This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

latsot's Profile

latsot's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by latsot

Looking for video - last commented 20 May 2011 01:00 PM

More Discussions by latsot

Latest Comments by latsot

Go to: Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

latsot's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by latsot

Steve Zara wrote:

That shows how essential militancy is. As for ramming a culture down society's throat, it's not doing that at all. Heterosexuality is such a fixture in almost every aspect of our lives it's easy to forget that it's even there. Just about every story involves a heterosexual relationship. Almost all advertising, almost all marketing, is about man/woman relatioships. Almost all popular music is about heterosexual love. It's everywhere, but we usually don't notice it, just like a fish doesn't notice water, because we swim in it.

Steve is right. I find it extraordinary that someone on this site, of all places, would make such a foolish comment (jesusdiedLOL's, not Steve's). The very reason this site exists at all is an example of exactly the same thing. Theism is so prevalent that we often don't notice its influence. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need sites like this or conferences or even a word for 'atheism'. It's a consequence of other people's biggotry and indiference that we atheists need to get in people's faces. It's the same with homosexuality, as Steve says.

jesusdiedLOL has no evidence at all that 'militant' (whatever that is supposed to mean) homosexuality is counter-productive. I strongly suspect the evidence shows the opposite. Attitudes toward homosexuality have changed a lot for the better in the last few decades and I'd be very surprised if events like Gay Pride have nothing to do with this.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:23:30 UTC | #635804

Go to: The Rapture aside, America's evangelical Christians deserve a little respect

latsot's Avatar Jump to comment 142 by latsot

No, no respect, not a crumb of respect, not a grain of pity

No respect for people just because they believe improbable things and no respect for the whiny Tim Stanley who seems to want to disassociate evangelicals from the disgraces of people like Phelps and Camping, but to associate them intimately with people who does good stuff.

But I do feel sorry for some of the un-raptured. Not for those whose faith wasn't shaken and will take up with the next crackpot that comes along. We atheists have done all we can and all they had to do was listen. Not for those who tore their families or finances apart in a supremely ostentatious display of more-pious-and-sure-of-my-faith-than-thou.

But for those whose faith was deeply shaken by their disappointment and who might be moving toward letting go of it entirely, I have a measure of sympathy. For many people, letting go of god - or even just one long-held belief about god - can be a traumatic experience. It can cause much personal angst and family discord. I've no doubt that the journey will be worth it: a life lived in reason is better than one lived for a lie. But the transition might be hard. Why do I feel sorry for these rather than the other unraptured? Because they are only just realising that they're victims: of charismatic preachers; of a pernicious religion with highly effective barbs; and of child abuse. There are few more painful feelings than realising you're an abuse victim and I think that deserves some sympathy.

But for the ones who still don't realised they've been conned their whole lives, no sympathy at all.

Mon, 23 May 2011 11:25:03 UTC | #629811

Go to: Looking for video

latsot's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by latsot

grunxo,

Sorry to get back to you a year late, but yeah, that's the one. For some reason I didn't check the thread after I'd posted the question, which doesn't seem very intelligent.

Thanks for your efforts, the video is a nice piece of work.

Fri, 20 May 2011 13:00:18 UTC | #628765

Go to: Sharia law: an eye for an eye

latsot's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by latsot

If the idea of harming someone because you think they deserve it doesn’t horrify you then you're part of the problem.

I can't think of a single excuse to claim an anything for an anything. And although I can imagine a supposed moral authority under which this might be acceptable, I couldn't and wouldn't, can't and won't submit to any such horror.

Sun, 15 May 2011 00:21:53 UTC | #626902

Go to: Dawkins U-turns on clerical abuse

latsot's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by latsot

Hi Steve,

Comment 23 by Steve Zara : But here's where it gets really awful: The Catholic Church considers that it has a higher moral authority than temporal institutions, that it is not morally answerable to secular law. The seal of the confessional has the highest priority. And now for the final touch: The Church believes it has the ability to forgive sins, absolving someone of guilt.

This was a moral hazard, with disaster inevitable.

While I agree with everything you say here, I tend to think the catholic church gets really awful long before it encounters secular law at all, simply because it brings up other people to believe it has moral authority, regardless of how that jibes with secular authority. This is very likely the environment in which the most harm is done because it discourages ever contacting the secular authorities should something awful occur to a person; persuades victims that the priesthood's claimed arbitration with god is the way to salvation (so that splitting means you go to hell); and automatically makes non-secular authorities right.

I realise that we're covering a lot of common ground here, I just think the main awfulness is in abuse of power - and the ease with which power is abused and excused - long before the church even has to worry about conflicting with secular laws.

It's awfulness all the way down.

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:20:21 UTC | #620221

More Comments by latsot