the new atheism: still not actually based on reason

[Franz Fanonipants]

laffo (http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran2)

tl;dr

sam harris et al are actually reactionaries who have no desire to perform mat'l analysis

e: lol memes

[NGNM85]

'New Atheism' is entirely the creation of pundits, and journalists. Atheism has not changed. Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc., may be Atheists, but they cannot be considred as a homogenous group. Is there any evidence that one, or all of these individuals, which you, so misguidedly, lump together, are Reactionaries? (I'll save you the trouble; there isn't.) What, specifically, about their positions concerning religion is irrational? You're one to talk. Or, perhaps, you'd like to expirimentally verify Christianity for us, hrmm?

[eric922]

'New Atheism' is entirely the creation of pundits, and journalists. Atheism has not changed. Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc., may be Atheists, but they cannot be considred as a homogenous group. Is there any evidence that one, or all of these individuals, which you, so misguidedly, lump together, are Reactionaries? (I'll save you the trouble; there isn't.) What, specifically, about their positions concerning religion is irrational? You're one to talk. Or, perhaps, you'd like to expirimentally verify Christianity for us, hrmm?
Well I've heard Dawkins takes an idealist approach to religious criticism i.e. its the beliefs of religious people that define them instead of their material conditions defining their religion, but I haven't read him so I can't say for certain.

[Caj]

Is there any evidence that one, or all of these individuals, which you, so misguidedly, lump together, are Reactionaries?

Well, Harris and Hitchens support(ed) US imperialism in the Middle East in the name of combatting "Islamo-fascism." They also all lack a materialist understanding of religion. (Dennett might be an exception. I haven't read his Breaking the Spell, but I've heard it actually looks at religion as a phenomenon worthy of studying, and not just criticizing incessantly.)

[NGNM85]

Well, Harris and Hitchens support(ed) US imperialism in the Middle East in the name of combatting "Islamo-fascism."

Sam Harris, as far as I know, has been consistently against the war in Iraq. I haven't read, or heard, any definitive position statement, from him, on the invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan.

Even if Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris had, uniformly, supported the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, that would not, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to declare them to be Reactionaries.

I couldn't find a single instance of Sam Harris using the phrase; 'Islamofascism', or any derivation, thereof. In fact; he states that this term is; 'imprecise', and it; 'ignores a viriety of schisms that exist, even among Islamists...'


They also all lack a materialist understanding of religion.

Translation; None of these men are Marxists. So what?


(Dennett might be an exception. I haven't read his Breaking the Spell, but I've heard it actually looks at religion as a phenomenon worthy of studying, and not just criticizing incessantly.)

Dawkins' The God Delusion presents a very thorough analysis of religion. I'd also add that, when it comes to religion, there's a lot of legitimate criticism to be madee.

[Fennec]

New Atheists are disgusting, they are accomplices in the post-9/11 demonisation of Islam and Muslims. There is no materialist analysis in their writings, only Orientalist cliches and racist justifiations of imperialist aggressions and even hypothetical nuclear first strikes in the Middle East.

[Deicide]

How is lacking a belief in any of the ten thousand or so deities (which, by the way, are impossible to prove) that have been worshipped by our primitive ancestors an irrational position?

[NGNM85]

New Atheists are disgusting, they are accomplices in the post-9/11 demonisation of Islam and Muslims. There is no materialist analysis in their writings, only Orientalist cliches and racist justifiations of imperialist aggressions and even hypothetical nuclear first strikes in the Middle East.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Caj]

How is lacking a belief in any of the ten thousand or so deities (which, by the way, are impossible to prove) that have been worshipped by our primitive ancestors an irrational position?

It's not, but that's not why so many people on this forum oppose the "New Atheists."

[Fennec]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Care to elaborate? His ravings about Muslims being so fanatical that they do not fear death and therefore pose a threat to nuclear deterrence are classical Orientalism.

[Caj]

Even if Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris had, uniformly, supported the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, that would not, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to declare them to be Reactionaries.

I think it would.


I couldn't find a single instance of Sam Harris using the phrase; 'Islamofascism', or any derivation, thereof. In fact; he states that this term is; 'imprecise', and it; 'ignores a viriety of schisms that exist, even among Islamists...'

Hitchens used the term.


Translation; None of these men are Marxists. So what?

One doesn't have to be a Marxist to give a material explanation for a particular phenomenon.


Dawkins' The God Delusion presents a very thorough analysis of religion.

I read it several years ago, and don't recall him ever going into an in depth analysis of religion.


I'd also add that, when it comes to religion, there's a lot of legitimate criticism to be madee.

Of course there is, but it is more important to understand religion than just criticize it.

[Deicide]

Hitchens, just before his death, stated he still considers himself a marxist, and that he considers the dialectic to be correct.

I personally find him amusing, both as a writer and debater.

[NGNM85]

Care to elaborate? His ravings about Muslims being so fanatical that they do not fear death and therefore pose a threat to nuclear deterrence are classical Orientalism.

It’s rather difficult to respond to, for a number of reasons. You just ran off a laundry list of slander, and accusations, without qualifying any of them. It isn’t even clear who you’re talking about. This supposed group contains at least four writers, and philosophers, that have been identified, by name. You don’t seem to make any distinction between these individuals. I strongly suspect you haven’t actually read anything these men have written. The most specific, rather, the only specific claim you make is the inflammatory, and erroneous accusation that Sam Harris favors a nuclear first strike in the Middle East. Obviously; you never bothered to source this, (End of Faith, pp. 128-129.) nor did you read his Response to Controversy. In summation; I reiterate my initial conclusion.

[NGNM85]

I think it would.

Then you need to think again.


Hitchens used the term.

Yes, but, last time I checked, we were talking about (at least) four individuals.


One doesn't have to be a Marxist to give a material explanation for a particular phenomenon.

Again; so what?


I read it several years ago, and don't recall him ever going into an in depth analysis of religion.

We'd have to have a consensus definition of what it means to be 'in-depth.' I'd argue that the shoe fits.


Of course there is, but it is more important to understand religion than just criticize it.

The more one understands religion, the more one would be compelled to criticize it.

[Fennec]

Hitchens, just before his death, stated he still considers himself a marxist, and that he considers the dialectic to be correct.

I personally find him amusing, both as a writer and debater.

Hitchens said countless times that he is not a socialist and claimed that capitalism is "the only revolutionary system". What he thought of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky as historical figures is irrelevant, he had nothing to do with the revolutionary left and supported imperialism and racial profiling.

[Fennec]

It’s rather difficult to respond to, for a number of reasons. You just ran off a laundry list of slander, and accusations, without qualifying any of them. It isn’t even clear who you’re talking about. This supposed group contains at least four writers, and philosophers, that have been identified, by name. You don’t seem to make any distinction between these individuals. I strongly suspect you haven’t actually read anything these men have written. The most specific, rather, the only specific claim you make is the inflammatory, and erroneous accusation that Sam Harris favors a nuclear first strike in the Middle East. Obviously; you never bothered to source this, (End of Faith, pp. 128-129.) nor did you read his Response to Controversy. In summation; I reiterate my initial conclusion.

Actually I read it and despite his acknowledgement that it would be a genocidal crusade he still has no problem saying that it is a plausible scenario. I didn't accuse him of anything that he didn't write - I said he claimed Muslims are so fanatical they do not fear death and therefore pose a threat to nuclear detterence.

[Deicide]

Hitchens said countless times that he is not a socialist and claimed that capitalism is "the only revolutionary system". What he thought of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky as historical figures is irrelevant, he had nothing to do with the revolutionary left and supported imperialism and racial profiling.

Regardless of what you just said and what you think of him. I watched an interview (from 2011) by Jeremy Paxman, in which, Hitchens clearly states he considers himself a leftist, and, he also states that the materialist conception of history and the dialectic are correct.

Watch this from 17:20, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-s9AyNQyCw


claimed that capitalism is "the only revolutionary system".

Where? I'd be interested in reading it.

[Kenco Smooth]

Well I've heard Dawkins takes an idealist approach to religious criticism i.e. its the beliefs of religious people that define them instead of their material conditions defining their religion, but I haven't read him so I can't say for certain.

You're almost definitely drawing up a subtle strawman here given that I very much doubt Dawkins believes religious individuals are defined only by their beliefs. But even so, what's wrong with it? Claiming that peoples ideas and beliefs don't influence their actions and interactions with the world and those around them is bordering on the absurd. Trying to banish ideas from the realm of social explanation is a fools errand.

[Deicide]

''New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

The above is taken from wikipedia, nonetheless, if that's how ''New Atheism'' is defined, then I'm a ''New Atheist''. I guess.

[Ostrinski]

New Atheism is a bourgeois liberal phenomenon that considers that religion outside of its social context should be assailed with a lunatic's fervor. Not only is this idealistic in nature in supposing that religion and everything that characterizes it in its present form are unaffected by material conditions, but it's also just as dogmatic as everything it opposes.

It's also kind of fun to laugh at, admittedly giving it some degree of social function.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What, specifically, about their positions concerning religion is irrational?

their racism. read the article or gtfo.

[Franz Fanonipants]

How is lacking a belief in any of the ten thousand or so deities (which, by the way, are impossible to prove) that have been worshipped by our primitive ancestors an irrational position?

laffo look at dis nub.

i bet you also believe indians being genocided was okay cus "primitivism"

e: teleology is the worst part of "marxism"

e of e: this statement is ok if you count 'rationalism' or empiricism as a part of that ten thousand or so deities. also, marxism.

[Deicide]

laffo look at dis nub.

i bet you also believe indians being genocided was okay cus "primitivism"

e: teleology is the worst part of "marxism"

e of e: this statement is ok if you count 'rationalism' or empiricism as a part of that ten thousand or so deities. also, marxism.

What are you blabbering on about you tit? Apart from the half arsed insult. Your post doesn't make much sense.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What are you blabbering on about you tit? Apart from the half arsed insult. Your post doesn't make much sense.

if you use words like primitivism and/or superstition chances are you are terrible and not a comrade

[Ocean Seal]

Even if Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris had, uniformly, supported the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, that would not, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to declare them to be Reactionaries.

Glad to see that liberals are well represented on revleft.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Glad to see that liberals are well represented on revleft.

the best shit about ngnm is he literally is like a democrat who has come onto this forum and decided that his political terms are what the Left is really about.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Hitchens, just before his death, stated he still considers himself a marxist, and that he considers the dialectic to be correct.

I personally find him amusing, both as a writer and debater.

also he was a trot so therefore ignore and consign to the moonbat portion of class enemies

[Deicide]

if you use words like primitivism and/or superstition chances are you are terrible and not a comrade

What utter bilge.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What utter bilge.

a strong refutation.

[Deicide]

a strong refutation.

What was there to refute?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What was there to refute?

that, reiterated, if you use the vocabulary of 19th century imperialists you are not a comrade

[Deicide]

that, reiterated, if you use the vocabulary of 19th century imperialists you are not a comrade

Then I'm not a comrade, or more specifically, I'm not your comrade.

What would you call a civilisation, which lacks modern scientific knowledge and sacrifices goats (or people) to a Deity, because they believe this Deity will grant them higher crop yields or some other wish? If the words primitive (I:E, relating to or denoting a preliterate, nonindustrial society or culture characterized by simple social and economic organization) and superstitious (I:E having or showing a belief in superstitions, in this case, invisible deities) are not permitted. You're dribbling utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


I didn't know I had to ban certain words from my vocabulary when I realised Marxism is correct.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What would you call a civilisation, which lacks modern scientific knowledge and sacrifices goats (or people) to a Deity, because they believe this Deity will grant them higher crop yields or some other wish?

harmless?

anyways bro basically you are an imperialist and that owns

[Deicide]

harmless?

anyways bro basically you are an imperialist and that owns

Translation: I'm an idiot, who doesn't know what he's talking about. So, I'm going to insult you by labelling you with a word, that doesn't even apply to you.

http://funnyphotosto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/22/Crying-252BBaby-252BNatural-252BHigh-252Bfor-252BSome-252BMoms.jpg

[Franz Fanonipants]

Translation: I'm an idiot, who doesn't know what he's talking about. So, I'm going to insult you by labelling you with a word, that doesn't even apply to you.

i am sure you are right; that without a word like primitive to hurl at people we don't like the world revolution will be lost.

[The Jay]

laffo (http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran2)

tl;dr

sam harris et al are actually reactionaries who have no desire to perform mat'l analysis

e: lol memes

I would love to see how you see anything linking people's atheism to a position on economics. Also, you would seem a lot more knowledgeable if you actually used sentences when you call people ignorant.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would love to see how you see anything linking people's atheism to a position on economics.

radical atheism exists in a bourgeois idealist world where for some reason people sacrificing goats to an arguably non-extant diety is a threat.

therefore i don't trust avowed radical atheists to be able to perform mat'l analysis or think in a way that would include a criticism of capital in a real way.

this thread, with its emphasis on raging out at percieved "idea enemies" has done nothing to overturn that opinion.

