| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2011 03:22:23 AM · #876 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Question for the fellow atheists: How many of you refer to yourselves as "skeptics" and/or identify with the "skeptical movement"?] |
Part of my reason for identifying myself as an agnostic is not having to say I follow any movement. Skeptics should no more be able to form movements than anarchists. But it might be fun to read the minuets of their meetings. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 05:06:35 AM · #877 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
CYNIC, n. Someone who looks both ways when crossing a one-way street. |
Hmmmmmmmmm I will assume you have never been run over by a bicyclist that just happens to be against the grain huh. Then he started giving me shit for not looking out.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 11:52:23 AM · #878 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
CYNIC, n. Someone who looks both ways when crossing a one-way street.
-A Dictionary of Wit, Wisdom, and Satire, Herbert V. Prochnow and Herbert V. Prochnow, Jr.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce |
My operating (self)definition of a cynic is an idealist mugged by reality. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 11:52:57 AM · #879 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
CYNIC, n. Someone who looks both ways when crossing a one-way street.
-A Dictionary of Wit, Wisdom, and Satire, Herbert V. Prochnow and Herbert V. Prochnow, Jr.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce |
My operating (self)definition of a cynic is an idealist mugged by reality. |
That sounds like me as well. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 11:56:50 AM · #880 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Question for the fellow atheists: How many of you refer to yourselves as "skeptics" and/or identify with the "skeptical movement"?] |
Part of my reason for identifying myself as an agnostic is not having to say I follow any movement. Skeptics should no more be able to form movements than anarchists. But it might be fun to read the minuets of their meetings. |
I'm not sure I follow why skeptics should be inherently unable to band together (as would be the case on the surface for anarchists), but I share your aversion to identification to movements. My own approach to knowledge is very much in the vein of scientific skepticism, but the problem with movements is that they tend to breed dogma and conformance to ideology rather than evidence, which is very contrary to skepticism. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 12:06:50 PM · #881 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Question for the fellow atheists: How many of you refer to yourselves as "skeptics" and/or identify with the "skeptical movement"?] |
Part of my reason for identifying myself as an agnostic is not having to say I follow any movement. Skeptics should no more be able to form movements than anarchists. But it might be fun to read the minuets of their meetings. |
I'm not sure I follow why skeptics should be inherently unable to band together (as would be the case on the surface for anarchists), but I share your aversion to identification to movements. My own approach to knowledge is very much in the vein of scientific skepticism, but the problem with movements is that they tend to breed dogma and conformance to ideology rather than evidence, which is very contrary to skepticism. |
This is funny. Just last night I was listening to a comedian do a bit on a group of Misanthropists trying to form a club. "Hey, are you going to be there?" "yes" "Well then I'm not! *#%* You! I hate you!"
LOL. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 12:16:05 PM · #882 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I'm not sure I follow why skeptics should be inherently unable to band together (as would be the case on the surface for anarchists), but I share your aversion to identification to movements. My own approach to knowledge is very much in the vein of scientific skepticism, but the problem with movements is that they tend to breed dogma and conformance to ideology rather than evidence, which is very contrary to skepticism. |
We agree again. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 02:18:55 PM · #883 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I'm not sure I follow why skeptics should be inherently unable to band together |
My imagined minuets of the meeting.
Skeptic one;Skeptic̢۪s meeting is now called to order.
Skeptic two:Why now? And who are you to make such decisions?
Skeptic one: Well I was elected president at the vote last meeting.
Skeptic two:Well I certainly didn̢۪t see those votes counted. How do we know you got voted in. I for one did not vote for you and I have questions about the legitnacy of the election.
Skeptic one :Well the committee went through the ballots and posted the results for all to see.
Skeptic two: Yes I saw those posted but notice the high correlation between the committee and the people who claim to have won the election, I demand a recount with a different procedure which is more transparent than a select group closeting them selves with the ballots and pronouncing the winner in some sort of star chambers double secret hidden identity cabal.
Skeptic one ; I suspect your motives in challenging the election
ect. ad nauseum
|
|
|
|
04/01/2011 02:28:49 PM · #884 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
CYNIC, n. Someone who looks both ways when crossing a one-way street. |
Hmmmmmmmmm I will assume you have never been run over by a bicyclist that just happens to be against the grain huh. Then he started giving me shit for not looking out.
Ray |
One day I walked from where I worked to my bank in downtown Berkeley, a matter of some 10-12 blocks or so, during which I saw three different cars driving thewrong way on a one-way street. As the second definition suggests, a cynic is someone who sees things as they are (people are idiots) rather than as they should be (anyone with a driver's license should be able to read a traffic sign).
