Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

Palomar · 2007-01-05 08:24:23

[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070104/ts_csm/catheist_1]Atheists & agnostics challenge U.S. "religious right"[/URL]

What - a - mess.

For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back.

Only a small percentage of Americans admit to being nontheists (between 2 and 9 percent, depending on the poll), but that equates to many millions.

atheists and other nontheists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life.

Which is fine by me. Separation of church from state always. We recently had a flap about a Muslim senator-elect wanting to be sworn in on a Quran. A Christian senator opposed this [what about freedom of religion?]. Yesterday the Muslim senator [from Minnesota] was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Quran, loaned by a museum.

I think we should stop "swearing in" on ANY religious text, period. Otherwise it's violation of separation of church from state.

"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."

Whatever. You cannot prove there isn't a God, nor that my spirituality isn't real.

Criticism of Dawkins & extreme critics by other scientists/secularists:

These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism.
"They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives.

Interesting and disturbing. If people who claim to be objective and rational become emotionally charged...

While critics point out that religion is a genuine reflection of people's experience and will always exist, Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror.

It's slavery if it's enforced onto others, which should never be. But if I willingly embrace spirituality that's my business. And I have no desire to "push it" onto others.

Many nontheists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom.

Since it's causing this much trouble, perhaps we should keep both out of the classroom? But that'd be impossible, considering the fossil record, dinosaur remains, etc. I can't understand how it MUST be "either/or." God created the universe via evolution -- why is that so unpalatable a concept?

They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office.

I understand that concern. It's bigotry to NOT vote for someone just because they're an atheist or agnostic. I'd vote for the person if I thought he/she were the best person for the job.

And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways

Agreed.

"In some parts of the country, children are ostracized if someone finds out their families are atheists," says Lori Lipman Brown, SCA director.

That's true, and it's tragic. Some people are afraid to admit they're anything but the dominant religion.

"We need to educate the public that people who don't have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people."

Yep.

RRS now has some 20,000 people on message boards, with about 5,000 actively engaged in debunking religious claims, passing out fliers, and placing DVDs in churches.

Okay, now I have a problem with these people. They're proselytizing. Handing out fliers? Placing DVDs where they're likely NOT wanted? They're trying to impose their beliefs (or non-beliefs)...proselytizing.

Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

Indeed!

This is precisely why separation of church from state should be vigilantly guarded and KEPT separate: Because people can't agree to disagree, much less leave each other alone.

I'm a bit amazed that Dawkins & Co are resorting to desperate tactics including proselytizing. :?

--Cindy

p.s.: The pendulum swings. These atheists/agnostics/secularists seem to be forgetting that. The U.S. had a sharp upswing in religious expression in the mid-1970s, which soon decreased. Then came the New Age '80s. Currently we're in a war so more people are religious. Methinks Dawkins and his friends are overreacting. 5 years from now the religious temperament in the nation could be very different, decreased/diminished.

C M Edwards · 2007-01-05 15:44:54

[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070104/ts_csm/catheist_1]Atheists & agnostics challenge U.S. "religious right"[/URL]
What - a - mess.

Ah, the Reality-TV of science/theology discourse... I'm mildly disappointed to see that Dawkins is finally dunking for pig intestines like almost every other major contestant, but not very surprised. True, just reading it makes me want to hold my nose, but Dawkins' bucket of tripe doesn't stink any worse than Jerry Falwell's.

As for my opinion of the recent petty attention grab by US Representative Virgil Goode: If a US Senator wants to be sworn in with his hand on a copy of Baron D'Holbach's The System of Nature, and the Library of Congress can pony up Thomas Jefferson's old copy, then the US House of Representatives et al. had better shut up and like it. However, I don't see the virtue in ending this tradition of offering senators a token opportunity to claim religion, nor do I see how that token - evenly offered to all takers with the book of their choice - threatens the separation of church and state in any fashion.

Commodore · 2007-01-06 13:00:49

I feel obligated to mention that the idea of the seperation of church and state is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and was instead an theory proposed by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to some ministers in Danbury Connecticut.

That doesn't mean its completely without merit. But the only way for it to truely exist is to completely seperate the religion from the people. Otherwise goverment workers of all levels will act roughly according to their faith.

John Creighton · 2007-01-06 15:33:07

I feel obligated to mention that the idea of the seperation of church and state is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and was instead an theory proposed by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to some ministers in Danbury Connecticut.
That doesn't mean its completely without merit. But the only way for it to truely exist is to completely seperate the religion from the people. Otherwise goverment workers of all levels will act roughly according to their faith.

