6th May 2012

“Progressives should take interest in today's identity politics of atheists and humanists. Higher visibility for atheists and humanists can help to debunk the myth that nonbelievers are immoral and thereby weaken the religious right's claims of moral superiority.”

David A. Niose

16 Responses to “6th May 2012”

  1. R J Says:

    re-read my post from yesterday………………..

    goes for this quote, too .

  2. Xhim Says:

    RJ: Yeah…. Don’t you think yours is the one true way? The question/problem is how we treat people who haven’t “seen the light.”

  3. R J Says:

    no. i do not think my thoughts or inclinations

    are ” the one true way . ”

    no one REALLY knows any cosmological explanations

    with true certainty. but some are easily more LIKELY…….

    ……that is PROBABLE………..than others.

    and……………….

    in your 2nd sentence, who is ” we .”

    also, how do you define/designate the

    ” people who havent seen the light .”

  4. Dan Says:

    Xhim,
    Are you still going on about that tripe about how intolerant atheists are? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, but socially & politically, we’re secularists (I’m pretty sure all of us are, anyway… I know I am). And I ask you to name just one secular society in all of history that was intolerant of theists.

    Just one, so that you can establish your case that we’re just as intolerant as theists.

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Intolerance among the faithful is different than between the faithful and those not having faith. A Muslim and a Christian expressing intolerance toward each other for believing in the wrong things is nothing more than idiots arguing nothing, fools babbling jibberish.

    When a faithful servant of god enters into a conversation with a non-believer things are not equal. On one hand you have this boob blathering nonsense, and on the other you have this normal person thinking “what is this nut yammering about”.

    The thresholds are different: religionists buy into nonsensical fairy tales, perhaps slightly different fairy tales but fairy tales just the same. Non-religious people don’t buy into simpleton stories written by frightened ancient nomads.

    The intolerance is different! We see this all the time between sports fans, political adversaries, heavy metal fans, et cetera.

    Simply dismissing a conversation about who the greatest hockey team ever was, or best president, or Metalica vs Led Zeppelin fails to live up to the definition of intolerance in the same way dismissing statements about the existence of gods, devils, ghosts, goblins, and other supernatural silliness does.

    To be intolerant of nonsense isn’t really what is meant by the word. Intolerance of faith is intolerance of nonsense.

    A Christian intolerant of a Jew is a couple of idiots stoking a fight.

    This isn’t my one true view, it just is. The logic stands on its own, it doesn’t need me to champion it. Quite different than religion which is dependent upon deluded meatheads repeating nonsense for its continued place in the collective conscious.

  6. The Heretic Says:

    To be sure I understand you. To be intolerant of faith is intolerance of nonsense. Therefore that intolerance doesn’t count as intolerance? To be sure, theists, I am certain, have the same reasoning. The hubris! My intolerance is not intolerance because it is the intolerance of nonsense! Therefore, I must be tolerant. It is the others who are intolerant of each other’s nonsense that counts as intolerance!!

    What absolute nonsense. Both are intolerance. You must be a liberal. The most intolerant of tolerant people who exist.

  7. Dan Says:

    So it seems that we’re pretty much all in agreement that Xhim is exhibiting a good bit of nonsense with this argument.

    I don’t want to bully on him though, permissive Christians like Xhim are a lot better than the alternative. But it is a bit annoying that Xhim and other more permissive or liberal Christians think that the Freedoms of Speech and Religion include the Freedom from Criticism.

  8. Jeff Says:

    I’m going to step into the fray once more after an extended period of quiet just to point out an irony: TH calling SS a liberal at 16:13. If it weren’t for that fact that Sinjin is a self-professed Reagan conservative (although I’d place him a bit closer to late Goldwater than Mr. Reagan who forged the unholy alliance with the Christian right which gave us the laugh track for the Republican Party primaries this spring), it would be laughable at best. However, it just points out the pitiful condition of the conservative movement at present, when the worst epithet which one conservative can hurl at another is “liberal”.

  9. Dan Says:

    Jeff,
    Ha! You made me go back and read TH’s comment a bit more carefully. I should’ve done that earlier. Because this one jumps the shark:

    My intolerance is not intolerance because it is the intolerance of nonsense! Therefore, I must be tolerant.

    TH – I thought you were an atheist also. Why are you talking gibberish like that, arguing that tolerance means all views must be treated as equivalent? You’re starting to sound like a theist!!!

  10. The Heretic Says:

    Number one – I was ridiculing a stupid argument filled with hypocracy. Number two – I am well aware that he/she is a professed conservative. However, having listened to he/she’s arguments for some time now, I have concluded that Reagan conservative is wishful thinking at best. RINO or liberal Republican is more likely. A Reagan conservative would never say some of things uttered by this individual.

  11. Xhim Says:

    Sorry not to have responded. Didn’t get a chance to get back to my computer.

  12. Dan Says:

    TH,

    A Reagan conservative would never say some of things uttered by this individual.

    Reagan was a coalition-builder, as I’m sure you know. So it seems rather mistaken of you to insist that Reagen Conservatives are a monolithic entity. They included everything from the Christian Right to Centrist Democrats, and I’m quite sure that Sinjin would fall well within that spectrum.

    Perhaps you’re confusing Reagen-era conservatism with today’s Tea Party, as Jeff suggested.

  13. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Jeff and Dan you guys are fresh air! Lost in today’s big spending pretend to be a Republican world are these Tea Party phonies who just want to spend there way to prosperity just like the so called Socialists they criticize. As if spending on the military is ok even if it is unnecessary. Reagan would never do that. Reagan was an economist first. Reagan was actually dual majored in economics and sociology. When Reagan saw the Democrats headed in the wrong direction he changed party affiliation. Today I’d have to believe he’d be switching back. Remember Reagan spoke well of Kennedy’s fiscal ideas, he also spoke well of FDR. Inspired by Reagan I try to be as pragmatic.

  14. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    And Heretic I said “different”, yes I attempted to be humorous or to at least be gentle in my contempt and intolerance, but I didn’t say I wasn’t intolerant.

    Ultimately I’m saying that by definition, clinging to a supernatural belief system isn’t something anyone needs to be tolerant of. It isn’t valid or isn’t any more valid than believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or Harry Potter.

    Sorry to have failed to humor you, appears I won a few laughs, but the adage “you can’t win Em all” still holds?

  15. R J Says:

    ADMIN…………………

    no QOTD for today (mon moy 7) ????

  16. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Just a thought, where would we all go if the admin just died or something?

    I would not want to lose all of you, we really ought to have a back up plan just in case.