Author
|
Topic: Dawkins: The future looks bright (Read 1407 times) |
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.54
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
  
|
 |
Dawkins: The future looks bright
« on: 2003-06-22 06:17:40 » |
 |
Somewhat ambivalent about this...
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. Richard Dawkins welcomes an attempt to raise consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations
Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian
I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.
I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class- room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.
The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.
I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out "In God we Trust" on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.
My favourite consciousness-raising effort is one I have men tioned many times before (and I make no apology, for consciousness- raising is all about repetition). A phrase like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear "one man one vote". Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents'. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?
Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level. Occasionally a euphemism is needed, and I suggest "Child of Jewish (etc) parents". When you come down to it, that's all we are really talking about anyway. Just as the upside-down (northern hemisphere chauvinism again: flinch!) map from New Zealand raises consciousness about a geographical truth, children should hear themselves described not as "Christian children" but as "children of Christian parents". This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means "same beliefs as parents". I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.
Please go out and work at raising people's consciousness over the words they use to describe children. At a dinner party, say, if ever you hear a person speak of a school for Islamic children, or Catholic children (you can read such phrases daily in newspapers), pounce: "How dare you? You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?" With luck, everybody at the dinner party, next time they hear one of those offensive phrases, will flinch, or at least notice and the meme will spread.
A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").
Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.
Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The webside http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights. Look on the bright side: though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress must be full of closet brights. As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so. People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright.
Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
"You mean a bright is an atheist?"
"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"
"What would you suggest?"
Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.
· You can sign on as a bright at http://www.the-brights.net/ Richard Dawkins FRS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. His latest book is A Devil's Chaplain .
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright
« Reply #1 on: 2003-06-22 14:31:40 » |
|
Interesting idea. There are a two rather large, but not insurmountable, difficulties and one small one that I see with it.
Cats are positively herdable compared to atheists - who simply don't believe (put faith in) gods, possibly because atheism (including all the finer shadings) is not a positive attribute, but a negative one. Just as many people who are not pugalists (boxers), don't identify themselves as "not-boxers", few atheists identify themselves as "not-theists". It simply isn't important enough to "not-boxers" or indeed atheists for this to form part of their definition of themselves. This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon.
Even though blatantly fallacious, an underlying premis held by most Americans is that "Morals come from God", which means that atheists are regarded as immoral, untrustworthy and dangerous (and given that atheists insist upon thinking out their own ethics, the last may not be particularly incorrect). This may go a long way towards explaining why atheists used to be, and listening to Dubya's rhetoric, possibly still are, the most disliked and least trusted group in the USA. This social pressure goes a long way to explaining why atheists, even while vastly outnumbering homosexuals, have remained lurking in their closets while homosexuals have emerged from theirs. Given the current resurgence of McCarthyism in the USA (including attempts by some Neocons to vindicate McCarthy himself, refer e.g. http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6174), perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing.
The small difficulty is that I cannot completely forgive the homosexual community for expropriating a word, "gay", for which there is no complete equivalent in the English language, and thus am somewhat reluctant to attempt the same trick myself.
Nevertheless, the initiative appears a worthwhile one, and I will be interested to see how much support it obtains. Certainly if it catches on, it will provide a post hoc explanation for #radiance.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright
« Reply #2 on: 2003-06-22 15:57:48 » |
|
The bipedal decapod Hermit crab, with a freshly co-opted and obviously comfortable, slightly used, new hard shell suns himself today and reminds us all(sic) of the old Hermit we love.
KIND Regards,
Walter
Hermit wrote:
> Interesting idea. There are a two rather large, but not insurmountable, difficulties and one small one that I see with it.
>
> Cats are positively herdable compared to atheists - who simply don't believe (put faith in) gods, possibly because atheism (including all the finer shadings) is not a positive attribute, but a negative one. Just as many people who are not pugalists (boxers), don't identify themselves as "not-boxers", few atheists identify themselves as "not-theists". It simply isn't important enough to "not-boxers" or indeed atheists for this to form part of their definition of themselves. This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon.
