dunja Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Ствар је из моје перспективе прилично чиста: атеиста који је тако агресиван у свом атеизму је Боготражитељ једнако као што је човек који напуца непознатог човека у граду само зато што је педер - китотражитељ.Isto kao sto si i ti kitotrazitelj time sto dolazis an bdenje da bi napucavao ljude koje ne poznajes zbog stvari koje ocito ne razumes?jbt
cmrlj Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Ствар је из моје перспективе прилично чиста: атеиста који је тако агресиван у свом атеизму је Боготражитељ једнако као што је човек који напуца непознатог човека у граду само зато што је педер - китотражитељ.odlicna logika. onda je svaki svestenik ateista.
luba Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 gledam ovaj jutjub i ovog mekjuena sto je sladza postavio, i ne mogu a da ne pomislim da je levica u kurcu ne zbog toga sto je ovakva ili onakva, vec zbog takvih banalno ljudskih stvari kao sto su nezrelost i nemogucnost sagledavanja da ima i nesto sto nije samo crno ili samo belo. za kokburna i kuka mi nije nimalo cudno, zao mi je sto su u tu zamku upali grinvold i kori robin
Indy Posted December 18, 2011 Author Posted December 18, 2011 http://www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyle/books/2011/12/18/hitchens-and-shades-of-orwellI think it's Orwell's fault.One of the tropes in the Hitchens obituaries that have emerged in the last few days has been the extent to which Hitchens viewed Orwell as a role model.I suspect that Orwell's most important influence over Hitchens wasn't literary, but political: Orwell, a paid-up member of the British Left in the first half of the 20th century, was the most articulate opponent of leftist pacifism in the face of the threat of fascism.At a time when, at the behest of the Soviet Communist Party, the international socialist movement was agitating against preparing for war against Germany (whose leaders had signed a pact with Stalin), Orwell offered full-throated support for arming Britain and preparing for war.Hitchens's identification with Orwell was strong. So strong that he cast himself in Orwell's role in relation to what he came to think of as a global struggle against what he called "Islamofacism" or "fascism with an Islamic face".While I'm not enough of a Hitchens scholar to know precisely when this began, the issuing of a fatwa calling for the murder of Hitchens's friend Salman Rushdie (and the Left's failure to condemn same) seems to have been a turning point.But, after 9/11, all bets were off: following Orwell, Hitchens felt it his duty to prepare his country for war.In retrospect, no one doubts that Orwell was right. Only time will tell if that's true of Hitchens.
Indy Posted December 19, 2011 Author Posted December 19, 2011 3 (sveža pokojnika) for 1: Hitch - autor teksta, a u tekstu V. Havel i Dear Leader. ...when I went to Czechoslovakia under the old Communist regime one day in the '80s, I thought to myself whatever I do, whatever happens to me in Prague I'm not going to use the name Kafka, I'm just not going to do it. I won't do it; it's so easy, everyone else does, I'm not going to. I'll write the first non-Kafka mentioning piece.So I went to this meeting of this then-unknown dissident, Vaclav Havel and various of his Czech friends and Slovak friends in an apartment in Prague and we thought that no-one knew that he had these visitors coming from America, but someone must have given us away because it wasn't long before the door fell in and in come police dogs and guys in leather coats carrying heavy electric torches and truncheons and so on, slammed me up against the wall and said, 'You're under arrest and you've got to come with us.' And I said - I thought of saying 'I demand to see the Ambassador', and I said, 'What's the charge?' And they said, 'We don't have to tell you the charge'. And I thought "fuck". Now I do have to mention Kafka.
Indy Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 Zainteresovanim skrećem pažnju na zanimljiv tekst urednika religije na australijskom ABC sajtu, koji je istovremeno vrlo pro-Hitch, a i pro-hrišćanski (ne znam da li bi Praslin to našao kao zanimljivo čitanje). Autor je Scott Stephens, koji je valjda teolog, a i prevodilac Žižeka (između ostalog). Tekst se, predvidljivo, nije dopao PZ Myersu, kao što možete pročitati ovde. Kaže PZ, pa kad neki papa umre, ne vidimo ateiste da se ubijaju da dokažu kako je papa u stvari bio sekularni humanista i ateista; a Stephens se (izgleda) ubi da dokaže kako je Hitch u stvari bio hrišćanin, i to vrlo zaslužan.Premda potpuno razumem PZ-ovu reakciju, meni je Stephensov tekst jedan od najzanimljivijih koji se pojavio od Hitchove smrti naovamo. Moguće je da je to ono što je Vasi izgledalo "zanimljivo" u vezi Praslinove teze da je Hitch bio bogotražitelj. :D
Прслин Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) Hitchens' later embrace of a flailing, uneven variety of atheism (or, as he always insisted, miso-theism, God-hatred rather than just God-denial.Зар ово не значи да је мислио да има Бога, само га није волео? Можда сам погрешио, могуће да је ипак Богоборац.Paradoxically, had Christianity in the twentieth century shown its theological and political mettle, as it were, Christopher admitted that he would have had greater difficulty dismissing it.(...)"But I cannot help but feel that there is a certain contradiction at work here. On the one hand, it was Hitchens' hatred of totalitarianism, with its implicit theocratic pretensions, that gave rise to his ham-fisted, scatological tirade against Pope Benedict XVI (whom he named as one of three people that he most hated in the world - the others being Osama bin Laden and Henry Kissinger - and whose death and utter discrediting he wished to witness before his own death)"(...)"I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian - on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy - the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do."А, не, нисам: ипак Боготражитељ, само је куцао на погрешна врата. Штета што му неко није објаснио да рара не може да буде разлог да се мрзи хришћанство. Edited December 22, 2011 by Праслин
Indy Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 To je utisak koji sam i ja stekao iz čitanja ovog Scott Stephens; samo mu je falilo da pomene pravoslavni misticizam kao pravu stvar.Kažem ja... interesantan članak. Jedno moguće čitanje Hitchensa. Što, naravno, ne menja suštinu onoga što jeste, niti onoga što nije. (U, al' sam ovo sastavio, k'o Mao Cedung).
