Things I don understand

[Scientificist]

I couldn't help notice most ppl here are generally on the left.

I think it would make more sense to me if most ppl here are libral, apolitical or even capitalistic. I dunno if you guys have read "The end of faith" before. Personally, I believe faith is dangerous, because it renders ppl to behave beyond logic and reason.

Unfortunately, most far left ideas are pretty fundamentalistc. Taking communism as an example, it requires a socialism state (or a labour country) being built first. As for how to built this state, well, there are generally 2 theories. 1 would be violent revolution, another would be election, much like some north europe country.

For the first one, things wasn't going quite well as we can see. As for the 2nd one, well, not even one socialism state has been built. 'Not' to Karl Marx's sense of course.

I think it's quite possible that a lot of you folks may not be atheistic because you see reasoning and logic as the path to truth, but because your anti-tradition. That is, if your all from a pretty lefty country, and that country is pretty much religious, you guys would be on the right.

I know it would be quite outrageous to say something like that in a forum like this, but I really wanna here you guys' minds.

Sorry for my english, and I hope I didn't say nothing offensive. If I did, I truely apologise.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I describe my political views as centre left hawk inasmuch as I am an "old labour" (socialist) moderate (detest globalisation, privatisation, the current emphasis on tax reduction and political disingenuity), I believe strongly in the welfare state, education, health and defence and I am a militant atheist based on he complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of deity. I'm 51 years old and I have considered my political & theological positions quite carefully but I guess I'm one of those left wing know nothings then.

Interetingly, when I saw your chosen handle ("scientificus") I thought, "Oh oh, this doesn't look good!" and, 2 posts in, I'm beginning to wonder if I might have have been right.

Kyu

[Demonaura]

Nothing offensive to me but, I don't know if I follow your logic. Theres a reason why the term 'christian right' or 'religious right' is so popular, and I've never once heard anyone speak of the 'christian left'.

Personally my issue with religions is that is damages peoples ability to deal with life, I find christians in particular have a very hard time seeing anything in a broad sense or being able to even consider the universe NOT existing with an explicit purpose.

So no I wouldn't start going right if I changed locations because that's irrelevant to my reason for disliking religion, and irrelevant to my looking at theists talk for days about some insane claim with nothing to back it up and telling them to shove off.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Demonaura


There is such a thing as the Christian left,but you have to look for it. Perhaps the most famous or infamous,(depending on your perspective) was Liberation theology in the late 1970'sa and 1980's.I saw it in action in the Philippines. The church did not approve. In the Philippines and South America a lot of its supporters ended up murdered.

There have also been some very radically left theologians since WW2,especially in Holland.

There are also left factions in the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

My perception of the Christian right is that it's the idiot fringe and vocal minority in Christendom. It's more powerful in the US than anywhere else,which I think tends to give a skewed perception of it's actual importance in the scheme of things.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[bozo]

I couldn't help notice most ppl here are generally on the left.

I think it would make more sense to me if most ppl here are libral, apolitical or even capitalistic. I dunno if you guys have read "The end of faith" before. Personally, I believe faith is dangerous, because it renders ppl to behave beyond logic and reason.

Unfortunately, most far left ideas are pretty fundamentalistc. Taking communism as an example, it requires a socialism state (or a labour country) being built first. As for how to built this state, well, there are generally 2 theories. 1 would be violent revolution, another would be election, much like some north europe country.

For the first one, things wasn't going quite well as we can see. As for the 2nd one, well, not even one socialism state has been built. 'Not' to Karl Marx's sense of course.

I think it's quite possible that a lot of you folks may not be atheistic because you see reasoning and logic as the path to truth, but because your anti-tradition. That is, if your all from a pretty lefty country, and that country is pretty much religious, you guys would be on the right.

I know it would be quite outrageous to say something like that in a forum like this, but I really wanna here you guys' minds.

Sorry for my english, and I hope I didn't say nothing offensive. If I did, I truely apologise.

Where are you from?
In the UK we have a long socialist tradition dating back centuries, because capitalism has been seen by generations of the masses to be a corrupt system that favours the rich and powerful.
That tradition endures, even in today's times of global capitalism and right-wing values dominating most of the globe.
The church in the uk has always been part of the capitalist establishment, inherently reactionary.
Quite apart from the fact that all religion is no more than
superstition, the fact that it is part of the capitalist system is enough for atheists and lefties generally to reject it and wish its death ( with no resurrection! ).
You say no socialist state exists. Not true. Cuba still endures and South America now has emerging socialist regimes.

[Eilonnwy]

I think it's quite possible that a lot of you folks may not be atheistic because you see reasoning and logic as the path to truth, but because your anti-tradition. That is, if your all from a pretty lefty country, and that country is pretty much religious, you guys would be on the right.

