(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by S.A.M., Jul 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Look it up
    http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=e...ist NCSE&btnG=Search&meta=lr=lang_en&aq=f&oq=

    An example of one religious Darwinist who sports it as a logo? The creator was an atheist:
    Is it? It seems more like using science to proselytise atheism.

    Of course you do. You cannot see how he is associating understanding science with requiring atheism.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I know very well what an accomodationist is. What I asked for is the relevance to anything you're talking about.

    My room mate back in grad school, a lifelong Christian, had one on his car for a while. He eventually upgraded to a Flying Spaghetti Monster, though.

    I have also known lifelong Christians who bought used cars with the Jesus Fish on them, and removed them because they didn't want people to think they were creationists or fundamentalists.

    So what? That doesn't mean everyone who buys one is an atheist, or that anyone who sees them understands them to refer to atheism.

    The creator chose to use the word "Darwin" on the fish in reference to the history of educational controversies in America, and that's what Americans understand the symbol to refer to.

    Only if you equate resistance to fundie attempts to censor evolution as "atheism" (which is a core lie of the fundie campaign), and displays conveying this as "proselytizing."

    But to anyone with an understanding of US culture and history, it's clear that these are political statements about fundamentalist political campaigns (largely about educational policy).

    That's because he isn't. The only way to impose such an interpretation on those words is to equate fundamentalism with all religion (and so, resistance to fundamentalism with atheism). Which - again - is the classic lie perpetrated by fundamentalists, in their pursuit of social control.

    And what you'd been accusing him of, previously, was "conflating atheism with science," which is an altogether different matter than "associating understanding science with requiring atheism." Which itself is an altogether different matter than what he did do, which was note that the incidence of atheism increases as you climb the scientific achievement ladder. He's never said that you must be an atheist to understand science.

    It would greatly behoove you to think your statements through before posting them, and expend an effort to actually figure out what you're trying to say and what words would correctly encapsulate that. Not only will people understand you better, the consistency in your speech would eventually translate into consistency in your thoughts.

    The town I grew up in hosts the highest per-capita concentration of PhD scientists on Earth, and also a very high per-capita concentration of churches/synagogues/temples/etc. There was no shortage of religious people of high scientific achievement, there. But anyone who suggested teaching creationism in schools (and there were a few - including a geologist, of all people) was regarded as a quack and a disservice to their faith community. But in other places where the commitment to science is not as high, the fundies are more successful in co-opting their communities, and so do real damage.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Does that mean he is an atheist now?
    I wonder why

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Except that the only example you gave me was of one who apparently became an atheist.
    Which is why United Atheists was the one distributiing them.

    Lets see what he said:


    Or perhaps associating atheism with science has produced the results you see, because as you then go on to say:

    People are recoiling from science because of atheists. Maybe eventually 100% of scientists will be atheists. Will that be a loss or a gain?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, I just told you that he's a lifelong Christian. Many of them are as irritated at the fundamentalist political campaigns as any atheist.

    What is that supposed to mean?

    No, he is still a Christian.

    Putting a Darwin Fish or FSM Fish on your car doesn't make you an atheist.

    "Was" being the key word. The vast majority of Darwin Fishes out there are obtained from other sources. Nobody's ever heard of United Atheists: they are a non-entity in the national consciousness.

    People - in general - aren't "recoiling from science" in the first place.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Okay, but I have yet to hear of the Darwin fish being used as a logo for anything but promoting atheism. On campus, athiest groups evangelising their position scrawled it on all the sidewalks.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    What you have yet to hear of, when it comes to US culture, might just barely fit inside the Grand Canyon. And the situation seems unlikely to improve, given the way you relate to actual information about US culture from people who actually know what they're talking about. But hey, you aren't the first person whose understanding of the US has been short-circuited by their investment in us as a screen for their pet issues.

    Anyway how do you infer that the "position" being "evangelized" by the pictures you refer to wasn't exactly dissatisfaction with fundie intrusions into science education? The word "DARWIN" is included in big, prominent letters after all. If they were pushing atheism, in general, you'd expect something about the existence of deities.

    You have a suspicious habit of calling everything any atheist does "proseltyzing atheism." Resisting efforts to corrupt science education is not the same thing as trying to convince people that God doesn't exist.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Because of the messages accompanying them. "Are you an atheist? You are not alone. Join the X atheists group" etc.


    Also I just remembered that in a poll I conducted, Skinwalker indicated a Darwin fish as an atheist logo.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87674

    I have generally seen the symbol associated with atheism, by atheists.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2009
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Let's note that an advertizement informing fellow (non)believers about the existence of a local group for them, is not what is generally understood to qualify as "evangelizing" or "proseltyzing."

    To qualify for either of those terms, it needs to target people who don't already adhere to the position in question, and attempt to convert them.

    And a talking weasal might suggest that applying such a double-standard, while damning "the atheists" for scaring people away from science, is the sort of behavior you'd expect from a brainwashed fundie foot soldier.

    I'm kind of surprised that there was a specific atheist organization at your university. Mine didn't have such an org (although there was an Intelligent Design org, funded by a national campaign). Most atheists don't belong to organizations dedicated to their (non) faith. And most of the organization capacity associated with them (all the top purveyors of Darwin Fish to be found on Google, for example) appears to be more "freethinker" type stuff, then atheist specifically. Certainly, they seem comfortable enough with the agnostics, Unitarian Universalists, and adults who have senses of humor instead of bigot complexes.

    But let's get real: what sense does it make to criticize "the atheists" as a social force in the US? People here won't even call themselves "liberal" any more, let alone "atheist." Why not spend your energy critiquing one of the actual dominant religious social movements in the US instead? Certainly, it would be a lot more relevant. For example, how about the Evangelical Megachurch crowd that wants to bomb all the dirty Muslims, and gets to play kingmaker in Republican politics?
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Because in science they are the strident voices you hear. And they are creating a whole generation of people on both sides who believe they are right.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2009
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    What is wrong with that if there are ample religions that create generations of people who believe they are right? From all sides mind you.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Nothing if your aim is to reduce interest in science among people who will believe it is incompatible with their beliefs
     
  15. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    That is for the churches and mosques and synagogues to work out not the atheists.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I doubt it. No one is going to church to get a science education. But atheist scientists using science as a platform for promoting atheism are using science to give a religious education.
     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Using science to give a religious education? When Richard Dawkins speaks out against religion he is speaking about fundamentalist teachings that disallow for science. If fundamentalist christians want to study science Dawkins would rejoice but they don't want to study science they simply want to adhere to their old ways of thinking that comes from religious texts. So be it. Dawkins is against religious schools precisely because they don't teach proper science but creationism. He feels religion and tradition should stay at home and that science belongs in the schools. What's wrong with that? Atheism isn't a religion. But now that you mention it, the next time a religious person asks me what religion I belong to I'm going to say its a new religion. When they ask which god is worshipped I will say 'oh we don't worship a god, we follow the teachings of darwin.' Its a joke of course because the notion that atheism is a religion is rubbish.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Dawkins went to an Anglican school. His last position was at Oxford, also a school set up by friars and monks. He's a member of the British Royal Society of Science, started by a clergyman to promote science and religion as compatible.

    Maybe he should only go to atheist institutions to make his point?
     
  19. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    So what? He's still an atheist and though these institutions were set up but monks they were not taught creationism nor were they run by fundamentalists.

    He raises his concerns in this:

    http://www.documentarytube.com/reli...-all-evil-the-virus-of-faith-richard-dawkins/
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Wow no kidding!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How did he slip past the Deluded Indoctrinators?
     
  21. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    But that's just it he wasn't being indoctrinated. There is religious education and then there is religious indoctrination and they are not the same thing.
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    So basically he's advocating for banning religious schools because he feels his ideas are "better" than those who want to ban his ideas.

    Except he went to an Anglican school and was taught science by priests.

    When he wants to teach other peoples children about atheism its good, when parents want to teach their own children about religion its abuse

    When he runs atheist camps for other peoples children its good, when parents want to send their children to Sunday school its abuse

    So basically whatever he says is right and other people are all wrong

    There should be no choices in society other than what he deems is acceptable.


    Can you guess that he is talking about teaching science?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2009
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Is it banning or does he object to it being paid for by the State? I don't remember the details of that but he does seem to think that it is dangerous to have a fundamentalist education that isn't tempered by outside information.

    The thing is that when he went to school these were priests who were primarily teachers of a secular curriculum. They taught science as would be taught by a non-religious teacher. I am not sure how far I agree with him on the subject of religious schools. I don't think it should it be paid for by the State, I don't see why they cannot get a religious education at home or sunday school or what have you.

    I don't think he is saying there should be no choices, I think he is saying that if a school is strictly interested in religious indoctrination then it is offering a bad education. I don't think he opposes children being taught religion as long as the child is also being exposed to a non-religious secular curriculum which is important if you want to teach science. I mean how would you reconcile the religious interpretation of the beginning of life on earth with what science has to say about the beginning of life on earth?

    No I don't think he is talking about science there. I think he is talking about social change, changing societies reliance on religion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page