Photobucket

Proud Atheists, Unite!

by: Ormond Otvos

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 22:00:16 PM EST


I place myself in the Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Meyers school of aggressive anti-theist militant atheism. If not for people like them, and organizations that share their tact, we would not be seeing the surge in rational thought and outspoken opposition coming from previously closeted atheists and agnostics who are now "coming out."

The contributions of scientists, the best of whom are non-believers of varying degrees, whose efforts have lead to medical advances, longer life spans for humanity, technology that just 100 years ago was unimagined, are rarely if ever praised by the religionists. They see science as the bulwark of anti-religious thought. So much for atheists gaining legitimacy in the eyes of religionists with gentility, reason, and contributions to their very existence. Theists will credit god instead.

Some say that engaging in aggressive debate using reason will never change the mind of those who are absolutists, who base their lives on supernaturalism to which they were exposed at an early age. I agree. It is as unlikely to yield fruit as religious proselytizing will cause a thinking person to suddenly abandon reason for supernaturalist belief. But what debate does do is give fence sitters something to think about, chew on. If they are prompted to question the unquestionable precepts of faith, something religions do not encourage, then by observing a realist in aggressive debate their curiosity may be piqued and their reasoning skills along with it.

Those who despise atheists, distrust them, see them as immoral and un-American, will not be swayed by a kinder gentler approach ... my reference to scientists is one example. The fundamentalist theist mind, be it Christian or Muslim, are as firm in their dismissal of science and atheists as they are immersed in their supernaturalist beliefs. We'd be deceiving ourselves to think otherwise. The women's suffrage movement didn't win the right to vote by being kinder and gentler. Nor did blacks attain civil rights by just being good citizens and walking on tip toe to the back of the bus. Nor did the gay rights movement win any converts to full equality and tolerance by working in soup kitchens, or contributing to the Red Cross.

Every one of those movements realized that the kinder and gentler method of whispering their desire for equality was perceived as weakness, powerlessness, by the majority opposition. A strong front, challenging the religious right's efforts; demanding that the Separation of Church and state be kept sacrosanct; fighting theist intrusions into our lives and schools and government; calling out the fakes, frauds and exposing the unbalanced words and deeds of religionists is how we will gain influence and retain our freedom. If they take offense, so what?

Islam continues to flood into Western society. With governmental and the media's failure to stand firm against Muslim threats of violence if demands for the limitation of free speech where their religion is concerned isn't observed, we are reinforcing their perception of us as the spineless "Kafir." If the West doesn't pull its head out of the sand, change its approach, Islamic Fundamentalists will continue to capitalize on it, the virus will spread, and Western culture will continue contributing to its own eventual demise.

So, if we are militant as atheists, if we push it to the wall and go toe to toe with theist ignorance, arrogance and intolerance what's the worst that can happen? Muslims will riot, burn and threaten us with domination and death? They already do that. Christians will hate us, mistrust us, deny our patriotism and morality? They already do that too. We need to make it crystal clear that as freethinkers we are not door mats to mindless fanaticism; that the days of pretending to be theist are over; that expectations of respect for their mindless beliefs can be forgotten; that we won't give an inch to their attempts at creeping theocracy. That there will be no appeasement, no compromise, no negotiating with ancient delusion.

I'm a militant atheist, I could be nothing else.

http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/

Ormond Otvos :: Proud Atheists, Unite!
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A 'fundamentalist Muslim' who's opposed to science is an oxymoronical foisting (3.00 / 2)
You do know that the US is nearly the most religious country on earth, right? Moreso than most 'traditional' muslim societies. Just because this essay includes a 'christians do eet too' counter doesn't make it any less bombastically racist. Dumfucks who write essays like this would never have included the muslim aspect before 9/11. Of course they'd still be going on, unread, about Mormons and Pat Robertson, had 9/11 not occurred. Guess the propaganda worked.

The best propaganda doesn't even need a God, it relies on a historically confabulated fear of the Other.


I was writing about all of them long before 9/11. (0.00 / 0)
Try the "Religious education is child abuse thread" on the original Salon TableTalk. 2500 posts, caused a riot and split and the beginnings of their censorship. Ask MaryBeth.

Got me thrown off DailyKos, too. Terribly offensive. Wouldn't want Democrats to sound like atheists. Can't allow that.

I don't think it will get me thrown off here, though.

Bet not one of you can debate FOR the existence of gods.


[ Parent ]
Mr. O, you know I like you (3.33 / 3)
and I'm really glad you're here, but where do you get stuff like this:

The contributions of scientists, the best of whom are non-believers of varying degrees, whose efforts have lead to medical advances, longer life spans for humanity, technology that just 100 years ago was unimagined, are rarely if ever praised by the religionists.

How can you assert something like that, being a big believer in rational analysis? Data, please?

As a believer, I don't despise or fear atheists, and you know I don't. Do love science. Not a big fan of scientism, though.

That's what you're really talking about here, isn't it? That, and a little of what Laura is pointing out....


No, vox, I'm not talking about scientism, or atheism as religion. (3.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Hmm.... (0.00 / 0)
So what are you talking about?

[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
how can you assert what I blockquoted above?

Rationally, with links, of course.


[ Parent ]
It seems obvious. (0.00 / 0)
What part of it do you disagree with?

And what the fuck is "scientism"?  Sounds like a Rethug shibboleth to me.  Can you give any significant examples of it?


[ Parent ]
From pbs.org (2.00 / 1)
among many other sources defining scientism:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Thus you can see that scientism is as speculative as is any other method of philosophical inquiry, as it takes the scientific method as its credo and has no use for conventional morality. Its adherents generally cannot see that in doing so they substitute their own morality which is as prone to dangerous abuse as that of any other faith system.

Paging Dr. Mengele... Paging Dr. Mengele....


[ Parent ]
No (5.00 / 1)
I don't mean someone else besides you, making an unsupported claim that it exists, I mean an actual example of it.

Who are these "scientismists"? Names?  Quotes from an actual practitioner of scientism, saying these things you (and your blockquote) are accusing them of saying?

I find its extremely disturbing when people who should know better get sucked into these Republican propaganda memes of "scientism", climate change denial, etc.


[ Parent ]
Whoa! (0.00 / 0)
Don't get ahead of yourself there!

Could you answer me this question before we go further:

Do you believe that everything observed and unobserved (either not yet discovered or never to be available to human perception) in the cosmos can be or will be able to be explained via the scientific method?


[ Parent ]
Is that not an article of faith, (0.00 / 0)
since there is no way that that could ever actually be proven?

[ Parent ]
I already have, (0.00 / 0)
Horatio.

[ Parent ]
So, Vox, (4.00 / 1)
You started this whole picayune smokescreen discussion to avoid answering my question.

Who are these practitioners of "scientism"?  Names?  Quotes from an actual practitioner of scientism, saying these things you (and your blockquote) are accusing them of saying?


[ Parent ]
Steven Pinker? (3.50 / 2)
By the way, this is not a "Republican invention." Here is a quote from the beginning of an article in Ars Disputandi, a philosophy of religion journal published in the Netherlands. The article is a review of the book by Mikael Stenmark, a Swedish theologian. I would imagine you are familiar with him, knowing this topic. Here is an excerpt from the review:

The first chapter addresses the question: 'What is Scientism?' Broadly speaking, it is the view that the scientific method has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to all (or virtually all) domains, thereby providing an explanation for everything (or everything knowable by humans). Scientism comes in different degrees, and the universal claims are Stenmark's primary interest. Internal to the academy, 'methodological' Scientism is the attempt to extend the methods of natural science to other disciplines. Outside of the academy, the goals of Scientism are more comprehensive, and its forms more diverse. For example, Stenmark distinguishes between 'epistemic' Scientism (the only reality that we can know anything about is the one science has access to) and 'ontological' Scientism (the only reality that exists is the one science has access to). He also distinguishes between rationalistic, axiological and existential forms of Scientism, which in the case of some scientists (such as Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson and Francis Crick) come together as 'comprehensive' Scientism ('Science alone can and will eventually solve all, or almost all, of our genuine problems').