Аврам Гојић Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 ovo ti je vise Lao Ce, no ok :)idem citati ovaj tekst, bas me zanima
Indy Posted December 24, 2011 Author Posted December 24, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7aS7m3odqIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA7pfR0FIcHe was 1 Hella of a man :D
Aineko Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Али, ево ја ћу у име нас који мислимо другачије него што је он говорио да му вечерас нешто лепо зажелим, пошто верујем да је свако ко оволико труда и енергије и очигледног интелекта уложи у размишљање о Богу - Боготражитељ. jedan od vrhunaca verske arogancije ( a ima ih vise).istina je pak sasvim drugacija i vrlo jednostavna (i nije mi jasno da to stvarno nekome treba da se crta): umesto da je svaki ateista koji otupi jezik respravljajuci se o bogu ustvari nekakav latentni vernik, radi se prosto o tome da se pod 'bogom' smatra taj produkt ljudske phise, kulture, istorije itd. pa ja kad raspalim po bogu, na 'ti, kao da smo ovce cuvali, ja mu znaci priznajem postojanje? malo sutra, prosto pricamo tom imaginarnom prijatelju milijarde ljudi na ovoj planeti, cija iluzija nazalost pogadja i zivote ovih sto se sa njim u svojim glavama ne druze. mislim, ili to ili je sam Isus bio najveci ateista u istoriji ljudskog roda. Hitch je trebalo da dodje u Melbourne sledece godine :(.
Indy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 Been on the ocean, I been across the sea I ain't found nobody would feel my sympathy(Skip James, Sickbed Blues) ... radi se prosto o tome da se pod 'bogom' smatra taj produkt ljudske phise, kulture, istorije itd. ...Ali, kome obican covek da se obrati kad mu je stvarno tesko? (Ne zezam). Mislim da mi ateisti nemamo nista da ponudimo... drzimo se fakata k'o pijan plota. A placebo znamo da radi, i znamo da bez (samo)zavaravanja zivot ne funkcionise (oprez: EvoPsych na linku).I really envy ChristiansI envy Muslims tooIt must be great to be so sureAs I’m talking to a Jew;He said pray to god for mercyHe said get down on your knees He said ask him for forgivenessHe said when you do say please And I’ve got no one to turn to When I’m sinking in the shipI feel so sad and lonely No one to tell me what to doHe said well I shouldn't grumble We all have our ups and downIf you just ask him nicely He'll iron out your frown(Robert Wyatt - Be Serious)
Прслин Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 jedan od vrhunaca verske arogancije ( a ima ih vise).Док је прескакање неколико страна топика један од бројних примера секуларне ароганције.
Aineko Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Ali, kome obican covek da se obrati kad mu je stvarno tesko? (Ne zezam). Mislim da mi ateisti nemamo nista da ponudimo... drzimo se fakata k'o pijan plota. A placebo znamo da radi, i znamo da bez (samo)zavaravanja zivot ne funkcionise (oprez: EvoPsych na linku).imam ja bolji EP link :) (ustvari nemam, ne mogu da ga nadjem sad - bio u Nature clanak mislim prosle godine, zasto smo toliko podlozni religiji, pa hipoteza da je religija nusprodukt nase moci apstrahovanja drugih ljudskih bica (sposobnosti da razmisljamo o nekome u njegovom odstustvu 'kao da je tu' i slicno)).a kome covek da se obrati? pa nemoj mene da pitas, ja se sa svojim 'demonima' svadjam evo vec skoro trideset godina. sta ja radim ovde i sto bih se duze zadrzavala i slicno. sta znam, prvo neka se obrati nekome ko zaista postoji a moze da mu pomogne da resi to tesko stanje. ako je situacija takva da takvog nema, onda neka se miri sam sa sobom, treceg nema. (u granicama svoje i tudjih sloboda) zivi zivot (or die trying) tako da kad dodje kraj mozes bez stida da pogledas u oci ne nekakvom bogu, vec bas tom umirecum sebi. ono "da nizacim ne zalim kad se zadnjim pogledima budem rastajao od zvezda". Protiv tudjeg placeba nemam nista, naprotiv - apsolutno sam za pravo ljudi da sami zive po svom placebu. Smeta mi kad hoce moj zivot da uredjuju po tom svom placebu. da li mozemo da nadjemo ravnotezu? ne znam, videcemo. ja se nadam da moze.moj glavni problem sa tim placebom (bar ovim organizovanim) je antropocentrizam, koji mi smeta svugde gde ga nadjem - u religiji, nauci, filozofiji, bilo gde. bas smo veliko mudo - prasina na zrncu prasine u ovom kosmosu, ali ne, mora to da se vrti oko nas! (samo zato sto nam je blind watchmaker 'podario' mogucnost da saberemo 2 i 2, tj. da imamo povratni feedback svojih akcija, tj. svest)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now