First off, atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only and that's whether god exists. From there many different atheists have many different views from conservative to liberal. I would agree that there does seem to be a trend of atheists on the left, however the conservative side has a socially conservative aspect deeply rooted in religious doctrine.

Do you assume we're all from the same country? Because we're not. I'm from thew US which is a very conservative country that is only now making it's way to the center and that's radical change for us. There's a permeating view that to be liberal is to be godless and to be conservative is to be a fundie.

In my opinion, the religious tend towards conservatism because they are used to the idea of doctrine and being told what to do by an authority that controls their life. Meanwhile atheists tend to believe in dialogue and agreement to improve life and liberalism incorporates working together for the betterment of everyone.

So honestly, I have no idea where you're getting this from because society shows the exact opposite.

[Scientificist]

Thanks you guys, I've really got a lot of valuable information from your posts. 5 posts already... thats quite many to me.

First, I'm glad to find what I was thinking was wrong, ppl here have their ideology based on discreet rationality.

I personally think it's quite oxymoron for these terms like "christian socialisit" or "christian right", but they do exist, I think its as bizarre as "queer muslim". For the first one, if your a socialist, then you should be atheistic, for the second one, I read about Jesus, and I really can't help thinking what kind of a party he would get if he's doing the same thing in US today. He is way more left than a right.

I'm from the country that might be "ruling" the world together with US in this or the next centruy . I did make a mistake, some of you may be a socialist first, then atheism may be "collateral". That's why some of you may appear on the left to me.

As for social issue, I'm really not a big fan of welfare state. My country did under go a violent revolution in order to build a socialist state. And medicare was free for a while, but the problem was we didn't have sufficient human or material resources. That is, if you have something more serious than flu, you sure can get free medical attention, but usually from poorly trained amateurs with herbal remedy.

Then again my country sorta undergo a certain reform and brought in market economy. For me, it performed quite vigorously. Dramatic changes and development had taken place within decades. But there still is problem, a lot ppl can't afford those fancy new medicines.(Oh how sarcastic) But gladly, same medicine is still much cheaper than canada, since our annual income isn't that significant anyway.

Another reason I'm not a big fan probably be because I resent "lazybum goverment". I think a society should encourge ppl to create rather than to just take. I'm not talking about breeding parasites - no, not that harsh, but saying that social-darwinism does make a lot sense to me. If your born of a rich family, then your chance of getting a better education is far greater than a poor one. And in a similar fashion, if your parents are both college professors, your chance of becoming a scientist if far greater than those who have peasants as their parents. So for a country's greater good, I think it's better let those family in bad shape sorta "vanish", of course, they all have the right to continue breeding, and by "bad shape", I do not mean economically disfunction, but also spiritually disfunction. Taking Kafka as an example, hadn't been his family, he wouldn't have that kind of problems "getting along" with the society, and we wouldn't have a genius. In a sense, social-darwinism isn't subjective, it's objective.

Of course, if you are a socialist, then you probably would think what I just said rightly proved your point, it's the capitalism's nature caused all these fuss. Well, my reply would be idealism (you have to admit all these left theories embodies more or less idealism) have a significant gap with reality. I don't believe Stalin was born to purge those who didn't agree with him, I don't believe the whole point of Lenin was to have someone like Stalin to carry out those historical tasks either. How come the ideal is so good, but the reality turned out so ugly? Do not get me wrong. I do appreciate those effort to make ppl live better. But how many Pol pot can a country afford? They are all man of faith, perfectly faith, thats why I think faith is dangerous.

As for cuba, yes, it is a socialist state, but things are still quite different from what it was supposed to be.And for south america, I strongly suggest not putting much hope on them. For example, I think Chavez isn't even a socialist, he is a popularist, thats why he appears as a 'christian socialist'. Why Soviets attack afghan? Becuase muslims think giving women formal education is offensive. For Soviet leaders, barbarianism worth waging a war on. If your going to embrace a modern ideology like socialism, you must abandon everything it opposes. Unless all you want is popularity, in order to get more power for your own purpose. And give me an update if I'm wrong, venezuela flows quite a deal of oil to US every year.

I don think it's just christians think life must have a purpose or a mission or something like that, I think most ppl do. If you keep reflecting your exsitence, and find it's quite meaningless since someday, you will have to return to void after all, then why bother doing anything now? Why even bother coming into existence? I guess thats the point religion kicked in: your made by certain supreme being, you will go through a series of test, then you can have eternal life. I'm from a pretty much mundane, atheistic country, most ppl here don't think about this question at all. They just do what they are "supposed" to do:eat, sleep or watch a movie.

