Hatred begets hatred I guess. The Religious right had three decades of political will and evangelical preaching, and now the nonreligious lash out. It's all very sad.
Printable View
Hatred begets hatred I guess. The Religious right had three decades of political will and evangelical preaching, and now the nonreligious lash out. It's all very sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I am also extremely uncomfortable with those who say they have a better insight into the will of God than the rest of us. Particularly if they seem to actually believe it.
One sets of alarm bells for me, the other is just disgusting. Usually it comes down to finding which side is the least revolting.
Isn't that what life is? Making choices, and choosing the least revolting according to your preferences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Is that how you select from a menu or pick a wine?
I prefer to make choices on a more positive note. What is best or most enjoyable is what I normally look for.
However, in US politics, for those who try to be more informed on issues and consequence it is often more like choosing between burning at the stake or being skinned alive.
Isn't it two sides of the same coin? I look at what is best choice/most enjoyable choice = least worst, lesser of two evils. I guess you can't call wines evil, unless you forget to drink enough water before going to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Having the opportunity to select between to enjoyable items, while still a choice is not the same as being forced to select from to very painful ones.
With presidential elections though you are usually assured that both will be equally bad for the majority of the population. It is more a matter of which special interests are going to benefit and to what degree.
One might make the same argument about Obama- he regularly went to a church where the pastor went on vitriolic rants against the US, yet the left dismissed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Fisherking. I will preface my response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Although I like to think of myself as a Bokononist ("Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."), I am fundamentally an anti-theist. When I was in my teenage years I was a Christian, of a Protestant denomination, I went on a mission, I went to Bible Study, I went to Youth Groups, etc.
Now my response:
I have come to realise, through study, research and my own independent thought that all religion is merely meta-physics whose doctrinal underpinnings are entirely the mythological and fictional thoughts of those who authored them. I believe the sooner that all religion, at first, is left at home and then, eventually, is forgotten entirely the better our societies will become, on the whole. We will be able to discuss the here, the now, the future and the past without shoehorning in the dogma and emotional baggage that comes with belief without evidence.
I also understand that it can be and often is disingenuous to attempt to disenchant the devout and the believers, (hence why I try to act and live as a Bokononist). I understand that an existential view of the world, and understanding that everything we think we know of ourselves has its basis in the social constructs we live by, is not a mindset that appeals to everyone. They are often happy with their myth of choice. Others may be intellectually unable to grapple with the notion that existence, as viewed through the senses of a being of this dimension, space and density, is not unified in any sense other than the quantum mechanical -- at least by any measure that we could imagine or understand. If people are generally happy with their faith then I have no quarrels with that. In the same way that no one would quarrel whether I had vanilla or chocolate ice-cream this evening. I also understand, first-hand, that numinous experience is of profound importance to an individual of faith, and they often describe the events with deep emotion and beauty. Yet, it is nothing more -- intense, well-worded emotion.
Let us set aside the labels of "left-leaning" and "right-leaning" as they are irrelevant. It is possible to be a progressive member of any denomination, just as it is possible to be a conservative atheist. Additionally it is usually, in our society, in the interest of any politically interested group to further their aims by demonising their opponent. The same usually holds true in the practice of law, where cases are often won and lost by showing your opponent to be of disrepute. I would prefer we as a society did not need to do so, but it is an effective tool -- ask, or better watch the speeches of, any member that participated in the Republican National Convention. After all our minds are significantly quicker to emotion than to reason.
Now, I know exactly what you mean, and have experienced what you say first hand. Atheists, especially on the internet often come across as if they were "shouting" their opinions. I feel Kurt Vonnegut sums up this mindset best:
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
These people often come across as if they are members of some elite club that have had the good grace to stumble upon the fundamental truth that all religion is fiction, without exception. That is not to say that a work of fiction cannot pose questions, or provide advice, or satire or any other number of possibilities, as any fiction is ultimately grounded in the dissection and synthesis of someone's or some group's reality. However, at it's core it is not reality and should never be applied wholesale.
However, for anyone who has ever taken the time to study the core beliefs and myths of any religion it quickly becomes obvious that those people who do not question the flaws in logic, the dogma and the absurdity of their chosen belief are likely to either be deluded automatons or intellectual children. It is overwhelmingly frustrating to deal with people who have an almost irrational fear of science, a fear of facts and a fear of evidence based reasoning. Despite all the benefits these methods have bestowed upon us both practically and theoretically. People who will often even attribute these advances and gains to their chosen fiction, failing to see the contradiction in doing so.
I would hazard a guess that Dawkins, like so many other atheists, is ultimately tired of and frustrated with arguing with people who bury their heads in the sand when the truth and evidence conflicts with the fiction they have chosen to believe. In a gross effort to lessen the cognitive dissonance caused by said evidence. My evidence for this guess would be based on the method of his outburst -- Twitter. A means of communication that at its core is an internet microblogging outlet for thoughts and emotions.
Ultimately, I am not saying god does not or meta-physics do not exist. What I am saying is, that god is irrelevant and so too is the question of god.
Irrelevant how exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
the irony is if he had said that, he would be a non-entity in the US political scene, and you would have no respect for him....simply because you would have never heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
As for Dawkin's, the guy is almost always right, but also almost always a pretentious bore...I read his book and couldn´t get through more than half of it before putting it down.
it was the most clear experience I had of agreeing almost 100% with everything that was written, but being completely turned off by the tone it was written in.
it's a shame we don´t have Christopher Hitchens around any more....he would have said the same truths, but he was a better writer and had wit about him to make it interesting.
