Hello everyone, I do not know what exactly interests you to know about me. I guess, origin will be one thing. I am a Kurd from mixed background. Grew up speaking one language (Turkmani) and belonging to another ethnicity/politically, yet studying in a third language (Arabic). While being fed Islam in the school and by my mum, I gradually became an atheist at the age of 14-15. How? Let me be open. My father was a bit charismatic or probably attention seeker and although he never was an atheist he could throw some unconventional ideas around. Other people would be ostracized and even canned for those kinds of thoughts but he would drew some surprising expressions. That inspired my so that was the beginning probably attention seeking is in the gene. Then some older boys used to pit me against other children to discuss if god is true or not. This was late sixties in Iraq. You cannot imagine the same thing happening now. That exercises deepen my capacity for debating and dissipated my fear of god and all those lies. Any way I am an atheist and have been so for close to 4 decades and very proud of as well as grateful for it. Currently my ethnicity does not mean much to me. I believe people belong to moralities rather than accidental groups. We would rather have the company of people from different group than have the company of unbearable relative or compatriot, unless we are tasteless narrow minded which will put us with other narrow minded persons and this proves the point. Why do I join this group? Do not be surprised please. I have come up with a new theory of human nature based in which I make use of Dawkins's selfish gene theory to explain competition between humans. And to avoid being dismissed and shouted off I will paste a very short brief below. I have in fact got my PhD in political theory in exactly this theory from Cardiff university in Wales in the UK, which means I have really defended it successfully. So why do not people know about it? Perhaps, they find it difficult to believe that a Kurdish person can come up with anything remarkable? Or perhaps they cannot even believe themselves that they might be reading something remarkable.
Any way I am prepared to give free electronic copy of my book for anyone willing to read it and assess it. The theory is atheistic, liberal democratic and capable of explaining some aspects of social interactions, political history and politics. Moreover, it offers a non-Freudian psychodynamic theory.
The printed version is available on most online bookstores and it is called ‘Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics.’
This theory finds its roots in the Dawkins’s evolutionary selfish gene theory. It argues that what distinguishes humans, as survival machines, is their potential for utilization of knowledge to create resources and resolve conflict of interests without the inescapable need for using predatory and deceptive methods. It is the realisation of this potential that has made human civilisation possible. However, the condition for civilisation is political order, and this can be established because humans can figure out the social and behavioural codes or moral rules that organise groups and thus create political power. Political power is in itself an important asset or resource and can be exchanged with other resources, and thus it becomes the locus of competition like other resources. This competition brings about instability and may lead to the disintegration of political power if no counter measures were taken. The theory suggests that these countermeasures are involved in certain systems of organisational beliefs (SOB), which if run successfully can provide a unified set of moral rule and maintain stability of political power. Examples of organisational systems of beliefs are religions, ideologies and liberal democracy. It predicts political history on the bases of exploring the repercussions of implementing the various SOBs and the effects of the limitations of these SOBs on the political processes. This theory in fact predicts history surprisingly perfectly. The fact that it is known has nothing to do with the quality of the theory. The benefits of the theory are not restricted only to explaining history. It can also predict the optimal SOB which can promote the utilisation of knowledge to the fullest. Moreover, it can provide additional outlooks to consider human psychology as well as sociology.
For the explanation of competition the theory relies on Dawkins’s selfish gene theory and in general on the Darwinian literature. It also draws on psychological and even neuroscientific literature to explain some aspect of human interaction between emotions and moral and organisational values.

Now you can make your damages and I am a debater because of my childhood experience as I mentioned earlier.

Views: 12

Replies to This Discussion

Shame about the acronym. I believe S.O.B. means "Son of a Bitch" in the US. They even made a film about it - a bad one.

But welcome to Nexus, Showan.
Thanks I missed that but it was funny any way. I should think of changing it.
SOB does indeed mean that in the USA. Bummer.
What an amazing and inspiring story. Welcome Showan! I would be very interested to look at your book though I am by no means a person who could help with editing or anything like that.
Thanks David, Adriana and Larry.
If you want free digital copies this is my email: showan.khurshid@gmail.com
Larry you are right about SOB. And thanks for your care.
OBS isn't bad, but people who disagree with you are bound to emphasize the BS part...damn acronyms. (^_^) Oh well, we had a political party here in Canada almost call themselves Conservative Reform Alliance Party...till they put it together...CRAP.
And if you're not careful my friend, you may step "in it" with our southern friends...LMAO

And my apologies Showan...I seem to have taken it off topic (^_^)
Thanks Larry,
You are really fast reader.
Hope it keeps you interested and worth your while.
I note that in the US a Bachelor of Science is not, as it is here in Canada a BSc, but is instead a BS. But then our friends to the south do seem to have made a science out of it. (~grin~)

Eh, are accredited colleges and universities are solid...but the high schools and unaccredited colleges...ugh, I fear you are right.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Christopher Cosgrove commented on Loren Miller's blog post Seth Andrews - "The Ultimate Question"
11 minutes ago
Christopher Cosgrove shared Loren Miller's blog post on Facebook
22 minutes ago
TNT666 replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion THE ORIGINS OF US ALL—BY DNA GENETIC ANALYSIS in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
1 hour ago
Christopher Cosgrove liked Loren Miller's blog post Seth Andrews - "The Ultimate Question"
1 hour ago
Atheist Exile replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion THE ORIGINS OF US ALL—BY DNA GENETIC ANALYSIS in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
1 hour ago
Atheist Exile liked Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion THE ORIGINS OF US ALL—BY DNA GENETIC ANALYSIS
1 hour ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Dustin Roy's discussion Islam and Nazism
2 hours ago
Atheist Exile replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion THE ORIGINS OF US ALL—BY DNA GENETIC ANALYSIS in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
Michael Penn replied to Christine's discussion Annual visit with the BA in-laws
2 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Russell Pangborn's discussion Atheist Reasoning on Gun Control in the U.S
3 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Why Atheists can't be Republicans
3 hours ago
Gregory Phillip Dearth posted a status
"My second edition of "Tools for Debating Atheism" is now available on Kindle. Much better than the 1st edition... http://j.mp/1zsZBb5"
4 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service