I am so happy to find atheists, as we all share the same thought, and all of us all over the world are one, as all of us are surrounded and targeted by the evil religious powers, and with their evil intents of religious slavery, tyranny, exploitation aiming at controlling, and governing the independent and the enlightened and the illuminated free thought and intellect.
Well, looks like we have a lot in common. I did not begin with a life of religiosity though. Being born in a family of atheists, I was always an atheist but India is deeply religious so I have been in close contact with religious people of all sorts. I think this has led me to appreciate atheists and agnostics a lot more. ;-)
I just read your statement under "about me" and agree with your views completely. It's good to know other people are out there who can see the obvious patterns in all "religions." I am tribally Jewish, but rejected the organized aspects of this and all other religions really early on in my life. On occasion I have revisited the temple and still find the entire concept and the atmosphere impossibly narrow. Call me a pantheist, individualist, humanist. But man, it's hard to be out here on my own in this day and age of religious fervor. Everybody has a "church" they go to! I guess in the end people are just scared to be alone, or to have ideas and beliefs that go against their culture's general grain.
truly enjoyed reading your statement under "about me"...in my journey i have learned that it is a far greater thing to convert folks to rationalism and facing the true reasons for their belief than to work toward prosyletizing for a socio-political construct that has only really survived for reasons other than winning souls. i have yet to become desensitized to the abject idiocy of christianity. every time i write or talk about it, i cringe.
Paul: I just took some time to look at all the quotes you have in your slide show. I am very impressed! I thought I had found all the best quotes for my book, but you have a few I have not seen before. Wish I had seen them before I finished the book.
Paul: Great to hear from you. Sounds like we have traveled similar paths. I wish I had arrived at the conclusions you have much earlier, but glad I arrived, nevertheless. Have read the book? If so, please leave a review on Amazon. We are just starting the publicity for the book and are getting some good reviews. I am also very interested in your response to the book's concepts since you say you could have written it yourself. There is still much to write and explore in this area. I am thinking of my next book and will probably include more personal stories in it. I would love to hear more from you. If you haven't gotten the book yet, we can't seem to keep it in stock at Amazon, but you can order it directly from our website www.thegodvirus.net.
as far as 'justice', its only a word defined in millions of different ways -- AGAIN, AGREED. IT DEPENDS ON WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE YOU ARE ON.
my point was however that men may rape and molest as they please and then have to face MALE judges who dictate laws created by MALES. budgets and legislations are not prioritized to protect women and girls from the most common abuses. money and energy is spent on war toys. -- ALL VERY TRUE, INDEED.
women leaders would prioritize different things and would erradicate the abuse of women and girls by any and all means necessary. -- AGREED, THEY PROBABLY WOULD.
i cannot see how there is any doubt in your mind that feminists in power would do this. -- I GUESS I DON'T DOUBT THAT THE FEMINISTS PROBABLY WOULD, BUT THE PALIN TYPES WOULD NOT. I'VE HEARD RELIGIOUS WOMEN JUSTIFY MALE DOMINATION BEFORE.
and i dont 'want' men to suffer under the rule of women. i said that if, as you say is possible, women become tyrants in turn, i would prefer that men suffer instead of women and little girls. -- OKAY, I SEE.
as far as the average american male, they make the same arguments as men have for millennia: -- I BET THEY DO.
that men are stronger and therefore belong in power; that men are ruled by logic rather than emotion (which is ridiculous) -- BY LOGIC? HA!
they dont see a problem with the way things are -- NO, THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPT AND SELFISH AND CRUEL OFTEN DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING. IT IS ONLY SENSITIVE SOULS, THOSE WHO SEEK JUSTICE, AND THE FAIR-MINDED THAT EVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING. SUCH IS THE WORLD, I GUESS! :(
THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DISCUSS WITH ME PAUL, I APPRECIATE IT.
Also I don't see how there is justice in "if women then chose to become even worse than their male predecessors and make men suffer under their rule, i would much prefer this to women suffering under the rule of men."
To me, I don't wany anyone to suffer or be disenfranchised, and I have a hard time understanding why you would be okay with that. Is it just about men having their comeuppance?
Also, I'm curious. How does the average American male respond to your arguments you are presenting here? I would imagine you get a lot of flack for it, and a lot of resistance.
Sorry it took me so long to repsondd to you. You said "a sytem that makes it impossible for the few to make the many do something that would harm the many."
To me, that sounds like politics as usual, and I think Republicans are especially adept at convincing their followers to support ideas that are not in their best interest.