And he left the church. If was IMO a valid criticism and he took the consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
After how long again?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
IIRC, it was only after the whole controversy came to light in 2008.
I assume it's because piousness is only as important in politics as the voters think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Repeated facepalming:
In what some have called "a stroke of comic genius," Public Policy Polling decided to ask Ohio Republicans who they thought "deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In what some (my colleague Tim Murphy) have called "the greatest thing ever," a full 15 percent of Ohio Republicans surveyed said Romney deserved more credit than the president. Another 47 percent said they were "unsure."
Well duh. Republicans wouldnt be caught dead giving Obama credit for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I think it's safe to say that a fairly large amount of the elected politicians in the USA are secretly atheist or at least agnostic but deliberately keep a lid on it about it to remain electable. Allthough it's not an entirely correct quotation, the words "every country gets the government it deserves" comes to mind.
'Tis a thing of beauty...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I guess this is its own field of academic study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
[V]oters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like. [...] What’s more, correcting peoples’ factual misunderstandings doesn’t seem to help at all. Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth and Jason Reifler of Georgia State ran experiments measuring whether partisans who read news articles with correct information that ran against their ideological views were likelier to hold the right factual beliefs. They found the opposite effect — correcting people, in other words, doesn’t inform them, it creates a backlash.
Telling conservatives that there were no WMDs in Iraq made them more likely to say there were weapons, and telling them that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue made them more likely to say they increased revenue. Same for liberals — while conservatives and moderates were less likely to think Bush banned all stem-cell research after reading an article pointing out that he only banned federal funding of it, liberals’ stated factual beliefs didn’t change at all. So ream after ream of news articles wouldn’t have done much to help any unfortunate souls who formed the belief that Romney killed bin Laden.
Psychologists call the phenomenon on display here “motivated reasoning,” [...] But the Romney-killed-bin Laden finding also fits in with the broader literature on polling generally.
-delete me please, browser acting up-
Nah the "irrelevant" issue is actually the ancient critique of religion, nothing to do with politics in fact. The possibility that supernatural beings exist is not rejected entirely, but it is pointed out that the assumption of supernatural intervention does not stack up in light of how the world actually works. Furthermore such assumptions cannot be held as the basis for ethics, which is usually explained in terms of a thought experiment along the lines of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Suppose that supernatural beings do in fact exist, there is no reason then to assume that they care for earth, for humans, or for you in particular. Suppose furthermore that such supernatural beings not only do exist but they also care for you in particular, it still does not follow that they have the power to influence your life at all. Finally even if they do exist, care and have the power to affect your life it still does not follow that they themselves are just and virtuous. So you should justify your morals not in terms of what some supernatural being might or might not approve of, you should not hope for some supernatural being to come and fix it all; instead you should look to more practical concerns such as consequences (e.g. what if everyone did this, what if this was done to me?) to determine whether something is the right thing to do or not.
If god ceases to exist will we notice?
Yes and? Maybe he slept through the sermons, never listened to them because he was there for the company or he was a firm believer of all the hate talk. Either way, it was poor judgement or bad taste, or whatever you're gonna call it, and he distanced himself from it and later left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Are you saying that his church/religion should have been off limits? That Christopher Hitchens should not have called Obama's church a "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church" because it was not his business? I guess it is some of that wit that Ronin is missing these days.
Mitt Romney nees this election so he can get to Level 15 of Mormonism, which gets him a bigger space planet with more animalz when he dies. Right now he is stuck at level 12, where he only gets a little planet and has to share a tee pee with Indian Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Actually, Obama initially said he was not paying attention and did not notice the statements so there was no need to rebuke. In later interviews, I believe after more witnesses came forward to put O in the pews at the time of said statements, he said he heard the statements and did not agree, and that he talked to the Pastor about it.
His story changed, so he lied about something, somewhere.
They all lie
Dumb survey question gets dumb answers- story at 11. :coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I was discussing this with a few friends today and I kinda want to know what fellow Orgahs think.
What if instead of four years per term we did a 6-8 year term with a new round of voting in year 2 of the presidency? I feel that so much time is wasted in a first term presidency just from campaigning for a second term. If the president can concentrate on getting stuff done for his first two years, he can have the next four-six completely worry free to continue doing a good job.
Just a thought.
Ah the problem of democracy; the rulers are more concerned with making sure they still have power later than using it, that and it breeds politicians who are good at winning elections instead of running a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
It is a bit funny really. Other nations manage to elect a government without a two year campaign costing billions of dollars. It is not much more than a popularity contest and very likely that the contestants are equally poor choices for the job. Chances are you base your preference on political party. Not that anyone reads the party platforms of course. If you were voting on that basis and you read what they stood for most of you would be choosing between Libertarians and Socialists. But those are only names on the ballet. You have always been told that you are only throwing away your vote if you don’t vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Most of you are not delusional enough to think that either party will do what they claim to stand for but they might lean in that general direction once the special interests are taken care of.
Found a good page for trustworthyness on statements and campaign promises. politifact
Swedish standards is around 80% kept promises and has been for a long time.
The statements are quite different, Obama is on 73% true to half true statments, Mitt is on 58%. Mitt also got 9% pants on fire statements compared to Obama's 1%.
I am sure half truths are perfectly ok then. It is not like someone would make a deliberately misleading statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Both candidates have low percentages of true statements. That should tell you something right there.