Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Canadian_watcher wrote:In terms of global dominance science is King, so why the materialist atheists still feel the need to kick and rail and flail and design cheeky little graphics against religion I have no idea. Nothing better to do with their gift of time, I guess.
Canadian_watcher wrote:Under what umbrella is fracking carried out - fracking which poisons water and earth and kills animals and ruins the homesteads and towns of thousands upon thousands of people to the enrichment of the few?
Under what umbrella does Monsanto operate, with its terminator seeds and patents on life?
Under what umbrella have we created the nuclear weapons and power plants that have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, and continue to pose a gargantuan threat to the survival of our species?
Under what umbrella have food additives come into being - additives whose (suspected) effects range from allergies to autism, obesity to hormonal disruption?
Under what umbrella do we toxify the earth's atmosphere with all manner of noxious chemicals?
Religion or Science?
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." — Genesis
Canadian_watcher wrote:as I said, there are negatives and positives.We could all sit here for days and probably never run out of things that we could theoretically credit to science. however, let us not forget that beyond the practice of science lays something quite metaphysical: inspiration. And no one knows where that comes from. Without inspiration science would die.
I fully understand a beef with the big organized religions (and many smaller ones, too.) However I think you speak too broadly when you say "their beliefs are becoming obsolete." I may be wrong though - what is it you mean by that?
Canadian_watcher wrote:Under what umbrella is fracking carried out - fracking which poisons water and earth and kills animals and ruins the homesteads and towns of thousands upon thousands of people to the enrichment of the few?
Under what umbrella does Monsanto operate, with its terminator seeds and patents on life?
Under what umbrella have we created the nuclear weapons and power plants that have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, and continue to pose a gargantuan threat to the survival of our species?
Under what umbrella have food additives come into being - additives whose (suspected) effects range from allergies to autism, obesity to hormonal disruption?
Under what umbrella do we toxify the earth's atmosphere with all manner of noxious chemicals?
DrEvil wrote:What I mean by obsolete is that there is no longer any need to invoke supernatural powers to explain the universe around us.
As an example, I think that's why we get the creationist types popping up all over the place. Science has proven their literal interpretation of creation wrong, so they're trying to rewrite science to fit their beliefs.
I guess that's one of the things that bugs me with religion - the inflexibility of ideas. It's a ready-made set of beliefs, ideals and ethics. No need to think for oneself.
JackRiddler wrote:Canadian_watcher wrote:Under what umbrella is fracking carried out - fracking which poisons water and earth and kills animals and ruins the homesteads and towns of thousands upon thousands of people to the enrichment of the few?
Under what umbrella does Monsanto operate, with its terminator seeds and patents on life?
Under what umbrella have we created the nuclear weapons and power plants that have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, and continue to pose a gargantuan threat to the survival of our species?
Under what umbrella have food additives come into being - additives whose (suspected) effects range from allergies to autism, obesity to hormonal disruption?
Under what umbrella do we toxify the earth's atmosphere with all manner of noxious chemicals?
Capitalism.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-do-b ... heists-lie
Why do so many religious believers want atheists to lie about our atheism?
It seems backward. Believers are always telling atheists that we need religion for morality; that we have to believe because without religion, people would have no reason not to murder and steal and lie. And yet, all too often, they ask us to lie. When atheists come out of the closet and tell the people in our lives that we don’t believe in God, all too often the reaction is to try to shove us back in.
In some cases, they simply want us to keep our mouths shut: when the topic of religion comes up, they want us to tell the lie of omission. But much of the time, they actually ask us to lie outright. They ask us to lie to other family members. They ask us to attend church or other religious services. They sometimes even ask us to perform important religious rituals, like funerals or confirmations, where we’re not just lying to the people around us, but to the god they supposedly believe in.
Why would they do this?
When I was doing research for my new guidebook, “ Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why,” I was shocked at how often this happens. I read over 400 “coming out atheist” stories to write this book, and in the stories I read, this theme came up again and again and again.
