Skip to main content

View Diary: Struggle and Faith: How Occupy Has Taught Me To Tolerate Religion (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, I'm sure you're the expert :) n/t (0+ / 0-)

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 04:41:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually it's just logical (7+ / 0-)

      If someone asserts the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn and I say no, I don't think so, I am not "just advocating another kind of belief".  If Invisible Pink Unicornists start trying to convert others by the sword, and I fight back, I am not just another believer in a religious war.

      And if I say that believing in Creationism is not consistent with science, I am not somehow failing to see a grand truth that faith and science are not incompatible.

      There are other things that you and others in this thread are saying that are true, or partially true, but please take care not to conflate them with falsehoods like the ones I mention above.  These arguments are not from authority, just logic.

      I will not make a "craziness exception" for religion.  A lot of religious beliefs are nuts, some much more benignly so than others. One of the most benign ones may be believing that the arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice.  I tend to belief that, but rationally, it's only verifiably true to the extent that a lot of people persist (with some luck on their sides) in doing the bending.

      "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

      by dackmont on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:42:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree but I think the Dawks are a new (0+ / 0-)


      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 01:32:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only thing (0+ / 0-)

        new about the "New" Atheists is their cultural prominence.

        There is nothing that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett (or Victor Stenger, Julia Sweeney, Greta Christina, P.Z. Myers....) has said about religion that wasn't previously stated decades, centuries, or millennia earlier by Socrates, Lucretius, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Twain, Russell, Ingersoll, O'Hair, and the like. And the "New" Atheists themselves have consistently pointed that fact out.

        One consequence of an increased profile for atheist criticism of religion is that it's much harder for religious figures and organizations to hide from that criticism. They can (and have) attempted to shoot the messenger by pretending that the Gnus are barbarians who deserve to be disregarded, but it's demonstrably not working.

        So what's new about the Gnu Atheists is that religion is scared of them.

        •  What Is Different About Them (0+ / 0-)

          is their Calvanist methods.  I don't take it from Calviinists and I don't take it from Dawks.

          Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

          by tikkun on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:37:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What exactly (0+ / 0-)

            are "Calvinist methods"? That sounds very much like a stand-in for "they do things I don't like, even if I don't have legitimate reasons to object to those things."

            You'll forgive me if I don't give the benefit of the doubt to vague complaints directed at members of despised and disempowered minorities for doing things that just so happen to bruise the unjust privilege of the overwhelmingly powerful hegemon.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site