Atheists: Get A Life!!!!!

Once again, let me know when atheists build a society that survives. Given the same people, with the same resources, atheist societies fail where theist societies will succeed. This is history.

Theists are the public too. And banning God in a majority theist country is MOST definitely not secular. Freedom of religion is being suppressed here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's bullshit because for most of history people were superstitious, illiterate, and poor. Are those the qualities that lead to sustainability?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one is banning God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, given the SAME conditions and with the SAME resources, atheist societies have failed where theist societies have succeeded.

Its basic evolutionary thingamajig.

You're banning religious expression in theist societies. Basically you're telling the theists, they cannot publicly express their celebration of their faith. Thats like saying homosexuality is okay as long as they keep it indoors and don't let on in public. Or atheism is okay as long as they keep it indoors and don't let on in public. Because its offensive to us.

 

Atheism isn't a society, it's an individual choice, thus you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Wrong. Try again?

 

Well clearly you haven't heard of the representative athiest associations filing lawsuits or states that impose atheism as an ideology.

Yeah make that a majority homosexual society where the homosexuals should keep it indoors and a majority atheist society where the atheist should keep it indoors. A small bunch of fanatical Muslims/Christians/Jews [religious ones] are claiming it interferes with a secular/biologically reproductive society.

 

You don't get it, do you. It has nothing to do with public or private, indoors or outdoors, but with government. You can rent a private park to do anything you like, have a religious revival or a beer festival, as long as the public doesn't pay for it.

 

The public [a vast majority of them] want to pay for it.

Maybe, they should be permitted to vote on it.

 

Since the majority of Denmark are Danes, shouldn't they be allowed to publish any cartoon they want?

 

Sure, I didn't know they had been banned from doing so.

 

Bully pulp?

Those who were paying attention, or even just around, at the time might recall that this is the essential difference that separates me from my atheist neighbors. It's not that I believe in God; there's nothing to believe in. Rather, there is a definition of God that I accept, and all else beyond that is just religion.

If you start with a couple of basic and consistent monotheistic arguments, namely that God is everything or exists everywhere, and then cut away all of the inconsistencies invoked by various religions or even within a single faith or sect, what you end up with is a word that describes the whole of all, the singular total of diversity.

And the word works for me. Even fancy terms like "omniverse" don't accomplish the same inclusion.

But under such conditions, God becomes devoid of any personality or defining characteristics. And this makes sense, because even before I left Christianity behind, I already recognized how fucking absurd it was that God, amid the whole of the Universe and whatever is going on out there, really has the time and necessity to check in and make sure I'm not masturbating.

The mysteries of God, in any context, are larger than can be fit into a single volume to be found in the drawer of the nightstand in the hourly-rate redlight motel where you might be banging a hooker in the ass, doing lines of meth, or snorting the meth off your hooker's ass.

God without consequence works just fine for anything and everything, except, of course, for those who really need to feel special.

• • •​

Yes, I'm being unreasonable.

This is a stupid argument put forward whenever it's fucking convenient. No, it's not true because of you.

Unreasonable? (chortle!) Yeah, just like wondering why Christians evangelize. So unreasonable, yes, because one person who doesn't like what bad PR brings wants it to be unreasonable.

Fallacious at best. Let us compare:

• Someone does something.
• Question: Why should you be offended by someone doing something else?​

Or, to compare directly to the point:

• For a Christian to say to another of the faith, "God bless you", that's all well and fine.
• Therefore, why should a Christian be offended if they sneeze and I say, "May Satan keep you near his heart"?​

Now, recognizing that you are an exception to every possible generalization that might ever be applied to someone who might believe something remotely resembling what you do, I will simply encourage you to become more aware of the beliefs and conduct of your fellows. You know, I've seen this before, and there's nothing good down that road for you. Seriously, I watched a capitalist get screwed by his business partners once. And do you know why he didn't see it coming? Because he could not bring himself to believe that businessmen were capable of that kind of conduct. That's all. He hated Communism, and treated all disparagement of business executives as if it was racism. And then in the mid-'90s, someone he respected stepped out and acted like another idiot executive. It was a devastating blow. As he moved through his life, rebuilding his principles, he found that kind of behavior everywhere. Certainly, it was not universal, but when he came to recognize that what he called the aberration was, in fact, common, it was a bit of a shock to his system. If you're lucky, the only person you'll hurt with such delusions is yourself.

You don't think that's a different situation?

Try it this way: One day a supervisor nudged me and said, "What is that on your computer?" I shrugged and explained Crowley's seal of Babalon. My supervisor nodded and thought for a moment, and then suggested that someone might eventually take offense at the unorthodox religious symbol. I agreed, and pointed out that neither was I complaining about the Christian upstairs with the Jesus Wept screen saver. Really? my supervisor asked. Yeah, really.

And that was the last I ever heard of it.

There is a difference between a mutually-participated discussion of an issue and inflicting one's religion on others. Should I be surprised that you're not aware of this? Or are you pulling another one of your rhetorical slights?

Clearly. Especially when you put such an effort into missing the point. What? What's that? Oh, you didn't put an effort into it? Well, then ... my bad.

Perhaps you might wish to be more careful who you raise such toasts around. Or maybe you'd like to wander into Ann Arbor and raise a glass to the Buckeyes. Around the end of November, maybe early December.

Show me one lawsuit that is meant to keep people from mentioning God.

Really. Because I guarantee you this: Any lawsuit you might come up with, I guarantee you, will involve other issues.

So answer me a question please, and honestly if it won't kill you: Do you really not understand such things? Seriously, would you lose your soul or something if you went beyond the superficial?

This is another thing that either confuses or amuses me, depending on the circumstances. Why is it that a group—in this case, Christians—should play their game a certain way, but when anyone else steps up and plays along, it's suddenly absurd and childish? Seriously, during our lifetime, sir, witches were being arrested. For reading tarot cards. Music should be banished because it offends certain religious sensibilities. Books should be burned.

Okay, so that's the way it goes. So someone files a lawsuit to stop a government agency from participating in or endorsing religion, and suddenly what was good for the goose is childish and absurd.

So here's the thing. Either it was childish then like it is now, in which case all I can say is that Christians shouldn't have set the rules that way. Or it's valid now like it was then, in which case people who want to bawl about atheists being so damn mean can just take a flying leap.

No, you won't. Was a time, sir, when I would have believed Stock Answer #697,232, but no. There will be times when we might look down the line and see one another, but there will also be times when there won't.

Are you dishonest or simply severely, inadequately informed?

To the other, it really was a nice snip job that gave a decent setup to your ha'penny retort. I mean, you managed to completely miss the comparison. Again, though, it's a curious question whether or not you had to put any effort into that botch-job.

Actually, I do, and I can tell you exactly what it is. The problem is that on a regular basis, someone comes along and pitches a hissy cow at atheists over their increasing assertion of rights and equality in society. And of course some of it is stupid, but it seems we can't move forward with any discussion unless enough of your talking points are validated at the outset. But what bugs me the most is how these people, in complaining about atheists, either demonstrate or pretend monstrous ignorance. It's absolutely stupid how fucking clueless some of these people are.

It's not an exclusively Western or American phenomenon, but it's one we see far too frequently. And it's a really simple thing to do. All you have to do is pretend history starts on a seemingly arbitrary date.

For instance, in politics the parties like to blame each other. In the recent American election cycle, it was not impossible to hear people blaming the Democrats for their failures while in control of Congress. The problem with this, often times, was that the failure in question occurred during a period of Republican control. And so, after a while, it seemed like the whole history of war and terrorism started one day in January, 2007.

Similarly, people bawling their eyes out about atheists seem to want to pretend that the whole atheism phenomenon struck out of the blue. Nobody saw it coming. Where could such a monstrous annoyance come from? After all, it's not like terms of social discourse, traditions of law, or any other aspect of American society has been unduly influenced by religious people. We're Americans, damn it! We don't let a bunch of sissy hippie religious freaks tell us what to do! Goddamn Commies with their from each, to each! What, the way they go on about it, you'd think it was in the Bible or somethin'!

So when you start off with, "Atheists: Get a Life!" (with several exclamation points, too) people might not be so amused to find you making uneducated accusations. Action, reaction? Ring a bell with you? Maybe? You know, it's kind of important to science, or is that too atheistic for you?

Don't pretend the reaction is the action. People may, in the colloquial, be stupid, but there is a limit to that stupidity. When you come out pretending a response to a condition is some random, thoughtless event that happens in the Universe for no good reason, and even find the time to insult people over it, well, you might just manage to offend people with your gross misrepresentation.

Religion of the moment? Tell me, is there anything you can do without making a point of trying to insult people? Seriously, are you really so goddamned low that you can't manage an ounce of genuine respect? Oh, wait ... sorry, I forgot for a moment about that topic post of yours.

Of course you can't.

In discussing the difference between government officials and highwaymen, the Duke of Galstan was called upon by his friend, the Duke of Arylle, to justify the comparison. Galstan explained that there were laws, laws, and laws. Only three? asked Arylle. Well, more than three, Galstan admitted, but let us simplify. Yes, said Arylle, I am in favor of simplification as long as nothing essential is lost.

And there you go. In truth, sir, I don't presume you're a complete fucking idiot. In the first place, your bouts of complete fucking idiocy seem more elective than consistent. To the other, if it was actually true, well, then that's the one time it's absolutely unacceptable to make the point.

The problem I have with your condensations and simplifications of various events or circumstances is that many essentials are lost. And those omissions are mostly predictable, and they follow a pattern. One of the defining aspects of the pattern is that the simplification intends to presage dismissal. So perhaps it is well enough to presume that anyone who claims to know the alphabet should recognize the phrase "A to Z", and be aware of the letters that come in between so that you don't have to always enumerate the other twenty-four. But it would help, sir, in many cases, if you would be so kind as to explain to us what the letter queph looks like, what sound it makes, and where in the goddamn alphabet it can be found.

At least when they invented Mother's Day, they didn't put it on the third Katilsday in Smarch.

Look, there are issues to be considered about religion, atheism, law, and life in these United States. But when you set out on the basis of such a hideous distortion, well, your Don Quixote loses the romance and becomes just another rusty schizo.

• • •​

Is there any difference between an omission that can be corrected later and a process that cannot be reversed?

Imagine you are hired to program a large computer. It needs to be able to make all sorts of practical calculations that will bear real results that have real effects. Therefore, the first thing management wants you to do is fill the computer with information that has nothing to do with any facts. They want you to program it full of fairy tales. Make sure that when it runs the calculations, it fully understands that your invisible chariot weighs eight hundred liters and can do the Kessel Run in under twelve parsecs while powered by the cold fusion of gumdrops purchased with money left by the Tooth Fairy. And make sure that it understands it will suffer greatly if it doesn't believe the bits about the Kessel Run and the Tooth Fairy.

Got it? Good. Good. Now, let's get all that fed in, bring the thing online, and run it. Whoops. We gave it some bad data. Make sure to beat the computer appropriately for following our instructions. Oh, and hey, we need to have this thing up and running by the day after tomorrow, so finish up these tests and, maybe, since it's going to perform surgery, you should take some time—tomorrow, say, after the staff meeting—to program some basic anatomy for it.

Oh, right. Morality. We want this to be an upstanding robot-doctor. So make sure you don't mention the word "penis", or it might start having impure thoughts.

Should work, right?

Now imagine a child. And before that child can even walk, you need to teach it religion. As the child learns to sing, make sure she always sings about Jesus. ("Come on, ring those bells! Light the Christmas tree! Jesus is the King, born for you and me!") And give her books to teach her to be ashamed of her body, or that she is a worthless speck without God's benevolent love. Teach her that when her body develops and does what it does, it's not natural but the wicked result of her own corruption. Teach her that she is born full of black, icky stuff. Teach her to believe in her own inadequacy. And teach her to beg for salvation. That's right. Teach her to beg. And teach her how bad it will hurt if she doesn't.

Math? Well, she needs to know how to count her tip money, right? Science? Well, it's all a lie, anyway. Testable hypothesis, bullshit! If a scientist can't see the Truth of God, he's no scientist. Reading? Hell, let's just go back to Guffey's Reader, why don't we? Judging by what we see at Sciforums, all that time spent on ideas like critical thinking, context, the relationships between character, plot, and theme, and other complexities of human communication, have been wasted.

Think about it for a minute.

