The problem with that, though, is that you would be neglecting their right to free speech/ freedom of religion. Obviously they cannot show a preference in an official capacity... but at something like a funeral service, I think compassion is paramount.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
The problem with that, though, is that you would be neglecting their right to free speech/ freedom of religion. Obviously they cannot show a preference in an official capacity... but at something like a funeral service, I think compassion is paramount.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Q said:
Fraggle said:
quinnsong said:
If we are going to use the rather loaded word "bigot" (I don't really like it and rarely use it myself), we probably should inquire into where the problem lies that it's supposedly addressing and what that problem is.
I don't think that it's really a function of what the target of the 'intolerance' is. (Except that in everyday political usage, that's exactly what it is. 'Bigotry' is often implicitly defined as criticism of anything that one's own identity group wants to establish as immune from criticism. So the damnable others are always 'bigots' when they gore our sacred cows, and we never are when we attack theirs. We're just speaking the truth and defending everything that's good. Which of course we get to define, and they don't.)
Q's idea that while it might be 'bigotry' to hate people, it isn't bigotry to hate abstractions or generalities, doesn't appear to me to have very much merit. If people are members of an abstract class, attacking the set to which they belong is essentially the same thing as attacking the set's members. (Announcing that 'homosexuality is a perversion' kind of implies that individual homosexuals are perverts.)
The real problem with 'bigotry' seems to me to revolve around the the 'utterly intolerant' words in Fraggle's definition. It isn't so much a matter of what's being questioned, disagreed-with or opposed, as it is a function of how that opposition is expressed and the form it takes.
I think that just about anything can be disagreed with or opposed (there may be a few exceptions, like black people, that have become socially dangerous to criticize in any way) provided that the criticism is made well and is plausible, and as long as the critic is willing to consider opposing opinions. That certainly extends to religion. I think that any criticism of religion is acceptable (even if it's ignorant or wrong) provided that the criticism is at least initially plausible and defensible.
The difficulties associated with 'bigotry' start to arise when people start resorting to caricatures and false generalizations, and when their rhetoric moves towards little more than expressions of disdain and hostility directed at perceived enemies, whether persons or abstractions.
In a word, I guess that I conceive of criticism as being something with a very strong intellectual and cognitive component, something that's capable of being influenced by reason, while bigotry is more a matter of crude emotional aversion, a situation where discussion becomes both impossible and irrelevant.
Well said Yazata, and a point I have been desperately trying to make for a while; you can CRITICIZE something while still being RESPECTFUL and COMPASSIONATE. The problem arises when this criticism is used to attack or demean the thing being criticized.
Perhaps. I guess they do allow religious symbols on their graves. Although members of the military sign away many of their rights. There are many things they aren't allowed to talk about.
Ooo Ooo... i will answr:::
I woud miss Q.!!!
FYI:::
FR is 1 of the most entertainin posters here an a grate asset to Sciforums.!!!
A-Man.!!!
It wasn't a funeral. It was a graduation ceremony. Now imagine the reaction if an atheist was permitted to give a speech.
"Let us hope that no pretext arising from any religious opinion, shall ever produce an interruption or the harmony existing between two countries. Let us maintain a strong wall of separation between Church & State. Let us not worship a deity who takes sides in wars and human affairs. Let us continue to pursue advances in science, engineering, infrastructure, education, and environmental protection and especially science-based innovations to help us minimize and adapt to global threats like climate change."
Aman
Military backs off threat to pull atheist from ceremony
Radical Religion on the Rise in the Military
Yep , yep, whenever I ask my husband a particular military question, I get 'pineapples' as his response quite frequently. Talking politics is a big no-no for soldiers and a good way for me to get my views heard with no disagreement.
