Atheism, Agnosticism, Politics and Religion

truth
Lola, thank you. Words from my heart and mind. The NeoCom program is so sinister, so evil and dangerous for the lives of most Americans that it MUST be stopped. I'm giving most of my discretionary money to that end.

JLN, That's exactly my point; we get involved with organizations that best meets our personal needs that may have the most political impact for the buck. I'm not a democrat (registered independent), but it's more likely than not that for the next election, the candidate that I vote for will be a democrat. I really don't belong to any organization; but I believe in the works of some charities like Habitat for Humanities and Second Harvest Food Bank. I am now currently a volunteer with the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, and feel I contribute to my civil duties in that capacity.

truth
Oh how I miss the Conservatives. I remember when I, as a "progressive," worked to move the nation foward, against the Conservatives' resistance to change (which is what is meant by Conservative). Now, I want to retain the gains made since Teddy Roosevelt and after the Depression against their destruction. This struggle is not against Conservatives; it's against the radical right, the ideological NeoComs who want to drag the nation back to the time before taxes, welfare programs, government regulation, indeed back to the time of minimal government. We must understand that while big government, like big business and big labor, must be constrained by each other (not to mention government's balance of powers), to cripple the federal level of government in order to leave most problems to the states and smaller localities is to promote the powers of these areas to tyranize their populations. Power brokers on the state and regional levels are constrained by national bodies that can see most issues from a larger, more disinterested and non-parochial, perspective. This frustrates the Huey Longs of America.

I think the "secularists" (not a bad term at all -- I dislike both atheist and agnostic because they imply the actuality of a god which we are against!) are much much more prevalent than do most here. Many "go to church" -- Quakers and Unitarian Universalists certainly attract non-believers who want community and social safety-net as well as a non-Christian spiritual experience. They shut up about what they believe. They are member of famlies of believers who go along to get along. If there were not so much social pressure to be a member of a church, I betcha the number would be much closer to 50%. I also betcha that as many as 2% of priests and ministers are non-believers.

A strong federal government ended slavery, gave people who were not allowed to vote the vote (women, black Americans), mandated a certain safety net for all parts of the nation, etc. It put a halt to lynching of black citizens for no reason at all. As has already been pointed out, every gain of the twentieth Century is in danger of being slaughtered like the buffalo. All the power and influence will soon be held by the insiders of business and government (which includes the military). Only an informed vote can change any of this. Here in Texas, most folks I know do not pay attention to the news, but they are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush administration.
Frankly, I am not optimistic about the state of our union.

Actually, Edgar, almost all of those things you credit the government with were fought for, tooth and nail and for years, by citizens pressuring the government, against all odds.

Of course, the feds fought it for generations. Then they moved beyond the commitment level of the individual states. Once committed, they did the right thing - even sent in the National Guard. Without it we would still be living in the 30s.

What a great thread. I read the article in the Times, and it occurred to me to start a thread on this subject. Glad I did a little research and found this one was already here! Cool.

I don't care so much about the name Brights, though I agree that it will be easy for True Believers to deride it. Here's my question, though:

When, if ever, will Americans be ready to vote for an atheist or agnostic for President? Not time soon, I'll betcha. Instead we have everyone from Clinton to Bush dutifully trotting off to the church of their choice, reassuring us that they're god-fearing men. It's to laugh when we see what some of them get up to the rest of the time...

It is very hard for me to accept the sincerety of the religious convictions of such men.

My guess: We've already had agnostics presidents -- and probably a few atheistic ones also.

I'm sure you meant "acknowledged agnostic or atheist."

True, Frank.

I have been out of town or otherwise busy, but I am so glad that I posted this article. The responses are wonderful. And how could they not be, coming as they did from such sentient minds?

Seriously, I am also not a joiner, but signed up on the website as a measure of support. I certainly will not be active. I have been a registered independent (until I couldn't vote in the primaries in Connecticut), dallied briefly at teaching "sunday school" at a Universalist church. Even in areas where I have a strong interest, such as the Master Gardener program, I am essentially 'not there'.

I have a strong suspicion and distaste for "true believers" of any and all persuasion. Perhaps the best we can hope to accomplish, by our actions and words, is to help instill doubt, questioning, going beyond the conventional assumptions. Believers, I think, might have a low threshold for ambiguity, grayness, not knowingness, so their minds feel compelled to go to a "position". If people could be helped to be more comfortable with those aspects within their brains (which I do strongly believe mirror reality), then a service will have been done.

In the political arenas, I am scared to death, and do believe that a more effective way of fighting back the current, dominant world-view must be achieved.

Obviously, this movement is not the answer. But it could be a part, just one part, of the solution. But so much more will be necessary, IMHO (not so humble, actually).

As an interested British observer I think a movement committed to illuminating the darkness caused by the "religion virus" (Dawkins) could correctly be called "bright"and wish it well. I would distinguish however between "religions" - sets of manmade divisive group dogma and "personal spirituality" - an attempt to break out of the limits of normal perception and cognition. I think even atheists such as myself need some sort of hope that all is not materialistic, but we are bright enough (!) to work out that most "truths" are negotiable, and there is no such thing as "ultimate truth".

Good point, fresco, re religion and spirituality (if that's the right word). Are the brights against all spirituality, viewing it as not naturalistic? While I subscribe to no religion, I do feel drawn to some vague sense of spirituality at times...

I may have something in common with the transcendentalists, come to think of it.

truth
Sumac: "...a strong suspicion and distaste for 'true believers' of any and all persuasion."

Fresco: "...most 'truths' are negotiable, and there is no such thing as 'ultimate truth.'"

Just how do you know there is no such thing as an "Ultimate Truth?"

hold on! you're all going to go for a ride, and its gonna get dizzy!

Come on now Frank, we've been round this one before. What YOU mean by "know" is relative to the word "fact" which leaves "truth" axiomatic. What I mean by "know" is "being in a position to predict a state of affairs". We differ on usage but it is that very difference which is antithetical to your axiom. This is the only way we avoid an example of Russells paradox e.g. "The only truth is that there is no truth".

Wait, everyone! The machine may be slowing...

...and realization that there is no "ultimate truth" is equivalent to saying that there is an infinite regress of observation positions and associated levels of "states of affairs"...