Feil wrote:You've said this three times now. I want you to answer my question. How?
The age-old protections of a minority against possible government oppressors: Due process of law, principled defense in public, and personal obstinacy in private. No matter how convinced you may be otherwise, the religious right isn't the Nazi Party circa 1932. In fact, they're the exact opposite. They're not about to take power and enact their full array of 'reforms', they're losing support amongst the great moderate middle faster than they can birth new fanatic supporters for their base. By proving you can be a normal, functioning member of society no matter your religious leanings the majority of disinterested people
will leap to your side when they see the vitriol and lies of the other.
Darth Wong wrote:
But virtually ineffective. As every military strategist in history has pointed out, you can prevent your own destruction with defense alone, but you can never achieve victory. Without going after the religion, one cannot possibly achieve any real change. Many of the beliefs which keep atheists down are part and parcel of Christianity itself, and must therefore be attacked.
You're absolutely full of shit. Your whole position is that atheists who go after religion are just as bad as religionists who go after atheists. You are totally disregarding the question of logical validity and focusing solely on whether people engage in offense or defense, which is an incredibly childish way to look at it.
So, where was the Indian Offensive lead by Glorious Leader Gandhi against the evil British Imperialists? When did Martin Luther King Jr lead the Black Panthers in a paramilitary campaign against the injustices of race laws? Offense may be necessary in war, but the removal of unjust laws requires no such thing. It merely requires persistence in defense of one's position. Racists still exist, in probably quite large numbers, but laws with a racial basis are taken off the books the moment they're found.
And do not get me started on 'logical validity'. The only completely logically valid position is total agnostic nihilism, everything else requires a little bit of faith, even if it's only the leap of faith required to believe my eyes and ears that I make as an atheist.
Rahvin wrote:
They don't "let us be." Ever.
Western culture, particularly in the US, is absolutely saturated with Christian nonsense. Virtually every acceptance speech ever talks about God. National politicians make decisions based on their religious beliefs. The most basic core of Christian beliefs asserts that anyone who does not believe in theit favorite imaginary friend is worthy of eternal and inhuman torture. We are the least trusted minority, beyond any other religious/ethnic/sexual orientation group. Decisions regarding stem cells, HIV/AIDS research and prevention, and even wars have been motivated by irrational religious faith. An entire class of people is denied the right to marry whichever like-minded adult their consciences collectively dictate (in the vast majority of states), and are in many cases at risk of physical injury or even murder because of religion-based bigotry.
I can't walk down the street without some fundamentalist screaming about how I'm a sinner and I'm going to Hell if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior. I get Jack Chick tracts shoved in my face. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons even come to my house to tell me what a wicked sinner I am for not believing in their nonsense. Fundamentalists want into my children's schools so that they can give "equal time" to a factually disproven fairy tale alongside well-supported scientific theories, and are actually making headway in some areas. My money says "in God we trust," and our Pledge of Allegiance includes "under God." Can you imagine the outrage if one day we printed money that said "there is no God," or changed "under God" in the Pledge to "Godless?"
If religion were a completely private matter that had no actual effect on how others are treated or policy decisions are made, I'd be happy to accept your "don't bug me, I won't bug you" mindset. But that's not the way it is. Irrational faith continues to result in irrational hatred, irrational policy decisions, and generally holds back the progress of all of humanity. In what sane world can we call that "leaving us alone? In what sane world could we not vocally point out the utter contempt for logic and reason that is religion?
Your "solution" has nothing to do with "be and let be." Your aversion to rattling cages simply results in the continued dominance of the religious, and the continued oppression of anyone who disagrees.
OK, I think it's time to draw a distinction that so far has been lacking in this topic: The use of religion in the formation of government policy, detrimentally to the rights of atheists, and the use of religion in public which does not use
violent force on its targets. The first is unjust and may be rightly fought on every level of political action, the second is annoying but part of the price we pay to enjoy the very freedom of speech that lets us have this discussion. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it bears repeating: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED. Just like theists don't have the right to shut you up for the bile you throw at them. My position is one of
personal morality, refraining from attacking the beliefs of other because of the realization that my beliefs lie on the same weak platform of faith.
If ID people are forcing that shit into the school your children attend, complain to the district board. If that doesn't work, take it out into the public and get the board members replaced. THAT is how you play politics, not by spending time sniping at each other's metaphysics on message boards and blogs. You aren't the forefront of some desperate war protecting atheism from the depredations of theism.
Darth Wong wrote:OK Plushie, let's try this thought experiment: let's say I believe you deserve to be gang-raped by a group of violent thugs, and that this would actually be a wonderful and moral thing to happen, and I will attempt to use my money and influence to make sure this actually happens. In fact, I am sure that it must be done, for the good of the entire nation, and I am gathering friends and colleagues and marshaling political influence to make sure it will happen and that the laws will reflect the need for this.
Now, attempt to "defend" yourself against this without ever criticizing my belief. Remember, as per your argument, you should be passive (besides, your passivity will make things more convenient for the rapists).
Then if you ever attempted to act on that belief I would be fully within my rights to have the police come and arrest you and bring you up on conspiracy charges. Do not confuse defense with inaction. A defense is whatever actions must be taken
without which harm would come to my person. An offense is all other actions. If you attempt to change the laws I will fight you in the political sphere in the same way I would fight someone trying to pass a blasphemy law or pushing ID into school science classes.
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
The use of pure reason and evidence only works on those who are already either on the side of rationalism, or are sympathetic to the cause. In other words "laissez-faire" is about the same as preaching to the choir. It also only works if your opponent has agreed to play fair, instead of actively evangelizing others into their flock, obnoxiously pushing their agenda on the rest, and stacking the deck in their favor every chance they get.
For the ones who are genuinely sitting on the fence, treating the obnoxiously religious with kid-gloves isn't going to win any points. Those on the side of religion have learned to tune into the audience's inner caveman by appealing to basic emotion and "gut" feelings. The inner caveman doesn't understand rational arguments and weight of evidence. He understands feelings, and domination/submission. The atheist who confronts the religious zealot with kid-gloves may win points among the erudite and the secular, but to the average dolt, he's saying that he's willing to let the religious zealot be the Alpha Male. Or, perhaps, he's holding back because he agrees with the religious zealot's position on a fundamental level.
This is the twenty-first century, not the Dark Ages. It's high time secularists, humanists, and atheists stopped being doormats to the irrational, the ignorant, and the zealots. The other side has no problem denigrating our core principles. They're more than happy to sit back and let their mouthpieces on the "accomodationist" side hang the "villain" placard on those who would dare speak up and challenge the religiously-biased status quo.
So wait, are you saying you (and I, and everyone else posting here) are
not part of the irrational and ignorant? That's some hefty arrogance right there. We're humans, we're flawed, incomplete, and very stupid. We're prone to following our own biases into disaster and not admitting when we're wrong, which is most of the time.
You want to know what it's high time for? It's high time for a reproach. I guarantee you the majority of the religious right would be perfectly willing to live and let live if they could be convinced that atheism (and homosexuality, and abortion, and a million other social issues) are not a direct threat to their lifestyle. Many fundamentalists are against gay marriage because they believe, irrationally and ignorantly, that the government will force their church to marry gays. But you want to know what? The best of gay rights groups make their first point that they aren't trying to make churches marry anyone they don't already want to marry. After all, plenty of existing churches will marry gays.
We must do the same. Prove to the 'moral majority' that we aren't a threat to their way of life. Their politician counter-part
will leave you alone.
Terralthra wrote:Darth Wong, I'm surprised you let Plushie's retarded equivalence of institutionalized white over black racism and Christian bigotry towards atheists with "left liberals hating smokers" fly. It was clear then the kind of bullshit he'd be peddling.
Quite frankly, the way many people treat smokers is disgusting. While smokers do have the choice to smoke, whereas blacks don't have the choice to be black (unless they're Michael Jackson), it is still
their choice. The overt hostility to and stereotyping of smokers for political gain is just as base and immoral as the hostility to and stereotyping of blacks was in the 1950's.
Junghalli wrote:If you believe that atheism is superior to religion, why shouldn't you try to spread it?
I'll lay my cards right on the table here. I believe that religion, especially afterlife-centric religion, is a net negative influence in society, and I believe that the world would probably be significantly better off if more people were atheist. I have reasons for believing this which I can lay out of you wish (in fact I think I'll make a seperate discussion for them), but the point is I don't want to just defend the right of atheism to exist, I want to see it spread. As such, I see absolutely no reason that I should work purely "defensively", never presuming to attack religion itself. I believe religion needs attacking.
I'm not saying atheists should be dicks about it. I'm not going to hound people or become some sort of atheism-bot that spews rhetoric about the crying need for less religion at every opportunity (those kinds of people are just irritating, whatever their convictions), and I certainly wouldn't try to forcefully surpress religion even if I had the power. I respect the right of people to make their own choices, including choices I think are wrong. But I don't see why I shouldn't promote my beliefs if I think their wider adoption would be good for society. And yes, that includes attacking aspects of religion I believe to be negative, including the irrationality of the basic premise that there's a god and it cares about humans.
I don't like the word 'superior'. I don't believe in the existence of a transcendental, necessary being, so I'm an atheist, but I'm also a pragmatist so I view certain assumptions about the reality around me as good ones to make, even if they're assumptions. I do feel like spreading this message, but I do so through positive support for my own position, not a negative assault on the positions of others. It's why I'm not attacking you guys as assholes or douchebags for the way you treat the religious, but rather trying to make a pragmatic argument that your political goals will be better accomplished through a tolerant methodology.
Darth Wong wrote:
I didn't feel like bothering to go over all of his bullshit arguments. It's obvious he's got right-wing idiot leanings. I wouldn't be surprised if he's against seatbelt laws too.
Oh, he's got right-wing leanings, that must mean he's a moron, right?
Look, I reject any label you may apply to me but the most basic one of 'liberal'. Any other word is asking for too much in-depth analysis from people. Not to mention that all labels are just an excuse for people to shut their brains off and turn their aggression on, so keeping things simple behooves my interest in actually reaching the people I speak with.
Junghalli wrote:
I remember one time on SB where one of his responses to a discussion about socialism was to post a long diatribe about modern society's bad work ethic and how we want everything done for us and need a huge kick in the ass, like a second Great Depression or something, to give us perspective. So yeah, that's my impression too.
Do you deny it's true? Less so the working poor who learn the virtue of hard work and thrift through life experience, who do not need this lesson, and more so the children of the modern middle class who are used to privilege and opportunity being handed to them. They don't understand that not everybody can live the life of affluence they're used to, that poverty is the natural state of mankind and only by our own efforts can we lift up out of it. They believe in some magical, cargo-cult sort of economics where wealth is just conjured out of nothing.
