Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on August 11, 2010 at 1:57am

Hey T. Duker, that was good, thanks.

Permalink Reply by T. Duker on August 12, 2010 at 6:44pm

I've listened two it 2 or 3 times now. It is good. He has some interesting points about the Christian Right.

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on August 14, 2010 at 12:36am

yeah, I'm going to listen to it again. Those points are pretty interesting.

Permalink Reply by Carl on August 14, 2010 at 11:22pm

I really wanted this podcast to be interesting, but from a debate perspective it was very one sided. The podcast follows pretty much this pattern: Mooney attacks the right, Price shows how the left behaves the same way, and then Mooney changes the subject. It's a great format to cover a lot of territory, and it does address the conservative atheist question, but I would have rather had a liberal on board who could actually defend his position.

Permalink Reply by Chris Z on August 15, 2010 at 12:05am

Yes, I noticed a lot of that too. I would have liked for stronger arguments from both sides. But I must say I was surprised that Mooney didn't start raising his voice, yelling, or making disingenuous gestures of diagreement after each of Price's rebuttles. I guess I'm kind of bidding low for what we can get from such a debate, when I say I enjoyed it. But then again, I enjoyed it with the thought that perhaps there could be more rounds between the two where they really go at it. Also, to hear all that Price had was a bit informative to me. Most of the things he said really fell flat on their face, but it showed me where his mind was at regarding his perception of the right as overwhelmingly controlled by religious right. It's just so foreign to me. I've got to listen to NPR more, I guess. We get that stuff all of the time, from everywhere, but I think I'm realizing how important it is to stay focused on where the left hangs itself up. I tend to lose track of what is being conjured up about the right and where the left drums this stuff up. Nobody watches the channels (400 to 900) with all of those religious programs, etc. Well many people do I suppose, but I don't. So this is my problem, I don't follow the whole fear of the religious right thing as much as these two got into in this discussion, and that is what I found most fascinating.

Permalink Reply by Brian on August 23, 2010 at 2:16pm

Hi Stephanie,
I am very happy to hear your words.
Your words are what I want so much to hear from people around me but I seldom hear.

Please see the video I recommend in my posting ("ex-KGB Confession").
The message of the video is rather chilling/frightening.
If you think the message is important, please copy and paste the URL to your site.

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 13, 2011 at 2:25pm

Excellent point, Stephanie.  The far left and the far right actually have more in common with each other than they differ on.  They both use the same sort of tactics to support their equally extremist positions, and have the same ultimate goal; that of achieving political power at the expense of everyone else.

Permalink Reply by Smiley Courtney on January 13, 2011 at 3:12pm

In a word . . . BINGO!

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on January 13, 2011 at 1:50pm

Well, of course, I think not.  I think many have accepted the religious notion of self-sacrifice as good and humans/selfishness/self-interest being a sin/bad. 

The belief in evolution makes ME want even humans to be strong, fit, healthy, the best they can be.  Evolution makes me hate the Liberal idea of supporting, even encouraging weakness and unhealthiness and lack of intelligence and being sub-par. 

One atheist Liberal tried to tell me that, in nature, there were some animal groups that supported the weak (forgot the word she used).  But, I think the Meer cat is a great example for her: they do help to raise eachother's young, but if a young meer cat overbreeds in a time of little food, the queen meer cat kills the younger one's kittens.   Their are many example similar.

 

If our individuals keep getting weaker and weaker, the stronger will be forced to carry more and more weight.  Don't the stronger deserve to be happy and free?

I'm reading Richard Dawkins' The Ancients' Tale about evolution now...he says that evolution isn't about the advancement of a species, but about the advancement or evolution of the individual in the species.  An individual may develop qa useful mutation and that individual reproduces evolved, more adaptable offspring.

 

Permalink Reply by Smiley Courtney on January 13, 2011 at 2:13pm

I'm glad you've asked that question, TD.

 

Her's what I nposted not long ago . . .

 

I try to talk to atheists and I get jumped for not being a screaming liberal.

I try to talk to patriots and I get jumped for not being a screaming born-again Christian.

I try to talk to bikers and I get jumped for not being a screaming conservative.

 

With all the screaming going on, I can't help but wonder . . . what kind of a participatory democracy can we have when the world is embracing retribalization? And not only on the cultural, geopolitical, and religious fronts, but even down to the individual?  As great as the internet is at giving everybody a voice, it seems we predominately only want to hear people who agree with our own previously held opinions.

 

How can we see new horizons if we only look in the mirror?

 

So, as someone who values freedom of the road and freedom of thought, and who believes Earth's best chance of having a locale where those ideals might be achieved it the U S of A, I ask . . .  AM I THE ONLY ONE???

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 13, 2011 at 2:20pm

This is an absurd question.  One might as well ask, "Must atheists wear neckties?"

 

Liberalism (a political stance) and atheism (a rejection of religious belief) really have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Similarly, religious belief and conservatism have nothing to do with each other.   One is a political attitude, the other a religion. 

 

Anyone ever hear about separation of church and state?

 

The only (tenuous) relationship that in fact exists is that, historically, the liberal political establishment in this country has attempted to get more votes by reaching out to fringe groups like environmentalists, gays, racial minorities and so on.  The conservative side, not be outdone, reached out in a similar way to fundamentalists and other highly religious groups to try and cultivate their support.

 

Neither party really incorporates the beliefs of the minority elements into their philosophy, but they each give lip service to the desires of the smaller groups, and add their demands to the respective political agendas, in order to continue to draw the resultant votes that are generated.  

 

It's all a rather poorly concealed game of coalition-building for political gain.

 

A better question, and one that I think has a much higher degree of causative correlation, would be: "Must atheists be intelligent?"