This graphic of where each news channel stands seems roughly accurate to me, since I know what conservative news and liberal news channels look like. For the time being, it is out in the open.

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 — FreeEmotion

Impossible! I've actually got something right?

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?
— Wayfarer

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked)...
— StreetlightX

Right. The subtlest form of propaganda is simple omission. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Society's movement to the left requires the media to follow what is a 'left-shift' process. Ironically, the Fox Network occupying a shrinking niche, now in effect one of the last pillars of free-speech.

[

No, it’s spelled matriarchy. — praxis

Matriarchality, a made up word, used to describe a present social direction.
And to compensate for my limited vocabulary and poor wordskills generally.

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?
— Wayfarer

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc. This is basic media literacy. How on God's green Earth do you think otherwise? CNN is particularly shit, basically propaganda channel for corporate interests and repeating democratic party talking points verbatim. — StreetlightX

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete.
— Gregory A

Who will save us from this fate? Democracy? War? Maybe there is a way to put us on the right side of history.

“We have the president of Russia mentioned the N-word... the nuclear word,” Trump said.“The nuclear word is a very dangerous, dangerous word and it’s being thrown around very cavalierly.”
— RT

I have to agree. From the man who may be invented cavalier. — FreeEmotion

Who will save us? The answer would be the Patriarchs. But with their decline, the rise of matriarchality, the 'X' chromosomes socio-politically represented by the Left making our salvation most unlikely.

Democracy, a 'soft' form of government therefore a vector for the Left, inherently vulnerable, allowing emotionalism a vote, feminism a chance to rule (an inevitability).

War, well we can see who the patriarch is up against presently. The democratic world, its people, its companies even, are mostly against what most probably will be the last of the patriarch leaders, Vlad Putin.

Matriarchality?

The 'X-Male', a predictable occurence, turning on his fellow males as a display of self-serving chivalry decides what otherwise was once a balanced team. But regardless it is something metaphysical, mysterious even, that decides the so many factors that are involved in what will be the eventual elimination of the male.

You really do have no clue about women at all, do you? You’re just projecting your patriarchal perspective of ‘power’ onto a narrow oppositional perspective of feminism. Power is not about conquering, but about variable potential. If anything, this apparent ‘conspiracy to eliminate males’ is patriarchy’s own doing - a narrow view that ‘only one can survive’ at the top. — Possibility

Women along with most of society go with the flow, misguided by the myths of male domination & income disparity feminism perpetuates. A new generation appearing every 25 years, born primitive (naked) now near devoid of carry over conservative values, conservatives themselves in decline
due to natural attrition, all combining to exacerbate a situation. And you blame me?

It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.
— Gregory A

Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.

Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.

There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.
38 minutes ago — universeness

What would an Aussie know. They are all limpwrists anyhow.

And regardless of Dawkins political leanings his actions still result in a benefit to the Left.

Racists are real, you can make selections. Whereas if you claim to not believe in a particular god, you are at odds with the claim you don't believe in any/all gods.

All Birds Fallacy:

All LGBTQ activists being homosexual would not make all homosexuals LGBTQ activists. The activist faction is on the left. Got it. LGBTQ activists, not all being on the left would not mean LGBTQ activism is not on the left. Got it.

And so, it is not 'Men vs Women' but is instead 'XX X vs Y'. A Chromosomal Conspiracy that the outnumbered 'Y' has little chance of surviving.

It could be that the more primal lifestyle that would follow the inevitable nuclear holocaust feminist rule would ensure will favor the return of males. But even then there would be the death squads, be they on horseback, hunting down males and their male offspring, a bounty of say... $10,000 per 'scrote' (scrotum) their commission.
'

A process of inevitability of which there are only a few small escape routes. Global warming might force a return to traditional lifestyles for example. But then it appears GW itself is pretty much inevitable regardless of what we do.

The conspiracy to eliminate males is taking place at the chromosomal level. It is not a conscious thing.