You see it a lot with parents and children. When kids and teenagers tell their parents that they’re atheists, parents often respond by insisting that their kids keep up a religious charade. Alexander came out as atheist to his family in fourth grade, and was met with hostility and confusion — and quickly went back into the closet. “True to form,” he says on his Scribbles and Rants blog, “my parents dropped the matter as long as I went through the motions and didn’t bring it up myself.”
Parents don’t just pressure their atheist kids to keep up the facade, either. They often force them into it. On the Coming Out Godless Project website, Emmanuel Donate says when he was a teenager and came out as atheist to his family, a Latino family who took their Catholicism seriously, they forced him to go to church with them. And Lexie tells of the enormous fight she had with her mother over whether she would go to church. “I did go to church that next morning,” she says, “albeit yelling, screaming and basically being dragged out of the door (picture a teenager and mother behaving basically like a young mum and tantruming toddler).”
This doesn’t just mean making kids sit through church, either. Stories of kids and teenagers being forced to go through confirmations and other important religious rituals are ridiculously common. Helena says she was pressured to be confirmed into her Lutheran church — even though she knew she was an atheist and had tried to make that as clear as she could. And she isn’t alone. Lauren, who came out as atheist to her Lutheran family and church at age 12, told both her mother and her pastor that she didn’t want to be confirmed. When she told her pastor, “I can’t get up there and say stuff I don’t believe,” he replied, “Please stop disrupting class with your questions. This is a special time in everyone’s life — don’t ruin it.”
The upshot was that she was forced to go through with the ceremony, and to lie, in public, about her atheism. Now, here’s the thing: Confirmation is one of the most serious rituals in religion. It’s the ritual in which children accept adult responsibility for their purported soul, and declare their adult commitment to their religion. The whole point is that they’re finally making a free choice about participating in religion, instead of just going along with their family. Yet parents and clergy still pressure kids into this ritual, or even force them into it. Even when they know it’s a lie.
But this isn’t just a parent/kid dynamic. It happens with adults as well. It happens between spouses; in the workplace; in adult families and communities; between parents and adult children. When Rosie and her husband first started dating, she made sure he was aware of her atheism — and yet, she says, “When our first child was baptized, I felt suckered into participating.” When Judy Komorita’s mother died, her Christian evangelical boss “gathered me up with the bookkeeper into a prayer circle. I knew it was stupid (and wrong), and I was shaking with grief. But with his and her arms around me, he said something like ‘Lord, even though Judy doesn’t believe in you, I know you will take care of her and help her.”
When LD’s father died, “[the] priest requested we all do readings and I was open to it, if I could read something poetic from Psalms, maybe.” Instead, she says, “I was handed John 3:16. ['For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.']” This happened even though her family and friends knew about her atheism. And in her famous performance piece Letting Go of God, actor and comedian Julia Sweeney says that her mom’s response to her atheism was, “This doesn’t mean that you’ve stopped going to church, does it?”
And pressure to pray in the U.S. military abounds. Including official orders to pray. On the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers website, you’ll see these stories again and again. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Francy Legault says, “In boot camp, we were learning commands — right face, march, all that and one command is ‘let us pray’ and we were told it didn’t matter what we believed, when we heard that command, we had to bow our heads. So prayer is a command.”
Army Sergeant John Gill says, “My first glimpse of Army belief pushing came when I was standing on a parade field as a brand new private, refusing to bow my head for the chaplain’s prayer. My platoon sergeant told me afterward that even if I didn’t believe in God, I should bow my head out of respect for those around me.”
Air Force Staff Sergeant Johnathan Napier says, “I also remember going through basic training and being given the option of ‘going to church’ or ‘cleaning.’ That’s not a real option.” And Army Master Sergeant Michael Hammond says, “Being ‘strongly encouraged’ as a leader to attend yet another prayer breakfast has pushed me past the point of tolerance.” In fact, it’s common for atheists in the U.S. Military to be pressured to not list “atheist” on their dog tags — or even have their explicit requests about this refused.
If believers were sincerely concerned about atheists’ immortal souls, I’d understand why they might argue with us, show us their concerns and fears, even try with all their might to convince us that we’re wrong. But why would they ask us to lie? Why would they ask us to pretend to be religious? And why would they ask us to lie, not only in small ways to our friends and families and communities, but in important rituals to the god they believe in?
