Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why should I speak out as an Atheist?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 101 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 14:29:33 BDT
G. Heron says:
DrDR

I certainly believe in equality for all including the religious, can we start by kicking the lords spiritual out of the house of lords?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 14:39:43 BDT
Joe. C says:
Huck,
Fair point, I can't argue with that.

Posted on 19 Sep 2012 14:52:03 BDT
I love this discussion. Thank you, Joe. It's the 21st century, I think it's time we get over "religion" being a basic measure for our lives. Moral, a sense of righteousness, a feeling of kinship and respect for others are values I think we need more of. Lots of people use religion as a reason to override these, and I am against that. Long live sense and reason.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 15:21:30 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
i don't think "override" is the right word Atli. Perhaps religion provides many with a set of hard and fast rules for morality AND lets them belong to a group of like minded people. It doesn't help them think for themselves and doesn't necessarily mean they respect the values of others that don't coincide with their own.

Posted on 19 Sep 2012 16:28:51 BDT
DP Laing says:
Getting back to the original post. You should speak out as an atheist if you can describe accurately what atheism is. At present it is only defined by Theists, and is either a complete or a nuanced, deep-thought rejection of every single Theist principle, dynamic concept, Commandment or whatever.
So please write a book on what Atheism actually is. You could start with the notorious and capital comments of JC of Nazereth who said "God is a spirit-abstraction" (John 4.24), meaning he rejected the 'Existence of God' ideas of the fundamentalists of 27-30 AD fake Judaism, as did Moses (see Job 9.11) another notorious atheist if you only use the scientific Evidence/Existence of God criterion, that cult Darwinists claim they use.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 16:37:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Sep 2012 16:49:54 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
i'm afraid comments like "god is a spirit abstraction" is exactly the sort of b0ll0x that you'd avoid in a book about Atheism. Although i'm an atheist, i'm not defined by my atheism (ie my lack of belief in god / gods - dynamic concept - i think not!) and i don't think the term "cult darwinist" is particularly enlightened.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 16:41:34 BDT
C. A. Small says:
DP laing- sorry you have the usual theist problem of comprehending the simplest terms. Atheist = does not believe in a god.

It really is that easy. Read it a couple of times, let it sink in.

Posted on 19 Sep 2012 19:09:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Sep 2012 19:19:16 BDT
J A R P says:
Joe. C. made it pretty clear what he means by 'religion'. For religion would require a definition, too.

Joe. C. means 'foreigners' when he uses the word 'religion'. That is why he almost subconsciously associates Syria and Israel (both entirely political sites of conflict), with 'religion' and so called 'religious people'.

There are of course Christians who are not, for Joe, foreigners, but they are: Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants of various kinds. Joe sees these people as subhuman, feeble of mind, feeble of will. (Charliost sees 'religious' people as kind, generous, sensitive, retiring and polite: in a word, harmless.)

'Religion' means, for those among you who have had your balanced say on this: foreigners and cretins. Pointing this out, I mean to point out that you are prejudiced and 'mainstream' in your views.

Meanwhile, some are more brave and insinuate that they know what it is to Believe in God. I doubt that.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Sep 2012 23:39:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Sep 2012 23:50:00 BDT
David Rudd says:
Yes, do kick out the Lords Spiritual - but abandoning the whole concept of a House of Lords might be a better idea. In its place we should have an elected chamber - the only precondition being that members of political parties should be barred from standing as candidates.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 01:03:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 Sep 2012 01:32:53 BDT
Joe. C says:
Jason,
Forgive me I won't be wasting my time with your previous post's, as you have failed to recognize next to anything I have said, only continuing to spout deluded madness, shrugging off horrific acts. Saddam Hussein deserved to die, more so than almost anybody I can think of. It is in no way "too far" to say so.

"Joe. C. means 'foreigners' when he uses the word 'religion'. That is why he almost subconsciously associates Syria and Israel (both entirely political sites of conflict), with 'religion' and so called 'religious people'."