Chapter 2 examines the issue of metaphysical and epistemological limits, exploring how these may affect the plausibility of the more radical forms of Scientism. For the sake of analysis, Stenmark suggests that we define an adherent of 'Scientism' as one who accepts at least one of the following four theses:
T1: The only kind of knowledge we can have is scientific knowledge

T2: The only things that exist are the ones science can discover.

T3: Science alone can answer our moral questions and explain as well as replace traditional ethics.

T4: Science alone can answer our existential questions and explain as well as replace traditional religion.

Beginning with T2, he observes that it is itself an extra-scientific claim, i.e., a philosophical assertion. It may or may not be true, but it should not be conflated with 'science.' Further, those scientists who assert it are in danger of self-referential incoherence, because the truth of T2 itself cannot be discovered by science. In reference to T1 (whose falsity would entail the falsity of T2), Stenmark offers several examples of kinds of knowledge that are not 'scientific' knowledge; e.g. observational and self-reflective knowledge, beliefs of memory, knowledge of linguistic meaning, and intentional knowledge. Ironically, each of these is required for 'scientific' knowledge. The first two theses of Scientism do not fare well; T2 is self-refuting and T1 is implausible. Further, Stenmark argues that those who assert them are making philosophical and ideological claims, not properly scientific ones.



[ Parent ]
Science alone? (0.00 / 0)
"Science" means nothing more nor less than "how things work".  "Science" means the explanation of anything that is explainable.  "Why airplanes fly", for example is science.  If you posit something that can fly, using other principles, wonderful.  Build me a model of it.

If you are referring to "scientism" as something which requires faith, something not provable, could you give an example of this ominous "scientism movement"? I am unaware of it.


[ Parent ]
See my comment below for (0.00 / 0)
the first half of your comment; I attempted to answer it elsewhere. "What works" and "explanation of anything explainable" are not going to get you very far, I'm afraid.

As to the second part of your comment, see the quote again to which you respond here. Specifically, the refutation of the assertion:

"The only things that exist are the ones science can discover."

You appear to be paraphrasing that statement. Do you see that it is a recursive statement (self-referential incoherence, if you will) that cannot be proven by science? It is not a scientific claim that can be "proven" via the scientific method; nor could it ever be proven in that fashion. It is a matter of faith.

You want me to think everything can be explained by science. But what if I assert that it can't? Can you prove to me via the scientific method that you are correct? No, you cannot, because the control group required would be infinite and would have to include that which cannot be conceived by the human mind, which is what I am interested in talking about. Science can't go there and prove its ability to be up to that task, because it is a human system.

You are accepting on faith that science can describe everything; but I am asserting that it cannot, and you cannot prove that it can because you cannot prove the concept of "everything being explained" using the scientific method. Do you see?

Or is science finite?


[ Parent ]
God DAMN, Vox! (0.00 / 0)
"Everything that can be explained" is the motherfucking DEFINITION of science.

Things that cannot be explained are someone's propaganda.  A definition is by definition self-referential.

Did I say "everything can be explained by science"?  If so, let me rephrase.

Science MEANS "That which can be explained".


[ Parent ]
Hmmmm.... (4.00 / 1)
How is something "explained"?

J.S. Bach's "Art of the Fugue" is propaganda?

By the way, the definitions of "science" that I have seen include the following:

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

which I accept, and

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

which I also accept, but not the two conflated into one definition, which I do not accept.

For example, economic science, political science and even philosophy could be argued to fall under the second definition, but cannot be said to fall under the first.

You appear to want to claim the second definition for the first and vice versa, which is a little like claiming that showing class is the same as teaching class is the same as a pitch class. They are three different uses of the same word, and any argument that would try to claim that the physical and natural sciences explain everything needs to clarify under which definition of science we will have the discussion.

Theologians could claim that "everything that can be explained" is the definition of religion (likely leaving out the colorful qualifier... I don't know).

The problem is that you must use human language to explain your concepts. And never, but never anywhere have I heard before "everything that can be explained" as a definition for science. It's ridiculous.

I've seen things explained to me through dance that science just can't touch. Those things can't be explained scientifically. Can't be proven scientifically. I would really feel for people who only understand the world scientifically, if such people actually existed. It's really the same as those whose worldview would limit them to the spiritual. Very limited.

My point was not that the definition was self-referential. My point was that the assertion itself is unprovable. Which it is. It simply cannot be proven scientifically or logically. The closest you can get is tautology, which is meaningless in this situation. It's a matter of faith.

By the way: "That which can be explained is science."

Does that mean: "That which cannot be explained is not science?" That is, science is limited to that which can be explained?

What of the rest? What might we call that?

Language?
Art?
Poetry?
Music?
Dance?
Spirituality?
Religion?

To which you might say: "All those are things that have yet to be explained, but that science will one day figure out, somehow."

To which I of course, desiring strict adherence to scientific method in its ability to explain everything would say: "Prove it."

To which you might say: "I can't prove it now, but some day science will be able to prove it."

At which point you have entered the realm of speculation. Faith. Call it what you will. Not science, though.


[ Parent ]
Sorry, Vox, (0.00 / 0)
for venting my frustration on you.

I am talking about science, the first definition, the provable description of the natural world.  It does not have to describe everything to be valid.  "Sciences" such as psychology are in their infancy (if that).  Acoustics, for example, is science (first definition), used descriptively in the study of language, music, etc.

If you are unable to come up with an example of this "scientism" you refer to, I don't know what more to say.

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but where did you first come across that concept, and that word?  Who did you discuss it with, to come to your present views?

It sounds to me like the GOP "war on science" that began in earnest during the Bush years as a propaganda ploy against climate change


[ Parent ]
Can religion, for example, (0.00 / 0)
be described by science?

The reason that we have religion, and the forms that it takes can, in principle, be determined by study of human genetics and evolution.  Will such investigation succeed in "describing religion"?  Maybe, maybe not.


[ Parent ]
Actually, in broad outline it is obvious. (0.00 / 0)
At some time in the past, those who carried the genes for religion had a survival advantage over those who didn't.

There ya go.


[ Parent ]
Picky, picky. (0.00 / 0)
Let me try to be more precise for you:  Science is the verifiable description of the natural world. OK?

Can everything be described by science?  Everything in the natural world can in principle be studied by science.  How far we get in that study will depend on the limitations of human intelligence.

You don't like the word "work".  OK, if an airplane flies, the science of aerodynamics is fundamentally proven.  If a particular aircraft quits "working", it does not disprove aeronautics.


[ Parent ]
Here's one egregious example, considering how the market collapse credit default swaps was created: (3.00 / 2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...

"Options theory is kind of deep in some way. It was very elegant; it had the quality of physics," Dr. Derman explained recently with a tinge of wistfulness, sitting in his office at Columbia, where he is now a professor of finance and a risk management consultant with Prisma Capital Partners.

They are known as "quants" because they do quantitative finance. Seduced by a vision of mathematical elegance underlying some of the messiest of human activities, they apply skills they once hoped to use to untangle string theory or the nervous system to making money.

And of course, there is the very nexus of science and religion itslef, otherwise known as "scientology."

The CDS market was created and built on "probability models" developed by physicists. As you know, the collapse of this market was instrumental in the credit market collapse of 2008 which lead directly to the current worldwide recession, considered by most economists to be the worst since the great depression, and whose negative impact is still felt in most of the industrial world.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2...


[ Parent ]
Well, (0.00 / 0)
The phrases "deep in some way", "the quality of", do not appear in any scientific papers that I have seen.

And Scientology is the nexus of nothing but greed, manipulation, and credibility.

If "scientism" means "con-men using the language of science", well, O.K.


[ Parent ]
And srsly, Hitchens? (4.00 / 1)
Name dropping is one thing, but to name drop a drunk clock who was right twice a day only before his batteries ran out?

