Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a good question. I'd suggest by an educated awareness that humanist ethics are in our interests as a species. Authority to enforce it could be through the systems that have evolved socially. It isn't perfect, but it's better than authority based on mythology.
Tzaph., If New Atheism has a mission statement, you are not high on the list of those who will be asked to write it.
New Atheism has only been vocal (and written) dissent from a pretty general acceptance of the claims of Theism. The implicit aim was to remove an undeserved respect for the pronouncements of religion and acceptance of the privileges it expects.
This is correct. People who support religion and are against new atheism speak out of both sides of their mouth. Their belief systems comes from a book. It is shared vocally. It has been enforced. There is a good reason to be concerned about another system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That's a good question. I'd suggest by an educated awareness that humanist ethics are in our interests as a species. Authority to enforce it could be through the systems that have evolved socially. It isn't perfect, but it's better than authority based on mythology.
"It's better" is a claim, one that I agree with, though. For what purpose? To bring in a new authority? Since that sounds too negative to me, I call it "an attempt to level the playing field."
Tzaph., If New Atheism has a mission statement, you are not high on the list of those who will be asked to write it.....
how curious. because often atheists on this board state they are the most qualified of all to state the purpose of religion. we see that in this thread "the only purpose of religion". "all religion does this" and yet you balk at and find distasteful the insights i offer, the idea that i can speak for what "New Atheism" is, its purpose, its agenda.
you make a valid point and it is my point too.
who is most qualified to say what "men are like" : the person who says "men are pigs" who does not see clearly due to the wounds they carry that cripple them. the person who says "men are wonderful"; the person who says "men have an agenda"; or perhaps the more accurate and logical and sensible and rational recognition that any blanket statement of "men are ____" falls waaaaaaay short because it is simplistic and ignorant to claim all men are this or that, just as it is to claim that all religion is this or that.
that's my point. it isn't.
and for a person or group or ideology to consistently claim to be more logical, more reasonable, more rational, this is one of the (very many examples) that it clearly isn't.
it also glaringly reveals the transparency of agenda and bias of the speaker.
when a sentence starts "the problem with black people is..." already we know a lot about the mindset of the person speaking it. often they have a racist mindset. that is an example of how it sounds.
talk about a behavior instead. then it becomes apparent the behavior is not specific to race.
same when people denigrate "religion does this" every time it shows up in these threads, two things are apparent: the behavior is also present in (guess what!) people who are not part of religion! and it has everything to do with a person placing themself on the spectrum of hate speech.
in short, it says more about the speaker and their mindset than anything else.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2019 at 07:22 AM..
how curious. because often atheists on this board state they are the most qualified of all to state the purpose of religion. we see that in this thread "the only purpose of religion". "all religion does this" and yet you balk at and find distasteful the insights i offer, the idea that i can speak for what New Atheism is, its purpose, its agenda.
who is most qualified to say what "men are like" : the person who says "men are pigs" who does not see clearly due to the wounds they carry that cripple them. the person who says "men are wonderful"; the person who says "men have an agenda"; or perhaps the more accurate and logical and sensible and rational recognition that any blanket statement of "men are ____" falls waaaaaaay short because it is simplistic to claim all men are this or that, as it is to claim that all religion is this or that.
that's my point. it isn't.
and for anyone to consistently claim to be more logical, more reasonable, more rational, this is one of the (very many examples) that it clearly isn't.
I don't think it's a question of being qualified. It's about being able to stand back and look at the bigger picture and more objectively.
How is it any different than when christians critique other world religions?
I don't think it's a question of being qualified. It's about being able to stand back and look at the bigger picture and more objectively....
what i'm saying is don't have a double standard.
if someone says "let me speak for myself i am part of the group" "you can't speak for me you have an agenda" "you are not objective because you are part of the group"
then that same standard needs to apply across the board.
objective is good. objectionable is not.
from the get go any statement about "religion does this" or "the sole purpose of religion is" or "the problem with religious people" immediately blares to the world "NOT objective" because (duh) all religion is not the same. all religious are not the same.
whereas if the person were to address a specific behavior they are concerned with, then there can be actual rational discussion and conversation. like grown ups. instead of children on the playground pointing the finger saying "he started it" "he does it too"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2019 at 07:41 AM..
how curious. because often atheists on this board state they are the most qualified of all to state the purpose of religion. we see that in this thread "the only purpose of religion". "all religion does this" and yet you balk at and find distasteful the insights i offer, the idea that i can speak for what "New Atheism" is, its purpose, its agenda.
you make a valid point and it is my point too.
who is most qualified to say what "men are like" : the person who says "men are pigs" who does not see clearly due to the wounds they carry that cripple them. the person who says "men are wonderful"; the person who says "men have an agenda"; or perhaps the more accurate and logical and sensible and rational recognition that any blanket statement of "men are ____" falls waaaaaaay short because it is simplistic and ignorant to claim all men are this or that, just as it is to claim that all religion is this or that.
that's my point. it isn't.
and for a person or group or ideology to consistently claim to be more logical, more reasonable, more rational, this is one of the (very many examples) that it clearly isn't.
it also glaringly reveals the transparency of agenda and bias of the speaker.
when a sentence starts "the problem with black people is..." already we know a lot about the mindset of the person speaking it. often they have a racist mindset. that is an example of how it sounds.
talk about a behavior instead. then it becomes apparent the behavior is not specific to race.
same when people denigrate "religion does this" every time it shows up in these threads, two things are apparent: the behavior is also present in (guess what!) people who are not part of religion! and it has everything to do with a person placing themself on the spectrum of hate speech.
in short, it says more about the speaker and their mindset than anything else.
It isn't quite the same thing, Tzaph. You and I are both free to say what in our view is the aims, methodology and motivation of the Other side. But what you did was provide a checklist that effectively put words in atheism's mouth and expect us to sign up to it (1). That's cheating.
(1) what is the purpose of New Atheism?
better yet fill in the blank "the sole purpose of New Atheism is _____ "
"the only thing New Atheism ever did is _______ "
"New Atheism has one and only one function, and that is to ________."
It isn't quite the same thing, Tzaph. You and I are both free to say what in our view is the aims, methodology and motivation of the Other side. But what you did was provide a checklist that effectively put words in atheism's mouth and expect us to sign up to it. That's cheating.
What i find remarkable is how so much of the apologetics is aimed at making atheists look unpleasant and unacceptable in their methods. How little of it is actually now about the claims of religion. I haven't had a Creationist or Ark -fancier show their mush for years. Only Baptist Fundy has (sine Pneuma) made an effort to argue for Gospel veracity (which, after all is what it's really all about and all that it's really all about. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then all the money they put into free Bibles..sorry i mean free rice..means absolutely nothing in the debate).
It isn't quite the same thing, Tzaph. You and I are both free to say what in our view is the aims, methodology and motivation of the Other side. But what you did was provide a checklist that effectively put words in atheism's mouth and expect us to sign up to it (1). That's cheating.
(1) what is the purpose of New Atheism?
better yet fill in the blank "the sole purpose of New Atheism is _____ " "the only thing New Atheism ever did is _______ "
"New Atheism has one and only one function, and that is to ________."
I took the exact words from a post in this thread (#303) to show how they sound.
and to hear what objections are raised. and why.
and comment on double standard, without having to even venture even out of this thread for "evidence"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2019 at 11:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