..........what? foreigners? Get a grip man. I'm not the one labeling half the world as the "apex of evil". I have no problem with any individual as a result of their ethnicity, it is the person I am interested in.
Syria is a mixture of the two as I said, coming down to Assad and his party of nut jobs. Israel's state of conflict is almost entirely religious based, as well as being horribly complicated....

"Joe sees these people as subhuman, feeble of mind, feeble of will."

Subhuman no. Feeble of mind, in some respects yes. But I wouldn't say it unless such behavior were displayed, it's speaking to broadly. The same would go for will, although I would say a suicide bombing would take a fare bit of will power/delusion, but committing yourself to mental slavery, not so much just delusion there.

"Meanwhile, some are more brave and insinuate that they know what it is to Believe in God. I doubt that."

I couldn't kid myself if I tried (somehow) I am not capable nor have I ever been, I just see no need for a god... anywhere. So surely in your view, God has made me broken unable to believe and I am damned from the start. Does that not all just sound a bit mad?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 15:23:06 BDT
Charlieost says:
No DrDR. Far from it. I think that people of religion should be free to worship as they wish as long as it does not compsomise other peoples entitlement to have their own views. I think it incumberant on people of religion to do charitable work and help in the community. I do not think that they have the right to interfere en mass in any democratic process or read anti-abortion missives from the altar as has recently been the case in Ireland.

If people primarily define themselves by their belief then that is a choice they make. Gender, race and sexual orientation is not a choice.

Regards. Charlie.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 19:37:53 BDT
J A R P says:
Joe. C.

I consider being called 'mad' by you to be a moderate honour. When religious, philosophical, and political illiterates call you mad, then you can consider yourself on the right path.

Posted on 20 Sep 2012 19:48:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 Sep 2012 19:52:02 BDT
J A R P says:
Joe. C.

By the way, the West is not half the world, it is quite a bit less than 1/10th. And is the apex of evil in the same sense as there is an axis of evil.

The point about Saddam Hussein is that while this one man deserved to die, you say, the actions of which you approve very predictably involved hundreds of thousands of other deaths.

Again, when you are called mad in this sort of company, it is a relief.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 22:33:25 BDT
Joe. C says:
That doesn't surprise me, by the way typewriters are outdated and satellite dish's are pretty amazing but I wouldn't say I love them. I just think we should be free to own them without being sentenced to death, or punished in any way, is that so hard to understand?

Posted on 20 Sep 2012 22:34:56 BDT
Jason.

Drugs are bad for you.

Don't do them before posting again.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 22:42:03 BDT
Joe. C says:
Oh I see that's your definition of the west is it. Even so I have never gone as to far as to generalize many nations as the apex of evil or even a single nation.

"The point about Saddam Hussein is that while this one man deserved to die, you say, the actions of which you approve very predictably involved hundreds of thousands of other deaths. "

Yes the man responsible for genocide/the death of hundreds of thousands of people and the oppression of many more, so yes that "one man" deserved to die.
Be more specific? I don't think I have approved of anything beyond his execution.

Posted on 20 Sep 2012 22:47:42 BDT
Spin says:
Do not ask the "West" anything about politics.They are not interested unless it involves their personal gain...

Posted on 20 Sep 2012 22:57:57 BDT
Spin says:
If the religious actually involved themselves in the reality of life, they might gain some respect. But since they choose to live in a fantasy, they have no-one to blame but themselves for opposition to their beliefs. And the religious community are not exactly proponents of fairness, justice and equality, are they? If they cannot take intolerance, they should not dish it out...

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Sep 2012 22:16:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Sep 2012 22:26:08 BDT
J A R P says:
Joe. C.

How can I put to you my opinions about Iraq? How can I put to a person with low Practical Reasoning abilities the publically well understood argument that his execution was an incredibly bad thing to actually attempt to do?

It is clear to me that you have started this post; you have started it without the necessary qualifications. The qualification would be a sound intellect. Now, we find you flailing about trying to merely win an argument, with me.

