Advertisement
On joiners to legitimate establishments, technicality and the individual agenda
There is a lot of anti religious sentiment these days, everywhere I go I hear something new, something poorly thought out, and almost universally something very angry.
While I understand the source and cause of this rising public opinion, I am unfortunately bound to examine the larger scope of things.
Any institution may be formed upon the foundation of great intentions (not to reference the old idiom, since great intentions do not really pave the road to hell) and high ideals. And any institution may flourish and remain true to these ideals for a time...perhaps indefinitely...but then, something else may also happen.
As the institution begins to flourish and profit from the addition of quality to it's system of ideals, persistence, and through the contribution of effort, others begin to see this success and take notice.
Now we must ask ourselves "Who are these others?". The answer is not simple. This collection of people who initially take notice when the success of an institution first gains public recognition are exactly that, "A Collection". They are made of several types and I will not produce an exhaustive list here today, however I would like to call attention to one specific sort. This is the fellow, or the Gal who is persistently looking for the answer to his/her issues outside himself/herself, we'll call em Mr.X. While many others seek to really understand things, or at least just see things one way and are bound to flock with others who see things their way, this one is busy trying not to do ANY OF THAT...who knows why, however Egoism and a lack of maturity are likely culprits.
Now , here we have a successful institution, and since Mr. X doesn't particularly have a well developed sense of self (we know he doesn't because he would have to look for his answers inside to get that), but somewhere in the depths of things he won't ever admit to himself or others he knows he (or she) needs one and craves it endlessly. Mr. X is lost in the crowd without a face or an identity or any sense of being, and doesn't know how to get one. SO, suddenly confronted with the awesome identity of the successful institution(pick one) Mr. X sees exactly what he is looking for, and feels it too.
It's something with a strong identity, and he wants more than anything to be a part...Only he wants it for the wrong reasons...and while that may not seem like a problem it is.
SO, at this point Mr.X (either consciously or unconsciously ) makes a decision...and it of course involves running from himself some more, and joining in...because "it feels right"...of course it does, the group has an identity and and Mr. X doesn't. Now if we pretend Mr.X is the only Mr. X doing this , or at least the first, then we can continue without the assumption that he has actual "moral support" in what he's doing (which is actually immoral), (that is assuming he can't rely on others to help him keep his cover so as to preserve their own) he has only to let go and say what others say, do what others do, and the magic of the mindless group will sweep over him.
Now ... In the mean time those who founded the group (usually very original thinkers with very well developed identities) begin to get confused. Are their ideas at fault? Did they neglect something? Are their leadership skills lacking? How can they tear their hearts out for what they believe in a little bit more so that their vision can be a reality, and so that they and the others who see things in the same or similar ways can just continue to add quality to what they believe in?
But the increasingly deflating and malfunctioning institution is damned...at least for now, and it sinks under the weight of many many Mr.Xs, collectively poisening the very institution they so recently adored by transforming it into a mockery of what it was, or if it tries to fight back a travesty of micromanagement. As the institution crumbles the and the members begin to disperse this individual once again feels the sickening thud of the loss of identity...and the cycle begins again.
Mr.X exists in ever institution.
From Politics to Organized Religion and even Marriage. Wherever there is a successful major institution of any sort there too you will find Mr.X. Many large cooperations of today are FILLED, if not entirely MADE UP OF Mr. X....Being Mr. X is encouraged in the Corporate Environment, and in most other power seeking institutions where it seems beneficial to those in charge to posses mindless staff, happy to take on the company mantle.
To come full circle, I submit to you all...that Organized religion is only a belief system, and when the sanctity of a belief system is jeopardized so too are all others, but it is not any single formal group who is at fault here...it is Mr.X... It is anyone man or woman who invests more of their sense of identity in any group then they do in themselves. It is everyone who decides to ignore the emptiness inside where they should find themselves and and instead decides to look outside for the answer, for a fix for the pain, just for today.
When you turn on a group or an institution without having real reasons, or without REALLY thinking ti through, thinking about the people and their lives, what you are doing is not significantly different from a sort of racism, or antisemitic sentiment in Nazi Germany. You are blindly dehumanizing, and worst of all you are becoming Mr.X, because you are searching for the enemy , the source of your anger...when in the end...it is you who is most responsible for your anger.
There is a lot of anti religious sentiment these days, everywhere I go I hear something new, something poorly thought out, and almost universally something very angry.
While I understand the source and cause of this rising public opinion, I am unfortunately bound to examine the larger scope of things.
Any institution may be formed upon the foundation of great intentions (not to reference the old idiom, since great intentions do not really pave the road to hell) and high ideals. And any institution may flourish and remain true to these ideals for a time...perhaps indefinitely...but then, something else may also happen.
As the institution begins to flourish and profit from the addition of quality to it's system of ideals, persistence, and through the contribution of effort, others begin to see this success and take notice.
Now we must ask ourselves "Who are these others?". The answer is not simple. This collection of people who initially take notice when the success of an institution first gains public recognition are exactly that, "A Collection". They are made of several types and I will not produce an exhaustive list here today, however I would like to call attention to one specific sort. This is the fellow, or the Gal who is persistently looking for the answer to his/her issues outside himself/herself, we'll call em Mr.X. While many others seek to really understand things, or at least just see things one way and are bound to flock with others who see things their way, this one is busy trying not to do ANY OF THAT...who knows why, however Egoism and a lack of maturity are likely culprits.
Now , here we have a successful institution, and since Mr. X doesn't particularly have a well developed sense of self (we know he doesn't because he would have to look for his answers inside to get that), but somewhere in the depths of things he won't ever admit to himself or others he knows he (or she) needs one and craves it endlessly. Mr. X is lost in the crowd without a face or an identity or any sense of being, and doesn't know how to get one. SO, suddenly confronted with the awesome identity of the successful institution(pick one) Mr. X sees exactly what he is looking for, and feels it too.
