Originally Posted By ecdc >>If so, then it's only fair that when an atheist goes too far or does something horrible to say that "atheism poisons everything."<< Just like I don't think the equivalency argument works when someone says, "Democrats have crazies just like Republicans!" I don't think it works here either. There's more to it than that. I get that religion is a very broad term. But what these guys are often addressing is pretty standard across religions. And they do specify the problems frequently. I don't think it's all that outlandish to generalize about religion in this way. Any reasonable person who reads them can see what they're talking about. We all do it - we criticize Republicans in general for not supporting gay rights, but we all understand that there are some Republicans that do support it. And it's not like this is broken down into simple groups of good religion and bad religion. It's all interconnected. Even churches that might otherwise do a lot of good might engage in thinking that indirectly does harm to the culture. There's an entire mentality at work - again, not universally but very widely rampant - of lack of critical thinking and accepting the fantastic without proof. So a church in Oklahoma might run a soup kitchen for the homeless. Fantastic. But then their individual members might oppose teaching evolution in schools, which can have long-term repercussions for the culture as a whole. It's unrealistic, IMO, to expect critics of the bad to stop every five minutes and acknowledge the good lest they step on some toes. Especially since the good that's done can obviously happen without the religious elements.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So a church in Oklahoma might run a soup kitchen for the homeless. Fantastic. But then their individual members might oppose teaching evolution in schools, which can have long-term repercussions for the culture as a whole.<< So why not applaud their efforts in running the soup kitchen, while fighting against their efforts to affect school curriculum? I don't see it as an either-or proposition. I can certainly see not giving money for the church fundraiser to help the needy when you know that part of the money will also go towards pushing "intelligent design" curriculum in the schools. Or even in flat refusing to help with their soup kitchen funding because of whatever else they believe in or try to push on others. My only objection is lumping all people into one big group when it isn't appropriate or fair to do so. The only thing all religions agree upon is that there is a God. That's about it. But they don't all agree who that God is, what He or She looks like, what He or She wants from us and beyond that, it breaks off into all sorts of beliefs and practices. >>It's unrealistic, IMO, to expect critics of the bad to stop every five minutes and acknowledge the good lest they step on some toes.<< I only expect that when they make overreaching comments about religion as a whole.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In short, is it fair to lump all the people of the world into two, or perhaps three groups? Religious, atheist, agnostic. If so, is it then fair to ascribe anything negative anyone in one of those categories does onto all the other people who are in that category?
Originally Posted By DAR <<But then their individual members might oppose teaching evolution in schools, which can have long-term repercussions for the culture as a whole>> So if the religious school is asked to teach evolution, shouldn't the public school be also asked to teach intelligent design?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "In short, is it fair to lump all the people of the world into two, or perhaps three groups? Religious, atheist, agnostic." I really don't know. I mean, what is there to say or assume about a person who is an atheist? They don't believe in God. So what? Does that make us evil or sinister or something? Are we atheists viewed with suspicion by believers? Are there different kinds of atheists? I was actually thinking about this the other day and realized that it would probably be impossible for an atheist to be elected POTUS.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't think that's a fair proposition for either school." So you think it's OK for a religious school to allow kids to graduate without even knowing basic principles of evolutionary science? That seems crazy to me.