You attempt to win this argument by claiming that you approved this invasion and the execution. You ask me to be more specific. It is apparent that you know what I am going to say, but you are in a hole of your own making, and hope that I will give you a ladder out by not replying, or by veering further off the topic.

As I have told you, when you say 'Religion', you Mean 'foreigners'. I understand that your 'atheism' is racist. I am also pretty sure that you are unconscious of this. I am even more certain that your atheism is no deeper than this, and that you see nothing special about the Idea of God; and that your atheism is nothing more spectacular than simple hatred for others.

Let us get one thing straight about Iraq and our invasion. What it means is, as an event, the death of 'the public use of Reason'. What is the public use of reason, and, second, how does Joe. C. embody its death?

If we are to reason and think about things like God, or Iraq, or tyrants, then when we express our ideas to others, we should always think on behalf of others. We are speaking and thinking in a way which we would not mind if Everybody Else were saying it - including the Iraqi people. Thoughts are honest and speech is good, arguments are correct, when they can be appreciated by all other people, including our enemies.

You can't say: execute Saddam Hussein. It is not right. Someone could say it about you. I could say: Joe. C. is a degenerate stirring up hatred for religion: execute him. I cannot with sincerity say these things since it would rebound on me. I would be next, and I would be mad to call for execution of a man. Usually there are trials of a person first. That is, in countries which have a public use of reason.

Also, since there are always mistakes in trials, always, death sentences are not the done thing in lands which use Reason by the standard of its public use.

Now, you are insincere when you propose that I explain about Iraq. Reasonable people alreayd knew that there was no ground for the invasion of his country, and they know it in retrospect too. They knew that there would be thousands if not millions of collateral damage casualties. We could also see that the USA was not in a fit state to make these decisions (being run by a dictatorship of 'democracy', or by a tyrant (question this somewhere else, I have no mind to discuss these difficult concepts with Joe. C.)).

So, when somebody publically puts out that they approve of the invasion, war, destruction of Iraq, and that they approve of all that went before this with sanctions on the people of Iraq, the frequent punitive bombing raids which killed Joe. C.s left and right - We immediately know that the person putting out this view about Saddam Hussein is a liar.

It is not possible to use Reason as a person duty-bound to think for other people and in the same breath to argue successfully for 'the execution of Saddam Hussein'. This argument, a euphemism for genocide of Iraqis (I know you approve of it, but still) is not sustainable. Why? Because you would not like an army to wipe you and your family and your town out while it searches for your Premier.

When people cannot justify their 'approvals' about political acts publically, and in a dutiful way such that they would like the same to be said of to be done to their own community (in this case let it be wiped out), then they must shut up. YOu must shut up.

You are an incompetent thinker and you are incapable of justifying atheism. That is why you should not speak up for it. But, we live in an era of weak thought and the age where degenerates can also have their say, private and irresponsible as even our leaders are in their rationalising of attempted genocide.

You can reply to this by writing something down in the 'Your reply to Jason Powell's post:' box. It will be predictable, halfwitted, and will irritate me. I probably won't reply.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Sep 2012 22:17:23 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Sep 2012 22:24:07 BDT
J A R P says:
Ryan Williams

What I would like to say to you would probably be deleted by Amazon.

Posted on 21 Sep 2012 22:33:16 BDT
Still swallowing every two-bit conspiracy theory going?

You'd be a disgrace if you weren't so unwittingly amusing.

Posted on 21 Sep 2012 22:41:14 BDT
J A R P says:
It's not unwitting. Dim wit.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2012 00:19:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2012 00:21:04 BDT
Joe. C says:
Jason

"It is clear to me that you have started this post; you have started it without the necessary qualifications. The qualification would be a sound intellect. Now, we find you flailing about trying to merely win an argument, with me."

No qualifications are required to speak on this forum, evidently. I have a very sound intellect my job requires it. I am not trying to win an argument with you. I am trying to show you the illogicality of your views. I wish I could go into more detail with Saddam Hussein, but I could spend all day writing on the subject and that's time I don't have.

