens to provide some sort of proof, and that's where the burden of proof stays.
Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-29 08:12 pm (UTC)Re: reposted with clarification
Date: 2006-03-30 03:50 am (UTC)I didn't say that, I said that it is very difficult to prove a negative. It is possible, but the less specific the assertion, the more difficult it is. I can disprove the existence of a god who will manifest physically and unavoidably perceptibly before me at my very calling by calling and observing that no god appears. I have just disproved the existence of such a god. My criteria was very specific, so it was actually fairly easy. The less specific my criteria is, the more difficult the task becomes. Thus, the assertion that no supernatural being at all exists becomes very difficult to prove, difficult enough to be essentially impossible. It's like a calculus limit equation.
But you seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that a statement can reflect less than perfect knowledge.
Not at all. But that does not change the fact that there are others who are. There is a reason that there are so few strong atheists, it is fairly unsupportable intellectually and would really require that kind of perfect knowledge, or faith.
I personally feel no need to prove the existence of God. I see the evidence all around and within, I have my experiences, and find them sufficiently compelling to believe. Could I be wrong? perhaps, I do not have perfect knowledge .. but I do not need it, compelling reason is sufficient.
But that does not change the fact that there are people out there who make an assertion, and make it in such a way, that would require perfect knowledge. You have never met one, and that is not so surprizing. I think that is why you kept shifting the discussion to the kind of atheist that you have met, but the kind of which I was not speaking.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 11:12 pm (UTC)Lost for words on this one.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 08:12 pm (UTC)The thing that gets me that I'd like more people to stand up and say is that the Christian Right IS NOT following the teachings of Christ.
I agree so strongly i've even constructed a webpage which states this categorically (Fundamentalists Repent!).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 12:22 am (UTC)Thank you. Someone needs to hand the Machiavelli award to whoever thought of this tactic and then sit down and educate the silly ones who have been miseducated to believe them. Doesn't even take philosophy. Just using the English language. Not that the language is the same as reality, but those who push the idea that it takes "faith" to believe that god does not exist are twisting definitions and using language rather than ideas to get a space in people's brains.
I want to get all these "atheism is a religion" people because you have to "believe" there is to god to repeat 4 sentences.
I went to the store and bought an apple.
I went to the store but bought no fruit.
I believe in god.
I believe in no god.
Unless the fruit in question was something special there is a difference in stress on the "no" as in after "believe" it has to be hit hard for the sentence to make sense. Could it be because the concept of belief as formulated by English-though doesn't include skepticism?
*waits for the English language to be declared anathema*