tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1832563762878417705.post4195020600207265489..comments2016-06-06T15:57:12.990-06:00Comments on Dglas Inquest: Pernicious AccommodationismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1832563762878417705.post-90583135218201378062012-05-18T19:40:05.995-06:002012-05-18T19:40:05.995-06:00Parker Whittle:
The "Binding of Isaac" ...Parker Whittle:<br /><br />The "Binding of Isaac" story is an example of the kind of mindset employed by the religions to distance people from humanity. Central to the Binding of Isaac story is the primacy of God, an anti-humanist principle if ever there was one. It is atheists who are the ones who do not believe in god(s) and who are therefore the ones dismissing the primacy of God and the associated anti-human dogmatic mentality.<br /><br />To attack, as Dvorsky does, atheists is to leave these kinds of psychotic mentalities unchecked, free to render their covert damage on our attitudes towards other human beings. The astute will notice that Dvorsky's article's title does not speak of humanism outgrowing a particular kind or flavour of atheism, of say a particular subgroup of atheists, but of outgrowing atheism as a sweeping generalization. Dvorsky does not check his targets. This is a common tactic of the accommodationist, as is your rhetoric, actually.<br /><br />What Dvorsky clearly is not representing is that the *any* critique is considered "facile and inflammatory" - as a personal attack - by the theist and his pity-motivated hand puppet accommodationist allies. Now I'd like to give Dvorsky the benefit of the doubt and think he simply doesn't realize the rhetorical methods used by the deliberately offended, but it is simply inconceivable that anyone who is an atheist or who is critical of religion could fail to have encountered this. Dvorsky's pointing at offence is to give the theists unmitigated license to employ this sordid methodology. A typical ploy of the accommodationist. In the mind of the accommodationist, the atheist is the bad guy for offending the poor little theist, not the theist for seeking to truncate any possible discussion of the subject matter by appealing to pity through big anime eyes welling up with tears.<br /><br />There is a reason I call accommodationists a covert rot from within. They pretend to be allies seeking to gain control over the conversation while actually working to subvert the essential, necessary work of recognizing and dealing with the concepts involved and they often do so by trying to flood any conversation with emotive fluff and appeals to emotion - much like the last paragraph of your post above.<br /><br />While I am dealing with content, the content of the primacy of God mentality exemplified by the Binding of Isaac story, the effects of such mentalities in terms of bigotry, the devaluation and hatred of humanity by comparison to ridiculous ideals, you are pointing at emotive stuff in an effort to discredit the author (me), not to argue the points. Your assessment of my ire, or lack thereof, (indeed my ire or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the points I make and I note that you address none of those. Your homework assignment is to figure out which fallacy of relevance you have committed here. Have fun.<br /><br />But there is actually something much darker at work in Dvorsky's material. It is common when trying to overcome previous ideologies to trot our skeptical tools - and then then try to put those tools away when the new ideology takes hold so as to prevent those very same tools from finding the very same flaws in the new ideology. Religion is about making humans a subservient consideration to a mere philosophy. Atheism is attacking that philosophy in a way that elevate humans above that mere philosophy. It serves us not at all to replace one dogma with another, and that it what Dvorsky seems to be seeking to do. "Quick, quick, stuff critical inquiry into prescriptivity as a control methodology back in the box before anyone sees how we rely on exactly the same stuff for our new dogma." Becoming a dogma, any dogma, takes the humans out of humanism.dglas raeat (AKA: Greg Teed)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10851363983821558594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1832563762878417705.post-74941220039234448592012-05-18T10:29:53.397-06:002012-05-18T10:29:53.397-06:00I can find nothing in Dvorsky's article in whi...I can find nothing in Dvorsky's article in which he advocates accommodation for the "Binding of Isaac," prayer healing, or any of the other nasty behaviors associated with certain religious dogmas. In fact, I can find no accommodation of any sort of dogma anywhere within his line of argument. Neither do I find anywhere that he even hints that religion is entitled to hold "our human qualities in thrall." <br /><br />You're imputing a stance to Dvorsky that he simply does not hold, accusing him of collaborating with the enemy, merely for suggesting that the tactics of some within the atheist community probably run counter to our common strategic objectives. <br /><br />The ire with which you respond to his argument, second only perhaps to that which you reserve for the faithful, serves only to reinforce his point.Parker Whittlehttp://www.facebook.com/parker.whittlenoreply@blogger.com