"As I have told you, when you say 'Religion', you Mean 'foreigners'. I understand that your 'atheism' is racist. I am also pretty sure that you are unconscious of this. I am even more certain that your atheism is no deeper than this... and that your atheism is nothing more spectacular than simple hatred for others."

Your not even claiming to know what I think, you are telling me what I think, it's madness.
I will repeat to you what you have already failed to take in "I have no problem with any individual as a result of their ethnicity, it is the person I am interested in." My atheism isn't racist for that reason. It is religion at it's core (the scripture) where my main issue lies, not with all it's followers, just many of them in varying degrees for adhering to said religion and putting some of the madness into practice with a so called divine authority thinking this some how justifies immoral behavior, again in varying degrees.

"You can't say: execute Saddam Hussein. It is not right. Someone could say it about you. I could say: Joe. C. is a degenerate stirring up hatred for religion: execute him. I cannot with sincerity say these things since it would rebound on me. I would be next, and I would be mad to call for execution of a man. Usually there are trials of a person first."

Yes I can and have with justification, Iraq was the property of a psychopathic crime family that committed mass genocide and threatened more. Oppressing an entire nation for decades, invading as they pleased, offering asylum to terrorists. And other nations had to show respect to this worm, it was sickening. Does all of that mean nothing to you? That one man caused the death of nearly 2 million people over his entire rule possibly more and oppressed millions more, with the threat of death always looming. He would make people applaud as they killed their family members, sometimes children. He wasn't going to stop.
It a clear cut case that this man deserved to die, he was one of the worst examples of a human being imaginable. He and his family should have really been removed in 1992...

So yes you could say I deserve to be executed for what I would say is attempting to show religion for it's true colors using my freedom of expression. But it would be entirely unjustified and cannot be compared to the crimes against humanity Saddam Hussein committed... for starters I have only used words. But millions of people would disagree as they have scripture that allows such illogical, immoral behavior to be justified.

"Now, you are insincere when you propose that I explain about Iraq. Reasonable people alreayd knew that there was no ground for the invasion of his country..."

Although terrible mistakes were made beyond collateral damage, it was to some degree predictable, that there would likely be many thousand of casualties, but already potential if not likely casualties to Saddam's rule at the very least by oppression if not death.
This is the trickier side of the argument, but again I think the right move was made in taking Saddam down with justification, although many disagree. Iraq now has a chance at freedom where it didn't and they can now vote. The U.S/U.k armed forces also had a fair bit of support by the people of Iraq, especially in the south. After all there country was being liberated from tyranny, something that no normal person wants to live under.

"You are an incompetent thinker and you are incapable of justifying atheism."

It needs no justification. That is not a reason for speaking out, as Huck Flynn pointed out from an anti-theist position.

"private and irresponsible as even our leaders are in their rationalising of attempted genocide."

There was no attempted genocide on our governments behalf. Nobody was attempting to kill all of the Iraqi people or anything like... Saddam committed genocide...

Posted on 22 Sep 2012 21:42:59 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2012 22:08:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2012 22:13:35 BDT
J A R P says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Welsh traits on show, as would be leader ploughs on, regardless of livestocks objections. 2 43 seconds ago
STOP recycling your household waste now. Put it all in one bin and let the council sort it out. It is THEIR job. That's what WE pay them for. 15 2 minutes ago
Why the Labour Party must and will split. 35 5 minutes ago
Oh...and by the way...we came second... 27 5 minutes ago
Do people take "pride" in their Olympian heroes because they are not capable of success in their life? 13 1 hour ago
Is Sport News? 2391 1 hour ago
Leftout's mother was a HO 58 2 hours ago
Human Scum 48 6 hours ago
Merkel tells Germans to stock up on essentials and prepare for the nightmare of mass immigration. 15 16 hours ago
Open letter to Forgiven / Bunter / el Rabid (etc.) 74 18 hours ago
Amazon's poor service 188 18 hours ago
Corrupt Honours system 18 19 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  101
Initial post:  17 Sep 2012
Latest post:  9 Oct 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions