|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2009 : 13:40:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually, I was suggesting that calling Kurtz an accomodationist is over simplifying. Perhaps my sarcasm was not helpful in making myself clear. |
Yeah, I missed that particular sarcasm, sorry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 17:01:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
Those two things are, I think, mutually exclusive. How can you be nice to a religious person while you are ripping their deeply held beliefs to shreds? |
Ask my fundamentalist friend, Jim. I have told him many times that religion, including his, is crap. And I have told him why I think that. He knows I an active secularist and an atheist. He thinks I'm going to hell. But we are still good friends. We have much more than our disagreement in common.
|
I'm sure we all know one or two people like that, but the annecdote doesn't accurately depict the general view.
Do you honestly think your friend is representative of the majority of religious people?
If so, I don't think you are on the same planet I'm on.
|
You asked the question and I answered it. You used the word "person" so my reply was inline with your question.
Perhaps you should have phrased your question better?
|
Telling him his religion is "crap" is not being nice. He just doesn't give a shit what you think. So no, you have failed to answer the question I asked. You instead invented a different question for your chosen answer. I'm sure you can recognize the particular flaw of logic you are engaging in, so I will refrain from pointing it out so you don't have to call me a dogmatic cunt again.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 17:56:10 [Permalink]
|
But Dude. I have been nice to a lot of people on a whole host of subjects of concern to skeptics, even while pointing out to them where their logic is flawed. I don't have to treat the person with disrespect because I think their logic is flawed. And being honest does not have to be disrespectful, unless it's taken that way, which I can't really help, unless I start my argument with something like; "You're just being stupid and here's why..." Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "being nice."
If simply challenging a deeply held belief is "not being nice" than none of us are nice. Especially skeptics.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 18:13:01 [Permalink]
|
I think I may be more inclined to sympathy for Kurtz when Kurtz is not busy shitting on me.
He will get zero sympathy from me as long as he spouts absurdities like "Atheist Fundamentalist." For fuck sake, the man is supposed to have an education, isn't he? So, if he can find something to be other than devisive - if he can figure out that equating advocacy with fundamentalism is a nonsensical and indefensible error - I will reconsider his views. Until then, welcome to a well-earned oblivion, Kurtz. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 18:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But Dude. I have been nice to a lot of people on a whole host of subjects of concern to skeptics, even while pointing out to them where their logic is flawed. I don't have to treat the person with disrespect because I think their logic is flawed. And being honest does not have to be disrespectful, unless it's taken that way, which I can't really help, unless I start my argument with something like; "You're just being stupid and here's why..." Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "being nice."
If simply challenging a deeply held belief is "not being nice" than none of us are nice. Especially skeptics.
|
Um, yeah, exactly. There is no "nice" way to tell people they are wrong. You can be polite, respectful, and sugar coat it all day long... but when you tell a person that they are wrong about something (especially religion, where these beliefs are often the basis of most of what people do with their life, the basis they use for making moral jedgements, etc) it isn't "nice". You are going to offend most people.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 21:46:12 [Permalink]
|
Oh the irony. First of all, Paul Kurtz is not the founder of modern humanism, Humanism was a movement already quite established when the first Manifesto was published in 1933 (when Kurtz was 8 years old.) And while that original version did still call Humanism a “religious” movement, it was supposed to be a response to “radical changes in religious belief” and stated quite clearly that it was a worldview without supernaturalism. From the ’33 Manifesto: FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
|
The main thing that changed from then to now within the humanist movement is that gradually more and more humanists gave up trying to redefine “religion”. All the most awesome aspects of humanism such as its promotion of science, skepticism, and a secular, human-centered ethics were already in place before Kurtz hit the scene. What Kurtz did was found a whole bunch of new humanist organizations based on the realization that the attempt to redefine “religion” had failed. And he popularized the term “secular humanism”, which implies that he fathered a new humanist movement. The thing is, secular humanism a redundant term – humanism, even “religious” humanism is already secular.
Anyway, back to irony. Paul Kurtz broke away from the American Humanist Association ‘cause he didn’t like the way they ran things and thought they were too accommodating to wishy washy types. And the very successful organizations he has founded have been notorious for bad-mouthing the AHA in order to maximize their own position in the movement.
This is a major bummer IMO, but not for the reasons others have expressed here. Kurtz had been the bridge between the Humanists and Skeptics in the larger movement. His being ousted severed that connection and creates a larger rift between the two camps in a movement which is already too small.
For what it is worth, I think this is as much if not more about power struggles and egos as it is about differences in philosophy or managing approach. I don't think anyone will ever know the whole true story because I think a lot of the players involved convince themselves they are standing up for some principle when in reality they are standing up for their own personal ambition.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 22:00:51 [Permalink]
|
Ricky: Another viewpoint? I would say that calling the New Atheists "Fundamentalist atheists" is a viewpoint much like the statement, "Vaccines don't work" is a viewpoint. Sure, it's your take on things, but it is flat out wrong.
Perhaps what he meant is that the New Atheists were mean spirited like fundamentalists, and they go over the line in various ways. But this is not the central defining characteristic of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are dogmatic in their views, ignoring reason and logic. To say that this describes the New Atheists is just wrong. |
But if we look at all the people who have called the New Atheists “fundamentalists” it is pretty clear from context that they are referring to self righteousness as the defining characteristics of fundamentalism.
Why does the defining characteristics have to be irrationalism anyway? As far as I know, the term “fundamentalist” has so far refered to Christian fundamentalists, but obviously if some people have coined the label “atheist fundamentalist” they don’t mean to imply that those atheists believe Jesus is the Messiah. I think we have to first figure out what these critics of the New Atheism mean by “atheist fundamentalist” before getting all offended by them. If they are calling Dawkins and Harris irrational, okay, that's wrong. But if they are calling them self righteous, well, aren’t they?
