edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:34 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

By the same argument, "goodness" in all its manifestations, could no doubt be re-traced via Paul to Ancient Greece should one have the incentive to do so. Insosfar as "atheism" is a reaction against "theism", it is simplistic to argue that it is a reaction against "goodness", whose roots preceded them both. The fact that "atheism" is a term adopted by some forms of institutionalized despotism is merely an aspect of the rejection of traditional "devine authority" from moral codes., only to be replaced by the dictated codes of some new demi-god. It is "theism" by another name.


Not sure I understand this. The fact I have spendi on ignore may have something to do with it. Care to elaborate?
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:36 am
@edgarblythe,
Ed should know at his age that the spiel is not meant to be understood. One might easily say that it cannot be understood. The pedestal on which it stands is so vast that the statue which is erected upon it can only be seen with a microscope and when that feat is accomplished we see fresco at a dinner table seeking to impress the new wife of the Dean of Studies.

It is meant to sound authoritative.

Perhaps one might hazard that it suggests an insistent demand for a decisive Father figure in an age of confusion and if It isn't out there somewhere in the distant, dark spaces where new worlds are being created, paring It's fingernails, as Mr Joyce had it, it is right here in your face and up your arse.

I like the way it neatly distances the author from anything which might be called "simplistic". Such a quality being deprecated by any self-respecting new wife of even the most provincial Dean of Studies.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:12 am
Mark Twain described man's audacious arrogance thusly:
Quote:
Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno.

If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for.

I reckon they would. I dunno.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:27 am
@panzade,
I must admit pan that when you compare my previous post with your quote from Mark Twain it is easy to see which of us is the real writer.
panzade
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:38 am
@spendius,
I wasn't really comparing, as I didn't write anything. I just quoted one of my favorite Twain observations.

Your post was well written. Makes me wonder why people put you on ignore.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:18 am
@edgarblythe,
Spendius wrote something to the effect that our understanding of the concept of "goodness" necessarily required "Christianity" as a semantic reference frame.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:59 am
@fresco,
And I will stand by it too.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 01:17 pm
@fresco,
Thanks.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 02:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
I hope that didn't upset Ed.

fresco should respect his decision to put me on Ignore.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 03:12 pm
From today's The Free Dictionary Quotation of the Day

Heathen, n.: A benighted creature who has the folly to worship something that he can see and feel.

Ambrose Bierce
panzade
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 04:04 pm
@InfraBlue,
hah!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 10 Mar, 2010 04:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Heathen, n.: A benighted creature who has the folly to worship something that he can see and feel.


I used to have leanings in that direction but I have reformed myself.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:21 pm
A couple of pages ago, Pemerson mentioned a meeting between a delegation of nonbelievers and Obama Administration people at the White House. Today I found a writeup of how it went by Herb Silberman, president of the Secular Coalition for America. The meeting seems to have been constructive, the topics quite narrow ...

Silberman wrote:
Childhood medical neglect and abuse: We seek to close legal loopholes for the religiously based medical neglect of children, because no child should ever have to suffer for lack of medical attention, regardless of a parent's motivation. [...]

Military proselytizing and coercion: We seek to ensure that the men and women who risk their lives to protect American values, including freedom of conscience, are respected at all levels of the U.S. military. No service members should ever be coerced into religious participation, subjected to proselytizing, or discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. [...]

Fixing faith-based initiatives: We seek to make certain that religious organizations receiving federal funding for social welfare programs cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion; that program beneficiaries are never subject to proselytizing; and that secular options are made equally available to those in need. [...]

Still, that was apparently was enough to generate outrage among the usual suspects:

Silberman wrote:
In response to the news that we would meet at the White House, the advocacy group called In God We Trust ripped the Obama administration "for meeting to plot political strategy with 60 atheist activists."[...]

Then Sean Hannity claimed on Fox News that the Obama administration is giving special treatment to atheists, and that religious groups "have not received this treatment from the Obama White House." I suppose in Hannity's America a two-hour meeting with Secular Americans is "special treatment." But a recent two-day meeting sponsored by the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, with more than 60 religious leaders gathered at the White House, was not special.[...]

The headline in a press release from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights stated, "Obama Aides Host Catholic Bashers." Catholic League president Bill Donohue referred to representatives of the Secular Coalition for America as "some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation," and that many of us "would crush Christianity" if we could.[...]

Here's the whole post.

It appears then, that littlek's cranky reply to Pemerson was astute: We are poisonous politically.
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:28 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
We are poisonous politically.


Surely you are not surprised to learn that?
Thomas
 
  1  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:30 pm
@Setanta,
Darwin, no!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:31 pm
During his 1988 election campaign, Pappy Bush was confronted by one of those militant type of alleged atheists, demanding to know if he had said that atheists should not be allowed to vote. Bush confirmed he had said just that, jutting his chin out with a smug smile . . . and was cheered by the crowd.
Thomas
 
  2  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:45 pm
@Setanta,
And it's not just Bush. Several state constitutions reserve the right to take away atheists' rights to be voted for. For example, here's a gem from the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights.

Quote:
Section 4.
No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

Source

I'm sure they no longer exercise the option to disqualify those who deny "the being of a god and a future state of rewards and punishments". But they haven't struck it from their constitutions, either.
JPB
 
  2  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:47 pm
@Thomas,
doesn't that say just the opposite? That a believer can't be disqualified from holding an office?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:23 pm
Gotta agree with jpb.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Thu 11 Mar, 2010 08:05 pm
@JPB,
A believer can't be disqualified, but a disbeliever can. Pennsylvania's constitution could have just said: "No person shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified ...." But no -- they restricted it to persons who acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments. The only way this language makes sense is as an option to disqualify you if you don't acknowledge the being of a god or a future state of rewards and punishments.

Notice that you as a Unitarian could be disqualified because Unitarians don't believe in hell or any other future state of punishment. (Correct?)
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 45
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 09:11:23