Unless you have been living under a rock or deliberately ignoring the world around you, it would be very difficult or even near impossible to not notice that more and more people are openly professing atheism. Whether or not they truly do not believe in a God is up for debate but their profession of Atheism should still be noted and respected.
My problem with a lot of these Atheists is their approach towards other religions. Most people will agree with the right of everyone to hold any religious belief their heart desires. And the fact that it is wrong to force your beliefs on anyone. But a lot of these new Atheists seem to be doing the contrary to the above, either by commission or omission. They constant torrent of insults being rained on religious people is quite frankly despicable. Books like “The God Delusion” and “God is not Great” , which have done a lot to reignite the much needed public debate on faith, have also gone a long way to fuel the flame of intolerance.
Of course there should always be a public debate about issues of faith but I strongly believe it is no longer a debate when one side has no interest in what the other has to say. I have listened to many public debates between theists and atheists and I can't help but notice a distinct disrespect and disregard from the atheist side. I do think a lot of religious people and thinkers have gotten complacent over the years and have developed a false sense of security. But I don't think a constant barrage of insult/ ridicule is what we need in the interest of intelligent discuss.
There is also a patronising element to the movement that I think belittles the intelligence of many of the people the movement is trying to reach. I get this “this is how you are meant to think” message that somehow suggests that human beings do not have the capacity to make an informed decision after evaluating the information available to them. It is one thing to disagree with someone and/or think they have made a wrong decision but it is something else entirely to suggest that your option is the only option. Theists can also be just as guilty of this.
My biggest problem with New Age Atheism is its militant nature. The way the movement's primary purpose seems to be to undermine and discredit everything else causes me great concern. I am perfectly comfortable with anyone who chooses to believe in something totally different to what I believe or even to be apathetic. As long as we both know that is where we are both coming from and deal with the situation as civilised adults rather than primitive narrow-minded ones. .
I am a strong believer in the fact when you feel like you need to pull someone else down to stand, you might need to question how sure your footing is. And this is why I think the militant nature of New Age Atheism is due to the their insecurities. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. I would be more worried about doing what I can to ascertain my faith and make sure I am secure in what I believe.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Monday, 7 March 2011
"Slang is the poetry of the poor"
When actress Emma Thompson said the words above a few weeks ago, it sparked heated discussions amongst linguists and lay men about the use of slang in everyday speech. To paraphrase the words of the actress, the use of slang makes you sound stupid and shows how much you don’t know. I think she is very wrong and is probably the one that doesn’t know a lot.
The use of slang is not always a result of ignorance but for many people, it is a very conscious choice in their journey of self expression. Their diction is not something they fall victim of as a result of substandard education or lack of exposure but a decision they have made after a careful consideration of the words and expressions available as well as a good think about how best to share their thoughts with the world.
And Thompson is not alone in her condemnation of the use of slang. There is often a derisive look on people’s faces when they hear speech heavily laced with slang. It comes across as if the speaker is somehow disadvantaged purely for their use of slang and I think this is very harsh and unnecessarily so. To lump those who choose after careful consideration in the same box as those who have the decision made for them is very harsh and could also be a pointer to what you don’t know.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not for one second condoning those who speak purely in slang due to a poor grasp of the language and those who do so out of ignorance. For those people, their only hope is to record themselves and a three year old and try make out which one of the two has the higher IQ.
In my opinion, slang should be a supplement to a language you already have a very strong command of. I don’t believe lacing whatever language you speak with colloquialisms makes you look stupid or cheapens the language. But rather, I believe a good selection of slang and appropriate use is a wonder to the human ear. Even the most proper of speakers will reveal some sort of influence of the pop culture to which they subscribe and that is what slang is. Slang has always been and will always be a huge part of how we speak. And a careful look at the history of some of the words we use loosely today will show their roots in colloquialism.
In closing, I will borrow the words of Max Davidson of The Telegraph who, in my opinion, summed up the whole discussion in the best way possible. According to him, “Slang alone will never be enough. You need to use a mixture of slang and non-slang expressions if you want to get your message across. But unless you see slang as a potential friend, a chance to be yourself, at ease with your peers, you will just end up as a well-spoken automaton – every sentence you utter immaculate, and not a breath of life in any of them.” You get me?
The use of slang is not always a result of ignorance but for many people, it is a very conscious choice in their journey of self expression. Their diction is not something they fall victim of as a result of substandard education or lack of exposure but a decision they have made after a careful consideration of the words and expressions available as well as a good think about how best to share their thoughts with the world.