Originally Posted By DAR Most if not all religious schools are privately run, you can't really force them tailor their curriculm to everyone else's standards. I don't agree with it. And for the record I attend Catholic grade and high school and was in fact taught both ID and evolution. And I've always believed that a combination of the two always seemed the most logical to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I mean, what is there to say or assume about a person who is an atheist? They don't believe in God. So what? Does that make us evil or sinister or something?<< Some religious people would say yes. Which is why making sweeping generalizations isn't particularly helpful to anyone. >>Are we atheists viewed with suspicion by believers?<< Only around Christmas. ; ) >>Are there different kinds of atheists?<< Yes indeed. Which is exactly my point.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Most if not all religious schools are privately run, you can't really force them tailor their curriculm to everyone else's standards." Are there not basic things that must be taught in order for any school to be accredited in your state? I would think that basic scientific theories like evolution would be mandatory. >>Are we atheists viewed with suspicion by believers?<< "Only around Christmas. ; )" Ironically I do enjoy participating in Christmas, and I'm one of those people who HATES it when folks I know were raised Christian say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I know, I'm a big ol' hypocrite. But you can do that and get away with it when you're an atheist because there's no higher power judging you. >>Are there different kinds of atheists?<< "Yes indeed. Which is exactly my point." I didn't know that. Examples?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Examples?<< Well, there's you, who hates it when people who were raised Christian say happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. And then there's every other kind of atheist. Okay, so there are just the two kinds. But that's more than just one.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt LOL, ok, you got me. In all seriousness I guess I see your point. In my question I was thinking that there was some kind of categorical list like there might be for Christian denominations.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So if the religious school is asked to teach evolution, shouldn't the public school be also asked to teach intelligent design?<< I'm not saying a religious school should be expected or asked to teach evolution. They're of course at liberty to teach whatever they like. My point was more what happens when religious people embrace falsehoods like intelligent design or creationism, then go out into the community and try and push that in places like a public school. The issue is bigger than just the political back-and-forth, and for me is more about what happens when you have a culture of people who think truth is whatever they say it is or whatever they heard on Sunday. It's not so much about evolution, which was just an example, but about the fluidity of facts in these people's world.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So why not applaud their efforts in running the soup kitchen, while fighting against their efforts to affect school curriculum? I don't see it as an either-or proposition.<< It's not, but there's a billion other religious people patting each other on the back for their good work. That's kind of my whole point about the legitimacy of the atheist movement. There is room for a group that points out the harm, argues for reason and science, and doesn't need to praise religion so they feelings don't get hurt. I'm not arguing it's perfect or that everybody should be like them. But I am arguing that focusing on Richard Dawkins' stridency instead of focusing on kids dying of AIDS because of the Catholic church seems a bit misplaced. If people are truly concerned about the harm of religion, like so many claim, they'll spend more time talking about it. But instead, their outrage is usually reserved for the atheists. It's odd prioritizing, really.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If people are truly concerned about the harm of religion, like so many claim, they'll spend more time talking about it. But instead, their outrage is usually reserved for the atheists. It's odd prioritizing, really.<< See, now you sound like the Tea Partiers whining about how oppressed they are. The topic of atheism doesn't even come up on this board until someone sets it off. Meanwhile we are almost constantly harping on the fundamentalist blurtations of Beck, Palin, O'Donnell et al, and pointing accusatory fingers at allegedly anti-gay religious leaders caught shagging their male charges. And we even throw in a few swipes at Utah Josh for good measure. VERY few of us resident Christians are giving religion any free passes. For instance, I would like to hereby state that I'm against kids dying of AIDS because of the Catholic church. But I don't see why that should keep me from pointing out that Richard Dawkins is a strident (something that apparently other people can get away with saying on LP without being admin'd, but not me. I'm not bitter. Really.)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>See, now you sound like the Tea Partiers whining about how oppressed they are.<< First, now who's being a strident [ahem!]? Second, I'm not talking about LP specifically but more generally. Third, your response just proves my point about higher standards for atheists. Be non-believers, just do it in a way that believers don't find offensive or bothersome.
Originally Posted By DAR <<when religious people embrace falsehoods like intelligent design or creationism>> But see to a great many people including yours truly and others on these boards we don't believe that ID or creationism is a falsehood. It makes up a core belief of ours that there is a God.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "I wasn't doing that. But I was trying to make the point that in spite of CC saying she always uses logic and reason to make purchasing decisions (her analogy, not mine), that she likely makes them for other reasons as well having nothing to do with pure logic and reason." Okay, I'd like to retract my statement of making decisions based on logic only. A better statement would have been, I don't make any decisions without weighing all of the facts and options. Then I'd make a decision. It might be the most logical (disbelief in God) or it may not (spending too much on a hotel room), but in either case, I always weight all of the options before making decisions. Sometimes I get so obsessive about weigh all of the options that I drive myself crazy. I go way over board at times. But something in me drives me to keep searching till I have all of the facts. You should SEE how much time and effort I put into shopping for Christmas for my kids and family. It's ridiculous. But that leads me to my next point. Is I LOVE Christmas. It was always a wonderful time for me growing up, and I certainly have no desire to deprive my children or me of it now even though I don't believe in the reasons behind the season. That decision was based off of my emotional desire to continue with the celebration and pass down tradition of the holidays to my kids. BUT I did weigh all of the options and potential problems that could arise before making my decision. I was worried it would be too confusing for my kids, but as I'm sure you all know, it's actually very easy to celebrate the holidays now a days without Jesus or God having anything to do with it.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance And I can't comment on Dar's posts about keeping evolution out of school or including creationism in them. I don't have high blood pressure, and I have no desire of developing it. I'm going to pretend like I can't see them as this is one of the things that makes me the very blood boiling, fist pumping, angriest! Makes me want to pull my kids out of public school and keep them sheltered and safe at home. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!