Ridiculous fear-mongering. From someone who has lived and worked with mostly females a lot, the world is not better off without males. That they may soon no longer be physically essential doesn’t change that, and most women understand this (deep down) - although they’re not going to give men that reassurance at this point, for obvious reasons. — Possibility

Most women understand this? Feminism itself doesn't have as much as an inkling of how close to power it is. Needless to say women including feminists don't want something they have no idea is going to happen.

We could argue that there should be both matriarchies and patriarchies, but that does not seem to have happened. That said, there are matriarchal systems. Jewishness, for instance, is inherited through the mother (this is a religious convention, not genetics). There are small, agriculturalist groups that I have heard were matriarchal. Mostly, though, the idea of great matriarchies ruling over splendid societies (avoiding the problems of patriarchies) is just wishful thinking on the part of some feminists,
— Bitter Crank

Anyone looking for evidence of matriarchies ‘ruling over’ societies is not going to find much, because it won’t be structured as an overt power. Matriarchal systems are systems of qualitative potential, not quantitative power. You will find instead a thriving culture that transcends and subverts any overt political structures. Jewishness is an excellent example of this, as is African-American and even Australian Indigenous culture. They have withstood oppression and outright destruction by overt political structures through the qualitative strengths of their matriarchal systems.

Having said that, there is no legitimate reason for qualitative potential to be the domain of women, nor quantitative power the domain of men. The association is historical, not essential. — Possibility

Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything.
— Cobra
They're not put in the same prison for one thing. They're separated by gender/sex. Why is that?

You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man.
— Cobra

She most certainly will deviate. the pseudo male, the butch lesbian will be the result. We've been convinced by the Left that homosexuality is genetic and can't be created.


I don't think this way. Men and women can choose, and they do, what they want in life. It's when society lies about the masculine and feminine qualities that I object to. There are masculine and feminine qualities, and these qualities manifest in ways that sometimes we don't pay attention to.

The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane?
— Cobra
I am not insane. And you are caricaturing my position about gender differences. I didn't say that women shouldn't hold jobs traditionally held by men like firefighter, police, or trench digger. I'm saying that a woman could be a trench digger, a drunk, a race car driver while still being feminine. I think that it's you who seem to confuse that delineation in gender means that women are prevented from pursuing what men traditionally pursue.

For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people.
— Cobra
I give a flying fuck. Because with masculine and feminine differences, there must be differences in certain decisions between men and women, and one of those decisions is moral and ethical problems. How they act on a particular ethical issue differs. So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? This is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Until men can pass a whole baby through the penile corpus spongiosum, do not talk about dicks and vaginas like they're just decorations on the front end of your body.

Good name, btw -- Cobra. — L'éléphant

In a hostile world patriarchies have been essential, hence the difference in male and female physiques. We look for examples of matriarchies and find none for the simple reason they don't exist. All attempts failing too much at odds with a harsh reality. It follows that with a rapidly changing environment, the coming matriarchy will happen at the expense of men, all males in fact. At 67% the strength of the male, the female is easily compensated by mechanization. Machinery allowing even the heaviest work to be carried out by the most fragile of females. With artificial wombs on the distant horizon, artificial insemination available now, male obsolescence nears, the processes of gendercide already underway. There will be no males left in one hundred years this is inevitable.

I do not hold to this viewpoint. I am a heterosexual male but I don't see homosexuality as some kind of genetic ailment but I would prefer other homosexual people to debate you on the viewpoints you type above. — universeness

It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine. — universeness

It's not just my poor word skills it's maybe also that my arguments are simple in their logic and go by you (rather than over your head).

If atheism is the non-belief in god/s, then it can't specify any one religion to challenge. As its position is to not accept the concept of any/all gods. Atheism vs Christianity is not valid for example.

Dawkins would believe in Nature and consequently needs to 'believe' that a god does not exist. Making it impossible to for him to 'honestly' expect evidence of God to be produced. As a scientist he can't really argue much against theism as it represents 'belief' in god/s, not scientific arguments in their favor. He also can't argue against theism from a sociological viewpoint because theism is not a religion. Dawkins would be a conservative, so wouldn't be politically motivated if atheism is another element of the Left. Dawkins therefor can only be an agent of destruction looking for a way to enhance the fame he already has. And as there is little aclaim to be had taking on obsure religions he mostly attacks the god of the Bible.

Since when has it been ‘a right’ to have a mother and father? It is a biological fact, but it certainly isn’t a universal principle that children need the ‘mother and father’ present when being raised.

It is most probably fair to say that a male and female role model is needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfills the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’. — I like sushi

Yes to what you are saying the brother/uncle can be there as the male role model. And a substitute is still better than not having the real thing. Widows and widowers almost automatically get another opposite family member to fill that part of of the missing role.

I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make.
— Gregory A

Well its not my fault that your points are completely generalist and misguided, in my opinion.
I read the words you type and I speak and comprehend English so perhaps its your choice of words which are poor. Your words:
The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion are just utter nonsense in my opinion and I have stated so all through this thread so you merely repeating them to me is useless and pointless.
Attempting to augment with "If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail" is just more BS to me. I comment based on my atheism not your contrived 'sociologist' label.
as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away is not true in any way shape or form, its just more of your BS.
I am not a physicist, EugeneW is much closer to this label than I could claim to be and he seems more with your side of the OP than mine. — universeness

I'm the one saying atheism's position isn't valid. It should not argue against theists or religion if it claims to simply represent 'non-belief' in a god/s. And to not have ulterior motives, politics, despite being unaware of it, one of those. Logic is part of the common language we use, atheism relates logically to theism, nothing else. A non-believer can exist in the social sense, but not logically, as we either need to believe in Nature or believe in a god.

You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.' — universeness

I really doubt that, Dawkins would be more like myself in that respect. There are no 'gay people' in context, homosexuals don't exist in the physical sense, it is instead a condition that some people have. And yes we should do our best (and we do) to accommodate their rights, but, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would agree, the fundamental right of a child to have both a mother and a father should not be violated.

Am I being cruel? It sure looks like it. But then consider the biggest violation of that right is not by homosexuals but is instead being done by single parents, themselves yet another manifestation of the influence of the Left.

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief
— Gregory A

I don't know how you justify the 'jumps' you make from the words I type to the conclusions you arrive at in your head. I said 'He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists,' I did NOT restrict his statement to the Christian god of the bible, neither does he. He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah!
I would accept that he, like me, is DOGMATIC/passionately against many practices of the main religions.
I am incontrovertibly opposed to the evanhellicals, they are just evil through and through. Dawkins is aggressively/dogmatically against their practices as well. He has a similar stance against Sharia law from Islam or So-called Christians telling CHILDREN they will f****** burn in hell FOR ETERNITY if they don't believe. I and Richard Dawkins are unable to respond in a 'nice way' to such evil.
Dawkins will also say that historical religious practices such as pagan human sacrifice was totally F***** up thinking as well! I'm sure you are also personally against all the practices I have described above and in fact, share this common ground with Richard Dawkins. You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.'

Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow.
— Gregory A

You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and writes rather than your projections.
Please actually quote from Dawkins when you critique him negatively and try your best to be balanced in your critique and not quote him out of context. I will respond in kind and that way our exchange might have some value. If you want to start a separate thread, specifically on Dawkins then I will gladly contribute as a defender of his position. There are a lot of YouTube materials from him which can be cited, including his audiobooks, free on YouTube. — universeness

I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make.

President George W. Bush got on with him, but so did President Clinton, I think. The mad swings of the pendulum from Democratic to Republican. From Left to Right.

Watching closely.

I am assuming he is a good Vlad. — FreeEmotion

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete.

The Left vs Vlad Putin. How can Putin win. The last military battle to be fought by conservatism is being fought. He may win the battle but not the war. Putin is mortal after all whereas the 'X' Chromosome that the Left represents will be around as long as the last human.

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does
— EugeneW

No he doesn't. He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists, he states a confidence level of 99.9%, as do I. 'God does not exist and that is an incontrovertible fact,' cannot be stated by atheists.
Therefore the atheist position is not dogmatic, in my opinion. But many individual members of all religions will claim that the existence of their particular god is an incontrovertible fact, so they are dogmatic. Do you claim with 100% confidence that your god(s) exist? — universeness

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief. He would be every bit as dogmatic as the believers he rejects. Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow.

Yeah, I have heard all those black and Hispanic people living in the American ghettos are having a fab time and 'have everything they need.' Do you visit and walk through them at night without fear on a regular basis? The indigenous American tribal peoples are also very happy with their treatment since we Europeans stole their lands and named the whole place after an Italian mapmaker.
Where have you lived your life Gregory A in a Beverly hills bubble?
I don't know your back story but you do seem to have some naive viewpoints in my opinion.
I don't want to throw too many stones at you however as I am certainly not without sin myself.
Sin in my own non-religious definition, of course. — universeness

It's in our nationalistic interest to believe that Americans don't have it so good. But the reality is that their poor still have it better than we think. Poverty would be measured relative to regular living standards which are quite higher there than anywhere else. The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 years, it's survival of the fittest according to non-believers? I'm immodest and impolite, definitely not an American.

By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions.
— Gregory A

Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed. — universeness

Many political assassinations are not actually politically motivated. Instead done by people wanting a place in history. Oswald wanted to show he was someone, his defection and return not enough he turned to assassination the first of which failed, being armed and then to be presented with a once in a lifetime opportunity that working in the book depository gave he could hardly do anything other than assassinate the President. .

By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions.
— Gregory A

Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed.

The reality is that had his plans worked he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in.
— Gregory A

Jack Ruby saved everyone the bother so what does it matter? — universeness

The point had been that Oswald was out of touch, driven by personal, non-political, goals

Ruby's actions reveal the biggest personal threat the modern-day patriarch has. The male who will as an act of chivalry kill his fellow males, those who challenge the female domination process, the feminists in women's clothing thing.

I do not consider myself a 'Brit,' I am Scottish. The need for acclamation is not cultural or national, it is individual. I watched a series on the humble Amish and even within their community there are those who are 'more acclaimed' within the Amish community itself, compared to others in the same community and some of those more acclaimed individuals seemed to covet their influential status.
The caricature of the arrogant fame/wealth/power-seeking American is well known if not indeed exaggerated and conflated as all caricatures of nationality, normally are. — universeness

The Americans have been seeing themselves on TV since the 50's, the Brits mostly didn't have TVs then. An American thinks nothing of attention as they have everything they need and the Christian element enforces modesty. The British music invasion could only go the one way. The need for acclaim (and talent) drove things in that direction. Fame would only be incidental to those who are taught that 'success' is part of the American way. I'm not knocking anyone including the Brits, the need for acclaim combined with talent gave the world some of its best music. Annie Lennox's song 'Love is a Stranger' could have been done by an American? I don't think so.

Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy
— Gregory A

Which 'communist standard' are you referring to? The epicurean communist standard, the hippy communist standard? The communist standard of Castro or the communist standard of each person that lives in Cuba/Russia/China that you have personally met and talked politics with? Or are you just spouting political generalizations? Nixion was just a — universeness

The Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions. The reality is that had his plans worked out and he escaped he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in.

I will let Mr Dawkins answer for himself when it comes to whether or not he covets fame.
I personally don't think he does but I haven't asked him and I haven't watched an interview where he does discuss it directly. I did watch a session where he reads out all the hate mail he gets from theists and just general individuals who don't like him. It was quite entertaining. — universeness

It's a cultural thing (regardless of where he was born) the/you Brits are more likely to stand up and want to be acclaimed compared to say the Americans with their modesty and respect (the legacy of a strong Christian past).

Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence.
— Gregory A
and your point is....... — universeness

The point is we don't need science to attach a head to a stick to make a spear, these are natural progressions, not things handed to us by scientists. It's the other way around in fact science owes its existence to the human need for discovery. .

Yeah, I am sure Richard Dawkins read about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and thought to himself, "That's the life for me! If I copy his approach to life then I will become famous in America too!!" :lol:
'Keep em comin' Gregory A, you are very entertaining.
I think you will find that Oswald is infamous not famous and Dawkins is well known and respected, unlike Oswald. Your comparison between the two is utter nonsense.
Did Jim and Tammy Baker study Lee Harvey Oswald in their bid to become famous in America or is that suggestion, like yours, just BS. — universeness

It would be the nature of the syndrome not who it would be named after that matters. And Oswald's first name was Lee, not Lee-Harvey, (and being a communist he would have dropped his middle name ). Jim and Tammy wanted wealth more than fame. And who wants to be infamous, Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy (actually the best friend the communists had at the time when compared to his opponent at the 1960 general election the rabidly anti-communist Richard M. Nixon).

Einstein said: "der Herr Gott würfelt nicht"... How clear can it be?
— EugeneW

I don't speak that language but I am content with the Wikipedia quote on Einstein, for now.
If I am wrong then I am sure some god will permit his 'essence' to comlink with me in one of my dreams to correct me, as it seems all the available documentation on Einstein is unable to irrefutable settle this issue. — universeness

Einstein would have been a realist which would leave him a little ambiguous. The harshness of reality and the miraculousness of existence causing confusion to many philosophers. The promise of immortality that 'Many Worlds' offers for example would have given him (if he'd lived a few more years) some reason to have belief. While on the other hand (his) determinism pretty much dashes all hope of believing.

Just read the title of one of Pinker's books, one part in the new bible series:

Enlightenment NOW. The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.

Nice words. Humanism and progress. Who dont like humans and progress. But words can deceive. One's humanism can be other's inhumanity. One's progress can be other's way back. — EugeneW

Humanism is the 'faith' of atheists and is meant to be a slap in the face for theism. But if a god is real, then anything set up to challenge its existence must fail. Humanism is a fail as just about all that is wrong with the world is of human creation. Global Warming the threat of Nuclear Winter etc. Atheism too is a fail. Naturalism fails as it is virtually non-existent and can never offer faith anyhow.

I read rumors though that guys like Dawkins and Harris joint with the extreme right. — EugeneW

Dawkins comes across as conservative, Harris too I'm sure. But atheism is different things. To these two it is a vehicle to fame they wouldn't have by just being scientists. Why atheism is an element of the Left is that it represents a patriarchal system, Moses, Jesus & Muhammad being men. The Bible teaching that women should obey their husbands, getting the Left's heckles up as well.(although good advice at the time, and mostly still now. Husbands obeying their wives in different instances too. A survival mechanism, the same reason why men are usually older than their female partners).

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then.
— Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders. — DingoJones

Theists have every right to defend themselves from atheists. And sure there is a need for control mechanisms that do self arise, unions for example defending workers from the negative effects of Capitalism's survival of the fittest philosophy's impact on wages. But religion is hardly out of hand. And governments themselves have a far worse track record when it comes to mistreatment of its citizens. That said atheists are not anarchists as well.

↪Gregory A
If atheism is the view that there are no gods then it would have nothing to do with free speech. If atheism challenges theism to show proof of god/s, then it would most certainly be challenging theism's right to free speech. If atheism isn't to the left, then theism isn't to the right???

There are two possibly valid positions, one, the belief in a naturally occurring universe, and one in a supernaturally occurring universe. Consequently, there can be no (logically) valid middle ground.

