Slothrop
Tight but Polite
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
Dawkins' Atheist Bus
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well he seems to care about ugly people, at any rate.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Hmm. Are you saying that someone who does not believe in god(s) [an atheist] can't possibly be a *real* atheist if s/he decides to get involved in down-and-dirty politics (albeit of the sad ad campaign sort)? There are many people who misinterpret Darwin's theory of natural selection and lend it a sort of teleological aura that it, I agree, should not have, and this damages the theory in public perception.
I suppose what I can't figure out is if you think atheism and Darwinism are positively correlated, because I don't think they are. I don't think Darwinism somehow obliterates thousands upon thousands of years of human need to believe in the Absolutist(s) in the Sky by virtue of its very rationality. In fact, this is clearly not the case--religious sentiment of every stripe seems to hang on seemingly regardless of the omnipotent rationality of Darwinism-as-atheism.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
No disrespect, Bassnation, but this is not at all what he's saying. It would be wonderful if there were some simple way to enjoy your life, and to those many who do, good for them, whatever.
His point seems to be that there's no reason for atheists to turn Darwinism against religious believers as just another alternate teleology (especially with the [obscene] suggestion that--like a Coca-Cola ad--you can only "Enjoy" life if you buy Darwinism in the "marketplace" of ideologies, where every complicated belief system is only ever reduced to its convenience as regards the superegoic injunction to enjoy.
Making Atheism-as-Darwinism subject to this sort of thing cancels out its rationality and makes it simply another belief system, with just as much or as little credibility as so-and-so's belief in gods.
Let me know if I'm way off, Waffle...
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Mr. Tea, if you are a modernist, I'm Caspar the Friendly Ghost.
And Waffle is not a "post-modernist," (if those even exist) either. Sorry but you don't really know what you're talking about here.
If anything I would say Waffle is a post-structuralist with Lacanian leanings, obvs.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well would you care to enlighten me as to what I am, since you seem to be the expert on my political and philosophical leanings?
If anything I would say Waffle is a post-structuralist with Lacanian leanings, obvs.
That's funny, I was getting more of a sophomoric schoolboy-nihilist feel from him myself. Assuming that's not just another way of saying the same thing...
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
And we're off--patly dismissing any idea we do not understand! Classic move on Dissensus.
Do I know as much about physics as you do? No. Because I am not in graduate school for physics. Chances are similar that I, because I spent 8 years studying it, know more about 20th century theory and philosophy than you do. This doesn't make me "better" than you, it simply makes me more informed about a certain topic. If you feel insulted by that, I can't possibly understand why.
Also, post-modernism is not a "philosophical" point-of-view, it's a theoretical one. And, as has been pointed out before on here in discussions you participated in, almost no one identifies as a "post-modernist"--it is mostly a derogatory and dismissive term used by opponents of moral relativism.
Would it not be more productive to try to understand what Waffle is saying before people fly off the handle about it? I mean come on we all know that willfully ignoring what someone's actually saying because it's outside your personal area of expertise is not a great intellectual strategy.
Can't we let Dissensus be somewhat more rational than most places? I think so...
Do I know as much about physics as you do? No. Because I am not in graduate school for physics. Chances are similar that I, because I spent 8 years studying it, know more about 20th century theory and philosophy than you do. This doesn't make me "better" than you, it simply makes me more informed about a certain topic. If you feel insulted by that, I can't possibly understand why.
Also, post-modernism is not a "philosophical" point-of-view, it's a theoretical one. And, as has been pointed out before on here in discussions you participated in, almost no one identifies as a "post-modernist"--it is mostly a derogatory and dismissive term used by opponents of moral relativism.
Would it not be more productive to try to understand what Waffle is saying before people fly off the handle about it? I mean come on we all know that willfully ignoring what someone's actually saying because it's outside your personal area of expertise is not a great intellectual strategy.
Can't we let Dissensus be somewhat more rational than most places? I think so...
