Atheism

You seem to be projecting certain emotions and ideas onto me that I haven't expressed. I was hoping for more content-bases analysis from you. I didn't say that I was pious, express sadness or say that I wanted to change anything in the Bible. What I would enjoy seeing change is the self-righteous bigotry expressed by those holier-than-thou xtians who condemn people to hell for disbelief, oppress minorities and women, and who deny science in favor of a book of ancient myths.

Good for you mate, if there were no atheists there'd be no 'atheists vs deists' discussions around internet-land like this one to keep the subject alive..
PS- You say about atheists "We are no longer afraid", yet this atheist advert says atheists worry. Worry about what exactly?-

Rather Romeo, the advertisement appears to be addressing those that worry that there might be a god, generally atheists do not fall into that category.

Precisely. It's the theists who are worried about going to hell and how to earn their spot in heaven, and they really need to chill. I don't have a problem with anyone who says, 'I believe X, therefore I'm not going to do Y.' I have a problem with people who say, 'I believe X, therefore you can't do Y.'

That tangentially refers to the core fault with all religious belief. Each dogma asserts its divinely inspired infallibility, and the next logical conclusion is that those who don't agree are, intentionally or not, at war with "god's" will. All manner of enormities can be justified from whacko claims like that.

I think a great deal of it is also narcissism and fear of death. If you're one of your god's chosen, you hold a special place in the universe. Whereas science tells you that you're ephemerally organized dirt and water that will eventually disorganize back into its constituent elements. Again, though, it's nothing to me whatever anybody believes as long as they don't **** with others about it. Problem is, of course, so many of them do and so many of those who do have political power.

I think that finding that photo and posting it on here is an expression of an emotion. And an idea, which is that there are many versions of the Bible, which there are, and thus they can't all be authentic which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of them are suspect because they are edited, redacted and invention. Hence discredited.

Choosing and posting the image expresses something. I didn't take a view of what it was and, as an atheist, agree with you that it is foolish to condemn non-believers to eternal damnation. I think public condemnations of that sort should be illegal.

As to the oppression of minorities and women I think that both groups are in a far better position in a Christian context than they ever were in a pre-Christian or non-Christian context. By some distance. In general I mean. Like the temperature of a body relates to the average energy of its constituents and not to any specific atom or molecule within it at the time it is measured.

It is difficult to provide evidence that the liberal policy on sexual matters is oppressive, demeaning and unhealthy for women because doing so requires consideration of matters which are not suitable for a public discussion due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. Even genteel hints result in a quick grab at Ignore.

Nevertheless, from a scientific point of view, the liberal manifesto on sexual matters is decidedly oppressive, demeaning and unhealthy for women. It is entirely in the service of male sexual relief which explains its popularity with misogynists who are, as one might expect, in indignant denial of such a label being applied to them. "He denies all the charges", is a sentence we are hearing on almost every news broadcast.

"All men are rapists" Professor Greer maintained. "Romance is rape", is a feminist mantra. The famed "ceiling buster" is a man with a female biology.

The Bible is the story of the dethroning of the matriarchy in favour of the patriarchy. The sexual teaching of the Church provides the woman with some protections from the obvious consequences.

It is up to you whether you think women are better served by the patriarchy than they were by the matriarchy. I think they are and to a considerable degree.

The oppression of minorities is much more severe in atheistic societies. I suspect you have particular minorities in mind.

Well, i was addressing exactly why the "true believer" not only feels entitled to f*ck with others, but feels compelled to do so. As for political power, i consider that to usually be just exploitation. Perhaps once, long, long ago, people felt compelled to war on others and to dominate them with their "god," and political power arose from the successful completion of such a program. However, it would not have taken the power-hungry very long to realize the enormous tool religious fanaticism is for them.

Choosing and posting an image only suggests that I chose and posted an image. No one is privy to another's internal experience, and when you or anyone else assign an emotive value to something as remote as that, it suggests that you're transferring or projecting from other experiences you've had with other people. I can argue the theist-atheist thing quite dispassionately and prefer to do so.

As for the lion's share of the rest of your post, would you mind unpacking that a bit? Christianity has a long and sordid history of subjugating women to second-class citizen roles. Secular societies have, to my knowledge, been responsible from relieving them of their unfair burdens placed on them by those who believe that Eve was responsible for Original Sin.

The liberal agenda has been strongly in favor of women's rights, universal suffrage, the women's right to choose, equal pay for equal work, etc. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Could you provide empirical support for your claim, "The oppression of minorities is much more severe in atheistic societies"? The history of Christianity is fraught with racism. Palestinian/Nazi vs Jew, KKK vs blacks.