Again, thank you for your reply, and thank you for your precious time reading my rant in awful english. Here is my another question, do you all embrace a specific philosophy?

[Demonaura]

That was one hell of a post but, if I'm reading it right, I think you will fit in here. I like some of your ideas and will post to chat about em more but, I gotta run atm.

[Eilonnwy]

I personally think it's quite oxymoron for these terms like "christian socialisit" or "christian right", but they do exist, I think its as bizarre as "queer muslim". For the first one, if your a socialist, then you should be atheistic, for the second one, I read about Jesus, and I really can't help thinking what kind of a party he would get if he's doing the same thing in US today. He is way more left than a right.

Exactly, Jesus said sell all your belongings and give them to the poor but the Christian Conservative right is the exact opposite of Jesus' teachings. It's not the only thing that is very hypocritical about this political movement.

Another reason I'm not a big fan probably be because I resent "lazybum goverment". I think a society should encourge ppl to create rather than to just take.

I agree. Not only do I view socialism as completely unrealistic, but I think there's something to be said for letting people grow on their own. I think it's good to provide some help to people like universal health care, etc.. but I think you get to a point where people need to take care of themselves and stop depending on government to solve all there problems.

Here's an analogy for government that shows how I view the role of government that I hope people can follow along with. To me government is like a landlord. Your taxes are rent which are the cost of living on the land, but also provide things for you like water, heat, etc... But you're still responsible for your food and electricity. I think the same applies to government on a much more complex level. I see extreme conservatism as taking as little rent as possible and providing very little utilities (services) as a result, but socialism would have a very high rent and provide you with every utility even cable. While the latter may seem nice, but since they provide the cable you have no choice in what's provided and so you get all the crappy channels.

So essentially, I think capitalism and socialism have some merits so I go for a blend of the two which is why my political party is independent. I think people need help once in a while but it's completely unrealistic to think you can provide for everyone. At some point people need to do things for themselves even if it means they get the low end of the stick.

Again, thank you for your reply, and thank you for your precious time reading my rant in awful english. Here is my another question, do you all embrace a specific philosophy?

Secular Humanism.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well if this Wiki page is right: Secular Humanism I guess I'm not one, some of it applies to me other bits just seem to airy fairy philosophical to be relevant to my worldview.

I believe in survival of the fattest and as such I am well on my way

Kyu

---

While the latter may seem nice, but since they provide the cable you have no choice in what's provided and so you get all the crappy channels.

You're American aren't you? If you had the state owned BBC then you would very likely think different ... you see it's like this here (and I'll only briefly touch on satellite because there's way too many):

We have 4 basic territorial channels (five I suppose but some us can't get the fifth) of which only the BBC ones are state owned. .

• BBC1: Pretty good most of the time but some programs are dumbed down because they need to compete with more popular ITV programs. Some excellent dramas and excellent historical dramas ... sometimes a bit too politically correct for my taste. Relatively few main films but a good selection of not so popular ones ... no adverts.
  
• BBC2: Often arty farty but nearly always high quality, a lot of documentaries, history programs and so on, excellent dramas, excellent comedy programmes (OK, I don't personally like Catherine Tate, Little Britain or that extraordinary league thing but I can still see they are well made) ... no adverts.
  
• ITV1: Game shows, soaps, reality TV and really, really naff dramas (that are more soap than anything else). Some big films and lots and lots and lots of really shyte adverts.
  
• Channel 4: Almost incapable of doing their own dramas, specialise in long running reality TV shows such as Big Brother (spit) and crud about hairdressing. Anything good they have on tends to be US and bought in. Surprisingly they did do a rather good Zombie series recently and they are not strong on political correctness (Yay!). Lots of adverts mostly really shyte.
  
• Channel 5: Nothing upstairs at all ... lots of really shyte adverts.

Digital channels ... variable, some good US stuff but generally just lots of game shows, reality TV, soaps , more reality TV, home style crap, more reality TV and many, many, many utterly crap adverts (mostly designed to make poorer people borrow money it seems). The only redeeming feature of satellite TV is the fact that there are so many channels there's usually something on that's watchable ... even they have adverts though, did I mention those?

So ITV could go ... wouldn't miss it at all, C4 isn't much better ... I'd keep all the BBC channels (including the digital ones ... BBC4 is absolutely class and no adverts). Sky 1 isn't bad but can vary. Some of the UK gold is OK and SciFi is occasionally watchable . Outside of that there's comedy channels (Dave is great) and then all that's left is Kerrang & Scuzz.

Anyway, to sum up, in the UK state-owned TV is way better.

Kyu