Brendan

Just go out in public and look at all fuckwits. Results of such unions my friend. We're all doomed.

I think it is just a lack of respect for women. Men who are inherently decent won?t badger women. Unfortunately not all men are inherently decent so to control those who aren?t you need to condition them at an early age to obey certain social norms. It is unfortunately one of the negative effects of the liberalisation of society.

Sean. You are missing my point completely. Everythnig in your last post is valid but has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

I don?t see why people have ever been afraid of criticizing him in the first place. In the early 80s he massacred more than 20 000 Matebele in order to assert his party and tribe?s political dominance. Anyway the governance of the whole region is bollocksed up. Mostly due to the fact that the countries that exist are not states that have naturally developed. They were set up as administrative divisions by the colonial powers and incorporate people from different nations with different languages, traditions and cultures. The fact that these peoples are often historical enemies doesn?t help much either. Cultural differences then come out in the political landscape of the country. Mbeki is a staunch pan-africanist who believes that all the people of the continent can live in harmony with one another and integrate as one. This is all very well and good as an ideology but in reality it can only happen over generations of peaceful coexistence. Although I doubt this is effecting his stance on Zim. I think it has more to do with old loyalties and I suspect that Mugabe probably has some dirt on him regarding arms or diamonds or something.

Personally I find adherence to anything a limiting factor to the human experience. Oh and yeah, MP can I still borrow that book?

?It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.? When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different. Anyway it all has to do with semantics. By defining ?atheism? as an entity which people can adhere to you just prove my point that it is a tangible view point from which to consider the world and therefore, for many people who can?t see the wood for the trees, fulfils the same human need as religion does in others.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that > some people see atheism almost as a religion in > itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature > of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins, > Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people > would view atheism as an entirely rational thought > process compared to the jingoistic, > superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion. Or that the following of a certain thought process which denotes a certain way of approaching things and is championed by prominent figures bears a similarity to religion and often elicits a fanatical reaction in its followers which is akin to fundamentalism. Anyway stop dragging me into this 2 dimensional, inelegant aspect of it all. Next thing I?ll be discussing soccer.

I'm not really arguing a side. Just discussing the argument.

You?re missing me a bit David. I didn't mean prejudice towards people but rather a certain way of interpreting information because of what you already accept as true or not. The science religion debate holds value on a sociological level. They are two conflicting human constructs, ways of interpreting information basically. We all know which one makes more sense but that is not the point I was getting at. I?m trying to move away from that debate and all the preconceptions it brings. I think it is limiting. And I?m not doing so in order to lend credence to either side. I?m thinking more on a human level and about what exists and what doesn?t according to what we can experience. Is the experience of something a prerequisite to its existence or do many other things exist that we cannot experience, or just can?t experience yet because we haven?t got the right filters switched on in that big receiver that is the human brain*? If so there could be something out there that makes science seem as ludicrous as religion. *or spirit even? (given perhaps that the spirit is what happens when the sum of all the human parts is greater than the whole. If indeed they are, that is.)

I?m looking far beyond the, laws of science vs. religion, nonsense. It?s about as helpful as the concept of left and right wing are to politics. I am talking about a person?s personal approach to the world. In practice atheism is a standpoint. All standpoints bring with them prejudice. Prejudice effects how you experience reality. Incidentally I?ve just done a bit of googleing and I can?t find any real evidence that there is not a tin of Bovril orbiting the earth. Although if there is it is more likely to be a tin of Bovril bouillon cubes rather than the hearty, meaty paste that goes so well on warm toast.

Ah. So I must have left that missing flip-flop in the CPT.

As I said, semantically, it is the non-belief in the existence of god/s. With you there. In practice it is often used as an ideological structure that gives people just as comfortable a set of parameters to the universe they inhabit* as a religion does. And Bovril doesn?t come in tins. *Albeit vastly more logical.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which is why one can't actually be a fundamental > atheist. Yes you can. Maybe not semantically but I know plenty of people who use atheism as a kind of moral reference point in the same way others use religion or political affiliation.

Anyway to quote (not accurately mind) the man, ?Just because gods exist doesn?t mean you should go around believing in them.?

I find that people who are fundamental atheists often use atheism itself to give meaning to their lives. The jump from finding meaning in an ideology to finding it in a god is not a very big one. Although I doubt someone as erudite as Terry Pratchett would have been using atheism as a crutch. Or that he is running headlong into the arms of that preconceived concept, religion that people somehow can?t separate from human spirituality. Similarly my pops, after growing up in a Calvinist household and spending most of his adult life as an atheist, converted to Catholicism after retirement. Although I think it had more to do with keeping my mum quiet than anything else.

We had a take out from Dulwich Tandoori on Sunday and it was brilliant. Chicken Chilli Masala Chickpea Masala Sag Alloo Mushroom Rice and something that involved tandoori style grilled vegetables. All very well prepared, fresh and tasty. I have only ever eaten in there once and I was shamefully drunk so I can?t give an accurate description of the experience other than that it was pleasant and they didn?t throw me out. Even though I probably was being ?that guy?, you know the one demanding Vindaloo at the top of his voice whilst downing bottles of Kingfisher and spraying poppadom all over the places.

This guy has a very good point: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24godwin.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=peter+godwin&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Nice of them to be so accommodating in this respect though.

Well, isn?t this all nice and cosy.

muffintop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the government needs to > look at maintaining areas where they choose to > place the majority of ethnic peoples to live and > perhaps concentrate as much time in maintaining > the area... Eh? So the government places people in specific areas according to their ethnic background? They use to have something like that where I grew up.

Snoozequeen1, that is the second time on this thread that you have made sweeping allegations of racism. I know I shouldn?t but I find that annoying. Personally I couldn?t give two hoots about any SE15/SE22 divide although I do find the term ?Posh Peckham? dripping in pretence.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and a whole stew of other reasons (also including, > yes, a resentment and being "expected" to vote > "yes") is neither left wing, right wing or > anything else. It is what it is.. I think the term you are looking for there is petulism (sic). ;-)

ray and philomena had summat to say about it

Friday afternoon Like swimming through treacle The last few yards of soul-slashing, turbid surf before you collapse drunk on the shore of weekend Seconds drip like water torture slowly growing longer with each ones passing as time stretches compensating for those hours that skip by in a flash before last orders I don?t think it is very good for me at all you know

Let me just add that I am not defending the current system. I just feel that an equal education for all children regardless of background and equal access to healthcare are the fundamental building blocks for a fair society. The only way I can logically see this happening is by 1 ? Regulating the economy so that there is very little wealth gap between the richest and the poorest. Then let the providers of healthcare and education compete with each other. (I can?t nor would I want to see this happening) 2 ? Have a free and open economy where people can pursue wealth uninhibited but provide all contributors to that economy with decent healthcare and their children with an equal education. I think this is doable but in the UK will probably involve starting from scratch again. And it will piss off both the, ?I deserve to be privileged because I was born privileged.? and the, ?I deserve not to have to work because it?s my right? sides of society.