Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[S.A.M.]

True. But one should aspire higher, rather than being content with mere obedience.

True, but an easy life tends to dull the edges.

So long as you don't question religion, or authority, or males. Oh: and if you keep your mouth firmly shut. Anything else is treason, you know.

Or don't care how your government conducts itself as long as you can drive to the corner store and get your next supersized meal for a pittance.:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Yes. But there are obstacles to achieving that.
Sartre, for instance, saw the aim of most human interactions as escaping freedom.

Another writer? Need I say more?

SAM's not necessarily defending it, just stating how people think.
Otherwise she'd shut her whore mouth when GeoffP and Q are talking

Some people think we should run around the world and bomb things.

 

[Xev]

Or don't care how your government conducts itself as long as you can drive to the corner store and get your next supersized meal for a pittance.:shrug:

Some people think we should run around the world and bomb things.

Floating down through the clouds
Memories come rushing up to meet me now.
In the space between the heavens
and in the corner of some foreign field
I had a dream.
I had a dream.
Good-bye Max.
Good-bye Ma.
After the service when you're walking slowly to the car
And the silver in her hair shines in the cold November air
You hear the tolling bell
And touch the silk in your lapel
And as the tear drops rise to meet the comfort of the band
You take her frail hand
And hold on to the dream.
A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more
No-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
And no one kills the children anymore.
- - PInk Floyd/Roger Waters

 

[GeoffP]

True, but an easy life tends to dull the edges.

And the mind, and the soul.

Or don't care how your government conducts itself as long as you can drive to the corner store and get your next supersized meal for a pittance.:shrug:

That's terrible. I deplore that kind of attitude. Is that the done thing in Riyadh about now?

Unconcern is so endemic these days. Probably. Who cares?

 

[GeoffP]

And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
And no one kills the children anymore.[/i]

Xev, not everyone likes having laws or legal protection, you know. Some people are entirely prepared to wean out their existence as if they were standing on the edge of a razor, where the slightest draft - or Uncle's "pimp hand" - can send you flying down to dismemberment and the separation of you from yourself.

I think it's kind of Western and imperialist to say that everyone wants to be treated equally. What about mares? They don't want to be treated equally. Or that's what they damn well better say, if we ever get around to asking them.

 

[S.A.M.]

And the mind, and the soul.

Its called the pursuit of happyness.

That's terrible. I deplore that kind of attitude. Is that the done thing in Riyadh about now?

In 1999, gas was 75 halalas (Saudi cents) a gallon.:shrug:

Unconcern is so endemic these days. Probably. Who cares?

Gonna get a lot worse before it gets better; ennui is so soporific.

 

[Xev]

Xev, not everyone likes having laws or legal protection, you know. Some people are entirely prepared to wean out their existence as if they were standing on the edge of a razor, where the slightest draft - or Uncle's "pimp hand" - can send you flying down to dismemberment and the separation of you from yourself.

I'm sorry - I am just a Yankee imperialist. I forgot that these are decadent western constructs.
Besides, you are a man and therefore you are right.
I don't mean to disagree.
May I go outside now?
Please don't hurt me.

 

[GeoffP]

Its called the pursuit of happyness.

And, for the dissenter? Pursuit of jail time?

Gonna get a lot worse before it gets better; ennui is so soporific.

Buh. Whatever.

 

[GeoffP]

I'm sorry - I am just a Yankee imperialist. I forgot that these are decadent western constructs.
Besides, you are a man and therefore you are right.
I don't mean to disagree.
May I go outside now?
Please don't hurt me.

You may certainly not go outside! People would see your silhouette! That cannot be tolerated. Time for the paddywhack machine.

 

[S.A.M.]

And, for the dissenter? Pursuit of jail time?

Speak softly but hold a very large stick.

 

[GeoffP]

Speak softly but hold a very large stick.

Yeah that's not really encouraging me on this issue.

 

[Xev]

You may certainly not go outside! People would see your silhouette! That cannot be tolerated. Time for the paddywhack machine.

Threatening to spank me?
Now I am an enlightened athiest woman, you can't talk to me like that!
At least, not without posting some topless pictures.
Hubba hubba.

 

[GeoffP]

Threatening to spank me?
Now I am an enlightened athiest woman, you can't talk to me like that!
At least, not without posting some topless pictures.
Hubba hubba.

No, no: I'm not getting tricked into that again, cunning offshoot of an industrialized Western culture. I'll just go back to my mud hut and contemplate the changing of seasons.

 

[GeoffP]

Bah. I'm leaving. Spank amongst yourselves.

 

[Xev]

Bah. I'm leaving. Spank amongst yourselves.

Whatever, imperialist pig-dog.
Yeah peace, we're discussing M.E issues over half this fucking forum.

 

[GeoffP]

OK, I came back. But just to leave this. You can all choke on it.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/empireflash.html

Outtie, wankers.