The real issues is of opposing religious views on people. The idea of trying to legislate morality. Al Sharpten I respect very much because he understand what goes around comes around so to speak. Thus the reverend does not support he idea of legislating morality.

Commodore · 2007-01-06 16:24:32

I feel obligated to mention that the idea of the seperation of church and state is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and was instead an theory proposed by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to some ministers in Danbury Connecticut.
That doesn't mean its completely without merit. But the only way for it to truely exist is to completely seperate the religion from the people. Otherwise goverment workers of all levels will act roughly according to their faith.
The real issues is of opposing religious views on people. The idea of trying to legislate morality. Al Sharpten I respect very much because he understand what goes around comes around so to speak. Thus the reverend does not support he idea of legislating morality.

Sharpton knows all about making what goes around come around. He makes lots of money by seeing racism everywhere he looks. What do we call people who target others for unjustified legal action based on the color of their skin?

Back on topic, I think you'll find secularists and fundamentalists often on the same side when it comes to legislating morality. For example, their all for "your body, your choice" when it comes to abortion, but God forbid you decide to smoke, or eat anything less healthy than grass. For another, secularists say only science will do when it comes evolution, but if you try to explain to them climate change was occuring well before the invention of the SUV, they suddenly become subbornly devout students of a tiny portion geologic history. And how exactly does having someone say Merry Christmas to you make you be a Christian?

John Creighton · 2007-01-06 16:39:29

Sharpton knows all about making what goes around come around. He makes lots of money by seeing racism everywhere he looks. What do we call people who target others for unjustified legal action based on the color of their skin?
Back on topic, I think you'll find secularists and fundamentalists often on the same side when it comes to legislating morality. For example, their all for "your body, your choice" when it comes to abortion, but God forbid you decide to smoke, or eat anything less healthy than grass. For another, secularists say only science will do when it comes evolution, but if you try to explain to them climate change was occuring well before the invention of the SUV, they suddenly become subbornly devout students of a tiny portion geologic history. And how exactly does having someone say Merry Christmas to you make you be a Christian?

What is your bias for these assertions? Anyway, I am against legislating morality regardless of weather it is attributed to religious people or secularists. As for Sharpten did you see when he was interviewed by Glen Beck. They agreed on more then you think. You may not like all of Sharpten’s methods but I consider him more enlightened then most politicians

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … gb.01.html

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-08 19:19:27

Well this is an interesting topic for me, as I have recently become aware of the concept of agnostics. I wonder whether, if everyone realized the value of agnostic theism, that everyone might be a little more empathetic, which is what is really needed. More empathy.

Empathizing with the pacifists, I might be tempted to pronounce the whole conundrum as inevitable; a necessary evil if you will.

Empathizing with athiests, I can understand perhaps that they attempt to strategically counteract bias with bias, but this does them no good.

Empathizing with theists, or rather sympathizing with them, I understand that some may have experienced things which would be otherwise unexplainable (from their current knowledge) without accepting some degree of spirituality.

Agnosticism unfortunately has its own weaknesses, at least in its traditional form. However, I believe what agnosticism really needs is some better PR. I've devoted a discussion board for the purpose of better defining agnosticism, as I beleive it can often fall into its own trap (one remembers the parable about logs and specks in eyes).

Perhaps the most interesting thing I have discovered about agnostics is that it is not only compatable with religion, but I personally believe that most religions ask their followers to be actively agnostic as believers. I believe man has done a good job of slowly clouding it over, but you can still find it in there if you look deep enough.

I propose that a new agnostic doctrine be created, and defined. I'd like to call it Rational Agnosticism.

Fundamentally, it differs from agnosticism by allowing the appropriation of faith based on the need for assumption.

For example, traditional agnosticism (from what I know about it) says that one can never be 100% certain, and therefore one should abstain from making decisions based on uncertainty. Although this is true, one must accept the instinct, and indeed the need, to make assumptions (at least in order to maintain sanity). There you have it:

Rational Agnosticism.

You can help to define it!

http://cleanslate.editboard.com/viewtopic.forum?t=5

C M Edwards · 2007-01-09 18:22:37

However, I believe what agnosticism really needs is some better PR.

No, what agnosticism really needs is something else. I have no doubt that a lot of people are going to be telling you that you are moving in the wrong direction with this "Rational Agnosticism" of yours, and many of them will be right.

So, let me say that I can't conceive of a better way to begin.

