Contact info
Word
Research
   Publications
Studies
Free Software
Hobbies
Articles
Photography
About me
   Curriculum Vitae

©Marko Grönroos, 1998

USENET News alt.atheism

Säie: Death and mourning

"Crazyalec" <crazyalec AT yahoo PISTE nospam PISTE cainvalid> writes: > "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa.shift-2 PISTE y AT hoo PISTE kom> wrote in message >> Makes me wonder, though, how other atheists deal with death and >> mourning and all. If any of this sounds familiar to anybody or if >> I'm just plain weird... > > Other atheists know that you are just a small chain in a big evolution > process, and all you can do is make memories of your self to future > generations by doing something extraordinary. ...while others might think that delivering memories of your self is not really relevant, but only your extraordinary deeds are. Appreciation of self beyond death is not really a rational tendency, though it may be encouraging and gratifying. Here's a little story with some views about death:             http://www.iki.fi/magi/metsola/arkisto/kiandra/evening.en.html Any comments about it? > One thing I know for sure. There is no difference between religion > in power and dictatorship of so-called communism. Its a con game, > using beliefs/ideas to justify money and power control. You could say the same thing about any political system; there always is a power elite that lives by a con game. Democracy is everything but free from this problem. The entire idea of communism is to take power away from money and gods and give it to the people. The problem seems to be that it is very difficult to implement it without an easily corruptive totalitarian authority that strips away human rights, which effectively negates the benefits. While communism and democracy are not as such exclusive, unlimited democracy always has an element of undesirable populism that supports various frailties of human nature, often actually undemocratic. -- -- Marko Grönroos, magi<at>iki.fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)

"Crazyalec" <crazyalec AT yahoo PISTE nospam PISTE cainvalid> writes: > But religion doesn't want admit its a con game.They say its a beleif Conning means intentional deceit. Do you seriously think none of the religious people or leaders actually believe in their stuff, but just lie that they do? I'd say such a conspiracy belief would be as unsupported as any claims of gods or paranormal. Even if the founders were conners, as they probably were, their followers would have actually genuinely believed the teachings. > Utopia. ... > Nonsense.Just read supposed definition of communism, and take a look what > kind of system is in former Soviet Union,Cuba, N Korea. > All I can see....dictatorship.Communism is just a nice word for a > totalitarism.Its all in a con game. Yes, communism is Utopia, a descendant of the Platonian Utopia. As such, it is a genuine philosophical attempt to create a perfect system of government. Being too utopistic and unthinking about human nature, it has in practice resulted in horrible results. But it is not fair to demonize the virtuous basic idea. > Trust me, I lived there That doesn't really prove much. Some people in any country can love and some hate their political system, while actually living in the same country. -- -- Marko Grönroos, magi<at>iki.fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)

wryan AT mindspring PISTE com (Will) writes: > > Conning means intentional deceit. Do you seriously think none of the > > religious people or leaders actually believe in their stuff, but just > > lie that they do? I'd say such a conspiracy belief would be as > > unsupported as any claims of gods or paranormal. > > Do you think that Stalin and his cornies were honest men who pursued > the revolution out of the highest ideals? First, you should not take a single sick dictator as an example of all the people supporting the ideology. In any political movement there always are such individuals who may get into power. Communism seems to be especially susceptible to them, though. Second, I don't know. You would have hard time proving that all or even most religious people or communists or their leaders are conners. People actually honestly believe in weird things and make mistakes, probably I and you do too. Not everyone who has political opinions different from yours are conners. My point is, when there are conners, there are conned. When conners in power die, conned get into power. (Well, at least they have the same footing as any wannabe-conners.) Therefore, it is not reasonable to say that followers of an obviously deceitful founder are conners. > Do you think anyone who preaches that it would be all right if 1/2 > of the world should perish if it meant the other half would be > Communist (as Lenin did), is a decent, honest idealist? Has Lenin actually preached such thing or is that just your belief? To my understanding, Marx's and Lenin's ideology was basicly about freeing the proletariat from economical slavery. Working people's life wasn't the same 100 years ago as it is now. They concluded that a revolution was required to abolish the power structure. Is a violent revolution a bad method? Most western democratic countries have been born from revolutions that have been everything but bloodless. Ah, "but they were for the right cause", sure! (You might find more recent examples from South-America.) > > Yes, communism is Utopia, a descendant of the Platonian Utopia. As > > such, it is a genuine philosophical attempt to create a perfect system > > of government. Being too utopistic and unthinking about human nature, > > it has in practice resulted in horrible results. But it is not fair to > > demonize the virtuous basic idea. > > Oh, boloney! You may not buy what Crazyalec has to say but he's in > extremely good company. Solzhenitsyn, for one, argued that Communism > is intrinsically evil, that it can lead to nothing but corruption and > evil. Intrinsically? Really? I'd like to hear his arguments. I would see the necessary loss of various freedoms the only intrinsic problem. > In practical terms he was right, unless you know of a Communist > state where honesty, virtue and freedom were maintained and honored. I wouldn't say that freedom was maintained or honored, but honesty and virtue are more difficult to estimate; I'm yet to see a country of thoroughly honest and virtuous people, so it's hard to say. > > That doesn't really prove much. Some people in any country can love > > and some hate their political system, while actually living in the > > same country. > > It means a great deal. He's seen it in practice, as did the citizens > of the old Soviet satellite states and the Russians themselves. > They've all rejected it, and there's hardly anyone today who can > offer any defense for the brutality and repression suffered under > Communist regimes. Try the Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, etc. ;-) You should also consider what the practice of capitalism was for the workers living in the beginning of 20th century. For many, it was pure slavery, living in inhumane conditions with barely enough money to eat, with no possibility of education. If you had asked them about the glory of capitalism, I'd guess you would have received an answer similar to Crazyalec. -- -- Marko Grönroos, magi<at>iki.fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)

Seuraava säie: A dilemma for atheists?
[Muut säikeet] [Muut uutisryhmät]