 

[Atom]

Yes. But there are obstacles to achieving that.
Sartre, for instance, saw the aim of most human interactions as escaping freedom.

Aha..Sartre...pretentious! Moi?

You do share something in common...how did George Orwell (a far superior writer) describe him...ah yes...a pretentious windbag. Spot on!

 

[Atom]

True, but an easy life tends to dull the edges.




Or don't care how your government conducts itself as long as you can drive to the corner store and get your next supersized meal for a pittance.:shrug:

Well they DO have a choice..mainly between that and nibbling at lettuce leaves with Nicole Ritchie...such sophisticates.

 

[iceaura]

And this is different from theism because?

Because there is no god involved.

All non-Abrahamic religions are atheistic?

No. Some religions are atheistic. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Like I said, I would be very surprised if it was, like atheism, theism is based on belief;

Yet you find yourself convinced that atheism is based on "belief" - the same kind of "belief" that theistic religion is based on. How did that happen?

Meanwhile, the point is that you cannot assume the very conclusions that are at issue, here. ”
But you can, it would seem.

No, not me: you are assuming all kinds of things about atheism that are at issue, in considering Dawkins's representation of it. These assumption lead you to assume things about my posts that are not there (all non-Abrahamic religions are atheist? ). and ascribe properties to the world that are not in agreement with plain fact (the theistic nature of Buddhism and Taoism).

Do you ever intend to actually answer, respond, or speak to my last half dozen or so posts, btw ? We are still looking for disinformation from Dawkins - an example, to back up the assertion - and some reason other than taking offense at his alleged tone to think him wrong, and an example of his misuse of his scientific credentials, and some handling of the flaws in his approach that follows from his arguments rather than blinkered assumptions about atheism in general, etc.

Most educated women in Saudi Arabia are extremely rich and comfortable with their situation. The ones who spend all their lives there are habituated to a culture where women study work have their own money and are free from domestic and economic responsibilities.

So Islam is OK for rich people - the ones with great wealth don't feel oppressed.
But someone is undertaking those domestic responsibilities - are they similarly content ? Or do they simply not know any better? And if the latter, would you consider ignorance to be a form or sign of oppression?

No your not getting it are you....George K. Chesterton once said

""When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -
-- GK Chesterton

Once you remove one belief then its simply replaced by another and there can't be better example than Communism. Communism was nothing if not a superstition.

It is just as true to note that when people start believing in a god, they will believe in - and do - anything. As Dawkins points out. But your recognition of Marxist/Leninism as a religion ("superstition") is noted. We will expect no more use of Stalin's reign as an example of the evils of the areligious.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because there is no god involved.

You mean, your idea of God? A white man in a flowing beard/robe?

There are several ideas about God, not just yours.

No. Some religions are atheistic. It's really not that difficult a concept.

No, its merely gymnastics.

Yet you find yourself convinced that atheism is based on "belief" - the same kind of "belief" that theistic religion is based on. How did that happen?

Probably because I also believe that any conclusion not based on belief is backed by empirical reasoning

No, not me: you are assuming all kinds of things about atheism that are at issue, in considering Dawkins's representation of it. These assumption lead you to assume things about my posts that are not there (all non-Abrahamic religions are atheist? ). and ascribe properties to the world that are not in agreement with plain fact (the theistic nature of Buddhism and Taoism).

Whose plain facts? Where? Are you saying that there is no ancestor worship, no concept of reincarnation, no concept of a higher power and accountability? Or are you saying that this is not theism because it does not follow your reasoning of God (based on what, btw?) as he should be?

Do you ever intend to actually answer, respond, or speak to my last half dozen or so posts, btw ? We are still looking for disinformation from Dawkins - an example, to back up the assertion - and some reason other than taking offense at his alleged tone to think him wrong, and an example of his misuse of his scientific credentials, and some handling of the flaws in his approach that follows from his arguments rather than blinkered assumptions about atheism in general, etc.

Is anyone here unaware of all the points I have given?
I have provided my explanations for what I believe and why.

I disagree with the way Dawkins ignores evidence of violence in atheists, with how he presents his conclusions on violence in theists (ignoring what the people who have studied the subject have to say); all his polemic on such includes at least one sentence where he says "I am a scientist" as if that were sufficient reason to take his word for it.

So Islam is OK for rich people - the ones with great wealth don't feel oppressed.
But someone is undertaking those domestic responsibilities - are they similarly content ? Or do they simply not know any better? And if the latter, would you consider ignorance to be a form or sign of oppression?

Saudi lifestyle is not representative of Islam, no more than American lifestyle is representative of Western values.

It is just as true to note that when people start believing in a god, they will believe in - and do - anything. As Dawkins points out. But your recognition of Marxist/Leninism as a religion ("superstition") is noted. We will expect no more use of Stalin's reign as an example of the evils of the areligious.

Why? Are you claiming that the areligious are exempt from superstition? Do you believe (like Dawkins) that being an atheist makes you incapable of being irrational or violent?