Personally, as a theist, I wouldn't object to an atheist being permitted to give the speech... to each their own. Above all else, as ye harm none do as ye will.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That's quite arguable. The USA is the only modern nation that has treated the Jews kindly. (Note 1: relatively so; we never gassed them or burned down their villages, but we have kept them out of our neighborhoods through "gentlemen's agreements." Note 2: about half a millennium ago the Chinese did not discriminate against them at all, resulting in their complete assimilation within a couple of centuries, a chapter in their history that scares the crap out of American Jewish leaders.) It's been suggested that the reason for this is that we think of ourselves as "the chosen people" too. Many of the groups who came here first and founded the country were fleeing from religious persecution, and 500 years later it's still difficult to argue against the assertion that many of us still think of America as our own Promised Land. I can't find the figures, but I'll bet the USA has the lowest emigration rate of any major country--except perhaps Australia, which we condescendingly yet with great affection regard as us in a 100-years-ago time warp. Even our Jewish folks ain't leavin': more of them are abandoning Israel and coming here than vice versa!
If even the Jews love the place where you live, well then it really must be God-blessed.
It has been persuasively argued that the Founders had no intention of including atheism/irreligion in the concept of "religious freedom." They were all Christians.
As an atheist, I certainly don't want my absence of belief in the supernatural to be put in the same category as belief.
When I say that belief in gods and angels... and a man finding a way to breathe inside a whale's stomach... and another coming back from the dead... and (my personal favorite) the total amount of water on the planet being multiplied by about six so it could cover the Himalayas... isn't much different from believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, I am indeed implying that these people are intellectually immature and it might be a big mistake to give them positions of power.
Except, of course, by other black people, who get to call each other "thugs," and "hos," and the N-word.
I found this to be even more disturbing Trooper.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...ficers-on-ethics-of-launching-nuclear-weapons
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You don't believe that the universe is subject to the laws of physics?
I don't have a great deal of understanding of what kind of things(?) the laws of physics are, or how human beings can even know that everything that exists in the universe is subject to them. I'm inclined to treat the idea of the universal applicability of the laws of physics more as a methodological and heuristic assumption than as metaphysical truth.
I'm even less sure how to understand the meaning of claims that nothing supernatural exists, or that nothing above or beyond nature exists, let alone understanding how human beings could ever know that those propositions are true. They look like metaphysical beliefs to me.
I think that the evidence is that we often believe things that we don't fully understand.
And conversely, we might understand many things that we don't believe. Historians of science understand the old geocentric cosmologies quite well, while no longer believing in their literal truth. Many scholars in religious studies and comparative religion have a great deal of understanding of religious philosophies that they don't personally believe in.
While historically important, their views aren't legally binding. We have changed the Constitution since then, and made quite a few Supreme Court decisions that are.
Yes, I agree. It was freedom of, not freedom from. That came much later.
John Locke argued that atheists should not be tolerated because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness/Lockean roots hypothesis
Fraggle said:
Fraggle, have you ever watched "God on Trial"? This scene was great!
Yikes!
Do you think it's legit?
Jason Leopold seems to be a legit investigative reporter and here is the follow up.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2403
From of religion is freedom from religion. Who do you think the Danbury Baptists were trying to get protection from?
Fraggle said that it has been persuasively argued that the Founders had no intention of including atheism/irreligion in the concept of "religious freedom."
I've read similar arguments and I agree.
The Supreme Court has declared that atheism was afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause, but it wasn’t until 1961 that they said that the laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The constitutions of these seven US states ban atheists from holding public office:
Wikipedia said:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
It's not an assumption. It's the fundamental premise of all science that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. This is the foundation of the Scientific Method.
The scientific method is recursive, and this premise has been tested exhaustively, often with great hostility, for half a millennium. And no evidence has ever been discovered to falsify it.
Like all scientific theories, this has only been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, and the possibility always exists that evidence may be found in the future to refute it. This distinguishes scientific theories from mathematical theories, which are derived completely from abstractions, so they are true even if they don't actually describe the behavior of the universe.
We don't claim that these things do not exist. But we do invoke the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
No one has ever come to the gates of the Academy with simply ordinary evidence of supernatural phenomena, despite the fact that hundreds of milions of people are convinced that they are true.
It's really not looking good for the doubters of science. How can anyone possibly believe something that is not supported by even the most humble evidence, much less believe it staunchly for centuries?
No. It just seems that way to people who don't have PhDs and 20 years of laboratory experience in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. The folks who derive the theories that comprise the canon of science really do understand them.
