A Treatise on Atheists.

Eramen

bluewolf wrote: »

No, people didn't, men did

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, we should whitewash history and pretend none of that happened, cool

I beseech you dear atheists, man of fact, to quash these statements of ignorance.

This is an ideological crutch and nothing more, an explanation that you have chosen to provide an narrative to your life situation. It's devoid of historical humility and knowledge.

Men and religion can't solely be picked out and blamed for societies woes, neither now or in the past. "Whitewashing history' indeed.

Bannasidhe

Eramen wrote: »

I beseech you dear atheists, man of fact, to quash these statements of ignorance.

This is an ideological crutch and nothing more, an explanation that you have chosen to provide an narrative to your life situation. It's devoid of historical humility and knowledge.

Men and religion can't solely be picked out and blamed for societies woes, neither now or in the past. "Whitewashing history' indeed.

Look. If you are going to play the history card - cite your sources dammit!!!

:mad:

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

PS Is there a course somewhere that teaches you how to write this stuff?

Lots of them. But it's just easier to use these two sites:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ (first para, postmodernist names changed to "new atheist" names)
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ ("In summary...")

A bit like John Waters, they are white noise generators for the mind, artisans of dimensionless bollocks.

Eramen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look. If you are going to play the history card - cite your sources dammit!!!

:mad:

Look. I'm not here for internet forum debates. They are a waste of time. I'm dropping in my opinion. I didn't even create this thread, some butthurt mod did because they wanted to subject what I said to a bashing via 'atheist' group-think.

Please tell the others who made even more baseless claims than myself to provide their sources and stop having a fit.

Bannasidhe

Eramen wrote: »

Look. I'm not here for internet forum debates. They are a waste of time. I'm dropping in my opinion. I didn't even create this thread, some butthurt mod did because they wanted to subject what I said to a bashing via 'atheist' group-think.

Please tell the others who made even more baseless claims than myself to provide their sources and stop having a fit.

If you are going to use an academic discipline ( one which I have studied and trained in for many many decades) as a means to provide some sort of foundation for your soapboxing polemic then you cannot be surprised when you are asked to substantiate your rhetoric by meeting the evidentary requirements of that discipline.

Your defensiveness when called upon to do so speaks volumes.

Eramen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you are going to use an academic discipline ( one which I have studied and trained in for many many decades) as a means to provide some sort of foundation for your soapboxing polemic then you cannot be surprised when you are asked to substantiate your rhetoric by meeting the evidentary requirements of that discipline.

Your defensiveness when called upon to do so speaks volumes.

Of course it does.. And you asking me to further streamline and flesh out arguments to please internet-heads?

<Personal stuff removed.>

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

I'm not here for internet forum debates.

A strange thing to say on a debating forum on the internet.

Eramen wrote: »

[...] some butthurt mod [...]

Any more of that kind of silliness and you'll be carded.

Brian Shanahan

tawnyowl wrote: »

What does a "unified society" look like and why is it desirable?

The "unified society" ideal was most commonly expressed in fascist dictatorships. Other notable examples are Pol Pot's Cambodia and North Korea (both nominally communist), and China under the cultural revolution (mainstream communist).

Brian Shanahan

Eramen wrote: »

We already know ...

Eranem, the myths you trot out regularly and what is generally known are two vastly different things. Just FYI.

Absolam

What's historical humility? Is it humbleness in the light of past events, or a display of obeisances through the ages? Do we have to pay to get in, or is being Catholic good enough?

seamus

Eramen wrote: »

Of course it does.. and this comes from an 'atheist'/feminist. I'm in the middle of professional exams myself. And you asking me to further streamline and flesh out arguments to please internet-heads?

So basically what you're saying is that the people on this forum aren't worth going to the effort of backing up your posts with anything of substance. The exact same people to whom you direct your posts.

So if you have no respect for those on this forum by way of the fact that you feel them unworthy of any kind of intellectual effort, then why waste your time directing your energies towards them?

Could it be that in fact you are just regurgitating the ideologies of others without applying any form of intellectual criticism or consideration upon them? One of the key things you complain about in your opening tirade?

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh yeh there are definitely some bigoted atheists but they don't claim to be subscribe to a doctrine of "Love thy neighbour", "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so on.

I regret that I have to disagree totally with that. The ONLY thing that unites Atheists is that they do not believe in supernatural beings usually referred to as god(s). Other than that it is open season. Many Atheists agree with massive amounts in common with religious people, and that can easily include "Love thy neighbour", "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so on. Concepts that I, personally, would see as guiding principles of my own life.

Piliger

bluewolf wrote: »

No, people didn't, men did

No. People did.

Piliger

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, we should whitewash history and pretend none of that happened, cool

Your version of history.

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look. If you are going to play the history card - cite your sources dammit!!!

:mad:

I would suggest you get an education. My source is the history of the world. What's yours ?

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

I would suggest you get an education. My source is the history of the world. What's yours ?

Go play who has the biggest swinging mickey with someone else please. I ain't interested.

Turtwig

Piliger wrote: »

I would suggest you get an education. My source is the history of the world. What's yours ?

You were previous banned from this forum for this style of provocative posting. There's no need for such snide tone.

Femme_Fatale

Eramen wrote: »

Men and religion can't solely be picked out and blamed for societies woes, neither now or in the past.

I'm not sure people are doing that? But stating that women had no say at times historically is not a blame-game, just a statement of how things were.

Piliger wrote: »

The ONLY thing that unites Atheists is that they do not believe in supernatural beings usually referred to as god(s). Other than that it is open season. Many Atheists agree with massive amounts in common with religious people, and that can easily include "Love thy neighbour", "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so on. Concepts that I, personally, would see as guiding principles of my own life.

Yeh of course. But christians have to subscribe to them in order to adhere to the tenets of their faith (which is a good thing) yet some of them seem to think they don't have to.

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

Lots of them. But it's just easier to use these two sites:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ (first para, postmodernist names changed to "new atheist" names)
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ ("In summary...")

A bit like John Waters, they are white noise generators for the mind, artisans of dimensionless bollocks.

Ah now you have ruined it for me. I had visions of Mr dch slaving away for hours to create the perfect post, but it turns out that it was just the interwebz thingy :mad:

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

I had visions of Mr dch slaving away for hours to create the perfect post, but it turns out that it was just the interwebz thingy

Well, why bother write postmodern when there's a site that'll do it for you?

Anyway, the artisans of dimensionless bollocks is original with me though -- does that make up for the earlier lack of originality?

.

Turtwig

equivariant wrote: »

Ah now you have ruined it for me. I had visions of Mr dch slaving away for hours to create the perfect post, but it turns out that it was just the interwebz thingy :mad:

We could make it a bannable offence in the charter to use such tools.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm not sure people are doing that? But stating that women had no say at times historically is not a blame-game, just a statement of how things were.

The truth about how things were is that women were the main force behind men most of the time, and they were often more powerful than the men who held official positions, and the family positions.

Yeh of course. But christians have to subscribe to them in order to adhere to the tenets of their faith (which is a good thing) yet some of them seem to think they don't have to.

No such rules. I don't know a single christian religion where those tennets are compulsory.

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

Very well pointed out. The reason Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists' don't attack Islam and Judaism .................

Wrong, as ever.
https://www.google.ie/#q=richard+dawkins+islam

shruikan2553

Jernal wrote: »

We could make it a bannable offence in the charter to use such tools.

If your altering the charter could you add a definition for atheism? Theres a different one every second thread so you have a lot to choose from.

Turtwig

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If your altering the charter could you add a definition for atheism? Theres a different one every second thread so you have a lot to choose from.

Yep.
It shall be
"The doctrine of denying the almighty Feather."

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If your altering the charter could you add a definition for atheism? Theres a different one every second thread so you have a lot to choose from.

I think we'd have to agree on what atheism is first.

Any thoughts anybody?

smacl

robindch wrote: »

I think we'd have to agree on what atheism is first.

Any thoughts anybody?

The common noun as defined in any of the major dictionaries works just fine for me. Once you find that definition doesn't suffice, I think you need to either qualify the word, or use a different term altogether.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

The truth about how things were is that women were the main force behind men most of the time, and they were often more powerful than the men who held official positions, and the family positions.

Really? Wonder what all that women's lib/suffragettes stuff was about so. (Not denying the matriarchy phenomenon but it obviously didn't grant women, overall, that much power in fairness).

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Really? Wonder what all that women's lib/suffragettes stuff was about so. (Not denying the matriarchy phenomenon but it obviously didn't grant women, overall, that much power in fairness).

It did actually. Doesn't mean reform wasn't desperately, but it wasn't for lack of power in how society was run. I also fail to understand what all this has to do with the topic.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

I think we'd have to agree on what atheism is first.

Any thoughts anybody?

First rule of atheism; nobody talks about atheism.

Second rule of atheism; there are no more rules of atheism.

cathalobrien

I have no thoughts on Atheism. As for Atheists, I think that they spend too much time disbelieving in the existence of one or more gods. Don't they have something better to do? There is no distinction between the absence of a god and a god that does nothing. Atheism is about the the "absence" branch, but the nothing branch has the same result and doesn't even require the energy necessary to disbelieve, which isn't much. Rather than calling theists on their BS, their time would be better served by ignoring them. And, if theist must be engaged, it is easier to undermine their premise ("God did [blank]") than their conclusion ("God exists").

Qs

It takes zero effort to not believe in something. Its like the easiest thing ever.

Piliger

cathalobrien wrote: »

I have no thoughts on Atheism. As for Atheists, I think that they spend too much time disbelieving in the existence of one or more gods. Don't they have something better to do? There is no distinction between the absence of a god and a god that does nothing. Atheism is about the the "absence" branch, but the nothing branch has the same result and doesn't even require the energy necessary to disbelieve, which isn't much. Rather than calling theists on their BS, their time would be better served by ignoring them. And, if theist must be engaged, it is easier to undermine their premise ("God did [blank]") than their conclusion ("God exists").

Y.A.W.N.

smacl

cathalobrien wrote: »

As for Atheists, I think that they spend too much time disbelieving in the existence of one or more gods.

The time isn't spent dealing with the disbelief in gods so much as dealing with those that insist on such a preposterous notion being true, and worse still, those trying to indoctrinate our kids with this dangerous fantasy.

Piliger

smacl wrote: »

The time isn't spent dealing with the disbelief in gods so much as dealing with those that insist on such a preposterous notion being true, and worse still, those trying to indoctrinate their kids with this dangerous fantasy.

LOL ..yes. I have never encountered another atheist and discussed religion. It is so boring. Religion only comes up when theists start sounding off.

Brian Shanahan

cathalobrien wrote: »

I have no thoughts on Atheism. As for Atheists, I think that they spend too much time disbelieving in the existence of one or more gods.

Unless I'm asked about my disbelief, I spend fcuk-all time thinking about my disbelief. Just the same as I spend fcuk-all time thinking about my disbelief of flying pigs, Klingons landing on Mars or any of the infinite imaginable things I've no need to think about.

recedite

Eramen wrote: »

This trend accelerated into the enlightenment and brought about the industrial revolution. Modern atheism simply continues on in this vain, further deracinating the masses from their human culture and values... yadda, yadda, yadda.....

I'm surprised the thread has got this far without anyone commenting on the Freudian (or deliberate ?) slip in the OP.
Is it meant to be "atheism continuing on in vain" or "atheism continues in this vein"
Kudos for the word "deracinating" though. I had to look that one up.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

It did actually.

No it didn't.
If it did, there wouldn't have been the feminist movement.

lazygal

cathalobrien wrote: »

I have no thoughts on Atheism. As for Atheists, I think that they spend too much time disbelieving in the existence of one or more gods. Don't they have something better to do? There is no distinction between the absence of a god and a god that does nothing. Atheism is about the the "absence" branch, but the nothing branch has the same result and doesn't even require the energy necessary to disbelieve, which isn't much. Rather than calling theists on their BS, their time would be better served by ignoring them. And, if theist must be engaged, it is easier to undermine their premise ("God did [blank]") than their conclusion ("God exists").

I'm sure there's thousands of gods you don't believe in. How much time does that take up?

Bannasidhe

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No it didn't.
If it did, there wouldn't have been the feminist movement.

In 1848, A Convention attended by men and women was held in Seneca Falls, New York.

At the end of the Convention the following Declaration was produced - deliberately based on the U.S Declaration of Independence (considered the most socially liberal document of it's time) it highlighted how the 'Founding Father's' of the U.S had utterly failed to factor in the existence of 'Founding Mothers'.

No one at the time denied the truth of it - what was argued was whether or not women were really capable of being equal to men.

The Declaration of Sentiments

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having as a direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Resolved, that woman is man’s equal, was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

Some seem to be arguing that this was not the case - that women were the 'power' behind men. People who are denied property rights, the vote, who have all but the most basic education closed to them, when their wages are not their own, nor their children (fathers were automatically granted custody) they have no 'power' and to claim they do is akin to saying slaves on a Cotton Plantation were the 'real' beneficiaries.

It cannot be disputed that women did not have equal status with men and this rendered them legally similar to children - humans who do not have the ability to make informed decisions for themselves and therefore must be 'protected'. Of course male children acquired this ability when they attained the age of majority - meaning a son became more 'capable' then his mother.

Someone recently compiled this list of 10 things Irish women couldn't do in the 1970s

1. Keep their jobs in the public service or in a bank once they married

Women who worked in the civil service had to resign from their jobs when they became wives.

2. Sit on a jury

Any Irish citizen who sat on a jury had to be property owners according to the 1927 Juries Act, thus excluding the majority of women.

3. Buy contraceptives

According to the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act, the import, sale and distribution of contraceptives was illegal. As a result the majority of women had no access to contraceptives, apart from the Pill which was sometimes prescribed as a "cycle regulator".

4. Drink in a pub

During the 1970s, most bars refused to allow women to enter a pub. Those who allowed women to enter generally did not serve females pints of beer.

5. Collect their Children’s Allowance

In 1944, the legislation that introduced the payment of child benefits to parents specified they could only be paid to the father.

6. Women were unable to get a barring order against a violent partner

7. Before 1976 they were unable to own their home outright

According to Irish Law, women had no right to share the family home and her husband could sell their property without her consent.


8. Women could not refuse to have sex with their husband

A husband had the right to have sex with his wife and consent was not an issue in the eyes of the law.

9. Choose her official place of residence

Once married, a woman was deemed to have the same "domicile" as her husband.

10. Women could not get the same pay for jobs as men

In March 1970, the average hourly pay for women was five shillings, while that for men was over nine. The majority of women were paid less than male counterparts.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131.html#ixzz2v8PJ1R3P

I grew up in that Ireland. I remember it well.

It existed. This is a historical fact.

Piliger

No idea whatsoever what this has to do with Atheists.... :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

No idea whatsoever what this has to do with Atheists.... :rolleyes:

No idea why you felt the need to weigh in and deny it but there we are.

You do like :rolleyes: don't you.

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No idea why you felt the need to weigh in and deny it but there we are.

You do like :rolleyes: don't you.

I denied it because it is wrong. Am I not entitled to point out that it is also nothing to do with the thread ?

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

I denied it because it is wrong. Am I not entitled to point out that it is also nothing to do with the thread ?

It's not wrong.

You just don't want it to be right.

Saying something is wrong without providing a shed of evidence to support your position is not within the spirit of this particular forum either but there you go doing just that.

It may have nothing to do with this thread as you say, but then discussions in A&A tend to be freewheeling and I , personally, trust the mods judgement when it comes to declaring what is and is not open for discussion.

I have seen no on-thread warning by a mod to cease this line of discussion but if I do I shall abide by that.

Ironic that you keep bring in up again...

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not wrong.

You just don't want it to be right.

Saying something is wrong without providing a shed of evidence to support your position is not within the spirit of this particular forum either but there you go doing just that.

My understanding is that this is a discussion forum, not a court. The so called evidence presented above is totally irrelevant to the point I tackled which was women's power and influence. Every opinion does not require some kind of 'evidence', especially when it doesn't even pertain to the issue. Opinion is also about argument, logical and rational thinking, hence we are in an atheism forum.

Also I didn't try to tell anyone not to post or what is open to discussion, or interfere with modding. I only simply commented in passing, because I am interested in the original topic and what people have to say about it.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

My understanding is that this is a discussion forum, not a court. The so called evidence presented above is totally irrelevant to the point I tackled which was women's power and influence. Every opinion does not require some kind of 'evidence', especially when it doesn't even pertain to the issue. Opinion is also about argument, logical and rational thinking, hence we are in an atheism forum.

Also I didn't try to tell anyone not to post or what is open to discussion, or interfere with modding. I only simply commented in passing, because I am interested in the original topic and what people have to say about it.

Piliger, that is a cop-out and you know it.

The evidence I presented demonstrated using a primary source just some of the rights men enjoyed which women did not. How this gender bias meant real power was a male preserve not this nebulous and ill-defined 'influence' and 'behind every man' crap you maintain women allegedly wielded.

Your response was a definitive statement : 'I denied it because it is wrong'. No mention of opinion there.

I am not giving my opinion. I am simply stating demonstrable historical fact. In my experience, that is the kind of thing that passes for discussion in this forum.

If I am incorrect why not use argument, logical and rational thinking to demonstrate I am wrong?



Did I say you were telling anyone what to write or what to discuss? No. I didn't.

Yes - we know you think this has no place in an atheist (you forgot the agnostics btw) forum - you have said so at least three times I think but it seems the mods do not agree and so we can happily continue discussing it - me with facts and you with opinion- until someone distracts us with biscuits. Or ice cream. Or cake.

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - we know you think this has no place in an atheist (you forgot the agnostics btw) forum - you have said so at least three times I think but it seems the mods do not agree and so we can happily continue discussing it - me with facts and you with opinion- until someone distracts us with biscuits. Or ice cream. Or cake.

I haven't said any such thing. You keep saying I said it. I have never said it has no place.

I've made my point women's power and influence and I'll leave it there.

Sierra 117

Bannasidhe wrote: »

until someone distracts us with biscuits. Or ice cream. Or cake.

Or ice cream cake. Which I am certain is a real thing. And if not, should be.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

It did actually. Doesn't mean reform wasn't desperately, but it wasn't for lack of power in how society was run. I also fail to understand what all this has to do with the topic.

Piliger wrote: »

No idea whatsoever what this has to do with Atheists.... :rolleyes:

Piliger wrote: »

I denied it because it is wrong. Am I not entitled to point out that it is also nothing to do with the thread ?

Piliger wrote: »

I haven't said any such thing. You keep saying I said it. I have never said it has no place.

Did I say you said it has no place? Maybe I did. If so I apologise. I should have said you keep complaining about us discussing this topic in this thread.

That you most certainly said - More than once.


Search function is the researchers friend so I have quoted them above.



But sure - you can leave it there if you wish. It's not like you have any counter-argument beyond personal opinion anyway.

Brian Shanahan

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Or ice cream cake. Which I am certain is a real thing. And if not, should be.

It is. Praise Jeebus!