Atheism and the VT Massacre

[Pangloss]

Karrie:

Two things irk me about your comment regarding D'Sousa meeting the mean and nasty (to paraphrase) atheists.

First is that is a false assumption. D'Sousa is a major American intellectual: the atheists he sups and talks with are the likes of Daniel C. Dennet, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Wendy Kaminer and Tom Flynn. These are all leaders in the Humanist world, all public intellectuals, and they are all, I'm pretty certain, civil folks with good table manners, a sense of hospitalty, and can disagree with someone without calling them names.

Disagreeing with another's ideas is what all of these folks do for a living, D'Sousa included. D'Sousa, for some reason, has decided to be insulting and inflammatory in his writings. Why? I don't care - should Rosa Parks have asked the bus driver why he was trying to throw her off the bus, or should she simply stand in opposition to segregation and racism?

Second is why you would try to find reasons to explain or justify D'Sousa's bigotry. Would it matter (to take an extreme, but still valid, example) that a member of the Nazi's SS had been bullied as a child by his Jewish schoolmates, as a way of explaining why he raped, robbed and killed scores of Jews? Of course not: a bad act is a bad act.

While it is helpful to know why someone does bad things, to say is is because of something other than the individual, autonomous actor's choice, is to infantalize all of us, and render the question of accountability moot.

As an adult with free will, I will take responsibility for my actions, and not blame my parents, society or the girl in kindergarten who punched me in the nose.

I suspect D'Sousa would say much the same thing.

Pangloss

 

[tamarin]

Dexter, what's a belief system without a test? I suppose for the Christian, in an age of materialism, it might be a vow of poverty. Would that be asking too much of a true believer? Oh...for the atheists, what test should be prescribed so that we might plumb the depths of their conviction?

 

[Pangloss]

Dexter, what's a belief system without a test? I suppose for the Christian, in an age of materialism, it might be a vow of poverty. Would that be asking too much of a true believer? Oh...for the atheists, what test should be prescribed so that we might plumb the depths of their conviction?

For both the believer and the humanist: the quality of the life led, and the truthfulness of their claims.

How well did they treat others, animals, the Earth? Were they honest, compassionate, brave? Were they sincere and unhypocritical?

You get the idea. We can have all the noble ideas in our heads that we want, but I think it is by our actions and choices that we must be judged.

Everybody should be judged by the same criteria.

Pangloss

 

[tamarin]

Indeed, there are universals. Absolutes. And yet who would know us better than ourselves? I'm not sure how such a broad test would work given we live in an age where we barely know our neighbours.

 

[Pangloss]

Tamarin, I am happy to say I utterly agree with you.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Karrie:

Two things irk me about your comment regarding D'Sousa meeting the mean and nasty (to paraphrase) atheists.

First is that is a false assumption. D'Sousa is a major American intellectual: the atheists he sups and talks with are the likes of Daniel C. Dennet, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Wendy Kaminer and Tom Flynn.
Second is why you would try to find reasons to explain or justify D'Sousa's bigotry.
Pangloss

If you can explain where I tried to JUSTIFY it, that would be neat. What I've said repeatedly throughout the thread is that it's ignorant when people take times of grief to try to push a political or religious message they know is not accepted by those grieving. That applies to D' Sousa, BTW. Being religious doesn't make one exempt from being able to be tactless. But neither does being atheist. All I've said is that it is a HUMAN problem, not one you can attribute just to the religious, or just to atheists.

As for what sort of atheists D'Sousa may have met... what I wrote wasn't a way of excusing his view, it was a criticism of it. Much in the way I get frustrated when people discuss Islam based only on the extremists, or Christianity based only on abortion clinic picketers.

You seem to be reading much more into my post regarding D'Sousa's words than is actually there.

 

[karrie]

Odd that you write that, in a thread that starts with D'Sousa's hate rant about athiests.

Pangloss

Like I said Pangloss,"...creatures, who take the most inappropriate time to share their religious beliefs, exist at both ends of the spectrum." The religious aren't immune to being a__holes. Does it mean everyone gets to stand around screaming 'He started it!' and throwing silly generalizations willy nilly?

 

[Pangloss]

Unfortunately, Karrie, you utterly miss the point.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Unfortunately, Karrie, you utterly miss the point.

Pangloss

Yes, I've noticed your tendency to dismiss arguments with flip comments. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Pangloss]

True ain't flip.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Pangloss.... you are being ridiculous. You know very well that I understood your point and did not agree with it. To say that I've MISSED the point, simply because I don't agree, is your feeble attempt at saying I am unable to comprehend, thus beneath you. And yes, it is a flip attempt to shrug off a debate you have not been able to effectively support your position in, and walk away thinking yourself a bigger, smarter man than you really are.

When in fact, it is you who has so obviously misinterpretted much of what I've said in this thread. I said it before, and I'll say it again.... Your assertion that intolerance is something bred of religion, and not something bred of humanity, is flawed. D'Sousa may be an intolerant prick, but so are a million other people, of varying belief systems.

Neither belief set is above the human flaw of intolerance towards other beliefs.

 

[Pangloss]

Pangloss.... you are being ridiculous. You know very well that I understood your point and did not agree with it. To say that I've MISSED the point, simply because I don't agree, is your feeble attempt at saying I am unable to comprehend, thus beneath you. And yes, it is a flip attempt to shrug off a debate you have not been able to effectively support your position in, and walk away thinking yourself a bigger, smarter man than you really are.