If you never do anything wrong, you'll never make progress spiritually. If you're like me, you're going to have rap a few times to find out if it's hollow. I congratulate you on your enthusiasm, and I have faith that you'll acquit yourself well.

Just don't fall into the trap of Dawkins, et al.: Don't take a single true fact and try to mate it with everything that will stand still long enough.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-10 04:51:19

Thats exactly what I hope not to do. I just think there's something better than agnosticism. I'm not sure what it is, but I hope that it exists. Perhaps you could say that I have 'faith' that we can find it. Hence 'Rational Agnosticism'. I intended the title to suggest that this new agnosticism accepts faith as a rational means to an efficient life. Perhaps 'Agnostic Faith' is a better fit, but I would rather keep the value of rational thought in there aswell. Basically, its all about knowing what you don't know, and acknowledging the need for faith. The truth is I don't know much about what I'm talking about (thats the agnostic part). But I trust that I can make something of it (the rational/faith part). Perhaps you can help me a little?

noosfractal · 2007-01-10 11:50:20

The truth is I don't know much about what I'm talking about (thats the agnostic part). But I trust that I can make something of it (the rational/faith part). Perhaps you can help me a little?

Sounds like Zen Buddhism.

A direct transmission outside of scriptures, apart from tradition
Without dependence upon words or letters.
A direct pointing to mind.
Seeing into one’s nature and awakening.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-10 17:14:24

I hope what I'm trying to say is more translatable than that. Sounds crack pot to me. For the record, I'm not doing drugs!

noosfractal · 2007-01-13 03:50:50

Rational Agnosticism.
Fundamentally, it differs from agnosticism by allowing the appropriation of faith based on the need for assumption.
For example, traditional agnosticism (from what I know about it) says that one can never be 100% certain, and therefore one should abstain from making decisions based on uncertainty. Although this is true, one must accept the instinct, and indeed the need, to make assumptions (at least in order to maintain sanity).

I'm trying to parse this. You don't like traditional agnosticism because it doesn't allow for 100% certainty. Because some people, let's call them dichotomous thinkers, need 100% certainty or else they will go (even more) insane. 100% certainty is, of course, impossible for mere mortals without faith (i.e., magic), so you further allow them magical thinking.

How does this improve on fundamentalism again?

If you don't allow the magical jump to certainty, then at some point, your agnostics are going to have to face the paradox of multiple religions each claiming to be the one true faith. From there, it is pretty steep slope to, at best, some variety of pantheism and a Greenpeace membership.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-13 07:08:29

No not 100% certainty. Never. What should be allowed though, is assumption.

If it looks like a pineapple, smells like a pineapple, and tastes like a pineapple, then you assume its a pineapple, right?

However, it wouldn't be agnosticism if there was no acknowledgement of at least a small amount of uncertainty. It could be a molecular assemblage of imitation flavor molecules on a starch-based substrate, a-la star-trek food replicator technology. But probably not.

How does this improve on fundamentalism?

Well, personally, I hope it enlightens us to the requirement of faith, and in turn, the ignorance of fundamentalism. Wow I just realized that most of you have no idea what I mean by that.

Fundamentalism = certainty.

Agnosticism = uncertainty, and don't you forget it.

Rational Agnosticism? = uncertainty, but its okay to make assumptions.

noosfractal · 2007-01-13 14:56:43

the requirement of faith

I believe this is Catholic Christian doctrine. I'm not sure about the other major religions. Most likely depends upon the denomination.

Rational Agnosticism? = uncertainty, but its okay to make assumptions.

I think you'll agree that most people make working assumptions so that they are not paralyzed by incomplete information. So I imagine we're talking about assumptions for which there is no evidence (life after death, which is the one true religion, etc). What rational basis will Bloxham agnostics use to decide among such assumptions? Differences in such assumptions seem to be the cause of much pointless conflict between otherwise reasonable people.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-13 15:24:01

'Bloxham agnostics' won't decide anything. All I hope is for these assumptions to be recognized for what they are: assumptions. The assumption you make may easily be the truth (it is a pineapple!), but you can not know completely. The difference with traditional agnosticism here is that it allows for the possibility of truth, whether known, unknown, or intrinsically unknowable.

noosfractal · 2007-01-13 17:12:25

The difference with traditional agnosticism here is that it allows for the possibility of truth, whether known, unknown, or intrinsically unknowable.