Hey...did you hear the fairytale he spun about his little Lebanese vacay? Top 10 lulz o' the year.

His account:

http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...

And What Really Happened:

http://leninology.blogspot.com...

Actually the most hilarious display of his 'brilliances' can be found in his Youtubed debate with George Galloway. He's good on paper papyrus.


Repost: (3.00 / 2)
In case you haven't been receiving your regular dispatches from the frontier, I would belatedly draw your attention to a recent visit to Lebanon by Christopher Hitchens. There on the invitation of the Lebanese Renaissance Foundation (a Washington-based lobby group aligned led by a Lebanese Forces member and aligned to the right-wing Hariri cult), he seems to have spent his time being laughed at by Lebanese leftists, especially after bigging up the sleazy opportunist and sectarian Walid Jumblatt as a 'true revolutionary', and leering at the girls at Hezbollah rallies. One afternoon, after a pub visit, he received a bit of a kicking from several members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). The original story that sent the blogosphere humming was that he had written 'fuck the SSNP', or some similar sentiment, on an SSNP poster, thus risking abduction and torture by the party's militias. This was Hitchens' own version of events, and the thought of such dubious dutch courage had some of the sycophants quivering with delight. It turned out, however, that he had actually been defacing a memorial to a Lebanese resistance fighter and SSNP member named Khalid Alwan, who had shot two Israeli soldiers during the occupation. And there were no militias anywhere, just a bunch of pissed off civilians. To be frank, if they couldn't take Hitchens and his tipsy bozo friends down, they aren't all that impressive. This unfortunate episode became especially poignant when Hitchens interpreted his actions as part of a personal war against fascism. "One must take a stand. One simply must", he drooled. High kampf indeed.


[ Parent ]
You seem to be one of those (4.00 / 1)
who tends to paste a permanent "enemy" label on a person you have a strong disagreement with on a particular subject.  One with this permanent mark is then forever attacked, no matter what he does; and whatever he says is forever mocked, no matter how much sense it makes.

Hitchens was in NYC, close to the towers, on 9/11, and lost friends there.  He was understandably rather warped by the experience, to the extreme degree of supporting Dubya in 2004.  Is this your real problem with him?

His demolition of Churchill and JFK are spot on, his hysterical, unreasoning hatred of the Clintons is bizarre, his piece on the execution of Larry Wayne White I found very moving.

His writings on religion (the point here) are generally irrefutable.  He is usually well worth reading, even when one disagrees with him (as I often do).

Do you know what an "Ad hominem attack" is?  It is the last resort of those who have no rational argument to make.


[ Parent ]
And you seem to be one of those (1.00 / 1)
unconcerned with the ways Hitchens prefers to draw a paycheck, currently. Al-kajal does swiss cheese the brain.

I've heard plenty of vignettes of 'people who were THERE' on 9-11 who didn't suffer similar brain damage.


[ Parent ]
Another non-response. (4.00 / 1)
Actually, trivial response.

If I had made a typo, would you make a "reply" about that, ignoring everything else I say?


[ Parent ]
Trivial, whatever (0.00 / 0)
so you respect Hitchens...no big deal; a total hype man for racist imperialism these days. That much can't be denied. He's a very important exemplary figure of the embryopathies that form modern fascism. A specimen, degrading as we speak.

[ Parent ]
Let all your rightwing views out for all to see (1.00 / 1)
Supporting the disgraced Hitchens says it all. As for atheism, that is as much a belief system as one that 100% claims there is God. Agnostics are the only people who make any sense. Atheists tend to be quite full o'shit.

http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...
http://allaircraftarenotinvolv...


Abbeysbooks, is that you? (3.00 / 4)

"Islam continues to flood into Western society. With governmental and the media's failure to stand firm against Muslim threats of violence if demands for the limitation of free speech where their religion is concerned isn't observed, we are reinforcing their perception of us as the spineless "Kafir." If the West doesn't pull its head out of the sand, change its approach, Islamic Fundamentalists will continue to capitalize on it, the virus will spread, and Western culture will continue contributing to its own eventual demise.

So, if we are militant as atheists, if we push it to the wall and go toe to toe with theist ignorance, arrogance and intolerance what's the worst that can happen? Muslims will riot, burn and threaten us with domination and death?"

Christ, OO! Oops :o)

First of all, this sounds like an Irish Tammany Hall district boss decrying the bastardization of American (read, Aryan) purity by the unrelenting hordes of filthy Slavs and Italians. You need a serious adjustment in your view of Islam if you have any notion of being taken seriously by "rational" groups or individuals.

Second, as an Athiest myself, and only as this essay regards atheism and the need to mainstream it's tenets, I agree with nearly all your sentiments here. I have little patience with loopy sky god worshipers. Though, the intensity of that view is mellowing somewhat as I grow older. With that in mind, I could never ascribe to the rhetoric you're presenting here. You won't win any converts, and you'll probably give fence sitters an easy choice to make if you plan on approaching them this way.

To be honest, this doesn't even sound like you, it's so far outside what I would consider a rational argument.

"May we live long and die out"


Hmm. What's your opinion on: (0.00 / 0)
Mobs raging through the streets calling for the death of a Danish newspaper cartoonist (and the recent attempt on his life)?

The death sentence on Salman Rushdie?

Raging mobs calling for the death of one Afghani who chose to convert to Christianity?

The rejection, by Islamic countries in the UN, of such principles as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

I don't see much parallel with the Slavs and Italians.  Maybe you need to adjust your view of Islam?


[ Parent ]
get me some links on (0.00 / 0)
3 and 4, will ya?

I'm not defending whackjobs of any particular religion. I'm not even defending Islam specifically. What I'm against is OO's sweeping condemnation of the entire religion as bloodthirsty hordes, bent on sucking the marrow out of American's bones. It's a perfect example of the weakminded reaction to 911. It's Bin Laden's predicted response. It's self perpetuating. Let's call it like it is. He had it nailed perfectly.

What I object to most of all is the overblown call to arms. Atheists will rise or fall on the strength of their ideas and their character and yes, their morality. There can be a war against theology without a war against it's adherents.  

"May we live long and die out"


[ Parent ]
Get me some links on (2.50 / 2)
OO's sweeping condemnation of the entire religion as bloodthirsty hordes, will ya?

[ Parent ]
here ya go, wiseass (4.50 / 2)

oh look

"Islam continues to flood into Western society. With governmental and the media's failure to stand firm against Muslim threats of violence...."

First of all, here he equates some* number of Muslims, who have made and carried out threats, with  Islam, (Islam as a religion is a whole**), flooding into Western society. Where the hell is "Islam" flooding into Western society? Got a link for that? He's got that exactly backwards. Gee, do you think that maybe our decades of interference, meddling, invasions, raping of resources, and killing of untold thousands (and now millions) of innocent Muslims has set the table for the most radical among them to begin striking back? Whether justified in each case or not? Eh?

The quoted sentence above is a micro look at the macro ignorance of "Western" thought.

Second, Duh..Uh

"If the West doesn't pull its head out of the sand***, change its approach, Islamic Fundamentalists will continue to capitalize on it, the virus will spread, and Western culture will continue contributing to its own eventual demise. "

How will this demise come about? From the flood of Muslim hordes, mebbe?

This isn't a little hyperbolic, is it?

So, if we are militant as atheists, if we push it to the wall and go toe to toe with theist ignorance, arrogance and intolerance what's the worst that can happen?
Muslims will riot, burn and threaten us with domination and death?
They already do that.

Hey Asshole,

It's bullshit like the above that causes most of our problems with just about every other culture on the planet that isn't called American. If you don't see the arrogance and exceptionalist, mindless fear and hate mongering in any of these statements, then you're being a willfull dick.

If that's the best you've got, then go on back to FSZ where your phenomenal social aptitude is best applied.    

__________________________________________________________

* adjective
 1) being a certain one or ones not specified or known

 2)being of a certain unspecified (but often considerable) number, quantity, degree, etc.
__________________________________________________________

pronoun
 1) certain ones not specified or known

 2) a certain indefinite or unspecified number, quantity, etc. as distinguished from the rest

__________________________________________________________

** adjective

 3) containing all the elements or parts; entire; complete

 4) not divided up; in a single unit

 5) constituting the entire amount, extent, number, etc.

__________________________________________________________

*** sand

  nice little swipe there



"May we live long and die out"


[ Parent ]
Interesting idea: Religions without adherents. (5.00 / 1)
Not an unusual tack for those who wish to alibi one of the worst mutations humans ever got stuck with.

Religions are, I think, merely mechanisms for authoritization of chiefly pronouncements, all growed up like a brain tumor into these comfy savageries like pretending to be drinking their god's blood while killing nature-worshipping people they'd never seen before.

Or stoning rapees for immodesty. Or torturing those who had the effrontery to learn to read the holy book.

Or, in our own country, jailing and/or executing people for missing god worship services.

Drowning witches. Stamping out fun.

But worst of all, crippling the thought processes of untold generations of children, who now come here and belabor me for saying so. Religious education is savage child abuse.

Humans can think. How nice. Let's fuck that up.

Religion is MUCH more dangerous than nuclear waste, with which it shares many characteristics.  


[ Parent ]
And, by the way, (4.00 / 1)
Abbeysbooks is no bigot.  FGM is a practice she is justifiably disturbed about.

She is inaccurate labeling it a "Muslim practice", when it predates Islam.

Though one can reasonably ask, what kind of religion is it that coexists amicably with such a practice for so many centuries?


[ Parent ]
You guys are gonna get your asses kicked on this. (4.00 / 1)
Not one of you is talking about whether there is ANY evidence for the existence of the big kahuna.

It's all fear porn and associative denigration.

On atheism, Hitchens has it dialed in. And you don't. I've seen him twice in person, many times on the tube. All your whining about what, Lebanon, while totally wrong (Leninology?) is also off the subject, which is the existence of gods.

Every god is disbelieved by about a thousand other religions.

And not one of them is remotely provable.

"I'm a believer because it makes me feel good!"

So does heroin.


Oh, poor Mr. O. (0.00 / 0)
Don't respond to the actual comments from the diary you posted here. Such as mine.

You like Mr. Hitchens. That, I get. Others have challenged him (and perhaps, by implication, you? You don't believe in him, do you? Because he says so?).

Every god is disbelieved by about a thousand other religions.

Data, please? Proof?

In the meantime, who said anyone was a believer because it made them feel good? Quite the opposite in most cases from my own admitted anecdotal observations of many religions. And yet so many believe something of which you disapprove.

But far be it from me to let my anecdotes overcome your hard data. Present them, please?


[ Parent ]
You think hard data exists about religion? Sorry. (0.00 / 0)
All I've got is good sense.

We've got this tendency for humans to assign agency to randomness, and call it gods.

It feels good. Ask 'em.

Following your argument, nothing can be decided.

I reject it. I offer observations and questions.

Did you adopt the religion of your parents?

Has worship of Thor appeared sensible to you?

Do you apply these "hard data" standards to your own beliefs?

I doubt it.


[ Parent ]
Answers: (4.00 / 1)
No, I did not adopt the religion of my parents.

I don't know much about the worship of Thor and so am unqualified to answer that one.

I was asking for "hard data" for opinions you are presenting as if they were facts. I don't have any particular interest in explaining what I know experientially and through intuition. You want external proof and I can't provide it for you. I don't even care if I can or if that is not good enough for you. It's just not important to either one of us then, is it?

What I object to is not your belief system, but your statement of hyperbole as if it were fact when I myself know that some of your premises are demonstrably false while others are as much speculation as are mine.

I'm glad you're an atheist. I have no interest in trying to convince you there is divinity. That's my point. My personal existence seems to prove the original premise of your diary false just because your statements are so sweeping and inaccurate. I embrace science, have no interest in converting or convincing you, and am part of one of MANY religions that encourages asking the hard questions and accepting that none of them has pat answers at the ready.

What are you talking about?


[ Parent ]
You need a religion for this? (3.00 / 1)
encourages asking the hard questions and accepting that none of them has pat answers at the ready


[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
Nor was I saying neither I nor anyone else does. Please try to stay on topic if you want to have this discussion. Your diary stated:

If they are prompted to question the unquestionable precepts of faith, something religions do not encourage...

and I was merely saying that as a grand, sweeping indictment of religion, it fails in the first instance, since there are many faiths that do not have "unquestionable precepts" in the first place.


[ Parent ]
Buddhism is a practice, not a faith. (3.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Sorry, Mr. O, you don't get to parse (4.67 / 3)
what doesn't fit into your world view so that it can somehow squeeze into a convenient semantic box. Now, if you wanted to discuss the relative perils of fundamentalism, you should have done so. You posited the problems with religions and their intolerance of atheism. I am pointing out consistently where you err in this argument. Now as to this specific example...

Let's ask the Buddhists themselves at buddhanet [their "Basic Buddhism Guide"]:

Buddhism is a religion to about 300 million people around the world.

That's the first sentence. In the next paragraph:

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:

   (1) to lead a moral life,
   (2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and
   (3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

Note the qualifier: "to many." Not "to all."

Another goodie:

There are many different types of Buddhism, because the emphasis changes from country to country due to customs and culture.

And one of my personal favorites:

Are Other Religions Wrong?

Buddhism is also a belief system which is tolerant of all other beliefs or religions. Buddhism agrees with the moral teachings of other religions but Buddhism goes further by providing a long term purpose within our existence, through wisdom and true understanding. Real Buddhism is very tolerant and not concerned with labels like 'Christian', 'Moslem', 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist'; that is why there have never been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. That is why Buddhists do not preach and try to convert, only explain if an explanation is sought.

Did you know that there are a few Christian sects that feel the same? Sufism in Islam and Kabbalah within the Judaic tradition have some similar teachings. And there are of course other Eastern religions that have at least a strain of this way of thinking in their belief systems.

This is what I am trying to tell you, Mr. O: You are talking about a (very narrow) subset of religious thought that just happens to be most apparent to the "casual" observer of religion. You would define an entire class via a narrow subset, claiming QED based on generalization, anecdote and false attribution. Your entire basic premise is based on the fallacies of inverse accident and argumentum ad verecundiam. It doesn't work that way in logic.

It certainly doesn't work that way in science.



[ Parent ]
In fact, all religions are practices as well as faiths (3.00 / 1)
Christians practice, Muslims practice.

"Jihad" is one example of an [extremist] Muslim practice.

Conversely, Buddhist practice is most certainly based on faith....the faith that following right practice leads the bodhisattva to nirvana.

The distinction with Christian faith being that it is the practice not the faith that guides.

Catholicism adheres to a similar concept of practice being the principle means of salvation, while protestants believe that faith in Jesus as the son of God is the only avenue to Heaven and that "practice" is inherently defiled by man's fallen nature.

However, most Protestant churches still the practice of good works, thru missions, third world pilgrimmages, etc. as a form of evangelizing for the Lord. The good works, however, are somewhat secondary to the main goal of spreading the "good news", or wtf....

And atheism's "good works" consist of......what again?

RIOTOUS!


[ Parent ]
Now I'm a right-wing atheist. You idiots. (0.00 / 0)
I just happen to unbundle the packages you buy unexamined.

Eugenics. Atheism. Tough love. Pediatric brainwashing. American standard of living. Abortion. Individualism.

I have worked out views on all of them. Where'd you get your views, from a Cheerios box?


You're another one who loves the sound of his own voice (2.00 / 3)
FSZ has turned into a complete nothing of a forum, so you came here.

I saw you kissing FSZ's ass the other day. Mike K. got completely p*wned by Noom. You've been spreading the same lies about FSZ not being into unfair bannings and deletions.

You come waltzing in here talking up eugenics, how much Daniel Ortega sucks, what a great guy Hitchens is, how atheism is the truth, blahg, blahg, blahg.

How is atheism not a religion? Why do you feel the need to attack those with faith? You can't prove there's no God. You still haven't explained why you are pimping for Wikipedia.

You've got nothing. You're boring beyond relief. It's predictable that these are the only types of responses you get.

Too bad you got yourself banned by Kos. Most of those fockers are atheists too. You're just the result of years of thinking you're soooo smart. Now you're realising no one cares what you think. Cry me a river. Let me predict your next blog entry. I bet you'll be praising Ayn Rand. Yaaaawnnn.



http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...
http://allaircraftarenotinvolv...


[ Parent ]
Amazing OCD there. I don't need to prove the non-existence of something (5.00 / 1)

YOU can't even define. You postulate god, you prove existence.

Eugenics is cool. It makes little dogs and big ones, and smart Asians and Ashkenazis, golden rice, tall blondes.

How can you have a religion with no god? You apparently listen poorly, and remember words, not contexts.


[ Parent ]
Good site, atheistcamel. (0.00 / 0)
And an excellent and timely piece.  Thanks O.

How do you keep posting here, (0.00 / 0)
to an audience utterly immune to reason, logic, or data.

Their mental ideological ruts are so deep they can't see out of them.  You can't even engage with them in any meaningful way.

Don't you find it depressing?


It's what's available. The depressing thing is how far the net has fallen in such a short time. (0.00 / 0)
Like the wondrous promises made about TV. I'm THAT old...

[ Parent ]
Did you see dengre's close-to-GBCW on DK today? (5.00 / 1)
Sad to see. Would the last one to go please turn off the server?

[ Parent ]
Mr. gzodik, (5.00 / 1)
in what way do you feel that you are not in an ideological rut?

Science is a marvelous tool. A marvelous human tool. It does not actually reflect the reality of the complete cosmos any more than does mathematics or music or art or, yes, religion taken as a whole.

All of them help to explain observable or conceivable phenomena.  None of them can describe or explain everything. To adopt one and discard the others as if they were in opposition in the first place seems to me the height of foolishness.

And yes, that goes for those who insist religion is the only way, as well.


[ Parent ]
Well, I looked at your comment logically. (3.00 / 1)

I don't understand it.

[ Parent ]
I'm not surprised, (4.67 / 3)
because, if you will pardon me, your logic is not particularly good in this argument. Let me go through a bit and show you:

I place myself in the Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Meyers school of aggressive anti-theist militant atheism. If not for people like them, and organizations that share their tact, we would not be seeing the surge in rational thought and outspoken opposition coming from previously closeted atheists and agnostics who are now "coming out."

Non causa pro causa:  (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect.  This is the general category of "false cause."
Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.
Event x caused event y.

The contributions of scientists, the best of whom are non-believers of varying degrees, whose efforts have lead to medical advances, longer life spans for humanity, technology that just 100 years ago was unimagined, are rarely if ever praised by the religionists....
So much for atheists gaining legitimacy in the eyes of religionists with gentility, reason, and contributions to their very existence.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

They see science as the bulwark of anti-religious thought.... Theists will credit god instead.

Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of accident.

  Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the basis of only a few examples.

        e.g., "Wow!  Did you see that teenager run that red light?  Teenage drivers are really pathetic."

Some say that engaging in aggressive debate using reason will never change the mind of those who are absolutists, who base their lives on supernaturalism to which they were exposed at an early age.

"Some say"?!?!? Really, Mr. O.

If they are prompted to question the unquestionable precepts of faith, something religions do not encourage

Again, converse accident. I have mentioned several examples proving the falsity of this claim, including my own faith. You cannot dismiss it because it is inconvenient.

Those who despise atheists, distrust them, see them as immoral and un-American, will not be swayed by a kinder gentler approach...

Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required.

You began the argument against all religion. Here you change the argument to discussing fundamentalism, using that to disprove all religion. Further into the argument, you try to narrow down the argument further by singling out Islam (fundamentalist Islam, I assume). You then try to prove that, because of your claim of intolerance of fundamentalists Muslims, all religion is against atheists.

I could go on, but really, I'm tired and I know you could do much better than this.

Are you SURE you're looking at my comments logically?


[ Parent ]
This goes into your saint file (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
Do they have fallen angel files? :o)

"May we live long and die out"

[ Parent ]
Why, of course we do (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Science (0.00 / 0)
means "verifiable explanation of reality".  Nothing more nor less.  Mathematics is a science.  To the extent that anything describes or explains anything, it is a science.

Yes, Science describes everything.  Because anything that verifiably describes anything, is a science.

I am not in an ideological rut, because I am not an ideological person.  I am, by nature, an engineer.  If it works, it real.  If the airplanes fly, aeronautics is a science.


[ Parent ]
Ah, you went too far. (4.50 / 2)
Those who practice other religions and philosophies can make the same claim: that their systems are verifiable explanations of reality. That's a very small standard indeed.

Actually, mathematics describes nothing real at all. It is a method for humans to comprehend abstractions. Mathematics is probably the most "Zen" of the scientific disciplines.

Science describes everything of which those who employ its processes can conceive, which is limited. As are all human systems. They do not describe "reality." They describe a human conception of a humanly graspable reality.

I'm not sure how Beethoven's Ninth Symphony "works." Is it real? How do you verify it? By soundwaves? Brain waves? Does that describe it in any meaningful way? What happens to it after the music is over?

"If it works, [then] it [is] real"?!?! What does that mean?

If a then b.
Not a, therefore not b. [modus tollens]

-If my car "works," then it is real.
My car does not work; therefore, it is not real.

-The vacuum of outer space does not work; therefore, it is not real

-My son does not work (unemployed); therefore, he is not real.

Do you want to employ a more "scientific" word than "work," perhaps?

Careful! Don't let any human perception interfere with the word you choose. It should precisely describe anything that could possibly be understood as reality.

Or is there wiggle room, and I should just "know what you mean"? Take it by faith, if you will...?


[ Parent ]
Oh, and Vox, (0.00 / 0)
Have you (like donkeytale) gotten sucked into the Rethug "climate change denial" meme?

You do see, how this and the "scientism" meme are part of a coordinated right-wing propaganda campaign?  "The scientism cult is trying to make us believe in climate change"?

You and donkeytale are the only two (other than Otvos) on this blog that I had respect for.  And to see both of you sucked down into the right-wing sewer?  God, this is depressing.


[ Parent ]
I have not been (5.00 / 1)
"sucked into" climate change denial. Not at all. They are two entirely separate issues, and "scientism" as a concept is not related to climate change. Republicans may have adopted the term for their own purposes, but that does not really invalidate its original use as a description of a philosophical system of unverifiable faith. See elsewhere.

Science has pretty clearly identified climate change. I am not entirely convinced that we have identified all the causes of that change nor do we necessarily have them weighted properly. The task is vast and the science is young. I have no doubt that if scientists are given time, they will be able to further collect, refine and analyze their data. It's the way of the system to do so, and it "works" pretty well, in the long run, if imperfectly.

That said, it behooves us all to live as if all the most dire theories available have already been proven as much as anything can ever be proven in science (which, really, given the scientific method, is kind of impermanent, no?).

But then, it always behooved us to live that way, simply and in harmony with the earth. Religions have been teaching that for millennia. It's nice to have science agree.

Now if only those who love all these systems would pay attention to what they are actually requiring of us.


[ Parent ]
I havent been sucked into climate change denial. Yur taking some leaps here, like Socrates. I agree that the icecaps are melting. (3.00 / 1)
and the sea level is rising. I've lived thru tropical storms and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. OK. But where I dont agree is that this problem, which is at base, even if I accept that its 100% manmade and caused by overpopulation (which results directly from scientific and technological advance, BTW), can be solved thru politics, trade agreements and so forth. Thats the denial. That we can somehow now tell the rest of the developing world, especially China and India, to change up and pay for our mess. Not. Gonna. Happen. Especially when they own our ass anyways. RIOTOUS!

My stance is that I accept that climate change is real, I've stated it several times, and for better or worse we will have to learn how to adapt to the reality going forward. Man is an adaptable creature, isnt he Gzodik?

In effect, whether climate change is manmade or historical or a combination of these factors (which seems most likely) makes little difference to me. I believe men will suck all the oil dry before we stop what we're doing to retool the entire engine of the world's production at a huge cost. Or, perhaps more likely, there will be a massive environmental or nukular calamity (thank you scientists) that will force us to start all over. Thats generally what happens in human history. Remember the great flood? [intentional irony alert]

Thats also what it took in Western Europe for social democracy to overthrow the aristocratic order, too. Huge little calamity called WWII.



[ Parent ]
The GOP War On Science (0.00 / 0)
is really a war against the idea of global climate change.  The corporations are afraid it will cost them money, and the rich countries are afraid they will have to help the poor countries.

That is what's behind all this sudden attack on "scientism"


[ Parent ]
I'm unaware of the sudden attack on "scientism" (0.00 / 0)
I'm also unaware of the GOP "war on science".  

That seems a bit extreme and paranoid of you Gzodik. You are sort of deepending here. Doesnt become one who claims the mantle of "science" to espouse such generalities.

The GOP is being transformed by the TeaBaggers, which seems to be a rightwing populist movement. They are channeling their anger at the PTB into politics. While I dont agree with their politics, I do believe their methods are legit, at least to date.

What will make them or break them is their acceptance of corporate money in the system and whether or should I say how easily they will be bought off by power and money which follows success as sure as night follows day.

As for "leftist populism", where is it? I see only a Fakeleft populism which actually aligns with the Teabaggers in many crucial areas (though, of course not all areas): anti- immigrant nativism, anti- establishment Demotards, anti- corporations, anti- affirmative action and so on.

That is why I proposed the fakeleft joining with the Teabag Party to effect real change on the ground. The FakeLeft agrees with much of the Teabag platform and revolt against the status quo is revolt against undeniably the status quo. The SCOTUS decision seems to be a potential common rallying ground for a coalition.

That of course would take energy and courage. I'm still thinking it through....I've had this coalition in mind since the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon, which appealed to a fairly large cross-section of the whiteysphere, even tho Paul is in fact an old skkkool conservative. The anti-war.com site is another paleo conservative site which is on the blogroll here, too. Pat Buchanan finds common ground here as well.

And of course, Failreft is the veritable poster boy for fakeleft populism, so clearly defined by his regurgitation of the "tax the rich" schemes of Huey Long.

Interesting. I think we are seeing the full effect of "right woos left" internet message control, or if you will, an uncoupling of the remaining few white working class left from traditional leftism. Hence, the term "fakeleft."


[ Parent ]
You are extremely (0.00 / 0)
unaware.

[ Parent ]
Ad-homming = ho=humming (0.00 / 0)
If you want to make me more "aware" then you better post those links after all.

I suppose "paranoia" can be defined as hyper-awareness.

At least thats how the paranoid prbably see it.

[:o)


[ Parent ]
There's this interesting thing. (0.00 / 0)
It's called "Google".

Enter into it "Republican war on science".

Do you need help with that?


[ Parent ]
The internet is rigged, holmes, just like the MSM and worse. Where have you been? (0.00 / 0)
Teh rigging overamplifies the search engines in one direction or another by design. Its a more devious method of mind control but much more effective because supposedly intelligent, formerly widely read people with open minds are now being led directly to what THEY want you to read. And you'll never really know who THEY are from issue to issue.

Now I see better from where your intolerant hysteria stems.

THEY have you right where they want you, loooser.

Bet on it.

[;o)



[ Parent ]
OK, I entered those search words and the entire first 2 Google pages comes up with (5.00 / 1)
ONE dude's book. Thats it. One. Chris Mooney, or wtf....this is all it takes to turn a "scientist" into a delusional paranoiac? Yes, of course thats all it takes....I'm surrounded by them here.

This is why I love the whiteysphere!

The sound that yur hearing is the sound of the Amerikkkan "Scientific" mind closing....over its keyboard.

RIOTOUS!!!!

This is almost as funny as Stu googling "Cass Sunstein" and geting two whole pages of blogtripe about how the Fed Govt is conspiring against and infiltrating the blogosphere, but not the Susntein paper or any decent critical analysis of paper itself! Just onesided propaganda...with the same keywords thruout...

Even Otvos was smart enuff to see thru that BS....


[ Parent ]
So have you read it? (3.33 / 3)
Sunstein's de facto resume for teh job?

THIS completely fucking horrifying, racist, eleetist shit? The whole thing? Of course not, and you never will. Though you'll sleep better knowing that condensed, it could pass for a current NYT op ed, thus worthy of your snarky support.

(for those who really haven't read it, it's basically a series of outlines of (righteous)thought crimes - equated and thus rendered insane via juxtaposion with, you guessed it, real world 'examples' of obvious wingnuttery - think roswell, global-warming-is-a-hoax, etc. It even opens with a primer on 'harmful' and 'not-harmful' CTs - the 'not harmful' ones being Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. I'm not kidding. And there's of course a timely, though perplexingly superfluous dose of Islamophobia - 'them a-rabs jus weren't raised right, they have trubbles thinkin' straight', etc.)    


[ Parent ]
As a matter of fact I did read the entire paper as well as the links Socrates put up interviewing him about it (5.00 / 1)
and found much of his thinking and the information interesting and valid. But I disagree with his proposed remedy of "cognitive infiltration." Because the govt has no business infiltrating chat rooms for any reason. Pyrrhiod. Whats funny, tho, is he knows that simply by mentioning the possibility he's inserted his dick inn yur ear and you'll never get it unstuck....RIOTOUS!

I disagree also that "cognitive infiltration" will work in any event. We are the living proof of that fact. The valid issue he raised concerned the ability of the internet for people to self censor, self filter the information they receive so that their knowledge becomes a mind controlled oneway street leading to delusional paranoia. You, Failreft and Stu, and now Gzodik, prove this to a T.

Here we see the rigging of search engines in all its fake glory. Same with Sunstein. Stu didnt read Sunstein's paper at all, didnt consider intellectually what the paper was saying at all. He just googled, picked up the planted meme and ran with it. So did thousands of other like minded simpletons and VOILA! You have virally spread halftrue paranoia in the whiteysphere.

Look at Gzodik here. Another victim. THEY are out to get put us in concentration camps.

ha ha. Loony bins is more like it.

Sunsteins critique, that the internet created "group polarization" which is dangerous for the reasonable functioning of a demotardacy was very well stated.

There simply is no solution. As we have seen thru the DKOS to PFF experiment, Peeder allowed and you sorta allow cognitive infiltration of the amateu variety. Its called "debating the facts and merits."

But the group polarization still intensifies. As long as people succumb to the "Soft machine" of the infoboobtubez there is no cure for it.

Short of Govt censorship which is like saying death is the best cure for cancer.

Whats the solution? The same as it ever was: turn on, tune in (to timeless wisdom) and drop out of the internetz.

I love that you peeps delude yursleves into believeing you are free thinkers, all the while being shaped and molded by forces outside yur control and often antithetical to yur supposed political philosophy.

Kooks!

RIOTOUS!  


[ Parent ]
And the "group polarization" thesis was tested scientifically and VALIDATED (0.00 / 0)
I think they called it the "Colorado Study," or wtf.

Prof. Otvos mite want to chime in here with his superiour scientific brain.


[ Parent ]
Greenwald on Sunstein's "spine-chilling proposal" (3.00 / 2)
Maybe Greenwald will knock some sense into you and Socrates, but probably not (lots of good links in the original):

Friday, Jan 15, 2010 08:16 EST
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal
By Glenn Greenwald

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."  Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer. . . .

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world.  That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power:  namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation?  And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government?  The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources:  namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant.  The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements.  Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is.  In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep


[ Parent ]
I already read this link, but thanks for playing along at nursery skkkool (2.00 / 1)
Did you read socrates links to more recent interviews with Sunstein where he backs off that paper? Would it even matter in yur state of delusion?

Would it matter in yur state of paranoid delusion that if you were informed Sunstein's current govt position doesnt allow him to get anywhere near setting up "cognitive infiltration" by paid govt employees?

Did you read my comments where I already stated that I disagree with vehemently with the Govt "infiltrating" free speech?

No, of course not.

More cookies and milk, Failreft? Nappy time at 1:30, dude.


[ Parent ]
Socrates posted no links (0.00 / 0)
anywhere on this page.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
The links were in a comment in Stu's Sunstein diary from a week ago or so (0.00 / 0)
I think the greenwald link was there somewhere too. Maybe you didnt see it. But yeah, read up a bit more widely and reflectively...

[ Parent ]
"But I disagree with his proposed remedy of 'cognitive infiltration.'" (0.00 / 0)
Well then what the hell are you 'on' about? That's the thing that everyone rational here is pissed off about.

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep

[ Parent ]
I already stated what I'm on about. You need a mentor to take u to a higher state of awareness before you read donkeytao I guess. (0.00 / 0)
The pissed off people only believe you are being rational.

Not even close. Yu are inflamed by halftruth, incomplete twisted memes spoonfed thru search engines that are rigged for the very purpose.

Read Susntein's paper. Reflect on it. Understand what it really means in totality. Research "group polarity." It exists, scientifically tested in groups, and yu should know it, since yur a living/breathing example.

The meme is that internet groups tend to be even more easily polarized because the same inhibitions brought about thru personal contact in groups don't exist in an online interaction. Behaviour tends to more garishly extreme. I'm a living/breathing example of that, haha. But so arent everybody else in here [Boston street slanguage alert]

Understand that I can agree with some parts of a paper or book that I find insightful and educational, and then understand that I can also reject the parts with which I disagree. Its easy if your mind is free.

This is a common intellectual process. Guess its being lost in this day and age.

which is what I'm on about

[:o)

Thanks for playing along again at nursery skkkool.  


[ Parent ]
Dude, this is why I quit this forum (3.00 / 2)
Just look at Laura's response below. It's just one more example of how stupid these people are. They are white trash. She said last week that there was no proof that Huey Long was corrupt or something to that extent. Stu Piddy is long gone. I know you don't think these are paid fakes, but if not, wow, they are doing it for free. They are acting the roles of freeper trolls for free. You should check out my last two entries at DFQ2, especially the one on innocent people went to prison. These conspiracy nuts are everywhere. They have ruined the internet. These are not lefties. I studied lefty sociology. I worked with some great minds, I admit better than mine. They would laugh these fockers off for being the right woos left idiots they are. But you keep at it and have fun. I'd say more, but the reason I quit this place is something our mutual friend doesn't want me to discuss any more. So uhm, that's it. Gotta go. You know where to find me. Make a blogger id. There's a fake lefty on DFQ2 right now I just blasted into donkeytale style. You'd be proud. Sunstein would be proud. Sunstein wrote a brilliant paper. Yeah, he should be more antiwar etc., as if his priorities are a bit fried, but an idiot racist pig like Laura is someone to laugh at, her, Stu, fakeleft, even Byron, all their global conspiracy theory is whacked. These are teabagger wingnuts with a twist of lefty. They would fit in well at Prison Planet. What a fucking joke these idiots are. I'm talking 10th grade level thinking with these chumps. Fuck 'em. They are the lowest of the low. They couldn't debate their way out of a ham sandwich or get it indicted or something.

http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...
http://allaircraftarenotinvolv...


[ Parent ]
Your onto something here, George. No question. The internet is rigged (5.00 / 1)
and the participants by and large are fried.

Watching the descent into all consuming paranoid CT, especially as it exposes a thoroughly rightwing racist/fascist thought process from supposedly "thinking" "leftists" has been a joy to behold.

The LaRouche book you posted was excellent. And yes, Laura, I read the whole thing. Suggest all delusional whiteyspherians NeoLeftists do the same for the recognition of yur own selves in the process of fascisization.

LaRouche lives! RIOTOUS!



[ Parent ]
These aren't special trolls (3.00 / 2)
They really aren't much different than anyone else that posts at Daily Kos. They have the same arrogance and anti-social manners.

What separates them from the pack is their stupidity. That's why they are a better read than DKos but only because someone like yourself has used them as fodder for good jokes.

If we weren't living in such a pained world, yes, this would be riotous.

The support for Huey Long along with their reaction to Sunstein says it all. Combine cognitive dissonance with a lack of brain cells. These were the wrong people to do all that partying. Guys like fakeleft and laurajohn simply didn't have enough brain cells to begin with to be smoking and drinking all they did. It's the Laura S. or perhaps supersoling syndrome. Without biographical details, however, it's tough to know why these people became the creepy idiots they are. Stu is really not much different than Blews, just better at hiding it.

So I put up a really good diary at DFQ2. It thoroughly smashed Andy Stephenson and Jeff Wells, two more Larisa types who have had gravitas over the blogging years. I then got to discussing someone named Corydon Hammond who was the StuPiddy or whatever of Mormon Phd psychologists, someone Wells and others once plugged. The guy was talking up MKUltra Manchurian robots, you should really check it out, one of his schticks was that an evel Jewish doctor was a Nazi who led the charge. Blews probably worships the dude. There's even a satanic ritual abuse support network located right by Blews.  

I just don't believe people like Larouche and Wells even Alexandrovna eblieve half the shit they peddle. Even Blews seems to be some kind of fibber, saying outrageous things as some sign he has a warped sense of humourocity.

Then some other bozo made a guest post. He said I like your blog, and yeah the Wells cat is bad news, and Ted Gunderson is a bad guy. But, BUT he then shoved some more conspiracy theory in my face, talking up pedophile rings run by intelligence. You really are good at articulating what these asshats are doing here, donkeytale. I get more frustrated than anything.

I also have a second entry up on Coakley. It turns out she and another Democrat Scott Harshbarger as District Attorneys negatively impacted the Fells Acres case.

I did enjoy our threads at the original DFQ after I was banned from FSZ for no reason mind you. There was a certain internal logic to our dialogue. That was when I realised you weren't the historic troll before thinking you were the historic troll before changing my mind and realising you aren't the historic troll.

I blog a bit at my forum and another place called the last blog left. At the former, some Alex Jones wingnut told me DFQ2 was too much like you had to know what was being said a lot before to follow it. I said well should a Professor be blamed for not going over basics again too often in higher level classes. The goofball was like well my blog is good because anyone can show up at any time and read whatever.

Unfortunately a lot of people are basically stupid and lazy. The people at this website are the prime example. Too bad they are also sadistic. Otherwise, it might be worth it to stay for the kicks.



http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...
http://allaircraftarenotinvolv...


[ Parent ]
Meant to say at the latter, sorry (3.00 / 1)
At the last blog left, someone made the moronic comment. Anyway, these fockers can try to spin the Sunstein or Huey Long discussions any way they want to, but we know what happened. You should try smarter bloggers to post with, donkeytale. Fairleft is as boring as it gets. He's going to ultimately bring this forum down no matter how interesting your posts are.

http://davefromqueens2.blogspo...
http://allaircraftarenotinvolv...


[ Parent ]
Y'know what really crackkkked me up in the LaRouche book? (0.00 / 0)
How they were able to legitimize themselves with a broad cross-section of conventionally academic scientists when LaRouche's organization became huge evangelists for FUSION ENERGY!!!!!

Yes, that very same technology pushed fervently for years by good ol Blews.....along with T shirts to raise even more money for the cause....

You cant make this stuff up....This is why I love the whiteysphere!

And Gzodik is worried about Christians slicing his nutz off?

RIOTOUS!


[ Parent ]
It's great that you read 'the whole thing' (3.50 / 2)
really, really great. I had no doubt you'd agree with it.

You and Otvos count on death to save you from the future.  Like typical Americans, throwing your children into the pit and having a chuckle about fate.  


[ Parent ]
But of course, you accuse me of not reading anything at all except MSM when its actually you who read nothing but (0.00 / 0)
buy into whichever lastes rigged meme google hands you and you believe every word, unthinkingly....without even realizing Sunstein's talkin bout you! "Group polarization r us"

RIOTOUS!



[ Parent ]
You do only read MSM (2.00 / 1)
Wiki, whatever. That's as deep as you go.

Unless you're holding out on us to make your game moar pffunner.


[ Parent ]
Of course, one must also consider the idea of atheism as a disuniting force, in fact a boon to the PTB (3.50 / 2)
Its been noted elsewhere, by me and others, that the Leftwing political movement of the 1960s was the final chapter of US leftism.  

Its main causes were civil rights for minorities and the anti-war movement against the Vietnam conflict.

These large-scale mass movements were organized, incubated and grown to maturity largely within the communal structure and gathering places provided by Churches and Synogogues.

Atheism has nothing comparable. It could be argued that the "philosophy" of atheism promotes an alienated, nihilist worldview that mitigates against organizing of any kind, much less to support for humanist political reforms.

The very title of this dairy seems to acknowledge the sad fact that atheism is hardly an inspiring rallying cry for positive social change.

When one looks at the right wing political movement that has dominated US politics since the late 1970s, one sees again how churches and synagogues provide platforms and social constructions to ignite political movements.

The current leftist struggle for immigrant rights is based largely in and around the Catholic Church. But this movement of course does not involve leftists or the atheistic whitey persuausion, so I guess it doesnt matter....to the fakeleft.

Sadly, the atheism appears inherently to have no rallying ground of its own.

"God is dead!"  Sure, but how inspiring can a negation become?  


Well, but: (5.00 / 1)
There is no athe"ism".  Atheism is the statement "there is no real reason for believing as you believe".  "Your total belief system is foundless, self-serving bullshit".

Do you demand that "atheism" found its own church, with its rallying ground.  Do people who believe that the world is round, and rotates around the sun, have to do this?

Belief that the world is not flat is an uninspiring negation.


[ Parent ]
Yes, but: (4.50 / 2)
you proved my point. Atheism is pointless. This statement is false, as well as an uninspiring negation:

"there is no real reason for believing as you believe".

I just gave you several reasons and examples.

This statement is merely yur opinion, false and ridiculously generalized to the point of mush:

"Your total belief system is foundless, self-serving bullshit".

What if the concept of "GOD" is viewed as a metaphor for the mystery of life, that essence which remains unexplained (and that science can never explain) about human existence? What if the belief in this metaphor allows people to transcend their petty selfishness, to get beyond their ego/vanity/doubt/fear and bond for common cause of celebration, caring, concern, on behalf of other humans? So what then?

The positives manifested in so many peoples' lives makes no difference to you?  The fact that political systems which have outlawed religion not only failed to eradicate it, but also failed on its own "humanistic" terms as well?

What motivates this hostility towards religious belief?  

Is it this: the "belief" that paradise on earth will occur if only humanity would simply give up its delusional belief systems....?

In other words, is it the "belief system" that you believe to be the problem or is it really the imperfect, greedy, territorial, controlling "human intellectual/emotional system" that is the real cause of the problem of humanity? How does science address this imperfection of man? By putting us all in cognitive therapy? Drugs?

How would that make us "perfect."

Go slow here, Gzodik. I dont really expect answers from Prof. Otvos, just ad hominems. Its how he admits to being stumped.

But can you honestly explain yur antipathy towards religion, the reason for it, the goal of it?

Honestly, is there a personal connection maybe from yur youth growing up in the Bible Belt?

Brownwood, wasn't it? Yeee haw!



[ Parent ]
It's a defense, basically. (3.00 / 1)
They started the antipathy.  Do I have to go find links to prove to you their hatred for nonbelievers? If we don't fight back at some point, we could end up in death camps.

A huge majority of people would never vote for an atheist for public office.  Surely you can understand fighting against bigotry?

You have an awfully rosy view of religion.

The belief that the world is not flat is kind of "pointless", I guess.


[ Parent ]
I have a rosy view of people in general, even "atheists" (3.00 / 2)
Probably my weakest point....

I accept that the world is not flat. Its not "pointless" but I guess I dont really see the point. We arent living in the 14th century anymore and I dont accept that we are going back there. I accept scientific progress and I accept that science also creates ever more efficient means to kill, control and torture as well as save lives. Its all part of the package. But so is religious belief. I accept that we will never be provided answers about our essential nature and reason for our existence and awareness. We will have to self-define, as postulated by a famous atheist named Sartre. We will have to re-define, as postulated by a famous agnostic named Siddhartha.

Religious concepts are a form of philosophy, too,  that we can use or discard as we wish (at least for now) which may help us to understand, motivate and direct our energy, hopefully, but not necessarily, in an ascending arc....but religion does interact in an organized way with the "outside world" and this has the potential for good and evil. I see lotsa both out there, altho I do take the rosy view overall.  

Conspiracy theory is killing the whiteysphere. It too is pointless. Now, if you state clearly that the problem is with radical islamc jihad, or fundamentalist christian dominionism, or wtf, then we are getting somewhere. We can debate these things. But the blanket "THEY are the enemy" is really surprising coming from supposedly learned men such as Otvos and you.

 


[ Parent ]
Let me explain where I'm coming from. (3.00 / 1)
In the local press (small town right-wing rags) there has been a sudden spate of editorials and LTE's from right-wingers ranting against "scientism".  It's got to be a coordinated Rethug propaganda blitz.

Then I come online and see you and Vox ranting against "scientism".

That's too much coincidence for me.


Mr. gz, thank you for posting this. (4.00 / 2)
I see now where your concern is coming from. I saw no such editorials, but was using the term as defined in the article I quoted way somewhere else in this diary's comments.

Under that definition, it would appear you and Mr. O are advocates of the precepts of scientism as posited in that article. It refers to the belief that science will have a solution to all problems, which is truly different from science itself, which makes no such claim. Systems don't tend to make claims like that.

As the article itself notes, the premise of scientism as expostulated in the article may even be true, but it is not provable, which was my primary point. This idea of the infallibility of Science to describe and explain everything there is to know is the very theological definition of "scientism." It is not necessarily a pejorative, merely a name for a belief system. Would you prefer Pure Unwavering Faith in the Omnipotent Power of Science (PUFOPS)? But, I am teasing. Sorry. I just don't know what word you might prefer. "Scientism" has been the theological/philosophical word for what you and Mr. O advocate. Too bad it is being twisted for political purposes.

I can only imagine what these Letters to the Editor were talking about. Maybe such things as the establishment of more Creationist museums, the political agenda of scientific climate research and other such things? That's not what I am talking about here, and I'm sorry if you thought I was. Such things are silly, and I reject them out of hand.

Sorry it took me a while to respond; I don't have much time to blog these days. I believe that's a good thing.

But don't ask me to prove it.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


Cliques ci-dessous
Mondoweiss
NarcoNews
uruknet
Underwater Deli
Lenin
Arabist
Francis L Holland
Angry Arab
Left I
electronic intifada
Weekly Vice
WildWildLeft
Wal-Mart
Gallery Of The Absurd
FreeFuckZone
EuroTrib
reel newz
jewssansfrontieres
AntiWar
Cephaloblog
CounterPunch
Asia Times
World Socialist
Socialist Worker
Chris Jordan
Fafblog
In Gaza

Nothing here is endorsed by the admin, not even her own bullshit. And you'll be lucky if she's even watching yours.
Powered by: SoapBlox