Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What kind of double talk nonsense is that really? You can say you are "non-religious" or "areligious" or even that you are a skeptic and manage to avoid any formal connection to a specific ideology but if you say "I am AN Atheist" you are declaring something very formal and specific about your belief system and defining yourself AS a member of a specific group like it or not. You are AT LEAST declaring that you believe there are NO deities. And probably that you reject all spirituality as a rule. There are many many people who voluntarily crown themselves with this term specifically so the world understands they believe that there IS NOTHING. And many of them ARE ideologues of this point of view. If you want to explain to them that due to some minor linguistic technicalities they have their definitions confused and therefore arent atheists please be my guest. And while you are at it maybe you can tell Pro Choice people that they arent really pro choice since they dont believe in choice in EVERY conceivable situation. And Pro Lifers that they arent pro life since so many of them are ok with war and the death penalty. And while we are at it lets tell all the Democrats that they arent really because they dont advocate PURE democracy on every level. And dont get me started on the Conservative Party in your neck of the woods...

Do you even know the meaning of the phrase double-think? Because I don't see how it applies to my post, which I stand by to the word. It's senseless to describe yourself or anyone by what they don't believe in, as there is an infinite number of things a person doesn't believe in, which can be gods or dragons or hobbits. I can be in no sense ideological in not believing in those - if there was any evidence for them I would believe in, but there isn't. Others may use the word athiesm, but I still think they're using it badly, and they're entirely into the hands of people who believe in a particular god or gods by letting them define them.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Notice the claim being made:

"ethicist Dr Leslie Cannold writing in the (Sydney) Sun-Herald. ‘Opponents of dying with dignity will tell you that the core moral principle in a civilized society is respect for life. This is outdated tosh. The central moral value in a modern multicultural society is autonomy, the right of individuals to determine the course of their own lives and deaths according to their own needs and values.’ "

Is this a correct assessment of the "central moral value in a modern multicultural society"?

Consider well the words "individuals" and "society". Is there a link if Cannold is correct?

Maggie Thatcher famously said "there is no such thing as society, only individuals", but I'm afraid I disagree with that kind of libertarian thinking.

I also disagree with Dr. Cannold. Certainly autonomy is a moral value in any society, but I wouldn't say it's the central value- I'm more of a communitarian than that.

OTOH, since "respect for life" in this case actually means "the State has the right to override your choice and order you to continue living no matter what kind of pain and suffering you're undergoing", I'd disagree with that, too.

Assisted sucide- any kind of suicde- is tricky. While I believe in the right to end one's own life if one chooses, the question of depression as an illness means we have to be very careful in assessing each case.

Still, to cede to the government the power to order someone to be kept alive in spite of their considered wishes seems to me to be too much power over our lives to be handed to the State.

[Comic Book Guy]

[QUOTE=inked;659430]
Ideologically, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were all atheists and practised the logical consequences of the state is most important upon their subjects.
[\quote]

This is a non-sequitur. And a shocking poor one even if you consider your frankly quite poor and unimpressively vulgar record on here. Atheism, as we've discussed, isn't a very helpful or meaningful term, and there can be no logical consequence to absolutely anything, let alone totalitarian statism what you've described, from the non-belief in deities, no more than football fanaticism. Perhaps the problem with monsters like Stalin and co that their legacies were too much like the great traditional religions of history: they were monolithic, authoritarian, responded to dissent and competing organisations (such as religion in Russia) with brutal violence, relied on pomp and ceremony and demagogury and propaganda to control and mislead populations. Stalin was certainly correct, in his personal life, to reject to the superstitions and false consolations (there's a Marxian phrase for you) of the religion of his childhood and education, but perhaps he never rejected the techniques... Nevertheless, no decent person, 'atheist' or not should find Stalin's authoritarianism and supression of individual autonomy - of which freedom of religion was one aspect - as anything but appallingly wicked and deplorable.

Now I know, and everyone else knows, that you don't often respond on here when you get refuted or challenged on anything, but lets try and get a few facts from you: what is the historical evidence that says the that the violence from so-called athiest regimes (of which the Nazis most definitely can't be considered to belong to, and the United States probably could be argued to) is far greater in terms of body count to the entire long and disgraceful record of religions?

[GrayMouser]

Or, as Nilsson said:

Oh, I'd rather be dead--I'd rather be dead
I'd rather be dead, than wet my bed

I'd rather keep my health--and dress myself
But you're better off dead than sitting on a shelf

I'll tie my tie 'till the day I die
But if I have to be fed, then I'd rather be dead


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-oYe4xLkU

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, remember the outrage over the Florida guy and "Burn a Koran Day" that NEVER HAPPENED?

What about this? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...#ixzz12DcmBJM1

Goose/Gander? Gander/Goose? Gander/Gander? Goose/Goose?

I'm waiting for Obama to weigh in on this like the other. And everyone else!

You mean the one THAT NEVER HAPPENED because everyone bitched about it?

From the article, it looks like the Malawi Muslim League reacted the same way that church groups in America did- they disowned it as an action by a few extremists.

Also, note that the Bibles were being distributed in Muslim schools- what would be the reaction if a Muslim group started distributing Korans in Christian schools in America?

As to why Obama shold react to this, I would point out that in spite of the looney-toon beliefs of an unfortunately large group of Americans on the right, Obama is the American president of the USA, not an African president of an African country.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Maggie Thatcher famously said "there is no such thing as society, only individuals", but I'm afraid I disagree with that kind of libertarian thinking.

I also disagree with Dr. Cannold. Certainly autonomy is a moral value in any society, but I wouldn't say it's the central value- I'm more of a communitarian than that.

OTOH, since "respect for life" in this case actually means "the State has the right to override your choice and order you to continue living no matter what kind of pain and suffering you're undergoing", I'd disagree with that, too.

Which means, respect for autonomy is, if not the central value, at least a higher value that respect for life, I believe.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Do you even know the meaning of the phrase double-think? Because I don't see how it applies to my post, which I stand by to the word. It's senseless to describe yourself or anyone by what they don't believe in, as there is an infinite number of things a person doesn't believe in, which can be gods or dragons or hobbits. I can be in no sense ideological in not believing in those - if there was any evidence for them I would believe in, but there isn't. Others may use the word athiesm, but I still think they're using it badly, and they're entirely into the hands of people who believe in a particular god or gods by letting them define them.

Double TALK, genius. And if you want to cling to your insistence that atheists cant and dont follow the common human trait of group identity and clan defense like EVERY OTHER HUMAN IN THE WORLD does then live that delusion. The various Atheist Councils around the world (which of course Im assuming you adamantly renounce as technically impossible to exist...) who promote "Atheist issues" and the millions of people who answer "I am an Atheist" when asked what religion they are would beg to differ. And better tell Richard Dawkins and the like to pipe down when they refer to themselves as "we atheists" with an agenda to counter religious dogma (and in so doing sell books). Better tell the thousands of folks on the net that actively blog about placing themselves in a collective they call Atheism (and in some cases refer themselves even as Radical Atheists that they have it all wrong and they arent actually. Have fun with that.

[BeardofPants]

For the record, I am a Gnu Atheist.

[The Gaffer]

What, you don't believe in gnus?

Right enough, come to think of it, I've never seen one.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

For the record, I am a Gnu Atheist.

Yes, being an atheist brings out the wildebeest in me too.

Gnu atheists rule! Down with the running dogs of Mooneyite accommodationism!

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Which means, respect for autonomy is, if not the central value, at least a higher value that respect for life, I believe.

Yes- except that I don't think "respect for life" is an accurate description of the issue being discussed. IMHO "the body must be kept functioning at all costs" does not equal 'respect for life'.

[GrayMouser]

As in, you're 94, you've been lying immobile in a bed for the last four years with drips feeding you because you can't digest anymore, you're blind, you can't smell or taste anything, can barely hear,and can speak only a few words and your entire body is in agony. You beg somebody to please end it for you and the reply is, "sorry, we have too much respect for life".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To my mind, that's a question of quality of life, which is different from life as such.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

For the record, I am a Gnu Atheist.

I've seen the name used several times now on different sites and I still haven't figured out exactly what it stands for. Care to enlighten me?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I've seen the name used several times now on different sites and I still haven't figured out exactly what it stands for. Care to enlighten me?

It's a take-off on "New Atheists" which is generally used to refer to the fairly recent spate of books by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins,
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Since "New Atheist " is often used pejoratively - "They're so strident!" "They don't address the deepest arguments of theologians" "They're too disrespectful" "They don't show existential despair over the Death of God like those nice old 19th-Century atheists"- Gnu Atheist was adopted as a snarky self-reference.

http://richarddawkins.net/users/3648/comments
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....theist-symbol/


For some of the real strident types, like Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers, there is a war against 'accomodationists'- those, like science writer Chris Mooney, who, while being atheists themselves, advocate co-operating with liberal-minded believers against the religious fundamentalists.

The infighting can get to the point where it's like the old battles of the Trotskyite splinter groups, of the "not the People's Liberation Front of Judea!" variety.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

To my mind, that's a question of quality of life, which is different from life as such.

Well, in that case, then, no, I do not think that "keeping bodies functioning biologically " should be the core moral principle in a civilised society.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

It's a take-off on "New Atheists" which is generally used to refer to the fairly recent spate of books by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins,
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Since "New Atheist " is often used pejoratively - "They're so strident!" "They don't address the deepest arguments of theologians" "They're too disrespectful" "They don't show existential despair over the Death of God like those nice old 19th-Century atheists"- Gnu Atheist was adopted as a snarky self-reference.

http://richarddawkins.net/users/3648/comments
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....theist-symbol/


For some of the real strident types, like Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers, there is a war against 'accomodationists'- those, like science writer Chris Mooney, who, while being atheists themselves, advocate co-operating with liberal-minded believers against the religious fundamentalists.

The infighting can get to the point where it's like the old battles of the Trotskyite splinter groups, of the "not the People's Liberation Front of Judea!" variety.

Have things yet reached the point where atheism can be considered the opiate of the masses?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

For some of the real strident types, like Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers, there is a war against 'accomodationists'- those, like science writer Chris Mooney, who, while being atheists themselves, advocate co-operating with liberal-minded believers against the religious fundamentalists.

Yeah, I've been following a few of those debates, but couldn't place gnu atheists in it yet. Thanks.

[Jonathan]

In response to Insidious Rex's and Comic Book Guy's discussion, I might as well come out with my atheism.

I could describe myself as a non-religious person. Still, even as much as I dislike to openly call myself an atheist
(because the word almost implies a critical stance against religion) "atheist" would be what I am. In my world-view there are no deities, spirits, souls or afterlife whatsoever - and imo that is stretching it further than simply being "non-religious".

I am an atheist then, but definitely one of the more accommodating kinds when it comes to religion in western society. I like the idea of people believing in things divine. My focus is not on the backsides of religion, I don't linger by descriptions such as irrationality and superstition. I rather see belief's positive effects on people - I think it provides joy and comfort and promotes goodness.

I consider my atheistic views to be no more than a simple lack of belief in a deity or an afterlife of sorts. I don't regard myself as part of a global collective of atheists, neither do I think of "atheism" as being my personal belief or religion. I see no gain in trying to promote atheism, nor to criticise religion for its un-scientificness.

My point being this; both IRex and CBC are right in their own way, as I think there is more than one correct usage of the word "atheism".
While there are "gnu atheists" like BoP, there's the other end of the spectrum where you find people like me

[inked]

German Chancellor says that "multikulti" has failed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451

And it's on the BBC so it must be true, accurate, and all that sort of thing!