The logical extreme of the 'New Atheist' crowd?

[ed miliband]

I came across this fellow on the YouTube homepage, and then realised I'd heard of him in relation to Richard Dawkins (Dawkins released a DVD with his videos on or something...). You can watch his... erm... comedy (I think that's what it's meant to be) here: http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Condell reserves particular spite for Islam, but I think the way he talks about a variety of different religions / religious peoples oozes a very passionate hatred. Some of the language he uses is really quite violent and confrontational, and hearing him describes people as 'pussies', 'dickheads' and whatever else is clearly quite offensive. Dawkins describes him as "hard-hitting, but always quietly reasonable in tone" which I disagree with completely.

But anyway, Condell caused a bit of anger amongst his fans for coming out in favour of UKIP in the elections, but I can't help but wonder where these people thought his politics might possibly lean...?

I actually kind of respect his consistency.

[Dimentio]

Aggressive atheism of the confrontational style is really just an extreme variation of the "I'm-art-intellectually-superior-than-thou" attitude of liberals in Anglo-Saxon countries. Their goal is not to "convert" people to atheism, but just to show themselves how intelligent and trendy they are, and to appear as radical and progressive without doing anything else than defending the established order.

I used to admire Pat Condell before he got obsessed with Islam. His later videos are not that intelligent or funny as his previous ones.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Honestly, I'd say he's a reactionary along with religious fundamentalists. I'm an atheist too - but I don't get into it with christians or muslims simply because they're religious - they just don't affect my life. In matters of personal choice, live and let live. Jeez. :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

The New Atheism has created an environment where atheists feel safer about coming out about their atheism. Regardless of whether it is convincing people that theism is BS or not, enabling us to come out without fear of losing jobs, friends, etc. is a good thing. The number of people openly claiming to be irreligious in the last decade or so has almost tripled.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The New Atheism has created an environment where atheists feel safer about coming out about their atheism. Regardless of whether it is convincing people that theism is BS or not, enabling us to come out without fear of losing jobs, friends, etc. is a good thing. The number of people openly claiming to be irreligious in the last decade or so has almost tripled.

Because being an atheist is such a dangerous proposition.

Seriously though, I think popular, vocal anti-theism is liberalism.

"It's all this RELIGION we have to contend with" is not a functioning criticism of capitalism.

[chegitz guevara]

It wasn't that long ago when atheists were considered less trust worthy than used car salesmen. Most people wouldn't want their child to marry an atheist. People who were openly atheist lost jobs. Most people still wouldn't vote for an atheist for President, and even having the support of atheist organizations is considered politically risky.

And, you're right, the New Atheism is a liberal movement. I don't think anyone claimed otherwise. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just means, once again, we let something slip away that we should have been spearheading.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It wasn't that long ago when atheists were considered less trust worthy than used car salesmen. Most people wouldn't want their child to marry an atheist. People who were openly atheist lost jobs. Most people still wouldn't vote for an atheist for President, and even having the support of atheist organizations is considered politically risky.

a totally terrifying proposition bruh

e. That shit is fucking silly and has nothing to do with any real, material condition problems. It's cool that you don't believe in God, I believe in God, but both of our belief/lack thereof doesn't do shit to make sure people are fed. This is a silly issue.

[manic expression]

I don't know...I don't get how this helps anyone. It's not like anyone's going to see someone who insults religious people and decide to not fire atheists anymore. IIRC, there was a guy like this in the Netherlands, van Gogh was his name (not the painter). People like that add nothing to any discourse, they just promote hatred, division and antagonism...which is probably why so many capitalists think they're "edgy" or "brave". They're best ignored.

[mykittyhasaboner]

totally terrifying bruh

You'd be pretty fucking terrified if you lost your job because you don't believe in some god. It's not unheard of either.

Quit your patronizing.

[Dimentio]

It wasn't that long ago when atheists were considered less trust worthy than used car salesmen. Most people wouldn't want their child to marry an atheist. People who were openly atheist lost jobs. Most people still wouldn't vote for an atheist for President, and even having the support of atheist organizations is considered politically risky.

And, you're right, the New Atheism is a liberal movement. I don't think anyone claimed otherwise. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just means, once again, we let something slip away that we should have been spearheading.

I sometimes forget that. This country has about 50-60% atheists and agnostics. Those who are seen as crazy are the evangelicals.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You'd be pretty fucking terrified if you lost your job because you don't believe in some god. It's not unheard of either.

Quit your patronizing.

I'm pretty terrified that my cousin, who's undocumented in Utah, is going to by lynched.

That's waaaay worse than losing a job.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I sometimes forget that. This country has about 50-60% atheists and agnostics. Those who are seen as crazy are the evangelicals.

basically New Atheists and evangelicals were made for each other:

white men with gigantic victimhood complexes.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm pretty terrified that my cousin, who's undocumented in Utah, is going to by lynched.

That's waaaay worse than losing a job.

What does this have to do with the topic? It's fine if you think there are more pressing matters than this, but to speak as if it isn't an issue that someone can be fired from their job because of their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) is quite stupid.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't think anyone claimed otherwise. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just means, once again, we let something slip away that we should have been spearheading.

What, racist islamophobia?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What does this have to do with the topic? It's fine if you think there are more pressing matters than this, but to speak as if it isn't an issue that someone can be fired from their job because of their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) is quite stupid.

Atheism has created a fake victimhood complex about itself. Atheists are, materially speaking, not oppressed in any real fashion. Sorry.

[chegitz guevara]

Reality is a big, messy, inter-tangled complex of things. It's not as though we must only concentrate on one form of oppression, and ignore all the rest. One can fight for freedom of conscience and for socialism and demonstrate to shut down puppy mills. I don't see why I can't fight more than one fight. The ruling class does.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You mean we should focus on socialism AND racist islamophobia?

[chegitz guevara]

Atheism has created a fake victimhood complex about itself. Atheists are, materially speaking, not oppressed in any real fashion. Sorry.

Yeah, it goes from:
http://nalrant.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/harassment-of-atheist-students-at-school/

to:
http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm

I know, being murdered isn't oppression. :rolleyes:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Atheism has created a fake victimhood complex about itself. Atheists are, materially speaking, not oppressed in any real fashion. Sorry.

Maybe not, but you don't find an issue with someone being fired because they don't believe in some god? Just answer the question. It seems you don't give a shit about people losing their jobs. That's the only reason why I replied to what you said, I'm not trying to make some case for atheists. I don't care about atheists or non-atheists. Most of the people I've met concerned with religion or lack of it are just pretentious in that respect and should just keep it to themselves. However, if someone is fired, harassed, harmed, etc because they openly admit don't believe in god, obviously this is a problem.

[chegitz guevara]

Are there a lot of sanctimonious atheist pricks? Definitely. I know several. I just don't want to lose my job because I don't believe in someone else's magic.

[Terminator X]

And I've run into my fair share of sanctimonious religious pricks (example - this thread).

It goes both ways. Militant anti-theism is hardly a "liberal" construct.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It wasn't that long ago when atheists were considered less trust worthy than used car salesmen. Most people wouldn't want their child to marry an atheist.

A huge number of people still feel that way.

"Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes.... When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively.... The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, 'a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

[Glenn Beck]

I'm an atheist and I think religion blows. Doesn't make me any less inclined towards thinking Pat Condell is a smarmy white supremacist scumbag.

[RadioRaheem84]

New atheism anti- theism is shit. Great atheists like Noam Chomsy, Micheal Parenti, Edward Said, Tariq Ali have scathed religion in a materialist perspective that doesn't reek of chauvinism and clash of civilizations. Besides, Hitchens and Harris are philosophical lightweights. They are panned by philosophers atheist or not. t
Thier shit is pop. I don't think Dennett has recovered from his "brights" idea.lol they do not hold a candle to Bertrand Russell.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Atheism has created a fake victimhood complex about itself. Atheists are, materially speaking, not oppressed in any real fashion. Sorry.

Sorry if I caught you wrongly, but are saying that because they're not oppressed we shouldn't embrace it? I love how New Atheism allowed people to come out of their atheist closets. It made me a proud atheist. Although I don't particularly embrace everything of what ultra-atheists embrace, that doesn't make their views necessarily wrong, nor New Atheism wrong.

[Robocommie]

Great atheists like... Edward Said

I don't think Edward Said was an atheist, I think he was a Protestant, but he was a secularist nonetheless so it never entered his work.

[Adi Shankara]

Are there a lot of sanctimonious atheist pricks? Definitely. I know several. I just don't want to lose my job because I don't believe in someone else's magic.

To suggest that atheists are being persecuted on this level as to "lose their job" is completely ridiculous. If it happens at all, it happens so infrequently it's not even important to mention. meanwhile, people still get killed or lose their jobs for being gay, black, or "illegal".

atheists, while I degree should be protected for their opinions, are not being persecuted for their beliefs en masse, the way black people historically have been, or even Muslims. (since I'm assuming you're talking about the western world, Muslims face violent hatred every day here--atheists won't face anything like that at all, at worst, they face scoffing from christians)

dammit, why does everyone want to be a victim so badly? It looks like it sucks to have to put up with real persecution and discrimination every day.

[Adi Shankara]

I love how New Atheism allowed people to come out of their atheist closets. It made me a proud atheist.

not trying to stir controversy, but if atheism is the belief in no higher power, what exactly is there to be (or not to be) proud of?

isn't that like saying I'm proud that my favorite color is blue?

[Terminator X]

not trying to stir controversy, but if atheism is the belief in no higher power, what exactly is there to be (or not to be) proud of?

isn't that like saying I'm proud that my favorite color is blue?

First of all, you need to learn the actual definition of atheism, which is not "the belief in no higher power," as you wrote.

Atheism is actually the absence of belief that deities exist.

I chose atheism because religion, gods, etc. have absolutely no place in my life. Religion doesn't affect me in any way. If people want to believe in god, have at it. I'm not actively obstructing them from doing so. I choose to live a life without influence from "higher powers" or strict dogmas.

I guess I'm a "proud" atheist in that I can live my life and concentrate on things that are important or interesting to me without having to worry about whether what I'm doing is acceptable in the eyes of a higher power or worry about where I will end up when I die. I just live. It's quite a liberating feeling.

[Adi Shankara]

First of all, you need to learn the actual definition of atheism, which is not "the belief in no higher power," as you wrote.

Atheism is actually the absence of belief that deities exist.

that would be non-theism. Merriam-Webster disagrees with you:


atheism

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheosa- + theos god godless, from
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ungodliness), wickedness (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wickedness)
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"



so above, you can see that's not the only definition. also, it is questionable if by "disbelief" they mean an active disbelief, of which a "non-belief" would be what you described.

[khad]

Someone should do the movement a favor and put a bullet in your head. None of us will claim you're a victim.

Chegitz Guevara, this is a verbal warning to cut out the flaming and trolling.

More flaming bullshit removed after the warning.

Verbal warning to Thomas Sankara for egging on the flaming.
PM warning to chegitz guevara for continuing to flame.

If you guys can't talk about this in a manner that's halfway civil that doesn't involve the use of death threats, then just be quiet.

[Terminator X]

that would be non-theism. Merriam-Webster disagrees with you:


atheism

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheosa- + theos god godless, from
Date: 1546
1 archaic
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"



so above, you can see that's not the only definition. also, it is questionable if by "disbelief" they mean an active disbelief, of which a "non-belief" would be what you described.

I still disagree with that definition. The prefix "a" has always meant "absence or lack of", and "theism" is the belief in a deity, thus, atheism = absence of belief in a deity.

There is a slight difference in semantics that you are failing to detect. The Merriam-Webster definition is inaccurate in stating that atheism is "the doctrine that there is no deity." Atheists don't acknowledge that there even are deities - so how can atheism = "the doctrine that there is no deity"?

The M-W definition falls more into "anti-theism," which I do not espouse. These are the people who attack religion or others' religious beliefs and fall more into the liberal description of what people perceive as "atheists."

Anyway, I'm not really sure what you're debating at this point? Are you trying to disprove my self-proclaimed label as an "atheist" or something? Does it really bother you that much? If you want to label me something else, that's fine - it won't change what I do or don't believe, or how I live my life.

[Wanted Man]

I had an interesting discussion on this recently. We ended up agreeing that it's damn brave to be a militant atheist in (parts of) the USA, but that it's a bit silly to be a militant atheist in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, etc. It's a bit simplified, but I generally agree with this viewpoint.


But anyway, Condell caused a bit of anger amongst his fans for coming out in favour of UKIP in the elections, but I can't help but wonder where these people thought his politics might possibly lean...?

Condell had several fans on Revleft (almost universally in the technocrat crowd, I might add). Even when he referred to Islam as a "desert dogma", claimed that Britain was being "Islamised" because the British government were "dhimmies" and "pussies", etc. I don't know how they feel about him now, apart from Dimentio, who has apparently finally started paying attention.

However, to Dimentio, I would say that Condell has never "changed"; he has always said the same things. The only thing that's "changed" is that he now openly affiliates himself with a political party. Maybe that's "shocking" because Condell's fans really believed that he was an independent-minded bloke who was just giving his honest opinions about stuff? How fucking naive can people get? Did they think he was a fucking communist? Or maybe a closet anarcho-technocrat? :lol:

Quite honestly, the "new right" islamophobic populism of UKIP, Geert Wilders, etc. fits Condell perfectly. I also can't imagine why anyone would be surprised that he actually backs UKIP. It's the party that he can probably agree with on everything. The similarities are so close that Nigel Farage's rants in the European Parliament are essentially Condell's routine. Condell's fans praised him for denouncing the BNP, but they forget that the BNP are a bunch of marginal thugs. Only the lowest of the lowest don't denounce Nazi Nick. "Respectable" nationalist, anti-Islamic, pro-zionist rightists are perfectly kosher (halal, if you will).


I don't know...I don't get how this helps anyone. It's not like anyone's going to see someone who insults religious people and decide to not fire atheists anymore. IIRC, there was a guy like this in the Netherlands, van Gogh was his name (not the painter). People like that add nothing to any discourse, they just promote hatred, division and antagonism...which is probably why so many capitalists think they're "edgy" or "brave". They're best ignored.

Pretty much this. Most people did indeed ignore the likes of Theo van Gogh. The fact that he was murdered by a radical muslim was a true disaster, because it suddenly turned the fat prick into a martyr for free speech and thought.

[ed miliband]

You've put it perfectly, Wanted Man.

[Wanted Man]

By the way, Condell defended Geert Wilders in several videos, not just as a matter of "free speech", but also in defence of his politics. In past discussions on Condell, if I recall correctly, people rationalised this by saying that Condell probably didn't really understand Wilders's politics.

Still working from the assumption that Condell is just this a-political guy who is just telling things like they are, and does not have a vested interest in any political party. Besides, he condemns the BNP, Christianity, and Judaism too, so it can't be all that bad! Incidentally, the Dutch party that the UKIP work with in Europe is the SGP, a christian-fundamentalist group who want to bring back the death penalty and get rid of women's and gay rights. Maybe Pat can make a video about UKIP and their European allies like the SGP.

The fact of the matter is that far-right in Europe largely puts on a libertarian and anti-theist mask, in defence of enlightenment. People seem surprised by this; surely far-right should mean jackbooted fascists marching down the streets, but Wilders doesn't even want to build a mass movement of brownshirts! It's not so shocking, really, it's just an expression of the values of Western European societies that the far-right are foregrounding. It's different in the USA, where the far-right are strongly religious, because the USA is a more religious country.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Condell had several fans on Revleft (almost universally in the technocrat crowd, I might add).

This is uncalled-for. I certainly haven't given much thought to guy, and since he's come out for UKIP that just proves he's yet another loud-mouthed idiot. But since technocrats are the most misrepresented tendency on the forum I guess one more blow can't hurt eh? :rolleyes:


However, to Dimentio, I would say that Condell has never "changed"; he has always said the same things. The only thing that's "changed" is that he now openly affiliates himself with a political party. Maybe that's "shocking" because Condell's fans really believed that he was an independent-minded bloke who was just giving his honest opinions about stuff? How fucking naive can people get? Did they think he was a fucking communist? Or maybe a closet anarcho-technocrat? :lol:

Again, I think this is unnecessary. Why would I or anyone else believe that just because someone else is an anti-theist it also means they have the same opinion in other matters?

[Seer Travis Truman]

Aggressive atheism of the confrontational style is really just an extreme variation of the "I'm-art-intellectually-superior-than-thou" attitude of liberals in Anglo-Saxon countries. Their goal is not to "convert" people to atheism, but just to show themselves how intelligent and trendy they are, and to appear as radical and progressive without doing anything else than defending the established order.

I used to admire Pat Condell before he got obsessed with Islam. His later videos are not that intelligent or funny as his previous ones.

Highlighting atheist Superiority is the correct and Truth-based approach for many. As an individual, I know that god-addicts deserve no respect or consideration what-so-ever.

[Glenn Beck]

But since technocrats are the most misrepresented tendency on the forum

http://i.imgur.com/SA2gQ.png

[Adi Shankara]

...But since technocrats are the most misrepresented tendency on the forum...

Technocracy at it's core has nothing to do with leftism (since it holds a class of scientists, educators etc. above everyone else, so I'd even call it bourgeoisie), so why do we need more technocrats on our forum again? is there something I'm missing here?

[NecroCommie]

New atheism anti- theism is shit. Great atheists like Noam Chomsy, Micheal Parenti, Edward Said, Tariq Ali have scathed religion in a materialist perspective that doesn't reek of chauvinism and clash of civilizations. Besides, Hitchens and Harris are philosophical lightweights. They are panned by philosophers atheist or not. t
Thier shit is pop. I don't think Dennett has recovered from his "brights" idea.lol they do not hold a candle to Bertrand Russell.
In case you have not noticed, it is a lot more productive to tackle religion in a non-materialist way, as religion is purely abstract position. Since an individual does not believe in theism due to material or political reasons, they will not stop believing due to those reasons either. Religious organizations are an issue of their own.

Personally, I will not bring out religious issues if not challenged. Yet you can be 100% certain that I will not participate in religious humbug that most of my family and friends participate in. If they ask why, I will try to answer in ways that are most enlighting. Unfortunately most religious folks are way too stubborn to accept my answers before I start equating religion with other superstitious lunacy... But hey! They asked!

Also, religion is in no way a personal issue. Most countries include tons of religious laws, traditions and other public obligations either publicly religious, or based on solely religious arguments. These religious arguments need to be countered if the laws are to be removed.

[RadioRaheem84]

In case you have not noticed, it is a lot more productive to tackle religion in a non-materialist way, as religion is purely abstract position. Since an individual does not believe in theism due to material or political reasons, they will not stop believing due to those reasons either. Religious organizations are an issue of their own.

Personally, I will not bring out religious issues if not challenged. Yet you can be 100% certain that I will not participate in religious humbug that most of my family and friends participate in. If they ask why, I will try to answer in ways that are most enlighting. Unfortunately most religious folks are way too stubborn to accept my answers before I start equating religion with other superstitious lunacy... But hey! They asked!

Also, religion is in no way a personal issue. Most countries include tons of religious laws, traditions and other public obligations either publicly religious, or based on solely religious arguments. These religious arguments need to be countered if the laws are to be removed.


Good point but how does arguing from the pov of a chauvinist like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins help the matter? I mean they speak in the same language as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

[Franz Fanonipants]

"Hey guys, we're Marxists, but we can't apply material analysis to religion cus..."

[al8]

First of all there are no such things as New Atheism. It is the same old atheism that has already existed. It's only televangelists with the memory span of a gold fish that use and try to popularize this suspsect category as part of their scare mongering in the wake of a couple of widely publicized books by atheist authors.

The religious have accused me and my other fellows of New Atheism despite me and my fellows becoming atheists long before these books published by anglophone authors Dawkins, Dennett, Haris and Hitchins came out. When I ask them to define the difference between atheism and new atheism they can't, because there is none.

Even if Pat Condell is a right winger he has crafted excellent bile against myopic religionists. But I've sometimes wondered that if religionists cry murder and declare a state of siege just because there is some widely publicized authors and a guy on the internet crafts insults; What would make them see sense so they can act appropriately? An actually militant armed to the teeth with AK's atheist salvation army that witch hunts religionists and their super tactical lab dogs, kills them publicly with crude objects, dashed their little ones on the pavements? Maybe something actual would give these divisive super sensitive religious fools something to whine about.

[ed miliband]

The 'New' refers to a resurgance in interest (as there has undoubtedly been), rather than a new type of atheism or anti-theism. The term applies particularly to people like Dawkins and Hitchens, and was initially used in a positive light by the movements propopents.

[NecroCommie]

Good point but how does arguing from the pov of a chauvinist like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins help the matter? I mean they speak in the same language as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.
Many religious folks are far beyond "conversion". It is not the purpose of these men to help make religious folks atheists, but rather to raise the awareness of already atheist or apathetic masses.

