Atheism and political apathy

[S.A.M.]

I think 100,000 displaced Kashmiri Pundits do not require any justification, but thats just me.

In any case, for all our differences we have diplomatic relations with both Pakistan and China and have never stopped any dialogue that could lead to peace or claimed that we do not talk to terrorists or any moronic crap like that.

 

[CptBork]

So let the displaced Kashmiris return to their region and live as part of Pakistan. As for diplomatic relations, weren't you close to a nuclear war with Musharraf a few years ago? Isn't that why the two countries have treaded so cautiously ever since?

 

[iceaura]

One Mahatma Gandhi makes up for several hundred suicide bombers, IMO.

Are you sure Gandhi was theist, personally ?

FYI, you could not distinguish between atheist or theist contributions to politics in Indian society because such distinctions are irrelevant to us.

That may account for your inability to recognize them elsewhere.

Calling a ban on religious expression or atheist expression as secularism is a joke.

Calling the removal of government backing for religious strictures or edicts a ban on religious expression is confused.

In any case, for all our differences we have diplomatic relations with both Pakistan and China and have never stopped any dialogue that could lead to peace or claimed that we do not talk to terrorists or any moronic crap like that.

Have you noticed that your complaints with the US actual behavior center around the behaviors of the most religious and theistic factions of US government and society ?

Are you sure the US intellectual crowd that identifies Abrahamic theistic religion in the US as a major contributing factor to all these bad things you likewise disparage is wrong ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you sure Gandhi was theist, personally ?

Yeah, he advocated theism in public life, which had diminished under the British and had bhajan sessions for his followers.

That may account for your inability to recognize them elsewhere.

I consider that an advantage.

Calling the removal of government backing for religious strictures or edicts a ban on religious expression is confused.

In a country that elects a President by majority vote?

Have you noticed that your complaints with the US actual behavior center around the behaviors of the most religious and theistic factions of US government and society ?

Not really no, they center around [Democratic and Republican, theist and atheist alike] those people who perpetuate American foreign policy

Are you sure the US intellectual crowd that identifies Abrahamic theistic religion in the US as a major contributing factor to all these bad things you likewise disparage is wrong ?

In that case, there is no US intellectual crowd.

So let the displaced Kashmiris return to their region and live as part of Pakistan. As for diplomatic relations, weren't you close to a nuclear war with Musharraf a few years ago? Isn't that why the two countries have treaded so cautiously ever since?

Musharraf is a US puppet, is it any surprise that he destabilizes his own country? After all, in a country that elects women to the highest office in government, he is a military dictator who has obtained power by force. Which is another striking characteristic of American "allies"

 

[Asguard]

SAM if you want to know my problems with religion (to be honest i really shot my self in the foot with that mass delusion crack, its not actually what i belive) look in the religious rights thread. I dont have a problem with people going to church but i DO have a problem with them saying that because they go to church\mosqu\cinagog ect that they have the sole right to decide what is ETHICAL for the whole country.

Ethics has a long history of being a secular disipline (going right back to ancient greece) and the secular style of ethics is also less likly to end up in discrimination for discrimination sake

Take the gay issue, if someone is a religious person there argument against gay rights is "god said its unnatural", well i think god isnt real so why would i belive something that a fake beard in the sky says anyway

Secular ethics on the other hand would have to go into the harms both caused by alowing gay rights and the harms caused by disolowing gay rights and then make an assessment as to the greater harm. This can then be argued on an interlectual level and a defendable position can be established that actually moves sociaty forward.

 

[Simon Anders]

Atheists care so they are liars. You can care only if you have emotions. Atheists claim they don't have emotions - I guess, I mean, I am just trying to sum up the various atheists are all hypocrites threads - so they are hypocrites. If you get out of bed and you have not proven that getting out of bed is logical, you should believe in God too, while you are at it.

Not believing in God means that you have renounced making any decision unless it is based on deduction or double blind studies. I can remember seeing the paper my father signed to that effect.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM if you want to know my problems with religion (to be honest i really shot my self in the foot with that mass delusion crack, its not actually what i belive) look in the religious rights thread. I dont have a problem with people going to church but i DO have a problem with them saying that because they go to church\mosqu\cinagog ect that they have the sole right to decide what is ETHICAL for the whole country.

They can only do that if they are a majority. Like atheists do when they are a majority. Is it wrong for a majority to have the deciding vote? Then you need to rethink the decision making process. What is better than majority opinion?

 

[Asguard]

you want some logic for getting out of bed?
If you dont get out you wont go to work, if you dont go to work you wont get money, if you dont get money you cant buy food, if you cant buy food YOU DIE.

So get out of bed OR DIE

 

[S.A.M.]

What if you're rich?

 

[Simon Anders]

you want some logic for getting out of bed?
If you dont get out you wont go to work, if you dont go to work you wont get money, if you dont get money you cant buy food, if you cant buy food YOU DIE.

So get out of bed OR DIE

Or you are just fantasing about an unpredictable future. (psst, don't get caught up here, I am being logical with SAM. For a while I didn't 'get' the discourse, but now I am joining in the the syllogisms. It is like swimming naked. Of course I'm the only one who can enjoy this.)

 

[iceaura]

That may account for your inability to recognize them elsewhere.
”
I consider that an advantage.

Depending on your goals, it is.

The advocation of ignorance - the creation of a bedrock suspicion of knowledge as inherently corrupting - is an important feature of monotheistic traditions.

Calling the removal of government backing for religious strictures or edicts a ban on religious expression is confused.
”
In a country that elects a President by majority vote?

Yep.

Have you noticed that your complaints with the US actual behavior center around the behaviors of the most religious and theistic factions of US government and society ?
”
Not really no,

Then it's time to wake up.

Are you sure Gandhi was theist, personally ?
”
Yeah, he advocated theism in public life, which had diminished under the British and had bhajan sessions for his followers.

Lots of politically powerful leaders have advocated theism for the masses - often quite sincerely, in great benevolence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Or you are just fantasing about an unpredictable future. (psst, don't get caught up here, I am being logical with SAM. For a while I didn't 'get' the discourse, but now I am joining in the the syllogisms. It is like swimming naked. Of course I'm the only one who can enjoy this.)

Finally, a man who gets me.

a/s/l?

 

[Asguard]

actually your wrong there. A minority can hold all the power quite easerly in our sociaty

Take for instance the new senate, its made up (sorry not sure of the EXACT numbers) of say (for argument sake)

30 liberal\nationals
24 labor
5 greens
One nick zeniphon
1 right wing nutcase who call themselves FAMILY first (ie the anti gay party)

now inorder for ANY goverment lislation to pass either the libs have to surport it (unlikly at the moment because they are cowards) OR every single one of the small parties needs to

Which means that though the right wing religious nutcase is 1 sentor he can hold the goverment to ransom for whatever the fuck he wants

 

[Simon Anders]

What if you're rich?

Oh, no. The rich have to get out of bed. If you keep something for a long time and do not buy a more expensive model, you are not rich, you simply have money. While upgrading, at the very least, the servants have to lift you up while the deliverers slide the new bed under. No the rich have much more pressure on them than normal people. It is a kind of sect.

 

[S.A.M.]

Asguard:

Clearly your system is even more screwed up

Personally, I think representation should not be based on quantity of membership.

 

[Simon Anders]

Finally, a man who gets me.

a/s/l?

I hope that wasn't literal: I am already married and I certainly cannot support a second wife nor is it allowed in my present country of inhabitation, but thank you. I am sure there is a another fine man out there who will get you.

 

[Simon Anders]

actually your wrong there. A minority can hold all the power quite easerly in our sociaty

Take for instance the new senate, its made up (sorry not sure of the EXACT numbers) of say (for argument sake)

30 liberal\nationals
24 labor
5 greens
One nick zeniphon
1 right wing nutcase who call themselves FAMILY first (ie the anti gay party)

now inorder for ANY goverment lislation to pass either the libs have to surport it (unlikly at the moment because they are cowards) OR every single one of the small parties needs to

Which means that though the right wing religious nutcase is 1 sentor he can hold the goverment to ransom for whatever the fuck he wants

But so could 1 Green. And at least people have to hear minority opinions. In the US we have a choice between Ford and Chevvy. Which would be OK, I guess, if you wanted to drive somewhere. But oddly it doesn't help make toast. In fact toasters, for example, never get any TV time. No one even knows they exist.

 

[Asguard]

normally a party like the greens or the democrats hold the balance of power in the senate which means that bills get logical and quite valid alterations before being passed and bills which are just dam dangerious DONT get passed (for instance workchoices was knocked back i think 8 times before the libs grabed control of both houses and passed it). Unfortuantly this time we dont have a hardworking centrilist party (in the case of the democrats) holding the balance of power. We have a right wing nutcase and a group of left wings (in the greens). Personally i dont have a problem with the greens, i find most of there policy has advanced quite well from "stop choping tasmaina down" in alot of social areas but FF

 

[Asguard]

your actually right SA and thats the reason i think we are going back to a DD election quite soon. its POSSABLE labor could work with FF if they were the only one holding the chamber but at the moment we have a green\FF split (who knows where xeniphon is going to go) so the greens could well try to drag legsliation to the left or they wont pass it, FF try to drag it to the right or they wont pass it and we have another consitutional crisis.

God i hope the libs grow a backbone soon

 

[S.A.M.]

Hey what about my comment?

"Personally, I think representation should not be based on quantity of membership."