Magic Factoids say a wave of massive violent crime followed the introduction of the talking box/TV (a good baby sitter, no need for socialization anymore).
Societies aren't so libertarian. Although, maybe one day :shrug:
Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler.
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
surely in O'Donell's case it was the other way round
Ok; if I got the authors confused I apologize for the mixup. I do however maintain that any time an individual or group makes the eradication of another group their goal (whether through conversion or other means), you have the makings of a crusade, inquisition, or holocaust.
Very true, which I find very unfortunate. It is my opinion that public policy should be such that the smaller community, the greater the degree of control that can be exerted via democratic vote, and vice versa - with the individual of course being the greatest degree of control. It should work kind of like Asimov's laws of robotics. The next size up from an individual (the family) can exert x amount of control over their family, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the individual (a parent can choose what kind of food their children eat, what they read and watch, etc., but cannot violate the child in regards to abusive behavior - a minimum which should be universal worldwide). Next up from there might be an HOA or Condo Association, that certainly doesn't have a say in such familial matters but can control such things that impact the rest of that community (external home decor, landscaping etc.), and so on and so forth all the way up through cities, counties, states, countries, etc. By the time you get to the top level, you wouldn't have any right to command anyone to do anything, but would only be defining rights for the individuals.
The glib way theists slide from their standard misperceptions to physical threat, along with their penchant for ascribing basic human decency to their ingroup only, is worrisome considering their political power.solus said:
We've seen the consequences of that kind of thinking - the actual crusades, inquisitions, and holocausts.
Quite the contrary. My statement was completely open-ended. It applies to all groups of people, regardless of their specific beliefs.
Except Dawkins et al want to eradicate faith through reason, not the faithful through violence.
And my observation was of the tendency of the theistic to slide into physical threat without even noticing the transition.solus said:
A history of unchallenged control over the means of physical force within a society breeds a certain casual attitude toward the making of threats, maybe?
Not Dawkins. I can't answer for the "et al", but all aspects of human nature and being in the world are welcome to most atheistic people - a faith that answers to reason, a reason that answers to faith, is a basic atheistic approach.phlogistician said:
Last edited:
As if people can't be persuaded to change their minds? I'm in favor of a crusade for reason.
The biggest problem I see with that attitude is that at any given time period, you have people who are absolutely certain that they are the wisest the world has ever seen, that everyone before them was a primitive fool, and that THEY have finally reached a point of inarguable reason. Those who disagree are subhuman, etc. And then 200 years later THEY are the primitives. In other words, your crusade for reason today will no doubt be seen as a subjugation of others 100 or so years from now.
I'm saying this in the context of a Democratic society that ensures freedom of religion, so there is no way in hell this would result in any kind of subjugation of people. Reason is also not a point, it is a method to ensure that what we believe is supported by reliable evidence. It's a journey away from ignorance into reality. I don't think that's too much to ask. The proof of this method is in the results, they cannot be denied.
You'd be surprised at how quickly such societies can do just that, particularly when the populace is whipped to frenzy. I am reminded of the rally we had in town this weekend... The "Rally to Restore Sanity"... It wasn't a push in any extreme direction, but rather a plea for people to just be calm, reasoned, and rational.
The term for that phenomenon is "progress," and it's generally a good thing.
Agreed. And it is also both arrogant and foolish to ever think you have reached the epitome of said progress.
Not something you'll find many "progressives" or "rationalists" asserting, in my experience.
Now, the fundamentalists that oppose them, on the other hand, are defined by exactly such an attitude.
Again, I go back to my only real opinion on the matter - concerted attempts to eradicate a way of thinking have always yielded horrific results. There is no reason to suspect that will ever change.
EDIT: Oh, and it isn't BECAUSE of religion. Religion has been a tool - Fanaticism has been the cause.
I think religion is a major cause of fanaticism.
I have lived among communities full of religious fanatics, and I can promise you that the religion attracted the fanatics; it didn't cause them. Rational people who come into the faith remain rational. Irrational people who come into the faith remain irrational. I will acknowledge that the nature of religion does indeed attract irrational people, and that often the irrational ones are the most vocal - but the religions themselves (or at least, the branches of Christianity to which I was exposed) were never the cause of fanaticism and irrationality - merely an outlet. (And if you removed that outlet, others would take its place in a heartbeat.)