Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Misrepresenting the other side - mistakenly or deliberately - is what can be expected. We can only correct them; which is what we do here.
The topic is about the moral obligation of atheists in exercising their mission to destroy religion. Should they then also attack, with same vigor, those societal conditions such as racism which causes hatred, oppression, and inequality of opportunity to the targeted group who then have little option other than turning to religion for help. Instead of attacking Islam for terrorism, attack the forces that attack muslims with hate. That is a moral atheism.
The problem is monumental. All I am saying is that 3rd wave anti racism expects one side to fix the problem. This is basically, you "did this, now you fix it". We all know about the atrocities of the past and some sort of reparation may be nice, but not including "self help" is bizarre. You will never see a black leader providing a negative critique of the community. This long standing practice is not healthy. There has never been an ethnic group in world history that expects another ethnic group do to all the heavy lifting. Furthermore, having someone else do the work may lead to more failures.
The moral obligation to help is present in most Americans. I venture to even say that even many KKK types would like things to be better even if they remain racist. Who in the world benefits from excessive poverty and crime? Who gets the most benefit out of this? Most Americans do not benefit from the poverty of others.
A moral obligation may be to correct wrong-thinking, including much of yours...
The primary problem I see with all you explain is this perspective you maintain with respect to what any person "expects" with regard to fixing the problems of racism (sexism, xenophobia, homophobia). "Self help" is a given, because even the moron knows there is no substitute for doing what you can for yourself. You think black people are thinking society or government or white neighbor is really going to materially help them deal with the problems of racism? Not sure anyone advocates not including "self help," but there you go again describing your version of what is going on that is a bit out of touch with reality.
I could go on with regard to many of the weird assumptions you continue to promote as truths, but again you are demonstrating some sort of arm-chair version of what is going on around you. Again you need to take into account what those who are not mere spectators are explaining about what is still badly in need of fixing. I too have argued that dwelling on the past is no good way to address problems going forward, but it isn't right to throw all that's still in need of correction under the bus of "not dwelling on the past."
I would forward some choice reading for you, written by people who know better what you're going on about, but something tells me you wouldn't bother. More importantly, the sort of reading I'm talking about is too easy for anyone to find if they are really interested to know the truth of these matters. Even for you.
The problem is confirmation bias. Plain and simple. You think what you do because you are only looking at what furthers your narrative. The lack of objective consideration is obvious, but a typical problem that continues to drag progress in these areas to a crawl.
Along the lines of what MLK explained as well back in the 60s, like this: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action… ' ”
The topic is about the moral obligation of atheists in exercising their mission to destroy religion. Should they then also attack, with same vigor, those societal conditions such as racism which causes hatred, oppression, and inequality of opportunity to the targeted group who then have little option other than turning to religion for help. Instead of attacking Islam for terrorism, attack the forces that attack muslims with hate. That is a moral atheism.
Wrong-thinking just like wrong-doing is wrong no matter how you look at it, though I guess our own personal "moral compass" tells us which is which. Call me boring, but I think anyone who leans toward promoting right over wrong is not selective as to such categories. Wrong is wrong whether it's how we treat one another or how we treat animals. What's so hard to understand?
A moral obligation may be to correct wrong-thinking, including much of yours...
The primary problem I see with all you explain is this perspective you maintain with respect to what any person "expects" with regard to fixing the problems of racism (sexism, xenophobia, homophobia). "Self help" is a given, because even the moron knows there is no substitute for doing what you can for yourself. You think black people are thinking society or government or white neighbor is really going to materially help them deal with the problems of racism? Not sure anyone advocates not including "self help," but there you go again describing your version of what is going on that is a bit out of touch with reality.
I could go on with regard to many of the weird assumptions you continue to promote as truths, but again you are demonstrating some sort of arm-chair version of what is going on around you. Again you need to take into account what those who are not mere spectators are explaining about what is still badly in need of fixing. I too have argued that dwelling on the past is no good way to address problems going forward, but it isn't right to throw all that's still in need of correction under the bus of "not dwelling on the past."
I would forward some choice reading for you, written by people who know better what you're going on about, but something tells me you wouldn't bother. More importantly, the sort of reading I'm talking about is too easy for anyone to find if they are really interested to know the truth of these matters. Even for you.
The problem is confirmation bias. Plain and simple. You think what you do because you are only looking at what furthers your narrative. The lack of objective consideration is obvious, but a typical problem that continues to drag progress in these areas to a crawl.
Along the lines of what MLK explained as well back in the 60s, like this: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action… ' ”
Great post.
A book i would recommend is How To be an Anti-racist by Ibram Kendi.
The topic is about the moral obligation of atheists in exercising their mission to destroy religion. Should they then also attack, with same vigor, those societal conditions such as racism which causes hatred, oppression, and inequality of opportunity to the targeted group who then have little option other than turning to religion for help. Instead of attacking Islam for terrorism, attack the forces that attack muslims with hate. That is a moral atheism.
I don't agree but that doesn't mean I think your intentions and goals are wrong. If I needed help and a religion offered to help me, I would certainly be grateful and would repay anyway I can. However, I would make it clear that I am under no obligation to promote their faith. This is not really meant to be an attack on their faith or take my stand as an atheist. I just don't want to be a liar.
This question is something I've always wondered about. My thoughts on it have changed over time. The question is essentially:
If you believe that religion is morally wrong, do you have an obligation to fight against it?
If you saw a mugging happening in the street and you had the means to help, I would think you should. In the same way, if you see someone teaching information that you know can lead to dangerous behavior, it seems you may be obligated to do something?
The way my personal views on it have changed over time is I used to spend a lot of time arguing against religion, but the more I did, the more I realized that there's not a single target you're arguing against. Everyone has their own personal religion, and very often their beliefs are pretty benign. For example, they may take the Bible as metaphoric or only take seriously the verses they like. The result being I end up spending a lot of time fighting something that seems relatively inconsequential.
I'm curious what all of your takes on this are.
Some concrete fact finding for confirmation does not hurt, as considering the bible or any historical references, as an ancients collector have found various proofs that many characters absolutely existed at least. A recent new find was an early A.D. coin depicting King Agrippa and Augustus' portraits facing away from each other in opposition.
So many conspiracy theories can be debunked by lack of any material evidence by the scientific, analytical and reasonable minds, but in this day of alternate realities, all can be lost with repetitive images and words to wash the brain of innate open investigative processes in order to funnel the hosts insights and commands. Cults in yesteryears were usually small( in the hundreds or thousands) and attention of that diversion needed isolation, regimentation outside of norms for some period of time, in order to canvass the brain of any backsliding tendency. Today we experience the monolithic enormity of Qanon right out in the open, isolated only by website focus. Maybe the best comparison that can be made of how dire, and the immensity, would be encapsulted by the movie, 'Invasion of the body snatchers' the remake starring Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum, etc being the better of the two imho.
The topic is about the moral obligation of atheists in exercising their mission to destroy religion. Should they then also attack, with same vigor, those societal conditions such as racism which causes hatred, oppression, and inequality of opportunity to the targeted group who then have little option other than turning to religion for help. Instead of attacking Islam for terrorism, attack the forces that attack muslims with hate. That is a moral atheism.
I think that was covered in the first 20 post. They we diverge. I thinks it ok.
The "moral" obligation of atheism is to keep pounding the process of belief is more important than the belief more often than not. When we have a sound process the beliefs tend to self correct over time. And, as you point out, some belief from our "grandparents" is just as valid today as they were yesterday.
A moral obligation may be to correct wrong-thinking, including much of yours...
The primary problem I see with all you explain is this perspective you maintain with respect to what any person "expects" with regard to fixing the problems of racism (sexism, xenophobia, homophobia). "Self help" is a given, because even the moron knows there is no substitute for doing what you can for yourself. You think black people are thinking society or government or white neighbor is really going to materially help them deal with the problems of racism? Not sure anyone advocates not including "self help," but there you go again describing your version of what is going on that is a bit out of touch with reality.
I could go on with regard to many of the weird assumptions you continue to promote as truths, but again you are demonstrating some sort of arm-chair version of what is going on around you. Again you need to take into account what those who are not mere spectators are explaining about what is still badly in need of fixing. I too have argued that dwelling on the past is no good way to address problems going forward, but it isn't right to throw all that's still in need of correction under the bus of "not dwelling on the past."
I would forward some choice reading for you, written by people who know better what you're going on about, but something tells me you wouldn't bother. More importantly, the sort of reading I'm talking about is too easy for anyone to find if they are really interested to know the truth of these matters. Even for you.
The problem is confirmation bias. Plain and simple. You think what you do because you are only looking at what furthers your narrative. The lack of objective consideration is obvious, but a typical problem that continues to drag progress in these areas to a crawl.
Along the lines of what MLK explained as well back in the 60s, like this: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action… ' ”
I don't agree but that doesn't mean I think your intentions and goals are wrong. If I needed help and a religion offered to help me, I would certainly be grateful and would repay anyway I can. However, I would make it clear that I am under no obligation to promote their faith. This is not really meant to be an attack on their faith or take my stand as an atheist. I just don't want to be a liar.
It depends on what you mean by religion offering help. It is about seeking refuge in prayer and worship and community. All terrorists are not muslims, and all muslims are not terrorists be definition. Attack terrorism, not people.
It is quite amazing how Arach Angle is able to articulate perfectly, with no dyslexic problems, when he propounds on why racists are racists. No problem understanding him. A nice slight of hand there.
Yup. They say 20% of my post are spot on. I understand 20% are confusing too. I do leave out large blocks of information and I don't write so well.
The other 60% incoherent is due to calling out my own statement of belief about god. Actually it is calling out "types of people" in both camps. I have no idea why calling out our own side is bad. I mean, I just don't get it, things like "good cops" letting "bad cops" go because we are on the same team is something I just can't get a handle on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