However, I don't put as much faith in female leaders as you seem to be able to do, e.g. " would prefer that women had authority, whatever they may choose to do with it.", as I think they can be just as fallable as men. I'll grant that they would do things differently, but when you say "would they create legislature that called for gang rapes of women in the streets? hardly.", and I agree, but men don't have laws that say that is okay either. Though I'll admit that Middle Eastern countries are screwed up for killing women that have been raped. Surely women would change that tradition.
Paul wrote: "for example when male world leaders have disagreements, they start wars in which children are killed and women are raped. female leaders would be very hesitant to do this."
In nature, the male sex is often defending the female sex and offspring. The female sex doesn't do it because it's not psychologically or physically disposed to be able to --- usually. But there again, because it doesn't have the disposition, and therefore the experience, its defensiveness can be more grisly and incounsellable than the male's.
Paul, I completely agree with you about the terrible job that men have done in this world, and how they are all too willing to sacrifice their children over disputes that are generally based on greed, power, pride, maliciousness, and the like. They really cannot be trusted, as you say. But is that the fault of their maleness, or their humanity?
You say that women would not be like this, and I will have to admit that when I was younger I felt the same way you did about women's ability to rule with more diplomacy and compassion. But now I am not so sure. Do you think Sara Palin would behave any differently than Bush, just because she was a woman? You say that "female leaders would be very hesitant to do this", but can you prove that? Do you believe that to be a fact, or do you simply hope that it would be true?
(Please, please understand that I am not asking you these questions to be confrontational or to try and convince you that your beliefs are wrong or faulty. I am only asking out of genuine curiosity and the desire to discuss the topic. In typed word however, intention can be misunderstood.)
I have found that once free of their chains, the oppressed often become oppressors themselves. Just look at the Jews in Israel, and how they treat the Palestinians. I have had a black man call me faggot in a restaurant. You would think a black man would have some inkling of understanding what it would be like to be castigated publicly. After all, there was a time when his black ass would not have been allowed in the same restaurant as my white faggot ass. If women were freed from the historical oppression they have lived with, and given equal power as men, or over men, do you really think women would do a better job of things, and would not just become oppressors themselves? That they would be ruled by their gender and not their humanity?
I was not actually wondering about your position on homosexuality, but thanks for sharing it nonetheless. I appreciate your support and enthusiasm.
However, I can tell you that gay people don't really believe in equality at all. They, like all marginalized people, only want to be equal with their superiors, and not their inferiors. And in fact, they don't really care too much about the inequality of their inferiors, no matter how "inferior" might be defined. They treat many of their own people with inequality, based on race, age, income, ability, and beauty. They are, like so many of us, hypocrites that talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Re: Gynarchist: So how far do you take that idea? Do you think that all men should be subservient to women, in all aspects? Is this partially sexually motivated, I wonder?
I don’t have a problem with sexual submission at all, but in the normal, day to day world, I don’t feel one gender should be subservient to another. I firmly believe that women are just as capable as men, and I can’t believe it was 2008 before we had our real female candidate for President, but I don’t believe in a gender-based hierarchy or social order.
As far as the term taphophilia, I can’t believe I’ve never heard of that. That is just the type of word one would expect me to know. If you like that kind of subject, please check out my group ALL THINGS CHTHONIC, and join if you think you’d like it. Thanks.
Well...That was one heck of an intro! I can only imagine how difficult it can be to break the bonds (tentacles) of religious dogmatism. Glad to see you are well on your way. Fortunately, as a life long "disciple of reality"... I never had to. Thanks for adding me to your collection of friends. Hope to bounce some thoughts and ideas off each other in the future.
A neat piece of writing, and I see your Epicurean point. However, most of us have arrived at the purist atheist view that the gods are entirely human inventions, existing only as neuron circuits inside the heads of the living.
More widely, you may be interested by the discussions and video films posted on the Nexus site "ORIGINS: Universe, Life, Humankind, Darwin...".
e.g. the video films of all 10 lectures about "Charles Darwin and his Legacy" given at Stanford University in the final months of 2008.
These lectures, by distinguished experts in their respective fields, include the discussion panels that follow each lecture and the highly informative Q&A sessions.
As Richard Healy says, this is a phenomenal occasion "to have access to instructive material from leading thinkers on evolution and the impact of evolutionary thought on a multitude of disciplines".
"but for now, humans are the only animal that has suicide..."; I was just saying this to myself earlier today! Yes, I talk to myself...I really should invest in a voice recorder. I was discussing (more so in my mind than out loud) the differences among animals...suicide, ration, reason, religion, emotions...and so on. Nice blog!