And Thompson is not alone in her condemnation of the use of slang. There is often a derisive look on people’s faces when they hear speech heavily laced with slang. It comes across as if the speaker is somehow disadvantaged purely for their use of slang and I think this is very harsh and unnecessarily so. To lump those who choose after careful consideration in the same box as those who have the decision made for them is very harsh and could also be a pointer to what you don’t know.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not for one second condoning those who speak purely in slang due to a poor grasp of the language and those who do so out of ignorance. For those people, their only hope is to record themselves and a three year old and try make out which one of the two has the higher IQ.
In my opinion, slang should be a supplement to a language you already have a very strong command of. I don’t believe lacing whatever language you speak with colloquialisms makes you look stupid or cheapens the language. But rather, I believe a good selection of slang and appropriate use is a wonder to the human ear. Even the most proper of speakers will reveal some sort of influence of the pop culture to which they subscribe and that is what slang is. Slang has always been and will always be a huge part of how we speak. And a careful look at the history of some of the words we use loosely today will show their roots in colloquialism.
In closing, I will borrow the words of Max Davidson of The Telegraph who, in my opinion, summed up the whole discussion in the best way possible. According to him, “Slang alone will never be enough. You need to use a mixture of slang and non-slang expressions if you want to get your message across. But unless you see slang as a potential friend, a chance to be yourself, at ease with your peers, you will just end up as a well-spoken automaton – every sentence you utter immaculate, and not a breath of life in any of them.” You get me?
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Feminism killed womanhood
Did the feminists get the recipe wrong when they took women out of the kitchen? I believe they did.
I strongly believe that feminism has damaged womanhood. I believe that in their bid to liberate women and make bigger pieces of the pie more readily available to women, the feminist movement has done more to tarnish many men and women’s perception of women than it has done to help.
It is true that women were treated like second class citizens for a long time. And it was right that women got their act together and fought for what they should have always had. Where I think the feminists got it wrong was when they started demanding to be like men.
I strongly believe men and women are meant to be co-dependent on each other. And for such a relationship to work and work well, both parties have to bring something different to what the other is bringing to the table. It’s all about finding the balance and one not overpowering the other. It’s for everyone to understand that without the woman, the man is an unloaded gun. Needless to say the woman is the bullet. And without the man, the woman is like a bow without an arrow. Men need women and women need men.
Also when I say the feminists were wrong when they made it their primary aim to get women out of the kitchen, I don’t for a second mean the kitchen is a woman’s place. I just believe that the feminist movement fought the wrong battle. I think the right to do would have been to go for a “let’s do this together or...” approach rather than the “we’re leaving. You can replace us if you like” approach they are famous for. With the suffragettes movement, they campaigned for a share of the pie. They campaigned to be able to find the same opportunities that the men got without having to do twice as much work. There is nothing wrong with that and anyone that says otherwise needs to have their heads checked out.
A woman cannot be replaced with anything. And anyone with two brain cells will not arguing too vehemently against women being the most important creature to ever walk this planet. To try to keep them down would just be ignorant and pointless but there has to be a point where the line is drawn between fighting for what is rightfully yours and trying to rob someone else to enrich yourself. And I believe the latter is what feminism seeks to do – to enrich women at men’s cost if necessary
Feminism to me is like racism – rating yourself higher than someone else, not because of what you have earned or achieved but because of what you think you are. Feminism has given many women the impression that they have a divine right to have a look in. That they should have automatic respect and be regarded highly by all. Feminism has made many women believe they can do it all by themselves and that they do not a man to help them on as they help him on as well. This has only contributed to the breakdown in society and family values as well as creating more problems
I strongly believe that feminism has damaged womanhood. I believe that in their bid to liberate women and make bigger pieces of the pie more readily available to women, the feminist movement has done more to tarnish many men and women’s perception of women than it has done to help.
It is true that women were treated like second class citizens for a long time. And it was right that women got their act together and fought for what they should have always had. Where I think the feminists got it wrong was when they started demanding to be like men.
I strongly believe men and women are meant to be co-dependent on each other. And for such a relationship to work and work well, both parties have to bring something different to what the other is bringing to the table. It’s all about finding the balance and one not overpowering the other. It’s for everyone to understand that without the woman, the man is an unloaded gun. Needless to say the woman is the bullet. And without the man, the woman is like a bow without an arrow. Men need women and women need men.
Also when I say the feminists were wrong when they made it their primary aim to get women out of the kitchen, I don’t for a second mean the kitchen is a woman’s place. I just believe that the feminist movement fought the wrong battle. I think the right to do would have been to go for a “let’s do this together or...” approach rather than the “we’re leaving. You can replace us if you like” approach they are famous for. With the suffragettes movement, they campaigned for a share of the pie. They campaigned to be able to find the same opportunities that the men got without having to do twice as much work. There is nothing wrong with that and anyone that says otherwise needs to have their heads checked out.
A woman cannot be replaced with anything. And anyone with two brain cells will not arguing too vehemently against women being the most important creature to ever walk this planet. To try to keep them down would just be ignorant and pointless but there has to be a point where the line is drawn between fighting for what is rightfully yours and trying to rob someone else to enrich yourself. And I believe the latter is what feminism seeks to do – to enrich women at men’s cost if necessary
Feminism to me is like racism – rating yourself higher than someone else, not because of what you have earned or achieved but because of what you think you are. Feminism has given many women the impression that they have a divine right to have a look in. That they should have automatic respect and be regarded highly by all. Feminism has made many women believe they can do it all by themselves and that they do not a man to help them on as they help him on as well. This has only contributed to the breakdown in society and family values as well as creating more problems
Monday, 10 May 2010
In My Full Mind... by Mide Oguns
In my full mind I must imagine
that at the point of decease
as the inexorable blades of eternity
sever us from this plummeting reality,
it is not intense pain
Sorrowful remorse, fear,
Languishing terror or regret,
but acute hope that here will perhaps
prove more inhabitable
For some other soul;
that wars continue un-fought
in the coarse fields of evanescent minds
calloused into disrepair
from retreading the careworn
Attempts to seize some wild peace.
Hope. Such as is possible
only in the harsh actuality
of irrevocable departure;
passed on like a waning baton
as life dissolves smoothly
into the flailing airs in the absence
of wailing heirs, wives or exes.
But for that illustrious instant
reserved for the abysmal leap
into the oasis of unbridled being -
a gift: certain and unassailable,
Knowable too late to be necessary;
Clarity at the moment of death.
that at the point of decease
as the inexorable blades of eternity
sever us from this plummeting reality,
it is not intense pain
Sorrowful remorse, fear,
Languishing terror or regret,
but acute hope that here will perhaps
prove more inhabitable
For some other soul;
that wars continue un-fought
in the coarse fields of evanescent minds
calloused into disrepair
from retreading the careworn
Attempts to seize some wild peace.
Hope. Such as is possible
only in the harsh actuality
of irrevocable departure;
passed on like a waning baton
as life dissolves smoothly
into the flailing airs in the absence
of wailing heirs, wives or exes.
But for that illustrious instant
reserved for the abysmal leap
into the oasis of unbridled being -
a gift: certain and unassailable,
Knowable too late to be necessary;
Clarity at the moment of death.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
You can't just "do what you want"
In a bid to assert some sort of authority or make a statement, you will often hear people ask why they cannot do what they want. Truth be told, many of these people have legitimate axes to grind or are in situations that need some radical changes but does this justify a total disregard for the system in place.
If you are one of the people described above, my advice is to put careful thought into the way things are and to look at how you can either adapt yourself or point out aspects of the existing system that are not being put into practise and might help your situation.
I know this might sound like a ludicrous idea but the fact remains that law and order are in place for a reason. In most cases, people come together with a common view and it is this view that forms the basis of a desire to either initiate or reinforce that view that they feel will strengthen their society and bring people to a greater mutual understanding and appreciation of each other. In going against this, you will in turn be placing your own personal needs and sentiments above that of your wider community
You might now ask why is it necessary to put the needs of the wider community ahead of yours. The simple answer to this question is that to run a civilised society, the needs of the wider community will have to be greater than the needs of the individual. The individual will have to make allowances for the greater good of the wider community even if it means the individual having to do things he/she doesn’t want. Also, if everyone did what they wanted and there wasn’t a law in place, that will surely lead to anarchy.
You cannot just do what you want. It is very counterproductive and ultimately leads to no good thing. Laws are given to contain self-centred desires and prevent chaos. It is in finding the discipline and maturity to do what is best for the people around you, potentially at your own expense, that you find true happiness and satisfaction in life
If you are one of the people described above, my advice is to put careful thought into the way things are and to look at how you can either adapt yourself or point out aspects of the existing system that are not being put into practise and might help your situation.
I know this might sound like a ludicrous idea but the fact remains that law and order are in place for a reason. In most cases, people come together with a common view and it is this view that forms the basis of a desire to either initiate or reinforce that view that they feel will strengthen their society and bring people to a greater mutual understanding and appreciation of each other. In going against this, you will in turn be placing your own personal needs and sentiments above that of your wider community
You might now ask why is it necessary to put the needs of the wider community ahead of yours. The simple answer to this question is that to run a civilised society, the needs of the wider community will have to be greater than the needs of the individual. The individual will have to make allowances for the greater good of the wider community even if it means the individual having to do things he/she doesn’t want. Also, if everyone did what they wanted and there wasn’t a law in place, that will surely lead to anarchy.
You cannot just do what you want. It is very counterproductive and ultimately leads to no good thing. Laws are given to contain self-centred desires and prevent chaos. It is in finding the discipline and maturity to do what is best for the people around you, potentially at your own expense, that you find true happiness and satisfaction in life
Monday, 3 May 2010
Millionairess Leaves Daughters 90p Each
A millionaire socialite has left her daughters less than a pound each because she believed they conspired in her mother's death. Skip related content
Australian Valmai Roche, who died last year aged 81, bequeathed her children and ex-husband $1.5 AUD "blood money" - worth 90p - from her estate, which is reported to be worth around £2.1m.
But two of her daughters have claimed their mother was "delusional" and are challenging her will in the South Australian Supreme Court.
The former mayoress of Adelaide left "30 pieces of silver of the lowest denomination of currency" to her family - which translates as 30 five cent coins each - claiming it was "blood money due to Judas".
The rest of her fortune was left to the Catholic men's charity Southern Cross, according to Australian newspaper reports.
Her mother Dorothy Maude Haber was cared for in a nursing home before her death, but documents do not say how or when she died.
Ms Roche's daughters - Deborah Hamilton, Fiona Roche and Shauna Roche - can also claim equal shares in their mother's jewellery.
However they must correctly answer questions about her personal diaries which were kept from January 1974 until October 1981, the date her will was written.
But Ms Hamilton has accused her mother of "fixed, false and incorrigible views" over the death of Ms Haber and alleges her "delusions" meant she was incapable of "making a reasonable and proper disposition of her estate".
Along with her sisters she has taken the case to court claiming they should be "entitled to inherit" their mother's fortune.
Ms Roche went as far as to "specifically exclude" her children and ex-husband "from any further benefits" claiming they "have been adequately provided for" during the later years of her life.
Mr Roche, who was Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor from 1975 until 1977, was also excluded from further benefit due to the "irretrievable breakdown" of their marriage in 1983.
Only one change was made to her will in 1987 to bequeath a French Empire style desk to her daughter Fiona, who now heads the family's Roche Group which is regularly listed among the top 200 rich companies in Australia.
Court documents reveal Ms Roche enquired about changing her will in 2007, but no new will could be found.
Lawyers for the family have refused to comment on the case, which returns to court next month.
Australian Valmai Roche, who died last year aged 81, bequeathed her children and ex-husband $1.5 AUD "blood money" - worth 90p - from her estate, which is reported to be worth around £2.1m.
But two of her daughters have claimed their mother was "delusional" and are challenging her will in the South Australian Supreme Court.
The former mayoress of Adelaide left "30 pieces of silver of the lowest denomination of currency" to her family - which translates as 30 five cent coins each - claiming it was "blood money due to Judas".
The rest of her fortune was left to the Catholic men's charity Southern Cross, according to Australian newspaper reports.
Her mother Dorothy Maude Haber was cared for in a nursing home before her death, but documents do not say how or when she died.
Ms Roche's daughters - Deborah Hamilton, Fiona Roche and Shauna Roche - can also claim equal shares in their mother's jewellery.
However they must correctly answer questions about her personal diaries which were kept from January 1974 until October 1981, the date her will was written.
But Ms Hamilton has accused her mother of "fixed, false and incorrigible views" over the death of Ms Haber and alleges her "delusions" meant she was incapable of "making a reasonable and proper disposition of her estate".
Along with her sisters she has taken the case to court claiming they should be "entitled to inherit" their mother's fortune.
Ms Roche went as far as to "specifically exclude" her children and ex-husband "from any further benefits" claiming they "have been adequately provided for" during the later years of her life.
Mr Roche, who was Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor from 1975 until 1977, was also excluded from further benefit due to the "irretrievable breakdown" of their marriage in 1983.
Only one change was made to her will in 1987 to bequeath a French Empire style desk to her daughter Fiona, who now heads the family's Roche Group which is regularly listed among the top 200 rich companies in Australia.
Court documents reveal Ms Roche enquired about changing her will in 2007, but no new will could be found.
Lawyers for the family have refused to comment on the case, which returns to court next month.
German man 'marries' his dying cat (BBC)
A German man has unofficially married his cat after the animal fell ill and vets told him it might not live much longer, Bild newspaper reports.
It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.
Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died.
"Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed," Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild.
Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: "At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it's a dream come true".
It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.
Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died.
"Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed," Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild.
Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: "At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it's a dream come true".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)