But you are correct in the sense that a left winger should steer away from the western supremacy arguments of Hitchens and Harris. However I cannot see how Dawkins is equated with those folks. He might be one of straight words, but he is completely capable of civilized arguments. Much unlike many religious zealots he has interviewed. I simply have to admire his calm, I would have gone berserk in myriad occations.

[NecroCommie]

"Hey guys, we're Marxists, but we can't apply material analysis to religion cus..."
I never said such a thing. If you read carefully, I simply stated that it is not practical.

[Robocommie]

Much unlike many religious zealots he has interviewed. I simply have to admire his calm, I would have gone berserk in myriad occations.

I think the thing is though, Dawkin's selection of people he interviews shows his bias at times. I saw a clip of him interviewing a hardline Muslim convert, who had been born and raised in New York as a secular Jew. He was an asshole, and it wasn't hard for Dawkins to demonstrate what a complete asshole he was just by talking to him. But if Dawkins had found just one of the millions of normal, levelheaded and friendly Muslim people that populate this world, and interviewed him (or her!) it would not have made his point that religion fucks everything up.

[NecroCommie]

But if you remember the documentary, that was not the point of that particular segment. The point was to find out why people would convert from believing in fairies to believing in unicorns. The answer: They're fucking nuts!

[Robocommie]

But if you remember the documentary, that was not the point of that particular segment. The point was to find out why people would convert from believing in fairies to believing in unicorns. The answer: They're fucking nuts!

Ignoring the jibe about fairies and unicorns, I changed religions, and I don't think I'm nuts. That seems like an entirely bigoted and cruel generalization.

[NecroCommie]

Ignoring the jibe about fairies and unicorns, I changed religions, and I don't think I'm nuts. That seems like an entirely bigoted and cruel generalization.
Oh come on! This is exactly why we need the kind of discussion! We can joke about political views and philosophy as cruelly as humanly possible, but religion is a no no?

The point being, the muslim in the documentary was not meant to portray muslims as an entity, but extremist converts. I believe he even used the word extremist himself (Dawkins I mean). And I have seen him debate completely "sane" moderates and such. Like the kinds of McGraith. I would link you to a youtube video but my computer hates youtube.

[IllicitPopsicle]

As far as it goes, I take the stance of both Carl Sagan and Albert Camus: Earth is an awesome place, and should fill us all with wonder (on a personal level), and even if there isn't a deity, the search for enlightenment is important (this is, of course, an extremely abridged version of the two thinkers' separate ideas).

This of course has really nothing to do with socialist/communist/anarchist ideas but considering I'm watching Cosmos right now and "The Stranger" was my favorite book in high school, it works. :lol::thumbup1:

[Robocommie]

Oh come on! This is exactly why we need the kind of discussion! We can joke about political views and philosophy as cruelly as humanly possible, but religion is a no no?

Well, for two reasons, one, it's hard to know whether you're just teasing, or actually condescending to me, and secondly, joking about politics and joking about religion isn't strictly the same because my beliefs are sacred to me. It'd be like cracking jokes on my mom - if I know you well enough to know your intention, it'd probably be all fine and good, but until then there's some boundaries. It's just about respecting other people's beliefs even if you don't share them.



The point being, the muslim in the documentary was not meant to portray muslims as an entity, but extremist converts. I believe he even used the word extremist himself (Dawkins I mean). And I have seen him debate completely "sane" moderates and such. Like the kinds of McGraith. I would link you to a youtube video but my computer hates youtube.

Fair enough. I've encountered my share of folks though who seem to believe that such extremists are the natural and logical conclusion of the mere existence of religion, which is foolish because there are extremists of every ideology.

[Adi Shankara]

I take the stance of Adi Shankara, from the 800's in India:

"Brahman is the only truth, the spatio-temporal world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self."

note that Brahman isn't an anthropomorphic deity, but (to paraphrase) "the stream of consciousness every living being shares."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Theory_of_creation

read it if you want; it's quite interesting. (and no, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs)

[Adi Shankara]

My biggest problem with the Hegelian analysis of religion is it completely ignored Eastern thought--Hegel argues all religion stems from suffering of humans and the inner thoughts of what a person thinks is perfect...yet most Hindu, Jainist, and Buddhist thought isn't based on such a linear concept. it's more based on an attempt to understand the world rather than pray for some sort of salvation. (hence, why so many of the largest Hindu/Buddhist "saints" were bourgeoisie, but gave up the riches for a life of poverty and charity).

tl;dr Hegel ignores the fact that most eastern religions aren't based on ideals, and that eastern religion is heavily based in relating the physical to the metaphysical, not just worshiping a god for boons.

[bailey_187]

I take the stance of Adi Shankara, from the 800's in India:

"Brahman is the only truth, the spatio-temporal world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self."

note that Brahman isn't an anthropomorphic deity, but (to paraphrase) "the stream of consciousness every living being shares."

you may want to change your tendency then

[Adi Shankara]

you may want to change your tendency then

And why would I do that? how are my beliefs anti-communist?

[RadioRaheem84]

Can someone please explain to me the interest in the 'New' Atheist proponents like Hitchens and Harris? I mean their logic isn't even sound, their arguments are quite circular and their treatment of religious scripture amateurish. They are not even well respected among atheists in academic circles. Hitchens is just witty in his scathing critique of religion and Harris is downright bitter. Dawkins is pretty smug as much as he wants us to think he is a cool, collected, rationalist. Did anyone even take Dennett's "Brights" proposal seriously? No.

So what makes them appealing? The fact that they're on the front lines against religious zealousy or that they're usually the ones making the most obscene comments and hosting the most fiery pro-Western debates?

I should also comment that they receive far more press because of their rather orientalist mantra that lies under their many tired arguments. Michael Parenti, Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky are three brilliant atheists that can shred religion to pieces just as witty and rational as any of the former, but are drowned out by the 'new' atheists because they do not share the 'clash of civilizations' outlook.

[bailey_187]

And why would I do that? how are my beliefs anti-communist?

that quote called the material world an illusion. thats fundamentally un-marxist. you may still be a communist, but you are not a marxist.

[bailey_187]

Can someone please explain to me the interest in the 'New' Atheist proponents like Hitchens and Harris? I mean their logic isn't even sound, their arguments are quite circular and their treatment of religious scripture amateurish. They are not even well respected among atheists in academic circles. Hitchens is just witty in his scathing critique of religion and Harris is downright bitter. Dawkins is pretty smug as much as he wants us to think he is a cool, collected, rationalist. Did anyone even take Dennett's "Brights" proposal seriously? No.

So what makes them appealing? The fact that they're on the front lines against religious zealousy or that they're usually the ones making the most obscene comments and hosting the most fiery pro-Western debates?

I should also comment that they receive far more press because of their rather orientalist mantra that lies under their many tired arguments. Michael Parenti, Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky are three brilliant atheists that can shred religion to pieces just as witty and rational as any of the former, but are drowned out by the 'new' atheists because they do not share the 'clash of civilizations' outlook.

Dawkins does not do this. The majority of his attacks are on anti-evolution Christians. And he doesnt advocate wars in the Middle East like Harris and Hitchens.

[RadioRaheem84]

Dawkins does not do this. The majority of his attacks are on anti-evolution Christians. And he doesnt advocate wars in the Middle East like Harris and Hitchens.

I've found him to be pretty smug to the people he's interviewed, but then again it's good to probe religious people who have an agenda that undermines secularism. And I have read in an interview where he attributes reaction to Western foreign policy as a symptom of religion. Just another facet of it. Clearly not a materialist and has very much a liberal perspective, almost orientalist, but not quite. He is just much more reserved than Hitchens or Harris. I don't dislike the guy too much but I don't think of him as being innocent in his pronouncements.

[bailey_187]

I've found him to be pretty smug to the people he's interviewed, but then again it's good to probe religious people who have an agenda that undermines secularism. And I have read in an interview where he attributes reaction to Western foreign policy as a symptom of religion. Just another facet of it. Clearly not a materialist and has very much a liberal perspective, almost orientalist, but not quite. He is just much more reserved than Hitchens or Harris. I don't dislike the guy too much but I don't think of him as being innocent in his pronouncements.

He may be smug, but he isnt a war mongerer like Hitchens

Here is Dawkins on the Iraq war:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/120

He acuses the arguments for war with Iraq that involve religion as racist.

[Robocommie]

that quote called the material world an illusion. thats fundamentally un-marxist. you may still be a communist, but you are not a marxist.

If the material world is an illusion, it can still be a consistently held illusion, and our actions in it can be consistent with it as if it were real if only because of how it affects everyone else within it. Therefore, you can be a Marxist in so far as the material conditions matter, which they do even to Buddhists and Hindus. Even if what is perceived is illusory, the perception is not.

[Adi Shankara]

that quote called the material world an illusion. thats fundamentally un-marxist. you may still be a communist, but you are not a marxist.

You are confusing Marxism with dialectical materialism. You can be a Marxist, and be against dialectical materialism. Marx was historical materialism, not dialectical.


If the material world is an illusion, it can still be a consistently held illusion, and our actions in it can be consistent with it as if it were real if only because of how it affects everyone else within it. Therefore, you can be a Marxist in so far as the material conditions matter, which they do even to Buddhists and Hindus. Even if what is perceived is illusory, the perception is not.

Exactly; even if you believe everything is an illusion, we still have a constant that is relative to our own existence where we experience things in a material sense, so I don't see how they would conflict (even if I was a dialectical materialist).

[Raúl Duke]

You are confusing Marxism with dialectical materialism.Umm...no.

You can ask our resident anti-dialectics person (Rosa) and she still will tell you that marxism is a materialist world view. Dialectics does not equal materialism (AKA physicalism).

[Adi Shankara]

Umm...no.

You can ask our resident anti-dialectics person (Rosa) and she still will tell you that marxism is a materialist world view. Dialectics does not equal materialism (AKA physicalism).

it is a materialist world view, yes, but it's still not Dialectical materialism a la Engels, or Joseph Dietzgen; Karl Marx was dead for nearly a decade when Dietzgen first came up with the concept.

[McCroskey]

I am not against religious people. But I am against privileges for people because of their religion. I don´t defend Dawkins aggressive attack on religion as the ultimate evil, but for some of us atheists, it´s refreshing to read that we don´t have to live with fear of offending everyone left, right and centre, and that we can also demand that our lack of belief be respected. In countries like Spain, where religion is a very personal thing, there are no problems, because people (apart from very few individuals) are not demanding privileges and special treatment at work, etc, but in places like the UK, where even people who are not very religious defend their religion as if it was a football team (I suppose it gives them a perception of "belonging" to a certain community), it gets really annoying. No, I will not defend Dawkins attitude, but I am also fed up with people getting permission from the boss to work through their breaks and go home early because they have to go to church/mosque/synagogue or whatever, and I have to lose money to go home early if my child is sick, I am fed up with having to pay double for a taxi, even in an emergency, on xmas day because there is absolutely no public transport, I am fed up with children being looked at suspiciously at school because other children´s parents educate their kids in thinking that if they don´t attend the holy services, they must be evil, I am fed up with journalists demanding that the goverment enforces the law and actually FINE under 16s if they have sex with another under 16, I am fed up of goverment quangos trying to find out why teenagers have "underage" sex (peer pressure, sexualisation of society, etc) when the simple and plain reason is that sex is human and is a lot of fun, and they just want to deny that. I am fed up with having to explain WHY I am an atheist (I don´t ask people why they are religious), I am fed up with having to look for secular education for my child, when it should be the other way around, like in Spain.

In a nutshell, I am fed up that I am not granted the same respect I hold for people´s beliefs, and Dawkins helps us atheists to understand that we don´t have to live in a bubble and stop saying what we think for fear of offending someone. Someone said "critizising someone for what they believe is stupid and bigoted, but critizising their beliefs is my right".

[al8]

Did anyone even take Dennett's "Brights" proposal seriously? No.

To be fair the spirit of the proposal was not smugness, but rather to get good labels on both camps in the interest of fairness and politeness and easing of hostilities. Sort of how new names have been invented for African-Americans, Gays etc when the old one wore out. The initial proposal that he played around with was to take recourse to both the word Supers and Brights. Supers referring to the supernaturalists and Brights to those beholden to secular enlightenment ideals. All mamsy pamsy, all around fair to everyone. But it was only the brights label that was picked up on and made to reflect badly on Big Old SMUUUUUG Mr. Dennett.

In short, it seemed a good idea at the time. Like forklifts. :)

[NGNM85]

I think the thing is though, Dawkin's selection of people he interviews shows his bias at times. I saw a clip of him interviewing a hardline Muslim convert, who had been born and raised in New York as a secular Jew. He was an asshole, and it wasn't hard for Dawkins to demonstrate what a complete asshole he was just by talking to him. But if Dawkins had found just one of the millions of normal, levelheaded and friendly Muslim people that populate this world, and interviewed him (or her!) it would not have made his point that religion fucks everything up.

In "The God Delusion" he fully, and repeatedly acknowledges that there are millions of so-called 'religious moderates' out there. However, what distinguishes moderates from zealots is the extent of their religiousness. Believing that Jesus is the son of the one true god is what makes one a Christian, at least, most fundamentally. That is what it is to be religious. For instance, if I were to discover irrefutable scientific evidence that Jesus is the true son of God, etc., etc., I would have to accept it, but in doing so I still wouldn't be a Christian because that wouldn't be a belief, based on 'faith, in the religious sense, but a critical asessment based on facts. The whole point of a religion is to believe it. The beliefs which the Abrahamic faiths consist of are contained in the three central texts. "Religious moderates" are people who are barely religious to somewhat religious. All of these people drastically edit the texts to comply with their own ethics and worldview, typically leaving out a lot of the stuff about the creation of the earth which is totally obviously false, as well as the overwhelming amount of morally repugnant shit that one can easily find. What distinguishes zealots, or extremists is their literalism, their insistance in trying to follow these books exactly as they are written, chapter and verse. We can say they ultimately fail in this regard, or that they, too are being selective, but they are the most strident and meticulous about living in accordance with their faiths.

To say that the crimes of religious extremists are in no way representative of these texts is totally bogus. We can read these texts over and over again and find repeated, deliberate exhortations to commit violence and endorsements of the most horrifying antisocial behaviors. There is a clear connection between these books and the violence and bigotry that are carried out in their name.

As an aside, this resurgence of Atheism, the "New Atheism" is a positive development and one that every Anarchist, every left-Socialist should embrace and support.

[NecroCommie]

...joking about politics and joking about religion isn't strictly the same because my beliefs are sacred to me.
That's why they are exactly the same! Since I am an atheist, and I believe this goes to more earthly moderate believers too, politics is the closest thing I have to something "sacred". Still I can take pretty bad rap on those views.

About your other points: true, yet don't those points also apply to every other kind of joke also?

[∞]

George Carlin= funny ,light -spirited ,atheist
http://charlesflirts.com/images/George_Carlin_1.jpg

Pat Condel= bitter, right-wing, chauvinist

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmkzC-BXDPWgNfx39yUaiF5NG_6v1WyIE0Io0GNSRqEk-tQoM&t=1&usg=__KnkcbtTPeDbjgCVc9vOm210-rIw=


What I like about Carlin is that he was indiscriminate to all people, and he was just funny as hell.

[Raúl Duke]

I think people are making the "new atheism" crowd sound more important and more relevant than it really is...

"New Atheism" isn't exactly a much needed project (i.e. in terms of "educating"/persuading people to disbelief), especially outside the U.S., since there's already a sociological trend (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html) of increase secularization in 1st world nations (including the U.S.; although the US also has a trend of fundamentalist christian sects gaining substantial numbers while mainline/moderates lose a large amount.). Thus, the material conditions of society are already affecting the sphere of ideas; the material conditions are causing increase secularization) In fact, I think "New Atheism" is just a symptom of this sociological trend.

Plus, in these recent 2 years there seems to be a wane in interest on "New Atheism," perhaps since there's no new book or anything (one could say the "end of sorts" for new atheism was in "religulous," although not the best of movies). Even than, "new atheism" has probably had some small influence, particularly on the net.

[bots]

... and secondly, joking about politics and joking about religion isn't strictly the same because my beliefs are sacred to me. It'd be like cracking jokes on my mom - if I know you well enough to know your intention, it'd probably be all fine and good, but until then there's some boundaries. It's just about respecting other people's beliefs even if you don't share them.

This is why even moderate theists are ridiculous. If your beliefs are so sacred that you can't take a joke about them then you're basically one step away from being a zealot. You can believe what you want but if you really expect people to refrain from making fun of your sky god because it hurts your feelings and diminishes the imaginary sacredness you've attached to it then maybe you need more of a sense of humor and less a sense of the spiritual.

[bots]

I love these...

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/9/15/enhanced-buzz-9663-1270841426-9.jpg

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/9/15/enhanced-buzz-9563-1270841407-6.jpg

[Robocommie]

This is why even moderate theists are ridiculous. If your beliefs are so sacred that you can't take a joke about them then you're basically one step away from being a zealot. You can believe what you want but if you really expect people to refrain from making fun of your sky god because it hurts your feelings and diminishes the imaginary sacredness you've attached to it then maybe you need more of a sense of humor and less a sense of the spiritual.

I don't know why it's so important to you to be rude like that and mock other people's beliefs. At first I was mad and posted a mocking response, but it was wrong. In any case I forgive you.

[manic expression]

This is why even moderate theists are ridiculous. If your beliefs are so sacred that you can't take a joke about them then you're basically one step away from being a zealot. You can believe what you want but if you really expect people to refrain from making fun of your sky god because it hurts your feelings and diminishes the imaginary sacredness you've attached to it then maybe you need more of a sense of humor and less a sense of the spiritual.
No, what's ridiculous is when someone suspends all forms of reason and coherence just to lob an insult against a group of people they don't like. Yes, religious people are "ridiculous" because they might not laugh at their beliefs the same way you laugh at theirs. Genius. I guess leftists are "ridiculous" if they don't possess the humor of Ronald Reagan. :rolleyes: A little perspective would do wonders.

[RadioRaheem84]

To say that the crimes of religious extremists are in no way representative of these texts is totally bogus. We can read these texts over and over again and find repeated, deliberate exhortations to commit violence and endorsements of the most horrifying antisocial behaviors. There is a clear connection between these books and the violence and bigotry that are carried out in their name.So it's only when they're committing violence that there is a clear connection to the holy book and violence? When there are movements of peace and co-operation, like Chomsky explained that there are, then there is absolutely no connection? It's just a fluke? Being religious = being violent. I can understand being irrational, but violent?

That's too much. You desperately need a materialist perspective.


As an aside, this resurgence of Atheism, the "New Atheism" is a positive development and one that every Anarchist, every left-Socialist should embrace and support. :laugh: WTF can leftists learn from chauvinist liberals like Hitchens and Harris? Seriously, no anarchist is going to learn anything from them. If anything, they can learn something from anarchism. Leftists are miles apart from their closed minded thinking.

NGN, you really need some study yourself, so you won't go around spewing the "corporate communism" line so much. :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

To be fair the spirit of the proposal was not smugness, but rather to get good labels on both camps in the interest of fairness and politeness and easing of hostilities. Sort of how new names have been invented for African-Americans, Gays etc when the old one wore out. The initial proposal that he played around with was to take recourse to both the word Supers and Brights. Supers referring to the supernaturalists and Brights to those beholden to secular enlightenment ideals. All mamsy pamsy, all around fair to everyone. But it was only the brights label that was picked up on and made to reflect badly on Big Old SMUUUUUG Mr. Dennett.

It was just lame. :lol:

[chegitz guevara]

If the material world is an illusion, it can still be a consistently held illusion, and our actions in it can be consistent with it as if it were real if only because of how it affects everyone else within it. Therefore, you can be a Marxist in so far as the material conditions matter, which they do even to Buddhists and Hindus. Even if what is perceived is illusory, the perception is not.

no

[NGNM85]

So it's only when they're committing violence that there is a clear connection to the holy book and violence? When there are movements of peace and co-operation, like Chomsky explained that there are, then there is absolutely no connection? It's just a fluke? Being religious = being violent. I can understand being irrational, but violent?

Essentially, yeah. You don't need to read these books or hold these beliefs to be charitable, humble, etc. As I've said, no sane person needs to commit "Thou shalt not kill" to memory. There have been expiriments that children who can't even talk yet have the impulse to help others. However, the belief that homosexuality is an abomination, that women are property, that strapping a bomb to yourself is the fast track to paradise; these ideas don't occur in a vacuum, you need to learn them somewhere.


That's too much. You desperately need a materialist perspective.

I don't subscribe to, and take a very dim view of, dialectical materialism. Again, this tendency to reduce EVERYTHING to economics, at the exclusion of absolutely everything else is a fundamentally bogus tendency.


