On Strategy in the War for Sanity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2011, 11:36 AM
 
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
I also said the following:

Quote:Everything was fine until fatihbarut paid us a visit. Then I started hearing the all too familiar voices. These are the voices of the democratic party in the US that Michael Moore was referring to. The voices of defeat.

When somebody comes to attack you and wants to poke your eye out, you raise a steel shield in front of your face and, if he hurts his fingers poking at your shield, you don’t apologize for causing him hurt his fingers. This is not an “eye for an eye” but defending your own eyes against an unprovoked attack.

This is the reason our side always loses at the end: we are too nice for our own good. We don’t want to hurt people, even in self defense. We wring our hands when we think we may have insulted someone. We apologize. We turn on each other and find the guilty party who may have caused some pain to our attacker. We bicker. We lose focus of what it is about.

...they always win the war because they are united, focused on the goal and they are ruthless. We are divided, confused about our goals and squeamish about the methods we use in our self defense.

I call it war: a defensive war.

However, it does not matter what we call it – the name we stick on the ‘conflict’ will not change the fact that we have to defend ourselves or surrender.
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 11:39 AM
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
Quote:Ghost:
Hey, Peterkin.

I'm just going to accept that your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek

Not exactly so. I really did think you previous post was like one of those pop-songs that rhyme so well and sound so plausible, until you read the lyrics and go HUH?
I couldn't figure out your bottom line. This more recent post makes it clear.

Quote:There is a conflict. End of story. And it takes two to tango. End of story.

Very likely: 78% to 4%

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 01:12 PM
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 10:22 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Now back into my foxhole, observing the action from a safe distance....

This mentality is why our progress is slow.

Defenses are only useful if there is an offensive to go along with it, otherwise you are simply allowing your opponent to gather strength and wear down your will to resist. Allowing theists to roam freely set the foundation for our predicament. It let them gain influence in government. It allowed them to demonize those with conflicting views, to steal morality from humanism and claim it as their own, and allowed them to challenge science with pseudo-science. If this is a siege, then the advantage is theirs.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 01:19 PM
 
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 01:12 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  
(04-10-2011 10:22 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Now back into my foxhole, observing the action from a safe distance....
This mentality is why our progress is slow.

Glaucus, when you are as old as I am and have been in as many battles as I have (pure assumption here about your age), you will realize that both the mentality and the stamina slows down in old age.

On the other hand, if you are older than I am (71) -- I envy you!

Big Grin

ETA:

@Ghost: Peterkin answered your argument quite eloquently: 78% to 4% is a very uneven dance. Guess who leads?

The 2 groups are not as equal as you are trying to make it sound. I think the expression 'self-defense' is fully justified.

Sometimes I can say it better in poetry:

Bushwhacked

When evil triumphs,
there is always gloating
from the victors -
who don’t know yet they lost,
because evil’s always self defeating,
and the price to pay will come a bit later,
during another crusade
unrelated to the victory
now celebrated.

And yes, there is always sadness,
and dumbfounded puzzlement
from the vanquished,
who wonder why knowledge,
intelligence, vision
must always lose to stupidity
over and over and over …

…why non-malignant people
never fail to protect evil,
destroying our hope
for an unshattered future.
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2011 07:07 PM by Glaucus.)
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 01:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Glaucus, when you are as old as I am and have been in as many battles as I have (pure assumption here about your age), you will realize that both the mentality and the stamina slows down in old age.

On the other hand, if you are older than I am (71) -- I envy you!

I'm a little younger than you at 21, but thankfully there is young blood in the atheist camp, and the theist camp is aging. I saw somewhere, I'll have to find it again, that atheists are generally younger than their theistic counterparts.

(04-10-2011 01:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  @Ghost: Peterkin answered your argument quite eloquently: 78% to 4% is a very uneven dance. Guess who leads?

The 2 groups are not as equal as you are trying to make it sound. I think the expression 'self-defense' is fully justified.

You're cheating with the numbers to skew them Tongue. You're counting every person that claims to be christian, but not counting every person who claims "No Religion". How many Christians are active against us? I've met a lot of people who still claim to be Christian, but only in a cultural sense. They go to church, participate in the community, etc but have no problem with people of other faiths or no faith. There are still others who take the Galileo's quote to heart when he said "Religion tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." They support us because they see the distinction between science and faith, and don't support the literal translation of the Bible. There are others yet who truly believe in freedom of religion/from religion and do not support evangelism.

When these people are taken out, the numbers seem a little more manageable. Especially if you consider some of the theists to support us against evangelism and theocracy.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 07:47 PM
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 07:04 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  You're cheating with the numbers to skew them Tongue. You're counting every person that claims to be christian, but not counting every person who claims "No Religion".

I was using the numbers from the Pew link.
Approximately 12% identify as no particular religion; 1.7 as atheist, 2.1 as agnostic.
The unaffiliated, though some may come over, can't be counted on.
The majority of self-proclaimed christians, practicing or not, are definitely on the other side, whether they will actively be against us or just stand by and watch - as i pointed out in their historical record.
The militant extreme christians are probably only around 10%, mabe even less, but they are aggressive, absolutely certain of their righteousness, have leaders who will keep cranking up the hate level, and enormous political and financial backing.

