|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 7:07:06 GMT
There is nothing to infer; nothing between the lines of what I've written. At this point, I'd just like to understand why atheists such as the one quoted in the OP take issue with jewelry, monuments, sculptures, and paintings. It's certainly Sarge's prerogative to talk about how some Protestants treat Catholics, but I'm not going to pretend it addresses the topic at hand. If you have a question or comment for me or about me, say it to me please, instead of sulking and badmouthing me to other posters. Gadreel was talking to you about me and my response to you, so it's not like you or your posts weren't relevant to that little tangent.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2022 7:13:20 GMT
We call them what they are, the people who rally against pride parades are human, as are atheists that have problems as mentioned in the OP, it's only when a group exhibits group behaviour that you can single them out. (yes I know that the people who rage against pride parades are usually evangelical religionists but in the context of the statement you made . . . )
This is why I asked the question, as it seems to me that atheists are actually less likely to do this kind of thing than the general population and so it suggests even more that this is human behaviour begging the question as to why atheists are being singled out.
I guess I'm just not as quick as you are to excuse the OP as a rare exception. I also do not align myself with Christians who exhibit the same behavior, nor do I consider them exceptions, either. The difference, however, is the intent. Whereas its both possible and plausible that the Christian holding the "God hates fags" sign is genuinely concerned with a homosexual's eternal soul (a self-defeating method, to be sure), how would it be either possible or plausible that the atheist in the OP is concerned about anything other than relieving himself of what he chooses to find annoying? Oh don't get me wrong I worked in Hospo for years, I know that assholes are not the rare exception, I am not disputing the frequency of assholes, just their distribution  Yeah I suppose there is a an awfully tenuous possibility that the westboro church secretly are altruistic, not convinced I buy it, but I see the argument. I guess my only counter is that the atheist dies not profess to believe in a guided morality and so does not get held to the same high bar, if a Christian does it it's worse, we expect better of them. I think both sides are equally horrible, which is why I am inclined to say these are assholes, their belief system is not relevant to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 7:43:13 GMT
I guess I'm just not as quick as you are to excuse the OP as a rare exception. I also do not align myself with Christians who exhibit the same behavior, nor do I consider them exceptions, either. The difference, however, is the intent. Whereas its both possible and plausible that the Christian holding the "God hates fags" sign is genuinely concerned with a homosexual's eternal soul (a self-defeating method, to be sure), how would it be either possible or plausible that the atheist in the OP is concerned about anything other than relieving himself of what he chooses to find annoying? Oh don't get me wrong I worked in Hospo for years, I know that assholes are not the rare exception, I am not disputing the frequency of assholes, just their distribution Yeah I suppose there is a an awfully tenuous possibility that the westboro church secretly are altruistic, not convinced I buy it, but I see the argument. I guess my only counter is that the atheist dies not profess to believe in a guided morality and so does not get held to the same high bar, if a Christian does it it's worse, we expect better of them. I think both sides are equally horrible, which is why I am inclined to say these are assholes, their belief system is not relevant to that. Funny, I don't believe in a guided morality, either. 
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2022 8:34:16 GMT
Oh don't get me wrong I worked in Hospo for years, I know that assholes are not the rare exception, I am not disputing the frequency of assholes, just their distribution  Yeah I suppose there is a an awfully tenuous possibility that the westboro church secretly are altruistic, not convinced I buy it, but I see the argument. I guess my only counter is that the atheist dies not profess to believe in a guided morality and so does not get held to the same high bar, if a Christian does it it's worse, we expect better of them. I think both sides are equally horrible, which is why I am inclined to say these are assholes, their belief system is not relevant to that. Funny, I don't believe in a guided morality, either.  Neither do I to some degree, I dont think Ive ever explicitly asked and I dont read anything other than what I reply to, are you Religious? You don't have to bare your heart to me, suddenly I am interested in your belief. Is it mainstream of some sort, your own concoction, some obscure belief system?? So I guess what prompted that was I am not sure if you believe in a god, and I dont know how to proceed in a conversation in light of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 10:50:37 GMT
Funny, I don't believe in a guided morality, either. Neither do I to some degree, I dont think Ive ever explicitly asked and I dont read anything other than what I reply to, are you Religious? You don't have to bare your heart to me, suddenly I am interested in your belief. Is it mainstream of some sort, your own concoction, some obscure belief system?? So I guess what prompted that was I am not sure if you believe in a god, and I dont know how to proceed in a conversation in light of that. I don't disbelieve, thanks for asking. For several reasons. Oversimplifying one for the sake of brevity: I exist, therefore God. I'm not religious, nor was I indoctrinated as a child. My belief is purely logical, but I couldn't even begin to tell you what "God" is in that equation. So when asked if I believe in God, my response is usually a request for clarification. If I'm being asked if I believe there's an invisible man in the sky punishing those who don't please him, my answer is "absolutely not." That's what some people tell their children to get them eat their vegetables and stop poking their friends' eyes out with sticks. I do not believe growing out of that is an abandonment of Christianity, or even theism in general. Regarding morality, if there is something guiding it, it's most certainly using our consciences as a tool of persuasion while leaving the decisions up to ourselves. In context of a typical heaven/hell scenario, it's a perfect system that allows free will but precludes excuses. I believe we are born with everything we really need to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 2, 2022 20:58:37 GMT
Because of how atheism is associated with intelligence, ooo look at me I am too clever to believe in God™ (just for all the atheists, this is not all of them, or probably even the majority, just them loudest ones sometimes - like their Christian counterparts), and often this decision is made in the formative years when they are trying to impress others and the ego is in full swing, for some I guess it stays, most just mellow out like (actually probably slight less of ) the same thinking Christians. I think maybe when I was younger there was an element of rebellion from authority too, I dont suppose that is so prevalent any more. There are people who are belligerent no matter what side of something they are on. I believe there are 2 kinds of atheists, the kind that rebel against their parents or The Church or society and usually revert because they never reasoned themselves out of deism. They were never really atheists in the sense they disbelieved in god, they were rejecting religion. The second kind of atheist are people who reject irrationality through reason and education. People like Richard Dawkins who was deist most of his life (note: Dawkins didn't call himself an atheist, but he clearly was atheistic toward Christianity). In my case, the more educated I become in biology, physics, history, religion, sociology, anthropology, the Bible and other religious texts, and archeology, the less tolerant I become of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, related religions, and belief in deities in general. God is no longer necessary to understand the universe. In fact, you have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make god relevant at all. Freedom of religion is written into the American Constitution and believers are full of entitlement thinking this means they should not be challenged, and speaking ill of religion is rude, but themselves don't hesitate to speak ill of minor religions and even carry out violence toward those they oppose. So when an atheist speaks up, the dogpile begins and they are such terrible people. Meanwhile a Catholic crosses themselves in McDonalds and a Protestant accosts them, calling them names and pronouncing judgement (not hypothetical). So if you want to examine why atheists behave the way they do, then you also have to examine deists and their behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2022 22:34:16 GMT
Neither do I to some degree, I dont think Ive ever explicitly asked and I dont read anything other than what I reply to, are you Religious? You don't have to bare your heart to me, suddenly I am interested in your belief. Is it mainstream of some sort, your own concoction, some obscure belief system?? So I guess what prompted that was I am not sure if you believe in a god, and I dont know how to proceed in a conversation in light of that. I don't disbelieve, thanks for asking. For several reasons. Oversimplifying one for the sake of brevity: I exist, therefore God. I'm not religious, nor was I indoctrinated as a child. My belief is purely logical, but I couldn't even begin to tell you what "God" is in that equation. So when asked if I believe in God, my response is usually a request for clarification. If I'm being asked if I believe there's an invisible man in the sky punishing those who don't please him, my answer is "absolutely not." That's what some people tell their children to get them eat their vegetables and stop poking their friends' eyes out with sticks. I do not believe growing out of that is an abandonment of Christianity, or even theism in general. Regarding morality, if there is something guiding it, it's most certainly using our consciences as a tool of persuasion while leaving the decisions up to ourselves. In context of a typical heaven/hell scenario, it's a perfect system that allows free will but precludes excuses. I believe we are born with everything we really need to know. Thanks for that, it clarifies a few things. Yeah I mean God™ dispenses morality, but I have trouble conceiving of an actual God that can reliably transmit morality, especially in the light of what terrible morality has already been attributed to his name. You might find hermeticism or gnosticism interesting, they are both more around experiential understanding of god as opposed to intellectual understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2022 22:39:44 GMT
Because of how atheism is associated with intelligence, ooo look at me I am too clever to believe in God™ (just for all the atheists, this is not all of them, or probably even the majority, just them loudest ones sometimes - like their Christian counterparts), and often this decision is made in the formative years when they are trying to impress others and the ego is in full swing, for some I guess it stays, most just mellow out like (actually probably slight less of ) the same thinking Christians. I think maybe when I was younger there was an element of rebellion from authority too, I dont suppose that is so prevalent any more. There are people who are belligerent no matter what side of something they are on. I believe there are 2 kinds of atheists, the kind that rebel against their parents or The Church or society and usually revert because they never reasoned themselves out of deism. They were never really atheists in the sense they disbelieved in god, they were rejecting religion. The second kind of atheist are people who reject irrationality through reason and education. People like Richard Dawkins who was deist most of his life (note: Dawkins didn't call himself an atheist, but he clearly was atheistic toward Christianity). In my case, the more educated I become in biology, physics, history, religion, sociology, anthropology, the Bible and other religious texts, and archeology, the less tolerant I become of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, related religions, and belief in deities in general. God is no longer necessary to understand the universe. In fact, you have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make god relevant at all. Freedom of religion is written into the American Constitution and believers are full of entitlement thinking this means they should not be challenged, and speaking ill of religion is rude, but themselves don't hesitate to speak ill of minor religions and even carry out violence toward those they oppose. So when an atheist speaks up, the dogpile begins and they are such terrible people. Meanwhile a Catholic crosses themselves in McDonalds and a Protestant accosts them, calling them names and pronouncing judgement (not hypothetical). So if you want to examine why atheists behave the way they do, then you also have to examine deists and their behavior. Well as I said, I actually don't think assholes are over represented in either theism or atheism, although perhaps they are more vocal because of the intensity of belief sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 22:57:30 GMT
I don't disbelieve, thanks for asking. For several reasons. Oversimplifying one for the sake of brevity: I exist, therefore God. I'm not religious, nor was I indoctrinated as a child. My belief is purely logical, but I couldn't even begin to tell you what "God" is in that equation. So when asked if I believe in God, my response is usually a request for clarification. If I'm being asked if I believe there's an invisible man in the sky punishing those who don't please him, my answer is "absolutely not." That's what some people tell their children to get them eat their vegetables and stop poking their friends' eyes out with sticks. I do not believe growing out of that is an abandonment of Christianity, or even theism in general. Regarding morality, if there is something guiding it, it's most certainly using our consciences as a tool of persuasion while leaving the decisions up to ourselves. In context of a typical heaven/hell scenario, it's a perfect system that allows free will but precludes excuses. I believe we are born with everything we really need to know. Thanks for that, it clarifies a few things. Yeah I mean God™ dispenses morality, but I have trouble conceiving of an actual God that can reliably transmit morality, especially in the light of what terrible morality has already been attributed to his name. What you do with what you're given says little to nothing about the one who gave it to you. And besides, isn't there a commandment for that? Something about vanity and using God's name. Thanks, but I'm happy with, uh...scientism? Is that a legit ism?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2022 23:19:03 GMT
Thanks for that, it clarifies a few things. Yeah I mean God™ dispenses morality, but I have trouble conceiving of an actual God that can reliably transmit morality, especially in the light of what terrible morality has already been attributed to his name. What you do with what you're given says little to nothing about the one who gave it to you. And besides, isn't there a commandment for that? Something about vanity and using God's name. Thanks, but I'm happy with, uh...scientism? Is that a legit ism? Science and religion are not opposed, but just to be clear I was suggesting it for intellectual gratification, I did not mean to imply you should convert
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 23:25:09 GMT
What you do with what you're given says little to nothing about the one who gave it to you. And besides, isn't there a commandment for that? Something about vanity and using God's name. Thanks, but I'm happy with, uh...scientism? Is that a legit ism? Science and religion are not opposed, but just to be clear I was suggesting it for intellectual gratification, I did not mean to imply you should convert So it's experience vs intellect, then? Why can't it be simple logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 3, 2022 0:26:16 GMT
Science and religion are not opposed, ... This is not true. But before explaining why I'll quote Christopher Hitchens, "Religion is not the belief in god. Religion is the belief god tells you what to do." Science and religion are incongruent. Religion begins with an answer and challenges anyone who challenges the answer. Historically it was not uncommon for challengers to be punished physically. Science begins with a question and constantly challenges the answer. Religion is irrational. Science is rational. Religion is about power, it's hierarchal and exerts political power. Science is the rational approach to understanding how the universe works. Science produces works. They are opposites.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 3, 2022 1:39:35 GMT
Science and religion are not opposed, ... This is not true. But before explaining why I'll quote Christopher Hitchens, "Religion is not the belief in god. Religion is the belief god tells you what to do." Science and religion are incongruent. Religion begins with an answer and challenges anyone who challenges the answer. Historically it was not uncommon for challengers to be punished physically. Science begins with a question and constantly challenges the answer. Religion is irrational. Science is rational. Religion is about power, it's hierarchal and exerts political power. Science is the rational approach to understanding how the universe works. Science produces works. They are opposites. You are talking about the organisation that is religion. The belief system of religion is not opposed to science.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 3, 2022 1:41:19 GMT
Science and religion are not opposed, but just to be clear I was suggesting it for intellectual gratification, I did not mean to imply you should convert So it's experience vs intellect, then? Why can't it be simple logic? Well logic is intellect, meaning you are going to present an argument from the mind for something, I am saying that the two systems I mentioned are about experiential understanding over intellectual understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 3, 2022 1:53:43 GMT
This is not true. But before explaining why I'll quote Christopher Hitchens, "Religion is not the belief in god. Religion is the belief god tells you what to do." Science and religion are incongruent. Religion begins with an answer and challenges anyone who challenges the answer. Historically it was not uncommon for challengers to be punished physically. Science begins with a question and constantly challenges the answer. Religion is irrational. Science is rational. Religion is about power, it's hierarchal and exerts political power. Science is the rational approach to understanding how the universe works. Science produces works. They are opposites. You are talking about the organisation that is religion. The belief system of religion is not opposed to science. Religion is organization; it is required by people seeking power, it isn't required for belief in space ghost. Confusing irrationality with rationality is inconsistent with science, they are incompatible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 3, 2022 1:56:15 GMT
So it's experience vs intellect, then? Why can't it be simple logic? Well logic is intellect, meaning you are going to present an argument from the mind for something, I am saying that the two systems I mentioned are about experiential understanding over intellectual understanding. I would openly disagree with that if I didn't think it would quickly turn into semantics. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 3, 2022 2:03:21 GMT
Science and religion are not opposed, ... This is not true. But before explaining why I'll quote Christopher Hitchens, "Religion is not the belief in god. Religion is the belief god tells you what to do." Science and religion are incongruent. Religion begins with an answer and challenges anyone who challenges the answer. Historically it was not uncommon for challengers to be punished physically. Science begins with a question and constantly challenges the answer. Religion is irrational. Science is rational. Religion is about power, it's hierarchal and exerts political power. Science is the rational approach to understanding how the universe works. Science produces works. They are opposites. That is incorrect. One of them takes "god" off the table before anything even begins. I won't give it away, but it's the same one that rejects "god" even when all roads go there. Good thing they aren't mathematicians lest they take "4" off the table and go insane trying to figure out the sum of 2 and 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 3, 2022 19:21:02 GMT
What I grapple with, in my atheism, is how to deal with what I call "early morning, every day, existential angst. I believe the key is acceptance. Accept that life has no purpose other than what you give it. The universe has no plan. Accept what you can't change. Buddhism teaches that wanting brings suffering, (I'm not a Buddhist except by accident), so you have to accept what you can and can't have by accepting what you can and can't change. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting it because I'm a Buddhist, I'm not, nor suggesting it because of Buddhism or any other religion or ideology. I'm suggesting it because it is my own ideology born of my own journey through life. I only mention Buddhism because it's familiar to people.) I have been mulling this over since you posted it. And the one thing you didn't address is the ability to find happiness and joy in the midst of all the suffering - not just mine, but the world's pain - Weltschmerz. Is it possible to be a happy, contented person in the midst of all the crap happening around us? Is it possible for me to somehow accept a happy time, even knowing that others have so much more bad things happening to them? In my own life, I tend to remember the bad stuff and not the good stuff. I journalize about the bad stuff and take photos of the good stuff - my much-loved companion animals, a beautiful flower or amazing sunset - but sometimes looking through the photos isn't enough to dispel the depression. Can a glass-is-half-empty person learn how to see that the glass is half full?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 3, 2022 22:58:22 GMT
I believe the key is acceptance. Accept that life has no purpose other than what you give it. The universe has no plan. Accept what you can't change. Buddhism teaches that wanting brings suffering, (I'm not a Buddhist except by accident), so you have to accept what you can and can't have by accepting what you can and can't change. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting it because I'm a Buddhist, I'm not, nor suggesting it because of Buddhism or any other religion or ideology. I'm suggesting it because it is my own ideology born of my own journey through life. I only mention Buddhism because it's familiar to people.) I have been mulling this over since you posted it. And the one thing you didn't address is the ability to find happiness and joy in the midst of all the suffering - not just mine, but the world's pain - Weltschmerz. Is it possible to be a happy, contented person in the midst of all the crap happening around us? Is it possible for me to somehow accept a happy time, even knowing that others have so much more bad things happening to them? In my own life, I tend to remember the bad stuff and not the good stuff. I journalize about the bad stuff and take photos of the good stuff - my much-loved companion animals, a beautiful flower or amazing sunset - but sometimes looking through the photos isn't enough to dispel the depression. Can a glass-is-half-empty person learn how to see that the glass is half full? Yes, I believe so. I did. I didn't have the best, or worst, childhood, but I experienced pain and loss that caused me to be ruled by negative emotions for decades. Two things helped me, the first was to let go of the anger, to forgive but not forget. I convinced myself it was okay not to be angry anymore because it was hurting me, not the people with whom I was angry. The second thing was acceptance of suffering. During my time in the military, the point of training was to become tougher by becoming used to discomfort and pain. One day I realized the suffering was out of my control so all I had to do was continue until I couldn't, until I physically couldn't, and it would be over. The moment my body failed; the suffering would end and there was nothing else they could do to me. So, in a way I externalized the pain, so it was physical and not mental because people fail mentally before they fail physically. This might be hard to apply to normal situations but when we are disappointed by someone we trust, or lose something or someone we value, we need to accept that it was beyond our control and not internalize it as our personal failing. It's especially hard if you are empathic or proactive to not take responsibility for others, or things we can't control. The suffering is something we want to experience externally and move on, we grieve as necessary and move on, until our bodies fail and then the universe can't hurt us anymore. This leaves room in our mind for the good things that happen, the good things we can internalize. A good friend and I have a saying, there are only two things you have to do: die, and live until you die. Depression can be emotional imbalances, but also chemical imbalances. Our emotions are not intangible, they are chemicals that influence our feelings. Sometimes a person has trouble producing dopamine, endorphins, or your hormones are out of balance. No amount of acceptance will alleviate that kind of depression so talk to your doctor and if he/she doesn't seem keen, talk to a different one. Depression is real, and outside world events can cause changes in your body chemistry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 3, 2022 23:16:38 GMT
I believe the key is acceptance. Accept that life has no purpose other than what you give it. The universe has no plan. Accept what you can't change. Buddhism teaches that wanting brings suffering, (I'm not a Buddhist except by accident), so you have to accept what you can and can't have by accepting what you can and can't change. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting it because I'm a Buddhist, I'm not, nor suggesting it because of Buddhism or any other religion or ideology. I'm suggesting it because it is my own ideology born of my own journey through life. I only mention Buddhism because it's familiar to people.) I have been mulling this over since you posted it. And the one thing you didn't address is the ability to find happiness and joy in the midst of all the suffering - not just mine, but the world's pain - Weltschmerz. Is it possible to be a happy, contented person in the midst of all the crap happening around us? Is it possible for me to somehow accept a happy time, even knowing that others have so much more bad things happening to them? In my own life, I tend to remember the bad stuff and not the good stuff. I journalize about the bad stuff and take photos of the good stuff - my much-loved companion animals, a beautiful flower or amazing sunset - but sometimes looking through the photos isn't enough to dispel the depression. Can a glass-is-half-empty person learn how to see that the glass is half full? Whether the glass is half full or half empty entirely depends on what's in it. 
|
|
