American atheists are on the rise. They have radically different visions of the future.The comparison to a convention of Non-stamp collectors is interesting. Read the entire article HERE. It's interesting.
Reason Rally 2016 believes science can cure the social ills of religion. But it isn't sure what a "healthy" society will look like.
What that voting bloc looks like is less certain. Decker is not proposing the formation of a new political party, and from the long list of Reason Rally's sponsors his movement suffers no dearth of extant advocacy organizations. Among the stated goals of this year's Reason Rally are comprehensive sex education, acceptance of climate science, and an end to discrimination against the gay community.
Is this only the Democratic Party, in secularly inflected tones? Several speakers in a row refer to what is being built as a "progressive" movement, but do speakers like Penn Jillette know? Do the attendees?
The first Reason Rally was more strident. It was militant — a celebration of defiance animated by a clear purpose, a style more typical of New Atheism as it has developed in the United States over the past 20 years, fleshed out by leaders like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and lately as much dedicated to a disdain of the excesses of identitarian liberalism as to any particular account of empirical triumph.
Four years ago, Dawkins encouraged attendees to "ridicule" the faithful. As the Atlantic's Green reported then, "a band fired up the crowd with a rousing sound that lampooned the belief in ‘Jesus coming again', mixing it with sexual innuendo … Attendees sported t-shirts and signs with slogans like 'I prefer facts' and 'religious is like a penis' (involving a rather extended metaphor)."
This year, it is difficult to imagine that the organizers haven't asked the speakers to limit their politics, to remain "on-message" and positive. There is no denouncement of religion, only its consequences. There are no attendees holding signs that say "BAN GOD." There is nothing quite so pointed this time, but without this animating antagonism, what is left?
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Reason Rally: Once "Firebrand in the Belly", Now, More Like Post-Party Intellectual Indigestion..
VOX writer Emmett Rensin goes to the Reason Rally; returns without "reasons":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
From the Vox article: Peter, who has a temporary tattoo of the anarchy "A" on his upper arm, is ready for the age of reason. He fucking loves science. Or he loves logic, he says; it's the only thing he's interested in.
Four years ago, Dawkins encouraged attendees to "ridicule" the faithful. As the Atlantic's Green reported then, "a band fired up the crowd with a rousing sound that lampooned the belief in ‘Jesus coming again', mixing it with sexual innuendo … Attendees sported t-shirts and signs with slogans like 'I prefer facts' and 'religious is like a penis' (involving a rather extended metaphor)."
Of course, it just wouldn't be science and logic without fucking and penises.
Seriously though, what would a non-stamp collecting convention even look like? My best bet is that it would simply involve any hobby with the exception of stamp collecting. Analog that with Atheist conventions and it would be a convention permitting any worldview no matter how absurd,including alien abductions and other bizzare conspiracy theories, provided it does not require a belief in a deity.
Naturally, Atheists would have a problem accepting this but that is the uncomfortable and necessary conclusion where Atheist reasoning takes us.
"Naturally, Atheists would have a problem accepting this but that is the uncomfortable and necessary conclusion where Atheist reasoning takes us."
If you want to call it reasoning. I don't think it rises even to sophistry. It's more like story-telling for the purposes of wish-fulfillment... which the Atheists project... and they ALWAYS project.
They pull fossils out of the ground, and the stories begin. I can get behind the ones that are closest to the fossil itself, like how it got there, how it formed, what the creature might have been like based on how the bones were formed.
All well and good.
But then we get into behavior and changing from one type completely to another 'over time' - as though merely letting things happen long enough would magically make stuff happen.
Even that, I can get behind. All of it.
But then they start talking about 'improvements' and before you know it, we've completely departed from what can be reasonably derived from some fossils and are now off into philosophical speculation in support of this agenda or that ideology.
Most of this speculation seems mostly devoted, not to getting science and reason in, but keeping God out.
As Pheoenix notes, when you (and everyone you associate with) assume that Science and God are diametrically opposed, stating that you 'fucking love science' implies that you 'fucking hate G*d'. Which, in the end, is just virtue-signalling to your fellow Atheists.
'fucking love science' implies that you 'fucking hate G*d'
Yep, science is a substitute for God or even a god for Atheists.
Dusty: I believe in science.
Theist: But science science is merely a tool for testing natural phenomena not a worldview or an entity.
Dusty: I fucking love science man. I'll lay down my life for science.
Theist: Do you even know ANY science?
Dusty: Of course I do, we've met.
"They pull fossils out of the ground, and the stories begin. I can get behind the ones that are closest to the fossil itself, like how it got there, how it formed, what the creature might have been like based on how the bones were formed.
All well and good.
But then we get into behavior and changing from one type completely to another 'over time' - as though merely letting things happen long enough would magically make stuff happen."
Please be wary of scientists that are primarily religious. The views of such scientists is tainted by their religious indoctrination.
Please watch this which explains when Darwin could not at his time.
VIRUS EVOLUTION ( AMAZING DOCUMENTARY)
More discoveries are coming to light that prove evolution and explain even things that were not known at Darwin’s time.
@Rationalskeptic
Stan, the religious scientist you're alluding to, does not indoctrinate us but provide us with an analysis of Atheist and Evolutionist claims. He demonstrates how they fall apart under scrutiny.
Here's a useful tip, do not invoke any religious concepts when discussing Evolution over here, because they are red herrings when the actual issue is Evolution and its dubious assertions. We do however appreciate your attempt at providing 'evidence' in support of Evolution.
The following 2 hour long video is a must see for any person who wants to engage in any debate on evolution.
Evolution - What Darwin Never Knew
There is no such thing as a "must see" or "must read". If you have immutable, incorrigible, tangible, empirical proof, you would give it. All it would take would be one piece like that... falsifiable, repeatable evidence which provides contingent knowledge of the actual process which actually happened, and which actually produced all the phyla from one, single progenitor. Or certainly the actual source for the actual information increase that created - all at once - vast increases in complexity, in numerous parallel but different paths.
But certainly that would have made the news, right? Very big news, one would think. Because all that exists in the way of "evidence" now is the subjective inferential attachment of processes to independent instances of skeletal remains, and certainly not any actual falsifiable, repeatable objective data. Did I mention "subjective"?
But when I get the time, I'll view at least enough of the video to enable a critique. Probably not soon though.
Okay at least 99.9% of scientists accept evolution (and it is even higher among biologists). But this isn’t good enough for you. By the way are you also a skeptic of creationism/intelligent design? It should only be fair you are equally as skeptical as to that as you are to the evolution. Yet I have not read any skeptical word of you about ID why is that? For example you can start with this. What is your answer to this criticism of ID? “The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own”.
And yes evolution is a scientific fact where you are getting confused is in confusing the fact of evolution with the THEORIES about how it happened. See this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Quote
“The general sense of change over time.
All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.
Thomson remarks: “Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact. Natural selection provides the outline of an explanatory theory”
“Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.”
So are you skeptical of all 3 or just number 3? Because 1 and 2 are scientific facts established beyond any doubt. Being skeptical” of these facts is just nonsensical. Unless you believe the creator designed/created all living things to look like they have evolved and share a common ancestor when in fact he created them from scratch or perhaps satan planted the fossils and the bones and the DNA evidence to fool us? Nice try but it’s not working evolution is fact.
Stan,
Just a friendly reminder and wondering if you've had the time to view any of those clips yet? Looks like Mr. Rationalskeptic needs to be taken to task.
Post a Comment