And then think about the current outlook in society. And think about the fact that plenty of people have criticized me as a person, a man, and a father. And let's pause to consider that last. For instance, I'm of the opinion that my daughter would be better off if nobody tried to blackmail her with promises of Heaven and threats of Hell. If she wants religion, she has her entire life to find it. Is that really so unreasonable? Yes. It makes me a bad parent. If parents ever take that fight to a courtroom, the current precedent is that it is unfair to the child to not indoctrinate her into a religion.

So, yeah. Think about it. "Your parents didn't threaten you and emotionally blackmail you by telling you that you would be punished forever if you did anything wrong? How cruel!"

And something about the childish and absurd goes here, as well.

Get 'em while they're young; it's a lot easier to trap someone in religion than to set them free. The Word of God is perfect, complete, just. Which is why it is best taught through brainwashing. And, hey ... it's unfair not to.

God is "just" a word.

• • •​

One thing that strikes me in the moment is the line I wrote above about the people who really need to feel special. (I wrote the first section third.)

See, I've been making a common mistake by looking for a static lack. What I mean by that is that yes, I believe redemptive monotheism, among its other attributes, provides believers with a certain comfort, a sense of being loved unconditionally (even if there are obvious conditions).

There are examples in my own life, but they somehow seem a separate context. Or, perhaps, vested interest compels idealization. Or maybe the whole thing is mixed up ass over versa.

But I do wonder if the ongoing redefinition of family is having an undocumented effect on religious faith. That is, as modernity changes the circumstances affecting relationships between parents and children, how do those different circumstances affect the psychology of the individuals? Unconditional love is an idyll of modern parenthood. I think it's been part of parenthood for a while, but to hear my parents' generation tell it, things started getting really different thirty or forty years ago.

As American society transformed its conventional wisdom as regards child rearing, did those changes provide or withhold resources differently? Prima facie, the answer seems affirmative. But what changed?

We might ask why people need to feel special, and in truth, it seems part of our human nature. Is a religion like Christianity some manner of acute depravity, then? And that's where the idea of a static lack comes in. If what is missing is always what is missing, then it should be easy enough to find. But it's not. A static lack is too superficial for the complexity of the demand.

It well could be that the last few decades of Christian insanity that my generation has suffered with might represent a necessary threshold of redefinition. That is, as the individual's relationships to society and the world changed, so did his needs. Thus, to recklessly borrow a lock-and-key metaphor, while the same general elements are still present, they might be out of order so that the key does not function properly in the lock.

The idea of religious faith as a psychological element is not foreign to me. But it remains a mystery to me how that element interacts with the rest of the psyche, both individually and communally.

 

No, just murdered.

 

Collateral damages.

 

Targeted assassination.

 

Same thing, nowadays.

 

Reasonable. As to the personality of God, perhaps you might consider his creation. Surely, if nothing else, we can deduce that God certainly has a sense of humor. Also, that he loves beauty, symmetry, and order since we see it everywhere in the universe.

Hmm. You do realize that those bibles have pretty small print and very thin pages, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But doesn't everyone need to feel special? Furthermore, how can you be so sure that the existance of God has no consequences? Seems like such a fundamental idea would have some impact, some consequence. Doesn't it?

I'd laugh my ass off if someone said that. I remember being at a party once at some abandoned house. It was cold as hell since it was the dead of winter and (being abandoned) no one had paid the gas bill. Still, the liquor kept us warm and we were having a good time. Anyway, some guy I met there claimed to have raised a demon and said, were anyone to utter his name, he would appear. I asked, "So what was his name?" He refused to say, saying he was afraid. I asked him to write it down so I could say it, he again refused. I told him he was full of shit. I definitely would have said the name had he told me but, sometimes, late at night, I'm glad he didn't. I never did see that guy again.

We've all got our blind spots, that's for sure. You and I have very differenct ways of thinking about things which implies different blind spots. So while I'll certainly acknowledge the fact that I may have something in common with your acquaintance (friend?), keep in mind that you may too. We're all human. None of us perfect. All quite skilled at seeing what we want to see despite the clear evidence before our eyes.

And that, my friend, is exactly what should happen. That's exactly the attitude I favor. Live and let live.

Does going beyond the superficial help the situation? Do it help to keep the peace? Does it help people get along? You say atheists can't be polite because Christians used to burn witches at the stake. Because some Christians still go around trying to ban records, or books, or whatever because they don't agree with their interpretation of their religion.