I’ve been thinking about these stories for a long time. Ever since I started working on my guide, this phenomenon has troubled me. It’s troubled me morally — it’s such a messed-up thing to do. And it’s troubled me intellectually. It’s such backward, self-contradictory behavior. Why would people do it?
I think a few factors play into this. As I wrote in the book: “For many families, being religious is less about spiritual beliefs, and more about family identity. More than anything else, going to religious services is a family togetherness activity, or even a family duty. As Sally M. says, who was brought up Catholic but has been an atheist since childhood, says, “The whole family has always treated church like a chore, so they probably assumed I was claiming atheism to get out of wasting my Sunday. If my mother had to drag herself and the rest of my siblings out of bed, there was no way I was getting out of it.” And some believers may think that participating in religious rituals will somehow draw atheists back into belief.
But I think there’s something else going on here, something more powerful than either of these.
They don’t want to hear that the emperor has no clothes.
And if too many people start saying that the emperor has no clothes, they’ll have a harder time convincing themselves that he does.
Religion relies on social consent to perpetuate itself. It’s a bad idea, and can’t stand up on its own. But it can, and does, perpetuate itself through social consent. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that asking questions about religion is sinful, and that trusting religion without evidence is virtuous. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that joy and meaning and morality can only be found in religion, and that leaving religion will automatically result in a desperate, amoral, pointless life. It perpetuates itself through religious communities and support systems that make believing in religion — or pretending to believe in religion — a necessity to function and indeed survive. It perpetuates itself through parents and other authority figures teaching it to children, whose brains are hard-wired to believe what they’re told.
Religion relies on social consent to perpetuate itself. But the simple act of coming out as an atheist denies it this consent. Even if atheists never debate believers or try to persuade them out of their beliefs; even if all we ever do is say out loud, “Actually, I’m an atheist,” we’re still denying our consent. And that throws a monkey wrench into religion’s engine.
There’s a reason that rates of atheism have been going up as use of the Internet goes up. (According to the MIT Technology Review, the dramatic drop in religious affiliation in the U.S. since 1990 is closely mirrored by the increase in Internet use — and while correlation certainly doesn’t prove causation, this analysis factors out pretty much every other possible causation.) The Internet has created a massive worldwide forum for atheists to argue about religion, to give evidence against religion, to ask for evidence and arguments supporting religion and point out how ridiculously weak they are. But the Internet has also created a massive, worldwide forum for atheists to simply, you know, exist.
In my research for “Coming Out Atheist,” I read numerous stories of atheists who had stayed religious for years — simply because everyone around them was religious, and they never considered the possibility that someone could be non-religious. But this is becoming less and less common. It’s getting harder and harder to keep atheism a secret. If you’re a teenager in a tiny town in the Bible Belt, you can now find out about atheists. You can talk with atheists. You can argue with atheists. You can learn what atheists think and why they think it. And you can simply learn that atheists exist, and are basically good people who love life and find great meaning in it. And that, just by itself, just by denying consent to your religion, stands a good chance of putting a serious dent in it.
What’s more, this denial of consent has a snowball effect. As more atheists come out of the closet, more people will question religion and eventually leave it. And as they leave religion and come out about their atheism, another wave of people will question and abandon religion … and so on, and so on, and so on.
It’s easy to ignore one person saying that the emperor has no clothes. It’s a lot harder to ignore 10 people saying it — and it’s harder still to ignore a hundred, or a thousand.
So if you want to ignore the emperor’s nakedness, it’s not enough to just ignore it. You have to get other people to shut up about it. If you want religion to keep perpetuating itself, you have to get people to go along with it. You have to get people to fake it.
You have to get people to lie.