In the context of a dance, my brief version of this answer wasn't all that skewed.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 08:07 PM
 
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 07:04 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  You're cheating with the numbers to skew them...

I am not getting into number-crunching here.

Humor me, for a second: let's assume that 'self-defense' is justified.

What if the best strategy?

Why and how are nice people (some of them atheists, some of them socialists, some of them human-rights advocates, etc.) losing battles? It is a universal phenomenon: nice people lose because they are nice. They play by the rules, they don't play dirty. Just look at elections: usually the nastiest mud-slinger wins.

That is why I made that analogy with the steel shield: decide what you want and don't give an inch. Don't attack, just repel and use everything you got to defend yourself. If not for yourself, do it for your children. After all, you owe it to them to protect their future. Even if you have to hit hard and stoop low, you don't do it for revenge, you do it for defending your loved ones.

Never apologize for treating malice, stupidity and aggressive attacks with self confident, proud rejection.

Sometime life is black and white and you can't afford it to be gray.
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 08:29 PM
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
Hey, Zatamon.

Quote:Never apologize for treating malice, stupidity and aggressive attacks with self confident, proud rejection.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. There's a spectrum of approaches, but this is a legitimate point on that spectrum.

Hey, Peterkin.

You and I both know that you pulled those numbers from the crack of your ass Cool

Even if it is skewed to one side, that's irrelevant. There are still two parties involved. And if you're right, and Sam Harris is right <painful violent projectile vomiting> then moderates in the Atheist camp (yes, Atheism makes no claims, but if you're claiming that "we" are under attack, you're the one delineating a group) are just as responsible for Dawkins as Christians are for Robertson.

The point is that both groups are a part of this conflict and it's important to acknowledge that. Otherwise, you're just living in this dream world where you're a poor innocent with no footprint in the world. Kind of like the drivel that is the claim that the US was just a poor unsuspecting doe-eyed super-powerful hegemony out for a stroll with the kids when WHAM, some evil man flew a plane into a building for no particular reason.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2011 09:48 PM by Glaucus.)
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 07:47 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  The militant extreme christians are probably only around 10%, mabe even less, but they are aggressive, absolutely certain of their righteousness, have leaders who will keep cranking up the hate level, and enormous political and financial backing.

That's been the point that I've been failing to get across. I may have been misunderstanding you, but you made it seem like our 2% was against 78% of America, which is overwhelming to one side. Taking your guess of 10% militant Christians, the odds are only 1:5, instead of the 1:39 that came across. I don't think atheists are out to deconvert people, we'd just like to see that 10% stop peddling their faith on others and promoting Biblical law. I can peacefully coexist with the other 68% of Christians without any trouble because they don't care about the faith of others.

I don't think they have as much sway in Washington as you think. I get hope whenever I hear news that Perry or Bachman are falling behind in the polls because of their comments regarding faith and science.

There are the Christians who oppose the radicals. I always love it when the radicals come to our university and tell people that they're going to hell. I get to see the moderate Christians come out and preach the Gospel of Jesus' love to the radicals. You make it seem like we're an island against militant Christian, when there are plenty of Christians who are against people like WBC. Those Christians are our friends and allies.

With their help, I'd say we've got a majority over the radicals. I think this is true because of news I hear about the Theory of Evolution surviving it's trials in Texas (and actually coming out stronger). Sure, they won't help us get an "atheistic utopia" where "In God We Trust" is no longer on our money, or where churches will no longer be exempt from taxes, but at least science and reason win on the more important issues like Evolution, DADT, and same-sex marriage.
(04-10-2011 08:07 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Humor me, for a second: let's assume that 'self-defense' is justified.

What if the best strategy?

Education. Teach people about other religions, science, and philosophy and you'll get less extremism. Look at post #6

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Glaucus's post
04-10-2011, 11:12 PM
RE: On Strategy in the War for Sanity
(04-10-2011 09:30 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  You make it seem like we're an island against militant Christian, when there are plenty of Christians who are against people like WBC. Those Christians are our friends and allies.

Whoa... wait a minute... What planet are we talking about? You couldn't possibly be talking about the US. If you are from the US, are you talking about what goes on at some university somewhere or some other highly vague non real world like that? what?

I agree with a lot of what you say for instance there are christians who are against WBC... but,

"Those Christians are our friends and allies" Huh?

There are no christians who are our allies, guy. You need to get out more. There are christians who are more reasonable than others, there are christians who don't know who the hell they are or what they believe because of ignorance chosen or learned from childhood but there are no alliances between christians and atheists in the US or they are not what they profess to be.

Fear... that is the thing that separates atheists from christians and it's not the atheists who are in fear. I'm sorry, I am totally floored by your comment. Let me say, I have lived in 12 different states, 5 different countries and have done a lot of traveling in between over the last 40 odd years. Some of that time within different christian communities some in totally secular communities. Christians in the US do not co-exist together in any real viable alliance whether symbolically or otherwise with atheists. That is my opinion based on my limited experience.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: