Subtitle: I speak only for myself; I report: you decide.
-=*=-
I see that someone (deliberately unnamed; "I don't want trouble!") used this: "proselitising [sic®] atheists". In the first case; spelling: it's proselytizing[1].
I believe - ooops! See believe[2] and belief[0] - I'll start again. IMHO, the expression 'proselytizing atheists' is technically incorrect.
I cannot, of course, speak for Dawkins (only for myself, see my subtitle), but again IMHO, I believe (Haw! - Balance of probabilities), that not only is there no g*d, but that such a concept is an impossibility according to physics as we know it (i.e. the conservation laws, which have never been shown to be violated); the only possibility - also by definition - is that any g*d[3] is supernatural[4], as would be any related 'soul[5]' concept. At this point the argument goes 'circular,' so we must 'JOOTS.' (Jump out of the system.)
But, my point: IMHO, I do not "not believe" in some g*d construct; I have no 'belief' whatsoever related to any g*d (aka a toadal® absence of belief), I merely say: based on 'the balance of probabilities,' a) there is no evidence - but stronger, b) there can be no evidence, and c) there is no requirement to add unnecessary complication (on the 'keep it simple, stupid' principle) - and so I conclude, that as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a g*d construct. (Except, of course, in the minds of believers; once again we must 'JOOTS.')
I know this gets complicated; SBNTS (sorry but not too sorry); and incidentally I've just discovered that denying the existence of some xxx is considered as yyy by some zzzs. (Interesting when one 'neutralises' the language, eh? Here, 'yyy' is blasphemy.) I'm not happy with my dictionary's atheism[6a,b] definition; I want to say that atheism is "a toadal absence of belief in any g*d construct."
-=*=-
Long story short (part 1): IMHO. 'believers' as a class form a hopeless case; there is no point in attempting to alienate them from their belief. Point here: no conversion of belief is sought (by me). So, in addition to 'proselytizing atheists' being technically incorrect, the task is to argue that any attempt at promulgating the (IMHO!) utterly baseless 'g*d/immortal soul' meme should be postponed to well after any human child can a) fairly evaluate all the nuances, and b) not be bulls**tted by the pernicious death threat.
I believe [Haw the 3rd] there's a concept of 'informed consent?'
-=*=-
Part 2: It's the war, stupid!
(Think you knew that was coming? Well, surprise! I'm not talking here about 'murder for oil' aka war after our money (yet), I wanna pursue the war after our minds first; Ta ra! The propaganda war.)
Our 'prime monster' can hardly open his mouth without issuing some form of fear/threat. In 2001 it was 'queue jumping' asylum seekers who would bring disease and or Islam and or Jihad, you name it. Then comes this:
Certainly, the Howard Government was too tough on asylum seekers circa 2001, but many of these issues have been resolved.
[Gerard Henderson/Amnesty, from the practical truth]
'Scuse? Resolved? How? IMHO, propaganda. Amnesty criticised our prime monster, Henderson comes bashing back. Who pays him, I wonder?
MARGARET SOMERVILLE: They could, but the point is that whether you want to give them the right to have that family. That's the only argument I've got against same-sex marriage, that it gives same sex couples a right, but it simultaneously takes away the right of children to have a mother and a father, to know who their biological parents are and to be reared by them.
[7.30/Prof Somerville discusses the ethics of medical breakthroughs]
Phew! How many (propaganda!) bombs did she just throw? I've not heard of this one before; that same-sex marriage must imply some right to raise a family, and the idea of "know ... their biological parents" seems to be a toadal furphy (although 'fashionable, trendy.') My 7.30-attention was piqued by a prior exposure to this so-called 'ethicist' in an item I saw yesterday:
We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded.
[Margaret Somerville/Fundamentalism, religious or secular, gets us nowhere]
Astounding! But there's more, much more. So much, that I'm not gunna quote anymore; I've given the links... Oh, alright; just one more:
Richard Dawkins' basic presumption is that there is no God and, therefore, that those who believe there is must prove it. But the equally valid basic presumption is that there is a God and those who don't believe that must prove it. Because both are tenable basic presumptions, both must be accommodated in a secular society.
[ibid.]
IMHO, there's at least two things wrong with this; a) although as said, I cannot speak for Dawkins (only for myself), I am under the impression that it is an accepted principle that science can neither prove nor disprove any 'g*d delusion,' so this whole 'proof paragraph,' as in 'proselytizing atheists' discusses an invalid concept. Then b) I think Somerville is a propagandist arguing for some role for religion in society ('accommodated'), which would conflict with the necessary separation of church and state. Again IMHO, religion would be best ignored, and its promulgation to minors prevented. My opinion. And whatever it is that Somerville is selling, I'm not buying.
-=*=-
Fundamentalism has no 'two sides,' atheism is not the opposite of belief but the absence of belief. Fundamentalism is the extreme form of religion, and religious belief itself is irrational (by definition). Religion is being used (yeah, by both 'sides') but for almost no good purpose (I can't think of any). The Anglo(Christian)CoW® is deploying religion as a propaganda tool against us, we the sheople®, to inveigle our compliance with the malfeasances of TWOT (a manufactured crisis, see 'murder for oil), just as the mostly oil-owning 'towel-heads' employ religion as a tool, i.e. suicide bombers, say - in an attempt to fend off the murdering CoW occupier/thieves (See Perkins' "Dying to win.")
-=*end*=-
PS This topic is 'Morality without a God.' Each and everyone of B, B & H claims various degrees of religious association, yet all are involved in deeply immoral acts, up to and including mass-murder for spoil. Morality exists, and can be present with or without religion; I claim it could be, should be toadally independent. Saying "Can't legislate morality!" is a full-strength cop-out; within a very short period I formalised my own morality (see the chezPhil morality; here a summary: leave each other alone, do no harm!) - almost all one would ever need as a basis for a fair society. What we drastically need is the rule of (fair!) law, what we are living through (and sooo many dying through) is a total travesty; a completely immoral and lawless nightmare.
Ref(s):
[0] From my 'faith, hope and charity_1678,' 'belief:'
... With sooo many words in the English language, it's too bad that we're stuck with this awkward dichotomy; a) 'belief' in some 'g*d' (i.e. on zero evidence, aka 'faith') and b) 'belief' in some thing based on 'hard-data' someone has adjudicated (aka science), or as a slightly inferior 'balance of probabilities' (aka best fit to partial evidence). In summary, the same word 'belief,' used both with and without evidence. Silly, really. If I use 'belief' on my own behalf, it is exclusively in the evidence-based sense.
[1] proselytize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) (also absol.) convert or seek to convert from one belief etc. to another. [POD]
[2] believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith. believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [ibid.]
[3] g*d n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. [ibid. - '*' mine.]
[4] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc. supernaturally adv. [ibid.]
[5] soul n. 1 spiritual or immaterial part of a person, often regarded as immortal. 2 moral, emotional, or intellectual nature of a person.
[6a] atheism n. belief that there is no God. atheist n. atheistic adj. [Greek a- not, theos god] [ibid.]
[6b] atheism noun [mass noun] the theory or belief that God does not exist.
DERIVATIVES
atheist noun
atheistic adjective
atheistical adjective.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’. [Oxford Pop-up]
No comments:
Post a Comment