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Skeptics should no more be able to form movements than anarchists. But it might be fun to read the minuets of their meetings. |
You (as do most people) completely misunderstand the nature of political anarchism. Read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for a description of how communities were able to make an anarchist society "work" even in the face of military opposition (during the Spanish Civil War).
I'm not sure about reading, but dancing to an anarchist minuet could indeed be interesting ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2011-04-01 14:29:29. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 03:11:10 PM · #885 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You (as do most people) completely misunderstand the nature of political anarchism. Read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for a description of how communities were able to make an anarchist society "work" even in the face of military opposition (during the Spanish Civil War). |
I read Homage to Catalonia long ago, a lovely read. Orwell writes with beauty and passion. However if a segment (the anarchists were a minority of the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War) of a failed resistance to a dictator, which lasted three years is the best evidence of how well an anarchistic government functions..........it sort of makes the case against it. Of course the May Days in which the Communists and the Anarchists in theory united against Franco, turned their guns on each other seems to imply that Anarchists will find military oppression where ever they can, even among their allies. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 03:55:59 PM · #886 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
However if a segment (the anarchists were a minority of the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War) of a failed resistance to a dictator, which lasted three years is the best evidence of how well an anarchistic government functions..........it sort of makes the case against it. |
No, it doesn't. They don't mind grouping together, they reject the need for hierarchical structure to the group. They lost. We lost. You lost. You're under the thumb. |
|
|
|
04/01/2011 04:52:08 PM · #887 |
Originally posted by raish:
No, it doesn't. They don't mind grouping together, they reject the need for hierarchical structure to the group. They lost. We lost. You lost. You're under the thumb. |
Uh hun. Right. They reject hierarchy. You might as well reject the color green. Hierarchy exists. In nature, and in any group of creatures. We might wish to go back to the garden, but we can't seem to find the way back home. Since we started off with "Homage to Catalonia" read what Orwell had to say a few years after Spain in "Animal Farm". Of course we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
The statement was made that an anarchistic society had "worked". A society where all were equals. Like Shangri la and Brigadoon, it might be pretty to think it ever existed, but none ever has, not as a sustained exemplar of a self perpetuating society. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a practice.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2011 05:09:47 PM · #888 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by raish:
No, it doesn't. They don't mind grouping together, they reject the need for hierarchical structure to the group. They lost. We lost. You lost. You're under the thumb. |
Uh hun. Right. They reject hierarchy. You might as well reject the color green. Hierarchy exists. In nature, and in any group of creatures. We might wish to go back to the garden, but we can't seem to find the way back home. Since we started off with "Homage to Catalonia" read what Orwell had to say a few years after Spain in "Animal Farm". Of course we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
The statement was made that an anarchistic society had "worked". A society where all were equals. Like Shangri la and Brigadoon, it might be pretty to think it ever existed, but none ever has, not as a sustained exemplar of a self perpetuating society. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a practice. |
Which is an interesting question. If it's never worked, why do we strive to achieve it? A society of complete equals will survive only until the moment there is disagreement. Then no mechanism exists to adjudicate the dispute. Or, if a solution is found, no mechanism exists to enforce it.
Message edited by author 2011-04-01 17:10:20. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 09:04:48 AM · #889 |
From today's Austin American Statesman:
"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On questions of morality and human decency — issues such as government use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious." |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 11:42:09 AM · #890 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
From today's Austin American Statesman:
"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On questions of morality and human decency — issues such as government use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious." |
I saw that article on Google news. First, it's an op-ed piece, so please take it with a grain of salt. It included such great lines as "stereotypes are never true". Anyway, this quote caught my eye as well, but for a completely different reason. What do you think the author means by "more ethical"? |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 12:57:05 PM · #891 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On questions of morality and human decency — issues such as government use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious." |
... What do you think the author means by "more ethical"? [/quote]
That they're against governement torture, corporal punishment, try to avoid acting in ways considered recist, sexist, homophobic or anti-Semitic, believe we should preserve the environment for our descendants, and that all humans have basic rights.
What the h*** did you think was meant ...? |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 01:22:45 PM · #892 |
I think that's exactly what was meant, but hardly think this is "more" ethical, especially from the viewpoint of "social science research". I will bet my last dollar that no self-respecting study worth anything would ever use that term. They would merely note the differences such as, (this is a hypothetical quote) "The most religious quartile of subjects were statistically more likely to support capital punishment (p<0.01) than the least religious quartile." They would never, ever, ever conclude this meant that one group was "more ethical" than the other.
Sounding like a broken record, but isn't it self-evident that the author merely means the less religious agree with his position on these matters and that makes them "more ethical"? And wouldn't that obviously be the case since the author is, obviously, non-religious?
EDIT: Fix typo
Message edited by author 2011-05-04 13:32:14. |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 02:04:09 PM · #893 |
| Well, it could also mean "most in accord with the most modern philosophical analyses and 'advanced' social mores" ("most moral"?) ... I don't know if that's any better ... |
|
|
|
05/04/2011 02:34:27 PM · #894 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, it could also mean "most in accord with the most modern philosophical analyses and 'advanced' social mores" ("most moral"?) ... I don't know if that's any better ... |
Not from a research point of view.
But what are you using as your "gold standard" for "advanced social mores"?
At the end, it was a sloppily written op-ed piece which is easily dismanted when examined. I'm not implying that the opposite position should then be taken, but it's just something to be ignored. Chaff. Hot air. Fluff.
Like I said, the quote Shamrock posted was the first red flag on the piece, the second was the quip about stereotypes. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 02:08:33 PM · #895 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
From today's Austin American Statesman:
"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On questions of morality and human decency — issues such as government use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious." |
Maybe best to post a link to the article.
Paul & Zuckerman: Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
People can read it themselves and make their own conclusions.
It uses the attendance of churches in Louisiana and Mississippi having higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon. Maybe they should look at the economic factors instead.
edit:
Originally posted by from the article:
Paul is an independent researcher in sociology and evolution. Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College, wrote ‘Society Without God.' |
Phil Zuckerman, PhD Professor of Sociology
Not certain what expertise in altruistic deviance is.
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 14:21:54. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 02:32:37 PM · #896 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, it could also mean "most in accord with the most modern philosophical analyses and 'advanced' social mores" ("most moral"?) ... I don't know if that's any better ... |
Not from a research point of view.
But what are you using as your "gold standard" for "advanced social mores"?
At the end, it was a sloppily written op-ed piece which is easily dismanted when examined. I'm not implying that the opposite position should then be taken, but it's just something to be ignored. Chaff. Hot air. Fluff.
Like I said, the quote Shamrock posted was the first red flag on the piece, the second was the quip about stereotypes. |
Perhaps by "ethical" they mean actually acting in accord with our stated principles and values (freedom, equality, all that stuff most of us want for ourselves but maybe not for "them), as compared with the more hypocritical actions of some of those most vociferously espousing those values (Rush, various televangelists and politicians, etc.), all the while themselves violating those values and principles deliberately and repeatedly.
We are at the anniversary of the Freedom Riders summer ... were those who attacked them and tried to maintain legal segregation really acting in accordance with either Christian values or those embedded in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Do you think Jesus would have firebombed a Black church? It seems to me that the opportunities for hypocrisy are far more plentiful for the orthodox religious than for secular humanists ...
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 14:33:59. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 03:29:18 PM · #897 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It seems to me that the opportunities for hypocrisy are far more plentiful for the orthodox religious than for secular humanists |
Correct. There are no set boundaries for secular humanists, so there's nothing for them to be hypocritical with.
Orthodox religious have policies to act against and be judged by. The world knows when the religious orthodox are acting against their guidelines. Do we know the same for secular humanists? |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 03:41:24 PM · #898 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It seems to me that the opportunities for hypocrisy are far more plentiful for the orthodox religious than for secular humanists |
Correct. There are no set boundaries for secular humanists, so there's nothing for them to be hypocritical with. |
This is BS: there may be no common rulebook for all atheists, but "all" atheists have rules and boundaries, the vast majority in complete accord with those of "mainstream" western society. WTF do you think that article, however poorly-phrased you find it, was saying? I think atheists are as or more likely to treat their fellow humans like Jesus would as Christians ... |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 03:56:21 PM · #899 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Correct. There are no set boundaries for secular humanists, so there's nothing for them to be hypocritical with. |
Humanists use the boundaries of human experience as their guide. When they make an assertion, they are expected to back it up with proof, proof from concrete experience, with examples and provable analysis. Given that humanist can not fall back on a book of rules written by a long dead hero as an unerring life guide, we have to soldier on just using reality. To the mystic, reality has no boundaries, to the humanist, it certainly does. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 04:37:29 PM · #900 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It seems to me that the opportunities for hypocrisy are far more plentiful for the orthodox religious than for secular humanists |
Correct. There are no set boundaries for secular humanists, so there's nothing for them to be hypocritical with. |
This is BS: there may be no common rulebook for all atheists, but "all" atheists have rules and boundaries, the vast majority in complete accord with those of "mainstream" western society. |
Sorry, I forgot about natural law. We can all agree it's bad to murder another person. |
|
