RE: what's with the atheists?

RE: what's with the atheists? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/9/2011 10:38:53 PM)
A comment on "hating Christianity". I do not hate religions as a whole. They are complicated things, with positive and negative aspects. Indeed - I think that a weightened average would give the result, that we would be better without religions. But: Not all religions are equally damaging. Some are even positive. Just, they are not positive for their religious core (which is always, simply wrong) but for the other things attached, like the morality. It would be much better if we find alternatives for some of the positive effects of religions before we eliminate them The way to eliminate them must comply with the human rights, individual freedom, democracy and simple decency. Not all means are allowed. If I could, there are other complex things which I would eliminate before I eliminate religion. For example, corruption. The same applies to Christianity. Yes, I think that Christianity has been somehow more damaging as the average of religions. I also think that taken as a whole is the most damaging religion right now. But again... Not the most damaging religion I can think about. Aton monoteism would be far upwards on that list. Not all Christianisms are equal. Some are definitively more damaging than others, and some were and are positive (see (1) above). A good reason why Christianism is to damaging is because it is so powerful. Many sects are more damaging "per capita", just not so powerful. (2) (3) and (4) still apply for Christianism as well. We should find alternatives for the good aspects, we should fight them within clear limits, and there are other priorities as to fight Christianism at all. That said... yes, I think that two forms of Christianity are between the most dangerous and damaging religions of the world right now. They are: Fundamentalistic Catholicism (for its effects on overpopulation and AIDS) and US-evangelicanism (for its effects on politics all over the world, and very specially in the deconstruction of that once glorious country). The third one (and not in order) would be salafist Islamism (widespread political danger in many countries, and terrorism). In a "second league" of most dangerous religions I would put the jew orthodoxy and the shi'a fundamentalism. You can call me anti-Catholic. I am very sorry for the good people I know and who still identify themselves as Catholics. Wonderful people like Javier Díez-Alegría, Hans Küng, Jose María Castillo, Juan José Tamayo... or my father, to mention another one of the "John XXIII" association of theologists. But they are defeated, the spirit of the 2nd Vatican Counsil is no more and a Grand Inquisitor is seating in the "chair of Petrus". But anti-Chrisitan? Hardly. Anti-religion? Absurd.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/9/2011 10:51:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather uh, you made a statement that i questioned. what all the humpty dumpty shit has to do with anything, well fucked if i know. but then again i don't have a clue what you are on about half the time, like that bullshit society of the spectacle thing you keep insisting i read. i mean what the fuck do i want with some marxist tract? It's more postmodernist than Marxist, in fact (though like most '60s French intellectuals with a foothold in academia, baudrillard leans a lot to the left). My own suspicion would be that SpanishHat likes that one because it allows him to claim that anything he dislikes isn't as real as he is, and so can be ignored, even if it doesn't go away... Yeah, I'll agree with your first statement. DeBord is quite critical of some of Marx's notions of historical inevitability, though. (This is going to take me a while, several readings, and outside research to actually "Grok" DeBord's thesis). I'll quote the following, though: "The anarchists, who distinguish themselves explicitly from the rest of the workers’ movement by their ideological conviction, reproduce this separation of competences among themselves; they provide a terrain favorable to informal domination over all anarchist organizations by propagandists and defenders of their ideology, specialists who are in general more mediocre the more their intellectual activity consists of the repetition of certain definitive truths. Ideological respect for unanimity of decision has on the whole been favorable to the uncontrolled authority, within the organization itself, of specialists in freedom; and revolutionary anarchism expects the same type of unanimity from the liberated population, obtained by the same means. Furthermore, the refusal to take into account the opposition between the conditions of a minority grouped in the present struggle and of a society of free individuals, has nourished a permanent separation among anarchists at the moment of common decision, as is shown by an infinity of anarchist insurrections in Spain, confined and destroyed on a local level. 94. The illusion entertained more or less explicitly by genuine anarchism is the permanent imminence of an instantaneously accomplished revolution which will prove the truth of the ideology and of the mode of practical organization derived from the ideology. In 1936, anarchism in fact led a social revolution, the most advanced model of proletarian power in all time. In this context it should be noted that the signal for a general insurrection had been imposed by a pronunciamiento of the army. Furthermore, to the extent that this revolution was not completed during the first days (because of the existence of Franco’s power in half the country, strongly supported from abroad while the rest of the international proletarian movement was already defeated, and because of remains of bourgeois forces or other statist workers’ parties within the camp of the Republic) the organized anarchist movement showed itself unable to extend the demi-victories of the revolution, or even to defend them. Its known leaders became ministers and hostages of the bourgeois State which destroyed the revolution only to lose the civil war." The little soi-disant "anarchist"s philosophical underpinnings seem to be "Fuck Society. Fuck God. Fuck you. I'm gonna fucking do what I want." When someone who actually admired her stated goals of overthrowing the yoke of Oppression, whether it be political, religious, or simply the accumulated traditions and customs of centuries of Anglocentric North American culture, and attempted to show her that others have been down that path, her gracious response was "... i don't have a clue what you are on about half the time, like that bullshit society of the spectacle thing you keep insisting i read. i mean what the fuck do i want with some marxist tract?" In the immortal words of Lazarus Long: "Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig." --Robert A. Heinlein I see no point in continuing to waste my time.

DeviantlyD -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/9/2011 11:16:04 PM)
Blame it on the people, not the religion. It's the people who are misinterpreting "religion". It's people who massacre each other in the name of "religion". It's people who justify their actions (or lack thereof) because of their "religion". And atheism, while not technically a religion, is a belief system of....people. Atheists are just as guilty as anyone for the challenges we face in this world due to the past actions of human-kind, so they have no reason to feel any form of superiority. I address this post not to the last person, whose name will show up in the "(in reply to xxx)" but to anyone reading this thread.

tazzygirl -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/9/2011 11:17:00 PM)
They wont listen. I have made that same point over and over and over and over again.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/9/2011 11:41:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster (at page 5) Every time we blame a tool, we are blaming the people who created it and / or the people who use it. The running previews "As the Collar Turns" ignore my "hides". Religion is always interpreted religion. There is not such a thing as "pure" religion. Religion is made for people by people. Hence, any critic (positive or negative!) to a religion is a critic to its interpretation by real people. Religion without people does not exist. And for the ones who think that the "pure" religion is the one in some holy text, I can mention horrible passages of genocide and extermination from the Torah, the Bible and the Q'ran. Only those who "interpret" them away can possibly create a positive religion. It is not the ones who damage, the ones who are misinterpreting those texts - it is the people who do not misinterpret the texts, the ones who are most dangerous. These texts are ancient texts with horrible, ancient morality values previous to any concept of individual freedom, human rights and democracy. Only the people who are educated enough in the humanist values, decide to ignore all those horrible parts and concentrate on the very few positive messages, which they then enhance and decide arbitrarily that they are the "core" and the "true form" of the religion in question. This is simple manipulation. The horrible morality of the majority of the people who followed a religion in history, is the real morality of the same kind of people who wrote these texts in the first place. This is their true meaning, a meaning which corresponds with its historical time and culture. The opposite is wishful thinking. But it is welcome. Better that as crushing a plane on my office.

DeviantlyD -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 12:06:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl They wont listen. I have made that same point over and over and over and over again. I guess it is pointless speaking to those with closed minds. Oh well. Off to the next thread. :) I just have to add this though... Oh SpanishMatMaster!! Guess what? I'm putting you on hide!!! :D

GotSteel -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 9:34:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic C'mon, Hannah. Ya'll are hot, and most men don't really believe lesbians can't be brought around. Any fucking excuse at all to start a conversation. I have a sneaking suspicion that Heretic could be on to something here. I've certainly never been congratulated on my atheism. That said I do have to contest your second point. quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather second. congratulating somebody on being an atheist seems like a really fucking weird thing to do, to congratulate somebody on not believing in a fairy tale, i mean when was the last time you walked up to some fucker and said "way to go for not believing in the easter bunny dude"? i mean its not as if it takes any fucking effort to not believe. its not like its an accomplishment of any great import, anybody with a brain cell or two can do it, all it takes is a minute or two of honest reflection and then that's it, no further thought or effort required, your done with the issue for life and can move on to other questions and issues that have some actual fucking importance. Sure for people like my girl who never were raised with religion that's probably true enough, but there is the other side of the spectrum. People who have been indoctrinated with religious beliefs since birth and completely insulated from any opposing view points. The process of going through ones world view and trying to reevaluate every single thing that one held true is a process that generally takes years and can be pretty tramatic. As in depression, anxiety, suicidal impulses sort of tramatic. I met an Amish woman a couple months ago; direct quote from her: "science...what's that?" A minute or two of "honest reflection" are not going to sort out her issues. If someones understanding of life the universe and everything is all bad data, no matter how honest or logical their thought process, it's going to be extremely difficult for them to reason to a valid conclusion.

tazzygirl -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 9:39:16 AM)
Hey GS, welcome back and where you been hiding?

GotSteel -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 10:29:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Hey GS, welcome back and where you been hiding? I've been hiking the Appalachian trail for the last 7 months. I summited Katahdin yesterday and got back to civilization at 3 this morning.

tazzygirl -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 10:37:13 AM)
Oh that must have been really nice! Especially this time of year with the leaves changing! Good to see you back.. and no doubt.. we will be sparing soon! [;)]

kalikshama -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/10/2011 10:59:40 AM)
quote: No, this new "Atheists hate Christians" rightwing meme is simply more Goebbelsian propoganda aimed straight at the feeble-minded non-thinking fear-filled conservative "base". This is the second time I've heard "Goebbelsian propoganda" linked to the right recently. Care to elaborate? I found this interesting. In the interest of not creating a monster post, I'm only quoting 4 of 19 principles. GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. 1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion. 2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority. a. It must issue all the propaganda directives. b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale. c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences 3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action. 4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action. a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

GotSteel -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/11/2011 1:42:46 PM)
It was awesome, the weather for about a week before was wet and rather miserable. At least some of it came down as snow on Katahdin and they had actually closed the mountain. However on the weekend that I got there the weather had warmed up, the snow melted and I had the most beautiful clear sunny day to end my trip.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: what's with the atheists? (10/11/2011 5:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife No, that's pretty much bullshit. I never bring up my lack of belief until someone starts preaching about their beliefs. I have a friend who I go out and have drinks with and every conservation she manages to tell everyone about her Lord and Savior. And it gets worse the more shit-faced she becomes. I can top the drunk. Imagine tripping on great acid, coming out of the bathroom, after having a few moments, or hell it mighta been hours, of watching the wallpaper do the most amazing things. Come out and one friend has started talking about the Jesus and Satan and worrying that he is going to die. When we all were straight a few days later, we told him he better never take acid again.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02