[Deicide]

i am sure you are right; that without a word like primitive to hurl at people we don't like the world revolution will be lost.

http://www.8bitbrigade.com/images/smilies/954-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

Yeah, because a civilisation which sacrificed people to appease sky Gods, isn't scientifically primitive compared to a civilisation in the 21st century, which sends satellites into space and performs heart transplants.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah, because a civilisation, which sacrificed people to appease sky Gods, isn't scientifically primitive compared to a civilisation in the 21st century, which sends satellites into space and performs heart transplants.

lots of late capitalism jock riding itt

e: idk if you know about this thing called social sciences comrade, maybe your 1909 frame of reference will bring up someone terrible like ales hrdlicka, but in the late 20th century people come to understand that societal "progress" is a pretty fake thing.

[The Jay]

radical atheism exists in a bourgeois idealist world where for some reason people sacrificing goats to an arguably non-extant diety is a threat.

therefore i don't trust avowed radical atheists to be able to perform mat'l analysis or think in a way that would include a criticism of capital in a real way.

this thread, with its emphasis on raging out at percieved "idea enemies" has done nothing to overturn that opinion.

Now we have a real conversation going.

I believe that you are misrepresenting the position of "radical" atheism by equating it to bourgeois culture and stating that what is feared is the religion itself. What it is in fact is a reaction against a society that would not even allow a subgroup that they simply disagree with to even run for political office. What more, that very majority attempts to pass legislation and intrude on the lives of those in the atheist subgroup, clearly ignoring the fact that those very atheists are disproportionately "good" citizens as cited by statistics that are easily accessible.

I think that this turned into a rage thread from your dismissing other's arguments as reactionary without even considering the merits of posts that deserved more respect. Acting high and mighty as you have been is how you start these silly arguments. I'm not sure though if you did so on purpose or not.

[hatzel]

Get the warmonger's satellites out of the sky and stop demanding people die in car crashes and shit just so we can harvest their organs for our beloved transplants. Fuck progress that shit's beat yo.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I believe that you are misrepresenting the position of "radical" atheism by equating it to bourgeois culture.

haha i don't have to do that at all. people who find political value in atheism already do.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Get the warmonger's satellites out of the sky and stop demanding people die in car crashes and shit just so we can harvest their organs for our beloved transplants. Fuck progress that shit's beat yo.

death to the world

e: that said though, i would love to see some real "progress" in the form of dismantling the primitive and harmful system we all know as capitalism. where 10s of thousands of people are sacrificed to gods of market and profit.

[The Jay]

haha i don't have to do that at all. people who find political value in atheism already do.

Could you clarify that comment at all or were you being vague to troll me?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Could you clarify that comment at all or were you being vague to troll me?

atheist activism is innately reactionary and bourgeois because it is not explicitly against capitalism.

[The Jay]

It is completely orthogonal to economic processes, so of course it says nothing about capitalism! I guess since loving chocolate ice cream says nothing about abolishing capitalism, chocolate ice cream-lovers are all reactionary as well.

[Franz Fanonipants]

no motherfucker stakes their political identity on loving chocolate ice cream

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The none materialistic, none marxist atheism is really shallow and narrow. It says that if it wasnt for religeon there would be no oppression against women, no racism and (my favorit) no war. The thing that all thees things also occure in seculeraised societies just shows how much of fail the idea is.

[The Jay]

You're such a child. I have never had a productive discussion with you whatsoever in my entire year here on this site. You make this forum look bad and should feel ashamed about your lack of tact, decency, and openness to logical discourse. I don't think that it's likely that I shall ever respond to your trolling bullshit in the future. I hope the rest of your day has been more productive than this.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You're such a child. I have never had a productive discussion with you whatsoever in my entire year here on this site. You make this forum look bad and should feel ashamed about your lack of tact, decency, and openness to logical discourse. I don't think that it's likely that I shall ever respond to your trolling bullshit in the future. I hope the rest of your day has been more productive than this.

i got a project budget and narrative done so yeah

anyways i am sorry that you feel bad about getting owned maybe try harder

[Franz Fanonipants]

p.s. did any of you crazies actually read the posted article or did you just decide that some reactionary yahoo legislator in oklahoma who thinks Atheism is a Threat is the only thing that exists in this discourse?

[The Jay]

The none materialistic, none marxist atheism is really shallow and narrow. It says that if it wasnt for religeon there would be no oppression against women, no racism and (my favorit) no war. The thing that all thees things also occure in seculeraised societies just shows how much of fail the idea is.

Who actually says that religion is the source of all the world's problems? I don't know of any of the previously mentioned people: Hitchens, ect, that actually hold this view. What they do say is that religion does cause those problems on occasion. That is completely different than what you characterized their stances as.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Who actually says that religion is the source of all the world's problems? I don't know of any of the previously mentioned people: Hitchens, ect, that actually hold this view. What they do say is that religion does cause those problems on occasion. That is completely different than what you characterized their stances as.

haha you haven't actually read hitchens et. al. have you?

[Deicide]

Get the warmonger's satellites out of the sky and stop demanding people die in car crashes and shit just so we can harvest their organs for our beloved transplants. Fuck progress that shit's beat yo.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/ba4/f4b/2d2/resized/futurama-fry-meme-generator-not-sure-if-serious-or-just-trolling-104db8.jpg

[Deicide]

There seems to be a tendency on the left of making words completly meaningless.

If I'm an ''imperialist'' then imperialism doesn't mean anything. Throwing around ''imperialist'' and ''imperialism'' as an absurd Ad Hom bomb is an insult to the people that have been effected by (real) imperialism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

There seems to be a tendency on the left of making words completly meaningless.

If I'm an ''imperialist'' then imperialism doesn't mean anything. Throwing around ''imperialist'' and ''imperialism'' as an absurd Ad Hom bomb is an insult to the people that have been effected by (real) imperialism.

blah blah blah i am too busy calling people who happen to disagree with me about invisible shit primitive to understand that i am literally using the language of pure imperialist domination

[Deicide]

The OP has clearly had a shit in his diaper. There's nothing else to see in here.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The OP has clearly had a shit in his diaper. There's nothing else to see in here.

in my primitive, naturally inferior diapers

[The Jay]

To Brospierre: I don't see how you can say that atheism is a bourgeois liberal phenomenon because it doesn't address why or how religion is related to material conditions. I'm not sure if that is what you mean so please explain if it isn't. I don't think that any of them advocate anything but rebutting what one doesn't see as logical. If you think that this is what makes something bourgeois then I should think you hold Marx in the same category of reactionary. If I have misrepresented you that was not my intention.

[Franz Fanonipants]

haha yeah
I don't think that any of them advocate anything but rebutting what one doesn't see as logical. because they are such sticklers for not advocating, i don't know, us imperialism as a way to "civilize" muslims and punish them for being "way more religious"

and for sure they are really committed to advocating what they see thats why they all shut down an ANTHROPOLOGIST WHO STUDIES SUICIDE BOMBERS when he told them "hey guys your hilariously flawed idealist model is wrong."

[Deicide]

I'm not using the word ''primitive'' in a culturally supremacist context.

If you cannot see the clearly evident differences in scientific and technological advancement between a 21st century western country and Ancient Mesopotamia. Then I'm afraid you're either an idiot, deluded or both.

Anyway, carry on with your tantrum.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not using the word ''primitive'' in a culturally supremacist context.

you kind of can't avoid it sorry

its kind of like trying to campaign to "reinvigorate" the term judeo-bolshevik

especially because i'm pretty sure you don't mean primitive in any way but to indicate an insurmountable inferiority when welp...

[Deicide]

you kind of can't avoid it sorry

Nice Pigeonholing. It seems that in your world, words only have one meaning, a meaning that's defined by you, of course.

I just noticed you're a marxist-leninist. It's all very clear now. You would of made a brilliant minister of agitprop under Stalin.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You would of made a brilliant minister of agitprop under Stalin.

its true basically i spend all day figuring out ways to lie to the public

e: and how to crush that rat orwell

[pluckedflowers]

Personally, I think Marx provided the best critique of this fad long before it even existed:


Before his time, spinning machines, although very imperfect ones, had already been used, and Italy was probably the country of their first appearance. A critical history of technology would show how little any of the inventions of the 18th century are the work of a single individual. Hitherto there is no such book. Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, as Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter? Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them. Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one. The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality. - Capital, Chapter 15, note 4

[hatzel]

If you cannot see the clearly evident differences in scientific and technological advancement between a 21st century western country and Ancient Mesopotamia. Then I'm afraid you're either an idiot, deluded or both.

I'll tell you a story:

Johnny wanted to prove to everybody that he was better than Erik. He wanted to rule over him, dominate him and oppress him. He wanted to prove that he was superior, so that his rule would be legitimate. He noticed that he was better at football than Erik. Therefore, he declared that human worth would be measured according to football talent; the better one is at football, the better one is as an individual, the higher up the hierarchy one is. All Johnny's friends agreed, because they were good at football, too. Erik's friends disagreed, but they didn't dare say anything, because Johnny was a bully and very threatening. Johnny was happy, because now he could legitimately attack Erik. Erik didn't like it, so Johnny told him that he should learn how to play football better and then everything would be fine because he wouldn't be inferior any more. The end.

That's literally what's happening here. You're ranking the relative worth of different societies and cultures, which is itself questionable enough, but you're explicitly doing it according to a western-devised schema and system of value. And rich globally dominant western countries come out on top on the hierarchies that they themselves invent and enforce, no shit. What you're effectively saying is "21st century western countries are the most like 21st century western countries, whilst other countries are less like them. Therefore they are less worthy until they make themselves more like us." I'm not convinced, personally, because I don't buy into those tired old justifications for colonialism...

[Deicide]

I'll tell you a story:

Johnny wanted to prove to everybody that he was better than Erik. He wanted to rule over him, dominate him and oppress him. He wanted to prove that he was superior, so that his rule would be legitimate. He noticed that he was better at football than Erik. Therefore, he declared that human worth would be measured according to football talent; the better one is at football, the better one is as an individual, the higher up the hierarchy one is. All Johnny's friends agreed, because they were good at football, too. Erik's friends disagreed, but they didn't dare say anything, because Johnny was a bully and very threatening. Johnny was happy, because now he could legitimately attack Erik. Erik didn't like it, so Johnny told him that he should learn how to play football better and then everything would be fine because he wouldn't be inferior any more. The end.

That's literally what's happening here. You're ranking the relative worth of different societies and cultures, which is itself questionable enough, but you're explicitly doing it according to a western-devised schema and system of value. And rich globally dominant western countries come out on top on the hierarchies that they themselves invent and enforce, no shit. What you're effectively saying is "21st century western countries are the most like 21st century countries, whilst other countries are less like them. Therefore they are less worthy until they make themselves more like us." I'm not convinced, personally, because I don't buy into those tired old justifications for colonialism...

You missed out the part where I explicitly said I'm referring to differences in scientific and technological advancement (which are very evident). I'm not making a moral judgement or a judgement of cultural ''worth''. Which you and the OP keep trying to pin on me. Your allegory is wasted.

[Ocean Seal]

Then I'm not a comrade, or more specifically, I'm not your comrade.

What would you call a civilisation, which lacks modern scientific knowledge and sacrifices goats (or people) to a Deity, because they believe this Deity will grant them higher crop yields or some other wish? If the words primitive (I:E, relating to or denoting a preliterate, nonindustrial society or culture characterized by simple social and economic organization) and superstitious (I:E having or showing a belief in superstitions, in this case, invisible deities) are not permitted. You're dribbling utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


I didn't know I had to ban certain words from my vocabulary when I realised Marxism is correct.
I'm fairly sure that what he meant here is that when people use the words primitive and superstitious nothing good can follow. When these words are used, they are not used as simply definitions, but rather statements of superiority. They do carry connotations which aren't meant to explain things, but rather set up relations and make broad generalizations.

It is similar to the word lumpenproletariat. Some members don't like its use because it is often used to portray poor people as useless to society.

In the same way if you use words like primitive and superstitious you are giving license to the imperialists to portray these poor primitive and superstitious people as needing the help of the developed and secular western peoples to liberate them.

[Robocommie]

I'm fairly sure that what he meant here is that when people use the words primitive and superstitious nothing good can follow. When these words are used, they are not used as simply definitions, but rather statements of superiority. They do carry connotations which aren't meant to explain things, but rather set up relations and make broad generalizations.

It is similar to the word lumpenproletariat. Some members don't like its use because it is often used to portray poor people as useless to society.

In the same way if you use words like primitive and superstitious you are giving license to the imperialists to portray these poor primitive and superstitious people as needing the help of the developed and secular western peoples to liberate them.

I remember having a confrontation with a certain fellow, a liberal, who felt that it was essential to force immunizations and vaccinations on tribal peoples who were choosing to live in isolation in order to avoid the destructive results that being integrated into the world market would bring. He felt that, if necessary, their children should be taken from them so that they could be given medicine and education, and that it was wrong of their parents to hold their children in primitivism.

He was literally advocating for the return of 19th century imperialist policies towards colonized peoples, and perversely enough, for the exact same reason; his reverence of linear progress and the self-imposed "humanitarian" obligation of those who are more technologically capable to force themselves on those who were less so.

If the left cannot even purge itself of this inherently paternalistic, colonialist, and frankly racist mentality, then it's worthless. There are far far too many well meaning fools who don't realize how incredibly steeped in Victorian idealism and cultural chauvinism their view of the world at large is. A lot of them are liberals. Some of them are faux-leftists.