However, the minorities I was thinking of were the gender and sexual orientation minorities. I should have been more clear about that. My bad. The whole 'gays are evil' part of xtian dogma, etc. Who's most vehemently opposed to gay marriage? The liberals/progressives? I think not. It's overwhelmingly those who are energized by the "Good Book."

The same book that tells them to ostracize, murder and oppress anyone who doesn't profess belief in what it says. While their god loves everyone unconditionally in the meantime.

Yep. Elmer Gantry running for office.

And your problem is that they have all been elected and are expressions of democratic will which is not very well developed in atheistic societies.

What is amusing is that you already have all that you ask for. Not only guilt free but approved of. What else do you want? The termination of free speech?



Well, somebody has to "**** with others" to avoid anarchy. As with "oppression of minorities" so also "**** with others". In both cases the definition of "minority" and "others" will have a narcissistic energy source. Try defending either in all cases of "minorities" and all cases of "others". Take the group which promotes the lowering of the age of consent as an easy starter.

All those kings who financed and ordered the Crusades were elected? I think you're focusing only on current events and are forgetting huge swaths of history. Are you aware of how many US states in which atheists are barred from public office by official statutes? 7. Separation of church and state be damned. Them atheists are eebul!

What is it you imagine that I want? Freedom from religious oppression. You think that already exists? Look around you.

I also recommend you do a little research on what the word "anarchy" really denotes. I think you've fallen for the popular misunderstanding that it means a bloody free-for-all, which is based on the religious notion that without god's grace, we'd all be at each others' throats all the time. Truth is, most people most of the time do want to live cooperatively to everyone's mutual benefit. Until some leader or other charismatic convinces them that it's their duty to kill someone else because of their skin color, religious or political differences.

You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about the termination of mine and of those like me who are willing to speak up against the centuries of oppression that we have endured.

Also, any update on your claim, "The oppression of minorities is much more severe in atheistic societies"?

I don't think many of those kings were elected in our understanding of the word.

And I am not forgetting history at all. I read about very little else although it is probably not the sort of history you are familiar with.

Robert Graves claimed,for example, that the most important event in European history was the importation by returning crusaders of the idea of romantic love which when given expression by the poetic imagination, song and dance men, transformed the "loutish robber barons and their sluttish wives to a polished society of courtly lords and ladies. Which is wot we is now yur 'onour. Stendhal had said that the Book of Etiquette was the most important book he had read.

The basic idea is Ladies First. An idea atheists must reject in principle to avoid accusations of being patronising. Personally I am all in favour of ladies getting their backsides onto their chairs on their own, pointing the chimney stack and paying for their own drinks. I agree with the feminists on those matters.

But is Ladies First unconditional? Which ladies will take it to be at the drop of a pretty hat if there are no impediments in their way? Such as men. And men who know that Ladies First taken past a certain point is no good for ladies in general. And if it is good for any it is at the expense of the others as Schopenhauer pointed out and Madame de Pompadour proved. As Nero's squeeze had as well. But closer to home the tendency is apparent if in a more diffused form.

What do atheists have to offer in regard to holding the line? From what I have seen in a long experience in pubs the odds are stacked against us men if nobody stands up to inhibit the natural balance of probabilities. And atheists can't. My observation is a long series of well wrung necks.

If I used the word "anarchy" incorrectly please correct it in my post to "a bloody free-for-all.

And I can't say I have ever felt the need for freedom from religious repression. It does exist to a large extent and if you wish to extend it further will you say in what direction? Next door neighbours exert a degree of repression.

You are using all these abstract and relative terms in a manner which is not the one everybody accepts and which is predictable from your starting position. And it is as if you think you have a monopoly of the virtues you mention in the vaguest possible way.

I can't see that having any meaning. It sounds nice I will agree. It is one of the myriad manifestations of foam from the mouth.

Living cooperatively is repressive. Taken too far and catatonia sets in.

He'll fall back on Stalin and Hitler eventually. And will conveniently ignore the facts.

I prefer not to seem anything and least of all that I am terminating, or even restricting in the slightest degree, your free expression. I couldn't if I wished to. Which I don't. Although I wouldn't die in the last ditch to defend your right to free expression either. As some claim they would.

I consider speaking up against the centuries of oppression that we have endured to be not only a complete waste of time but a soft-centred claim to be the only one to be appalled and pretty disgusted by them. And they might not have been as bad as they are made out to be by those whose political (sexual) agenda might want them to have been.

What is to be done about them? Going from a condition of savagery and barbarism to a drawing-room in a fashionable salon is not done in one stage. A magic wand is necessary for that trick.

Beasts of burden endured terrible oppression in those centuries which has been eased a great deal.

He was referring to northern European gene pools.

When Americans use the word "white" that's, by and large, what they're talking about.

Hitler was a Catholic, and said so publicly. Look for dodging and weaving.