When in fact, it is you who has so obviously misinterpretted much of what I've said in this thread. I said it before, and I'll say it again.... Your assertion that intolerance is something bred of religion, and not something bred of humanity, is flawed. D'Sousa may be an intolerant prick, but so are a million other people, of varying belief systems.

Neither belief set is above the human flaw of intolerance towards other beliefs.

Ok. . .here we go.

One: I don't know very well that you understood my point and you don't either. Unless you are a mind reader.

Two: you are again mistaken in saying that I say you don't get the point simply because you don't agree with me. To repeat: you are not a mind reader. You cannot know my reasons. As I cannot know yours.

Three: shrugging off a debate I have not been able to effectively support my position in. Um, no. Wrong again. I give cogent reasons for my positions and address all the salient points in your posts, and I do acknowledge when someone has a better argument than me.

Four: thinking I am a bigger, smarter man than I really am. Who in the whole wide world are you to say that? It is just as shallow as saying your dander is up because I offended your vanity - insulting and demeaning.

Five: and this is where you are horribly, tragically wrong, and the basis of my contention that you just don't get it. "[My] assertion that intolerance is something bred of religion and not something bred of humanity. . ." Where oh where do I say that? Don't say it is the tone - I can counter that too.

Your arguments are based on a false premise, a profound misreading of my posts. I never address what intolerance is born of, that is another topic - I am merely pointing to a shining example of the bigotry that can come from the breast of faith.

If you want to start a thread on the bigotry that can come from humanism, go right ahead.

In closing (cause I'm trying to give a full and serious answer here), your sophistry in your last post and your persistent misreading of my posts make answering you tedious.

I would rather discuss the topic of this thread than school you in dialectic.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Your arguments are based on a false premise, a profound misreading of my posts. I never address what intolerance is born of, that is another topic - I am merely pointing to a shining example of the bigotry that can come from the breast of faith.

In closing (cause I'm trying to give a full and serious answer here), your sophistry in your last post and your persistent misreading of my posts make answering you tedious.

I would rather discuss the topic of this thread than school you in dialectic.

Pangloss

"Sad. And an effective example of the intolerance spawned by religion.

Pangloss"

This was the post which sparked the conversation Pangloss... I know, because I went back to read through the discussion.

My 9:20 AM post was an attempt to address some obvious misconceptions you had about what I was trying to say, because carrying on a discussion when we are not reading one another well is pointless.

My 9:24 AM post attempted to explain to you that you were again, in fact, reading more into my posts than was written, and that I do not agree with D'Sousa's comments.

For attempting to clear up some misconceptions, miscommunications, I get a flippant dismissal. Yes, it gets my dander up.

Now. If you wish to keep discussing from where I ATTEMPTED to carry on the conversation, feel free. If you're simply going to give me more flippant, condescending nonsense, then sit here and talk to yourself.

 

[L Gilbert]

Unfortunately, LG, D'Sousa is a respected and widely read right-of-center public intellectual with a great deal of influence.

Not, sadly "just another dood."

Pangloss

Just another dood to me. Like to see how he'd stack up against Dawkins in a discussion. I'd bet he wouldn't do very well at all.

 

[L Gilbert]

You probably wouldn't know if the people you meet are atheists or not until you get to know them pretty well. ...........;-)

Ditto what Dex said.

 

[karrie]

Ditto what Dex said.

The majority of my atheist friends would never stand out as atheists. Heck, I know them really well, and they still don't 'stand out' as atheists, just friends. The only time you'll see them in fine form is, like you guys say, when a fundamentalist nimrod starts spouting off the way things 'REALLY' are. But, even then, a lot of them try pretty hard not to be what they so affectionately call "crutch kickers". lol.

Now, amongst my relatives on the other hand... wow... there are a few that really stand out, at every chance they get. They take every opportunity to shout their view at the top of their lungs at anyone expressing any spiritual view for any reason. It gives me a bad 'real life' sampling to draw from. I try VERY hard not to generalize based on them though.

 

[Tonington]

Kind of off topic, but Dawkins will be on O'Reilly's show on monday. I'd kinda like to see that.

 

[L Gilbert]

Dexter, what's a belief system without a test? I suppose for the Christian, in an age of materialism, it might be a vow of poverty. Would that be asking too much of a true believer? Oh...for the atheists, what test should be prescribed so that we might plumb the depths of their conviction?

Atheism isn't a belief system: it's a lack of belief. If people hadn't dreamed up deities, atheists wouldn't be needed to tell them that deities are figments of imaginations.

 

[karrie]

Atheism isn't a belief system: it's a lack of belief. If people hadn't dreamed up deities, atheists wouldn't be needed to tell them that deities are figments of imaginations.

And the day you can definitively prove it one way or the other, I will bow down to worship you! :smile:

 

[L Gilbert]

The majority of my atheist friends would never stand out as atheists. Heck, I know them really well, and they still don't 'stand out' as atheists, just friends. The only time you'll see them in fine form is, like you guys say, when a fundamentalist nimrod starts spouting off the way things 'REALLY' are. But, even then, a lot of them try pretty hard not to be what they so affectionately call "crutch kickers". lol.

Quite right. Atheists are no different than anyone else except for the lack of belief in things unsubstantiated.

Now, amongst my relatives on the other hand... wow... there are a few that really stand out, at every chance they get. They take every opportunity to shout their view at the top of their lungs at anyone expressing any spiritual view for any reason. It gives me a bad 'real life' sampling to draw from. I try VERY hard not to generalize based on them though.

Well, unfortunately, what I just said again displays that atheists are no different than anyone else and that includes pontificating.