Philosophy Now Forum

Science Fan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:38 pm Acknowledging that atheists can be moral is necessary in order to maintain a secular form of government. The religious demonization of atheists is, therefore, properly looked upon as an attack against secular forms of government in general, and not just an isolated attack against a minority.

Of course it's an attack. But, as long as they're staging these attacks in the media or speech, it is merely an opinion.
An anarchist can just as freely attack government and make allegations about the moral and/or intellectual capacity of law-abiding citizens.

As long as they don't use physical violence or utter threats (I mean real ones, not like "you'll burn in hell") they are within their secular rights. If demonizing those who don't share their delusion, and making those opinions public, is part of the practice of their religion, it's covered by several amendments. Of course, nobody squeals louder (and I've actually heard a stuck pig) if the same kind of opinion is express by other people about them - other people's guaranteed rights, they view as persecution. In fact, they tend to view as persecution anything that restricts their ability to force their nonsense on everyone else.

It is when they express these negative sentiments, lies and misconceptions in legislation that they are truly posing a danger to free and democratic government. Like dragging their particular sect's rituals into public schools, where children of other superstitions are subjected to it. That restricts the freedom of the other religions.
In order to be fair to religion, all of the different rituals should be observed in every public school. Nobody would have time to learn to read, and that might make them all happy.
My only stipulation is that atheist kids be excused from class to study in the library.

When they just try to overwhelm you with walls'o'text, you can ignore them.
When they try to insert those same texts into the science curriculum, they're staging an attack on democracy, as well as reason;
it is at that line they must be opposed, stopped and contained.

Heritage, is by definition, a fiction. Hardly any one learns the actual history of their countries, or their so-called race or nationality. Why? Because there is so much bad history to report, no one would ever be very proud of their so-called race, ethnicity or nation. This is where the word "heritage" comes from --- it's a selective cherry picking of actual history so that people can convince themselves of being superior to others, when the real history tells us that this belief is delusional.

Every nation does this. Every group of people does this. This is what makes Gustav so comical. He literally believes that since he has swallowed lies and made-up a fairytale about being a superior "European," that he is smarter than the rest of us who know real history.

At the end of the day, each and every one of us is simply a member of the human race, born into a situation we had no control over, and into a historical context that we are not responsible for. We are neither in a position to take credit for the good things others have done in the past nor are we in a position to be assigned responsibility for the bad things others have done in the past. The average citizen in any country isn't even responsible for those government policies she or he disagrees with and fights against. Yet, far too many people glorify themselves over events that they had nothing to do with or demonize others for events they had no control over.

Why am I not surprised that religious theists like Gustav advocate for such beliefs? Isn't religion one lengthy white-washing of history?

Skip gets it.

I like how Greta and Lacewing have pointed out that an atheist can be spiritual, and is free to engage in a spiritual journey without having to be constrained by fraudulent religious dogma. Not only are atheists quite moral, they are also often spiritual, without the trappings of religious dogma. Spinoza would be a perfect example of this, as well as modern public atheists like Brian Greene.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:12 pm Not only are atheists quite moral, they are also often spiritual, without the trappings of religious dogma.

That doesn't necessarily mean they won't have the trappings of some other kind of dogma, which is hardly any better. It's lucky you're ignoring me and, therefore, won't see this post, SF, because, yes, I do mean you.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:47 pm That doesn't necessarily mean they won't have the trappings of some other kind of dogma, which is hardly any better.

Do you mean that all atheists have the "trappings" - whatever those are - of a particular, anti-democratic dogma?
Because if you just mean that some atheists hold some beliefs you disapprove of, it's no excuse for demonizing all of them as non-moral beings.
Some Hispanic immigrants probably do sell drugs and even rape women. Is that sufficient reason to condemn them en bloc?

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:03 pm Do you mean that all atheists have the "trappings" - whatever those are -

I mean that dogma is not confined to religion, anyone can be a dogmatist.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:37 pm

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:03 pm Do you mean that all atheists have the "trappings" - whatever those are -

I mean that dogma is not confined to religion, anyone can be a dogmatist.

Yes? And how does this relate to the demonization of, and false accusations against, atheists in general?

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:38 pm Yes? And how does this relate to the demonization of, and false accusations against, atheists in general?

You've already asked me a question, am I the only one round here that knows anything?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:44 pm

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:38 pm Yes? And how does this relate to the demonization of, and false accusations against, atheists in general?

You've already asked me a question, am I the only one round here that knows anything?

Please, you know I'm the only one around here that knows everything!

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:44 pm

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:38 pm Yes? And how does this relate to the demonization of, and false accusations against, atheists in general?

You've already asked me a question, am I the only one round here that knows anything?

You are the only one around here who can be reasonably expected to know anything about what goes on in your mind.
I'm not sure how far I could trust an answer I got from bobevenson to "What does Harbal think his jibe has to do with the topic?"

Skip: Harbal and his comrade, vegetarian, have been writing insulting remarks about me ever since I came on here. That's why I largely ignore what they write. They aren't interested in the substance of any comment I make, but, rather are interested in insulting me personally, regardless of what I write. I wish I could completely block them, but this site does not permit such a thing. However, to the extent that I can block Harbal's comments, I have done so, and am only aware of what he writes when another user references a comment he makes. In fact, he even admitted that he was going to continue to write insulting comments against me. I think that was his second comment he ever wrote to me.

There is nothing about atheism that requires any atheist to adhere to any dogma of any kind. An atheist may even attend church, if an atheist desires.

The claim that because atheism has increased that this is somehow responsible for a more mechanical form of decision-making regarding political and moral issues is unlikely to be true. First off, it's a logical fallacy to claim that merely because something occurs after something else, that the former caused the latter. So, even assuming atheism is on the rise and mechanical decision making is also on the rise, this does not establish any causal connection. Secondly, religion requires its adherents to make mechanical decisions, just follow the so-called divine plan, i.e., obey one's religious leaders without question. There is nothing about being an atheist that would require anyone to put their decision-making on auto-pilot. Far from it.

I don't know what is meant by "mechanical" decision making.
Is it like always putting the X in the box next to the political party logo you've always put your X next to, regardless of whether the party you joined at 18, when your father dragged you to a rally, was running a saint, a sleaze, a thug or a jackass as candidate?
Or is it like stopping when the light turns red and walking when the light turn green?
Or is it like turning the financial transactions of a big money-speculating firm over to the computer, which perform 5000 operations while its operator is hunting for the Shift key?
Or is it more like figuring out, rationally, what's the smartest, safest, least wasteful course of action, instead of grabbing a pitchfork and a torch and running along with whoever is yelling "Ged'em, ged'em!"?