You ask theists for evidence of god/s then you have no evidence of god/s yourself, for your request to be valid, means you also have no evidence of Nature (a naturally occurring universe). You can't hold out for evidence of one then still ask for evidence of the other

Some atheists challenge some theists from time to time to justify their beliefs. On a philosophy forum that is entirely appropriate and acceptable. It's also appropriate and acceptable in public discourse in response to theists arguing for their beliefs, or even just proselytising. I don't think I've ever heard an atheist say that theists should not be allowed to express their views.

You personify atheism and theism in your post, which I think causes conceptual mischief.

Indeed, both theism and atheism are neutral with regard to political handedness. There are many lefties in the clergy in the UK for example. And many right wing people whom I very much doubt believe in anything much past the narrow material interests of themselves and their loved ones.

I'm not sure if I'm an atheist or not, but in any case I ask both theists and atheists to justify their metaphysical views on a philosophy forum. The question of the burden of proof is interesting and complex it seems to me. — bert1

Some atheists can't challenge some theists. Atheism as the term suggests is a challenge by all atheists to all theists, put up or shut up. Atheism by its existence threatens the free speech of theists. It is 'a-theism'. You are confusing atheism with naturalism the belief that the universe comes about naturally, no need for the supernatural, and is the real counterargument to theism. There is no proof of Nature (Big Bang is a theory, abiogenesis, and evolution too) so why the need to prove God.

And yes there are leftwing elements in the clergy, and there are the trendoid religions with their Harley Davidson riding priests, but let's face it religions are generally conservative. And conservatism is on the right.

the other is destroying religion
— Gregory A

You give Richard a great compliment here, you should send him a copy of your compliment, it will help brace him in this, in my opinion, honorable goal but I think 'destroy' is unlikely, 'vastly reduce its influence in politics, education, commerce and society,' would be more accurate and a more realistic and achievable goal. — universeness

Dawkins suffers from Lee Oswald syndrome. How to become famous in America. Oswald assassinated an American president, Dawkins goes after its religion. Both destructive actions.

Science has done no good.
— EugeneW

What?? Should we have just stayed in our caves then and not made the use of fire that we did and not have employed science to attach a big bit of sharpened flint/stone to the end of a strong long pole and used it to more easily kill animals for food or spear the local tribal invaders? — universeness

Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence.

Scientists are obliged to stay out of what are philosophical positions, and they mostly do
— Gregory A

Scientists are obliged to do no such thing! They often choose to, when they think that the philosophical points made are erroneous and of little value or meaning to the hypothesis/theory/experimental results under discussion at the time. But they will speak to philosophical claims if and when they feel it is prudent to do so. — universeness

There are no scientists here regardless of your or others qualifications. All people here are philosophers.

I think we all have faith regardless of what we say. But that doesn't mean everything in life will turn out okay. We need to ward off the forces of 'evil' for one thing. Atheism is one of those.
— Gregory A

Well, if people don't believe in god, who am I to tell them they should? I don't understand it but its up to them. And to be fair, no one really knows. Im convinced gods exist, for atheists also. But that's my objective reality. — EugeneW

But atheists aren't just people who don't believe in a god/s, they are as well actively opposed to such belief. It's why they are called 'atheists'. And you are entitled to share your beliefs, regardless of their strengths, with anyone prepared to listen. It's a right of free speech you have.

Einstein was not an atheist, which doesn't make him a believer
— Gregory A

He believed in god. Said even he dont play dice. Thats an inspiration for his science. He believed, and I think rightly, QM isnt the final answer. — EugeneW

I think we all have faith regardless of what we say. But that doesn't mean everything in life will turn out okay. We need to ward off the forces of 'evil' for one thing. Atheism is one of those.

↪Gregory A

I just dont get what he's got against theism. Isn't it obvious the universe is created? He's got the right to be an atheist, of course, but his vision is a cold one. — EugeneW

Dawkins has his motives but none of these are scientific. If we set about to do constructive things, then becoming famous that way is very difficult. But if on the other hand we be destructive, fame can easily be had. My generation knew who Lee Oswald was, subsequent generations know who Richard Dawkins is. One destroyed a president, the other is destroying religion.