Heard and understood. Alas, atheists are not the only oppressed minority that has found it politically useful to try extra politeness and extra fabulousness as a means of advocacy in the face of kneejerk prejudice. If atheism takes another turn at having a high public profile, and if the ranks of self-identified "out" atheists grows, there will probably be the usual divide between the cuddly atheists and the sterner atheists. We all face choices of method. ;-)
I'm waiting for more calendars of hawt atheists promising to make me scream "Oh Nerve-Endings!" when they bring me to orgasm.
signed, that cuddly guy whose sexual identity is surely just a code word for how I spread AIDS to poor defenseless women, isn't it, OMG why am I permitted to live [/sarcasm]
how often? with whom? where? How many times in a given week do you have these discussions--not counting commiseration with others claiming to encounter this? Aside from Fox News.
There is no argument about faith Ted. It's not science, it's faith. It's belief. It's ideas and emotions and aspirations and fears and meaning. There's no empiricism to it. So there's no flaws to be found. One has it, has some doubt, or has none.
And positioning the end of religion as the answer is specious, facile and wholly unlikely. Expecting people of faith to deny its impact on their lives in the public sphere is as well. Pluralism doesn't require a lack of religion: it's not based on what' isn't there, but what is. Common values, general consensus (rather than unanimity), understanding what is appropriate in the public and private spheres.
Dawkins and Hitchens are as bad as Fred Phelps: they're adventing the exclusion of those with whom they disagree.
I'll read the article later, but I just wanted to comment on the obvious oxymoronism of celebrating atheism by saying hallelujah (which literally means "praise G!d" [hallel = praise, Yah = one of the names of G!d]). ;)
Durkheim made the point that logic, rationality and science will never replace religion because religion appeals to the irrational, the illogical and the unscientific.
There is no instance that I am aware of any human society that does not have some sort of relgion, and I doubt there ever will be. The shape may change, but the quest for meaning that religion meets won't go away.
Even thinkers like Habermas locate the origins of western liberalism in Christianity.
I'm afraid the comments have gone over my small, bald head. But thanks for vid. So much for me to enjoy here: the song, the singing, the orchestra - I'll say it again - THE ORCHESTRA! Plus that throbbing pulse of testosterone aka Kobi Oshrat. I thank you and my hormones thank you. Thank you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 07:59 pm (UTC)Most of the atheist pundits come across as arrogant misanthropes...except perhaps to those like-minded.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 08:24 pm (UTC)I'm waiting for more calendars of hawt atheists promising to make me scream "Oh Nerve-Endings!" when they bring me to orgasm.
signed, that cuddly guy whose sexual identity is surely just a code word for how I spread AIDS to poor defenseless women, isn't it, OMG why am I permitted to live [/sarcasm]
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 09:00 pm (UTC)There is no argument about faith Ted. It's not science, it's faith. It's belief. It's ideas and emotions and aspirations and fears and meaning. There's no empiricism to it. So there's no flaws to be found. One has it, has some doubt, or has none.
And positioning the end of religion as the answer is specious, facile and wholly unlikely. Expecting people of faith to deny its impact on their lives in the public sphere is as well. Pluralism doesn't require a lack of religion: it's not based on what' isn't there, but what is. Common values, general consensus (rather than unanimity), understanding what is appropriate in the public and private spheres.
Dawkins and Hitchens are as bad as Fred Phelps: they're adventing the exclusion of those with whom they disagree.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-22 10:56 pm (UTC)Durkheim made the point that logic, rationality and science will never replace religion because religion appeals to the irrational, the illogical and the unscientific.
There is no instance that I am aware of any human society that does not have some sort of relgion, and I doubt there ever will be. The shape may change, but the quest for meaning that religion meets won't go away.
Even thinkers like Habermas locate the origins of western liberalism in Christianity.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-23 10:36 pm (UTC)Kinda hawt, but wearing more make up than Gali? Ew....