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

Re: [existlist] exploratory committee for political progress

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.