[NGNM85]

Glad to see that liberals are well represented on revleft.

You're only advertising your ignorance.

re·ac·tion·ar·y

[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee]
adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
adjective 1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change. noun 2. a reactionary person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary

[Decolonize The Left]

Within the mainstream liberal framework, "New Atheism" is important as it challenges the staus-quo. It is obviously limited in its scope and analysis, obviously short-handed in its chosen tactics, and obviously ill-mannered in its delivery, but it is important none-the-less.

Now within the racial framework it is totally useless as it is an idealist philosophy with no ties to material economic reality. Everything it says has been better said by many people, most notably Marx and Nietzsche.

So let's just leave it at that.

- August

[NGNM85]

Actually I read it and despite his acknowledgement that it would be a genocidal crusade he still has no problem saying that it is a plausible scenario.

There’s a significant difference between saying something is plausible, and saying something is justified.


I didn't accuse him of anything that he didn't write - I said he claimed Muslims are so fanatical they do not fear death and therefore pose a threat to nuclear detterence.

He never claimed that this trait was specific to Muslims, or that this is characteristic of all Muslims. When placed in proper context; this is a fairly banal observation.

[NGNM85]

their racism. read the article or gtfo.

What you posted does not qualify as an article. It's a series of statements by a number of writers, scientists, and philosophers.

There's a certain irony in castigating me for not reading it, as, by your admission, it's 'too long', and not worth reading, anyway.

So far, you haven't offered anything resembling concrete eveidence that any of these people are, literally speaking; 'racists.' Of course; that is expected, and totally in character. You've, alternately, accused me of being a ;'liberal', a 'reactionary', and a 'racist', among other things. I suspect these latest accusations are, equally, baseless. I have long learned that you are not to be taken seriously.

[Ocean Seal]

You're only advertising your ignorance.

re·ac·tion·ar·y

[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee]
adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
adjective 1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change. noun 2. a reactionary person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary
Lol, if you check my post I called you a liberal not a reactionary and many of your views are quite in line with the liberal mainstream.

[NGNM85]

Lol, if you check my post I called you a liberal not a reactionary and many of your views are quite in line with the liberal mainstream.

You were responding to my statement that supporting the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan are not sufficient conditions of being a Reactionary.

Not only are my views significantly divergent from most contemporaneous American Liberals; I don’t even think you sufficiently understand my views in order to make such an assessment.

[Ocean Seal]

You were responding to my statement that supporting the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan are not sufficient conditions of being a Reactionary.

Not only are my views significantly divergent from most contemporaneous American Liberals; I don’t even think you sufficiently understand my views in order to make such an assessment.
Oh tough guy, but anyway, yes you are extremely conservative, a bulwark against change (especially genuine change), and a counter-revolutionary if you support these wars.

1. Vote Democrat-because its the only legitimate option (know how many times I've heard this from liberals)
2. Extreme Focus on Religion-characteristic of liberals who really don't give a fuck about exploitation. And lets be honest, your most outspoken posts are on religion rather than other subjects.

Pull out your dictionary again if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that these are pretty accurate observations of you.

[Ostrinski]

To Brospierre: I don't see how you can say that atheism is a bourgeois liberal phenomenon because it doesn't address why or how religion is related to material conditions. I'm not sure if that is what you mean so please explain if it isn't. I don't think that any of them advocate anything but rebutting what one doesn't see as logical. If you think that this is what makes something bourgeois then I should think you hold Marx in the same category of reactionary. If I have misrepresented you that was not my intention.Notice that I said new atheism, not atheism. Atheism in and of itself is not inherently reactionary or revolutionary. To simply hold an atheistic (or theistic, for that matter) understanding says nothing about your class politics. It's the politicization of either understanding that is reactionary, necessarily because they have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with class politics at all (not in and of themselves, anyway). And this is precisely what characterizes new atheists. They make the attack on religion a political project in itself.

The problem with politicizing something in such a manner, is that it necessarily neglects an understanding of religion's relationship to individuals and society. To politicize something is to take it out of its social context, and to do this is to either suppose that there is no relationship between the object of politicization and society, or that this relationship is irrelevant or of little consequence on an analytical level. And once you accept the premise that class politics don't have to be a factor, you end up with batshit crazy conclusions that are completely contradictory to the proletarian class project (i.e. supporting wars, western chauvinism, etc.). You state that all they're doing is rebutting what they view as illogical, as if this can't be done within a bourgeois liberal framework.

To equate Marx's analysis of religion to the pseudo-intellectual journalism of zealous liberals is filthily intellectually irresponsible and I hope you rethink that statement.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

One of the amusing things is that Sam Harris is actually a believer in some kind of hippie-buddhism with reincarnation and various things that by all accounts are anything but "rational", yet feels that he is entitled to ramble on about the other religions like he's coming from some sort of sensible position. :laugh:

[Tavarisch_Mike]

One of the amusing things is that Sam Harris is actually a believer in some kind of hippie-buddhism with reincarnation and various things that by all accounts are anything but "rational", yet feels that he is entitled to ramble on about the other religions like he's coming from some sort of sensible position. :laugh:

Now thats what i call Elitism!

[Franz Fanonipants]

So let's just leave it at that.

August West wants you to stop talking guys

[Franz Fanonipants]

In the same way if you use words like primitive and superstitious you are giving license to the imperialists to portray these poor primitive and superstitious people as needing the help of the developed and secular western peoples to liberate them.

this is why wolfowitz and other american trots from the 60s became neoconservatives. narratives of "progress" and primitivism all lead to domination even if the Left is speaking them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What you posted does not qualify as an article. It's a series of statements by a number of writers, scientists, and philosophers.

i have suspected for a very long time that you are under 20 years old please tell me that you are

[NGNM85]

Author’s Note; When I first responded to this post, I was in a rush, and unable to give it the required time, and attention. As the original post was hastily composed, and, I feel, an unsatisfactory representation of myself, and my ideas, I have edited, or expanded on my initial comments, for these reasons.


Oh tough guy, but anyway, yes you are extremely conservative, a bulwark against change (especially genuine change), and a counter-revolutionary if you support these wars.

Lord, this is becoming tedious. The short answer is; Yes, an American Reactionary would be inclined to support the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan. However; supporting the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan does not, automatically make one a Reactionary.

‘Counter-Revolutionary’?


1. Vote Democrat-because its the only legitimate option (know how many times I've heard this from liberals)

That’s, at best, a garbled, and misleading paraphrase of what I’ve said. (Which you, clearly, didn’t grasp.) I also guarantee you won’t hear anything of the kind from contemporaneous Liberals.

This is also a textbook example of the flawed reasoning that is, tragically, so common in Radical circles.


2. Extreme Focus on Religion-characteristic of liberals who really don't give a fuck about exploitation. And lets be honest, your most outspoken posts are on religion rather than other subjects.

Anarchism has always been both Atheistic, and Anti-Theistic. Check out what Emma Goldman said about religion, sometime.

I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you’ve done sufficient research to justify that claim.


Pull out your dictionary again if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that these are pretty accurate observations of you.


Not even close. You have no idea what I believe.

More to the point; all of this is tangential. So far, no-one, yourself included, has presented sufficient evidence that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett are Reactionaries. This thread is about the so-called ‘New Atheists’, not my political views. (Of which I make no secret.)

[NGNM85]

i have suspected for a very long time that you are under 20 years old please tell me that you are

For you to question someone else's maturity, is even more absurd than for you to criticize someone for being irrational. I'll say this; you're audacity is, apparently, without limits.

[bots]

OK but what if I said my Irish ancestors were more primitive than me because they believed in river gods and probably practiced human sacrifice? Is that alright or am I being a cultural chauvinist?

[Franz Fanonipants]

OK but what if I said my Irish ancestors were more primitive than me because they believed in river gods and probably practiced human sacrifice? Is that alright or am I being a cultural chauvinist?

why is worshipping a river god and practicing human sacrifice any more primitive than dropping nuclear weapons on human beings to secure economic markets in the pacific?

[Franz Fanonipants]

For you to question someone else's maturity, is even more absurd than for you to criticize someone for being irrational. I'll say this; you're audacity is, apparently, without limits.

yeah yeah but answer the question dummy
because from where i'm sitting even some shitty 17 year old wouldn't come into a debate with points as hilarious as this
There was nothing conservative about the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., were Reactionaries. Real Reactionaries. Support for the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan does not negate the possibility of being socially progressive (Small ‘P.’) in other respects.unless if you are older you are a fat neckbeard who has literally never lived outside the internet. i think you are basically like a democratic underground reader who enjoys anarchism aesthetically.

[bots]

why is worshipping a river god and practicing human sacrifice any more primitive than dropping nuclear weapons on human beings to secure economic markets in the pacific?

I didn't say it was. But I'd say not worshipping a river god and not practicing human sacrifice are more advanced than doing those things, just as much as I'd say not dropping nuclear bombs on human beings is more advanced than doing that. Wouldn't you?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I didn't say it was.yeah, you kind of did man. if you insist that you are the position of progress that past people should be measured by, the constitutent blocks of the world you live in need to be examined.anyways, the point is teleology is a shitty way to understand the world and you should feel bad about it.

[bots]

if you insist that you are the position of progress that past people should be measured by, the constitutent blocks of the world you live in need to be examined.

I don't know if it's such a bad thing that future generations look back at my generation and consider it primitive. We are dropping depleted uranium on children.

[bots]

OK wait I have to go read the wikipedia page on teleology

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't know if it's such a bad thing that future generations look back at my generation and consider it primitive. We are dropping depleted uranium on children.

yeah but assigning values like that also hurts us in terms of being able to understand a culture on its own terms. like basically, i study agricultural history. some forms of agriculture practiced in the arid southwest were inefficient but maintained water tables and enabled a mixed cottonwood forest ecosystem. were those agricultural forms primitive? why? do we mark progress or modernity as being uniquely in the hands of industrial agriculture? what about the tradeoffs of industrial/capitalist agriculture?calling shit primitive and whatnot is basically just really harmful to honest inquiry.

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically the key to remember is that history is full of contingencies and that historical position does not give us an automatic superiority over the past.

[bots]

yeah but assigning values like that also hurts us in terms of being able to understand a culture on its own terms. like basically, i study agricultural history. some forms of agriculture practiced in the arid southwest were inefficient but maintained water tables and enabled a mixed cottonwood forest ecosystem. were those agricultural forms primitive? why? do we mark progress or modernity as being uniquely in the hands of industrial agriculture? what about the tradeoffs of industrial/capitalist agriculture?calling shit primitive and whatnot is basically just really harmful to honest inquiry.

OK I think I'm starting to see what you're saying here. What I'm a bit confused about is whether you're saying all value judgements should be considered moot. Are you saying that? Or is it just value judgments related to culture?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm saying that value judgements are fine. I think that starving people to death is bad. But what's more important than the value judgement is understanding the underlying process. You can only have mat'l analysis at that point.

[Franz Fanonipants]

plus those value judgements, taken to a painful extreme in this case, basically cripple your ability to critique the present and future. in which case you end up with transhumanism/technocracy and all the transhumanists on revleft got banned/told to leave because they were buddying up w/fascists.

[bots]

Would understanding the underlying process prevent acting on value judgements? Like, say we both agree starving people to death is wrong, but there is a group of religious fanatics that believe kidnapping people not of their faith and starving them to death is a-ok. Are we allowed to criticize them and, if necessary stop them from doing their shit?

[Franz Fanonipants]

shit i imagine so. i mean we're all leftists here, i think we can all agree that despite understanding that capitalism is about capital interactions we're against it. the problem is using terms like primitive.

[bots]

Alright this has been a productive and enlightening exchange and I thank you for your time.

[Robocommie]

Always always better to understand than to judge. Takes more thought though, and requires us to hold off on our preconceptions, which is the difficulty.

Like; why say cultures who practice human sacrifice were primitive/crazy/deluded? Try and understand the historical contingencies that caused such a thing to come about. Everything has a cause, in both history and society. An academic, a true intellectual, has no use for words like "fanatic" or "primitive" because he understands those things are arrogantly dismissive of something that he just doesn't understand yet.

[Franz Fanonipants]

plus, like, a lot of accusations of human sacrifice are usually just excuses for conquest. you can't trust anyone in history.

[NGNM85]

yeah yeah but answer the question dummy
because from where i'm sitting even some shitty 17 year old wouldn't come into a debate with points as hilarious as thisunless if you are older you are a fat neckbeard who has literally never lived outside the internet.

I have absolutely no interest in furnishing you with my personal information, and I have absolutely no intention of doing so. If you really wanted to know how old I am, you could find out fairly easily, or, at least, make a good estimate.

Again; you’re in no position to be questioning anyone else’s maturity. There’s absolutely no contest.

I admit I went a little off track, there, due to the fact that I was in a rush, and doing a number of other things, at the time. I’ve since made some slight modifications. However; I stand by both of my assertions; that the leading figures in the Bush administration were/are Reactionaries, and that support for the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan does not fulfill the sufficient conditions of being a Reactionary. Those are, both, true statements.


i think you are basically like a democratic underground reader who enjoys anarchism aesthetically.

I have no idea what ‘Anarchist Aesthetics’ are.

