[Terez]

Dolorous Menhir, on 25 November 2010 - 07:22 PM, said:

Obligatory post.

Man, I really wish we could rep posts twice sometimes. I will settle for quoting it twice.

DM is my hero.

[Silencer]

Terez, on 25 November 2010 - 10:31 PM, said:

Wouldn't you say that the most rational group is the most important? If rational people can work together, develop common goals, then we have a better chance of influencing the extremists.


I think I accounted for the fact that there are dogmatic atheists. Again, I'm talking about philosophy, not the general trends of the unwashed masses.


Why is that a problem? There has been a rising distinction in recent years between atheists and anti-theists. The semantics of the words are becoming blurred because the concepts aren't so far apart as we once believed them to be.

Singlehandedly. It's all about baby steps.

My point is that the rational people ALREADY co-exist and 'work together'. Maybe not towards the same goal, but then no-one is working towards the exact same goal. Some provide entertainment, so provide knowledge, some provide tools, etc. And tools are not just things to gain knowledge.
The 'rational' people are the ones who can put aside their differences, and don't hate each other on baseless grounds. This, obviously, is not the majority (the majority is made up of people who don't care, but also don't make any efforts at getting to know one another &ct) but they far outweigh the 'problem' groups.

You did, but my point wasn't that there are dogmatic and relaxed atheists, but that you were generalizing as much as I was. That was all, I think...

I wouldn't say it's a problem, but it is a distinction - atheists who are bordering on agnosticism may as well be in the latter category rather than the former, and so come into the "who cares, I already think this" camp. Once again, not a criticism, just a point.

And as for the last part...it amounts to the same thing, in this situation. But I get your point - I just don't think that you can say people are generally against changing their views and distinguish between groups and individuals...a person is either for or against change, so whether you push them alone or together is not going to make much difference. (Putting aside that ACTUALLY trying to take on a debate as one vs one hundred is unlikely to have any success whereas talking to people individually may yield a different result, but I don't think that's what you meant...).

In any case, we're talking at cross-purposes here. Your point is that people can work together towards a common goal, my point is that it would be nice if it happened but the people you're hoping to convince already are capable of it, and that having a 'common goal' as broad as finding out knew things is not what humanity is liable to do, and that the problem comes from those you aren't aiming at talking to.

I.e. we agree, we just disagree on whether the question is philosophical or practical.

[Satan]

Silencer, on 24 November 2010 - 09:52 PM, said:

As for differentiating oneself from being a 'European', I had a good laugh at that one - aside from the fact that the English are 'European', you also managed to lump everyone else into the category at the same time, despite their own uniqueness. After all, the French are not just European, they're French! So, while I appreciate the sentiment, I really do - NZ is talking about changing our flag (well, rather, a few activists and the media were pushing for it despite the vast majority of the population giving a big NO in response) and I am firmly against doing so, because it represents us, our history, and the people who have fallen under that flag in our defence deserve it to be kept - I also think that, in this case, it IS a bit petty to claim it as a differentiating factor when other people who have adopted a common currency are still considered individual (except by the British?).

That's why I put "" on "Europeans." If you go to England, you'll often find English speaking about Europe and Europeans. Granted, most often not in relations to New Zealand. But in the context of England and continental Europe. It's like I often make a point out of being from Northern Norway to people from southern Norway, but that doesn't make a whit of difference if I'm talking to someone from Spain. And who are you to decide what petty makes? If the Brits say that the Pound is an important part of their national identity, who are you to say against?

Silencer, on 24 November 2010 - 09:52 PM, said:

But, by the same token, and I'm by no means insinuating this, your argument (in general) has the unfortunate implication that racism is perfectly acceptable as it allows one group of people to differentiate themselves from another - a thing I think you'd agree is bad, yes? The problem with any culture preaching 'live and let live', of course, is that it too has to accept the people who have conflicting cultures. I.e. "do not interfere with another group's culture, don't try and enforce your culture on them" sounds great...EXCEPT that in doing so you are enforcing your culture on those groups whose culture says it's OK to enforce their culture on others. So kinda contradictory. But by the same token saying that you'd rather wars than everyone getting along together has the same unfortunate implication that anything is good and fine as long as it differentiates you. *shrug*

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable for groups of people to be racist. But then it's also perfectly acceptable for other groups to disagree with their racist sentiment and try to act against it. While racism may be a consequence of the right of difference, I'd rather have that than to leave the making of all identity, yours and mine included, to a centralized organ.

Terez, on 25 November 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

I think a lot of people have been making noise about how it's impossible to herd the proverbial cats, but I don't think anyone has explained why atheists or agnostics or deists or general religious skeptics would have a problem with the statement in the OP.

I think the fact that the discussion is being held on the premisses of Christianity is absurd. The question isn't if there is a creating deity, but why should we think that there is one?

[Roldom]

Terez, on 25 November 2010 - 10:31 PM, said:

Wouldn't you say that the most rational group is the most important? If rational people can work together, develop common goals, then we have a better chance of influencing the extremists.

how can you attempt to create a world wide consensus when you think that one group, be they rational or not, is more important than others?

and theres no real reason to create a creed for the people in the middle ground, because if left to there own devices they will generally work together just fine.

its the extremists that you need to get working together and sadly, unless someone turns up and hypnotizes them, thats not going to happen in our lifetime


best way to prove a religion is if aliens turn up with the beliefs. just hope the aliens ain't bastards pretending for a laugh....