|
snakechic
|
1# |
Rank:none
Score:0
Posts:3462
From:
Registered:
11/02/2004
Time spent:
1846 hours
|
(Date Posted:01/31/2005 1:22 AM)
Reply to : brak
What I don't want is to lead someone away from fundamentalist Christianity and right into another restrictive group or cult. So, I'm still left in a quandary as to whether the link should go up. I would appreciate any feedback from the group on how to proceed.
Yeah I agree and feel that walkawayer's are at their most vulnerable.
I also appreciate the need for 'female' philosophers to make it that simple. For me I can at times be annoyed with people who constantly refer to Nietzsche and I could equally point fingers at his sexism and racism. But Yes I agree its the devotees that can elevate anyone or anything to a cult status and who are probably more responsible. Chuckle....both Rand and Nietzsche are dead.
I've read a bit about Ayn Rand and quickly lost interest. It doesn't seem all that 'enticing' and perhaps just on a web page selection basis it could easily fail to meet your high standards. WInk..wink...
Perhaps the solution could also be the old 'disclaimer' as you have put into practise yourself here. It works well and gives enough explaination.
However if you want my vote........thumbs down to Rand!
When in doubt chuck it out!
--------------------------------------------------------------
In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
-- George H Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God
|
|
Voltaire
|
2# |
Rank:none
Score:0
Posts:1490
From:
Registered:
07/08/2001
Time spent:
0 hours
|
(Date Posted:01/31/2005 5:17 AM)
For me I can at times be annoyed with people who constantly refer to Nietzsche and I could equally point fingers at his sexism and racism.
Yup, Nietzsche was pretty damn sexist. Guilty as charged. I do give him a little leeway because he live in the latter half of the 19th century. He did have a lot of other good things to say, but when it came to women he was pretty far off base. It's nice having a philosopher I like also being fallible.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zombies, Unicorns, Devils, Sea Monsters, Satyrs, Dragons, Six Winged Angels, Gods, Demons, Witches, Astrologers, A walking & talking snake, Magical fruit, Talking donkeys, human headed six-winged beasts, Ghosts. All that stuff is in the Bible and yet they tell me it"s not mythology?
|
|
snakechic
|
3# |
Rank:none
Score:0
Posts:3462
From:
Registered:
11/02/2004
Time spent:
1846 hours
|
(Date Posted:02/01/2005 12:33 AM)
Reply to : Voltaire
Yup, Nietzsche was pretty damn sexist. Guilty as charged. I do give him a little leeway because he live in the latter half of the 19th century. He did have a lot of other good things to say, but when it came to women he was pretty far off base. It's nice having a philosopher I like also being fallible.
I nearly wrote the name Jessuss instead of Nietzsche. Devotee's of Jessus become very defensive if you critique their 'top man' as well.
I personally take it as a given that all philosopher's are fallible. I think once people start elevating the status of men and women, that's when it becomes cultish - adoration. (as per list) That and taking it personally if I or anyone would dare to question or poke holes in the words of said thinker/writer.
Brak is asking for ideas on ways to deal with differences or controversial material for the site. I've seen other site's include subheadings for the questionable stuff. I don't think Nietzsche is questionable I quite like the ideas but other's may not. Rand is verging on the dangerous as far as I'm concerned. The devotee's on the web seem to have already taken off with the formation of a cult thing. But I think anyone or anything can be - look at the Elvis freaks - do we avoid his music because of it. Its not easy but I agree with Brak no big deal if Rand is left out.
I haven't look at the site again recently but that's another point in question - how to deal with the inclusion of christian material? Who is going to say which is the right and good and which is not? Boy.......<shakes head> this is difficult!
--------------------------------------------------------------
In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
-- George H Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God
|
|
Shadowself
|
4# |
From:
Registered:
01/16/2004
Time spent:
1773 hours
|
(Date Posted:02/01/2005 4:51 AM)
I would think we want to keep the site's focus on supporting the walk-away process, and not on recommending any certain philosophy, political persuasion, etc. That is up to the individual to work out for him/herself. If the site you are talking about specifically "preaches" objectivism amid it's advise to people leaving xtianity, then I would say leave it out. If the info we are interested in is located on a separate page on the site, and concentrates on xtianity more than objectivism, we could link to it but provide a disclaimer that we are not promoting the rest of the website. This, of course, goes for any other ideas and beliefs, not just objectivism.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A big revelation in my professional training was that humans can learn skills for living and relating. We don"t have to be desperate for a miracle of God to make us decent.--Marlene Winell
|
|
thewebguy
|
5# |
Rank:none
Score:0
Posts:191
From:
Registered:
02/14/2002
Time spent:
0 hours
|
(Date Posted:02/07/2005 8:46 AM)
Thanks for your feedback. I was already pretty much decided on leaving that link out, and your responses finalized it. For now, it's out. I would like to see, eventually, more on the site about different philosophical schools. The type of critical thinking required to study philosophy is the same needed to critically study fundamentalist thinking. I do think that reference material to various respected philosophical schools would be useful for critical thinking. But that's a bit down the road. Snakechic is hits on where I was headed with my original question:
I haven't look at the site again recently but that's another point in question - how to deal with the inclusion of christian material? Who is going to say which is the right and good and which is not? Boy....... this is difficult!
Yep, I think this will be the really tough one. I don't have an answer for that one, but the consensus model we've used so far seems to be working. I just hope it works as we get to the tougher stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walkawayers.org
---
I judge all religions by how long I have to wait until they tell me about the spaceships.
|
|
Drummond
|
6# |
Rank:none
Score:0
Posts:1561
From:
Registered:
03/03/2002
Time spent:
0 hours
|
(Date Posted:05/30/2005 1:17 AM)
I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, in fact I think she was a nut. But she does have some interesting thoughts that are of value to an ex-fundie.
I think the whole thing can be dealt with by posting a general disclaimer that the site doesn't necessarily endorse all of the views of the sources it links.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From American Splendor
Student to Harvey Pekar: "It"s hard enough trying to convince people that socialism is a good thing without basing your argument on some abstract theory of human nature. Plato tried and failed. Fourier tried and failed. Marx tried and failed. Sartre tried and failed."
Harvey Pekar: "Well maybe I c"n learn from their mistakes."
|
| Welcome to The Collection of Flashlights!Wolf-eyes ,your eyes break the darkness! |
|
|
