Atheism

spendi, That day may come, but that is generations off. Nothing for us living people to worry about.

I don't represent any group Rockie. Unless it is that nebulous one with no leader and no money and no organisation which thinks language is our key to evolutionary success and that it should "keep a clean head and always carry a light bulb".

but certainly you argue as though you represent religion.

I just wish to know which one...

or is it all of them?

He's not sure; just sure he's against atheists and science.

This was posted on another thread by someone I have a good deal of sympathy with--



That isn't "clean" is it? Securing the liberties of American citizens when they are sod-busters, gunslingers, faro dealers, and small-town editors with green eyeshades certainly doesn't require invading sovereign countries. Whereas securing the liberties of US citizens addicted to oil might very well do so and, in fact, has been deemed necessary by the ruling elite.

The statement is true under certain circumstances but these are totally different circumstances. And it is an attractive and high principled statement and, indeed, comforting. It will be attended to I mean. Possibly repeated. Catch on.

I do not see how we can, in our present circumstances, do without religion. In circumstances where we, say, have the sexes in separate barracks and requisitions are required for a no fuss shag, a bit like booking a table, things will probably be different. If I was in that world, the Brave New World, and I liked it, as I suspect I would despite the graduated fees and medical checks, I can see that I would defend atheism.

But if I was there I would know no different. I would never know about the joys of getting a shag the Tom Jones way. Or even the Prof Dawkins way. All that chasing and petticoats and coy flirting "across a crowded room" with that ol' Black Magic jazz and all. If you dig my drift.

Now--premarital sex, adultery, divorce, artificial birth control, sodomy, abortion and male homosexuality, wanking up to a point anyway, are all strategies for getting a shag when shags are proving too difficult to get without a tiresome modicum of effort and self-sacrifice. And they are legal strategies.

And, lo and behold, those are the precise elements of the Christian Church, wobblings by individuals, or even factions, being irrelevant because if there were no wobblings most of the anti-Church arguments get deflated like a whoopee cushion a fat woman sat on hard, which are the source of the original, possibly adolescent, objections to Christianity and which are left unsaid. Ridicule of the Bible, which depends upon taking it literally, has to serve instead, with liberal doses of the wobblers interwoven, and it must be admitted, taking it literally, that it is a sitting duck. As are the wobblers. And with regular practice, and with more and more bridges burned in the pride, what was left unsaid becomes unremembered as well and Bible bashing becomes an end rather than the means it set out as when the end was getting a cheap shag. A bargain. Compared to what Don Quixote tried to pay. Or even the gallant Knights of ye olden daze whose order now boasts of Mr Elton John.

Christianity is a way of life and anybody seeking to change it should tell us what our way of life would be like without it. Huxley had the nerve to offer one possibilty and I can't say I would reject it out of hand. But Huxley didn't understand women. Women wouldn't put up with Huxley's vision. Tormenting men is their primary, some say sole, occupation.

In the Zulu religion dipping your spear in the blood of the enemy was necessary to get a shag. Not so long ago too. Some religions barter in shags. Pre-Homer it was a fat reindeer across the shoulders after two weeks in the frozen tundra with no electrically heated footwear or Vanguard Carbine. Or fetching up a pearl from where the limits of endurance are tested. Carvings in the chest. A Man Called Horse. Fighting duels. Malinowsky blew the Polynesian idyll out of the water. It was sailor's stories that created it. I suppose most myths are created by people telling stories that the listeners can't check.

All those, and there are many more, are evolutionary tests of course. **** evolution. Let 'em wank. Like Philip Larkin said, or nearly, "It's cheap and you can have the rest of the night to yourself".

Are you an atheist Rocky?

But today's atheists are not ushering in the Brave New World for themselves. The process is too slow. No--it's for the young men of the future. Women have equality now so they can stick up for the young women of the future. I can't tell what women want now let alone a few generations along. But I know what men want.

How do you know ci. You wouldn't know science if it sunk its teeth into your buttocks.

My previous post explains my position on atheists.

is there a cliff notes version of this soliloquy?

we need the church to have something to rebel against.

women are evil and delicious..

what else...?

