5 ms·

> “God exists ... > Fact check by Progressive-example: false I know you’re making an observation so this isn’t directed at you, but to those who got us to this

by dvdhnt 9y ago

> “God exists ... > Fact check by Progressive-example: false I know you’re making an observation so this isn’t directed at you, but to those who got us to this segregation - so no offense intended towards you friend. It makes me so sad that this is the assumption. Yes, the traditional definition of God is not one many of us subscribe to, but to generally group progressives and atheists together, conservatives and religion together is just as much the problem as “fake news”. Reference, myself, a progressive who found his spirituality in his late twenties while working at a startup and finding the church of consumerism unacceptable. Yet, look at that, still progressive.

wallace_f 9y ago
Unfortunately, while I personally appreciate you sharing this, I thought I'd mention that I think you are being downvoted because your post is too far off the primary topic--which is an appropriate reason to downvote--and not because your idea does not contain merit (I think that it does).
abritinthebay 9y ago
Yeah, just because someone is progressive doesn't mean they are necessarily rational. (eta - not trying to flame, tho on reflection I see how it could come across like that. Just pointing out that they are two different things. The same applies to Progressives who think homeopathy works, or anti-vaxxers, etc. It's not a dig at the poster)
- icebraining 9y ago
  -1 Flamebait
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Not my intent, but can totally see how it could look like that.
    - md224 9y ago
      The reason you were down-voted to oblivion was your presumption that religious belief is irrational. Rationality is a slippery concept (if not a completely empty one), and it seems like you've chosen to define it as strict adherence to the doctrines of Physicalism. This kind of view plays well in /r/atheism, but outside those quarters it comes across as arrogant and naive. My advice: try to empathize with those who don't share your chosen axioms. Certainty is the enemy of critical thinking.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        Your appeals to physicalism as a limiting factor might do well in a university debate class but they aren't philosophically sound so much as they are hand-waving. Nice straw-man of my position though, that was masterful.
        dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop posting acerbic swipes to HN? You've done this a ton, and it's against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Taking a bit of a leap from your username: there's no bigger fan of wicked British wit than I, but you can't routinely do it here. The container is too fragile to withstand acid, and all that happens if you breach it is tidal waves of internet shite in your wake. Following the rules is a bit of work and a bit boring, but not nearly as boring as it'll be if HN ends up in that state, i.e. dead.)
icebraining 9y ago
Well, in the US, most people believe in God, regardless of political affiliation. The % of Democrats that are also atheists is larger, but it's still under 15%.
- jboynyc 9y ago
  True, but "nones" (those with no religious affiliation) are on the rise, now accounting for a fifth of the U.S. population, and the overwhelming reason for that is a backlash against the religious right. Sources: Gallup, https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-vol1-24-423/ https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-vol1-24-423/
  - skissane 9y ago
    The "Nones" are actually two different groups of people: (1) Those with religious belief but no religious affiliation. They believe in God and/or an afterlife, but they don't participate in or identify with any organised religion. (2) Those with neither religious belief nor affiliation. They say that there is no good reason to believe that God exists and that when we die we irreversibly cease to exist. Both groups are growing, but group (1) is significantly bigger than group (2). I'm not sure how helpful it really is to lump these two groups together.
LfLxfxxLxfxx 9y ago
> “God exists ... > Fact check by Progressive-example: false Not even false. Religion is immune to fact checks.
- dx034 9y ago
  But if you introduce categories that are immune to fact checking the flat earth society will claim that too. Same for evolution.
jcahill 9y ago
"Progressive" and "Conservative" are sometimes used in extra-political contexts this way, e.g. in linguistics when characterizing dialects.

by dvdhnt 9y ago

wallace_f 9y ago

Unfortunately, while I personally appreciate you sharing this, I thought I'd mention that I think you are being downvoted because your post is too far off the primary topic--which is an appropriate reason to downvote--and not because your idea does not contain merit (I think that it does).

abritinthebay 9y ago

Yeah, just because someone is progressive doesn't mean they are necessarily rational. (eta - not trying to flame, tho on reflection I see how it could come across like that. Just pointing out that they are two different things. The same applies to Progressives who think homeopathy works, or anti-vaxxers, etc. It's not a dig at the poster)

icebraining 9y ago
-1 Flamebait
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not my intent, but can totally see how it could look like that.
  - md224 9y ago
    The reason you were down-voted to oblivion was your presumption that religious belief is irrational. Rationality is a slippery concept (if not a completely empty one), and it seems like you've chosen to define it as strict adherence to the doctrines of Physicalism. This kind of view plays well in /r/atheism, but outside those quarters it comes across as arrogant and naive. My advice: try to empathize with those who don't share your chosen axioms. Certainty is the enemy of critical thinking.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Your appeals to physicalism as a limiting factor might do well in a university debate class but they aren't philosophically sound so much as they are hand-waving. Nice straw-man of my position though, that was masterful.
      - dang 9y ago
        Would you please stop posting acerbic swipes to HN? You've done this a ton, and it's against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Taking a bit of a leap from your username: there's no bigger fan of wicked British wit than I, but you can't routinely do it here. The container is too fragile to withstand acid, and all that happens if you breach it is tidal waves of internet shite in your wake. Following the rules is a bit of work and a bit boring, but not nearly as boring as it'll be if HN ends up in that state, i.e. dead.)

icebraining 9y ago

Well, in the US, most people believe in God, regardless of political affiliation. The % of Democrats that are also atheists is larger, but it's still under 15%.

jboynyc 9y ago
True, but "nones" (those with no religious affiliation) are on the rise, now accounting for a fifth of the U.S. population, and the overwhelming reason for that is a backlash against the religious right. Sources: Gallup, https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-vol1-24-423/ https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-vol1-24-423/
- skissane 9y ago
  The "Nones" are actually two different groups of people: (1) Those with religious belief but no religious affiliation. They believe in God and/or an afterlife, but they don't participate in or identify with any organised religion. (2) Those with neither religious belief nor affiliation. They say that there is no good reason to believe that God exists and that when we die we irreversibly cease to exist. Both groups are growing, but group (1) is significantly bigger than group (2). I'm not sure how helpful it really is to lump these two groups together.

LfLxfxxLxfxx 9y ago

> “God exists ... > Fact check by Progressive-example: false Not even false. Religion is immune to fact checks.

dx034 9y ago
But if you introduce categories that are immune to fact checking the flat earth society will claim that too. Same for evolution.

jcahill 9y ago

"Progressive" and "Conservative" are sometimes used in extra-political contexts this way, e.g. in linguistics when characterizing dialects.