Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

exploratory committee for political progress

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins makes the point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being atheist. He says
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' makes the
      point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being
      atheist. He says that is statistically impossible, and that someone
      must be lying. I do agree that an atheist candidate has no chance of
      being elected. Perhaps, for the good of the country and possibly the
      world, it's their turn. Other minority candidates have run and won.
      What could it hurt?

      Mary
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Today in the US, only Bernie Sanders, also the only socialist in Congress. But you can t even get any US politician to endorse evolution explicitly, or
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Today in the US, only Bernie Sanders, also the only socialist in Congress.

        But you can't even get any US politician to endorse evolution explicitly, or
        criticize the young earth creationists. You might be able to run on either
        coast or in one or two other cities as an open atheist, but certainly not in that
        IQ dump we call the "Bible Belt".

        WS


        In a message dated 2/4/07 9:29:45 AM, agignesthai@... writes:


        > Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' makes the
        > point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being
        > atheist. He says that is statistically impossible, and that someone
        > must be lying. I do agree that an atheist candidate has no chance of
        > being elected. Perhaps, for the good of the country and possibly the
        > world, it's their turn. Other minority candidates have run and won.
        > What could it hurt?
        >
        > Mary
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          <Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' makes the
          point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being
          atheist. He says that is statistically impossible, and that someone must
          be lying. I do agree that an atheist candidate has no chance of being
          elected. Perhaps, for the good of the country and possibly the world,
          it's their turn. Other minority candidates have run and won. What could
          it hurt? Mary>

          it might hurt the cynics who don't believe anyone has any interest in
          truth (inasmuch they can sense and access it). :)

          aija
        • star
          ... must ... I m not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins agenda. He seems to aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses certain
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > <Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' makes the
            > point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being
            > atheist. He says that is statistically impossible, and that someone
            must
            > be lying. I do agree that an atheist candidate has no chance of being
            > elected. Perhaps, for the good of the country and possibly the world,
            > it's their turn. Other minority candidates have run and won. What could
            > it hurt? Mary>
            >
            > it might hurt the cynics who don't believe anyone has any interest in
            > truth (inasmuch they can sense and access it). :)
            >
            > aija
            >

            I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
            aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
            certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
            view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
            somewhat of a hypocrite.
          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
            star:
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              star:
              <I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
              aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
              certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
              view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
              somewhat of a hypocrite. >

              so what? i assume you have critical judgment which is better used for
              mining for whatever is useful in Dawkins as in anyone, instead of
              wasting a lot of time judging someone whose conscious or unconscious
              motivations are only partially interesting and "uncoverable" even to the
              person himself. i at least am more interested in what i can come up
              with, or if a facilitator, how i can facilitate someone else's
              independent critical development as opposed to engaging in what i think
              is largely thankless and irrelevant for the purpose. (this is not to
              deny your right to pursue what you are interested in.) my attitude
              comes out of a philosophy compatible with existentialism that i am first
              of all responsible for myself.

              aija
              ps my first contact with existentialism was late gradeschool
              childrens' literature (obscure, not in english)
            • star
              ... the ... first ... Very well said. I suppose that my concern is that there are many people who don t believe that they are responsible for themselves or
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > star:
                > <I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
                > aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
                > certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
                > view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
                > somewhat of a hypocrite. >
                >
                > so what? i assume you have critical judgment which is better used for
                > mining for whatever is useful in Dawkins as in anyone, instead of
                > wasting a lot of time judging someone whose conscious or unconscious
                > motivations are only partially interesting and "uncoverable" even to
                the
                > person himself. i at least am more interested in what i can come up
                > with, or if a facilitator, how i can facilitate someone else's
                > independent critical development as opposed to engaging in what i think
                > is largely thankless and irrelevant for the purpose. (this is not to
                > deny your right to pursue what you are interested in.) my attitude
                > comes out of a philosophy compatible with existentialism that i am
                first
                > of all responsible for myself.
                >
                > aija
                > ps my first contact with existentialism was late gradeschool
                > childrens' literature (obscure, not in english)
                >


                Very well said. I suppose that my concern is that there are many
                people who don't believe that they are responsible for themselves or
                who may not even know to question the source of their beliefs, to
                develop themselves. While it is such a generality to categorize most
                of us into one homogeneous group, mainstream beliefs or attitudes in
                our cultures seem to come from those who are the loudest or who have
                the strongest rhetoric. Some people just believe things because they
                hear them; this can be very dangerous for society, or at the very
                least could provide an impediment to the development of our society.
                But to what degree can we actually influence mainstream thought?
                Would we even want to? If we're going to care about hunger, disease,
                and poverty in the world, would we not care about ignorance?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.