If there are they would say read it again.



There is that too I suppose if rebelling itself just for the sake of it is the motive. Which I somehow doubt.

We can make rebellious noises about the Monarchy. It's hard to be a rebel against a government we elect. So with no Monarchy, a foisted authority, a bit like one's father, the Church is in the frame.

I don't see women as evil though. Nor in a gilded cage or on a pedestal. I see them as women.

I must say, that your arguments strike me as being much like a flock of birds.

when excited, there is much fluttering and flapping of wings.

but in the end one is left with only the droppings all about on the ground...

spendius says:


What strange planet in a galaxy far, far away have you been living on for the last few years?

Just 300 million? Sure. I guess. Who cares? I don't need 300 million atheists in the USA or 7 billion atheists in the world. I need my right to be an atheist and have equal citizenship.

A
R
T

Hey Fil - thanks for tracking down that video, I think you really did an unconscious mash up the ideas Shermer was sharing when you said:


In the wind in the bushes example he never mentioned the supernatural at all. He was explaining type I and type II errors (false positives and false negatives respectively) and what he was saying was that a false positive (thinking predator when it's actually wind) is a lot less life threatening than a false negative (thinking wind when it's predator) - the supernatural doesn't enter into it. How many meerkats are Hindus? Or even animists?

He didn't get onto religious experience until he started talking about dopamine receptors. I thought it was interesting that he used the wind in the bushes example (aural) but all the research he talked about was on visual pattern making.

Thanks again for hunting it down - I do love the TED program. Monkey kissing and 'I know the Bush administration wasn't behind the 9/11 conspiracy because the 9/11 conspiracy worked'

Isnt there a dog you can feed while complaining about the poor in the world ?

That you only know about Aramaeans and assume that your limited knowledge applies to everything is staggering in its stupidity. That you criticise me for having a whilst calling me a is typical of your two faced bullshit .

That you somehow manage to abuse everyone you correspond with who doesnt say, "nice one boss" in your suppliant kiss arse manner is no surprise. That you lose debate after debate about history but continue to think of yourself as knowledgable is creating a false self image that is worthy of a psychiatric assessment.

You have discounted baptismal Jews from Christianity yet they are clearly one of the major contributors to it, both in theology and numbers. You think early Christians were Aramaic ? Never heard of the major cities of conversion and where they were ? I wont tell you their names as I know you love goggle so much. You are not an historian. You are a grumpy old man in need of hormone replacement therapy.

I used to think of Spendius as a lot of ideas with little structure and no connection thrown into a washing machine full of booze and put on spin. I put him on ignore once I realised I was putting more thought into trying to decipher what he was saying than he was putting into saying it.

That and because he's a misogynistic misanthrope.

You are delusional and are trying to put an incredible spin on your surrender.

However it did take you several more posts to realise you neither have the knowledge base nor the references to expand it.

Find me someone qualified in psychology to debate the matter, not a clown who knows nothing and begs me for references because they dont know enough about the subject to even start.

I dont know where you have been for this entire thread, but most have accepted it is pretty obvious faith is required to believe in God. Have you read nothing and understood even less ?

You don't know the subject. You fancy yourself as a righteous philosopher, but you are closer to an egotistical clueless theoretician. I am not here to start your education in a subject that you feel you have mastered. Your very limited knowledge is obvious. Your knowledge is so limited, you don't know enough to realise what you don't know.

One can only hope you spend those months doing some research so I dont have to teach you the basics.

237 pages and still no useful posts from the trolls.

58,107 posts and still nothing but running around nipping at heels, calling people he disagrees with trolls and bragging about how many he has on ignore .

Spendius you are not the only dreamer I am sure that you may wish for many other big blouse ladies to also be dreamers! What do you think about this dreamer? I think she did a good job myself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0vvjcqJ98c

Interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oogMpsKdU8E

How can I help how my arguments, if they are arguments, strike you Rocky?

In the end all our lives leave rows of headstones or smoke.

Which is more than the nothing your post leaves. You could say that about any argument.

What was it about my post that you object to?