Anonymous Scientology Protest in London

i believe in nothing Lebowski

@ turpe - good stuff, well put :)

h2o I agree with you completely, except I can't remember any philosophers even indirectly influencing any form of widespread malcontent or treatment (Nietzsche doesn't count - his philosophy was espoused by the Nazis, it wasn't Nazi to begin with) ;)

proselytising = a better word than militant I think.

'right' and 'wrong':

seriously, don't go there! :P Philosphy can't really meaningfully say anything about morality beyond what anyone on the street can - it's too subjective a topic to have rational debate over, at least if you believe Kant on the subject.

@ h2o - more good stuff !! :)

Although I think it might need to be added that regardless of how offensive a view might be (for example: God as described in the Bible is a terrible old cunt) - the expression of that view is neither militant nor proselytising.

To express a view is not to force it on anyone.

asm h2o I agree with you completely, except I can't remember any philosophers even indirectly influencing any form of widespread malcontent or treatment (Nietzsche doesn't count - his philosophy was espoused by the Nazis, it wasn't Nazi to begin with) ;)

proselytising = a better word than militant I think.

'right' and 'wrong':

seriously, don't go there! :P Philosphy can't really meaningfully say anything about morality beyond what anyone on the street can - it's too subjective a topic to have rational debate over, at least if you believe Kant on the subject.

Marx.

wheels @ h2o - more good stuff !! :)

Although I think it might need to be added that regardless of how offensive a view might be (for example: God as described in the Bible is a terrible old cunt) - the expression of that view is neither militant nor proselytising.

To express a view is not to force it on anyone.

Discussion is fundamental to the political process, so I'd agree with you there.

I do think Dawkins crossed over the line slightly by calling himself a 'bright' and trying to make out that he was part of some kind of elite that was going to rid the world of ignorance, however. That kind of vanguardism is a bit, well, cultish.

well you got me there, haha.

Am I weird for not immediately considering marx a philosopher? That's quite an interesting point actually, marx was most definitely used as an excuse to do terrible things.

h2o I don't believe in god personally, but I don't particularly feel the need to impose my philosophical belief system upon others.

This is a very good point, one of the (many) problems with religion is it's inherent need to impose itself on others, it is not enough to 'know' that the creator of the universe is on your side, he communes with you, has a guiding hand in your life and will 'save' you (presumbly from himself) on death - this is never enough for the religious, they will not be happy until they have spread their particular superstitions to all - it is mandated of them by god himself.

wheels [quote]h2o I don't believe in god personally, but I don't particularly feel the need to impose my philosophical belief system upon others.

This is a very good point, one of the (many) problems with religion is it's inherent need to impose itself on others, it is not enough to 'know' that the creator of the universe is on your side, he communes with you, has a guiding hand in your life and will 'save' you (presumbly from himself) on death - this is never a enough the religious need to spread their vision - it is mandated of them by god himself.[/quote]

Which, to be fair, was very important during the early phase of religious belief when it was a way to mediate human interaction in very small communities. They needed rules and some kind of process for conflict resolution and a strong sense of cohesion and shared purpose if they were to survive as a unit and to withstand competition from other communities. It isn't a coincidence that some of the most virulent expressions of religious expansionism produced some of the largest and most successful empires.

edit to add:

Basically I'm arguing that religious belief was an adaptive behaviour in early society. It still has some mobilising power, so it's not entirely maladaptive today, particularly in communities where efficiency and rational economic choice are not the defining criteria of wellbeing and reproductive success.

h2o [quote]wheels @ h2o - more good stuff !! :)

Although I think it might need to be added that regardless of how offensive a view might be (for example: God as described in the Bible is a terrible old cunt) - the expression of that view is neither militant nor proselytising.

To express a view is not to force it on anyone.

Discussion is fundamental to the political process, so I'd agree with you there.

I do think Dawkins crossed over the line slightly by calling himself a 'bright' and trying to make out that he was part of some kind of elite that was going to rid the world of ignorance, however. That kind of vanguardism is a bit, well, cultish.[/quote]

Yeah the 'bright' thing has kind of bombed ! - but it was not just for an elite, it was open to anyone to join. I think his intentions were well founded - in the US 'atheist' is seen as such a filthy term that this was an attempt to re-brand the godless.