This repeated accusation that I am, somehow, not a ‘real’ Anarchist, is just nonsense. Check the canon. Furthermore; I find this accusation puzzling because it’s so pointless. Anarchism is about as anathema to you as any number of other ideologies. As I recall, you’ve expressed substantial contempt for it. (Which is, of course, entirely consistent, given your ideological persuasions.) Therefore; such distinctions are, essentially, meaningless.

[NGNM85]

Always always better to understand than to judge. Takes more thought though, and requires us to hold off on our preconceptions, which is the difficulty.

Judgments should be based on understanding.


Like; why say cultures who practice human sacrifice were primitive/crazy/deluded?

Because they were. I mean, that’s a bit of an oversimplification, but the shoe fits.


Try and understand the historical contingencies that caused such a thing to come about. Everything has a cause, in both history and society.

Water is wet.


An academic, a true intellectual, has no use for words like "fanatic" or "primitive" because he understands those things are arrogantly dismissive of something that he just doesn't understand yet.

Nonsense.

[Franz Fanonipants]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I have absolutely no interest in furnishing you with my personal information, and I have absolutely no intention of doing so. If you really wanted to know how old I am, you could find out fairly easily, or, at least, make a good estimate.

why do you write like it is 1920

[HEAD ICE]

things Richard Dawkins actually believes

S5dfIRr89S8

[pluckedflowers]

things Richard Dawkins actually believes

S5dfIRr89S8

We should just close the thread here, really.

[Franz Fanonipants]

holy shit

[bots]

Would you folks say atheists are an oppressed minority in America?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Would you folks say atheists are an oppressed minority in America?

no

as they are 9/10 white men. and that 1 time is black magick hustla. and he up and left to canada.

e: serious answer - no because i've genuinely never seen a significant portion of atheists oppressed in a relevant fashion (in terms of economics)

[Robocommie]

Nonsense.

I can't even begin to tell you how irritating your smug little one-word dismissals of any opinion you disagree with truly is. Nearly every post I have ever seen of yours is almost completely intellectually worthless because it more or less consists of you declaring, with total satisfaction and self-confidence that you have the right take on things, and that if others assert anything to the contrary, you merely insist that the facts support you. You twist out of everything by simply belittling and dismissing everyone else's arguments and by sheer conviction, invalidate them. It is, for all intents and purposes, the milquetoast Anglo-Saxon equivalent of throwing a fucking fit.

You mock Franz Fanonipants and call him immature, but despite the shit talking he does all the time, he actually does a very impressive job of expressing and incorporating more recent social theories into his points. He at least shows an actual glimmer of understanding the points of some of the keenest minds to come out of the academy in the past several decades.

I mean sweet fuck. "Why say X cultures were crazy" "Because they were." Intellectual laziness and racism like that would get you laughed out of any history or anthropology department worth its fucking salt.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean sweet fuck. "Why say X cultures were crazy" "Because they were." Intellectual laziness and racism like that would get you laughed out of any history or anthropology department worth its fucking salt.

yeah but fuck anthropology

[Robocommie]

yeah but fuck anthropology

Gravedigging, amirite.

Yo I didn't hear you saying that shit though, when you were all posting the OP.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Gravedigging, amirite.

Yo I didn't hear you saying that shit though, when you were all posting the OP.

academic chauvinism has a time and a place. and slagging on the new atheists is not that time or place.

also can i pls just lol at this because it reifies the fact that ngnm is BEHIND THE CULTURAL TURNNNNNN


I have no idea what ‘Anarchist Aesthetics’ are.

[Robocommie]

academic chauvinism has a time and a place. and slagging on the new atheists is not that time or place.

also can i pls just lol at this because it reifies the fact that ngnm is BEHIND THE CULTURAL TURNNNNNN


Franz you heard of this dude named Samuel P Huntington because I think he's really your bag

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically all you need to know about huntington is that at one point he's like

"muslim cultural colossus vs. western cultural colossus vs. evil sinocultural colossus vs...african cultural(?) colossus(?)"

[Robocommie]

basically all you need to know about huntington is that at one point he's like

"muslim cultural colossus vs. western cultural colossus vs. evil sinocultural colossus vs...african cultural(?) colossus(?)"

Cast Sam Worthington in that shit and its basically a blockbuster

[Capitalist Octopus]

I would call myself a Militant Atheist or an Anti-Theist.
This defines it for me...

"‎"Of the vast majority of the German socialist working men it may even be said that mere atheism has been outgrown by them. This purely negative term does not apply to them any more, for they maintain no longer merely a theoretical, but rather a practical opposition to the belief in God. They are simply done with God, they live and think in the real world, for they are materialists."

Friedrich Engels - 1874"

[gorillafuck]

I had never heard the term "new atheists" before this thread.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would call myself a Militant Atheist or an Anti-Theist.
This defines it for me...

i think you should probably read that quote a little closer

[dodger]

http://news.google.com/news/url?ct2=uk%2F0_0_s_1_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNF6pXa1wE6ifhVKRWK_JSA2Ia5nIQ&cid=8797808285548&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fhome%2Fuk-news%2Farticle%2F16180403&ei=UKBPT7C9EK-fiAfnywE&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=1734759936819669939

The old or new atheism can be debated. Still we are plagued by superstitious ignorance and plain criminality, on our own doorstep.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The old or new atheism can be debated. Still we are plagued by superstitious ignorance and plain criminality, on our own doorstep.

yes because this is not an outlier rather a common occurance

[Ostrinski]

Would you folks say atheists are an oppressed minority in America?Depends on how you would evaluate that. My old boss knew I was an atheist and was cool with it, my family and neighbors are cool with it etc. Atheists aren't oppressed in a systemic manner like muslims are. Most atheists who cry out "oppression, oppression!" are just self-important petite-bourgeois students whose extent of political consciousness is wanting the world to know that they don't believe in god.

[bots]

shit i imagine so. i mean we're all leftists here, i think we can all agree that despite understanding that capitalism is about capital interactions we're against it. the problem is using terms like primitive.

OK coming back to this point, what if there was a group of people who thought it was alright to scar children by teaching them that sex was sinful, they'd go to hell if they didn't obey ridiculous rules, and basically psychologically fucked them up to such a degree that 9 out of 10 of the children subjected to this upbringing wouldn't be capable of breaking out of the indoctrination by the time they were adults. Would we be able or morally obliged to stop these folks?

[Franz Fanonipants]

OK coming back to this point, what if there was a group of people who thought it was alright to scar children by teaching them that sex was sinful, they'd go to hell if they didn't obey ridiculous rules, and basically psychologically fucked them up to such a degree that 9 out of 10 of the children subjected to this upbringing wouldn't be capable of breaking out of the indoctrination by the time they were adults. Would we be able or morally obliged to stop these folks?

what a fucking nub

yes you're right pls kill all christians because their ideas are horrible

[bots]

what a fucking nub

yes you're right pls kill all christians because their ideas are horrible

I didn't say kill anyone but (most) Christians are pretty much guilty of child abuse.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I didn't say kill anyone but (most) Christians are pretty much guilty of child abuse.

i'm sure thats a quantifiably supportable statement

[bots]

If your worldview includes the ideas of original sin and redemption through blood and you teach kids this and then tell them they'll go to hell and suffer eternally if they don't play by the rules, then yeah I'd say it's a pretty accurate statement.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes quantifiably verified

(i believe in original sin and christ's death saving me, also hell, i am a child abuser)

[Decolonize The Left]

If your worldview includes the ideas of original sin and redemption through blood and you teach kids this and then tell them they'll go to hell and suffer eternally if they don't play by the rules, then yeah I'd say it's a pretty accurate statement.

You said most Christians are guilty of child abuse... see?

(most) Christians are pretty much guilty of child abuse.

So... yeah... that's pretty fucking ridiculous. And I agree with you that the notions of original sin and religious doctrine are reactionary, stunt the human will, impede the human ability to reason adequately, etc... but that shit isn't child abuse.

Child abuse is fucking serious. Don't downplay it.

- August

[bots]

yes quantifiably verified

(i believe in original sin and christ's death saving me, also hell, i am a child abuser)

If you taught children this nonsense I'd say you were a child abuser, yeah. You're telling kids that they're born so bad that the most powerful being in the universe will send them to hell unless they bow before a bloody, abused man nailed to a tree over 2000 years ago. That's fucked up.

Basically I don't think you're being intellectually honest. I took your point about language being important and I think we've come to an understanding that while calling somebody's personal beliefs "primitive" isn't accurate or correct there are still such things as right and wrong. We both agree dropping nuclear weapons on people is wrong. We both agree starving people to death is wrong. For some reason you refuse to accept that teaching children to hate themselves for being human is wrong.

[bots]

You said most Christians are guilty of child abuse... see?


So... yeah... that's pretty fucking ridiculous. And I agree with you that the notions of original sin and religious doctrine are reactionary, stunt the human will, impede the human ability to reason adequately, etc... but that shit isn't child abuse.

Child abuse is fucking serious. Don't downplay it.

- August

I'm not downplaying child abuse. I'm up playing it if anything. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i think species being is stupid and useless too

e: sorry bro i don't buy your ridiculous feel good humanism shit and i think you're pretty dumb

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not downplaying child abuse. I'm up playing it if anything.

to the point that you have no salience

[NGNM85]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

why do you write like it is 1920

You mean like using proper puncuation, and grammar? I guess I'm just old fashioned, that way.

[bots]

i think species being is stupid and useless too

e: sorry bro i don't buy your ridiculous feel good humanism shit and i think you're pretty dumb

Yeah, you got nothing. I think you're pretty smart. I hope you figure out this Christian shit soon.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah, you got nothing. I think you're pretty smart. I hope you figure out this Christian shit soon.

nope, the thing is that you've pretty much just declared yourself the winner of this argument while not being able to prove that christianity is child abuse.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You mean like using proper puncuation, and grammar? I guess I'm just old fashioned, that way.

welp i mean basically you are a modernist so

anyways it makes you look like (more of) a tool

[bots]

nope, the thing is that you've pretty much just declared yourself the winner of this argument while not being able to prove that christianity is child abuse.

Is teaching children that they're born evil right or wrong?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Is teaching children that they're born evil right or wrong?

depends how its taught

i taught catechism to 3rd graders. the words 'you are evil' never came out of my mouth once.

'you have the capacity to hurt other people and yourself' otoh came out plenty

now, i understand baptists and other ass'ted protestant scum do the 'you are wretched and evil and etc.' deal

but shit if thats child abuse, so's exposing children to saturday morning cartoons and commercials

[bots]

So you didn't teach them the doctrine of original sin? You didn't tell them the story of Adam and Eve? Did you teach them about hell?

[bots]

depends how its taught

i taught catechism to 3rd graders. the words 'you are evil' never came out of my mouth once.

'you have the capacity to hurt other people and yourself' otoh came out plenty

now, i understand baptists and other ass'ted protestant scum do the 'you are wretched and evil and etc.' deal

but shit if thats child abuse, so's exposing children to saturday morning cartoons and commercials

The difference is people don't disown their children for refusing to believe in saturday morning cartoons.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So you didn't teach them the doctrine of original sin? You didn't tell them the story of Adam and Eve? Did you teach them about hell?

original sin is human capacity to inflict harm on one another, themselves, and their relationship with God. Adam and Eve, which I did not teach but which was not a part of my catechal lesson plan, is a story about that capacity.

teaching kids about hell is probably pretty unproductive, and i'm p. sure, again, that wasn't a part of my catechumen.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The difference is people don't disown their children for refusing to believe in saturday morning cartoons.

man you sure are sour about this shit are your parents mad that you're an atheist or what

anyways, those parents would probably be pretty shitty parents w/o religion

[NGNM85]

Depends on how you would evaluate that. My old boss knew I was an atheist and was cool with it, my family and neighbors are cool with it etc. Atheists aren't oppressed in a systemic manner like muslims are. Most atheists who cry out "oppression, oppression!" are just self-important petite-bourgeois students whose extent of political consciousness is wanting the world to know that they don't believe in god.

There is an enormous, and powerful religious movement in this country that is constantly trying to impose it’s radical agenda upon the rest of us, and remake society in accordance with their extreme, fundamentalist brand of Christianity. Our schools, our public spaces, even our very bodies are battlegrounds in the culture war. When nearly two-thirds of Americans reject natural selection, in favor of a, more-or-less literal interpretation of Genesis, when the rights of gay Americans are denied, in something like 45, out of 50 states, when gay Americans are frequently the targets of harassment, and violence, when abortion clinics have been turned into fortresses by the constant threat of religious terrorism, this is an important issue, that needs to be dealt with.

Atheists are, actually, the most hated minority in the United States, more than Muslims, or homosexuals. However; admittedly, for whatever reason, zealots don't seem quite as compelled to drag them to death behind pickup trucks. Perhaps, the Christian Leftists can offer some insight.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Atheists are, actually, the most hated minority in the United States, more than Muslims, or homosexuals.

fuck you (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/20/in-giffords-shadow-trial-of-arizona-minuteman-accused-of-killing-girl-begins.html), white liberal scumbag

[NGNM85]

welp i mean basically you are a modernist so

anyways it makes you look like (more of) a tool

Postmodernism is total horseshit.

