Neo-Atheists

Parent Cafe
501

<p>

'</p>

<p>Contrarily, as Bill Buckley, I would have to conclude that I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard…or, more to the point, the publishers and readership of Mensa.</p>

<p>To be sure, it was a sublime genius that allowed some of the great atheists of our time like Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot etc., to reorganize, nay, exterminate those they deemed intellectually or politically inferior to them; a kind of cultural eugenics.</p>

<p>Borat:
Great success!</p>

502

<p>

</p>

<p>In a turn of phrase, I would suggest that Atheists often claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are views other than their own.</p>

<p>Or, to quote your own peculiar genius, I would repeat your admonition that suggests that "the fact that you are so insulted by opposing views shows your insecurity with your views" --indeed it does.</p>

<p>Or, put differently: tough it out, my so sensitive friend.</p>

<p>And, as I have said, I have no c-ock in this fight, I am merely commenting on the inconsistencies in the totalitarian atheist/anti-Christian crowd; I myself do not practice the religion, or for that matter, any religion in particular.</p>

503

<p>FS= your stretch from a study that shows the generally the more educated a person is the less likely they may be as religious to pol pot is indeed entertaining</p>

<p>Read a bit on the founding fathers and their beliefs…not as cookie cutter as many would like to think</p>

<p>Why the aversion to the possibility that the study may have some accuracy?</p>

504

<p>and yes indeed, you do have bird in this fight…to claim otherwise is a bit ludicorus on its face</p>

<p>you generaly have equated atheists with murderious thugs…</p>

<p>your arguments are intellictually dishonest, but do what you have to do, proof is in the pudding as they say</p>

505

<p>Well, thank God Bill Buckley ain’t runnin this country!!</p>

<p>F’nSiren,</p>

<p>I think you are confusing atheism with communism/totalitarianism. Altho coms/tots must necessarily be atheistic, atheists are not necessarily coms/tots. Believe it or not, I even know some Republicans who are atheists!!!</p>

506

<p>And Christians, one would assume, do not have to be high school drop-outs.</p>

<p>Still, the only real experience the world has endured with official atheism has resulted in the greatest horrors mankind has ever known.</p>

<p>…hey, my best friend is a liberal atheist with no plans for world domination…it can happen.</p>

507

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>I believe it is quite likely accurate. </p>

<p>I just fail to see the relevance; I am, as always, for the little guy even if he lacks Mensa’s coveted–though ridiculous–imprimatur. The uni-bomber was an environmental genius and a member in good standing of Mensa: A really smart guy!</p>

<p>I cannot help but find you and your crew’s elitism distasteful–bad form, in fact.</p>

<p>I love the common man…and woman: even the ones without PhDs, MBAs or Mensa cards possessing a certain fondness for chichi causes and petite rebellion. I cannot stomach the constant disdain of the beer drinker; the working man and the roller-derby queen in these tea-totaling pinky-fingered liberal forums. </p>

<p>What a tough, if hyper-sensitive, crowd.</p>

508

<p>Report published in Mensa Magazine? (Wonder who’s buying this magazine?:rolleyes:). I don’t believe it for a second. No offense to the ladies and gentlemen here, of course.</p>

509

<h1>501 Jeans.</h1>

<p>FS states: “To be sure, it was a sublime genius that allowed some of the great atheists of our time like Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot etc., to reorganize, nay, exterminate those they deemed intellectually or politically inferior to them; a kind of cultural eugenics.”</p>

<p>There you go again, making a another leap of faith that these people were atheists. You could argue that these people thought they were the living god.
They certainly had the physical power to be god over their flock. And they used that power until some heathen took their power away.</p>

510

<p>“I love the common man…and woman:”</p>

<p>FSiren,</p>

<p>I, for one, am pleased to know you have a heart. Have a wonderful day!</p>

511

<p>ITM,</p>

<p>I simply take them at their word. </p>

<p>They seemed to believe they <em>were</em> atheists. I have no evidence beyond that. I believe you to be hampered by the same frustrating inability to wage a counter-argument. What’s more, they instituted officially—codified—atheist states; the practice of a belief in god was a crime. I understand that you would have preferred they not share your materialist sympathies.</p>

<p>In this regard, the Pope of the Catholic Church calls himself a Christian; I take him at his word, as well.</p>

<p>In sum, I simply lack the constitution to dispute the confessions of historical figures; especially as concerns their most deep seated beliefs and sense of self. I can, on the other hand, judge their acts as indicative of their beliefs, to a degree limited by their historical acts. Sadly, I cannot contradict either their claims or their acts, and they are a matter of modern record.</p>