The problem is that truth is traditionally conceived of as true for everyone. Perhaps your followers could be post-modern agnostics giving up universal truth and always qualifying with "true for me" and "true for you" while maintaining that gnawing sense of uncertainty that prompts them to plan for cryogenic suspension instead of burial.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-13 21:19:50

I'd imagine 'bloxham agnostics' to change the current situation very little. Really, it's just a better explanation of reality. People should know that the thing in which they put their faith could be the absolute truth, but they should recognize that they are in no position to prove it. Even if their belief is the more compelling of the two (e.g. 90% versus 30%), they still cannot prove it completely.

Therefore, one should be more empathetic with people who put their faiths in other things, who have other beliefs; recognizing the similarity of their situation.

Now when I say 90%, 30%, 99.99%, this is each individuals personal judgement. There will be no external comitee setting probabilities for things, nor will there be need for consensus. No judgement, except ofcourse, by the individual, which is how it is anyway.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-13 10:29:40

Do science and religion always work against each other? I always thought some fo that voodoo political madness would always be a Neocon thing, I never thought I would say this but the neo-progressive identity politics of the new-Left seems to start to become something of a religion, an alliance with Antifa and all of a sudden they will become the puritan zealot they once hated?

I don't understand why giant bloated religion institutions of the world are growing....well other than people looking for meaning in troublesome apocalypse warning times or other strict religion people who turned their women into breeding machines?

With an election looming in France a basic principle of the Republic, secularism is a basic French value, seperate the Church from the Nation, a break away between the Temple and the State....yet some are outbreeding the local French and others who like to debate and get paid to debate legal issues now want jihadi islamo costumes to come bacl?

French barrister fights for right to wear her hijab in court
https://bdnews24.com/society/2022/02/24 … b-in-court

I don't like to bump a thread this old but I didn't see anything in our other discussions that would fit the 'religion' Emperor or Pope discussion. There was a discussion on 'God' or gods or Monarchy and 'Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth'. One thing I noticed look at all these religion clothes and gowns and church and dresses, is all the wealth in the Eastern Christian Churches, it seems almost as Corrpt as the Western Church, there Coptic Orthodox, the Russian Church, the Greek Churches. Some moving across the Balkans, Egypt, servicing Africa and the Middle East, in Russia and Ukraine. It seemed for a while after the 911 Terrorism Attacks that religion might go away but while some are leaving their faith or religions are spreading and growing. Turkey for example has dropped the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk vision for secularism and made Turkey become more islamic, relations with the West are sometimes bad. Russia has become more religious but it seems it also started wars of expansionism, the Eastern Christianity does not have a center of power like the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Vatican or the Scientologist cultish center of California, the East branch comprises Christian traditions and church families came from classical and late antiquity in Western Asia, Northeast Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, South Asia, and parts of the Far East, Oriental Orthodox Churches have joined with growing Churches and faith inside India, Armenia and parts of Africa or East Europe Christianity, they sometimes compete with local Pagan Folk religions or Buddhism and Hinduism culture. Russia which was once Atheist and maybe had some Christian culture survive only 'underground' now has a huge Orthodox Christian following, there are some Orthodox in North America mostly the USA and some in Australia, there are almost no Orthodox churches to be found in South American countries, although some South American countries share a common socialist political link to Eastern Europe the Orthodox church does not exist there it has a weak foothold in Latin America.

The maps?

https://pic8.co/sh/bQQhkP.jpeg

https://www.deviantart.com/smileysmiley … -817122762

Popes were once like Emperors at one time they went to war, they do not speak this way anymore.

Eastern Orthodox spiritual leader condemns Russian invasion
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … s-russian/

Archbishop of Canterbury calls on government to 'do more' to help Ukrainian refugees
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/archbishop-ca … 00729.html

Pope decries warmongering, prays for Eastern Catholics in danger
https://catholicphilly.com/2022/02/news … in-danger/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-03-13 10:44:22)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-01-05 08:24:23

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#2 2007-01-05 15:44:54

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#3 2007-01-06 13:00:49

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#4 2007-01-06 15:33:07

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#5 2007-01-06 16:24:32

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#6 2007-01-06 16:39:29

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#7 2007-01-08 19:19:27

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#8 2007-01-09 18:22:37

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#9 2007-01-10 04:51:19

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#10 2007-01-10 11:50:20

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#11 2007-01-10 17:14:24

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#12 2007-01-13 03:50:50

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#13 2007-01-13 07:08:29

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#14 2007-01-13 14:56:43

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#15 2007-01-13 15:24:01

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#16 2007-01-13 17:12:25

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#17 2007-01-13 21:19:50

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

#18 2022-03-13 10:29:40

Re: Can of Worms (Secularists vs Religious Right)

Board footer