I’d like to state that I don’t think that Dennett should be included in the New Atheism because he deliberately tries to take a much softer approach. I think he just got wrapped up in the label and media coverage of the “New Atheists” because he published “Breaking the Spell” around the same time as the other three “horsemen”.
Dude: Also, this "dogmatic cunt" would like to know upon what Kurtz bases his speculation that the New Atheists will "do more harm than good".
It seems to me that is only true if your goal is to make friends with religious dogmatists.
I don't, and I don't think the goal of any skeptical organization that takes on religious claims should be to make friends with religious people. The goal should be to demonstrate that they are in error and to do it as simply and publicly as possible.
Lets face it, Kurtz had his shot at this and his "friendly" approach failed. |
Kurtz might be wrong and he might be right in his opinion about the “New Atheist” approach. Personally I agree with Kurtz. I can’t say what he bases his speculation on, but I can say what I base mine on. The “New Atheists” get more press for religious skeptics than the warm and fuzzy humanist approach, but they also get more negative than positive press, and much of that negative press comes from social liberals and intellectuals who would otherwise be our allies. From where I stand, the New Atheists’ approach turns our progressive allies against us and scare the poop out of our enemies (which can really help mobilize and energize their efforts in the same way that the extreme anti-gay elements in our culture have actually furthered the cause of gay rights.) Perhaps the more warm and fuzzy approach of the likes of Paul Kurtz (and in the younger generation Greg Epstein- another humanist who called the New Atheists fundamentalists) is failing, but I fail to see how the New Atheist approach is doing better.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/22/2009 22:02:14 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 22:03:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
| One commenter somewhere (in one of the threads I linked to, I'm being lazy) said that Kurtz' Free Inquiry magazine makes no bones about being anti-religion, and that's what makes it so much better than The Humanist, which apparently panders. Or so the commenter says. I've never read an issue of either, so I can't say for sure. |
I’ve been a member of the AHA and thus have received the Humanist magazine for nearly a decade and I’ve never noticed any articles which pander to people of religious faith. The cover of the current issue featured PZ Myers and the magazine’s tagline is “a magazine of critical inquiry and social concern.” They do regularly publish things which deal with emotional and aesthetic aspects of the humanist worldview, such as this: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_sept_oct/Case.html And certainly they often publish articles which take political stances on social issues and embrace religious allies who share their liberal stances. However, fighting alongside religious people for things like gay rights isn’t pandering. The real problem many other atheists have with the Humanist magazine and the AHA which publishes it is that they are too socially liberal on issues which have nothing to do with religion, such as when they’ve published articles against the Iraq War or calling for economic justice.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 22:05:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude: Those two things are, I think, mutually exclusive. How can you be nice to a religious person while you are ripping their deeply held beliefs to shreds?
…
No matter how you say it, how you phrase it, when you tell a person that some belief they have held all their life is not true you are going to generate conflict. |
By that logic people with different religions can’t be friends, and yet people with different religions are often friends and even often marry each other. Most people don’t live in a cave their whole life and they know that there are different religions and worldviews out there. All we skeptics have to do to avoid conflict is make it clear that we are expressing our views. In other words, we don’t say they are wrong, we say that we think their beliefs are wrong. I am extremely outspoken about my skeptical worldview, and yet as far as I know, I have never offended anyone with my lack of belief in their religion. It is how we frame it and the tone we use. We don’t have to sugarcoat anything, and we can still have lots of religious friends.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 04:33:56 [Permalink]
|
| marf, fundamentalism has never been characterized by self-righteousness, it's characterized by adherence to sacred texts as well as vocal (sometimes militant) opposition to liberal interpretations of the same texts and also to secularism. Since the "New Atheists" don't have any sacred texts and are all for secularism, the term "fundamentalist atheist" is a contradiction in terms at best. If Kurtz is redefining the word "fundamentalist" to mean something new, it's obviously his problem that he's being misunderstood to be insulting a certain subset of atheists. But he's used other descriptors for the "New Atheists" which suggest that he knows perfectly well what "fundamentalist" means, which means he was being intentionally insulting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 05:38:04 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| By that logic people with different religions can’t be friends, and yet people with different religions are often friends |
Nonsense. They just ignore religion.
Find me some statistics on how many fundamentalist baptists are married to fundamentalist jews or muslims. Annecdotally, I don't know any, and I'd wager you don't either.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 05:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Telling him his religion is "crap" is not being nice. He just doesn't give a shit what you think. |
It doesn't fit your claim and thus you invent details so that it does. This tactic seems oddly familiar...
|
Or maybe he is one of those super nice christians and he is trying to slow-convert kil by example?
None of that matters, and you are deeply in error here ricky, because my point is only that telling a person their deeply held religious beliefs are wrong, is not "nice".
Maybe I should have typed it, "Maybe he just doesn't give a shit what you think?" Makes no difference to what I was trying to communicate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 05:47:05 [Permalink]
|
marfknox also said:
| I am extremely outspoken about my skeptical worldview, and yet as far as I know, I have never offended anyone with my lack of belief in their religion. |
I think you are experiencing a form or self delusion or denial. You offend other skeptics routinely, to think you have never offended a religious person by informing them you think they are completely mistaken is so absurd that there isn't really any further comment I can make on the subject without getting some red text from a mod.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 07:15:20 [Permalink]
|
| I routinely discuss religion and/or the lack thereof with my religious friends, we have wonderful conversations and have yet to kill eachother. Tact is required of course I would never claim their unsupported beliefs are impossible or absurd for example. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Kurtz ousted from CFI
