Are all athiests angry?

Status
Not open for further replies.


We were discussing dress codes which was the original Point made to Hitchens. You your self have pointed out one sexist law in the uk.
Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.

You started off by mentioning one dress code in the UK which you thought was sexist but in fact isn't because it applies equally to both men and women, and I said you could have gone for something else which was, but by post 353 you still hadn't grasped this.

For the record, apart from good old British prudishness, there is probably a hygiene issue for not allowing full nudity generally.
 
Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.

You started off by mentioning one dress code in the UK which you thought was sexist but in fact isn't because it applies equally to both men and women, and I said you could have gone for something else which was, but by post 353 you still hadn't grasped this.

For the record, apart from good old British prudishness, there is probably a hygiene issue for not allowing full nudity generally.

Not to mention that sometimes, but not always, depending on how cold it is some men might have less to show than others :lol:
 
Did he? Which one was that? He actually asked you which one you were talking about.

You started off by mentioning one dress code in the UK which you thought was sexist but in fact isn't because it applies equally to both men and women, and I said you could have gone for something else which was, but by post 353 you still hadn't grasped this.

For the record, apart from good old British prudishness, there is probably a hygiene issue for not allowing full nudity generally.
What has sexist got to do with the subjegation of women?
Most cultural norms arose for solid reasons. Means we should be even less hasty to judge others from our own perspective
 
What has sexist got to do with the subjegation of women?
Most cultural norms arose for solid reasons. Means we should be even less hasty to judge others from our own perspective
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.

Yer talking nonsense man.
 
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.

Yer talking nonsense man.
Are you saying religion is not a way of codification of cultural norms ?
Myopic nonsense
 
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.

Yer talking nonsense man.

The problem is that the reverence for the cow in India dates back at least to the early Neolithic around 7,500 BCE. In these early pastoral societies the cow provided several dairy products while its dung was used for fuel and fertiliser, and even its urine for medicinal purposes. As cattle were also used for ploughing, it is easy to understand why they were so valued as an animal that gave so much but took so little. It is true that by 2,000 BCE, the Indo Europeans who also held cattle in high esteem, brought with them to India the Soma drink (a mix of cannabis, ephedrine and opium) that was sweetened with milk to counter its bitter taste. This drink, for obvious reasons, was considered the drink of the Gods and the earliest written Vedas reflect this religious significance but which came first, the reverence or the religious connection. Difficult to say considering the ancient nature of that esteem.
 
I don't know what your point is. You start out implying a law is sexist and only applies to women, when it doesn't, now you're saying subjugating women isn't sexist and in fact might be justified for cultural reasons. Most "cultural norms" arise for solid reasons do they? Bullshit. Most come from religion, in fact I just heard you can get 5 years in prison in parts of India for just possessing beef.

Yer talking nonsense man.
They were pretty solid and successful at the time. Cultural norms develop in an amazing variety of different ways. Our cultural norm of democracy was developed in an ancient Greek society that venerated gods and yet had no word for religion. Sport and competition were as much drivers of social evolution for them which would have proved a disaster for us in our way of thinking now but there's no reason why that couldn't also become a cultural norm. Just another aspect of social organization that was delegated for social extinction for no particular reason.

And yet people seem to think that because we live in a time now where we think we have a handle on things then that's the way it should be for everyone and everything else is 'backwards', but that's not true. Not in the slightest.


The Ancient Greeks killed babies with physical imperfections and yet we consider that abhorrent now. Christianity, religion, is the reason why we consider it abhorrent, the right to life. There is no right or wrong in social organization - just what works.

And I suppose, as an edit:

I'm happy to live in a society liberal enough for me to gently break whatever laws that I don't happen to agree with. I mean that. However in the very secular state of Singapore I think I would be equally happy even though I didn't have the freedoms that I enjoy now. In some ways it would be a lot nicer.

Cultural norms are a bitch to unravel.
 
Last edited:
Some excellent reasons why things will never change there. :rolleyes:

We have somebody saying subjugation of women might be justified because it's not sexist and it might have arisen as a 'cultural norm' for 'solid reasons'. I'm still calling bullshit.
 
Some excellent reasons why things will never change there. :rolleyes:

We have somebody saying subjugation of women might be justified because it's not sexist and it might have arisen as a 'cultural norm' for 'solid reasons'. I'm still calling bullshit.

I'm baffled by TFG's stance on this. He's usually a very good poster, with cogent, intelligent, and educated arguments (even when I believe he is wrong) but I'm struggling to understand what his point is on this thread.
 
Even more baffling is that the portrait in TFM's avarter is John Liburn (Free Born John) who died as a devout Quaker and who was very definately after a life of trials and tribulations a "man of God".
 
Even more baffling is that the portrait in TFM's avarter is John Liburn (Free Born John) who died as a devout Quaker and who was very definately after a life of trials and tribulations a "man of God".

You'll do well to find many people who weren't religious in the 17th century.
 
You'll do well to find many people who weren't religious in the 17th century.

True but a man such as Liburn did not commit himself to religion on a whim or just because everyone else did so. He made his reputation in questioning every norm and value that was held dear in C17th England. Cromwell who had Liburn imprisioned (despite the fact that John was an active Parliarmentarian) expressed the view if he were the last man on earth Liburn would argue with himself. (A very great "Son of Sunderland" who quite rcently was quoted in a judgement set down by the US Supreme Court).
 
True but a man such as Liburn did not commit himself to religion on a whim or just because everyone else did so. He made his reputation in questioning every norm and value that was held dear in C17th England. Cromwell who had Liburn imprisioned (despite the fact that John was an active Parliarmentarian) expressed the view if he were the last man on earth Liburn would argue with himself. (A very great "Son of Sunderland" who quite rcently was quoted in a judgement set down by the US Supreme Court).

Even Darwin was a Christian for a large part of his life.
 
Even Darwin was a Christian for a large part of his life.

Absolutley - although I am an athiest myself I don't subscribe to the view that all religionists are idiots and have nothing of value to say. Some ceratinly are - but then again I think that Dawkins is an absolute arse who gives athieism a bad name.
 
Absolutley - although I am an athiest myself I don't subscribe to the view that all religionists are idiots and have nothing of value to say. Some ceratinly are - but then again I think that Dawkins is an absolute arse who gives athieism a bad name.

I really don't get this. If it weren't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. then I'm convinced that atheism would still be a minority belief system in many developed countries, especially the USA. Dawkins' books are brilliant. He is a scientist who has the knack of explaining his science to non-scientists like me and that is a skill which should be applauded.
 
I really don't get this. If it weren't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. then I'm convinced that atheism would still be a minority belief system in many developed countries, especially the USA. Dawkins' books are brilliant. He is a scientist who has the knack of explaining his science to non-scientists like me and that is a skill which should be applauded.
Ahem. ;)

That aside, what's not to get? Atheists don't have to go along with the anti theist dialogue proposed by Dawkins et al and it's part of the discourse within scientific circles as noted by Professor Peter Higgs, and like Higgs many atheists are 'troubled' (for want of a better word maybe) about the politicization of atheism and the call to publicly humiliate and ridicule those who have a different view. Religion has been pushed towards the margins without the authors you note and your claim is a bit of a stretch.

And yes, Richard Dawkins is much better when he writes on his chosen career as a scientist.
 
Ahem. ;)

That aside, what's not to get? Atheists don't have to go along with the anti theist dialogue proposed by Dawkins et al and it's part of the discourse within scientific circles as noted by Professor Peter Higgs, and like Higgs many atheists are 'troubled' (for want of a better word maybe) about the politicization of atheism and the call to publicly humiliate and ridicule those who have a different view. Religion has been pushed towards the margins without the authors you note and your claim is a bit of a stretch.

And yes, Richard Dawkins is much better when he writes on his chosen career as a scientist.

I did pause when I used the words 'atheism' and 'belief system' but my poor vocabulary was struggling to find more appropriate terms. My point stands regardless.

Can you show me where Dawkins has ever did this? I'm very firmly of the opinion that we should constantly challenge people who's beliefs are not only preposterous, can often be dangerous, and almost always interfere with the state. We should never use ridicule or humiliation. I also believe that many theists feel humiliated and ridiculed if you challenge the literal nonsense they believe. That's their problem.
 
I really don't get this. If it weren't for Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. then I'm convinced that atheism would still be a minority belief system in many developed countries, especially the USA. Dawkins' books are brilliant. He is a scientist who has the knack of explaining his science to non-scientists like me and that is a skill which should be applauded.

I did enjoy reading The God Delusion but when I first read a book like that, I tend to read it like a novel to get the overall gist of the argument without spending too much time on detail which I then do in a second reading. So I could be mistaken on some points but I'm not sure of his Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Times) progression theory regarding human morality. This is very similar to Marx's dialectical materialism in which society is moving in a linear progression towards an eventual communist state. Perhaps we are but it is a contentious issue to many historians who consider change to be cyclic rather than linear. Similar to the nature/nurture debate in psychology. Change is possibly a mixture of the two, cyclic and linear, but which is the most dominant longer term. I'm not convinced linear change is the most dominant but that given the circumstances we can revert back to less civilised standards and react as humans have always done at times throughout our history.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top