fundamental atheist and fundamental religious are both dangerous because both like to impose their views on others - like a dictator.
edit - actually i will edit that, i don't care what they do, as long as they don't impose their views (they can sell their views though) and they aren't going against the law.
Last edited by usxhe190; 28-12-2007 at 06:58 PM.
You've failed to use either the word 'fundamental' (sic) or the word 'dictator' according to their actual meanings. You need to look up the definition of both those words, I'm afraid.
Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
Well, so long as you don't generalise, everything will be ok.
Ooops, too late. Still, stop now and all is well.
Hehe. 'They'. About as tactful a remark as me referring to gays, blacks or whoever as 'they'. I hear they like Basketball by the way. Or was it pink shirts?They are typically blind to the feelings of others and how their actions affect them.
By thinking you can lump the white, middle class, straight people all in together with a 'they', you are doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about, are you not?There is plenty of evidence for this.
Drop the victim \ inferiority complex please, its nearly 2008. This isn't Nazi Germany, or America in the 50s. If anyone so much as looks at a monitory member in a funny way these days, there is a 10 page pull out special in the Guardian.
"Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" isn't going to wash.
Can you please link to any evidence whereby atheists have imposed their views on the religious? You do realise that an atheist by definition cannot be a fundamentalist right? You should have asked Santa for a dictionary for christmas. As I've stated before most atheists are humanists/rationalists and they are the last people who will torture and kill those that do not do as they do.
Again I'll give you reasons why you are wrong on atheist fundamentalists
Simply read the links in post #58 and you will have a much clearer understanding of atheists.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Fixed my bold. You see where your logic falls down? Probably not because only someone who has a lack of critical thinking could apply such a simple misguided argument. It takes very little brain power to not believe in god(s). Infact you can prove that certain gods do not exist, I suggest you read the thread.
Hardcore atheist? I presume you mean people who don't believe in god and like a particular genre of dance music or pr0n? So please define a hardcore atheist. I bet they don't exist except in your mind, however, "hardcore" religionists do exist, there's lots of them around the world and they cause an awful lot of problems, whether it's the Hindus burning churches, Muslims blowing up public transport or Christians wanting to foist ID onto children in schools without any evidence (I'll leave out the Inquisition for now).
By your opening statement you are declaring yourself as an agnostic atheist (weak atheist) btw.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
What the heck is a hardcore atheist?
I would assume a 'hardcore' religious person is someone who pushes their beliefs on others. The kinda person who stands in the street with a placard with "The end is nye" or has to constantly justify to others their beliefs in religion and their reasoning for doing so.
I've not seen any atheists in the streets lately trying to convert others to their way of thinking. Nor have I seen any that feel the need to tell everyone else of their beliefs; they are usually the quiet ones in my experience.
Or does anyone have a proper explanation as to what a hardcore atheist is?
One thing that always amazes me is the fact that the leaders of any religion usually rely on the defence of "You can't prove God doesn't exist therefore we're right." Ermmm... But they've never proved that God does exist so why should we believe them?
While I believe in religious tolerance I do think that religious leaders have a serious issue with atheism because it affects their 'client base' (for want of a better phrase) and denounce it at every turn while failing to provide any convincing arguments to the contrary.
An Atlantean Triumvirate, Ghosts of the Past, The Centre Cannot Hold
The Pillars of Britain, Foundations of the Reich, Cracks in the Pillars.
My books are available here for Amazon Kindle. Feedback always welcome!
Okay - that was just for humor.
Well, in another thread, I have used the term 'hard-liner atheist'. It is likely an incorrect use of the adjective - but I was trying to find a sugar-coated term for atheists who leaves what I categorise as 'nasty/intolerant' comments mentioned in the first page.
Are those posters worst than people who would blow themselves up killing anyone in the vicinity for their faith? No. They are on a wholly different level. But the religious people I've actually met, even those who have tried to recruit me to their faiths did seem to have better manners.
Lightsabers? I remember results from the last census mentioned Jedi as a religion but I didn't realise the movement was that active
I follow what you're saying, but being nasty / Intolerant makes them an ass, not any more 'hardcore' in atheism
This is continuing the off-topic, but when people are blind...
Unpacking the invisible knapsack - on white privilege
On straight privilege
Those are just the first results from google on these topics. The terms are fairly quickly found by google suggest (indicating their common usage), and there are buckets of articles on these. Middle class privilege is less well defined, but apply the same logic as used in these pieces and you can generally deduce the details.
Most of my links to such material are on my old system, and so are not immediately to hand. But I hope they will not be needed.
Take a listen to Stuart Lee on 'potical correctness' for another take on this issue.
Now, go take a read. Look up on all the writings. Go find members of minority groups, gain their trust, and you'll find this is all very common. Society teaches us to think we're the odd . ones out, but yet it is actually very common. Around were I live, Chinese girls get their houses stoned for being coloured. Sporting groups at the university cause uproar when found to be genuinely homophobic, and don't get me started on the ECU. And none of the students, no matter how nice, get good treatment from their neighbours without the opportunity to make anything much of their lives thanks to the poverty trap.
Last edited by Rosaline; 29-12-2007 at 02:31 AM.
lol, offtopic, i am out
I'm not middle class, I'm not interested in reading any of Peggy McIntosh's paranoid, Feminist nonsense, and I don't need to go and 'find' minority members as I encounter them in my daily life.
And Stuart Lee's statement that the sort of people who say 'PC gone mad' are usually doing it as a cover to attack minorities is wrong.
People say it as a reaction to the middle class left, who are obsessed with trying to enforce ever more bizare and needless changes in society, almost always without the agreement or support of any sort of minority. Usually because they are so paranoid, obsessed with being PC, and ashamed of their own country and culture, that they take it upon themselves to find fault and take offense with anything that can possibly be in some way twisted to appear un-PC or offensive.
Average Joe is anti-PC these days, not because they are secret racists who see PC as a threat to their views, but because they are sick of having pointless PC 'issues', or non issues in the real world, rammed down their throats by Guardian reading, middle class housewives, who think they are Nelson Mandela.
If they would all go away and die under a rock, you'd find that, actually, the situation improves. Massively.
Ask them. Ask the people on this forum. They will tell you.
Last edited by Stewart; 29-12-2007 at 03:04 AM.
I'm not argue over your own life, and I don't recall calling you middle-classed. It's a sensible assumption, given the pay-for nature of internet access and the main subject matter of this forum, and I'm quite happy with it being wrong when it's wrong
In simply dismissing Peggy's writings on white privilege as feminist nonsense, you've neatly avoided a major issue which is at the heart of this, and dismissed the entire concept of Male Privilege (which I forgot to detail) at the same time. Leaving aside your avoidance of male privilege, think about your image of the feminist movement. Almost certainly it's white women. The feminist movement is seriously dominated by the white, and this leads to the experience of coloured women to be ignored. That was one of the major reasons behind that piece.
The fact that you view 'finding' minority members as enough, that you already meet some, to assume that they would then freely and honestly tell you about acts of hate that occur to them is again missing a lot of the point. Pain tends to be a very personal thing. It's well known that a lot of crime victims tend not to report the event to the police. There's a whole mix of shame and violation and a desire for privacy again all going on.
I'll go and find a white, straight male and ask him about acts of hate that occur against them if you like.
Or doesn't that count?
And while I'm at it, what's that Shelias Wheels advert all about? All smacks of sexism to me.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
My only concern is should I hide my true identity? A costume maybe?