:laugh: WTF can leftists learn from chauvinist liberals like Hitchens and Harris? Seriously, no anarchist is going to learn anything from them. If anything, they can learn something from anarchism. Leftists are miles apart from their closed minded thinking.

Describing Harris as a chauvanist is unfair. Also, if you read is work Harris generally fits the fundamental characteristics of a leftist, not a radical leftist, but a leftist.


NGN, you really need some study yourself, so you won't go around spewing the "corporate communism" line so much. :lol:

In the light of a number of dubious statements you've made I find it difficult to take that particularly seriously.

As an aside, again, calling the present economic system in the US capitalism (Without any modifiers.) is no less inaccurate. Back to the subject at hand..

[RadioRaheem84]

these ideas don't occur in a vacuum, you need to learn them somewhere


But you're eliminating the material conditions that bring religion about in the first place. You begin with religion. We don't.



I don't subscribe to, and take a very dim view of, dialectical materialism. Again, this tendency to reduce EVERYTHING to economics, at the exclusion of absolutely everything else is a fundamentally bogus tendency.




Then you're not a leftist. And we're mainly talking about conditions here that drive people to do things.




Describing Harris as a chauvanist is unfair. Also, if you read is work Harris generally fits the fundamental characteristics of a leftist, not a radical leftist, but a leftist.




And what are these fundamental characteristics of a leftist?



In the light of a number of dubious statements you've made I find it difficult to take that particularly seriously.


Dubious statements? In regards to leftism? Marxism? Anarchism? I mean if you're referring to this than you are the one who is mistaken!



As an aside, again, calling the present economic system in the US capitalism (Without any modifiers.) is no less inaccurate

Calling it corporate communism is silly and shows you are not a leftist. It's not like the State represents socialism in any regard in a capitalist society, so any "modifers" are just there to support the capital accumilation process from eating itself, causing anarchy and public revolt. It's still capitalism, even with a hundred and one new modifers. You don't get it because you're not a leftist.


Again, for the final time. You're not a leftist. You have a strange tendency to call youself a anarchist when you do not have a material perspective much less a class analysis, support liberal hawks and anti-theists like Maher, Hitchens and Harris (most in here that support them, do so because of their bravado to stand up against pretty zealous people), and have a weird view of the the State in a capitalist society, which seems to be infested with right-libertarian influence.

[Robocommie]

no

Certainly can't argue with that.

Seriously, how old are you? Aren't you in your 40s? And yet you post a childish one word post that amounts to nothing other than "Nuh uh." How overawed I am at the superior intellect and sincere devotion to rational discourse that is the anti-theist mind.

[NGNM85]

But you're eliminating the material conditions that bring religion about in the first place. You begin with religion. We don't.

This is almost completely false. I have repeatedly insisted that political and economic factors contribute significantly. However, I'm also capable of acknowledging that these ideas do relate to what is contained in the texts that form the basis of these religions. Muslim fanatics might be Muslim fanatics in part because of poverty, political instability, etc., but the persecution of homosexuals, the idea that apostasy should be punishible by death, these ideas come from the books. If you disregard either of these you're looking at an incomplete picture. Moreover, your analysis is a complete failure to explain the significant number of extremists who come from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds.


Also, religion does not originate from poverty, religion originates from attempts by primitive man to explain a world they didn't have the capacity to understand at the time.

... And we're mainly talking about conditions here that drive people to do things.

So am I. See above.


And what are these fundamental characteristics of a leftist?

Broadly speaking, secularism, pluralism, support for rights of women, or minorities, homosexuals, etc., belief in a social safety net or some more benign economic system, environmentalism, support for individual rights, a respect for dissent and a skeptical view of nationalism, if not hostility towards it. I think these would be the defining features of the broad canvas that is the modern left.


Dubious statements? In regards to leftism? Marxism? Anarchism? I mean if you're referring to this than you are the one who is mistaken!

Again, as I've pointed out, most of my views are rooted in classical Anarchism. (Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.)

I don't waste a lot of time thinking about Marxism. I don't subscribe to it so I don't feel the need to devote that much energy to it, nor am I going to be sucked into a long, tedious analysis of what is the 'real' Marx, or which of the dozens of denominations represents "real' communism.



Calling it corporate communism is silly and shows you are not a leftist. It's not like the State represents socialism in any regard in a capitalist society, so any "modifers" are just there to support the capital accumilation process from eating itself, causing anarchy and public revolt. It's still capitalism, even with a hundred and one new modifers. You don't get it because you're not a leftist.

People still call it that, but it only bears only a very slight resemblance to the original definition. These words, like all language, are crude and imperfect tools to facilitate communication and understand an infinitely complex word. For example, people like George Bush and Dick Cheney are commonly referred to as 'conservatives' even though they are the opposite of the traditional definition, in fact they are reactionary statists. "Liberal" can mean one be associated with the left or the right, depending on context. "Libetarian' in America, today, does not mean what it means in most of the rest of the world. You have to look at the context and understand what is actually being said. If you understood what I meant, it makes sense.


Again, for the final time. You're not a leftist.

This is baseless.


You have a strange tendency to call youself a anarchist when you do not have a material perspective much less a class analysis,

Anarchists do not necessarily subscribe to dialectical materialism.

Virtually all of my views can be very easily traced back to classical Anarchism. (Again, Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.)



support liberal hawks and anti-theists like Maher, Hitchens and Harris (most in here that support them, do so because of their bravado to stand up against pretty zealous people),

"Support" is sort of a dubious word. I like Maher, I watch his show, and I agree with a number of things he says, I also disagree with a number of things he said. I just objected to people labeling him a racist for no reason, which is pretty inoccuous. Hitchens' book on Kissinger is absolutely excellent, and I'd recommend it anyone. His support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, is unfathomable to me. Harris, I generally agree with, he provides a very thorough and penetrating analysis of religion. He's also criticized the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he's to the right of me on this issue. I don't agree 100% with anybody, I listen to people that I think are interesting and have something valuable to say, and I take from it what I can. I even disagree with Chomsky on a few things, although out of everyone, he's the closest I can come to endorsing someone's positions, completely.


and have a weird view of the the State in a capitalist society, which seems to be infested with right-libertarian influence.

My view on state today as it functions in relation to the economy is that it is a mechanism for transferring ever greater sums of money into the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations, engineering the market like rigging a gambling table, so as not to allow normal fluctuations, competition, or anything else to interfere with this continuous fountain of money, to the great expense of the working class.

Back to religion....

[Franz Fanonipants]

My view on state today as it functions in relation to the economy is that it is a mechanism for transferring ever greater sums of money into the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations, engineering the market like rigging a gambling table, so as not to allow normal fluctuations, competition, or anything else to interfere with this continuous fountain of money, to the great expense of the working class.

restrict this motherfucker please

e. correction

restrict this milquetoast market-worshiping pro-capital motherfucker please

e of e.

restrict this milquetoast market-worshiping pro-capital one-issue liberal technocrat anti-revolutionary motherfucker please

[Adi Shankara]

no

thank you for a thorough and comprehensible rebuttal to my previous statement. I will henceforth withdraw such reactionary opinions upon discovering this epiphany in Marxist materialist discourse :rolleyes:

[Adi Shankara]

My view on state today as it functions in relation to the economy is that it is a mechanism for transferring ever greater sums of money into the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations, engineering the market like rigging a gambling table, so as not to allow normal fluctuations, competition, or anything else to interfere with this continuous fountain of money, to the great expense of the working class.

Told you you're not a leftist.

No revolutionary leftist in his right mind would advocate the Free Market, by saying "oh we should just let it run it's course and the working class will enrichen itself!"

seriously, what kind've Ron Paulite shit is that? didn't we just have a long thread about how you were claiming you were "not a Ron Paulite Free Marketist"?

[RadioRaheem84]

This is almost completely false. I have repeatedly insisted that political and economic factors contribute significantly. However, I'm also capable of acknowledging that these ideas do relate to what is contained in the texts that form the basis of these religions. Muslim fanatics might be Muslim fanatics in part because of poverty, political instability, etc., but the persecution of homosexuals, the idea that apostasy should be punishible by death, these ideas come from the books. If you disregard either of these you're looking at an incomplete picture. Moreover, your analysis is a complete failure to explain the significant number of extremists who come from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds. You keep saying that you acknowledge that economic and social conditions are a part of the problem but insist on putting religion first and foremost before the former. We put the economic conditions first and then analyze the religious situation. People turn to it because of the conditions. People turn to violence and infuse their religion to bring about change.

As to the rich fanatics like Bin Laden? The analysis still holds water as Bin Laden and other rich religious zealots see the conditions created by capitalism and what it does to others and thus adopt the same outlook. They just do not acknowledge a material or class perspective of these conditions and attribute them to religious or political aspects.


Broadly speaking, secularism, pluralism, support for rights of women, or minorities, homosexuals, etc., belief in a social safety net or some more benign economic system, environmentalism, support for individual rights, a respect for dissent and a skeptical view of nationalism, if not hostility towards it. I think these would be the defining features of the broad canvas that is the modern left. Holy shit, you're not a leftist. I tried. I really did try to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems like you're plain lost. While I agree with the sundry set of characteristics you have listed, this is not what makes one a leftist. The first and foremost thing that makes one a leftist is having a materialist and class perspective of social conditions. The list above are great gains that should not undermined and should be defended, but they won't stick as long as we do not change the social relations in the economy and society. This requires a deep class analysis and material perspective to find solutions. You clearly do not have that.


Again, as I've pointed out, most of my views are rooted in classical Anarchism. (Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.) No they're not. What the hell are you talking about? You labeled Harris a man of the left and said that all one needs to be defined a leftist is a believe in an assorted list of liberal bourgeoisie rights. Harris clearly doesn't have a materialist or much less a class perspective from reading one of his odious books.



I don't waste a lot of time thinking about Marxism. I don't subscribe to it so I don't feel the need to devote that much energy to it, nor am I going to be sucked into a long, tedious analysis of what is the 'real' Marx, or which of the dozens of denominations represents "real' communism.You desperately need some Marx, man.


People still call it that,It doesn't make it right. The State does not equal to socialism.


These words, like all language, are crude and imperfect tools to facilitate communication and understand an infinitely complex word.No you're just severely confused.


For example, people like George Bush and Dick Cheney are commonly referred to as 'conservatives' even though they are the opposite of the traditional definition, in fact they are reactionary statists.Reactionary statists? They may be reactionary but why do you consider them statists? This word is such a canard anyways. Just what the hell is a "leftist" even using this charged word that right libertarians employ to denounce anyone they feel doesn't abide to pure free market fantasies.

The State is not separate from the economy. They are not two diametrically opposed things like right wing libertarians like to suggest. The State is in the full service of helping the propertied class enforce their particular class interests. It doesn't matter if Bush imposes more or less 'statism' than his predecessor, he is only doing that which is useful to his class interest. He is still a capitalist like any other in his class. Him rolling back policy or adding new features to the State doesn't make him a "statist" or any less than what he is; a member of the capitalist class serving capitalism.


Anarchists do not necessarily subscribe to dialectical materialism.

Virtually all of my views can be very easily traced back to classical Anarchism. (Again, Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.)How can you say that you're an anarchist, even a classical one at that, and not have a single materialist, class perspective in any of your writings or even understand just what the hell capitalism entails? Where the hell do any of these writers talk about corporate capitalism, statism, or whatever other words you employ?




"Liberal" can mean one be associated with the left or the right, depending on context. "Libetarian' in America, today, does not mean what it means in most of the rest of the world. You have to look at the context and understand what is actually being said. If you understood what I meant, it makes sense.[/QUOTE]


I even disagree with Chomsky on a few things, although out of everyone, he's the closest I can come to endorsing someone's positions, completely. Chomsky? Believe me. You need to re-read him.


My view on state today as it functions in relation to the economy is that it is a mechanism for transferring ever greater sums of money into the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations, engineering the market like rigging a gambling table, so as not to allow normal fluctuations, competition, or anything else to interfere with this continuous fountain of money, to the great expense of the working class.

Back to religion.... Normal fluctuations? Competition? Do you think that these are natural functions of the market anyways? If you do then you are most certainly NOT a leftist, that's for damn sure. There is nothing natural or normal about markets. They are social creations and encompass a lot of social relations.

[chegitz guevara]

Certainly can't argue with that.

Seriously, how old are you? Aren't you in your 40s? And yet you post a childish one word post that amounts to nothing other than "Nuh uh." How overawed I am at the superior intellect and sincere devotion to rational discourse that is the anti-theist mind.

Terrible arguments aren't worthy of serious debate, but rather, mockery.

If you could prove reality were illusory, Marxism would be pointless, as it would be impossible to free ourselves, since we'd always be stuck in an illusion. If our pain and suffering are illusory, there is no need to get rid of them, it's not real. All one would need to do is adjust how you felt about your illusion.

In fact, that is an argument some people use to oppose changing the world. It is a fundamentally anti-Marxist position, and one that no Marxist should seriously entertain, except under the influence of drugs.:thumbdown:

[Robocommie]

Terrible arguments aren't worthy of serious debate, but rather, mockery.

If you could prove reality were illusory, Marxism would be pointless, as it would be impossible to free ourselves, since we'd always be stuck in an illusion. If our pain and suffering are illusory, there is no need to get rid of them, it's not real. All one would need to do is adjust how you felt about your illusion.

In fact, that is an argument some people use to oppose changing the world. It is a fundamentally anti-Marxist position, and one that no Marxist should seriously entertain, except under the influence of drugs.:thumbdown:

That's actually the exact opposite of Buddhist philosophy on illusion, but whatever. Empty arguments predicated entirely on subjective value judgements aren't really worthy of serious debate either. In fact, they can't be, which is why arguing religion with anti-theists is so completely unproductive and unsatisfying.

[bots]

I don't know why it's so important to you to be rude like that and mock other people's beliefs. At first I was mad and posted a mocking response, but it was wrong. In any case I forgive you.Jeez, I think I would have preferred the sassy comeback over this passive aggressive stuff. Don't worry man, I'll pray for you too.

Robocommie. Ro. Bo. Commie. I just want you to mull a couple of these quotes. Meditate upon them, if you will.

"The mind that does not understand is the Buddha. There is no other."
















"Let your mind wander in simplicity, blend your spirit with the vastness, follow along with things the way they are, and make no room for personal views-then the world will be governed."




























"Not thinking of good, not thinking of evil - tell me, what was your original face before your mother and father were born?"


































"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people."

[Adi Shankara]

Terrible arguments aren't worthy of serious debate, but rather, mockery.

If you could prove reality were illusory, Marxism would be pointless, as it would be impossible to free ourselves, since we'd always be stuck in an illusion. If our pain and suffering are illusory, there is no need to get rid of them, it's not real. All one would need to do is adjust how you felt about your illusion.

In fact, that is an argument some people use to oppose changing the world. It is a fundamentally anti-Marxist position, and one that no Marxist should seriously entertain, except under the influence of drugs.:thumbdown:

I'm convinced you know absolutely nothing about Eastern Philosophy. care to read a little bit on it before you criticize it from a position of authority?

[NGNM85]

Told you you're not a leftist.

No revolutionary leftist in his right mind would advocate the Free Market, by saying "oh we should just let it run it's course and the working class will enrichen itself!"

seriously, what kind've Ron Paulite shit is that? didn't we just have a long thread about how you were claiming you were "not a Ron Paulite Free Marketist"?

This bears virtually no relation to what I actually said. My original comment, way back when, was simply to address the hypocrisy and duplicity in right wing mouthpieces who loudly proclaim the wonders and virtues of 'capitalism' and 'free markets', when they are obviously as opposed to these things as any doctrinaire communist. I was echoing this statement, reiterating we do not have a free market, we have a market that is heavily manipulated and leveraged by the state in favor of monied interests. That's all I said, that this isn't what a free market looks like. I think free markets are an equally bad idea. (I've actually said this before.) The few short examples that have existed were brief, dismal failures.

[RadioRaheem84]

The free market is an abstract theory that doesn't exist and has never exisited except in the minds of right libertarians. No one is manipulating anything. Any intervention is just to keep the system from devouring itself. There is no free market too. You don't have to say it's also bad. You're still talking as if the market is this natural thing being strangled by reactionary statists. Seriously what anarchists do you read that talk like you, NGN?

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN are you a socialist?

[NGNM85]

That's actually the exact opposite of Buddhist philosophy on illusion, but whatever. Empty arguments predicated entirely on subjective value judgements aren't really worthy of serious debate either. In fact, they can't be, which is why arguing religion with anti-theists is so completely unproductive and unsatisfying.

In your mind is there anything that isn't entirely subjective?

[Adi Shankara]

In your mind is there anything that isn't entirely subjective?

speaking from personal experience, I think what makes arguing with anti-theists so irritating sometimes is some of them will take concepts from Christianity or Judaism (in the west at least, don't know what it's like around the world), like duality, everlasting life, sin, and an all-powerful god, and apply them to whatever religious beliefs you may have as if that is the way every religious or philosophical discipline is structured.

I honestly think more than half of debates I have with anti-theists is telling them "no, I don't believe that either, so that makes two of us :D".

[NGNM85]

speaking from personal experience, I think what makes arguing with anti-theists so irritating sometimes is some of them will take concepts from Christianity or Judaism (in the west at least, don't know what it's like around the world), like duality, everlasting life, sin, and an all-powerful god, and apply them to whatever religious beliefs you may have as if that is the way every religious or philosophical discipline is structured.

I honestly think more than half of debates I have with anti-theists is telling them "no, I don't believe that either, so that makes two of us :D".

Based on his comments about eastern philosophy and reality being an illusion I thought it was relevent. Normally, this would have been the start of a tirade, but if he seriously believes that then it's sort of irrelevant.

Everyone is an atheist for 99.9% of denominations, some of us just go one god further. The fundamental question is; do you believe in a.....whatever you wanna call it, that is unsupported by empirical evidence?

[Adi Shankara]

Everyone is an atheist for 99.9% of denominations, some of us just go one god further. The fundamental question is; do you believe in a.....whatever you wanna call it, that is unsupported by empirical evidence?

and there you go again, taking subjective concepts and applying them objectively.

Not trying to be esoteric, but many schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, have no gods. so there is no "a" so to speak.

and as far as empirical evidence goes...I'm not about to get into that. but to very loosely paraphrase Adi Shankara on the matter, "if organized religion (Vedanta) and atheism (Nastika) were provable beyond doubt on either side, then the debate would've ended in the Manvantara (aka, a really long time ago)".

[NGNM85]

and there you go again, taking subjective concepts and applying them objectively.

Not trying to be esoteric, but many schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, have no gods. so there is no "a" so to speak.

and as far as empirical evidence goes...I'm not about to get into that. but to very loosely paraphrase Adi Shankara on the matter, "if organized religion (Vedanta) and atheism (Nastika) were provable beyond doubt on either side, then the debate would've ended in the Manvantara (aka, a really long time ago)".

However, they believe in things like reincarnation which are irrational beliefs. Also, atheism has nothing to really prove. It is simply the acceptance of a lack of empirical evidence.

[Adi Shankara]

However, they believe in things like reincarnation which are irrational beliefs. Also, atheism has nothing to really prove. It is simply the acceptance of a lack of empirical evidence.

no, you're mistaking non-theism (which is almost an agnosticism, when you think about it) for atheism.

for example. a baby isn't atheist; it has no belief of god, but it doesn't have a belief there is no god. it simply has no knowledge of the concept. thus it's non-theist.

[NGNM85]

no, you're mistaking non-theism (which is almost an agnosticism, when you think about it) for atheism.

for example. a baby isn't atheist; it has no belief of god, but it doesn't have a belief there is no god. it simply has no knowledge of the concept. thus it's non-theist.

This is a misconception. No Atheist will tell you honestly that they are positively certain there is no god, just that there is no credible evidence, therefore they don't find the proposition in any way compelling. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc., they say the same thing. Also, in order to be an Atheist you also have to be aware of the concept of god.

Here's a good (and prescient) video; Sam Harris-Misonceptions About Atheism
rLIKAyzeIw4

[Raúl Duke]

non-theism (which is almost an agnosticism, when you think about it) for atheism. atheism and agnosticism are all the same things; as I explained in an earlier thread (evilbible.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1804396&postcount=57) thread).

Pretty cute that you question chegitz understanding of Eastern philosophy and not apply the same standards towards atheism for which now you're being questioned.
You keep taking up your erroneous defintion as if it's truth over the definitions of self-described atheists.

As I said earlier in a different thread, virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists. Agnosticism is an epistemological position (i.e. a position on the question/issue of knowledge) while atheism is a theological position. Most self-described agnostics are also atheists, despite what they call themselves. Most self-described agnostics, like atheists, 'operate' on the assumption that god (in the most generic sense) doesn't exist (but neither claims to "know" for certain if he does or does not).

People reach their disbelief (which is an assumptive disbelief, not a roughly held belief based on "faith"/alleged knowledge as you keep insinuating) due to lack of evidence of god and than the application of Occam's Razor (i.e. choose the simplest/less hypothetical theory-hypothesis to run on). If you click on the link I already provided you can see my more detailed post about it.

[bleh]

As I said earlier in a different thread, virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists. Most self-described agnostics are also atheists, despite what they call themselves....Most self-described agnostics, like atheists, 'operate' on the assumption that god (in the most generic sense) doesn't exist (but neither claims to "know" for certain if he does or does not).

I dont think that true. Atheists dont believe in God not because they think that there no possibility of a supernatural force but because there is no evidence for such an existence and by the same logic one could proclaim a belief in all sorts of improbabilities. Most people that Ive heard describe themselves as agnostics don't reject the existence of God per se, they're just 'not sure' so to speak. And one can be both an atheist and an agnostic but I dont think that most self described agnostics "'operate' on the assumption" that god doesn't exist. It just doesn't carry that meaning colloquially.

I dont understand this point: "Agnosticism is an epistemological position (i.e. a position on the question/issue of knowledge) while atheism is a theological position."

Shouldnt it be the other way around? Atheism would state that one can't have knowledge of something (or about its nature) without it having some sort of empirical basis. Certainly it doesn't have to be a theological position. One can exist with no knowledge of religion.

[~Spectre]

This is almost completely false. I have repeatedly insisted that political and economic factors contribute significantly. However, I'm also capable of acknowledging that these ideas do relate to what is contained in the texts that form the basis of these religions. Muslim fanatics might be Muslim fanatics in part because of poverty, political instability, etc., but the persecution of homosexuals, the idea that apostasy should be punishible by death, these ideas come from the books. If you disregard either of these you're looking at an incomplete picture. Moreover, your analysis is a complete failure to explain the significant number of extremists who come from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds.

Religiosity has remained high in the United States however adherence to the similar/identical tenets of Christianity has dropped tremendously throughout American history.

Ideologies of all type generally have segments which don't take too kindly to apostates (they call them traitors or counter-revolutionaries to bring it full circle), and often times have played on the primitive biases against minority groups such as homosexuals. These problems are not exclusive to religion, nor do they seem greatly effected by religion when you consider that the U.S. has remained overwhelmingly Christian.

Coincidentally, wealthy extremists aren't immune from poor material conditions. Firstly, they seldom create the element they are drawn into, and seldom recruit from wealthy environments should they become organizers. They are also not immune from societal ills such as stigmas against mental health, poor education or indoctrination. Ergo, anger that they may be feeling for whatever reason, cannot be properly analyzed and directed. Lacking a proper education, an angry young person may decide the problem is a "clash of civilizations" (after all, isn't that what supposedly educated people from 'Foreign Affairs' are saying?), instead of realizing that psychological analysis may be more useful in introspection, or that materialist analysis may be more useful for highlighting the real societal ills.

Some people exposed to vastly different levels of education find ways to use religion as a means of fighting for the poor for instance, in ways that are suprisingly still coherent. The point - religion is a product initially created by material circumstance, interpreted in various ways to reflect modern circumstance. There is very little relevance in which particular religion or lack of might be fueling the oppression and abuse.

[Adi Shankara]

I dont think that true. Atheists dont believe in God not because they think that there no possibility of a supernatural force but because there is no evidence for such an existence and by the same logic one could proclaim a belief in all sorts of improbabilities. Most people that Ive heard describe themselves as agnostics don't reject the existence of God per se, they're just 'not sure' so to speak. And one can be both an atheist and an agnostic but I dont think that most self described agnostics "'operate' on the assumption" that god doesn't exist. It just doesn't carry that meaning colloquially.

I dont understand this point: "Agnosticism is an epistemological position (i.e. a position on the question/issue of knowledge) while atheism is a theological position."

Shouldnt it be the other way around? Atheism would state that one can't have knowledge of something (or about its nature) without it having some sort of empirical basis. Certainly it doesn't have to be a theological position. One can exist with no knowledge of religion.'

interesting way to put it; but what about the problem of other minds. i,e, how does one know minds independent of their own exist, and that things such as MRIs, etc. are not just a subjective manifestation to justify the lack of an explanation? we can have knowledge other minds exist, but we have no proof for them existing.

hell, we have no proof we aren't a brain in a vat, but we all know we are not brains in vats (assuming that "we" aren't a subject of "your" imagination :P)

[bots]

'

interesting way to put it; but what about the problem of other minds. i,e, how does one know minds independent of their own exist, and that things such as MRIs, etc. are not just a subjective manifestation to justify the lack of an explanation? we can have knowledge other minds exist, but we have no proof for them existing.

hell, we have no proof we aren't a brain in a vat, but we all know we are not brains in vats (assuming that "we" aren't a subject of "your" imagination :P)


I can't tell if you're a jabbering moron who got into his parent's stash or if you're a really, really good troll. Either way I think you're special and I like you.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm convinced you know absolutely nothing about Eastern Philosophy. care to read a little bit on it before you criticize it from a position of authority?

Like I give a flying fuck what you are or are not convinced of? You've shown gross misunderstanding of basic reality for the past few weeks, been arrogant and insulting to just about everyone, made audacious claims, and then weaseled out of them when someone else made a more rational, and different, explanation of what you were trying to say.

As to whether or not I understand "Eastern Philosophy" I wasn't commenting on "Eastern Philosophy" you flying moron! I was commenting on the notion that reality is an illusion, which is a stupidity embraced equally by Western and Eastern philosophy, and hippies smoking too much pot. It's pretty much a universal delusion.

You cannot be a Marxist without being a materialist. If this world isn't real, even if it is internally consistent, then your oppression and suffering aren't real either. They are illusions also. If they are illusions, there is no need to change the system, simply your attitude. And Marxism demands we change the system.

[RadioRaheem84]

Very true. To be Marxist is to be a materialist.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, it's great that you're debating religion but I was wondering if we might get back to your conception of socialism. Do you really consider yourself one? I mean by your logic, wouldn't you be a " statist"?

[Raúl Duke]

Atheists dont believe in God not because they think that there no possibility of a supernatural force but because there is no evidence for such an existenceUm..I have never said that it's because "they think there's no possibility of a supernatural force..." in fact I've been arguing the lack of evidence for existence part as basis.


And one can be both an atheist and an agnostic but I dont think that most self described agnostics "'operate' on the assumption" that god doesn't exist. It just doesn't carry that meaning colloquially.Do most agnostics go to church? Do they prey? Do they behave in any way different from atheists?

In all respects, they act the same way as atheists. Both atheists and agnostics are apathetic (apatheist) to any god that cannot affect the material world and both doubt that there's an afterlife. I guess the only difference is that while both doubt, atheist (via Occam's Razor or some use of logic) find the concept of god currently unlikely while agnostics put disbelief and belief at the "same level" of validity (so to speak).


I dont understand this point: "Agnosticism is an epistemological position (i.e. a position on the question/issue of knowledge) while atheism is a theological position."Look it up, there's probably philosophy docs, text, and overviews that will state agnosticism is an epistemological position. Start here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist)

[eyedrop]

NGN, it's great that you're debating religion but I was wondering if we might get back to your conception of socialism. Do you really consider yourself one? I mean by your logic, wouldn't you be a " statist"?
As far as I understood what he said, he claimed that the state generally works for the interests of large capital. I thought that was a standard radical leftist position in that capitalists are the most powerful lobbyists/blackmailers of the state.

While free markets can't exist for long since the ones with power (capital) wiil use their influence in their own interest.

[bailey_187]

I'm convinced you know absolutely nothing about Eastern Philosophy. care to read a little bit on it before you criticize it from a position of authority?

Replace "Eastern Philosophy" with so much of what you been posting about recently and it definetly could apply to you.

[RadioRaheem84]

As far as I understood what he said, he claimed that the state generally works for the interests of large capital. I thought that was a standard radical leftist position in that capitalists are the most powerful lobbyists/blackmailers of the state.

While free markets can't exist for long since the ones with power (capital) wiil use their influence in their own interest.


Yeah but he said in it in a way as if to imply that they're manipulating the natural free market forces. Go back and read what he said. He also thinks that socialism = state, meaning that he believes that all socialism entails is some parasitic state wrapping around the capitalist economy and not transcending it.

Also, lobbyists being powerful contributors to the state can also be a rightist position.

Look, I am not just saying that he is not a leftist to ban him but that is really confused about a lot of aspects that make up the left.

[IllicitPopsicle]

I dont understand this point: "Agnosticism is an epistemological position (i.e. a position on the question/issue of knowledge) while atheism is a theological position."

Agnostic: Agnosticism is the view that the truth value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value) of certain claims is unknown or unknowable.

Atheist: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief) in the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God).

[Adi Shankara]

Replace "Eastern Philosophy" with so much of what you been posting about recently and it definetly could apply to you.

Because it's so much easier than explaining why. I said Chegitz knew nothing about Eastern philosophy because he didn't grasp the concept of Maya (illusion) correctly. why do you say that about me? because it's trendy? =)

[eyedrop]

Yeah but he said in it in a way as if to imply that they're manipulating the natural free market forces. Go back and read what he said. He also thinks that socialism = state, meaning that he believes that all socialism entails is some parasitic state wrapping around the capitalist economy and not transcending it.

Also, lobbyists being powerful contributors to the state can also be a rightist position.

Look, I am not just saying that he is not a leftist to ban him but that is really confused about a lot of aspects that make up the left.
I didn't understand it as that from what I read of him in this thread, just him using some unusual terminology from what is normally used on this board.

I reckon my political views and his are hardly compatible anyway.

[NGNM85]

Agnostic: Agnosticism is the view that the truth value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_value) of certain claims is unknown or unknowable.

Atheist: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief) in the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God).

True enough, but that rejection is based on a lack of empirical evidence. That's what 'belief', or 'faith' means in that context. if dieties existed, and could be proven to exist, it wouldn't be necessary to believe in them.

[IllicitPopsicle]

True enough, but that rejection is based on a lack of empirical evidence. That's what 'belief', or 'faith' means in that context. if dieties existed, and could be proven to exist, it wouldn't be necessary to believe in them.

Right, hence, agnostic and atheist go hand in hand, and even overlap in some places.

[∞]

Very true. To be Marxist is to be a materialist.

"I am not a Marxist."-Karl Marx

[NecroCommie]

"I am not a Marxist."-Karl Marx
That quote is not in context. He was critisizing someone (german social democrats I recall) who weren't revolutionary, and said "If this is marxism then I am not a marxist"

[Adi Shankara]

Very true. To be Marxist is to be a materialist.


But are we talking Hegelian materialism, or historical materialism? I don't think dialectical materialism is a prerequisite to being a Marxist. (also, it doesn't take into account philosophical materialism)

[chegitz guevara]

"I am not a Marxist."-Karl Marx

Taken out of context. The French socialist party split in two, with both sides claiming to be Marxist. Marx said of one group, if they are Marxists, then I am not a Marxist.


But are we talking Hegelian materialism, or historical materialism? I don't think dialectical materialism is a prerequisite to being a Marxist.

Hegal was an idealist, not a materialist.

Understanding that the material world is the only reality and that it is constantly in motion, i.e., dialectical materialism, is a prerequisite to being a Marxist.


(also, it doesn't take into account philosophical materialism)

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[RadioRaheem84]

Understanding that the material world is the only reality and that it is constantly in motion, i.e., dialectical materialism, is a prerequisite to being a Marxist.I thought this much was clear to everyone. :blink:

[Barry Lyndon]

"Support" is sort of a dubious word. I like Maher, I watch his show, and I agree with a number of things he says, I also disagree with a number of things he said. I just objected to people labeling him a racist for no reason, which is pretty inoccuous. Hitchens' book on Kissinger is absolutely excellent, and I'd recommend it anyone. His support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, is unfathomable to me. Harris, I generally agree with, he provides a very thorough and penetrating analysis of religion. He's also criticized the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he's to the right of me on this issue. I don't agree 100% with anybody, I listen to people that I think are interesting and have something valuable to say, and I take from it what I can. I even disagree with Chomsky on a few things, although out of everyone, he's the closest I can come to endorsing someone's positions, completely.


"Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all."- Sam Harris, 'The End of Faith'.



Because 1.2 million Iraqis all died by accident.



Where did Harris criticize the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan? I seemed to have missed that in between his exhortations to inflict a nuclear holocaust on the Middle East, in that soft, academic, 'reasonable' tone of his.

[NGNM85]

"Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all."- Sam Harris, 'The End of Faith'.

Because 1.2 million Iraqis all died by accident.

That isn't what he's saying. He's morally differentiating between 'collateral damage', civilians injured or killed unintentionally in the pursuit of a different objective, and actions by Jihadis which are deliberately intended to harm civilians. Legally, of course, US campaigns in the Middle East are acts of state terrorism, in the eyes of international law. I don't deny that there's a difference, however, I'm not sure of the value of this distinction, and find both reprehensible.





Where did Harris criticize the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it has been a disaster."

His position on Afghanistan seems to be a little murkier, I haven't been able to find any substantial statements on the subject. Harris, like many Americans, tends to be more supportive of the Afghanistan war; 'the good war.' He has been critical of the Bush administration's conduct, but, again I didn't see anything substantial. He seems to believe efforts in Afghanistan as having some legitimacy, or that some form of military action there is necessary. Again, I haven't read any lengthy treatment.




I seemed to have missed that in between his exhortations to inflict a nuclear holocaust on the Middle East, in that soft, academic, 'reasonable' tone of his.

This is absolutely untrue. I think you made this claim before. I suspect you're getting that from Chris Hedges, who's a good journalist and a smart guy, but this is completely wrong. At best this can only be a horrible misunderstanding, at worst a horrible mischaracterization of what he actually said.

Here's the actual, unedited quote;
"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Clearly, Harris is not suggesting a nuclear strike on the Arab world. He's describing a plausible scenario that might lead to such an action, which would be an 'unthinkable crime" with absolutely horrendous consequences. What he's trying to do is underline the dangers of religious extremism in a post-nuclear world, and that dealing with it is actually a survival imperative at this point.

Again, just a reminder, I am not Sam Harris' publicist, nor do I endorse everything he says.

[Barry Lyndon]

a)That isn't what he's saying. He's morally differentiating between 'collateral damage', civilians injured or killed unintentionally in the pursuit of a different objective, and actions by Jihadis which are deliberately intended to harm civilians. Legally, of course, US campaigns in the Middle East are acts of state terrorism, in the eyes of international law. I don't deny that there's a difference, however, I'm not sure of the value of this distinction, and find both reprehensible.





b)"I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it has been a disaster."

His position on Afghanistan seems to be a little murkier, I haven't been able to find any substantial statements on the subject. Harris, like many Americans, tends to be more supportive of the Afghanistan war; 'the good war.' He has been critical of the Bush administration's conduct, but, again I didn't see anything substantial. He seems to believe efforts in Afghanistan as having some legitimacy, or that some form of military action there is necessary. Again, I haven't read any lengthy treatment.





c) This is absolutely untrue. I think you made this claim before. I suspect you're getting that from Chris Hedges, who's a good journalist and a smart guy, but this is completely wrong. At best this can only be a horrible misunderstanding, at worst a horrible mischaracterization of what he actually said.

Here's the actual, unedited quote;
"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Clearly, Harris is not suggesting a nuclear strike on the Arab world. He's describing a plausible scenario that might lead to such an action, which would be an 'unthinkable crime" with absolutely horrendous consequences. What he's trying to do is underline the dangers of religious extremism in a post-nuclear world, and that dealing with it is actually a survival imperative at this point.

d)Again, just a reminder, I am not Sam Harris' publicist, nor do I endorse everything he says.
[/INDENT]

a) No, what's reprehensible about this statement is that the premise of Harris' criticism is false and Sam Harris is a liar. The US government, repeatedly and on a far greater scale then Bin Laden could ever fantasize about, deliberately and willfully exterminates whole populations in pursuit of its policy objectives.
This is what Chomsky wrote as a rejoinder to Harris' and other similar criticisms(something you need a refresher on):

"To repeat once again, we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Israeli and U.S. atrocities typically fall into the third category. Thus, when Israel destroys Gaza's power supply or sets up barriers to travel in the West Bank, it does not specifically intend to murder the particular people who will die from polluted water or in ambulances that cannot reach hospitals. And when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifa plant, it was obvious that it would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Human Rights Watch immediately informed him of this, providing details; nevertheless, he and his advisers did not intend to kill specific people among those who would inevitably die when half the pharmaceutical supplies were destroyed in a poor African country that could not replenish them. Rather, they and their apologists regarded Africans much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080226.htm


b) So like a typical liberal, Harris is for successful imperialist slaughters, not potentially unsuccessful ones. I'm sure there were Nazis who thought that invading the Soviet Union was a 'dangerous distraction' from the occupation of Yugoslavia or Poland.

c) Let's look at some of 220,000 non-hypotheticals:

http://www.japanfocus.org/data/Victim.hiro.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_11-nzoYFuQU/Snr9sQ85PyI/AAAAAAAAF44/HiKC5tWx2mQ/s400/hiroshima9.jpg http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Japan/Victim1.jpg

Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims

Apparently, Harris is horrified by the possibility of 'crazy' Islamists acquiring one or two nuclear weapons five to ten years in the future, but seems perfectly comfortable with allowing the only country that has actually used such weapons on civilians continue to stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear arms, even 20 years after the collapse of its only major military rival the USSR. So comfortable with this monopoly of terror is Harris, that he is willing to suggest that the US might 'have to' exterminate millions of Muslims to keep such weapons in 'rational hands' only.
Would Harris 'hypothesize' about how Russia or China 'might have to' incinerate New York, Chicago, or Washington DC to deter the USA from inflicting on another people the horrors it inflicted on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to abolish the sword of Damocles it continues to hold over the whole world? To ask the question is to answer it.

d) You certainly sound like it, since you spend so much time and energy justifying every fucking thing he says and writes.

[RadioRaheem84]

But Barry we must keep the project of Western civilization safe from the Islamist hordes!! :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Totalitarianism-Left-wing-Neoconservative-Foreign/dp/190486306X

Might I recommend this book for ya, NGN?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terror-Liberalism-Paul-Berman/dp/0393325555/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280256917&sr=1-1

And this one.

[syndicat]

if an employer can fire you for your religious belief or nonbelief, then that person is exercizing a form of domination over you, that is, class oppression. so it follows you are oppressed if employers can exercize this type of power over you. the form of oppression is class oppression but the reasons may be quite various.

authentic democratic control in society presupposes that each person has an equal right to their particular outlook and participation in deliberation on decisions. now, a person's thinking in such situations may be shaped by some sort of religious or spiritual outlook. so freedom in regard to religious or non-religious belief sort of follows from the idea of authentic democracy.

[NGNM85]

a) No, what's reprehensible about this statement is that the premise of Harris' criticism is false and Sam Harris is a liar. The US government, repeatedly and on a far greater scale then Bin Laden could ever fantasize about, deliberately and willfully exterminates whole populations in pursuit of its policy objectives.
This is what Chomsky wrote as a rejoinder to Harris' and other similar criticisms(something you need a refresher on):

"To repeat once again, we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Israeli and U.S. atrocities typically fall into the third category.

This is the distinction Harris was making.


Thus, when Israel destroys Gaza's power supply or sets up barriers to travel in the West Bank, it does not specifically intend to murder the particular people who will die from polluted water or in ambulances that cannot reach hospitals. And when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifa plant, it was obvious that it would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Human Rights Watch immediately informed him of this, providing details; nevertheless, he and his advisers did not intend to kill specific people among those who would inevitably die when half the pharmaceutical supplies were destroyed in a poor African country that could not replenish them. Rather, they and their apologists regarded Africans much as we do the ants we crush while walking down a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such consideration."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080226.htm (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080226.htm)

This is why I consider the distinction to be of minimal value. This happens to be an example of a difference between my perspective and Harris'.



b) So like a typical liberal, Harris is for successful imperialist slaughters, not potentially unsuccessful ones. I'm sure there were Nazis who thought that invading the Soviet Union was a 'dangerous distraction' from the occupation of Yugoslavia or Poland.

I really haven't been able to find any substantive testimony regarding his views on the Afghan war, so I reserve further judgement.


c) Let's look at some of 220,000 non-hypotheticals:

Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims

Apparently, Harris is horrified by the possibility of 'crazy' Islamists

The intensity of religious conviction generally has an inverse relationship to logical thought. That's just the facts. He's specifically referring to a theoretical extremist regime like the former Taliban government acquiring nuclear weapons, nomatter what your affiliation, any rational person should see that as undesireable.


acquiring one or two nuclear weapons five to ten years in the future, but seems perfectly comfortable with allowing the only country that has actually used such weapons on civilians continue to stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear arms, even 20 years after the collapse of its only major military rival the USSR. So comfortable with this monopoly of terror is Harris, that he is willing to suggest that the US might 'have to' exterminate millions of Muslims to keep such weapons in 'rational hands' only.

He said it, theoretically, 'may be' the only option. Which he also characterized as 'genocide' and an 'unthinkable crime.'


Would Harris 'hypothesize' about how Russia or China 'might have to' incinerate New York, Chicago, or Washington DC to deter the USA from inflicting on another people the horrors it inflicted on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to abolish the sword of Damocles it continues to hold over the whole world? To ask the question is to answer it.

To paraphrase Harris; besides killing eachother, all we've got to resolve our differences is conversation, and religion is a conversation stopper. It's by no means garunteed that to secular governments can reach a compromise of some sort, but it's at least possible.

What his perspective on nuclear weapons, in general, is? I have no idea, again, I've never encountered any meaningful treatment by him of the subject.

I can tell you what I think about nuclear weapons. I've said as much on other threads.


d) You certainly sound like it, since you spend so much time and energy justifying every fucking thing he says and writes.

I really have very little interest in doing this. My issue is the careless accusations that are treated as self-evident. I don't give a crap if anybody likes Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, or anybody else, but when people start throwing around words like 'racist', or claiming somebody wants to nuke the Middle East, I just get a little agitated. These are really powerful, and fundamentally inaccurate, statements that should not be thrown around so carelessly. I really don't care what people like or don't like, I just want to try and keep the bullshit to a minimum. Moreover, many of these slanderous remarks have been intertwined, and even offered as evidence for, with assaults on my character, a number of which have been outright lies, so I feel sort of compelled.

Back to religion....

[NGNM85]

authentic democratic control in society presupposes that each person has an equal right to their particular outlook and participation in deliberation on decisions. now, a person's thinking in such situations may be shaped by some sort of religious or spiritual outlook. so freedom in regard to religious or non-religious belief sort of follows from the idea of authentic democracy.

I agree, 100%.

[Franz Fanonipants]

NGN -> Revleft's very own Geert Wilders

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree, 100%.


I don't know...... hmmm



authentic democratic control in society presupposes that each person has an equal right to their particular outlook and participation in deliberation on decisions. now, a person's thinking in such situations may be shaped by some sort of religious or spiritual outlook. so freedom in regard to religious or non-religious belief sort of follows from the idea of authentic democracy.


Now this presupposes authentic democracy first right? You're not just saying that in America this is so, correct?

[syndicat]

America doesn't have authentic democracy, which is sort of incompatible with a top-down state regime and capitalist class relations. of course there can be genuine democracy is a mass organization.

but the working class in this country is extremely heterogeneous, so we have to be keeping that in mind, and this means a movement comfortable to various groups who are subject to various forms of prejudice and discrimination, but also presupposes that we can work out a modus operandi where the concerns of these various segments of the class are accommodated. in other words, we need to encourage people to get along. and it's unlikely for this to happen if we allow blatant forms of religious prejudice to run amok in organizations or if we don't counter them when they occur, as in a workplace or wherever.

[NGNM85]

I don't know...... hmmm

Religious freedom is part and parcel of freedom of speech, which I consider absolutely sacrosanct. People have every right to believe whatever primite, backward, hateful nonsense they want to believe in absolutely. Just as I have the right to criticize it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Religious freedom is part and parcel of freedom of speech, which I consider absolutely sacrosanct. People have every right to believe whatever primite, backward, hateful nonsense they want to believe in absolutely. Just as I have the right to criticize it.

Your idealism is almost religious.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Your idealism is almost religious.

he reserves the right to believe that when he's made of metal/in a dashing star fleet uniform girls will talk to him.

[Robocommie]

Your idealism is almost religious.

What else do you suppose drives history? Material conditions? As if!

[Barry Lyndon]

a)This is the distinction Harris was making.



b)This is why I consider the distinction to be of minimal value. This happens to be an example of a difference between my perspective and Harris'.




c)I really haven't been able to find any substantive testimony regarding his views on the Afghan war, so I reserve further judgement.



d)The intensity of religious conviction generally has an inverse relationship to logical thought. That's just the facts. He's specifically referring to a theoretical extremist regime like the former Taliban government acquiring nuclear weapons, nomatter what your affiliation, any rational person should see that as undesireable.



e)He said it, theoretically, 'may be' the only option. Which he also characterized as 'genocide' and an 'unthinkable crime.'



f)To paraphrase Harris; besides killing eachother, all we've got to resolve our differences is conversation, and religion is a conversation stopper. It's by no means garunteed that to secular governments can reach a compromise of some sort, but it's at least possible.

What his perspective on nuclear weapons, in general, is? I have no idea, again, I've never encountered any meaningful treatment by him of the subject.

I can tell you what I think about nuclear weapons. I've said as much on other threads.



g)I really have very little interest in doing this. My issue is the careless accusations that are treated as self-evident. I don't give a crap if anybody likes Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, or anybody else, but when people start throwing around words like 'racist', or claiming somebody wants to nuke the Middle East, I just get a little agitated. These are really powerful, and fundamentally inaccurate, statements that should not be thrown around so carelessly. I really don't care what people like or don't like, I just want to try and keep the bullshit to a minimum. Moreover, many of these slanderous remarks have been intertwined, and even offered as evidence for, with assaults on my character, a number of which have been outright lies, so I feel sort of compelled.

h)Back to religion....

a) If it's the same distinction, then why does Harris attack Chomsky for over half a chapter, while in the same book quote with approval Alan Dershowitz's advocacy of torture-Dershowitz, an anti-Arab racist and plagiarist who has campaigned to defame Chomsky for over a quarter of a century,
Harris or Chomsky, NGN, choose. They are not fellow travelers.

b) Then why argue?

c) He said Iraq is a 'dangerous diversion' from Afghanistan-that makes it pretty clear he thinks the war in Afghanistan is justified.

d) FUCK YOU. You SEE pictures of Japanese literally burned alive by nuclear hellfire, and you go along with your usual sermon about how we 'cant trust' the MOOSLIMS with nuclear weapons. I mean, do you give a FUCK about the real world. The US government has ACTUALLY DONE THIS to real people and HAS tens of thousands of weapons RIGHT NOW. You must be a total racist to just brush off the incineration of hundreds of thousands of real men, women, and babies, all because you are more concerned that at some point in the future it MIGHT just happen to some white people by 'irrational' Eastern hordes. You want to talk about an 'inverse relationship to rational thought'- What is more insane then Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

e) For the Japanese, it was not theoretical.

f) Wow, re-read your Chomsky, NGN. All lot of people all over the world are not part of the 'conversation' that hegemonic liberals like Harris love to have because they are fucking DEAD, murdered by the 'democratic' 'rational' capitalist state. The world is not some academic seminar.
And maybe you should be a little more agitated about Afghan children being dismembered by cluster bombs then about hurting Harris' feelings.

I'm sorry about the profanity, but your positions are atrocious and I can't believe you are using Chomsky to support your psuedo-intellectual apologetics for warmongers like Harris.

[NGNM85]

a) If it's the same distinction, then why does Harris attack Chomsky for over half a chapter,

Theywere essentially the same on that point, that there are different types of atrocities, to use Chomsky’s words; “murder with intent” and “murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent.” However, they diverge from there.


while in the same book quote with approval Alan Dershowitz's advocacy of torture-Dershowitz, an anti-Arab racist and plagiarist who has campaigned to defame Chomsky for over a quarter of a century,
Harris or Chomsky, NGN, choose. They are not fellow travelers.

If you think Dershowitz is a crank (A very sound conclusion.) you should check out Finkelstein’s “Beyond Chutzpah.” He absolutely shreds “The Case For Israel.”

I don’t presently have a copy of “End of Faith”, so I can’t address the aforementioned quote.

As for Harris’ position on torture, he isn’t a cheerleader. He thinks it should be illegal, as it..... actually is, under international law, which the US has decided is irrelevant. He was just examining the philosophical and ethical angles. I don’t agree with all of what he says, but again, he’s not advocating it as a practice.

I don’t have to choose anything because I don’t endorse either of these men’s views, wholesale. Although, Chomsky’s about as close as it gets. On the subject of religion, I think Harris has some brilliant insights. That’s why I read his essays and listen to his lectures. I think Chomsky has been remiss in not giving the issue more attention than he does, but that’s a minor criticism. Taking what I choose to take from these two men, there is no major conflict.


b) Then why argue?

What I meant was, my position is closer to Chomsky’s, I don’t see the distinction between deliberate atrocities, and atrocities without specific intent as that important.


c) He said Iraq is a 'dangerous diversion' from Afghanistan-that makes it pretty clear he thinks the war in Afghanistan is justified.

I don’t feel comfortable with a capital conviction based on two words. I haven’t read anything substantive about what he thinks about the subject, clearly, you haven’t either.


d) FUCK YOU.

Very impressive.


You SEE pictures of Japanese literally burned alive by nuclear hellfire,

A tad hyperbolic, but I’ve been guilty of that. Yes, you’ve positively identified the images.


and you go along with your usual sermon about how we 'cant trust' the MOOSLIMS with nuclear weapons.

Denomination has very little to do with it. I would be nervous if Pat Robertson or Pastor Phelps got ahold of nuclear weapons, but I don’t see that as an imminent threat.


I mean, do you give a FUCK about the real world.

Yes.


The US government has ACTUALLY DONE THIS to real people and HAS tens of thousands of weapons RIGHT NOW.

Yes.

… Specifically, around five thousand warheads that are ready for launch, a few thousand more that are scheduled to be dismantled. To make a long story short the US has the capacity to end life on earth.


You must be a total racist to just brush off the incineration of hundreds of thousands of real men, women, and babies,

As humans presently only experience time in one direction I fail to see what I can do to change that. It wasn’t my idea.


all because you are more concerned that at some point in the future it MIGHT just happen to some white people by 'irrational' Eastern hordes.

Again, ethnicity is irrelevant. I might be slightly more motivated because it’s my own life in question, however, that doesn’t really change anything.

Geography is also largely irrelevant. There’s no correlation between being in the East and being illogical, however, there is a correlation between being a religious fanatic and being illogical.


You want to talk about an 'inverse relationship to rational thought'- What is more insane then Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I……don’t even know how to answer that question.

However, I will restate, secular governments allow for the possibility of rational discussion.


e) For the Japanese, it was not theoretical.

Most definitely not.


f) Wow, re-read your Chomsky, NGN. All lot of people all over the world are not part of the 'conversation' that hegemonic liberals like Harris love to have because they are fucking DEAD, murdered by the 'democratic' 'rational' capitalist state. The world is not some academic seminar.
And maybe you should be a little more agitated about Afghan children being dismembered by cluster bombs then about hurting Harris' feelings.

I'm sorry about the profanity, but your positions are atrocious and I can't believe you are using Chomsky to support your psuedo-intellectual apologetics for warmongers like Harris.

I really have no idea what you’re point is. Apparently, because I’m concerned about religious extremists possessing nuclear weapons I’m responsible for Hiroshima, and therefore I am indifferent to the suffering of Afghan children. This is just all over the map. I’m lost.

My concern is less for Harris’ feelings and more about keeping the bullshit level to a minimum. Also, ‘warmonger’ is a pretty strong characterization based entirely on two words. This is what I’m talking about. Second, even if he was a serial killer, that would not invalidate the intelligent and insightful things he says.

[RadioRaheem84]

I would be nervous if Pat Robertson or Pastor Phelps got ahold of nuclear weapons, but I don’t see that as an imminent threat.

You're concerned about religious extremists when the first and only people to drop the bomb on a civilian population were liberal democrats; paragons of western virtue and allies in the project of western civilization? :rolleyes:

Give me a break. Anyone who gets the bomb and uses it would be acting out because of political interests not religious zealotry.

Get a clue.

[Red Commissar]

I've encountered more of these types of atheists in the past few years, both on the internet and in person. The main issue I have with them is they can come off as condescending and elitist, and their arguments are fashioned as such that they come off harsh to those they are directed too. Of course we might find them humorous and true, but it's not in a constructive manner and may drive religious people even further into a corner.

[NGNM85]

I've encountered more of these types of atheists in the past few years, both on the internet and in person. The main issue I have with them is they can come off as condescending and elitist,

I'm not necessarily bothered by that characterization.


and their arguments are fashioned as such that they come off harsh to those they are directed too.

That's not inconceivable.


Of course we might find them humorous and true,

Thanks.


but it's not in a constructive manner and may drive religious people even further into a corner.

This is a tactical question, about what is the most effective way to get rid of religion. I'm not sure. Of course, virtually everyone here is an atheist, many are both atheists, and anti-theists. I might be considerably gentler when talking to a religious person, depending on how they conducted themselves. However, I fully endorse Harris' concept of 'conversational intolerance.' That there are no opinions that should not be subject to a burden of proof. That we are perfectly justified in demanding intellectual honesty in all disciplines, on all subjects. When someone says to me that they are absolutely certain that Jesus was born of a virgin, or the the Bible, or the Koran is the literal word of God, I have every right to subject those statements to the same level of inquiry as I would on the issue of sports, politics, or pop culture. We need to throw out this antiquated prohibition which forbids us to call a spade a spade.

[RadioRaheem84]

You know what would be better, NGN? Have the religious person read Marx. Introduce them to a material perspective. Have them learn about the social relations involved with modes of production. They will then learn that most of the shit they learned in school was bullshit. Religion will follow. It helped me shed the "light".

It would do people a lot better than the new atheist shit you peddle like a snake oil salesman!

[Franz Fanonipants]

or they'll be a religious Marxist.

hello!

[Adi Shankara]

My biggest issue with the materialist view of religion is the bias towards western thought it holds. it completely ignores eastern religion. that's all.

[chegitz guevara]

Religion is bullshit whether it comes from East or West.

[Zanthorus]

Why the hell are there two threads on exactly the same subject?

Anyway I already posted my thoughts on this topic here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1816260&postcount=66).

[chegitz guevara]

This one isn't about atheism per se, but the New Atheism and its supposed anti-Islamic racism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

supposed anti-Islamic racism.

that's always a good start.

When you have to defend something by saying it's "supposedly racist" you probably ought to know you need to stop.

[Zanthorus]

This one isn't about atheism per se, but the New Atheism and its supposed anti-Islamic racism.

Well it seems to be going that way anyway.

Although the New Atheists are not really racist, that term gets far too abused on this site.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well it seems to be going that way anyway.

Although the New Atheists are not really racist, that term gets far too abused on this site.

They may not be "racist" but they sure are alright with the idea of bombing the Muslim out of people.

[RadioRaheem84]

This one isn't about atheism per se, but the New Atheism and its supposed anti-Islamic racism.

You don't think of the proponents of the New Atheist movement to be rather orientalist and peddle sort of a clash of civilizations mantra? Hitchens and Harris are horrible.

[RadioRaheem84]

They may not be "racist" but they sure are alright with the idea of bombing the Muslim out of people.

But Franzy, it's to protect the project of Western Civilization!

[Franz Fanonipants]

But Franzy, it's to protect the project of Western Civilization!

Civilized people don't need no sky fairy, give it up subdhan allahailures.

[chegitz guevara]

You don't think of the proponents of the New Atheist movement to be rather orientalist and peddle sort of a clash of civilizations mantra? Hitchens and Harris are horrible.

Hitchens is terrible, but Harris is equal opportunity against all religions. Dawkins isn't at all, and most New Atheists aren't.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Hitchens is terrible, but Harris is equal opportunity against all religions. Dawkins isn't at all, and most New Atheists aren't.

lol you are objectively terrible dude.

[chegitz guevara]

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Defending Sam Harris oughta be grounds for a ban.

Or grounds for acknowledgment that you're a gigantic fuckhead. One of the two.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah I can see some people in here defending Dawkins to a certain extent. He is not that bad. Same with Dennett.

But Hitchens and Harris? C'mon! :rolleyes: Hitchens is comic relief and Harris is just bitter.

Why would any leftist give religion more clout than it needs when confronting it? The fact that the new atheists give it more meaning and value on it's own is not really a materialist outlook.



Defending Sam Harris oughta be grounds for a ban.



I can understand our comrades defending the confident stance against religion by the new athiests but to defend the whole of thesis of these guys, especially Harris, is not leftist and not materialist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Don't forget, Harris is himself religious.

[black magick hustla]

or they'll be a religious Marxist.

hello!

religious marxism is almost an oxymoron. the whole point of marxism is the materialist perspective

[Franz Fanonipants]

funnily enough, my faith somehow doesn't seem to contradict my belief in material determinism. like it was something more intangible, like something that's very explicitly not of this material world.

lol you failed yr theology bruh

[turquino]

funnily enough, my faith somehow doesn't seem to contradict my belief in material determinism. like it was something more intangible, like something that's very explicitly not of this material world.

lol you failed yr theology bruh
Yes, it must, because if you have superstitious beliefs you don't believe they are creations of thought arising from the ways in which humans have interacted with nature and each other to produce their material life. This is contrary to historical materialism and the basis of the marxist critique. It follows that spiritual faith and marxism are mutually exclusive.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Who says I don't believe my faith is a creation of thought/material circumstances? I sure as fuck don't know the totality of God, so I relate to God through patterns that have a basis in my limited, material understanding of things. That's all I get in this life, because this life IS nothing more than a set of material conditions. Dust and blood main.

[NGNM85]

Well it seems to be going that way anyway.

Although the New Atheists are not really racist, that term gets far too abused on this site.

I second that.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I second that.

You would. You're a racist!

[turquino]

Who says I don't believe my faith is a creation of thought/material circumstances? I sure as fuck don't know the totality of God, so I relate to God through patterns that have a basis in my limited, material understanding of things. That's all I get in this life, because this life IS nothing more than a set of material conditions. Dust and blood main.
The point is that peoples' ideas and consciousnesses are products of their material existence. To quote from the German Ideology, "Men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.” The difference between the conception of god(s) and valid conceptions of the world is that it arises from a form of human alienation, rather than scientific practice.

[Zanthorus]

I second that.

I feel dirty now.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The point is that peoples' ideas and consciousnesses are products of their material existence. To quote from the German Ideology, "Men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.” The difference between the conception of god(s) and valid conceptions of the world is that it arises from a form of human alienation, rather than scientific practice.

uh huh.

[kalu]

The New Atheism contains several problematic tendencies, particularly its reification of the secular/sacred divide in liberal democracy, its frequently articulated Islamophobia, and its belief that modern science is basically the only ontological perspective a person can have (ontological realism has been subjected to rigorous critique, and substituted for the concept of mediation in discourse formulated by philosophers like Wittgeinstein, Heidegger, Dewey, Rorty). The latter argument wreaks of the "instrumental rationality" criticized by the Frankfurt School Marxists and most contemporary anthropologists. The latter's perspective is not "relativist," but critical of the tendency to valorize (rather than critique) "the obvious" or "the common sensical" notion in modern society that the science produced in technical domains and academic spaces is the only legitimate means of debate. This conceptualization actually commits epistemic violence against subalterns who believe in "crazy things" like gods and who participate in other forms of life, which contain diverse ways of being and knowing. The New Atheist position thus renders those forms of life provisional or extinct, as Uday Mehta might say, which is a disturbing tendency implicated with histories of liberalism and Empire. The New Atheists are thus implicitly anti-ethical, in a Levinasian sense, meaning they do not heed the call of the Other; they valorize their perspective as the only legitimate form of debate, and well, if you don't agree, you're either an idiot or a religious nut job. Perhaps that's why I find Dawkins' and Harris' arrogance so chafing?

[Franz Fanonipants]

damn. well-played.

[black magick hustla]

funnily enough, my faith somehow doesn't seem to contradict my belief in material determinism. like it was something more intangible, like something that's very explicitly not of this material world.

lol you failed yr theology bruh

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[Franz Fanonipants]

because religion is only about suffering.

[black magick hustla]

marx called it illusory happiness

[black magick hustla]

The New Atheism contains several problematic tendencies, particularly its reification of the secular/sacred divide in liberal democracy, its frequently articulated Islamophobia, and its belief that modern science is basically the only ontological perspective a person can have (ontological realism has been subjected to rigorous critique, and substituted for the concept of mediation in discourse formulated by philosophers like Wittgeinstein, Heidegger, Dewey, Rorty). The latter argument wreaks of the "instrumental rationality" criticized by the Frankfurt School Marxists and most contemporary anthropologists. The latter's perspective is not "relativist," but critical of the tendency to valorize (rather than critique) "the obvious" or "the common sensical" notion in modern society that the science produced in technical domains and academic spaces is the only legitimate means of debate. This conceptualization actually commits epistemic violence against subalterns who believe in "crazy things" like gods and who participate in other forms of life, which contain diverse ways of being and knowing. The New Atheist position thus renders those forms of life provisional or extinct, as Uday Mehta might say, which is a disturbing tendency implicated with histories of liberalism and Empire. The New Atheists are thus implicitly anti-ethical, in a Levinasian sense, meaning they do not heed the call of the Other; they valorize their perspective as the only legitimate form of debate, and well, if you don't agree, you're either an idiot or a religious nut job. Perhaps that's why I find Dawkins' and Harris' arrogance so chafing?

i am not into the whole militant atheism fiasco but god either does not exist or it is an empty meaningless concept ala wittgenstein. i dont care if i am committing epistemic violence against anahuac worshippers

[kalu]

There is not one "universal debate" in which we all participate about living, etc. There are multiple forms of life and according complexes of debates within which local authoritative distinctions are made, as Wittgenstein would say, meaning to peremptorily propose that one form of life (ie. "science") is somehow "the truth" can commit violence against those other ways of being and knowing when authorized by power. Those forms are not "meaningless" because people still act within and upon those forms, and use terms like "god" for example, to do things, to perform, and thus to achieve certain affective dispositions. One could link this too to Alasdair MacIntyre's concept of tradition as an embodied argument, through which those subjects cultivate ethical attributes. God existing or not in any ontological realist sense is honestly something I don't care about, I care about the effects of such a declaration, especially when authorized by modern modes of power. Anahuac worshippers can be dispossessed and submitted to mechanisms of discipline and power by arguments like "they're irrational, they need to be sent to mission schools to learn good scientific (or, in the previous era, Christian) rational behavior and ways of thinking," those are material effects of discourse and making Other. Not such a good thing, imho.

[Franz Fanonipants]

marx called it illusory happiness

He's not wrong. But there are more dimensions to religion than just that.

[black magick hustla]

There is not one "universal debate" in which we all participate about living, etc[QUOTE]
It does not matter. The earth rotates around the sun, not otherwise, regardless if it was not even considered a debate centuries ago.


[quote] There are multiple forms of life, as Wittgenstein would say, meaning to peremptorily propose that oneSof life (ie. "science") is somehow "the truth"

When wittgenstein argued about language games, notice he never argued about what is truth or not - that only happened when post structuralists highjacked him.

Regardless, I never argued *science* is the truth. Science has been wrong and there are some serious conceptual confusions in scientific language today, like treating mathematical objects as real. Regardless, if the old mayans thought that rain was caused by some guy in the sky called Tlaloc breaking mud containers full of water they were wrong and what they believed in was false.




can commit violence against those other ways of being and knowing when authorized by power. Those forms are not "meaningless" because people still act within and upon those forms.



Maybe the word was not meaningless, but nonsensical. People act on nonsensical statements all the time. People have emotional reactions to the Jabberwocky for example.




God existing or not in any ontological realist sense is honestly something I don't care about, I care about the effects of such a declaration when authorized by modern forms of power. Anahuac worshippers can be dispossessed and submitted to modern forms of discioline and power by arguments like "they're irrational, they need to be sent to mission schools to learn good scientific (or, in the previous sense, Christian) rational behavior," those are material effects of discourse and making Other. Not such a good thing, imho.

Of course not, but to claim all beliefs are equally true is preposterous. I dont believe in enlightment *reason* either.

[kalu]

Notice, I never claim all beliefs are "true," that would again presuppose a universal discourse within which I could make that distinction. I put the latter notion into question, and thus call for the importance of understanding problems of incommensurability, which can't be eliminated by simply pointing to some "objective fact." I do not want to be misread: I am not a relativist, notice I do think we have to engage the problem of ethics in the modern world for example, particularly the fact that people have been dispossessed and oppressed by arguments similar to the belief that others are "wrong" in relation to some rationality. You may not believe in Enlightenment Reason, but you're still showing some unjustifiable "universalist" pretensions that, as I've said before, have already been put into question by others more articulate and learned than I. Besides, what does it mean to say "people act on nonsensical statements"? I'm not sure that even makes sense. The statements you are referencing may have "sense" when articulated within a specific grammar, a form of life, though you're right, they can be violently ripped out of such a discourse and transposed into another (the discourse of science, for example), where they may yes appear "meaningless" and "nonsensical." But that just tells me you're using a faulty method in attempting to grasp the problem of incommensurability. By acting within a structured system, aren't they thereby making meaning? I think that by doing something, and acting within a structure of arguments and dispositions, they are implicitly creating meaning and "making sense" to themselves, they have an ontology and other ways of knowing and modes of argument. Is this such a problem? Why do New Atheists feel such an urgent need to eliminate these forms of life by reference to something "superior" (ie. "science")? In your case, why do Mayans need to be found "wrong," and before what tribunal?

PS: It might help if you slow down and read my arguments carefully, because I admit that this is a subject that can too easily be misunderstood and papered over with cliches like "relativism." I am not accusing you of scientism, for example.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this such a problem? Why do New Atheists feel such an urgent need to eliminate these forms of life by reference to something "superior" (ie. "science")?:thumbup1:

[black magick hustla]

Notice, I never claim all beliefs are "true," that would again presuppose a universal discourse within which I could make that distinction.
of s
You can make the distinction today really easily. In fact you are already stating implicity that the proposition * there is not a universal discourse* is true.



I put the latter notion into question, and thus call for the importance of understanding problems of incommensurability, which can't be eliminated by simply pointing to some "objective fact."

I am well aware of the issue. I took a philosophy of science class. I think people exaggerate it though.

I think most statements about ancient gods did have sense. It was not until the rise of the personal, and abstact abrahamic god that god started to become philosophized to the point of the nonsensical



I do not want to be misread: I am not a relativist, notice I do think we have to engage the problem of ethics in the modern world for example, particularly the fact that people have been dispossessed and oppressed by argument

You reject the discourse where truth and false can be conceived i.e. propositions about the world, and yet you are a moral realist. That makes no sense.



You may not believe in Enlightenment Reason, but you're still showing some unjustifiable "universalist" pretensions that, as I've said before, have already been put into question by others more articulate and learned
What universalism? That I can perfectly state that a proposition is true or false? If that was not the case, communication would break down.




Besides, what does it mean to say "people act on nonsensical statements"? I'm not sure that even makes sense.

People act on statements that cannot be true or false - this is what I mean by nonsensical. Poetry, songs, elaborate metaphors, etcetera. Nonsense is technical, yet nonsense can be meaningful to one. For example I like Baudelaires litanies to satan, it is very meaningful to me. Yet, try to prove or disprove that Satan is the confessor of the hanged, or that *dada is a virgin microbe*. Both statements can be very meaningful, they are however, nonsensical, they cannot be true or false.



Why do New Atheists feel such an urgent need to eliminate these forms of life by reference to something "superior" (ie. "science")?

I don´t. I can state in an internet forum that some beliefs are factually wrong though.

[kalu]

First, saying "I am not assuming a universal discourse within which I could make the truth distinction" is most emphatically not the same as saying "universal discourse isn't true." You might consider the former statement "therapeutic" instead. Second, Your "true or false" statements are determined within a paradigm. I thought that was basic Kuhn? So, based on a historical particularity (the development of the problem of verification in science), we must judge other discourses as somehow aberrant? Which, going back to the New Atheists, they most emphatically do (and not only that, they say, as a truth statement, "God is not real," so they're not even dissolving the problem, they're maintaining and reinforcing it, by ripping out "God," "salvation," etc. out of Christian and other grammars and transposing those terms into scientific realist discourse, where they become matters of "belief," and thus things that need to be "proved"). So what then if according to modern paradigms of science and analytic philosophy something is nonsensical, why does it matter? You also contradict yourself, because in your previous post you said things like the Mayans were "wrong" (so come on mate, what is it, are they making "nonsensical" statements or not?) So clearly something remains unarticulated in your argument, perhaps just a feeling? Or is it "common sense"? Are you afraid the Maya mechanic's gonna blow up your car because he thinks the wrench is a serpent?

I just don't see any good reason for trying to find a "logical discourse" (or even "superior" paradigms that, sure sure, may be superseded) within which we can decide universally for statements that are clearly embedded in specific forms of life and grammars. Surely if I was to take everything you are saying right now, and attempt to articulate it within a Mayan grammar and cosmology containing Tlaloc and other gods, you would sound like a lunatic, you perhaps wouldn't even be understood. But, lucky for you, I'm not interested in such a tortuous exercise. I'm content to say it doesn't matter, though it starts to matter again when these declarations are authorized by modern modes of power, rooted in teleologies--to use the most obvious example--like the Enlightenment triumph of Reason, and forms of life are rendered provisional or extinct.

Anyways, concepts don't contain referents, they do not refer to the real, so again I must ask, what good does it do to put the Maya before your tribunal, whatever you want to call it ("common sense facts," "science," "logic," etc.)? Finally, I'm not a moral realist, in the sense that I don't have a "system of ethics" that refers to something external--you my friend operate within some seriously dualistic schemas, "either you're a relativist or you're a realist"...Jesus mate, now I feel the heat of your judge's lamp!--I'm talking about the problem of ethics and incommensurability itself, which can quite easily be stated after Levinas without having to reference anything "outside" of it, ie. human nature, pleasure/pain, primary goods, whatever.

[NGNM85]

Don't forget, Harris is himself religious.

Correcting your constant stream of falsifications, bullshit, and outright lies would be a full-time job, however, this is more egregious than most.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Correcting your constant stream of falsifications, bullshit, and outright lies would be a full-time job, however, this is more egregious than most.

bruh i don't what is this i can't even huh...

dude you are literally defending someone who's such a gigantic asshole that Chris Hitchens thinks he's an asshole.


While I consider Buddhism almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist.

Regardless of his self-identification, the dude is religious.

e. more like gnome chimpsky lol

[NGNM85]

Regardless of his self-identification, the dude is religious.


Stating it does not make it so. That is completely baseless, which is, of course, perfectly in character.

[Franz Fanonipants]

man i hate you so bad i just converted to Islam to declare a fatwa against you.

[Barry Lyndon]

bruh i don't what is this i can't even huh...

dude you are literally defending someone who's such a gigantic asshole that Chris Hitchens thinks he's an asshole.

Wow. That is a BIG asshole.

[Adi Shankara]

Even more proof that Sam Harris is one of the largest assholes to ever walk the planet:


""We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no big deal next to bombing them," he continues. "Why sweat it?"

I'm quite positive your so-called "hero" Noam Chomsky is quite opposed to torture. so why you'd support Sam Harris shows an inherent cognitive dissonance on your part.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MOAR!!! =D

He is a racist, insinuating bigot who hates muslims and Arabs:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

and while claiming to be an atheist, he has a belief in Hindu mysticism:


Harris suggests, it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being. Moreover, Harris argues that such states of mind should be subjected to formal scientific investigation, without incorporating the myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology) and superstition that often accompanies meditation in the religious context. "There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God," he writes.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-eof-7)p. 214.

[NGNM85]

Even more proof that Sam Harris is one of the largest assholes to ever walk the planet:
I'm quite positive your so-called "hero" Noam Chomsky is quite opposed to torture. so why you'd support Sam Harris shows an inherent cognitive dissonance on your part.

If you read what he actually says, Harris is against torture. Moreover, you're assuming that I adopt these men's views wholesale. I don't. I listen to what they say, and I take what I think is valuable. I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says. I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, although, these differences of opinion are generally pretty minor.


BUT WAIT! THERE'S MOAR!!! =D

He is a racist, insinuating bigot who hates muslims and Arabs:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

That's completely untrue. He even added updates to make it absolutely clear. He is not a racist, he's not a bigot because he's against religion, period, not a specific religion, and he's obviously not a racist. The abuse of language here is truly galling.


and while claiming to be an atheist, he has a belief in Hindu mysticism:

This is also false.

"My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc.:
My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith (and in several articles available on this website) and do not entail the acceptance of anything on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the human mind (any experience does, for that matter). What is highly questionable are the metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of such experiences. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.
There are several neuroscience labs now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. While I am not personally engaged in this research, I know many of the scientists who are. This is now a fertile area of sober inquiry, purposed toward understanding the possibilities of human well-being better than we do at present.
While I consider Buddhism almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists. It is available here:
Killing the Buddha (http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2903&Itemid=244)"

Seriously, you do yourself a real disservice with bullshit like this.

[Adi Shankara]

If you read what he actually says, Harris is against torture.

I read what he actually said, and posted it above, and it is quite clear that Harris is a supporter of torture. saying "it isn't true" doesn't make it false. neither does writing a half-assed apology when the media starts hammering your ass for being a racist bigot (like Sam Harris did).

[NGNM85]

I read what he actually said, and posted it above, and it is quite clear that Harris is a supporter of torture. saying "it isn't true" doesn't make it false.

You must have missed some passages;

"..some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. .... I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. ...While I think that torture should remain illegal,... ..It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.."




neither does writing a half-assed apology when the media starts hammering your ass for being a racist bigot (like Sam Harris did).

It wasn't an apology, and what he said wasn't racist.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you read what he actually says, Harris is against torture. Moreover, you're assuming that I adopt these men's views wholesale. I don't. I listen to what they say, and I take what I think is valuable. I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says. I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, although, these differences of opinion are generally pretty minor.What a fucking liar!

Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture, Oct. 2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

Then he had toned his attitude down because of outrage.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/



NGN quoted:
"..some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. .... I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. ...While I think that torture should remain illegal,... ..It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.."Quote the whole thing, not pieces of it, NGN:


Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethicallynecessary
I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against the use of torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a prisoner appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.
My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to “water-board” a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of “water-boarding” high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, many of us tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture.Then came your quote:


It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.Nice selective quoting, NGN! :thumbup1:

He even argues against the notion put out by opponents that torture doesn't work:



It is widely claimed that torture “does not work”—that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc. As I argue in The End of Faith, this line of argument does not resolve the underlying ethical dilemma. Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is false. There are cases in which the mere threat of torture (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html) has worked.
While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine.

......the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly“The Dark Art of Interrogation.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden) Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. article, :rolleyes:

Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law.
The Harris Law of Torture: We will never torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody is Osama bin Laden.

[Barry Lyndon]

What a fucking liar!

Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture, Oct. 2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

Then he had toned his attitude down because of outrage.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

Wow. Sam Harris HIMSELF titled it 'In Defense of Torture'.

You ARE a liar, NGN. So its only natural that you would defend other liars like Sam Harris. The game is up. I don't blame you, people who have been indoctrinated with liberal trash often feel compelled to lie in order to uphold their convoluted and reactionary worldview. Just admit your wrong and head to the 'learning' re-education camp. Your Harris and Hitchens books will be herby confiscated and you will be subjected to a strict diet of Chomsky, Parenti, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Marx, Gramsci, and Fanon to cleanse your mind of liberal filth. Some day, you'll thank us for it. I wish you the best of luck, and perhaps someday we can call you comrade.

[NGNM85]

What a fucking liar!


Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture, Oct. 2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html)

Then he had toned his attitude down because of outrage.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/)



His conclusion never changes. He's merely clarifying for people who misunderstood.



Quote the whole thing, not pieces of it, NGN:


Then came your quote:

Nice selective quoting, NGN!

You read it, but you didn’t understand it. He’s saying that unless an ethical rule works in every conceivable application, including extreme hypotheticals, if there is even one conceivable exception it isn’t an absolute moral rule.

You actually probably already understand this. Killing someone is morally abhorrent and rightfully condemned, but most people would agree that there are at least theoretical circumstances we can construct where taking a life would be justified. Therefore, he is saying it cannot be absolutely wrong, in every conceivable circumstance.


He even argues against the notion put out by opponents that torture doesn't work:



He’s simply stating a fact. Torture may be counterproductive, and morally offensive, and it seems to be considerably less effective than other methods of obtaining reliable information. However, to say that it literally never works, is absurd.

You also rearranged the paragraphs and did some nice quote mining, yourself. The point is, his final conclusion, his recommendation, as to what should be done regarding torture, is that it should and must remain illegal. Thus, your premise is not true.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, he defends torture. The 24-like scenerio with the snickering terrorist leads me to believe he presumes the logic of a rightist when it comes to the "war on terror". I mean what would he think if an Indian Maoist were captured by an Operation Greenhunt team and he withheld some information from them about a possible bomb attack on a corrupt police station or an assisination attempt on a police chief? Would this scenerio apply then to use torture? I have an inkling that the reluctant Maoist and the snickering Islamic terrorist are one and the same to him and would probably merit the use of torture. I mean one would have to be a monster not to, right. The point about it remaining illegal is trying to have his cake and eat it to. His further endorsement of the liberal politicians position leads me to believe he supports the use of it in hypothetical scenerios against enemies deemed by the state. It's still reactionary junk he spews. It's about seeing where he stands on the issue of the war on terror and it becomes very apparent in his huffington post article. He endorses it.

[NGNM85]

NGN, he defends torture. The 24-like scenerio with the snickering terrorist leads me to believe he presumes the logic of a rightist when it comes to the "war on terror". I mean what would he think if an Indian Maoist were captured by an Operation Greenhunt team and he withheld some information from them about a possible bomb attack on a corrupt police station or an assisination attempt on a police chief? Would this scenerio apply then to use torture? I have an inkling that the reluctant Maoist and the snickering Islamic terrorist are one and the same to him and would probably merit the use of torture.

The point is, what would be justifiable to prevent an atrocuty? This is again, creating a perfect hypothetical scenario, with a prospective mass murderer, where guilt is absolutely certain, but somehow (Which is almost logically impossible.) the rest of the details are unknown. Political ideology is really irrelevent, he's really just trying to make a point about ethics and morality.


I mean one would have to be a monster not to, right.

Exactly. This is his point.


The point about it remaining illegal is trying to have his cake and eat it to. His further endorsement of the liberal politicians position leads me to believe he supports the use of it in hypothetical scenerios against enemies deemed by the state.

Again, in a perfect scenario, where guilt is an absolute certainty, which is almost logically impossible. He also says that states can't be trusted to make this distinction, responsibly, therefore it must be illegal. It really isn't hypocritical. Again, as I said, virtually any moral person will concede there are at least theoretical scenarios where they would justify human life.



It's still reactionary junk he spews. It's about seeing where he stands on the issue of the war on terror and it becomes very apparent in his huffington post article. He endorses it.

I don't think anything about that is really 'reactionary.'

Saying he's endorsing torture, though, is incredibly misleading. Most people who are against torture actually take the same position, consciously or unconsciously.

I'm not sure of how he feels about the War on Terror, except that I know he was totally against the Iraq War.

I think anyone could agree that violent Islamic extremists are bad news. (Just like violent Christian extremists.) However, the question is; 'What is to be done?' I don't know what Harris actually proposes. Clearly the Bush strategy of bombing everything in sight is not the way. What is the solution? That's debateable.

[Coggeh]

Jesus.

Both of you are wrong. Defending all athiests is an utter waste of time. You may like them for being athiests as a christian might like someone for being christian but that doesn't mean they are in any way good politically. In fact throughout the ages most freethinkers were reactionary middle class snobs (for want of a better description).

And to the defenders of religion, who talk on and on about priests doing good work: fair enough some priests do get involved in some forms of class struggle, that is in no way a defense of organised religion as it is a social construct used by the social system in place to defend the class system at every interval.

To summize the correct position on this matter Connollys words provide perfect eloquence :

"Socialism, as a party, bases itself upon its knowledge of facts, of economic truths, and leaves the building up of religious ideals or faiths to the outside public, or to its individual members if they so will. It is neither Freethinker nor Christian, Turk nor Jew, Buddhist nor Idolator, Mahommedan nor Parsee – it is only human."

[black magick hustla]

Second, Your "true or false" statements are determined within a paradigm. I thought that was basic Kuhn?

true or false statements are not determined by a paradigm. For example, it is true that there was once upon a time a Roman Empire even if the aztecs could not conceptualize it. Actually, Kuhn never made claims of truthhood at all. That is again, post structuralists putting words in his mouth. What he said is that science uses paradigms for explanatory power, not so much about fnding the truth.




So, based on a historical particularity (the development of thate problem of verification in science), we must judge other discourses as somehow aberrant?

Man you are assuming to much. Its not about a particular discourse being aberrant. There is not a big man called Zeus in the sky throwing thunder bolts, and there was not one when the greeks existed either. It does not matter if they could not conceptualize the alternative.





Which, going back to the New Atheists, they most emphatically do (and not only that, they say, as a truth statement, "God is not real," so they're not even dissolving the problem, they're maintaining and reinforcing it, by ripping out "God," "salvation," etc. out of Christian and other grammars and transposing those terms into scientific realist discourse, where they become matters of "belief," and thus things that need to be "proved").ing
n em


I remember Carnap wrote something about this. God as in a big man in the sky certainly does not exist. However, God as in God is Love, or God as in, God is the son and the father and the holy ghost, is definitely an empty term. Its not either true or false, in the same sense poetry is not true or false, or a painting does not make a true or false statement.

So I will argue God as a big man in the sky does not exist. The other type of God, well, I am not interested in arguing that. It demands wittgensteinian dissolution.





So what then if according to modern paradigms of science and analytic philosophy something is nonsensical, why does it matter? You also contradict yourself, because in your previous post you said things like the Mayans were "wrong" (so come on mate, what is it, are they making "nonsensical" statements or not?


The idea that there is a big man called Tlaloc breaking containers of water makes perfect sense, but it is false. This is what I implied when I said it is wrong.



So clearly something remains unarticulated in your argument, perhaps just a feeling? Or is it "common sense"? Are you afraid the Maya mechanic's gonna blow up your car because he thinks the wrench is a serpent?



Not really man. I could care less about new atheism at all. I just think that all you folks with your trendy continental philosophy speak gibberish and made language go in a picnic.




I just don't see any good reason for trying to find a "logical discourse" (or even "superior" paradigms that, sure sure, may be superseded) within which we can decide universally for statements that are clearly embedded in specific forms of life and grammars.


oli
What paradigms. What logical discourse. I am simply analyzing ordinary talk. To say that there was not a world beyond meso-america simply because the anahuac folk could not conceptualize it is language gone on a holiday. White people and their civilizations certainly did exist. Either what you say is false or I dont know what you are talking about. Its like we are playing chess and you are moving the kinght diagonally.



Surely if I was to take everything you are saying right now, and attempt to articulate it within a Mayan grammar and cosmology containing Tlaloc and other gods, you would sound like a lunatic, you perhaps wouldn't even be understood. But, lucky for you, I'm not interested in such a tortuous exercise. I'm content to say it doesn't matter, though it starts to matter again when these declarations are authorized by modern modes of power, rooted in teleologies--to use the most obvious example--like the Enlightenment triumph of Reason, and forms of life are rendered provisional or extinct. [oes /quote]

It does not matter if I jerk off to the tits of my mother or if I like ladyboys. However, I dont jerk off to the tits of my mother or like ladyboys. I never understood all that crazy talk. The fact that you are speaking about forms of lifes and different grammars containing different conditions for truthood or whatever means you assume that your form of life is superior and objective, either that or you have fucked language in the ass. Because certainly you are using your standards to assess the fact that truth somehow depend on the standards of each particular form of life which undeniably includes yours and therefore renders whatever you say wrong or garbled.

[quote]
Anyways, concepts don't contain referents, they do not refer to the real, so again I must ask, what good does it do to put the Maya before your tribunal, whatever you want to call it ("common sense facts," "science," "logic," etc.)? Finally, I'm not a moral realist, in the sense that I don't have a "system of ethics" that refers to something external--you my friend operate within some seriously dualistic schemas, "either you're a relativist or you're a realist"...Jesus mate, now I feel the heat of your judge's lamp!--I'm talking about the problem of ethics and incommensurability itself, which can quite easily be stated after Levinas without having to reference anything "outside" of it, ie. human nature, pleasure/pain, primary goods, whatever.

It doesnt do any good or bad. However, what you say is false.

[Franz Fanonipants]

And to the defenders of religion, who talk on and on about priests doing good work: fair enough some priests do get involved in some forms of class struggle, that is in no way a defense of organised religion as it is a social construct used by the social system in place to defend the class system at every interval.

lol who said that?

[kalu]

I don't see how my point about the production of knowledge is really so difficult to grasp: according to the discipline of History (disciplines authorize truth claims), for example, there could very well exist the issue of whether "the Roman Empire" existed or not, and whether or not that is "true or false," but none of this stuff is determined in some empty Archimedean space. You are implying a form of life may be aberrant when you criticize it for not somehow capturing this totality of "facts"--or, regardless of "you," similar types of argument have had oppressive effects when authorized by modern modes of power (to those watching this debate, notice how I'm always trying to ground these problems in problems of the social...I guess I'm more "materialist" than these "pomo"-haters!)--which as I said before are not produced in some wonderful land beyond different ontological perspectives, the realm of pure knowledge. And sure, you can continue to ignore my points about how God or gods make sense within other forms of life, which contain other ways of knowing and being. That's fine, It's just unfortunate you are so locked onto this idea that I am "pomo," or that the latter "trend" is "language gone on a picnic." To me it seems you're just hiding behind a smokescreen of such trite phrases and pigeon-holing because you don't want to engage my arguments or ideas. I find it curious that you say you are just "analyzing ordinary talk." I'm using certain specific and admittedly technical concepts to advance an argument, but I think your project to "dissolve" what I'm saying is fruitless because you're using a whole technical method for a type of debate that really doesn't call for it. I'm not Heidegger, you're not Carnap, we're discussing a social problem, not a discrete philosophical problem like the question of "being." Can we move on?

Finally, you are confusing my argument: to say there are other forms of life containing other knowledges, for example, does not mean that I'm saying the totality of all explanations are reduced to those particular forms. Again, does it matter whether or not the Anahuac conceived of a Roman Empire? We're talking about a structured system of dispositions and performances where they get things "done," why is that such a bad thing that must be brought before your tribunal ("they are wrong, they are wrong, they are wrong!")? (which, once again, you still haven't specified; the vague location from which you judge indicates to me something faulty about your epistemological vantage point). Also, how in the hell am I arguing for "my form of life" or using internal "standards"? I'm using theory to enable the category of "form of life" to make an argument, I'm most emphatically not arguing from within a form of life right now; if such was the case, I would concern myself with the debates within that tradition. Finally (finally!), I'm not hung up on the issue of "truth" per se, I think again that the problem of verification as a development of modern science, for example, is precisely something against which we shouldn't judge other forms of life, not the unrelated point that "they all have truths, and those are equally valid." It seems you missed the first sentence of my last post!

[NecroCommie]

One question I address every religious dude and dudette with, and one they have so far utterly refused to answer (because they know they sound like nutjobs no doubt), is: Besides what they contain, what makes modern religions any different from any other superstition? Let it be unicorns, UFO's, bigfoot or whatever.

And about the epistemological bullshit above: If someone doubts the utter superiority of the empirical method, let him leap from a 10th floor of an apartment block and see just how little we can "know" about gravity.

[kalu]

And about the epistemological bullshit above: If someone doubts the utter superiority of the empirical method, let him leap from a 10th floor of an apartment block and see just how little we can "know" about gravity.

If within a form of life people believe they can "fly" and that they should jump off buildings, that form of life will cease to exist for obvious reasons.:lol:

And are unicorns and UFOs part of a whole way of knowing and being? Or are they disaggregated elements floating through various cultural discourses?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Let it be unicorns, UFO's, bigfoot or whatever.

The government wants you to believe in Jesus. They're fucking covering up that other shit though. (*Especially* unicorns).

[Robocommie]

One question I address every religious dude and dudette with, and one they have so far utterly refused to answer (because they know they sound like nutjobs no doubt), is: Besides what they contain, what makes modern religions any different from any other superstition? Let it be unicorns, UFO's, bigfoot or whatever.


I answered you, and you just disregarded it with a silly response.

I get something out of my religious beliefs, that is real whether my beliefs are true or not. You clearly don't. That's all there is to say.

[Barry Lyndon]

The point is, what would be justifiable to prevent an atrocuty? This is again, creating a perfect hypothetical scenario, with a prospective mass murderer, where guilt is absolutely certain, but somehow (Which is almost logically impossible.) the rest of the details are unknown. Political ideology is really irrelevent, he's really just trying to make a point about ethics and morality.



Exactly. This is his point.



Again, in a perfect scenario, where guilt is an absolute certainty, which is almost logically impossible. He also says that states can't be trusted to make this distinction, responsibly, therefore it must be illegal. It really isn't hypocritical. Again, as I said, virtually any moral person will concede there are at least theoretical scenarios where they would justify human life.




I don't think anything about that is really 'reactionary.'

Saying he's endorsing torture, though, is incredibly misleading. Most people who are against torture actually take the same position, consciously or unconsciously.

I'm not sure of how he feels about the War on Terror, except that I know he was totally against the Iraq War.

I think anyone could agree that violent Islamic extremists are bad news. (Just like violent Christian extremists.) However, the question is; 'What is to be done?' I don't know what Harris actually proposes. Clearly the Bush strategy of bombing everything in sight is not the way. What is the solution? That's debateable.

Were you born a sophistic piece of shit, NGN, or did you have to work on it?

[NGNM85]

Were you born a sophistic piece of shit, NGN, or did you have to work on it?

Very impressive. Try again...

[NecroCommie]

I answered you, and you just disregarded it with a silly response.

I get something out of my religious beliefs, that is real whether my beliefs are true or not. You clearly don't. That's all there is to say.
Clearly you do not understand what "different" means. Because the same can be attributed to unicorns, UFO's and bigfoots. All of the mentioned have some serious believers who get something out of them. Still they are obviously all nonexistent.

[Adi Shankara]

Clearly you do not understand what "different" means. Because the same can be attributed to unicorns, UFO's and bigfoots. All of the mentioned have some serious believers who get something out of them. Still they are obviously all nonexistent.

It depends on how you address these things; in Hinduism, for example, god (here called "the ultimate reality") in it's purest form is an inanimate indescribable; it is the consciousness that we all collectively experience by being alive. whereas a UFO or a unicorn is physical and thus verifiable, and since we all know of the physical world and it's limitations, its silly to assume either a pink unicorn or a UFO exist.

remember, there is folk religion, where many people literally worship these beings as given by material appearance, but there is also the mystic approach (as very common in Mayan mythology and esoteric Hinduism) where a god's physical attributes are simply representative of abstract ideas to better help one understand it's manifestation.

Hinduism, Mayan mythology, etc. is rife with symbolism; I don't think when anyone who has studied theology worships Vishnu, they literally think he's a blue little boy who plays a cow pipe wherever he goes; everything in the physical representation of the character has a meaning.

but see? you just basically proved the extent to what most atheists know about religion or theology.

[Obs]

If our pain and suffering are illusory, there is no need to get rid of them, it's not real.

Yes there is, it's still pain and it's still suffering. Go contemplate some koans, man, you might get it eventually.

[Coggeh]

lol who said that?
Marx & Engels.

[Coggeh]

but see? you just basically proved the extent to what most atheists know about religion or theology.
Athiest's don't need to be experts on theology to not believe in it. The debate about whether god exists or not is not a debate that socialists should engage in really. Such debate or infighting divides the organised working class and points to weak links in class unity.

Similarly it is for this reason most of the left oppose the idea of "Christian Socialism" for one to have their religious belief dictate their political views is nothing short of silliness. Religion and socialism should be completely separate in the individuals mind because sooner or later their will be a confrontation within that individuals mind such as secularism but also the fundamental view that guides socialism and socialists that we base everything on materialism in the form of material conditions and use only the material world to dictate our views. Not what scripture should tell us to believe. One can only call themselves a socialist should this "obeyed". To do otherwise would inevitability lead to problems in ones analysis.

Anyway I (as an athiest) will indulge. Anti Theism is a reactionary position (IMO) their are many on this site however who do hold that position but to get back to the main arguement that an Athiest can only really not believe in a god/s if they have read up on each one themselves. This is completely false, an athiest must only decide on one god or one religion to not believe completely .
All religions are based on faith, no proof or even hints of evidence, to understand one of the religions is untrue doesn't give any extra credibility to any other but in fact extremely less as they are based on the same faith based views. (With some exceptions such as god/heaven/afterlife & hell less faiths)

[Adi Shankara]

Athiest's don't need to be experts on theology to not believe in it. The debate about whether god exists or not is not a debate that socialists should engage in really. Such debate or infighting divides the organised working class and points to weak links in class unity.

Similarly it is for this reason most of the left oppose the idea of "Christian Socialism" for one to have their religious belief dictate their political views is nothing short of silliness. Religion and socialism should be completely separate in the individuals mind because sooner or later their will be a confrontation within that individuals mind such as secularism but also the fundamental view that guides socialism and socialists that we base everything on materialism in the form of material conditions and use only the material world to dictate our views. Not what scripture should tell us to believe. One can only call themselves a socialist should this "obeyed". To do otherwise would inevitability lead to problems in ones analysis.

Anyway I (as an athiest) will indulge. Anti Theism is a reactionary position (IMO) their are many on this site however who do hold that position but to get back to the main arguement that an Athiest can only really not believe in a god/s if they have read up on each one themselves. This is completely false, an athiest must only decide on one god or one religion to not believe completely .
All religions are based on faith, no proof or even hints of evidence, to understand one of the religions is untrue doesn't give any extra credibility to any other but in fact extremely less as they are based on the same faith based views. (With some exceptions such as god/heaven/afterlife & hell less faiths)

That wasn't my point though; it makes one look like an asswipe if you comment on one religion without knowing what its about; it's no different than conservatives thinking communism is all about "stealing other people's money". one can still be an atheist...but one can't speak with authority on ALL religions if some of those religions aren't included in the original ignorant description.



All religions are based on faith, no proof or even hints of evidence, to understand one of the religions is untrue doesn't give any extra credibility to any other but in fact extremely less as they are based on the same faith based views. (With some exceptions such as god/heaven/afterlife & hell less faiths)

There is very little evidence that "rationalism" is exactly right either. I hate the title "rationalism" as it makes it sound as if it is based on reason, but they put much faith into their own processes as religious people do.

[NGNM85]

That wasn't my point though; it makes one look like an asswipe if you comment on one religion without knowing what its about; it's no different than conservatives thinking communism is all about "stealing other people's money". one can still be an atheist...but one can't speak with authority on ALL religions if some of those religions aren't included in the original ignorant description.

It isn’t clear whether you’re somply referring to the gentleman’s statements, or the whole Atheist bloc, here. While I don’t represent the gentlemen or vice-versa, I certainly share the sentiment of at least some of what he said.

First of all, I don’t need a theology degree to make very simple and basic observations about religion. I use the common, literal definition of ‘religion.’ Something like this;

“Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

That’s pretty much how I conceptualize it.

Now, back to the charge, that we, or I, am making huge, sweeping, unfair generalizations. Well, let’s look at that. Now you made an enormous deal about how Hindus, rather, some Hindus, don’t actually believe in an anthropomorphized god. Ok, great. However, that, again, is just a subset of Hinduism. The Abrahamic faiths, which are absolutely based on the concept of an anthropomorphic god collectively, by themselves, make up at least roughly 65% of the worlds’ religious people, collectively. Moreover, these are the dominant faiths in the areas in which virtually all of us live so it makes perfect sense that they have received the most attention. If you count up all the religions that believe in an anthropomorphic god or gods it’s probably around at least 85%, if you include reincarnation, spirits, etc, it’s probably at least 98%, or higher. It’s sort of an essential feature of religion to believe in the supernatural. Finding a handful of exceptions, that barely even classify as religious, is not particularly meaningful.

What Atheists take issue with, are these extreme claims that are taken as self-evident. To insist that anything actually exists is to tread on the domain of science. Whether it’s a god, many gods, spirits, reincarnation, the soul, etc. The problem is these beliefs are presented as absolutely true, in spite of having no evidence to substantiate them. Some are even obviously, verifiably false. That is what is being criticized, and it is perfectly fair.


There is very little evidence that "rationalism" is exactly right either. I hate the title "rationalism" as it makes it sound as if it is based on reason, but they put much faith into their own processes as religious people do.

It absolutely is based on reason. In fact, the reason why I endorse and embrace logic and critical thinking is that they have been tested time and time again and have repeatedly proven to be the best approach to any given situation. This is the difference between my ‘beliefs’ and religious beliefs, my ‘faith’ is conditional, which differentiates it from religious faith. To cut to the heart of the matter; there simply is no sound argument for irrationality.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#cite_note-0#cite_note-0)

[NecroCommie]

It depends on how you address these things; in Hinduism, for example, god (here called "the ultimate reality") in it's purest form is an inanimate indescribable; it is the consciousness that we all collectively experience by being alive. whereas a UFO or a unicorn is physical and thus verifiable, and since we all know of the physical world and it's limitations, its silly to assume either a pink unicorn or a UFO exist.

remember, there is folk religion, where many people literally worship these beings as given by material appearance, but there is also the mystic approach (as very common in Mayan mythology and esoteric Hinduism) where a god's physical attributes are simply representative of abstract ideas to better help one understand it's manifestation.

Hinduism, Mayan mythology, etc. is rife with symbolism; I don't think when anyone who has studied theology worships Vishnu, they literally think he's a blue little boy who plays a cow pipe wherever he goes; everything in the physical representation of the character has a meaning.

but see? you just basically proved the extent to what most atheists know about religion or theology.
But the point was that tell be what is different besides what those beliefs contain. You just told me how the creatures are different (material or not), but not how the systems of belief are different. Many people say that ghosts can exist on multiple realities and in the finnish mythology gods and divine beings are present in material forms (trees and animals are divine in their own right and so on and so on)

I know all you said about theology, but the truth is that it is all irrelevant in relation to my question.

One does not need to study leprachaunology to know leprachauns don't exist.

[NecroCommie]

If within a form of life people believe they can "fly" and that they should jump off buildings, that form of life will cease to exist for obvious reasons.:lol:
The point was that if you start questioning every single knowledge you should just die.

And are unicorns and UFOs part of a whole way of knowing and being? Or are they disaggregated elements floating through various cultural discourses?
The latter, just like Gods.

[kalu]

The point was that if you start questioning every single knowledge you should just die.

The latter, just like Gods.
»

Ok, after *carefully* reviewing all my posts in this thread, please explain to me how I am "questioning every knowledge"? Again, this is the trap most people fall into when one attempts to thematize "the obvious" and "common sense" (the person gets tarred and feathered). And be easy now, that last comment was needlessly aggressive, I don't debate with people who can't keep their e-temper under control, frankly I'm not one for internet steroids.

[this is an invasion]

There is very little evidence that "rationalism" is exactly right either. I hate the title "rationalism" as it makes it sound as if it is based on reason, but they put much faith into their own processes as religious people do.

Um... it is based on reason. Religious people a few centuries ago used to call themselves "irrational" because faith is the opposite of rationality.

[Adi Shankara]

Um... it is based on reason. Religious people a few centuries ago used to call themselves "irrational" because faith is the opposite of rationality.

there is no proof of that; if that was the case, some of the greatest scientists of all time wouldn't have been religious. (I'm talking Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, etc.)

and how is the "rational" belief system so rational in the hands of an irrational people? We fuck up everything as a species, and yet we want to assume that our capabilities to reason are somehow impervious?

[this is an invasion]

there is no proof of that; if that was the case, some of the greatest scientists of all time wouldn't have been religious. (I'm talking Nicola Tesla, Max Planck, etc.) What? People aren't absolute. It's quite possible to hold rational and irrational beliefs. Faith is by definition irrational.


and how is the "rational" belief system so rational in the hands of an irrational people? We fuck up everything as a species, and yet we want to assume that our capabilities to reason are somehow impervious?
I don't think you quite understand what rationality is. All it means is that something is logical. It doesn't mean it's "good" or "bad" for individuals, our species, or the planet.

[Adi Shankara]

What? People aren't absolute. It's quite possible to hold rational and irrational beliefs. Faith is by definition irrational.

I don't think you quite understand what rationality is. All it means is that something is logical. It doesn't mean it's "good" or "bad" for individuals, our species, or the planet.

faith by definition isn't irrational; is it irrational to have faith in one's wife? to have faith that it'll rain tomorrow because a rain cloud is coming your way? irrational to believe that a certain food would make you feel better?

[this is an invasion]

faith by definition isn't irrational; is it irrational to have faith in one's wife? What does this even mean?


to have faith that it'll rain tomorrow because a rain cloud is coming your way? It's completely rational to assume it might rain if a rain cloud is on the horizon...


irrational to believe that a certain food would make you feel better?

If a certain food does make you feel better, then it's not faith, is it?

[NecroCommie]

»

Ok, after *carefully* reviewing all my posts in this thread, please explain to me how I am "questioning every knowledge"? Again, this is the trap most people fall into when one attempts to thematize "the obvious" and "common sense" (the person gets tarred and feathered). And be easy now, that last comment was needlessly aggressive, I don't debate with people who can't keep their e-temper under control, frankly I'm not one for internet steroids.
Calm down! It was a joke! :lol: The dying bit at least.

What I am trying to say, that no matter what standard we use to separate knowledge from other beliefs, we will without exception come to the conclusion that we know gods do not exist. Everyone all the time judges information and claims to be nonexistent, and if those standards are even relatively in touch with reality they will deem gods as nonexistent. The only escape from that is to deny knowledge all together (like relativists do), or twist the term in some arbitary non-coherent manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOrBCkQ6WY

[kalu]

Okay comrade, that wasn't clear to me, but I'm all for jokes once I get them, hah.:) I'm interested in this notion though that we are constantly "judging" truth claims. As Richard Rorty points out in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, this conception of philosophy, to be more specific, is not useful because it doesn't adequately thematize the power of metaphor (for example, the role of vision in philosophical treatises, the notion that we compare our theories to "reality" as if we were holding up "a mirror" that need only be polished and repaired). He says that we ought to conceptualize science, philosophy, et al. instead as contingent vocabularies, which let us get things done, while dissolving the philosophical or ontological project to "found" these vocabularies in some extradiscursive reality. With a postcolonial twist, I don't consider this position "relativist," but a more incisive philosophical point about learning to live with others and their vocabularies. I think we need to delink "knowledge" from "verification"--the latter's role in conceptualizing philosophy, or science for that matter, as a mirror should be clear. This maneuver could allow us to engage with other ways of being and knowing that don't rely on judging them according to something "obvious," "rational," or "superior." To restate my point another way, "reality" itself is already produced within discourse; following Althusser there is no homogeneous planar space wherein the concept meets its "real." All I'm saying we should disable "the will to verify" in order to engage other forms of life in an ethical manner, which again is most emphatically not the same as a relativist or even "skeptical" position (Cartesian doubt, for example, manifests itself as a problem within the discourse of philosophy as a mirror, not within my own discourse; again, "God" or whatever existing or not is not my concern).

[Coggeh]

faith by definition isn't irrational; is it irrational to have faith in one's wife? to have faith that it'll rain tomorrow because a rain cloud is coming your way? irrational to believe that a certain food would make you feel better?
Yes. Faith is irrational. Judging that a rain cloud coming towards will bring rain isn't faith, its logical that a RAIN cloud will bring RAIN. How in the hell is it irrational to believe that certain foods will make you feel better its been established as fact that many types of diets or food eating habits will make you feel better than others for example someone who follows the food pyramid will feel a lot better than someone who eats mcdonalds 24/7.

By faith in ones wife what exactly do you mean...it makes no sense whatsoever.

Look. Accept it faith(religiously speaking) is irrational by definition to argue otherwise is quite silly. However that doesn't mean you can't believe in god. Your entitled to your beliefs and people here should respect them and do respect them for the most part unless you start trying to have a go at science which you are now.

Your faith in god, has nothing to do with how commited you are to a socialist movement. Regardless if one beliefs in any god or designer it wouldn't change the fact that come the revolution their on my side of the barricades and not that of the bourgeoise( which many athiests would be).

However, being a marxist means that you formulate your analysis only on the material world and not confuse it with ones religious beliefs or any other beliefs. When you enter a revolutionary movement: whether thats entering the door to a meeting, going on a protest or even selling papers you leave your religious beliefs behind you.For the reasons i have mentioned above it is the exact reason why socialists should oppose anti-theism but also "christian socialism" or "islamic socialism".


That wasn't my point though; it makes one look like an asswipe if you comment on one religion without knowing what its about; it's no different than conservatives thinking communism is all about "stealing other people's money". one can still be an atheist...but one can't speak with authority on ALL religions if some of those religions aren't included in the original ignorant description.
People don't become athiests because they have a problem with scripture of a religion. But because they have a problem with the possibility of a god/s. No religion can boost physical evidence that gives credibility to that religion. So by reasoning alone you can see that if your reason for becoming an athiest is based on lack of evidence then all religions are ruled out.

[Adi Shankara]

People don't become athiests because they have a problem with scripture of a religion. But because they have a problem with the possibility of a god/s. No religion can boost physical evidence that gives credibility to that religion. So by reasoning alone you can see that if your reason for becoming an athiest is based on lack of evidence then all religions are ruled out.

But "evidence" is subjective to opinion, seeing as people interpret the evidence of a higher power in different ways. before you say "evidence isn't subject to interpretation", watch the debate between Richard Dwakins and John Lennox to see what I mean, where they can barely come to a conclusion on what constitutes evidence for the existence of god.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

faith by definition isn't irrational; is it irrational to have faith in one's wife? to have faith that it'll rain tomorrow because a rain cloud is coming your way? irrational to believe that a certain food would make you feel better?

That sure is a slow cloud; judging the distance here postulated it must be quite some distance a way (tomorrow) meaning there is a fairly reasonable - depending on the weather systems in general in the vicinity - that it will change its course. However, judging as to whether an approaching cloud will bring rain or not is a value based on previous experience, not faith.

The very same applies to whether you fancy some foods make you feel better than others, it is too based on previous experience.

And the first point, having faith in ones loved one or whatever, is that even a question of faith? That is a question of trust and you hope you can trust your loved one, and you know you can be wrong, but you take your chance and hope for the best. If that is faith at all it's the kind of faith Christians would deride as traitorous and unfaithful; undecided and vague.

[NecroCommie]

I'm interested in this notion though that we are constantly "judging" truth claims.
You are too, you just judged the judgement of truth claims. On what standard, it matters not, we all judge knowledge and truth. It just so happens that other methods of judgement have an astounding track record of being right.

As Richard Rorty points out in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, this conception of philosophy, to be more specific, is not useful because it doesn't adequately thematize the power of metaphor (for example, the role of vision in philosophical treatises, the notion that we compare our theories to "reality" as if we were holding up "a mirror" that need only be polished and repaired).
Are you saying that we shouldn't compare our theories to reality, or that reality does not exist. It doesn't matter really, because leftist politics (whether marxist or not) are all based on the assumption that there exists a material world outside our conscious, and that it affects our material bodies and therefore should be manipulated. This manipulation relies on accurate knowledge of what is outside our consciousness, in other words what is true. Truth on the other hand can be uncovered via scientific method.

The utter superiority of scientific method is undisputable! As Dawkins said, planes fly, cars move, computers work, and all of this due to materialist approach to philosophy and science. If it were for any other approach to philosophy, we would not be enjoying the priviledge of discussing this via internet, or any other means for that matter.

He says that we ought to conceptualize science, philosophy, et al. instead as contingent vocabularies, which let us get things done, while dissolving the philosophical or ontological project to "found" these vocabularies in some extradiscursive reality. With a postcolonial twist, I don't consider this position "relativist," but a more incisive philosophical point about learning to live with others and their vocabularies. I think we need to delink "knowledge" from "verification"--the latter's role in conceptualizing philosophy, or science for that matter, as a mirror should be clear. This maneuver could allow us to engage with other ways of being and knowing that don't rely on judging them according to something "obvious," "rational," or "superior."
The idea that it's all just about vocabularies and views is quite frankly insane! Gravity is obvious, 1+2=3 is a rational claim, and the claim that electricity works because of subatomic particles is crushingly superior to the claim that it all works because of magic. And the methods through which we have come to these conclusions all say gods do not exist, and truth is not in the eye of the beholder.

To restate my point another way, "reality" itself is already produced within discourse
This is terribly non materialist thing to say, and negates all that the political left is fighting for. There exists a material truth outside our consciousness, and it is superior to all the petty ideas we might have about it, simply because it dictates the very essence of our consciousness.

following Althusser there is no homogeneous planar space wherein the concept meets its "real."
It is not their purpose to meet their real, their purpose is to describe what is real. You are mixing the notions of "truth claim" and "truth". Language is a method of communication, a method of delivering information from one consciousness to another, and to describe to that other consciousness what he thinks of the material world outside the two minds. This does not need some extraplanar genies to be true.

All I'm saying we should disable "the will to verify" in order to engage other forms of life in an ethical manner
This is highly irresponsible, for the third of the population in this world lives because we have demanded verification for agricultural ideas. Everytime we stop demanding verification some inquisition or some other crazy massacre is about to take place. This position you are defending is actually universal to all religion, and the very reason anti-theists exist. If a terrorist blows up a cafe and says: "I think it's OK, at least it's OK to my imaginary friend", should we not demand some verification? When the religious right invades countries and kills in the name of their god, should we not demand verification? When someone sais that beheading is extremely healthy for your abdomen, should we not demand verification?

The fact is that we NEED verification of ideas, our entire society is based on the notion that ideas need to be verified via scientific method before applied. To deny the need to verify ideas and beliefs, is to deconstruct everything that humanity has achieved during the last 300 years.

Also, according to your idea I do not need verification to my claim on the nonexistence of god, and I am therefor free to act upon it.

(Cartesian doubt, for example, manifests itself as a problem within the discourse of philosophy as a mirror, not within my own discourse; again, "God" or whatever existing or not is not my concern).
It IS your concern because you do not live in a mental vacuum of your mind. You exist within the material world, the world that is outside of your consciousness and superior to your ideas. The claim on the existence of god (forget god, the mere claim is enough) has it's impact on the material world through human interaction, and through that it affects you. It is your concern.

[kalu]

Okay, I would try and reply in proper debate format, but honestly I don't have the time. There's a lot of confusion in your post, which I can outline schematically,* perhaps because you haven't ever been acquainted with these ideas in any substantive format (though I don't deny Wikipedia is there as --in this case--a faulty supplement). This isn't your fault, I'm just saying honestly I don't know where to begin. I really think you would benefit from carefully reviewing my posts in this thread, and checking this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-structuralism-communism-t138536/index.html , where I explain concepts like "discourse" (which is most emphatically not just "ideas," discourse IS material). Perhaps if you have a couple of points directly relating to what I have written, and not just based on your gut reaction to ie. "pomo," then we could engage those ideas, but honestly just reviewing your post it seems all you can see is "relativism," "skepticism," and the relatively simple matter of adjudicating "the truth," and frankly I don't want to have another back-and-forth where I don't feel my ideas have been properly communicated. Just briefly though, I found this really interesting:


If a terrorist blows up a cafe and says: "I think it's OK, at least it's OK to my imaginary friend", should we not demand some verification?
How would you "verify" that that bombing is wrong, as in scientific verification? Again, this issue seems more a problem of ethics and politics, which unfortunately cannot be dissolved by merely referencing some "objective situation." That's why we have debates in the first place! But I am intrigued by this implicit notion that if we disable the notion of "reality," we somehow give up our ground for political or ethical condemnation. Seems pretty bizarre to me!



*-"being right" is related to the problem of verification according to the real (though you might also be confusing this with the notion that planes "work," which i accept of course!). i'm talking about how people get things done within forms of life, not just to build things but being and knowing a certain way (ie. affective dispositions, forms of selfhood, "creating meaning," etc.), and they still continue to do so inside and outside of science, despite the "success" of science (which isn't a monolithic object btw).
-i am not denying "a material world," please see the concept of discourse.
-contingent vocabularies just refers to the notion that these are not reducible to any foundational "truth."
-you didn't get the althusser reference, the concept not "meeting" the real means the concept doesn't have a referent, it doesn't "describe" the real.
-you're using verification in an inconsistent manner, for everything from the applicability of agricultural ideas to the ethics of terrorist bombings. perhaps you mean verification (within a paradigm, i would add, not according to some objective real) for the former, and ethical debate and discussion for the latter.
-i am not a "mentalist," again, you're misunderstanding the concept of discourse, etc.
-"reality" as a concept is already always constituted within a discourse, so again, your constant references to reality--as if i would suddenly shockingly realize "oh wow, it exists!" by touching my computer and feeling that it exists--aren't really doing much for me.

[Nosotros]

He's a racist tosser and I'm suprised that someone like Richard Dawkins can't see that.

[IllicitPopsicle]

This is one of the reasons that the organized religions do not inspire me with confidence. Which leaders of the major faiths acknowledge that their beliefs might be incomplete or erroneous and establish institutes to uncover possible doctrinal deficiencies? Beyond the test of everyday living, who is systematically testing the circumstances in which traditional religious teachings may no longer apply? (It is certainly conceivable that doctrines and ethics that may have worked fairly well in patriarchal or patristic or medieval times might be thoroughly invalid in the very different world we inhabit today.) What sermons even-handedly examine the God hypothesis? What rewards are religious skeptics given by the established religions - or, for that matter, social and economic skeptics by the society in which they swim?

Science, Ann Druyan notes, is forever whispering in our ears, "Remember, you're very new at this. You might be mistaken. You've been wrong before." Despite all the talk of humility, show me something comparable in religion. Scripture is said to be divinely inspired - a phrase with many meanings. But what if it's simply made up by fallible humans? Miracles are attested, but what if they're instead some mix of charlatanry, unfamiliar states of consciousness, misapprehensions of natural phenomena, and mental illness? No contemporary religion and no New Age belief seems to me to take sufficient account of the grandeur, magnificence, subtlety and intricacy of the universe revealed by science. The fact that so little of the findings of modern science is prefigured in Scripture to my mind casts further doubt on its divine inspiration.

But of course I might be wrong.

:cool:

[NecroCommie]

Okay, I would try and reply, but honestly I don't have the time. There's a lot of confusion in your post,* perhaps because you haven't ever been acquainted with these ideas in any substantive format (though I don't deny Wikipedia is there as --in this case--a faulty supplement). This isn't your fault, I'm just saying honestly I don't know where to begin. I really think you would benefit from carefully reviewing my posts in this thread, and checking this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-structuralism-communism-t138536/index.html , where I explain concepts like "discourse" (which is most emphatically not just "ideas," discourse IS material). Perhaps if you have a couple of points directly relating to what I have written, and not just based on your gut reaction to ie. "pomo," then we could engage those ideas, but honestly just reviewing your post it seems all you can see is "relativism," "skepticism," and the simple matter of "the truth," and frankly I don't want to have another back-and-forth where I don't feel my ideas have been properly communicated. Just briefly though, I found this really interesting:
If at all humanly possible, I am now even less impressed with this "post-structuralism" than before. Objective truths exist, and humans can understand it, and if anyone doubts it, I suggest they shoot themselves with their not-necessarily-true-guns. After all our identities are propably just mirages so why not?

And what is this fixation with language? Language is a means to convey ideas and thoughts, whether about abstract constructs or the material world. Nothing more, it is not a subconscious conspiracy to subjucate others, nor is it a "mirror" whatever the hell that means.

In the end, I fail to see how this is anything else than sophism.


How would you "verify" that that bombing is wrong, as in scientific verification? Again, this issue seems more a problem of ethics and politics, which unfortunately cannot be dissolved by merely referencing some "objective situation."
When the issue is that of "right" or "wrong" you would be right, human ideas do not hold objective truth, but when it comes to fatual claims about material world (such as: "God exists") there is an objective truth, AND it can be found out.

But I am intrigued by this implicit notion that if we disable the notion of "reality," we somehow cannot have political or ethical debates without reference to a transparent "fact."
Ofcourse not! Without objective reality, what would be the point? Politics and ethics are discussed with the inherent meaning of interacting with reality. If there is no interaction with reality, there is no consequence to any action save those within your own consciousness, leading to a point where your thoughts exist only to produce pleasure (which is impossible without the pleasure producing chemicals of the material and all very objective world)

Now I know, even if the reality existed and we just disabled reference to it, my point would still stand. If we disable just the reference to objective reality, we would end up with discussions much like those about music. When discussing music, there is very little objective about it. It is a very good example of a subject with nearly no objective truths about it, and quite frankly I would kill to prevent politics from falling into suh conversations. It is just people moaning their own perception over and over again with no point and no meaning. With no objective truths, why the hell should I care what the other guy thinks? It's just him anyways!



*-"being right" is related to the problem of verification according to the real
Which means what exactly? Nothing is real?


i'm talking about how people get things done within forms of life, not just to build things but being and knowing a certain way (ie. affective dispositions, forms of selfhood, "creating meaning," etc.), and they still continue to do so, despite the "success" of science

"way of being and knowing?" You know, it's this body which is made up of carbonhydrates and what not, and then there's this brain with it's chemicals and stuff... :lol:

But seriously, affective dispositions? Forms of selfhood? I understand it's not exactly my native language here but somehow these sound like they're just evasions of the word "existence".

(which isn't a monolithic object btw).
No way! I absolutely thought this was true!

But no... ofcourse not, but if you think it has no meaning just because of that then I'm through here.

And in general about this "post-structuralism": It sounds terribly alot like these folks had never heard the term of "definition". Like, as in words can have meaning beyond the personal oppinions of people.

[kalu]

...but if you think it has no meaning

Are you serious? This just demonstrates you haven't been following a word of what I've been saying. Great!

[Coggeh]

But "evidence" is subjective to opinion, seeing as people interpret the evidence of a higher power in different ways. before you say "evidence isn't subject to interpretation", watch the debate between Richard Dwakins and John Lennox to see what I mean, where they can barely come to a conclusion on what constitutes evidence for the existence of god.
I would like to see some evidence for a god.

[NecroCommie]

Are you serious? This just demonstrates you haven't been following a word of what I've been saying. Great!
If you acknowledged that science can have a meaning outside being "a monolithic object",then why on earth bring that even up? This goes especially when I obviously thought nothing like that. That's like me talking about god, and then pointing out how god, by the way, is not a happy ginger eating an icecream in the carouselle.

Quite frankly this is all irrelevant. If you acknowledge the fact that we can separate knowledge from beliefs, you will acknowledge a method to differentiate those two. And whatever that method is, it will deem gods as nonexistent.

[IllicitPopsicle]

I like how this thread went from being a thread that basically bashed the asshole atheists who effectively stand as our spokespeople to being another god v. not-god thread.

And even later, reality v. not-reality.

Oh, the Internet. You make my day so much more interesting.

[Adi Shankara]

I like how this thread went from being a thread that basically bashed the asshole atheists who effectively stand as our spokespeople to being another god v. not-god thread.

Well that debate is over, we already established that Richard Dwakins is an attention whore who cares more about publicity and defaming religion than debating it, and that Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are neo-con bigoted asswipes who turn religion into a "Clash of Civilizations" Paradigm.

[IllicitPopsicle]

So, like, couldn't we let the thread, you know, die? Like all the other hundreds of threads on this board have died? Dignified and such?

[NecroCommie]

Well that debate is over, we already established that Richard Dwakins is an attention whore who cares more about publicity and defaming religion than debating it.
Who the heck is "we"?

[IllicitPopsicle]

Sometimes I think of myself in plural form as well. :laugh:

[Adi Shankara]

Who the heck is "we"?

Me myself and I.


but really, a few users throughout this thread have agreed that these "new atheists" are reactionary, not because they are atheist per se, but because they represent the worst of reactionary values in their attempt to get rid of religion. also, quite a few of them are damn bigots and racists.

that said, there are those who disagree.

[NecroCommie]

I just lolled at the last two posts. :D Granted, it's 2am.

[kalu]

I like how this thread went from being a thread that basically bashed the asshole atheists who effectively stand as our spokespeople to being another god v. not-god thread.

And even later, reality v. not-reality.

Oh, the Internet. You make my day so much more interesting.

I NEVER WAS TALKING ABOUT OR ADVOCATING "NOT-REALITY", SKEPTICISM, RELATIVISM, "POSTMODERNISM" ETC. ETC. AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kalu internet dinosaur SMASH!!!!

[NGNM85]

......that said, there are those who disagree.

No shit, huh?

[Konstantine]

I don't particularly consider myself of one sole religion, but I do believe in a Creator and I do believe He guides us and helps us in our lives.

However, extreme religists, and atheists, piss me off.

[NGNM85]

I don't particularly consider myself of one sole religion, but I do believe in a Creator and I do believe He guides us and helps us in our lives.


Why do you believe in this entity, and that it influences our lives?

[Barry Lyndon]

Why do you believe in this entity, and that it influences our lives?

Why do you think Hillary Clinton is on the Left?

[NGNM85]

Why do you think Hillary Clinton is on the Left?

Cut the crap. Seriously. Go to the other thread, it was covered to death. Post in there if you have to.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't particularly consider myself of one sole religion, but I do believe in a Creator and I do believe He guides us and helps us in our lives.

However, extreme religists, and atheists, piss me off.

I don't believe in a single creator, nor do I think it's "he" or "she", but rather, "is". :)
but I definetly believe in a higher power, there is not a doubt in my mind, especially considering the anthropic principle's relation to probability and the unexplainable happenstance that we are born at all in a particular body, in what is seemingly an unscientific selection process.

[NecroCommie]

Unexplainable happenings are just that... Unexplainable, they provide no evidence to the existence of god or the nonexistence of god... or actually anything. They are just unexplainable. And there is no selection process, and our conscious are not born into a particular body. We have a body first, and it develops a personality dependant on the biological and cultural factors relevant to that body.

[Adi Shankara]

We have a body first, and it develops a personality dependant on the biological and cultural factors relevant to that body.

Yes, I know that, but what scientific process selects which continent or which country or what time period our consciousness manifests itself?