I say, fuck all that. I really don't give a shit about the history of the situation. I most especially don't give a shit about crap that happened before I was even born. Focusing on slights, even great evils, that occured in the past only ensures that we'll never have peace. What do you want, to turn America into the middle east with everyone fighting and dying over bullshit that happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago? WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THAT?

It reminds me of affirmative action. Because of past discrimination, the government, employers, and schools need to discriminate now. What the fuck? How about we try, hmmmm, I don't know, NOT DISCRIMINATING! How about, instead of allowing minorities into colleges they're not remotely qualified for we focus on trying to ensure that they are qualified?

Or would that be too superficial and ignore the past? I'm sorry, but if progress is to be made we need to be a bit superficial and forget about the bullshit in the past. Otherwise the cycle of hate, recrimination, and fighting will never end.

When, sir, did I ever support book burning, the PMRC, or mandating that creationism be taught in school? I do not support such policies and never have. Believe me or not.

See my statement above. How the fuck are people supposed to get along if they constantly dwell in the past? It's a new day, didn't you hear? Now that Obama has been elected! What happened to that Tiassa in a good mood we saw for a few days after the election?

In this thread you've made reference to multiple religions. The comment was meant as a good natured jibe in reference to that. I must say that for a guy whose posts are full of insults, you sure are thin skinned when one comes your way. My apologies if you were offended.

I'm not in favor of deciding such issues as religion, atheism, law, and life in these United States in the court room. I prefer the ballot box, or, better yet, that people simply talk things over and put up with each other's little idiosyncrasies (such as religion).

You are a writer. This could make an interesting story in which you could make your point much more subtlety. Have you written any fiction?

There is a story I've read that comes to mind. A group of people at some far off monitoring station is installing a robot who will take their place. The station is in a really crappy location and people hate being there so they've very happy to be leaving. But when they're working with the robot to make sure he's capable of doing the job required, he begins expressing the view that he was sent by God to manage the station. Af first, the people are concerned that the robot is insane. But then, a crisis comes up and the robot, despite his theological motivation, performs flawlessly. The people say, "what the fuck. Let him believe what he wants, so long as he does the job" And off they go.

Again, to an atheist, that's all it should be. Yes, I've read what you've said about why that is not the case. However, why not be the adult in the room and act reasonably? Why not fight injustice without become intolerant yourself?

Let me be honest with you. I've was an atheist for a while. I didn't like the way it felt. It seemed dishonest. I'd still pray when in trouble. It just wasn't me. Rationally, I can certainly understand the atheist perspective. But, and I know it's a weak argument, it just doesn't feel right.

Whether their is a God or not, I think mankind may well be wired to believe. In the past, religion served to help explain the unexplainable. It also helped make people feel they had some measure of control over things they had no control over. There's no rain? The crops are failing? Pray. Make sacrifices to God. Dance the holy dance. It's still not raining? YOU DIDN'T PRAY HARD ENOUGH!!! YOU DIDN'T REALLY BELIEVE!!! You see? It makes us feel we're in control.l

Now consider some alternative group of primitive atheists. There is no rain? What do we do? Nothing? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN, NOTHING? MY FUCKING FAMILY IS ON THE VERGE OF STARVATION AND ALL YOU HAVE TO OFFER IS NOTHING?!? In walks the shaman from a nearby tribe and suddenly he's got a bunch of new converts. People can't stand doing nothing.

And consider the effect on war. Who will fight harder and with more disregard for personal safety? The guy who believes death is death; or the guy who believes that dying in battle will ensure his eternal salvation?

Also consider the effect on social cohesion. Religion helps bring people together. It helps define us as us and them as them.

For all of these reasons, I believe religion offered a selective advantage to those groups of humans that believed and the result is--all these years later---we still believe because it's literally hard wired in our brains. Sure, we can overcome it. Just as we can overcome our natural sexual preference (or can we?)

Alternatively, we may tend to believe because God does exist and we are, somehow, aware of his presence. Maybe it's both.

 

In your delusions.

 

Well if he threw a 2000 lbs bomb on him, what would you consider it?

 

Quite different than coming up from behind on the street and knifing him in the back.