I don't waste my time worrying about being hip. That's beneath my concern. If using correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation is 'uncool', so be it.

[bots]

original sin is human capacity to inflict harm on one another, themselves, and their relationship with God. Adam and Eve, which I did not teach but which was not a part of my catechal lesson plan, is a story about that capacity.

teaching kids about hell is probably pretty unproductive, and i'm p. sure, again, that wasn't a part of my catechumen.

The fact that you decided not to teach these kids the more horrible aspects of your faith doesn't negate the abusive aspects of the doctrine. Whether or not their liberal Sunday school teacher taught them they'd go to hell for being a homosexual, refusing to believe the faith, or not being baptized does not change the fact that they were raised in a religion which endorses these positions.

[bots]

man you sure are sour about this shit are your parents mad that you're an atheist or what

anyways, those parents would probably be pretty shitty parents w/o religion

No, I lucked out. My parents are both recovering catholics that are pretty proud of my open mindedness.

I do have friends who were disowned by their religious folks for being gay or refusing to believe in Jehovah and yeah I'm pretty pissed about that.

[NGNM85]

fuck you (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/20/in-giffords-shadow-trial-of-arizona-minuteman-accused-of-killing-girl-begins.html), white liberal scumbag

Please. That's low, even for you.

I read about that case. Horrific, but it doesn't, in any way, invalidate what I said. Here's a comprehensive study done by the University of Minnesota;

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

(FYI: It's in PDF format.)

[bots]

depends how its taught

Also, what?


'you have the capacity to hurt other people and yourself'

Teaching kids right and wrong is not the same as teaching them they're evil. Christianity (and the vast majority of religions I can think of) starts from the premise that we are born bad, have irreconcilable differences with some divine authority figure, and must prostrate ourselves in order to appease this authority figure or else everything will go to shit and we'll burn in hell for eternity.

[hatzel]

Christianity (and the vast majority of religions I can think of) blah-de-blah

...something tells me you can't think of (m)any other religions, then...would you perhaps like to make a comprehensive list of all the religions you can think of which fit your description?

[NGNM85]

I can't even begin to tell you how irritating your smug little one-word dismissals of any opinion you disagree with truly is.

So, you’d prefer I post longer dismissals?

This is kind of funny, because, historically, I’ve been criticized for, habitually, writing long, wordy posts.


Nearly every post I have ever seen of yours is almost completely intellectually worthless…

…You say the sweetest things…


because it more or less consists of you declaring, with total satisfaction and self-confidence that you have the right take on things,..

Well, from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult to proceed from the perspective that I’m always wrong.


and that if others assert anything to the contrary, you merely insist that the facts support you.

Only when they do.


You twist out of everything by simply belittling and dismissing everyone else's arguments and by sheer conviction, invalidate them.

This smells like bullshit to me. I have been exceedingly generous, and patient in repeating myself, explaining, or qualifying what I say.


It is, for all intents and purposes, the milquetoast Anglo-Saxon equivalent of throwing a fucking fit.

There’s nothing, specifically, ‘white’ about the way I talk. That’s just PoMo horseshit.

Also; I’m perfectly calm, dude. I’m calmer than you are.


You mock Franz Fanonipants and call him immature,..

That happens to be a very sound, empirical observation.


but despite the shit talking he does all the time, he actually does a very impressive job of expressing and incorporating more recent social theories into his points. He at least shows an actual glimmer of understanding the points of some of the keenest minds to come out of the academy in the past several decades.

When? When does he say these things? I’ve never seen any of this. I doubt he’s as stupid as he presents himself to be, but that’s more of a hunch, really. Nine-tenths of what he says is just internet jargon, and obscenities. I’ve never once seen him contruct anything resembling a coherent argument.

It’s really difficult because you’re speaking in such a vague, and generalized way, it’s almost impossible to argue with. However; there’s also a lot of fuzzy-minded nonsense that carries a great deal of traction, in the halls of academia. If you’re hinting at the fact that I almost entirely reject Postmodernism; then, by all means, guilty, as charged.


I mean sweet fuck. "Why say X cultures were crazy" "Because they were." Intellectual laziness and racism like that would get you laughed out of any history or anthropology department worth its fucking salt.

That’s not racist. Not literally, anyways.

Yes, ‘crazy.’

cra·zy
[krey-zee]
noun, plural -zies.
adjective
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound: a crazy scheme.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crazy

I submit that any degree of examination, from the cursory, to the exhaustive, will inevitably reveal that chemotheraphy, and physics are not simply different from blood-letting, and witchcraft, they are better.

[bots]

...something tells me you can't think of (m)any other religions, then...would you perhaps like to make a comprehensive list of all the religions you can think of which fit your description?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, most forms of animism.

e:

Bahai, Rastafarianism, most schools of Mahayana Buddhism, Sikhism

[hatzel]

Okay. I'll tell you now that you're wrong. I'm not surprised.

[bots]

Okay. I'll tell you now that you're wrong. I'm not surprised.

OK would you like to elaborate or just leave it at that?

[Revolution starts with U]

How is not racist to look down on someone because they "speak like an anglo saxon (white guy)?" Or am I missing something here?

EDIT: Based on the cartoons strip "milquetoast" comes from, I'm going to have go ahead and call that racism too (seeing as how these stooges only use it when also calling someone anglo). Bunch of cracker haters around here, and getting away with it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, most forms of animism.

e:

Bahai, Rastafarianism, most schools of Mahayana Buddhism, Sikhism

I'm not so sure Hinduism teaches that we're all evil, simply for being born. I think their central idea is that all things are just inadequate reflections of the true brahma.

[bots]

I'm not so sure Hinduism teaches that we're all evil, simply for being born. I think their central idea is that all things are just inadequate reflections of the true brahma.

The goal of Hinduism is to break free from the cycle of birth-death-rebirth and become one with Brahma. If you've been born into this "evil world" chances are you've screwed up somewhere along the way and are in essence born bad.

Hinduism is a really varied religion with lots of little sects and I'm sure there are some that don't advocate this view at all. But I'd argue the more they reject orthodox Hinduism, the less Hindu they are.

The same can be said about liberal Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever. However the fundamentals of these faiths, the orthodox positions, are very much as I described.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Postmodernism is total horseshit.

lawl

[Revolution starts with U]

That's pretty much correct. But I'm not aware of any hindu sects that teach that this world is "evil," rather than an inadequate reflection of the one true brahman.

I would also submit there is no such thing as "more or less" when it comes to religion. If you call yourself a christian, you're a christian, same for muslim, hindu, etc. Religion is a concrete real world phenomena, not merely a material interpretation of a real spiritual plane; meaning there is no "true christianity." There are just various types of christians.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Please. That's low, even for you.

I read about that case. Horrific, but it doesn't, in any way, invalidate what I said. Here's a comprehensive study done by the University of Minnesota;

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf


it invalidates what you said exactly. if there is no CONCRETE pattern of violence or prejudice against atheists, prejudice against atheists does not exist.

i know you love ideas and shit because you're basically a useless reactionary shitbag, but unless you can give me a pattern of violence or economic alienation of atheists i conclude that you, as a ridiculous liberal, are constructing a victimhood complex for yourself.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The fact that you decided not to teach these kids the more horrible aspects of your faith doesn't negate the abusive aspects of the doctrine. Whether or not their liberal Sunday school teacher taught them they'd go to hell for being a homosexual, refusing to believe the faith, or not being baptized does not change the fact that they were raised in a religion which endorses these positions.

i'm not a liberal.

anyways, those things were not in the catechism. i don't think you really understand what that means.

[bots]

i'm not a liberal.

anyways, those things were not in the catechism. i don't think you really understand what that means.

I'd say you're a liberal catholic in the sense that you're pretty loose with your definition of being a catholic.

I know what the catechism is.

[bots]

i know you love ideas and shit because you're basically a useless reactionary shitbag

Says the guy who believes in god, lol

[Franz Fanonipants]

Says the guy who believes in god, lol

but yet somehow i'm more capable of material dialectic thought than you are.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'd say you're a liberal catholic in the sense that you're pretty loose with your definition of being a catholic.

I know what the catechism is.

so then, if institutionally i was not required to hammer hell home then, welp, your point kind of blows up in at least one institutional sense.

[NGNM85]

it invalidates what you said exactly. if there is no CONCRETE violence or prejudice against atheists, prejudice against atheists does not exist.

That’s a total non-sequitor.

There's ample evidence of prejudice. I just gave it to you.


i know you love ideas and shit because you're basically a useless reactionary shitbag,

Again; that’s low, even for you.

Also; again, from your mouth that word has no meaning. It’s a catch-all for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. It’s a cheap substitute for thinking.


but unless you can give me a pattern of violence or economic alienation of atheists i conclude that you, as a ridiculous liberal, are constructing a victimhood complex for yourself.

Again; that simply doesn’t follow.

[Franz Fanonipants]

e: actually, no.

ngnm, bro, you are a useless faux-leftist. that's basically it. you're an object of mockery, and that really is where i went wrong in responding to you.

[hatzel]

Hey everybody the atheists need a Malcolm X so much oppresssssion going on I don't know how they tolerate it brave brave people...

p.s. no

[Franz Fanonipants]

atheists are overrepresented in prison populations NO WAIT

[Franz Fanonipants]

atheism is a conditional position that shifts the atheists relationship to the means of production therefore atheists of the world arise all you have to lose are your ch

[The Jay]

Hey everybody the atheists need a Malcolm X so much oppresssssion going on I don't know how they tolerate it brave brave people...

p.s. no

In many states atheists cannot run for office and in the bible belt they are viewed with disgust. Either way this has nothing to do with the OP.

[hatzel]

Either way this has nothing to do with the OP.

Has anything in this thread had anything to with the OP? I thought this was just the place people come to make increasingly audacious claims with absolutely no factual basis and just hope nobody notices...? :confused:

[The Jay]

If you feel like it's sufficiently degenerated then we should get the thread trashed and move on.

[Ostrinski]

NGNM85 fits the archetype that I referred to in my last post.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If you feel like it's sufficiently degenerated then we should get the thread trashed and move on.

nah let it play

so i take it you did not read the article in the op. still.

[bots]

so then, if institutionally i was not required to hammer hell home then, welp, your point kind of blows up in at least one institutional sense.

lol no you

[Franz Fanonipants]

In many states atheists cannot run for office and in the bible belt they are viewed with disgust.

thank u for bringing this societal inequality to my attention

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol no you

your continuing existence is child abuse, since your posts are so shitty

[bots]

That's pretty much correct. But I'm not aware of any hindu sects that teach that this world is "evil," rather than an inadequate reflection of the one true brahman.

I think the thuggees believe the world is evil but I may be mistaken.


I would also submit there is no such thing as "more or less" when it comes to religion. If you call yourself a christian, you're a christian, same for muslim, hindu, etc. Religion is a concrete real world phenomena, not merely a material interpretation of a real spiritual plane; meaning there is no "true christianity." There are just various types of christians.

In a sense. But I think there is a watering down of the faith in some circumstances and to such a degree that the statement "I am an X" (x being christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, whatever) really doesn't mean very much. For instance, someone who claims to be a christian but doesn't believe Jesus existed, wasn't the son of god, didn't die for humanity's sins, but instead believes Christianity is a good moral system or maintains their "faith" for cultural reasons isn't really a Christian. It's kind of like kids who wear skate shoes but have never stepped on a board in their lives.

[bots]

your continuing existence is child abuse, since your posts are so shitty

You only want to hurt me so you can feel better about yourself. You only want to fight me because you want to touch me. It's ok.


It's
o
k.

[Capitalist Octopus]

i think you should probably read that quote a little closer


Explain?

[Revolution starts with U]

your continuing existence is child abuse, since your posts are so shitty

I have this sudden hankering for soup and tea. I mean, this post has provided me with all the necessary devices to make it.

[hatzel]

I have this sudden hankering for soup and tea. I mean, this post has provided me with all the necessary devices to make it.

Well at least Franz doesn't spout a load of ludicrous bullshit all over the board, so I can forgive him for laying into those who do...

[Guy Incognito]

I think the thuggees believe the world is evil but I may be mistaken.



In a sense. But I think there is a watering down of the faith in some circumstances and to such a degree that the statement "I am an X" (x being christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, whatever) really doesn't mean very much. For instance, someone who claims to be a christian but doesn't believe Jesus existed, wasn't the son of god, didn't die for humanity's sins, but instead believes Christianity is a good moral system or maintains their "faith" for cultural reasons isn't really a Christian. It's kind of like kids who wear skate shoes but have never stepped on a board in their lives.


Fuck that. No True Scotsman bullshit. I'm an agnostic athiest AND a Christian minister. People need ideals and role models that they can relate to, and the old stories are good starting bases. It also gives a sense of community that's so been lacking in today's materialistic world. So what if I don't preach about the divinity of Christ? I still follow a lot of the Christian lessons and do my best to pass that along.

[RGacky3]

Fuck that. No True Scotsman bullshit. I'm an agnostic athiest AND a Christian minister. People need ideals and role models that they can relate to, and the old stories are good starting bases. It also gives a sense of community that's so been lacking in today's materialistic world. So what if I don't preach about the divinity of Christ? I still follow a lot of the Christian lessons and do my best to pass that along.

If Christ was NOT the massiah (I don't believe personally in the trinity, so I don't consider him divine), he was'nt just "a good philosopher," he was an egotistical lunatic who claimed to be a representative of God.

I am a christian, if your agnostic but leaning toward theist then being a christian makes sense, if your atheist, its kind of silly.

The whole point of being a Christian is believing that Jesus was somehow a representative of God, if he was'nt, he was a douchbag trickster and a megalomaniac (who happened to also have some nice philosophical points).

[Franz Fanonipants]

Explain?

engels is saying that avowed, loud atheists are childish and anti-materialist

because they are.

not a single one of the fucksticks repping against religion in this thread has ever shown a shred of capital criticism

[Franz Fanonipants]

I have this sudden hankering for soup and tea. I mean, this post has provided me with all the necessary devices to make it.

how the fuck does your stupid cracker ass have 2k rep

[Revolution starts with U]

Silly one liners and trollspeak.... oh wait...

[Guy Incognito]

If Christ was NOT the massiah (I don't believe personally in the trinity, so I don't consider him divine), he was'nt just "a good philosopher," he was an egotistical lunatic who claimed to be a representative of God.

I am a christian, if your agnostic but leaning toward theist then being a christian makes sense, if your atheist, its kind of silly.

The whole point of being a Christian is believing that Jesus was somehow a representative of God, if he was'nt, he was a douchbag trickster and a megalomaniac (who happened to also have some nice philosophical points).

Egotistical douchebag trickster? Really? The figure was one of humility and compassion. Please understand when I say that no, I don't think Christ was divine (or possibly even real depending on whichever scientist is trying to disprove his existance this week), but the things people can take away from the biblical stories (which frankly, are just guidelines. Like aesop's fables and the like) are still excellent messages.
Take for instance their view of homosexuality in the bible. "Unclean" and all that. Yes, in a bronze age society, where folks don't exactly shower with fresh soap every day, Sodomy probably isn't the best idea if you want to stay healthy. (Note, when discussing sodomy, they weren't explicit about men on men, it was for all) So what did they do? They added in a story about it to make people not do it. No shellfish? No pork? Go ahead, eat such things in the time of no refridgeration and poor cooking habits. You will eventually get horribly ill and die. These stories all had purpose. SOME stories were invented just to control people (generally most things AFTER christ's death). But the majority of Christ (the Biblical character)'s teachings were VERY solid. Great ways to live your life. Live for others, so we can all prosper. Love thy neighbor. Judge not. Golden rule, etc.
Over all, tell me this. If most of the world would emulate the way Christ lived (again, in the context of the book) do you think the world would be a better place? Or a worse place?

[bots]

Well at least Franz doesn't spout a load of ludicrous bullshit all over the board, so I can forgive him for laying into those who do...

lol


Fuck that. No True Scotsman bullshit. I'm an agnostic athiest AND a Christian minister. People need ideals and role models that they can relate to, and the old stories are good starting bases. It also gives a sense of community that's so been lacking in today's materialistic world. So what if I don't preach about the divinity of Christ? I still follow a lot of the Christian lessons and do my best to pass that along.

You can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn't make you what you claim to be. It's also pretty telling that you trot Christ out as an antidote to the lack of "community" in "today's materialistic world". You're basically taking a page from the neo-cons re: the noble lie. Real progressive.


Over all, tell me this. If most of the world would emulate the way Christ lived (again, in the context of the book) do you think the world would be a better place? Or a worse place?

Yeah the world would be a great place if we all obeyed our imaginary friend to the point that we thought getting nailed to a cross would be the best thing we could do for our fellow human beings. A world full of suicidal sons of god sounds great.

[bots]

engels is saying that avowed, loud atheists are childish and anti-materialist

because they are.

not a single one of the fucksticks repping against religion in this thread has ever shown a shred of capital criticism

Nice selective reading comprehension

you suck

[The Jay]

Guy, did Jesus not say that he was not there to change the laws of the old testament? I'm really confused as to why you say that you are a preacher, to be honest. Even if you think that Jesus was a good role model, why not teach an ethics class? That carries none of the baggage that calling yourself a preacher would.

[Guy Incognito]

lol



You can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn't make you what you claim to be. It's also pretty telling that you trot Christ out as an antidote to the lack of "community" in "today's materialistic world". You're basically taking a page from the neo-cons re: the noble lie. Real progressive.



Yeah the world would be a great place if we all obeyed our imaginary friend to the point that we thought getting nailed to a cross would be the best thing we could do for our fellow human beings. A world full of suicidal sons of god sounds great.

My you're an angry one. Did I shit in your cheerios or something?

"Trot Christ out as an antidote" No, I don't. I talk to people about the actual life lessons that people can take away from the stories. It's to discuss, not to enforce. There is no Dogma in what I do, no ritual but those that my friends want (Such as a nice marriage ceremony for my gay friends). And I give them a place to talk to someone who isn't going to judge them harshly for not being a "True Believer".

Antidote? Not even close. But religion can bring people together. It always has, for better or for worse. You're a clear example of this lack of community. You attack me for advocating kindness and understanding, humility and philanthropy. All of those things the biblical figure of Christ advocated, just because you think it's hokum.

"Obey our imaginary friend". That's a nicely bigoted way of putting it. Frankly as I've said before, I don't have an "imaginary friend", and neither do I advocate that people put their faith in something that's intangible. I put forth the idea we should live for one another, and not just for ourselves as the actions of Christ in the book. So what if the authors wax idiotic about their belief in a one true god? Their actions are what are important.

And another thing, do you truly think that being a suicidal idiot is what the crucifixion is supposed to represent? Really? Because if I have a chance to give my life, so that others may live, (loved ones, comrades, innocents) I would. Gladly. And if you think that's a bad thing, then fine, I'm just a terrible man.

[hatzel]

You can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn't make you what you claim to be.

Just out of interest, would the same rules apply if he were to say...oh, I dunno, let's take a random example...that Judaism teaches that we are born bad and that there is some possibility of burning in hell for all eternity, or do the rules in such a scenario dictate that a mere claim is enough to constitute truth? Considering that he actually knows the first thing about himself and his own self-identification, he is obviously something personal to him, whilst anybody making such false claims about Judaism is clearly speaking of something alien to him, the rules seem painfully confused and contradictory...would it not be more logical if false claims one makes about others were rejected before rejecting the claims one makes about oneself...?

Or perhaps the rules are actually that bots tells other people what their opinions and beliefs are, completely contradicting what they themselves say but no worries because bots knows the truth? Because if they are the rules then this is a proper shit game...

[Guy Incognito]

Guy, did Jesus not say that he was not there to change the laws of the old testament? I'm really confused as to why you say that you are a preacher, to be honest. Even if you think that Jesus was a good role model, why not teach an ethics class? That carries none of the baggage that calling yourself a preacher would.

Well, the primary thing is that I'm still new at it. I am not an expert theologist, I became ordained originally to marry some of my gay friends. After getting back into the scriptures while preparing a speech, I figured I would start discussing things with friends about the stories, and maybe do it on the weekends for those folks in my community that were disowned by their churches or families. (Homosexuals, athiests marrying devouts, etc.). So now I have a nice little social group to discuss things with.
I'm not a preacher in the sense that I evangilize in an attempt to gain converts, or a shepherd of any kind. I'm just a guy who wants to be more like the idea of Jesus (as I'm sure as hell not perfect, as my fireball temper and venom laced tongue will attest) and love discussing it with others. I have no baggage, as I don't make any sort of money off of it, take no donations of any kind, and am able to change my mind about anything, at any time.

[bots]

Just out of interest, would the same rules apply if he were to say...oh, I dunno, let's take a random example...that Judaism teaches that we are born bad and that there is some possibility of burning in hell for all eternity, or do the rules in such a scenario dictate that a mere claim is enough to constitute truth? Considering that he actually knows the first thing about himself and his own self-identification, he is obviously something personal to him, whilst anybody making such false claims about Judaism is clearly speaking of something alien to him, the rules seem painfully confused and contradictory...would it not be more logical if false claims one makes about others were rejected before rejecting the claims one makes about oneself...?

Or perhaps the rules are actually that bots tells other people what their opinions and beliefs are, completely contradicting what they themselves say but no worries because bots knows the truth? Because if they are the rules then this is a proper shit game...

Yeah, if he said he was a Jew but he didn't believe in god, didn't go to temple, didn't read the Torah, and basically just identified as a Jew without practicing anything that makes a Jew different from a humanistic atheist then the rules apply. And no, I'm not making these rules up. Words have meanings. Your post modern bullshit only goes so far in the real world.

[bots]

Or perhaps the rules are actually that bots tells other people what their opinions and beliefs are, completely contradicting what they themselves say but no worries because bots knows the truth? Because if they are the rules then this is a proper shit game...

Oh shit I forgot I self identified as the god of defining people's belefs and opinions so I can justifiably declare people whatever I feel like. Guess since I self identified as such you can't say shit.

[hatzel]

...you do realise that the point I was making wasn't so much about 'defending' GI (who I happen to think is a bit of a numpty), and more about pointing out your penchant for talking shit and making false claims about religious traditions and twisting them into something they're not, making it quite strange for you to lampoon GI for doing the same.

To balance things up a bit: GI you're wrong, the 'Bronze Age' portions of the Bible do not condemn male-on-female anal sex, explaining why it remains acceptable through the Shulchan Aruch. Any aversion to such practices are explicitly Christian, and thus post-date this imaginary soapless era you speak of, thus shattering your little hypothesis about that...

Everybody happy now?

[The Jay]

Well, the primary thing is that I'm still new at it. I am not an expert theologist, I became ordained originally to marry some of my gay friends. After getting back into the scriptures while preparing a speech, I figured I would start discussing things with friends about the stories, and maybe do it on the weekends for those folks in my community that were disowned by their churches or families. (Homosexuals, athiests marrying devouts, etc.). So now I have a nice little social group to discuss things with.
I'm not a preacher in the sense that I evangilize in an attempt to gain converts, or a shepherd of any kind. I'm just a guy who wants to be more like the idea of Jesus (as I'm sure as hell not perfect, as my fireball temper and venom laced tongue will attest) and love discussing it with others. I have no baggage, as I don't make any sort of money off of it, take no donations of any kind, and am able to change my mind about anything, at any time.

Have you considered studying philosophy? It has the same moral guidance (ethics) as what people get from religion without asking you to believe in the supernatural (some lines of philosophy at least). Also, if you ever run into logical inconsistencies you can just drop that reasoning and move on - eliminating the need to cherry pick. It sounds like you had a lot of good reasons to be ordained, but it is one of the founding principles of christianity that one must believe in god.

[Guy Incognito]

...you do realise that the point I was making wasn't so much about 'defending' GI (who I happen to think is a bit of a numpty), and more about pointing out your penchant for talking shit and making false claims about religious traditions and twisting them into something they're not, making it quite strange for you to lampoon GI for doing the same.

To balance things up a bit: GI you're wrong, the 'Bronze Age' portions of the Bible do not condemn male-on-female anal sex, explaining why it remains acceptable through the Shulchan Aruch. Any aversion to such practices are explicitly Christian, and thus post-date this imaginary soapless era you speak of, thus shattering your little hypothesis about that...

Everybody happy now?

I was not aware of the Shulchan Aruch. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. As I've said previously, I'm new at this. Honestly I thought that my interpretation of the rules of the old testament were plausible enough for discussion of what they may have intended. Frankly if they just started randomly hating homosexuals for no practical reason, then they were just being ridiculous. (And I never said soapless, just that they did not bathe terribly often in the desert, or to the degree that we do now).

Now, yes I am using Christian traditions (on which I was raised) to find new ways to promote a better lifestyle through understanding. And I do it using Explicitly Jeudo-Christian traditions and stories. Twisting them? Sure why the hell not. But then, so do every denomination of every base religion ever (Thus, "No True Scotsman"). But I can call myself whatever the hell I bloody well please, and that's the closest thing I can come up with to the way I'm trying to do things.

PS, thanks for not being a dick about it. (Other than Numpty, whatever the hell that is).

[bots]

My you're an angry one. Did I shit in your cheerios or something?

Listen, I have been pretty saucy and I want you to know that I do kind of get where you're coming from. Life is a real kick in the pants sometimes and if you really feel like you need to rely on jaysus to get you through then that's ok. Everybody has their opinions but I should be free to criticize yours like you can criticize mine and I sort of feel like atheists are given a bad rap whenever Franz is around because he's not honest about any of this. I read the bible, I read the Quran, I read the Gita. You go read the God Delusion and we'll have a real good conversation and maybe neither one of us will be swayed in our beliefs but at least we'll be better off for having the conversation. That's not what this thread has been about. It started off as an attack and devolved into defensive entrenchments.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Revelation 3:16

e: also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mx5ERj1eI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mx5ERj1eI)

[Guy Incognito]

Have you considered studying philosophy? It has the same moral guidance (ethics) as what people get from religion without asking you to believe in the supernatural (some lines of philosophy at least). Also, if you ever run into logical inconsistencies you can just drop that reasoning and move on - eliminating the need to cherry pick. It sounds like you had a lot of good reasons to be ordained, but it is one of the founding principles of christianity that one must believe in god.

I actually do love philosophy, and miss studying it from college. The thing that I've noticed is, nobody cares about philosophy (outside of academic circles). This is one of the reasons I'm trying to work from a base that people can relate to (or at the very least one that they are familiar with, when you start with The Cave allegory, a lot of folks get lost). I know I'll probably fail, but if I live a better life for others in the process or manage to get even one person to be more of a humanist, then I've not wasted my time. But thank you for the suggestions at any rate.

[Guy Incognito]

[QUOTE=bots;2374593]Listen, I have been pretty saucy and I want you to know that I do kind of get where you're coming from. Life is a real kick in the pants sometimes and if you really feel like you need to rely on jaysus to get you through then that's ok. Everybody has their opinions but I should be free to criticize yours like you can criticize mine and I sort of feel like atheists are given a bad rap whenever Franz is around because he's not honest about any of this. I read the bible, I read the Quran, I read the Gita. You go read the God Delusion and we'll have a real good conversation and maybe neither one of us will be swayed in our beliefs but at least we'll be better off for having the conversation. That's not what this thread has been about. It started off as an attack and devolved into defensive entrenchments.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Revelation 3:16

Bots, I don't think you understood where I was coming from. I certainly don't need "the Jesus" to get through the day (though I could probably greatly lower my blood pressure if I emulated the man more). And this is all an attempt to reach people on a level they might understand. I haven't criticized any belief you hold, as I also agree atheists are given a bad rap in the world today. The right wing buffoonery that goes in in the U.S. in regards to religion is beyond the pale.
But, at least on this site and many other leftist sites, ALL Religion is decried as if it is the root of all evils, and is mocked, attacked and openly ridiculed. I humbly disagree. Greed is the root of all evil (IE Capitalism), regardless of it's form (organized religion, venture capitalism, imperialist government) and that's something I think we can all agree on.

One side note, I do not agree with militant atheism (at least in regards to Dawkins) because it comes off as snide, arrogant and mocking. And frankly that's just annoying (like most prosthelytizing is).

[dodger]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cts=1330985816817&ved=0CDQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Freli gion%2F9124963%2FWe-must-protect-true-meaning-of-marriage-says-Roman-Catholic-leader.html&ei=2jpVT66wM4XAiQetwb3vCw&usg=AFQjCNGjiBst4iF2NZtz2M3vNwYldbUnwA

One just has to keep bashing the lid down or these Jack-in-box Prelates. Where's Sir Francis Drake when you need him. If these Catholics want to be left in peace.....just leave us in peace. Or put up with the consequences of sticking your nose into other peoples business. Simple as.....how many times must they be told?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I didn't bother reading through all 200+ comments on this thread, but the new atheist movement to me just seems like a reaction to religion. Sure atheists are atheists because they just disbelieve, that's it. However, you also have the other ones who seem to identify with the label because they hate religion. I just wish more atheists could be like my atheist friend who doesn't really give a damn what a person believes.

[smk]

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

dawkins is a rascist.

word.

[NGNM85]

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

dawkins is a rascist.

word.

Except in the literal sense.

[hatzel]

Except in the literal sense.

You know you're actually right. Racism is structural, rather than individual, thus it seems logical that 'racist' can only refer to systems, rather than to people in isolation. So I agree with you, Dawkins isn't racist. He does, however, clearly support racist systems, so...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Militant atheists used to go pretty hard, like Filipino guerrillas butchering Catholic priests during the Spanish occupation, or Mexican Red Shirts shooting people to death as they left Mass. Today's militant atheists really do seem like a bunch of annoying white guys, though.

[Franz Fanonipants]

gonna join the cristeros and shut you guys[1] down

[1] the fuck

[bricolage]

Militant atheists used to go pretty hard, like Filipino guerrillas butchering Catholic priests during the Spanish occupation, or Mexican Red Shirts shooting people to death as they left Mass.
the tragic week was good, they went into convents looking for dead babies and dragging religious corpses out onto the street.

Today's militant atheists really do seem like a bunch of annoying white guys, though.
very true.

[NGNM85]

You know you're actually right. Racism is structural, rather than individual, thus it seems logical that 'racist' can only refer to systems, rather than to people in isolation. So I agree with you, Dawkins isn't racist. He does, however, clearly support racist systems, so...

That's incorrect. Racism can be institutionalized, but that is not a sufficient condition of racism. Nothing in the aforementioned statement can be, literally, described as 'racist.'

[Franz Fanonipants]

That's incorrect. Racism can be institutionalized, but that is not a sufficient condition of racism. Nothing in the aforementioned statement can be, literally, described as 'racist.'

i am glad that you get to define terms all the time

mostly because you are useless and your definitions are as well

e: goddamn you are a slippery fucker

[hatzel]

A radical should rightly define racism as something like a 'web' of (inter)relationships resulting in a society characterised by a 'racially' defined hierarchy; it is necessarily structural (which may or may not be distinguishable from institutional) and systematic, as it exists only in societal interaction between individuals and (socially-defined) groups. An individual in isolation cannot express anything reasonably defined as racist, as this individual is removed from the very hierarchy which makes racism possible. Furthermore, a radical ought to recognise that we are produced by and subsequently produce this hierarchy and the numerous manifestations of power essential in its perpetuation. Failure to recognise this leads us to believe that racism is to be overcome through changing the minds of so-called 'racists' or simply removing them from society, rather than confronting and dismantling systematic hierarchies of oppression and the various institutions and ideologies producing and supporting them.

Dawkins (and the others mentioned in this thread) exhibits Eurocentric/-chauvinistic and Islamophobic tendencies, along with other similarly colonialist attitudes, which permeate his work, becoming abundantly clear whenever politics are directly addressed. These sentiments are supportive of numerous hierarchies, by which I mean those hierarchies which place 'the European' (in its broadest possible sense) in a dominant position - a dominance of which his work is a mere extension.

[Franz Fanonipants]

most vocal atheists are p. much just swallowing 19th century white men talk about superstition amongst blacks or arabs or whatnot

no one ever talks about the italian inquisition going after superstition in the what 16th c. cus welp that doesn't fit into a model that puts english speaking crackers at the top of the history pile

[black magick hustla]

most vocal atheists are p. much just swallowing 19th century white men talk about superstition amongst blacks or arabs or whatnot


my man plutarco elias calles knew how to deal with

[Franz Fanonipants]

my man plutarco elias calles knew how to deal with

see how good that worked out for mexico

tbh though like mat'l circumstanceswise the church really was the bourgeois in that scenario. cleaning out the last of the powerful 19th c. liberal clergy.[1]

[1] i think it isn't really my area

[NGNM85]

A radical should rightly define racism as something like a 'web' of (inter)relationships resulting in a society characterised by a 'racially' defined hierarchy; it is necessarily structural (which may or may not be distinguishable from institutional) and systematic, as it exists only in societal interaction between individuals and (socially-defined) groups. An individual in isolation cannot express anything reasonably defined as racist, as this individual is removed from the very hierarchy which makes racism possible. Furthermore, a radical ought to recognise that we are produced by and subsequently produce this hierarchy and the numerous manifestations of power essential in its perpetuation. Failure to recognise this leads us to believe that racism is to be overcome through changing the minds of so-called 'racists' or simply removing them from society, rather than confronting and dismantling systematic hierarchies of oppression and the various institutions and ideologies producing and supporting them.

That might be a philosophically consistent Marxist definition of racism, (Or, rather; 'racism.') but it is not the default Radical definition, (No such entity exists.) more to the point; it happens to be dead wrong, bordering on the absurd.


Dawkins (and the others mentioned in this thread) exhibits Eurocentric/-chauvinistic and Islamophobic tendencies, along with other similarly colonialist attitudes, which permeate his work, becoming abundantly clear whenever politics are directly addressed. These sentiments are supportive of numerous hierarchies, by which I mean those hierarchies which place 'the European' (in its broadest possible sense) in a dominant position - a dominance of which his work is a mere extension.

Again; you utterly fail to make the prima facie case for your accusations.

[NGNM85]

now, i understand baptists and other ass'ted protestant scum do the 'you are wretched and evil and etc.' deal

They're just more theatrical about it. Nobody does guilt like the Catholics. They've got it down to a science.


but shit if thats child abuse, so's exposing children to saturday morning cartoons and commercials

Saturday morning cartoons never made me feel ashamed to be alive.


i am glad that you get to define terms all the time

mostly because you are useless and your definitions are as well

e: goddamn you are a slippery fucker

There's a certain amount of subjectivity in value judgments.

No, I am not being cagey, in any sense. I am speaking literally, in plain english. When I say; 'squirrel', everyone, who speaks english as a first language, understands that I am referring to this organism;

http://media.photobucket.com/image/squirrel/chelsguy/f8a31021.jpg?o=2 (http://media.photobucket.com/image/squirrel/chelsguy/f8a31021.jpg?o=2)

This is why I call it; 'squirrel', as opposed to; 'marmoset', or 'Zoarastrianism.'


most vocal atheists are p. much just swallowing 19th century white men talk about superstition amongst blacks or arabs or whatnot

no one ever talks about the italian inquisition going after superstition in the what 16th c. cus welp that doesn't fit into a model that puts english speaking crackers at the top of the history pile

That's totally incorrect. All of these authors have emphasized that European history is replete with religious barbarism. Sam Harris, for one example, discusses this, at length, in End of Faith.

[Guy Incognito]

They're just more theatrical about it. Nobody does guilt like the Catholics. They've got it down to a science.

They guilt people into doing good works... Guilt for "sins" is guilt against things their cultural norms declare as such (most of which, are anti-social behavior) which is normal for nearly any culture. And it's not like they punish anyone for doing otherwise (again, I'm referring to the current catholic church). Catholics nowadays seem to believe, that regardless of what you've done, or what you will do, if you repent on your deathbed, you're solid. Frankly that's pretty friggin lenient in comparison to the other sects of christianity and the other abrahamic religions. The biggest issues with catholics in todays day, is keeping them out of the political sphere and forcing the Nazi with the ruby high-heels to actually condemn and prosecute the child molesters he's hiding.

[Elysian]

They guilt people into doing good works... Guilt for "sins" is guilt against things their cultural norms declare as such (most of which, are anti-social behavior) which is normal for nearly any culture. And it's not like they punish anyone for doing otherwise (again, I'm referring to the current catholic church). Catholics nowadays seem to believe, that regardless of what you've done, or what you will do, if you repent on your deathbed, you're solid. Frankly that's pretty friggin lenient in comparison to the other sects of christianity and the other abrahamic religions. The biggest issues with catholics in todays day, is keeping them out of the political sphere and forcing the Nazi with the ruby high-heels to actually condemn and prosecute the child molesters he's hiding.

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, also suffer from a persecution complex even while they're the ones actively persecuting others. For instance, a Christian/Catholic may attack the gay community in unmistakable terms but will cry 'persecution' if there is some kind of retaliation, if only verbal, from the gay community. Such hypocrisy is sickening.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, also suffer from a persecution complex even while they're the ones actively persecuting others. For instance, a Christian/Catholic may attack the gay community in unmistakable terms but will cry 'persecution' if there is some kind of retaliation, if only verbal, from the gay community. Such hypocrisy is sickening.

protestant scumbag

[Franz Fanonipants]

They're just more theatrical about it. Nobody does guilt like the Catholics. They've got it down to a science

cool 90s stand up routine bro

[Guy Incognito]

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, also suffer from a persecution complex even while they're the ones actively persecuting others. For instance, a Christian/Catholic may attack the gay community in unmistakable terms but will cry 'persecution' if there is some kind of retaliation, if only verbal, from the gay community. Such hypocrisy is sickening.

This is something that is only usually done by fundementalists, and the diocesan structure itself (bourgeoisie scum). A bit too broad of a statement for "Catholics in particular", especially since they tend not to evangelize in the U.S. (In fact, TV and Radio evangalists HATE all Catholics but Rick Santorum for some insane fundie reason).

[dodger]

Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, also suffer from a persecution complex even while they're the ones actively persecuting others. For instance, a Christian/Catholic may attack the gay community in unmistakable terms but will cry 'persecution' if there is some kind of retaliation, if only verbal, from the gay community. Such hypocrisy is sickening.

You do make a clear point, Elysian, hence the Britons response to both Popes visits to our country. Dire. Took the form of verbal insults, demonstrations and many articles blogs telling them to get lost. Not welcome here. No amount of Papal placemen in our media could paint a pretty picture. The plain fact is we don't want or need papal busybodies trying to change our laws or moral lectures, from anyone. The resentment is palpable. The Dalai LLama at least keeps his nose out of our business...makes a few soundbytes and leaves. Cannot see the situation ever changing, too hidebound and blinkered. Most simply use the channel changer.....just how many ways can one say not interested before it becomes antagonistic?

[Franz Fanonipants]

This is something that is only usually done by fundementalists, and the diocesan structure itself (bourgeoisie scum). A bit too broad of a statement for "Catholics in particular", especially since they tend not to evangelize in the U.S. (In fact, TV and Radio evangalists HATE all Catholics but Rick Santorum for some insane fundie reason).

see also israel see also religion is subsidiary to mat'l circumstances

[NGNM85]

They guilt people into doing good works...

No, they guilt people into developing neuroses.


Guilt for "sins" is guilt against things their cultural norms declare as such (most of which, are anti-social behavior) which is normal for nearly any culture.

….Or for having sex, being gay, or just plain being alive. That’s what makes original sin such a poisonous concept; you are guilty because you have the temerity to exist. The pathological attitude of the Catholic church towards sexuality, etc., goes way beyond ‘reinforcing cultural norms.’ It’s sick, it’s wrong, and it has incredibly damaging effects on individuals, and on society, as a whole.


And it's not like they punish anyone for doing otherwise (again, I'm referring to the current catholic church).

They aren’t conducting inquisitions, anymore, if that’s what you mean. However; there is a lot of very intense social pressure on individuals in Catholic families, or Catholic communities.


Catholics nowadays seem to believe, that regardless of what you've done, or what you will do, if you repent on your deathbed, you're solid. Frankly that's pretty friggin lenient in comparison to the other sects of christianity and the other abrahamic religions.

It is a rather egregious loophole. However; I don’t think they are as laid back as you imply, even here, in Massachusetts. Homophobia, for example, while, perhaps, less virulent, is fairly epidemic.


The biggest issues with catholics in todays day, is keeping them out of the political sphere and forcing the Nazi with the ruby high-heels to actually condemn and prosecute the child molesters he's hiding.

I would say the biggest issue is turning people away from reactionary nonsense.

As for the epidemic of child abuse within the church; I couldn’t agree more. I can’t imagine any other international organization, be it a corporation, or an NGO, or whatever, could conduct an international conspiracy, of this scale, to shield pedophiles from law enforcement without becoming the target of the FBI, or Interpol, or something. It’s not as if it’s a secret. A number of individuals have filed lawsuits under the RICO statute, yet, so far, the Federal Government remains conspicuously silent. The church enjoys many priveleges in our society, apparently sexually abusing children is one of them.

[NGNM85]

I actually do love philosophy, and miss studying it from college. The thing that I've noticed is, nobody cares about philosophy (outside of academic circles). This is one of the reasons I'm trying to work from a base that people can relate to (or at the very least one that they are familiar with, when you start with The Cave allegory, a lot of folks get lost). I know I'll probably fail, but if I live a better life for others in the process or manage to get even one person to be more of a humanist, then I've not wasted my time. But thank you for the suggestions at any rate.

I'm really not pursuaded by this, in the slightest. You don't need to have read Nicomachean Ethics in order to have ethics. Also; if the most relatable example you can come up with is a iron-age mythical man-god, then the problem, rather, is the limits of your own imagination. If you must use fictional allegories, I'd recommend Science Fiction. The works of Bradbury, HG Wells, Isaac Asimov, and others are chock full of philosophical, and ethical issues which are totally apllicable to the modern world. These can even be found in 'low' science fiction, like superhero comics. For example; Spider-Man's motto; With great power, comes great responsibility. Young people would be better off reading Uncanny X-Men, then Levicticus. (Honestly; I think they'd be better off reading Motor Trend, then Levicticus.) There are also plenty of real-life role models to look up to, like; Matin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela, etc., etc., all without requiring them to accept irrational ideas, or predisposing them to reactionary politics.

[Guy Incognito]

No, they guilt people into developing neuroses.

You're grasping and being an asshole. People can make up their own minds, and it's not a nerosis to feel a desire for something more, that would make one's life seem more with purpose.



….Or for having sex, being gay, or just plain being alive. That’s what makes original sin such a poisonous concept; you are guilty because you have the temerity to exist. The pathological attitude of the Catholic church towards sexuality, etc., goes way beyond ‘reinforcing cultural norms.’ It’s sick, it’s wrong, and it has incredibly damaging effects on individuals, and on society, as a whole.

Again you're painting the Catholics as all fundementalists, which they are clearly not in today's day and age. Keep following that lazy line of reasoning and you're going to wind up with anti-theist pogroms and re-education camps.




They aren’t conducting inquisitions, anymore, if that’s what you mean. However; there is a lot of very intense social pressure on individuals in Catholic families, or Catholic communities.

There is a lot of very intense social pressure on individuals in (insert culture here) families, or (insert culture here) communities. Welcome to tribal behavior. When you go against a cultural norm in a homogenous community, you become an "other".



It is a rather egregious loophole. However; I don’t think they are as laid back as you imply, even here, in Massachusetts. Homophobia, for example, while, perhaps, less virulent, is fairly epidemic.

You speak as if homophobia is the sole realm of the religious. Your friend "Saviorself" has proven time and again that Anti-theists can be just as rediculous. While for another more personal example, my fiancee is Catholic and not only is she fully supportive of queer rights, her family and the local congregation is as well. You are equating the words and actions of a vile minority of bourgeoisie (the pope and the rest of the pointy hat and child molestor hiding club) and the actions of fundementalist evangelicals in the United states, with Catholics as a whole. Regardless, Cultural norms are being breached. Others are declared. The usual results occur.



I would say the biggest issue is turning people away from reactionary nonsense.

Declaring all religious belief as reactionary is rediculous. Very few religions declare a wish to return to the old ways (The main exceptions from Abrahamic religions, which are the only ones I'm familiar enough with to speak about are Wahabbism, Hasidic Judiasm and the Menonites).

In particular the Catholics & other more progressive institutions are always changing and re-interperating the meanings of the religious texts to modernize their world view. Some don't take the texts as literal, some do. Not only that, but Abrahamic beliefs tend to lean toward charity and humility, which are not inducive of capitalism and in fact tend to be in opposition to it.

The fact that they are not following the lessons regarding the bourgeoisie would mean that the heads of these religions are the problem due to them suppressing those teachings, and not the believers themselves. Cut the head off of the beast, and guide the faithful back toward the class struggle, charity and community.



As for the epidemic of child abuse within the church; I couldn’t agree more. I can’t imagine any other international organization, be it a corporation, or an NGO, or whatever, could conduct an international conspiracy, of this scale, to shield pedophiles from law enforcement without becoming the target of the FBI, or Interpol, or something. It’s not as if it’s a secret. A number of individuals have filed lawsuits under the RICO statute, yet, so far, the Federal Government remains conspicuously silent. The church enjoys many priveleges in our society, apparently sexually abusing children is one of them.

There is a material aspect to this. The organizations responsible are being shielded in exchange for political favor and large amounts of capital. The Federal Government and the Dioscece need to be taken to task publicly over it.

[Guy Incognito]

I'm really not pursuaded by this, in the slightest. You don't need to have read Nicomachean Ethics in order to have ethics. Also; if the most relatable example you can come up with is a iron-age mythical man-god, then the problem, rather, is the limits of your own imagination. If you must use fictional allegories, I'd recommend Science Fiction. The works of Bradbury, HG Wells, Isaac Asimov, and others are chock full of philosophical, and ethical issues which are totally apllicable to the modern world. These can even be found in 'low' science fiction, like superhero comics. For example; Spider-Man's motto; With great power, comes great responsibility. Young people would be better off reading Uncanny X-Men, then Levicticus. (Honestly; I think they'd be better off reading Motor Trend, then Levicticus.) There are also plenty of real-life role models to look up to, like; Matin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela, etc., etc., all without requiring them to accept irrational ideas, or predisposing them to reactionary politics.

As dear to me as these books are, the average person is not receptive to science fiction works, or comic books. They have been deemed for children as a medium. Reading Uncanny X-men AND Leviticus gives one perspective, reading just "approved' material is unhelpful. Most religious believers in the United States hold MLK in a very high regard, especially due to the fact that he fit in line with their teachings so well. Mandela is also revered in the US, though not nearly as much as King.

Predisposed to reactionary politics. This is rediculous. If anything, they would be more apt to progressivism (again, abrahamics) by following the teachings about the poor and dispossessed.

[NGNM85]

You're grasping and being an asshole. People can make up their own minds,

While the human brain is capable of conceiving of logic, and can think logically, especially with proper training, it’s capable of frightening irrationality. Also; the problem is that individuals are most likely to be subject to religious indoctrination in early childhood, when they are much more vulnerable.


and it's not a nerosis to feel a desire for something more, that would make one's life seem more with purpose.

It’s kind of remarkable that you would infer that from what I said. No, I was talking about the guilt, and shame that many, if not most, Christians have to deal with, particularly regarding sexuality, which they are taught to be ashamed of. They pathologize sexuality, which has all sorts of nasty consequences for individuals, and society, as a whole.

Just because irrational ideas are comforting does not mean that they are good, or that we should tolerate them. In every other instance this is considered pathological.


Again you're painting the Catholics as all fundementalists, which they are clearly not in today's day and age.

No, I’m not. The view of most Christian churches concerning homosexuality, for example, tends to run from this condescending sort of thinking that homosexuality is an illness, something that needs to be cured, and that homosexuals should be objects of pity. That’s what you tend to find in the more liberal churches. At the other end you have the more virulent homophobia. Most of them fall somewhere in that spectrum.


Keep following that lazy line of reasoning and you're going to wind up with anti-theist pogroms and re-education camps.

No, that doesn’t follow, at all. People have every right to believe crazy bullshit, as long as they can restrain themselves from infringing on the rights of others. (Which, of course, they do, often.) However; that doesn’t mean I have to like it.


There is a lot of very intense social pressure on individuals in (insert culture here) families, or (insert culture here) communities. Welcome to tribal behavior. When you go against a cultural norm in a homogenous community, you become an "other".

There’s a qualitative difference. The flak I got, when I was a kid, for being a punk rocker just isn’t comparable to what gay Americans experience. I was never made to feel ashamed of it, I was never told it was a crime against god, and that I would burn in hell, forever, because of it.


You speak as if homophobia is the sole realm of the religious. Your friend "Saviorself" has proven time and again that Anti-theists can be just as rediculous.

This individual is not on my friends list. I don’t know this guy.

No. Get serious. The epidemic of homophobia in the United States is a religious phenomenon, specifically, a Christian phenomenon, just like the Pro-Life movement.


While for another more personal example, my fiancee is Catholic and not only is she fully supportive of queer rights, her family and the local congregation is as well. You are equating the words and actions of a vile minority of bourgeoisie (the pope and the rest of the pointy hat and child molestor hiding club) and the actions of fundementalist evangelicals in the United states, with Catholics as a whole. Regardless, Cultural norms are being breached. Others are declared. The usual results occur.

I have lived very close to the religious community, I had family in the church. Even here, in liberal Massachusetts, I’ve never met one Catholic priest, or nun that would ever, openly support gay rights. Not all Catholics are virulently homophobic, but most of them are homophobic, to varying degrees.

Also; it isn’t a minority view, nor is it limited to the ‘bourgeoisie.’ Unfortunately, a number of reactionary ideas are wildly popular among the working class.


Declaring all religious belief as reactionary is rediculous. Very few religions declare a wish to return to the old ways (The main exceptions from Abrahamic religions, which are the only ones I'm familiar enough with to speak about are Wahabbism, Hasidic Judiasm and the Menonites).

It’s worthy mentioning that those ‘exceptions’, the Abrahamic faiths, constitute about two-thirds of religious believers.

I didn’t say all religion is reactionary. (Although, many of them are.) However; presently, in the United States, Christianity is one of the primary bulwarks of reactionary politics. Church attendance correlates pretty evenly with support for the wars in the Middle East, and with ‘enhanced interrogation’, also known as; ‘torture.’ Similarly, regular churchgoers are more likely to be homophobic, and Pro-Life.


In particular the Catholics & other more progressive institutions are always changing and re-interperating the meanings of the religious texts to modernize their world view. Some don't take the texts as literal, some do.

That’s because they’ve been forced to. It’s because society won’t tolerate it any more. The fundamentalists are just the most purist in their application of the dogma.


Not only that, but Abrahamic beliefs tend to lean toward charity and humility, which are not inducive of capitalism and in fact tend to be in opposition to it.

They also happen to be deeply authoritarian, sexist, homophobic, and, generally, violently intolerant. You do not need to be a Christian to be charitable, or humble.


The fact that they are not following the lessons regarding the bourgeoisie would mean that the heads of these religions are the problem due to them suppressing those teachings, and not the believers themselves. Cut the head off of the beast, and guide the faithful back toward the class struggle, charity and community.

There’s a couple of problems with this. First; you seem to be suggesting that Christianity is a religion of peace that has been corrupted. That’s almost entirely bogus. You can find those positive messages in there, but you’re being, at least, equally inconsistent in ignoring all the passages that conflict with this interpretation. Honestly; like I said, it’s the so-called ‘extremists’ who tend to represent the purest, most unadulterated version of the faith.

Second; while there may be a tactical value in a limited alliance with religious moderates against the hard-liners, this can only function to a limited extent, due to irreconcilable differences. The endgame is not to have an ameliorated religion, although, admittedly, it’s an improvement, but, rather, the absence of religion.

Third; if you want to build a stable, effective, broad-based Libertarian Socialist movement, you’d be infinitely better off with Mikhail Bakunin, or Alexander Berkman.


There is a material aspect to this. The organizations responsible are being shielded in exchange for political favor and large amounts of capital. The Federal Government and the Dioscece need to be taken to task publicly over it.

I definitely think it’s an issue that deserves attention, but I don’t think it’s as simple as all that.