tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post460084641138617294..comments2023-10-21T11:46:32.529+01:00Comments on Madame Arcati: Martin Amis shows his ... teethMadame Arcatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04823823014493798116noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-78913625821972425292008-10-27T19:33:00.000+00:002008-10-27T19:33:00.000+00:00"My underlying point is that "atheism" is itself a..."My underlying point is that "atheism" is itself a belief - a belief in no god."<BR/><BR/>I actually completely agree. I think atheism is a belief not necessarily a belief in no god but a belief that there is nothing above us<BR/><BR/>Great post!<BR/><BR/>Cheers, <BR/>EdnaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-9407570074733287432007-10-20T02:24:00.000+01:002007-10-20T02:24:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-81944665671422309012007-10-19T10:50:00.000+01:002007-10-19T10:50:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-91291006968138948332007-10-16T15:36:00.000+01:002007-10-16T15:36:00.000+01:00No, Martin WAS a better writer than his contempora...No, Martin WAS a better writer than his contemporaries. You forget, those masterpieces were twenty years ago...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-56434457226547586312007-10-16T14:16:00.000+01:002007-10-16T14:16:00.000+01:00Meanwhile, back with our subject, you are sooooo s...Meanwhile, back with our subject, you are sooooo spot on about Martin A as being a wholly better writer than any of his contemporaries, especially in his earlier work., MONEY and LONDON FIELDS are masterpiece and he writes so well he kicks them all into touch. Martin for the Nobel.SusanHillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06471719090691632864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-90648615249678015762007-10-15T18:42:00.000+01:002007-10-15T18:42:00.000+01:00You have inadvertently illustrated my point. In on...You have inadvertently illustrated my point. In one sense Stalin and Hitler were self-described atheists. In another sense they made religions of themselves - though they did not use the word divine. Everyone believes, or places their faith, in something - and it is the delusion of materialists that science is somehow immune to this. Alas, the rest of your comment is too deliberately vague to warrant response. I think you'll find positivism in modern form is alive and kicking - this is not a fashion runway, you know.Madame Arcatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04823823014493798116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-43748099877870891322007-10-15T18:17:00.000+01:002007-10-15T18:17:00.000+01:00Sorry, you're both talking arse burgers. Atheism ...Sorry, you're both talking arse burgers. Atheism includes not believing in god or gods, but importantly encompasses not believing in divinity. By default anything considered divine, whether that be aspects of the Nazi philosophy, Stalin's will, or other psychological vestments of divinity negate atheism. Negating the negation of theism that a-theism is. Anyone who thinks of anything as divine is not an atheist.<BR/><BR/>Your description of science is complete bollocks MA. Positivism went out with pipes. Get with it FFS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-10999268740973591792007-10-15T13:43:00.000+01:002007-10-15T13:43:00.000+01:00Atheism is defined either as a belief or doctrine ...Atheism is defined either as a belief or doctrine that there is no god or a disbelief in the existence of god. The word "nontheist" might better suit those who believe there is no god - but of course atheism has many varieties, like religion itself.<BR/><BR/>You say: "You cannot have a 'belief' that something unproven to exist does not exist." The reverse is almost always true. Atheism in itself does not stand alone: it is almost always allied to an anti-religion belief, such as naturalism (not naturism!). These days naturalism (which takes many forms) tends to be rooted in an unquestioning faith in science not just to solve all our problems but to unveil all secrets. I say "faith" because science cannot actually do all these things. Mysteries to be beheld are still countless. But because science is empirical - it tests its theories to find its facts - people say they trust, or have faith, in science to describe our universe. To many this makes more sense than does the supernatural.<BR/><BR/>In my conversations with atheists, and my readings of their books, what usually emerges after about five minutes is a fanatical belief in science. Atheism is therefore the name given, among other things, to science-faith.<BR/><BR/>Morally, I should say that I have observed that atheists are no better or worse than religionists. History books will confirm. But what the two tribes have in common is a need to believe that each is right - and a need to believe that the other side is deluded.<BR/><BR/>As to your point about those who do not believe in fairies and whatnot - you may call such people logical, but I have no precise name for them. Quite probably they are "atheists" who have a "logical" faith in science.Madame Arcatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04823823014493798116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-48298332846936908132007-10-15T09:19:00.000+01:002007-10-15T09:19:00.000+01:00"My underlying point is that "atheism" is itself a..."My underlying point is that "atheism" is itself a belief - a belief in no god."<BR/><BR/>What an illogical absurdity! You cannot have a "belief" that something unproven to exist does not exist.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Miller refuses the label "atheist" for just this kind of reason. What do we call someone who does not believe in fairies, or unicorns? We don't give them a unique identity, we simply describe them as logical, grounded people. To describe atheism as a belief system is like saying one has faith in gravity - a nonsensical juxtaposition of terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-40136473952348175462007-10-14T19:54:00.000+01:002007-10-14T19:54:00.000+01:00Compelling but historically inaccurate. Despite t...Compelling but historically inaccurate. Despite the popular notion, Hitler was not an atheist. In fact, Hitler's speeches were littered with Biblical references and his anti-semitism (as with that of many high-ranking Nazis) may very well have resulted from Catholic upbringing. He later distanced himself from Rome (though he never renounced the Catholic Church) and began to spout a rather bizarre Christian/pagan rhetoric. <BR/><BR/>To say that he promoted Nazism and preverted religion(s) to his own ends is merely to point out that he was a fanatic. Whether he believed in gods or God is rather beside the point as, in fact, he did believe in <B>something</B>. He wrote and spoke often of providence, a fundamentally religious concept.<BR/> <BR/>Stalin, on the other hand, feared higher authority. I would suggest that atheism - along with all the rest of his actions - was the result of totalitarianism, rather than the other way round. Stalin didn't let any ideology get in his way - not even true communism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-661241885041333122007-10-14T13:46:00.000+01:002007-10-14T13:46:00.000+01:00I don'tI don'tAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30643113.post-55468030702818693422007-10-14T12:38:00.000+01:002007-10-14T12:38:00.000+01:00I find it odd that the person who can write this s...I find it odd that the person who can write this spends so much time obsessing about Spacey and trivia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com