>
> Even though blatantly fallacious, an underlying premis held by most Americans is that "Morals come from God", which means that atheists are regarded as immoral, untrustworthy and dangerous (and given that atheists insist upon thinking out their own ethics, the last may not be particularly incorrect). This may go a long way towards explaining why atheists used to be, and listening to Dubya's rhetoric, possibly still are, the most disliked and least trusted group in the USA. This social pressure goes a long way to explaining why atheists, even while vastly outnumbering homosexuals, have remained lurking in their closets while homosexuals have emerged from theirs. Given the current resurgence of McCarthyism in the USA (including attempts by some Neocons to vindicate McCarthy himself, refer e.g. http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6174), perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing.
>
> The small difficulty is that I cannot completely forgive the homosexual community for expropriating a word, "gay", for which there is no complete equivalent in the English language, and thus am somewhat reluctant to attempt the same trick myself.
>
> Nevertheless, the initiative appears a worthwhile one, and I will be interested to see how much support it obtains. Certainly if it catches on, it will provide a post hoc explanation for #radiance.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Hermit
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28745>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.54
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright
« Reply #3 on: 2003-06-23 06:23:07 » |
|
Quote:| "This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon." |
Agreed. Memetic success largely depends on the extent to which the label fits. The parallel to gay rights, which Dawkins largely elides is instructive in the sense that there was no consensus as to whether gay or queer was preferred as a term. The risk is that an umbrella term that can reach consensus is likely to be rather mediocre (and in truth, bright is a bit twee), whereas something more creative is less likely to gain consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright
« Reply #4 on: 2003-06-23 09:48:44 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2003-06-22 14:31:40 Just as many people who are not pugalists (boxers), don't identify themselves as "not-boxers", few atheists identify themselves as "not-theists". It simply isn't important enough to "not-boxers" or indeed atheists for this to form part of their definition of themselves. This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon.
|
I bet if 90% of the world's population were boxers the rest would be inclined to label themselves (and be labelled by others) as non-boxers. Your analogy doesn't hold.
Quote:Even though blatantly fallacious, an underlying premis held by most Americans is that "Morals come from God", which means that atheists are regarded as immoral, untrustworthy and dangerous (and given that atheists insist upon thinking out their own ethics, the last may not be particularly incorrect).
|
Atheists insist on thinking out their own ethics? And that makes them dangerous? I don't agree with either assertion.
Quote:This social pressure goes a long way to explaining why atheists, even while vastly outnumbering homosexuals, have remained lurking in their closets while homosexuals have emerged from theirs.
|
Where do you get the idea that atheists vastly outnumber homosexuals?
Where do you get the idea that atheists are discriminated against more than homosexuals? Are there laws preventing atheists from getting married? Are there laws preventing atheists from adopting children? Do atheists get beat up on the street for being atheists? What planet are you from?
BTW, I host the http://www.celebatheists.com site on lucifer.com. It is really unfortunate that is was mispelled in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Dawkins: The future looks bright
« Reply #5 on: 2003-06-23 18:54:29 » |
|
[Kharin 1]
[Hermit 2]
[Walter Watts 3]
[Kharin 4]
[Lucifer 5]
[Hermit 6]
[Hermit 2] Just as many people who are not pugalists (boxers), don't identify themselves as "not-boxers", few atheists identify themselves as "not-theists". It simply isn't important enough to "not-boxers" or indeed atheists for this to form part of their definition of themselves. This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon.
[Lucifer 5] I bet if 90% of the world's population were boxers the rest would be inclined to label themselves (and be labelled by others) as non-boxers. Your analogy doesn't hold.
[Hermit 6] But are 90% of the world's population theists? I don't know where you get your data from, some sources would be good, as mine reflect a very different situation. Religion is not all that vitally important to most of the world. http://www.gallup-international.com/survey18.htm The Gallup International Millennium Survey ainterviewed 57,000 adults in 60 different countries of the world between August and October, 1999, representing 1.25 billion of the planet's inhabitants. The survey covered a wide range of topics of an ethical, political and religious nature, focusing specifically on issues close to people's emocracy, the United Nations, Human Rights, Women's Rights, the Environment, Religion Crimbasic values, particularly those which will have an impact on the new Millennium. Issues such as De, and "What Matters Most in Life" were included.... The most popular answers to what matters least (in a forced choice question) are almost as consensual globally as we saw in the high ranking of family and health. If we do have to choose something that matters less, we choose to give up on being faithful to my religion and to have a good standard of living. The population in 48 of the 60 countries mention being faithful to my religion as one of the two least important things in life.
[Hermit 6] Yet if we take religion as being important, according to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (and noting that, "The adherent counts presented in the list above are estimates of the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion. Levels of participation vary within all groups. These numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates.") there are approximately:# Christianity: 2 billion
# Islam: 1.3 billion
# Hinduism: 900 million
# Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million
# Buddhism: 360 million
# Chinese traditional religion: 225 million
# primal-indigenous: 150 million
# African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million
# Sikhism: 23 million
# Juche: 19 million
# Spiritism: 14 million
# Judaism: 14 million
# Baha'i: 6 million
# Jainism: 4 million
# Shinto: 4 million
# Cao Dai: 3 million
# Tenrikyo: 2.4 million
# Neo-Paganism: 1 million
# Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
# Rastafarianism: 700 thousand
# Scientology: 600 thousand
# Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand [Hermit 6] It should be noted that this indicates that "Christianity" makes up about 1/3 of the world population - And atheists make up ulmost 1/6. Leaving theists far from having 90%. Yet even this is a mischaracterization. According to http://www.ywam.org/books/wce.htm there are 33,800 Christian denominations, and if we examine just the major divisions, we find http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html:Catholic 1,050,000,000
Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000
African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000
Pentecostal 105,000,000
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000
Anglican 73,000,000
Baptist 70,000,000
Methodist 70,000,000
Lutheran 64,000,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000
Adventist 12,000,000
Latter Day Saints 11,500,000
Apostolic/New Apostolic 10,000,000
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement") 5,400,000
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.) 1,500,000
Brethren (incl. Plymouth) 1,500,000
Mennonite 1,250,000
Friends (Quakers) 300,000 [Hermit 6] Where we see that the major group, the Catholics, makes up only around 1/6 of the world population (and even within that group there are a vast number of mutually disagreeing divisions). So, speaking globally, 90% appears to be an imaginary figment. Particularly when we recognize that atheists make up a very significant number in relation to any deaggregated grouping.
[Hermit 6] Looking specifically at the United States, and drawing from http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index.htm (ARIS: The largest, most comprehensive surveys on religious identification were done in sociologists Barry A. Kosmin, Seymour P. Lachman and associates at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. Their first major study was done in 1990: the National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI). This scientific nationwide survey of 113,000 Americans asked about religious preference, along with other questions. They followed this up, with even more sophisticated methodology and more questions, with the American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS) conducted in 2001, with a sample size of 50,000 Americans.) At http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm they reflect that in 1990, 14.331, 000 (or 8.2% of the US population) identified itself as "no religion specified" (includes atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular and no religion). By 2001, this had risen to 29,481,000 or 14.1% of the US population and forming a larger group than any Christian denomination with the exception of Catholics and Baptists, and only slightly smaller than the Baptists (at 34 million or 16.3% of the population).
[Hermit 6] Here are the actual data:
[Hermit 6] So even if we look just at the US, and even if we pretend that the "over 100" identified religious groupings in the US are all Christian, which is of course not true, then 90% is still a reach. In fact, the same page reports that self-identified "Christians" of all denominations, by 2001 made up only 76.5% of the US population (down from 86.2% in 1990).
[Hermit 6] Pictures being worth a million words, here it is reflected graphically:
[Hermit 6] Even more interesting is that this is a growing trend, as seen when examining the above by age group:
 .
[Hermit 6] An additional factor, not taken into account here, is that people lie about their degree of religious affiliation and church affiliation. Refer http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church1.htm where they say, "That figure may well be inflated, though, suggests new research, including a study reported recently in the Washington Post. Conducted by sociologist Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland and research assistant Linda Stinson of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it indicates that a more accurate assessment of church attendance data shows only 26% of Americans regularly attending church -- a drop from the 42% reported in 1965." This data suggests that the number of "non-religious" may well be even higher than reported, particularly when we examine how organizations such as Barna classify the non-religious.
<Hermit: Order swapped>
[Hermit 2] This social pressure goes a long way to explaining why atheists, even while vastly outnumbering homosexuals, have remained lurking in their closets while homosexuals have emerged from theirs.
[Lucifer 5] Where do you get the idea that atheists vastly outnumber homosexuals?
[Hermit 6] Well, as we have seen above, atheists (those having no belief in gods and thus encompassing the "no religion" groups) make up 29,481,000 or 14.1% of the US population. Meanwhile, self identified Gay/Lesbians in the US comprised 4,960,000 (1.8% of the population) (Sources: Quoting http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html Which cites: Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1995), pg. 102-103. [Original sources: P. Painton, "The Shrinking Ten Percent, " Time, April 26, 1993, pp. 27-29; P. Rogers, "How Many Gays Are There? " Newsweek, February 15, 1993, pg. 46; A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy & C.E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1948); J. H. Court & J. G. Muir, eds., Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House, 1990); T. W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS, " Planning Perspectives 23 (May/June 1991): 102-7. See p. 104, table 2. Smith is director of the General Social Survey Project at the NORC (University of Chicago).]) It seems to me that 29.5 million is 24.5 million more than 5 million, so I conclude my initial statement was correct.
[Hermit 6] Refer also http://www.atheists.org/comingout/othercloset.html
[Lucifer 5] Where do you get the idea that atheists are discriminated against more than homosexuals? Are there laws preventing atheists from getting married? Are there laws preventing atheists from adopting children? Do atheists get beat up on the street for being atheists? What planet are you from?
[Hermit 6] Refer e.g. http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm
[Hermit 6] In 1995, of all Americans (85% or so Christian) only 13% saw atheism favorably. Of the "born again" 92% saw the impact of atheism as unfavorable, while even amongst the "unchurched", 50% saw atheism as having a negative impact. The Barna research reflected that 92% of respondents would not vote for an atheist.
[Hermit 6] A similar poll, run by Gallup in 1999, asked, "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" where ""X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman. The number of unbiased votes (i.e. would vote for an "X") as a percentage was (ordered from most to least discriminated against):Atheist 49%
Homosexual 59%
Woman 92% | Jewish 92%
Baptist 94% | Catholic 94%
Black 95%
Mormon 99% [Hermit 6] This indicates that homosexuals are 10% less likely to be discriminated against than atheists, despite there being many more atheists than homosexuals. This is further substantiated by the following comments from the Summary [supra]:Prejudice against homosexuals has dropped significantly in the past two decades.
Prejudice against Atheists has dropped slightly, but remains very high. [Hermit 6] For more "joy" refer e.g. http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml
[Hermit 6] Discrimination need not be legislated, and I have unrelated disagreements with your choice of examples e.g. which is worse, for some small percentage of homosexuals to be violently assaulted for their orientation, or for millions of atheists to have to put up with a continuous bombardment of religious propaganda, some of it funded by their taxes? I don't know how one would quantify such invidious options in order to compare them, so I won't deal with them here unless you can propose an appropriate methodology.
[Hermit 6] And yes, I am from Earth. Tell me, have you stopped beating up women without an invitation yet?
[Hermit 2] Even though blatantly fallacious, an underlying premis held by most Americans is that "Morals come from God", which means that atheists are regarded as immoral, untrustworthy and dangerous (and given that atheists insist upon thinking out their own ethics, the last may not be particularly incorrect).
[Lucifer 5] Atheists insist on thinking out their own ethics? And that makes them dangerous? I don't agree with either assertion.
[Hermit 6] Notice that I was speaking to ethics (which are, by definition, considered) as opposed to "morality" which is always inherited. As atheists cannot claim that ethics were handed out by gods, this means that, in so far as they consider ethics, they have to "think them out for themselves". A thinking position is always dangerous to an unthinking position is it not.
[Hermit 6] However, I would appreciate it if you would expand on your reasons for disagreeing, such that I can evaluate them more fully.
[Hermit 6] For those interested, this response is an example of replying to a challenge to "facts", wherein I defend my initial assertions which presented "facts" based on previous articles posted to the CoV.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