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I'm afraid I have no idea how "nihilism" relates to any of this...
vimothy
yurp
I think the nature of religion in our globalised, post-Westphalian world is simply changing. It's not the case that religion is more influential than it was in the past (certainly not in Europe and the UK -- just consider the historical trend from a couple of hundred years back), though the dwindling numbers are being augmented to an extent by Muslim and Christian developing world migratory flows. Rather, the nature of religion itself has changed. It's all "batshit US-style religiosity", baby!
I think Tea is mistaking Nihilism for Positivism.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
But from what I've heard from Mr. Tea (and this isn't necessarily bad in my view, I lean more and more towards this myself all the time) he's most likely to be identified with logical positivism.
If we were forced to have all arguments in very simple terms, I'd probably err on the side of science myself. (but it's hard to have a simple terms discussion when science now is Big Business...)
If we were forced to have all arguments in very simple terms, I'd probably err on the side of science myself. (but it's hard to have a simple terms discussion when science now is Big Business...)
oh yeah, that's kind of what i meant - note to self to read threads before putting my oar in.
i'll fuck off now.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Could it be that religious people are just becoming more shrill as their worldview becomes more and more ill-suited to the challenges of life in the 21st century?
What bothers me is the fucking persecution complex Christians have, especially in the U.S. They're probably the most vocal, pandered-to minority in the U.S., yet they constantly bitch and whine about how pop-culture is full of stuff that offends them, and how they don't have enough power in government, etc. They claim to represent the vales of America at large, yet they make up less than 20% of the population.
It's annoying, frankly. I'm also super sick of films like Expelled and Religulous, which both in different ways just serve to fan the flames of the persecution complex over here...
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
You got all that from 11 words on the side of a bus?
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Yes, I did, from an ADVERTISEMENT for atheism that was on the side of a bus.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
So you rule out the possibility that it's just a lot of people who got annoyed with the views of a vocal minority of nutters being the ones that get paraded around london and thought it'd be worth chipping in a tenner or so each to see their viewpoint out there for a while?
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Who ever "ruled that out" as part of the issue?
Let's make it really really simple for everyone: sinking to your opponent's low discursive/political level doesn't do much for propogating your ideas.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could reduce everything to identity politics? But there's obviously more to all of this than that. Come on now.
Let's make it really really simple for everyone: sinking to your opponent's low discursive/political level doesn't do much for propogating your ideas.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could reduce everything to identity politics? But there's obviously more to all of this than that. Come on now.
vimothy
yurp
I guess that this persecution complex is part of the new religiosity -- all secular (and even secularising) religions are in fact minorities in cultures they may well have dominated once. Even other believers are likely to be viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility if they belong to different denominations. Religion is highly factionalised because it is no longer embedded in our societies with the same authority it once had. It is 'mere religion', a lifestyle choice.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I agree about the need to lean on intolerant fundamentalists to weaken their strengthening grasp on matters that should lie beyond their province. What I don't particularly like about the campaign is its potential to alienate those with more finely-shaded religious beliefs: people that, dare I say it, may already acknowledge the rightness of scientific enquiry and the irrational aspects of faith but still regard religion as necessary for personal fulfilment.
A campaign that intelligently got religious moderates to help attenuate the influence of, as nomad says, those who are more 'shrill' would get my support, but this would mean the slogan would need even more of a hedge than it already has.
I think nomad is otm in this thread.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Agreed, this is exactly it. What's interesting is to watch how--now religions have been reduced to a lifestyle choice--Christians (the old majority in western countries) try to deal with the all-pervasive influence of markets on their way of worshipping. My parents go to a church that basically resists the big trends in Christianity and is really wary of the sincerity of people who make multiple millions through "ministry"...this is all very sad to Christians who really try to follow the "give away everything you owe and follow Jesus" type of Biblical Christianity as dying-to-self. These tend to be "render unto Cesar what's his" types who don't think they need to litigate and legislate their version of morality on all of mankind.
There's just no purchase for this kind of apolitical Christianity anymore, even among the larger Christian community in the U.S. They're a dying breed, they're watching their own beliefs take a backseat to Christianity as a set of cultural/political talking points.