Some of them are exceptionally good teachers who can explain them to us, but it's a long process that most of us just don't want to bother with. When I was sixteen I read an incredibly good book that explained the Theory of Relativity. It was 200 pages long and it took me almost a year to get through it! But I understood it.
But since I didn't use it every day, I quickly forgot all the intricacies. I couldn't remember it a mere two years later when it was covered in my university physics class--a whole lot faster. I certainly couldn't explain it today.
The geocentric model was a perfectly good tool for predicting the motions of the heavenly bodies--in an era when no one could see the moons of the other planets. But when Galileo built a telescope that could show the orbits of the moons of Jupiter, the theory had to be elaborated.
The same was true of Newton's Laws of Motion. They're still perfectly accurate today--for people who live at the bottom of a gravity well and will never travel more than one-millionth of the speed of light. But like Galileo, Einstein had instruments that Newton didn't have, and he was able to see "deeper" into the question.
Unfortunately for the supernaturalists, the derivation of the scientific method did not merely elaborate on their theories of the behavior of the universe. It completely destroyed them.
Some of them haven't gotten the message yet.
How to Get There From Here
In the following link the writer makes what I think are great observations regarding Atheism/Fundamentalism/Dogmatism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/08/fight-dogma-not-religion/
This is part of the article below
Dogma: Not As Good As The Movie
Pullquote: When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is the belief that an opinion or viewpoint about the world must be true no matter what the circumstances may be or what new experiences may indicate. Dogma is the bedrock of fundamentalism.
Whether embraced by cronies of Joseph Stalin or friars of the Spanish Inquisition, dogmatism kills.
It is dogma which leads Pope Benedict XVI to claim that condom use is evil, even though it saves lives. It is dogma which leads parishioners to accept that priests can do no wrong, even when they abuse children.
It is dogmatism which leads to violence. When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is a weakness inherent to all human beings. Both atheists and theists alike are capable of suffering from its effects. Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
Pullquote: Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
We’re all capable of being irrational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be rational: it means that we should try even harder to be rational.
Adherence to dogmatism limits our critical thinking, exposes us to abuse from authority, and leads to underdeveloped empathy and an over-reliance on unalterable rules instead of real-life experience.
Not all religion is dogmatic. Not all atheists are dogmatic. All people should oppose dogmatism, whether they are religious or not.
However, it should be acknowledged that religion is highly likely to lead to dogmatism, and religious people should heed the criticisms of Dawkins and his peers.
Most importantly, the proper antidotes for dogmatism are skepticism and critical thinking. If atheists really want to switch the frame of reference for theists, then they should oppose dogmatism by elevating skepticism and critical thinking. Then, change will be inevitable.
In the following link the writer makes what I think are great observations regarding Atheism/Fundamentalism/Dogmatism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/08/fight-dogma-not-religion/
This is part of the article below
Dogma: Not As Good As The Movie
Pullquote: When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is the belief that an opinion or viewpoint about the world must be true no matter what the circumstances may be or what new experiences may indicate. Dogma is the bedrock of fundamentalism.
Whether embraced by cronies of Joseph Stalin or friars of the Spanish Inquisition, dogmatism kills.
It is dogma which leads Pope Benedict XVI to claim that condom use is evil, even though it saves lives. It is dogma which leads parishioners to accept that priests can do no wrong, even when they abuse children.
It is dogmatism which leads to violence. When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is a weakness inherent to all human beings. Both atheists and theists alike are capable of suffering from its effects. Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
Pullquote: Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
We’re all capable of being irrational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be rational: it means that we should try even harder to be rational.
Adherence to dogmatism limits our critical thinking, exposes us to abuse from authority, and leads to underdeveloped empathy and an over-reliance on unalterable rules instead of real-life experience.
Not all religion is dogmatic. Not all atheists are dogmatic. All people should oppose dogmatism, whether they are religious or not.
However, it should be acknowledged that religion is highly likely to lead to dogmatism, and religious people should heed the criticisms of Dawkins and his peers.
Most importantly, the proper antidotes for dogmatism are skepticism and critical thinking. If atheists really want to switch the frame of reference for theists, then they should oppose dogmatism by elevating skepticism and critical thinking. Then, change will be inevitable.
- Status