And that’s what explains this weird phenomenon, this phenomenon of religious believers telling atheists, openly and explicitly, to lie about our atheism. This phenomenon is Exhibit A in just how essential social consent is to keeping religion propped up. It shows just how shaky the foundations of religion are — when people openly state that they would rather have us pretend to believe than be honest. It shows just how shaky believers’ hold on religion is, when they tell us that we need religion to be moral, but then ask us, openly and explicitly and without any apparent shame, to lie.
someone set off me off by writing wrote:All you need to be Christian is to believe that Jesus is/was real. He died for your sins, so in effect it's your right to sin without consequence. Yeah it's taken out of context but so what, that's how 90% of their arguments work - at best.
The irony is that "the message" (as I see it) was mostly that underprivileged and sick people have rights that SHOULD AND CAN EVENTUALLY preempt the meritocracy. Until then be a good Jew living by the 10 commandments, but no stoning, yes buffets.
whereupon I replied wrote:I shall argue that this is fallacy, although it is very common among Christians, especially the born-again varieties. But I doubt I am arguing with any of them.
Consider that within the Christian mythic universe, the character of Satan, who battles Jesus with temptation for 40 days in the desert, believes that Jesus is/was real. And yet the Devil is not a Christian. To be a Christian, you need to follow the teachings of the Christ. You can believe that Jesus is/was real, but if you choose not to follow the teachings, you are not a Christian. You can believe Jesus is a fictional character, and that physical resurrection is impossible, but if you follow the teachings, specifically because you have read the teachings and believe in them, then you are a Christian. There are atheist Christians, if exceedingly rare. Progressive Protestant and universalist sects already tend in this direction, that the Gospel stories are to be taken metaphorically not literally, that there may not have been a physical resurrection, but that the teachings should be followed regardless. (You can also follow the teachings incidentally, for ethical reasons, without even having heard the Christ story, in which case you are not a Christian but you sort of believe in it anyway.)
Further example: the same is true with Marx. Whether you are or not a Marxist in no way depends on whether you believe Marx was real, or a hoax character made up by Engels. It depends on whether you seek to understand the world through the theoretical framework provided in the texts attributed to Marx.
Finally, I was born into a Christian church that doesn't bloody care whether I think Jesus is real. Not at all. I got dunked in the water when I was a baby and that's that. I'm Greek Orthodox, we're the only ones that count, the rest are false Christians but kind of irrelevant, any Greek breathing = Orthodox until such time as he does something so heretical that he is excommunicated, but that's hard. No one gets asked, it goes into your passport (in Greece) or is assumed as the default. I contest that this is any less "Christian" than the far more recent bizarroland forms invented in the U.S.
Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:02 pm wrote:Via: http://www.motherjones.com/print/202056Russell Means wrote:I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I'm not allowing for false distinctions. I'm not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary, European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I'm referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and "leftism" in general. I don't believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the European intellectual tradition. It's really just the same old song. The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into a code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended; they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say—and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three, Answer!
This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment—that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one—is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stop-gaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stop-gaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive.
Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke, and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology—and that is put in his own terms—he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel's philosophy in terms of "materialism," which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel's work altogether. Again, this is in Marx' own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx's—and his followers'—links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel, and the others.
Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But let's look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate.
The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at de humanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and other wise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill," at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue.
In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are used to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real estate speculator may refer to "developing" a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be "developed" through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open—in the European view—to this sort of insanity.Russell Means wrote:Revolutionary Marxism is committed to even further perpetuation and perfection of the very industrial process which is destroying us all. It offers only to "redistribute" the results—the money, maybe—of this industrialization to a wider section of the population. It offers to take wealth from the capitalists and pass it around: But in order to do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system. Once again, the power relations within European society will have to be altered, but once again the effects upon American Indian peoples here and non-Europeans elsewhere will remain the same. This is much the same as when power was redistributed from the church to private business during the so-called bourgeois revolution. European society changed a bit, at least superficially, but its conduct toward non-Europeans continued as before. You can see what the American Revolution of 1776 did for American Indians. It's the same old song.
Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to 'rationalize" all people in relation to industry—maximum industry, maximum production. It is a materialist doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called us "precapitalists" and "primitive." Frecapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists: we have always been economically retarded in Marxist terms. The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or "proletarians" as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could occur only through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society.
I think there's a problem with language here. Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really mean revolution. What they really mean is a continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs.
Poetry.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests