Isn't that, itself, a naive call for utopia? I think the people who you would plead with to "put the labels on the back burner" might remind you that you're advocating for your own label -over- theirs in doing so. I don't know if there's anything wrong with labels in and of themselves...and as you mentioned, it's natural to us. I have labels, you have labels..neither of us are beheading people over our labels- and it isn;t because either of us back burnered them. Obviously people can label themselves, belong to clubs, what have you, without the sort of thing you think we need to stop inevitably flowing from that.

Some brands, some labels, are just shit.

(March 1, 2016 at 7:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: Isn't that, itself, a naive call for utopia?  I think the people who you would plead with to "put the labels on the back burner" might remind you that you're advocating for your own label -over- theirs in doing so.

No, I am not delusional. If you look at where most of the planet was in antiquity, which was mostly local and tribal, vs how the west is more pluralistic and more civil, it is not unrealistic to foster a long term attitude. I don't fool myself into thinking there will be a day in a perfectly civil world. But we can and should do as much as we can to promote a more civil world.

Not at all, humans are always going to group, that is what we do, and we will always to some degree have different ideas as to how t move forward. I am saying that our species is allowing some of these ideas to get so political that it sucks resources away from REAL problems that are affecting the entire planet. Nobody wins in a scorched earth Mexican standoff.

My issue isn't creating a godless utopia either, we most certainly do not live in a perfect world. But "us vs them" still does not change that evolution PROVES we are not a separate species, and as much as we love setting up social pecking orders and love to have our particular label on top, it still does not matter. 

Theocracies and one party states reflect the dark side of our species evolution. While the west is not transgression free, it still to me reflects our species evolutionary empathy, that cooperation, not force, is a better way governance.

Fair enough, but you're not exactly putting the western label on the backburner there, are you? More like playing western captain save-a-ho for the savages and their inferior systems.

(March 1, 2016 at 7:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, I am not delusional. If you look at where most of the planet was in antiquity, which was mostly local and tribal, vs how the west is more pluralistic and more civil, it is not unrealistic to foster a long term attitude. I don't fool myself into thinking there will be a day in a perfectly civil world. But we can and should do as much as we can to promote a more civil world.

What you always fail to see, since you're that fixated on religion being behind everything, is that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict started out and still is a nationalistic and political conflict. The motivations of the fighters changed over the decades, but the problem is still the same.

We're not exactly strangers to that. Even in our more recent history, as we can see with Ukraine, former Yugoslavia or the nationalist parties having a field day in many parts of Europe. Also using appeals to religion, but not being motivated by it.

I'll be happy to accept an apology from Atlas on behalf of all secularists for trying to muddy our name by association. Let's see how that goes.

This thread reminds me of a book I bought nearly 2 years ago called Christianophobia. I bought it to see some insight into parts of the world where christians were a persecuted minority and if the author could actually develop relevant insights.

But from the introduction all the author wanted to do was blame and denigrate secularism. He detailed at every turn state sponsored islamic, buddhist, hindu and neo-confucian persecution of christians in Asia and North Africa, but every time secularism was to blame because 'liberals wouldn't allow diacussion of these persecutionz' despite the fact his book was written and published, and despite the fact that in countries like Saudi Arabia and China secularism is anathaema.

Atls is exactly like the book, unwilling to accept his own faults, going so far to blame an innocent third party.

Exactly. By definition, we're the people who don't want religious people getting trampled and fighting each other. We're literally the antidote but we're being called the poison.

(March 1, 2016 at 9:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Exactly. By definition, we're the people who don't want religious people getting trampled and fighting each other. We're literally the antidote but we're being called the poison.

I don't know a great deal about all the history Atlas speaks of, so I can't give any intelligent comments on it. Some people may take it further and have an aggressive agenda vaguely based on secularism. That's not every secularist's fault.

Hmm... hadn't thought about it like that.

Secularism is the vaccine against tribalist infighting among religious cliques. 

And yet the irony is that their various mind-viruses tell them that we're the actual danger.

They're anti-vaxxers!

(March 1, 2016 at 8:57 am)abaris Wrote:

(March 1, 2016 at 7:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, I am not delusional. If you look at where most of the planet was in antiquity, which was mostly local and tribal, vs how the west is more pluralistic and more civil, it is not unrealistic to foster a long term attitude. I don't fool myself into thinking there will be a day in a perfectly civil world. But we can and should do as much as we can to promote a more civil world.

What you always fail to see, since you're that fixated on religion being behind everything, is that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict started out and still is a nationalistic and political conflict. The motivations of the fighters changed over the decades, but the problem is still the same.

We're not exactly strangers to that. Even in our more recent history, as we can see with Ukraine, former Yugoslavia or the nationalist parties having a field day in many parts of Europe. Also using appeals to religion, but not being motivated by it.

No "nationalism" is the excuse, religion is the cause. Again, this goes back centuries, long before 48. It isn't that all people consider it religious, but that just enough in all camps DO consider that land given to them by their respective books. The words are in all three that give dominion over that region, and all three started in that region. 

If Jews didn't consider Israel their god given right, nobody would have sought to move there after WW2. And if Christians didn't believe in the bullshit end times story of Israel becoming a nation as a sign of the second coming of Jesus, there would be no reason to support Jews.

Now again, it does not talk all Christians or all Jews to buy into that, it simply takes just enough. And like any club, when your tribe feels a threat, unfortunately even liberals and moderates will turn to the toughest guy on the block to protect them. It still amounts to evolutionary tribalism mistaken for religious entitlement. That is what religion hides behind to avoid being criticized. 

Of course the excuses shift over time, I am not ignoring that. But the root of all this is still the idea of a "chosen people" and just enough in all camps, certainly not all, are holding everyone hostage in the process.

Look, this even applies to other religions. I got called a racist by a Hindu because I told him his religion was just that, a religion, not a race. I even pointed to India born former Hindus now atheists with the same family background and skin tones. 

Religion avoids scrutiny by hiding behind words like "race" and "ethnic" and "culture" and "nationalism". Now again, it isn't that you can force religion out of existence, but it should not be given code language like that to hide behind, which it does.

(March 1, 2016 at 10:09 am)Brian37 Wrote: No "nationalism" is the excuse, religion is the cause.

As Aerosmith said, dream on.

Oh, yes, nationalism didn't play the leading role in conflicts - ever. It was never about territory - ever. It was always about religion. How could I possibly fail to see that?