<p>They believed they were atheists; meaning simply, they did not believe in the divine; moreover, I do not believe that there exists some Atheistic-ethic that failed them, as I am unaware that one exists to judge them by. They say they did not believe in god. That makes them an atheist. To me, this is an indisputable fact.</p>

512

<p>^ FS: #511 Jeans. “They” may have codified atheism by your definition. In my definition “they” actually codified God as being “Themselves.” “They” had the real power of life-death, feast-famine, etc. Does your God have the power of life & death?</p>

513

<p>One would suppose, but the actual killers are men:
whether they believe in a spiritual life or not.</p>

<p>For me, it is enough to say that Stalin, for instance, seemed infected with the viral strain that seems to convince too many atheists that there is nothing in this life greater than themselves; they tend to be the center of their own claustrophobic universe. </p>

<p>It is not only a natural assumption, but an obvious one in the anti-metaphysics of the atheist–as opposed, in part, to the agnostic and the theist. It is my experience that those that define themselves as atheists tend to be very sure of themselves and their world view–it tends to be prescriptive in the extreme; this phenomenon was certainly no stranger to Stalin.</p>

<p>In the very least, this was the opinion of many of Stalin’s victims: Stalin’s atheism informed his world view and his sense of self. From Natan Sharansky to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, first hand accounts of those who suffered under the totalitarian horror of Stalin believed that his atheism was essential to his habit. </p>

<p>If you ask “Wasn’t Stalin a theist because he acted as if he was god?” </p>

<p>I would answer that he did no such thing.
He acted like an evil man, not a god. He did not, as far as I know, believe that he transcended time or that he was omnipotent and omniscient—the defining characteristics of a god or even a deluded god-wanna-be.<br>
His ambitions were as temporal as his methods.
Same with Mao, Pol Pot, etc.</p>

<p>Start with Solzhenitsyn’s behemoth “Gulag Archipelago”: It’s riveting, disturbing and true.</p>

514

<p>and who is the “common man” what does that mean
that phrase itself is elitists…I would never use that, I find no one common, i find everyone unique</p>

<p>are you saying “common” people can’t have ecletic tastes, or that they all read Road and Track and People…who</p>

<p>so you are saying the common people aren’t smart…</p>

<p>wow an you call ME elitist</p>

515

<p>I am quite common, as is my family. </p>

<p>Dad drives a truck, though I don’t know that he reads Road & Track. I do not own a vehicle, and as I commute by train I would have no use for Road and Track unless it were train-tracks. </p>

<p>I suppose others are mysteriously special in this and other senses of the term.
Perhaps even you.
Congratulations.</p>

516

<p>Your words are too long for me, FS.
I’d argue that these personages acted as god. But to argue who and what is god is meaningless because only God(s) would know. </p>

<p>Its getting to be a point where everything is this way or that. I am sometimes getting to the philosophy of the REVERSE of our second mantra of the 60’s.</p>

517

<p>Reply to CGM, with apologies to Curmudgeon:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>ITM,
sorry for the long words. I try.</p>

518

<p>Some here (not all) should be elevated to the status of <em>Everyman.</em></p>

519

<p>so, who do you consider, not the common man/woman</p>

<p>if you love the common man, and have put people into such catergories, then I would assume there are those that don’t fit the category of common people and who, pray tell would that be</p>

520

<p>how do you know that I don’t fit into your version of common, or that I do</p>

<p>as I said, I would never be as presumptuous to call anyone common…are we talking financial here, or are we talking values, or are we talking education or are we talking likes and dislkes</p>

<p>to give an example, Bush likes to consider himself a common type of guy, where in his background is he the least bit “common” as seems to be the definition by example used by FS</p>

<p>I know some pretty rich, high falutien (sp) people whi drive trucks…</p>

<p>As for the examples given about taking the train, well, isn’t that often a practicle matter?</p>

<p>My Ds don’t own cars, I own a soccervan and my H drives a truck…</p>

<p>While my H has a very very very rich friend, who, would not be considered “common” trying to decifer FS standards, who loves driving his pick-up…so would he be “common” because of the truck</p>

<p>I also know some people that are in debt up to HERE who drive the nicest cars around…what category do they fit into</p>

<p>See, lumping people into categories by appearances is not the best idea…</p>

<p>Would you consider the contractor who builds his own homes but is worth millions “common”? I am just trying to figure out where I fit into all this…we aren’t worth millions by any stretch, but we have been able to travel…we will borrow so Ds can go to college, but I have been to Paris…confusing isn’t it</p>

<p>My Ds walk to school or take public transporation to get to school and around town, while their friends own cars and haven’t traveled as much</p>

<p>Its choices…</p>

<p>I still wonder at the words common man/woman…boggles the mind</p>