It's something with a strong identity, and he wants more than anything to be a part...Only he wants it for the wrong reasons...and while that may not seem like a problem it is.
SO, at this point Mr.X (either consciously or unconsciously ) makes a decision...and it of course involves running from himself some more, and joining in...because "it feels right"...of course it does, the group has an identity and and Mr. X doesn't. Now if we pretend Mr.X is the only Mr. X doing this , or at least the first, then we can continue without the assumption that he has actual "moral support" in what he's doing (which is actually immoral), (that is assuming he can't rely on others to help him keep his cover so as to preserve their own) he has only to let go and say what others say, do what others do, and the magic of the mindless group will sweep over him.
Now ... In the mean time those who founded the group (usually very original thinkers with very well developed identities) begin to get confused. Are their ideas at fault? Did they neglect something? Are their leadership skills lacking? How can they tear their hearts out for what they believe in a little bit more so that their vision can be a reality, and so that they and the others who see things in the same or similar ways can just continue to add quality to what they believe in?
But the increasingly deflating and malfunctioning institution is damned...at least for now, and it sinks under the weight of many many Mr.Xs, collectively poisening the very institution they so recently adored by transforming it into a mockery of what it was, or if it tries to fight back a travesty of micromanagement. As the institution crumbles the and the members begin to disperse this individual once again feels the sickening thud of the loss of identity...and the cycle begins again.
Mr.X exists in ever institution.
From Politics to Organized Religion and even Marriage. Wherever there is a successful major institution of any sort there too you will find Mr.X. Many large cooperations of today are FILLED, if not entirely MADE UP OF Mr. X....Being Mr. X is encouraged in the Corporate Environment, and in most other power seeking institutions where it seems beneficial to those in charge to posses mindless staff, happy to take on the company mantle.
To come full circle, I submit to you all...that Organized religion is only a belief system, and when the sanctity of a belief system is jeopardized so too are all others, but it is not any single formal group who is at fault here...it is Mr.X... It is anyone man or woman who invests more of their sense of identity in any group then they do in themselves. It is everyone who decides to ignore the emptiness inside where they should find themselves and and instead decides to look outside for the answer, for a fix for the pain, just for today.
When you turn on a group or an institution without having real reasons, or without REALLY thinking ti through, thinking about the people and their lives, what you are doing is not significantly different from a sort of racism, or antisemitic sentiment in Nazi Germany. You are blindly dehumanizing, and worst of all you are becoming Mr.X, because you are searching for the enemy , the source of your anger...when in the end...it is you who is most responsible for your anger.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, August 15, 2007 - 1:31 AMAnd I thought I wrote long posts (and emails too, much to the annoyance, I'm sure, of everyone I know, though they won't admit it).
What you're saying is a little complicated (which is always good) and kind of interesting.
First, though I know it's not what you're post is about, I would argue with the notion that anti-religious arguments are not well thought out (it's RELIGIOUS arguments that are too often not thought out at all). It takes an open mind to reject religion, and most atheists, at least as far as I've observed from those I've met, seem to've been brought up religious.
Don't blame us for any of our anger -- as you well know, the recent uprising against religion is the very direct result of the Bush-era rise of the attempt to evangelicalize America. My favorite traitor Senator Lieberman (ashamedly of my home state) notably said "The First Amendment grants us freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion". That's the attitude we atheists have become incensed by.
But I've always had a patient ear for anybody who has any rational argument to make on behalf of belief. I've been known (much to the annoyance of people I might be with at the time) to stop on the street and discuss religion with a total stranger (THEY bring it up, not I), hoping that maybe, just once, I will hear something interesting and thought-provoking. Alas, I've yet to be rewarded.
At any rate... in regard to your illustration (unfortunately I can't match it, in fact I'm not totally in a mind to at the moment) : I've always sympathized with people who seek religion as a means of comfort. It makes sense. I myself am not a happy person, but unlike my mother I do not seek solace in religion. I know I will not find it there. Some people do, and that's great for them. They may believe whatever they like. (I ONLY get annoyed when people try to push their beliefs on me.)
In other words, I don't see anything wrong with people grouping themselves together, and I don't think it's a poor reflection on the individual members. Anything that helps people get by is, to me, on the surface a good thing. Even drugs, even alcohol.
And basically, people in general NEED groups. They need tribes. This is how they form a self-identity. My identity is equal to how I perceive other people's view of me. In other words, "identity" is by its very nature as much external as internal.
Maybe I'll reread your post tomorrow and make a better and more relevant response. But... I suppose maybe this'll provoke some continued thought. Then, maybe not. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, August 15, 2007 - 2:12 AMmmmmm...
Couple of problems here...
you said this "Don't blame us for any of our anger" .
Before I jump on you for it you must realize that anger is its own problem, that it doesn't solve a damned thing, that it creates conflicts in already difficult situations where there didn't need to be more and that every man is DEFINITELY to blame for his own anger.
Yes I DO blame each and every angry person for their own anger, and all of them collectively for perpetuating anger. It is issues such as this which should be the focus of our impetus to generate change because they are the real issues hiding behind a multitude of irrelevant institutions.
Freedom *FROM* anything is a semantic maneuver where honor, dignity and demonstration of any system of ideology could (if it were in the right) easily demonstrate it's superiority.....and yet it does not do this...why is that?
I am neither for nor against Atheism and neither for nor against organized religion. I am however VERY against the eliminating mentality.
In simple terms, there are a multitude of ideas many of which serve the formal function of referring to only a single idea but all of which serve a multitude of functions which run the entire spectrum from the creative association to the signifying of other similar things through substitution, and this list goes on. At the end of the day much human thought involves these combinations, and the greater the number of variables, the greater the number of combinations.
This is one central reason why I am opposed to the removal of ANY kind of institution, especially negative ones. It's my view that it is vital to the progress and adaptation of the human race to not only stop eliminating all things, but to insure that each and every thing enjoys proper representation and preservation for whatever it's lifespan as an identifiable thing may be.
If something is somehow not alright in some way it will be proven in time and if that thing is not preserved the lesson will be forgotten.
If however it is preserved, along with everything that is known about it, good and bad accurate and inaccurate, and each of those things preserved along with the other, that they were accurate or inaccurate...then everything is right there. Is ...just what it is.
Belief is a separate subject...IT VERY MUCH deserves it's own thread.
Ahhh...see
now the meat of the matter. You are defending this way of being because you are one of these people. And now the others will either come out of the woodwork to defend this view only because they are afraid that if yours is implicated it will implicate theirs also if they are even that awake inside, or they will hide in the shadows trying to ignore the entire thread.
The fallacy ingrained in your response is hence: that one is equipped to know another when one has yet to comprehend oneself; Concordantly the comprehension of others can not come from outside only from inside, for no man is at once himself and some other man in some other body. The Greeks covered this AGES ago....... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
Anyone who doesn't face the pain that comes from not knowing themselves well enough to be sure about what they think and what they feel enough so they can do what they must to move onward productively is weak, or a coward. Weakness may be forgiven if it is followed by the development of strength and wisdom but cowardice is despicable because when one chooses cowardice one becomes a disease and a handicap to- with whomever they've thrown their lot in.
Whatever Religion, whatever cooperation or government institution...whatever tribe. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, August 15, 2007 - 11:42 PM"I am neither for nor against Atheism and neither for nor against organized religion. I am however VERY against the eliminating mentality."
Bravo.
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, August 16, 2007 - 1:40 AMI like the way you think. But anyway ...
Anger is an inherent and inseparable part of the human organism. It's there for a reason. Not only is it counterproductive to ignore its existence, it's also created some positive things, from art to social movements. The trick, often, is keeping it under control - which is, of course, an exclusionary action.
Exclusion is necessary for survival as well as advancement. Hard to breath (or move) under a pile of shit.
That's part of the reason why we think entirely in symbols, as you've described, which represent a whole lot of things. If we paid attention to everything and didn't focus down, we wouldn't be able to control our own lives.
I know I'm getting off the path a little, so...
That said, I do understand what you mean. Acceptance is good, denial is bad. Worldliness is good, protectionism is bad. Comprehensiveness is good, selection is bad. But increasing abundance also requires greater resources; and since the resources of each individual is limited, then so is the capacity for inclusion.
It's a given that taking offense from others' ideas generates angry responses. But is it really anger you want to control or is it the taking of offense? I think it's not anger itself that perpetuates angry dialogue, rather the refusal to admit that your own ideas might be at least partially incorrect, or to put it another way, refusing to listen to others' ideas because it threatens the ideas which make you secure.
As for me, my security does not depend on the protection of my "beliefs" or "disbeliefs" (as I said, I actively seek interesting arguments from religious people, because I'm interested in ideas, not belief systems). So... I'm not, in fact, "one of them". Although my anger at Christian bigotry or righteousness does arise from anyone's attack upon my "disbelief" (key word "attack"), more specifically it arises from their disrespect of me, of my point of view, their determination that people like myself should not have certain rights that I currently have, that we should be excluded. Surely this is how a lot of devout Christians feel about people who feel free to make fun of their beliefs and talk about them as if they're lesser people than us. I understand that, and it's natural and proper that they should feel angry. They have every right not only to BE angry but to express that anger. It's when that anger turns to hatred that you start to have problems.
But here's where I stand: I respect ANYONE's belief, or nonbelief, in ANYTHING, so long as that belief or non-belief does not interfere in the freedom and happiness of anybody else.
I fear this is all getting too complicated, and this is the sort of matter that cannot be solved in a forum. Not that I discourage people writing about it. The more the merrier! Or something. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but prove it first. I cannot claim to be incorrect by a matter of default. (Naturally, that would be, as you've described, a sign of "weakness", whatever that means.)
But lastly: I've never been a student of philosophy, so I cannot claim to walk beside the words of any philosopher's words. Nor am I a scientist. Therefore, all my ideas come from perception, experience and logic. My perception of this idea, popular among self-help phonies and psychotheorists, psychologists and psychiatrists, that there exists this elusive thing called the "true self" and that we must "get in touch with our true selves" is both fallacy and lie. I do know that I do not understand, and cannot understand, who or what "I" am, and that my perception of myself, piece by every piece, is built on a groundwork of other people's perceptions as I perceive and interpret and feel those perceptions. Without perception, without a mirror, there is no self. Whether or not one or more Greeks pondered this problem a long time ago is irrelevant to me.
-
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Mon, August 27, 2007 - 10:54 PMYeah, hate organized religion too!
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, August 29, 2007 - 12:31 PMI am turned off by how a lot of a certain religion, who has a lot of members seemingly here on Tribe run around wanking off to it and so on ...
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, August 29, 2007 - 6:45 PMThis is my opinion.
Art, just briefly. Throughout history different artists have found inspiration in their belief of a true aesthetic being formed through the medium and information of a focused movement. Great works of expression revealing not only timeless human nature but also historical perspective came from the isolation of these devotional paths. Also, many of these forms were resulting from a cascade of historical experience, evolving apart from the status quo yet reflecting the past. In modern civilization reason and acceptance enveloped not artistic endeavor but the interpretation of art. “Everything must be accepted” became a solicitation for a blank canvas. A canvas not ready for art but operating AS art. The question becomes, “Can we experience sublime from something that must be explained to us?” Furthermore, why do we give a hoot if anyone just “says” it is art that we are looking at? I want to look into the eyes of the past, present and future. That is sublime to me.
Back to topic… two ideas.
There seem to be two distinct ways in which we are told to discover our “real self”, looking inside and looking outside as a matter of opinion. Eastern inward, Western outward for example. I think that our cycles of experience and reflection bring us to an understanding of our personal identity. We listen to another person’s beliefs and then compare those to our own memory of experience and preserve what has harmony. Even religious people do this borrowing of symbols.
I also think the current resistance to organized religion is due to the presence of fear in people of belief. There is no place for democracy in religion and that is very dangerous to America.
-
Unsu...
Re: hate organized religeon?
Fri, August 31, 2007 - 3:21 PMMy favorite times of all are those when I read something that makes so much sense to me that I say "Damn, I wish I had written that!" These moments are even better when the topic's one I've had on my mind (like this one).
Haven't read the responses yet, but just wanted to say, Bravo, Patasapien.
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sun, October 14, 2007 - 9:26 PMThis post is a bit old - but I think it's worth noting "the source and cause of this rising public opinion" as a postscript to your analysis (which I enjoyed, and has caused me to modify my own anti-religious sentiment - thank you!). In my observation, anti-religious sentiment frequently rises from experiences with religion as an institution that exists solely for seeking out the Mr Xs of the world who have yet to attach to some group, drawing in more of them than other groups, training them to be obedient, and thus gaining power. The major religions today certainly at one point had a purpose of spreading life-altering ideas. However, in terms of public presence, evangelism currently far outshines actual ideas. This doesn't support the idea that all religion is bad, but I think anti-religious sentiment is at least understandable amid a lack of examples of virtuous religiosity. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Mon, October 22, 2007 - 2:01 PMNick, you might change your mind if you visited a monastery... of any kind really, and what about people who do missionary work abroad?
It's not all bad, seriously. Some people within religious institutions are just dedicated.
I do see your point however and yes some of any opinion about anything is always justified.
I have a lingering concern however, and that is that an angry mob doesn't differentiate between Ideas and people. -
-
Missionary activity or cultural genocide?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 6:21 AMSometimes even the established churches get wise, e.g. the case of NOT canonizing Junipero Serra when it was found out that he
enslaved his charges, and hundreds or thousands died of the diseases brought with him.
IMHO the Catholic Church should go out of business and the results used to try to the repair to damaged indiginous cultures in the world.
-
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Tue, November 6, 2007 - 11:30 AMDon't know if I've posted here before or not, but...
I'm a spiritual humanist, and not entirely opposed to religion when it's more of a philosophy than a deranged belief in the apocalypse and the need to die for a cause and take others with you. But I do think everything goes to shit when you base your beliefs on a sacred text. So I do find organized religion obnoxious. The loud old man who sits by the bus stop downtown and preaches to everyone about how they're going to hell and should turn to Jesus first thing in the morning on my way to school always makes me want to douse him with cold water from a hose. Like, wake up, man, snap out of it. He never looks anyone in the eyes either even when he's talking to them, like he's a tape recorder on endless repeat - just disconnected. These freaks both scare and enrage me, and no amount of "examining the larger scope of things" can change that gut-level reaction.
Rather than believing religion to be our salvation, I believe it to be a medieval and superstitious mindset that we need to grow out of in order to evolve to the full potential we have in us as humans.
Anger can be a tool of creativity and inspiration. It is passion - dark passion. Of course, I wouldn't want to live in a world of universal and constant anger. But I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world with no anger, either. That would be heroin-world, and I already did that, and it was highly problematic.
Thought-provoking post all the same. -
-
a temple of iconoclasts
Tue, November 6, 2007 - 12:26 PMmy religious bias tends towards spiritual anarchy and so i don't hate organized religion. i understand its place and the need of the many for moral structures and theological premises they are not ready to dismiss and/or create themselves. i also see the kneejerk reflex of hatred for organized religion as a healthy reaction to the violence and warfare often married to the militant arms of religion and its political agendas for expanding a nations' territory and altering the maps of the world.
the religious impulse in humanity cannot be denied without entangling ourselves in a bed of lies. we are a highly ritualistic species capable of making a religion out of almost anything. we cannot seem to do without our rotating altars of icons to worship. that many organized relgions do this in the most literal and conventional of ways only testifies to a deep absence of imagination and feral vitality which expresses, not a misguided flock but rather sheep that are cultivated and shorn to serve more domesticated functions.
the religious impulse at its origin point floods us with wild epiphanies, revelations and visions of miraculous proportions that barely finds containment in mere words and never in explantions or theories. it is no wonder that such potent impressons inspire well-meaning devotees to try and preserve its fiery numin with fortresses of belief, dogma and indoctrination. of course this eventually corrupts the originating vision in its attempt to preserve it like some exotic prehiistoric insect trapped in petrified amber.
got to love them humans. -
-
Re: a temple of iconoclasts
Tue, November 6, 2007 - 1:59 PMI'm not so sure that suggesting that "the religious impulse in humanity cannot be denied" is not akin -- or even identical -- to suggesting that because humanity has been engaged in warfare and rampant bloodshed for as long as we can tell then bloodshed, as well, is an indelible part of human nature that is necessary and here to stay. I don't believe that either religion or warfare is either beneficial or necessary, that we cannot live without these things and that they satisfy a need that cannot be otherwise satisfied.
I read an article a while ago that suggested that the human brain might be "hard-wired for religion". While I found the argument interesting, and while I find your argument interesting as well, I don't find either one at all convincing. I'll explain:
First, there are too many people in this world who do not believe in any sort of "higher being" for these suggestions to be supportable. If so many people can get along in their lives without leaning on a religious belief structure, then it is certainly not necessary for our existence or well-being, nor is it something we're "hard-wired" for (to use the phrase used in the article), unless you want to suggest that all atheists are aberrant, diseased, whatever.
(In fact, while so many Americans cling desperately to all sorts of religions, Europeans have been moving away from religious attachment.)
Second, can't we rather easily replace religion -- which provides people with a necessarily false sense of self -- with philosophy and art? Actually: let's scrap philosophy, since philosophy itself is a means of self-trickery, and just stick with art. Art serves the function of investigating the self and everything that we perceive, and it is not the least bit detrimental. In fact, it serves the purpose that "spiritual" people desire, but more effectively I think, because while spirituality, in the end, always requires some sort of exclusionary structure (we're back to that word again) of thought and feeling: art does not. Art is always free to question and examine anything and everything human.
Dreams, too. Imagine how much nicer the world would be if, instead of arguing with one another over whom we should worship and in precisely what manners that conception should be worshipped, we all spent the same amount of time telling one another about all the interesting dreams we had the previous night? (Assuming, of course, they can be remembered.)
Whee!
This isn't to say that "spirituality" is bad: I see a huge difference between "spirituality" and "religious belief". While spirituality is personal and free of external and political restriction, religion is a political tool intended to brainwash large groups of people into adopting, upholding and spreading specific ideas; and this has proved to be very destructive. We don't even need to look at history to see how destructive it is, we only have to look at current world affairs, and at our own affairs -- all the conflict and animosity religion has engendered. And while I can see a positive aspect to spirituality (although I feel it can be replaced by art, for the betterment of humanity) there is no positive side, that I can see, to religion.
I can't honestly declare that I "hate" religion, if I have any sort of understanding of what the word "hate" means, but I can definitely see that religion -- as opposed to 'free spirituality' -- has proved and still proves to be dramatically detrimental both to the relationships between different societies and cultures and to the freedom of the individual person to learn, to ask questions, to seek out information and find out his or her own conception of self, without oppression, pain, violence or guilt. -
-
Unsu...
Re: a temple of iconoclasts
Tue, November 6, 2007 - 11:44 PMI think a lot of modern society would benefit from considering Science and Atheism and Consumerism as religions. That and getting over antiquated Aristotelian thinking and hopefully realizing that the excluded middle is where all the interesting shit happens.
Then maybe people could talk about "the problem of religion" meaningfully..
-
-
Re: a temple of iconoclasts
Sat, December 29, 2007 - 1:06 PM"Existence itself may be considered an abyss possessed of no meaning. I do not read this as a pessimistic statement but a declaration of autonomy for my imagination & will and their most beautiful act of bestowing meaning upon existence itself." -- Hakim Bey
I second the motion.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sat, December 29, 2007 - 9:48 PMI'm not anti-religion. Religion serves a purpose. It's a psychological salve and security blanket, it provides direction and instruction, it can be a powerful force in people's lives. It's just not for me. I'm more of a philosopher than a devotee. I want to question and I resent having answers presented to me in a lump package. I dislike authority figures instructing and assisting my relations with "god". I have a moral compass of my own (though it admittedly points North, Northwest) and refuse to let anybody else dictate my morality. I'm stubborn like that. If folks start demanding everybody has to follow their way "or else" it is a problem, and if folks start killing other folks for religion I draw the line. A church that demands murder needs to be seriously revamped.
So, as my mother was always fond of saying, if you don’t want any you can’t have any. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 8:36 AMtribes.tribe.net/99thperce...9f2b5d287f
Richard Dawkins... athiest.
I'm not sure that the elimination of institutions are a probability... the elimination of their diminishing effects on the public are a possibility...
prevention of stem cell research... teaching religion in public schools under the guise of "intelligent design"... etc.
Also desensitization (the Mr. X concept I believe you are talking about) is part of the process of rationalization and justification for intolerance.
So with that in mind...
The most common argument for the existence of God is that logic is dependent on the existence of God and so therefore God takes precedence over logic.
www.infidels.org/library/m.../tang.html
This is why stem cell research has been restricted.
Regardless of the fact it could help an enormous amount of people.
They may believe what they want to believe... and I am not angry
but when their apperceptions begin to be passed into law... that's unacceptable to me.
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, January 2, 2008 - 9:42 PMWhy can't people just leave other people alone to believe and/or choose to practice their beliefs
in the way most comfortable for them?
I was raised highly religious in a strictly fundamental environment where we were dictated
many things from styles of clothing, makeup, no jewelry, vegetarian diet, to entertainment.
Now I realize that most organized religions are a way or packaging up spirituality in this
nicely wrapped box, so it's easy to see and understand. As Myriad says, for many it's a
security blanket. I don't need that security blanket anymore, although I do sometimes
miss the church community. I don't like being judged for how I practice my own spirituality.
But I don't fault people who need organized religion. That is called freedom of religion
and I believe it's a basic right in our country. And I will fight as hard for people to keep
that freedom as I would fight to practice my own spirituality.
Vixxen -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 9:23 AMWhy can't people just leave other people alone to believe and/or choose to practice their beliefs
in the way most comfortable for them? >>>>
That's the optimum situation.
Unfortunately,
Some religions limit human rights...
or even do violence to you...
in order to fulfill the dogma of their religion. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 9:47 AMYou are correct in saying that organized religions that hurt others,
either by forcing their beliefs on them or by condemning those
unlike them are very bad.
I figured that kinda goes without saying.... -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 3, 2008 - 2:27 PMWell, I was once of that opinion myself. I grew up Roman Catholic, rejected it, and had no bad feelings about religion and no thoughts in my head that I should set anybody else straight. Anybody can believe what they want to believe, so long as they don't impose on anyone else's rights. Of course! I still believe it.
The problem is that too many religious people -- mostly Christians -- have gotten it into their head that it's their divine mission to convert non-Christians to Christianity. Too many religious people are out there trying to force their beliefs down other people's throats -- sometimes violently.
In America, today, we have a situation where the Democratic presidential candidates feel compelled to convince people that they're devout Christians who pray every day. We have people like Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly on cable news spewing nonsense about how Christians all over America are being oppressed and that, in their opinion, non-Christians have no rights. Ann Coulter recently said that all people should be forced to be Christian, but then again, who listens to HER anymore?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Those crazy people with the guns, and the voting rights.
So . . . when the climate changes, attitudes change. I hadn't the anger toward religion, a few years ago, that I have now. When the venom and the prejudice and the motion away from "religious freedom" (and the freedom to not be religious) starts to become invasive, then you must push back. Hence the rise of atheist voices, which just a few years ago were pretty damn quiet.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 1:41 PMI don't hate organized religion per say, hate is a base emotion and not worthwhile, but I do find organized religion distastful in that it's often used as a control mechanism and may be accompanied by intolerance and abuse of power. Atheism, in my mind, is just the reverse image of religion. Many athiests have become so adament that there is no god/devil, heaven/hell, etc. that that has become their belief system, and thus, a religion, or anti-religion if you will, in it's own right. I think the best place to start is the agnostic view accepting that we don't know one way or the other. Once that is accepted an individual can really open themselves to personal discovery without the baggage of belief. What I completely don't accept is the concept of "God" as an entity, if there is a "God" I'd like to think of it more as a force, a thread that connects all things, "God" as an idea. Ideas are mutable where as beliefs are rigid and usually must be broken to be changed.
On the other hand I also accept that most people never progress spiritually beyond accepting the beliefs of their society "This is what I was raised to believe, and therefore, that's how it is and everyone else is wrong." Many people need that spiritual crutch to lean on, being either incapable or unwilling to look beyond their ingrained beliefs to other concepts and ideas.
I like the idea of spirituality without religion. To turn inward and explore oneself. Carl Jung wrote of the Persona and the Shadow. The Persona is the outward mask that we show the world, how we see ourselfs, how others see us and what we believe is expected of us by society or our peer group. The Shadow is what we see when we turn inward, the ugliness, hatred and meanness, our flaws, fears and shortcomings. The Shadow is meant to keep people in check and it usually works. Most people flee back to the Persona when they encounter the Shadow, unable to face their innerself. Those able to face the Shadow and accept their flaws can move forward and discover not only a greater understanding of themself but of the nature of humanity.
That said, try looking at things from other peoples perspective, try learning about their belief system, and finally, try starting a dialog with them rather than attacking their view point, always keeping in mind that it's their right to believe as they please.
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions."
– Blaise Pascal -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 5:48 PMHonestly: I'm so damn sick of this argument that because atheists "seem" to be the polar opposite of "religious belief" then atheism must be a "belief system".
Not to be belittling, but a little education here, I think, has become necessary :
1. Atheists are not "adamant about their beliefs". In fact, in regard to religion, we have no belief. That's, in fact, the definition of atheism: the lack of religious or spiritual belief. The fallacy propagated by spiritual and religious people is that atheists are "adamant believers" in something because, after all, everyone must believe in something, right? Conclusion: "Atheism" is not our belief system, nor does it, in any way, define us, it's very simply a label that separates us from "believers".
I hope that that will clear up some misunderstanding, but I'm just cynical enough to believe that everybody who reads this who has not agreed in advance will simply ignore it. (After all, that seems to be the nature of all believers (and those who refuse to make a decision).)
2. Atheists, in fact are people who simply refuse to believe a story that has been driven mercilessly into hundreds of thousands of people from birth, a story which has absolutely no substantive standing logic or science, nor has it any positive societal purpose. Perhaps at one time it did, but not any longer. Remember: Religion is politics. Its aim is to make other people believe what you believe. Its platform -- pick your religion -- is not a progressive one. It's a conservative, backward one that resists questioning, resists progress.
3. IF it is false to reject the stories that are forced upon us by Christians, Jews and Muslims the world over, then it is necessarily equally false to reject any story that literally anybody might come up with off the top of their head. The results are literally infinite. Must we acknowledge the "possibility" of EVERYTHING, no matter how inane? No matter if the teller even admits that it was all a lie? Must I acknowledge that L. Ron Hubbard might've been right?
4. On agnosticism, the philosophy of cowards (and this rarely fails to annoy my "agnostic" friends when I bring it up, which is rarely, but I like being a needle when necessary; I'm no coward): While "I refuse to decide" might seem a sensible position to a lot of people, it is in fact a cowardly one. What the agnostic says is: "I can't make a decision, I'm too scared to make a decision, so I'll just say that I'm Not Sure."
This sort of thing makes me want to scream: MAKE A DECISION! DO YOU BELIEVE THE STORY OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IT? It isn't that difficult, and avoiding that decision is 1. avoiding responsibility, 2. avoiding upsetting anybody who might disagree with you, and 3. worst of all, avoiding confronting that basic fear which our religious parents and peers have pounded into us relentlessly from childhood. Anybody who cannot make that decision is simply a coward, in my acerbic opinion.
If you believe and can back up your belief with reasoned argument (without resorting to religious teachings) then I respect that (so long as you don't try to convert me) (I've never tried to convert anybody, except to vegetarianism . . . atheists are nearly universally, if not wholely, uninterested in converting people spiritually.) But if you cannot make the decision: then although there might be all sorts of things I respect about you: that is not something that I can respect.
As for 'trying out other people's beliefs first", well . . . I was raised Roman Catholic. My mother sent me to Catechism. I know that religion and its proponents fairly well. So nobody can tell me that I need to wear somebody else's moccasins. I've worn them, and I found them uncomfortable and demeaning and restrictive. Eventually I made my decision. Of course, if that phrase needs to be suggested to anybody (I think this is what you're suggesting, too) it needs to be suggested to those who've been inculcated with religious doctrine. The problem is that, in regard to religion, people in all sorts of parts of the world are being brainwashed from early childhood. Few are being inculcated with skepticism. Unfortunately it's hard to get those people to "try out atheism". Besides the fact that atheism is not a belief system, I think a devout Christian or Muslim or Jew would find it rather hard to think in terms of not believing in your own beliefs.
Sorry if this sounds angry (I do, in fact, feel a little angry, now, despite myself). Especially toward you, Ipsissimus, since you sound pretty reasonable and intelligent so far. It's just that I've heard this argument too many times, and now that atheists are finding that they have to speak out, we find we're being attacked in all sorts of absurd and annoying ways, one of the most common of which is that, somehow, we possess a "belief system" to which we stick adamantly and closed-mindedly. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 6:57 PMHuman
Your arrangement of words here reads like a high doctrine of Atheist Fundamentalism. Well done!
-
Unsu...
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 7:48 PMOMG, human, you come across as quite angry, actually! And I hate to point it out, but your post is riddled with beliefs. If you want to find them, just look for the izes. P.S. If "no belief" isn't a belief, what is it?
As for your statements about agnostics I say fuck you :) , I'm far from a coward. I consider myself agnostic because I see it as the only rational response to questions about God(s). I can't believe people actually form concrete decisions around questions like "Is there a god?" I prefer to keep my options open - it keeps information coming on all sides that way. And I'd have to say, from personal experience, that I think admitting to being agnostic is a pretty brave place to come from since anyone with a belief will call you stupid or scared for it.
I have to ask though... just how many Christians, Jews, and Muslims force stories on you every week? Month? Year? Like really. "Help, help, the atheists are being oppressed!" I've spent too many years around too many atheists, and nowadays I find they could use more humor and a lot less logic... and a little less paranoia about religious folks might help too.
I think it's funny that you're ok with someone being religious, as long as they can back it up with non-religious supports. But considering your Roman Catholic background, I guess I should cut you some slack - those fuckers are crazy with their religion!
I have to go eat now, so sorry if this makes no sense to all the well-hung minds around here.
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 9:14 PMHuman, thank you for proving my point of atheism as a belief system.
The starting point is no belief either for or against religion, or atheism for that matter.
I'm purely agostic, whatever 'spirituality' I have comes from a sense of self and a willingness toward self exploration.
My challenge is for anyone to prove anything one way or the other.
But more importantly, I challenge people to discover themselves. -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Wed, January 30, 2008 - 10:32 AMWow. I was expecting a bigger reaction than this. Where's the outrage? Hey! I just called you all cowards!
So, Minja: What you're saying is that you demand proof of lack of proof? Hell, we could be here all day. When will you be prepared to make a decision? I have things to do. Are you ready to accept that Trumbbuggles exist? After all: the mere fact that I can't prove to you they don't exist proves, by logic, that it's impossible for them to not exist. Correct? And by logic that means they must exist! Poof! You're a believer! So am I! Problem solved.
But enough of your logic! Proof is for pudding. I want some fantasy.
In regard to Christian invasiveness: I see Christian missionaries out on the street all the time. They hand out flyers, or scream out biblical verse. They're totally harmless. When I had black hair they would spot me walking toward them and literally stop handing out flyers and wait for me. Occasionally I talk to these people, to see if they've anything interesting to say. They never do, oh well. I'm always hopeful.
I used to find them amusing. I never felt any sort of annoyance or anger in regard to Religion until Bush Corrective made it okay to be a Christian bigot.
I respect anybody who "believes" in something (not somebody who thoughtlessly touts a religion) and is able to substantiate it rationally. I respect anybody who can make a courageous statement and back it up rationally. If you believe in faeries and can back it up with some sort of reasoning, then I like you. That doesn't mean I have to accept that what you say 'might' be true. That would be silly.
I like faeries. I don't believe in them.
Ipsissimus: I'm glad to help out. It feels good, doesn't it, when somebody else handles the Proof for you? It's sticky stuff, Proof. Without it, pudding would just be some dark, watery stuff. It wouldn't have any cling.
Anyhow: let's see how good a student you are of this belief system called Atheism. What's the platform? Are there rules? Is there a structure? What sorts of guidelines do the practitioners of Atheism follow? Is there an Atheist school? Are there things Atheists are allowed to do and not allowed to do? Are there special garments they wear that are specific to the practice of Atheism? -
-
Re: hate organized religion?
Wed, January 30, 2008 - 12:35 PMHuman a belief sytem doesn't have to have a specific structure and expanded organized base to be a belief system. Look at Judaism, Christianity and Islam with their myriad forms of delusion and various versions of so called sacred canonical literature. In this country there are thousands of small independent churches with different views on faith and no structure beyond their small congregations. Look at the Mormons, they have a whole different set of rules and literature from other christians, yet they consider themselves Christians, though most other christians don't. Or Messianic Jews, they aren't considered jewish by mainstream jews, some jewish sects don't even accept converts, you have to be born into the faith.
1. A 'religion', or belief system, doesn't have to be organized to be a religion, or at least religion like.
2. There most certainly are organized Atheist groups like The American Atheist Affiliation www.atheists.org/affiliation/ and ATHEIST ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php just to name a couple.
Face it Atheism is a modern belief system.
That said, I'd like to state that I reject all organized religions, and the very idea of an anthropomorphic god figure. These types of mainstream relions are about control not faith or spiritual growth. It's not that I'm afraid to choose one side of the argument or the other, it's that no one has shown me an argument or delivered any proof that, for me, makes that choice possible.
Did we just randomly occur? A cosmic accident? Could be, but, I don't KNOW.
Is there some manner of, call it what you will, higher power, cosmic energy, greater order, etc. that binds all things? Could be, but, I don't KNOW.
As far as my personal 'spirituality' it focussed on the internal self, self discovery, the world around, what is knowable, and exploring one's mind.
Your problem is that you refuse to admit that you don't KNOW.
The world and the universe still have a lot to be discovered, if we knew everything, if there were no mystery left in life, then it wouldn't be much worth living. If I thought there were no new frontiers and that science is always right, I'd probably be as bitter and angry as you. But much of science is theory, not fact, we discover new things every day. Don't be so closed minded and life will be more enjoyable.
Cheers.
-
Unsu...
Re: hate organized religeon?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 11:09 AMLMAO! I knew you were trolling, Human!
"So, Minja: What you're saying is that you demand proof of lack of proof?"
Um, no. I'm saying that I don't care what people believe and I don't expect them to prove anything to me when it comes to religion or spirituality. Mainly, I don't believe they can prove anything - and I''m not sure there's even anything to prove. And that was kinda my unspoken point - how can one talk about logic and proof when it comes to belief? If something makes sense (logic) or can be demonstrated (proof) then there's no need to believe. Think about it - what's belief but faith? and faith means believing something without logic or proof, wouldn't you say?
I would also like to say that I'm really glad I don't see Christian missionaries all the time, and if I were dealing with more than the occassional Jehovah's Witness maybe I'd be more fired up. Then again, last time the JWs came around my husband answered the door (and you and he would probably lose your heads from nodding agreement with each other so much) and he demanded their home addresses so he could come interrupt their day to tell them about how Jesus was an alien. He's so mean. :)
The "what" of religion doesn't interest me nearly as much as "why" and "how" - those two tell me more about a person than the what of their beliefs. Assholes and bigots come in all religions (and no religion too).
Just my .02.
You don't have to convince m -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 5:17 PMI don't believe in astrology; I use it because it works.
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 8:57 AMIpsissimus: If you don't believe something if it's not proven, then we agree. I don't believe a story, either, unless it's proven. If you tell me a story, then it's certainly not my business or my duty to prove your story wrong, it's yours to prove it correct. So where's the argument? Why are you arguing against non-belief when you yourself refuse to believe?
But . . . I think you need to read my posts again. Perhaps you're one of those people with that dread disease which brings you to ignore what people say? Wait, there was a phrase you used: "closed-minded"?
First, there is no structural system involved in or necessary for not believing something. To suggest that there is is either fantasy or conspiracy theory.
Second, just because there are some people who have thoughts that are similar to mine who've formed silly organizations does not make me an automatic subscriber. If a bunch of people with brown hair decided to organize a group for brown-hair-advocation, or to organize a group dedicated to raising informativeness about people with brown hair, does that mean that all people with brown hair not only subscribe to those groups but also possess a belief system, perhaps called Brownhairism?
Additionally, if you can call non-belief, or Atheism, a belief system, then that means that Agnosticism, or non-belief-non-belief, is a belief system as well. Shame on you!
Of course, I do not believe that Agnosticism is a belief-system, any more than Atheism is. Or Brownhairism.
I'm sorry, but . . . unless you have proof, I cannot believe your story, as interesting as it sounds. Prove that non-belief is a religion. If you can't do it, then I can't believe you. If you can, well, then I'll have much respect for you. I'm all ears. Or, rather, eyes. Go to it.
Oh yeah: and what you describe as the exploration of "the internal self, self discovery, the world around, what is knowable, and exploring one's mind" . . . that has a good name. It's called Art. I practice it all the time. Of course, despite all the artist collectives and coteries and so forth, I don't see how Art, either, can be designated a "belief system", unless you want to assign the description "belief system" to every sort of occupation or intellectual or social interest whatsoever.
Minja, on the other hand, does make an interesting point . . . to just "not care" whether or not there is proof of anything, no matter what anyone says. For a moment, it makes a person wonder why he/she is fighting so hard. There's a kind of beauty to it.
But . . . I can't just "not care". When somebody attacks somebody else simply for being skeptical of somebody's story, you can't just "not care". When hordes of people are destroying other people's lives in the name of their religious faith, or in the name of their church, then I can't just "not care". I fight because I feel a need to. I vote because I don't want to be oppressed by fanatics who don't give a damn about my welfare or my neighbor's welfare but only want to horde wealth and spill other people's blood for their friends' monetary interest. And so forth.
And, to answer your question: Actually, I wasn't trolling, I was responding to what's become an increasingly annoying habit among some people who describe themselves as agnostic (not all, obviously -- only a few), which is to start latching onto anti-atheist bigotry, as if to prove their superiority over everyone else, that they surpass everybody in skeptical practice by being skeptical of skepticism itself (again by no means all agnostics . . . just some of them, who make themselves evident once in a while). When agnostics, of all people, begin using slanderous, uninformed phrases like "fundamentalist atheism" and "atheistic doctrine" which were invented by Christian bigots in order to discredit people who've found themselves incapable of believing other people's feverish stories . . . well, that just takes the cake. I was looking forward to eating it.
(The "you're all cowards" comment, however, was more of a spirited jab.) -
-
Unsu...
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 11:55 AMHuman,
"But . . . I can't just "not care". When somebody attacks somebody else simply for being skeptical of somebody's story, you can't just "not care". When hordes of people are destroying other people's lives in the name of their religious faith, or in the name of their church, then I can't just "not care". I fight because I feel a need to. I vote because I don't want to be oppressed by fanatics who don't give a damn about my welfare or my neighbor's welfare but only want to horde wealth and spill other people's blood for their friends' monetary interest. And so forth."
I only said that I do not care what someone else believes. I didn't say that I don't care what they do as a result of what they believe.
Me, I believe in freedom of religion very strongly, and I think everyone has the right to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how stupid or kooky it seems to me. But let's turn to actions for a moment. In my mind, anyone who pushes their own beliefs on another is part of the problem. And that group of "problem children" certainly isn't limited to "Christian bigots" but includes bigots of all flavors, including fundamentalist atheists.
I'd like to know what you think of the guy who sued the school district in CA because he didn't want his child to have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, specifically the "under God" part.
I also think we have different definitions of "belief" and "belief system" and that discussion deserves its own thread.
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 1:03 PM"Truth! Truth! Proof ! Proof !" (behold, the sound of barking dogmas)
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sun, February 3, 2008 - 9:40 PMHuman, although I'm agnostic and reject the concept of an anthropomorphic god, organized religion, etc., I also deeply believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, they're cornerstones of our society, as is separation of church and state. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have the right to believe
Many atheists use fanatical rhetoric that sounds like a manifesto to ban all religion, much in the way many christian fanatics would like to make christianity a state religion. Over the course of this conversation I've come to the conclusion that that is not your outlook, however, at the outset that's how you came over.
<First, there is no structural system involved in or necessary for not believing something. To suggest that there is is either fantasy or conspiracy theory.>
I never suggested any conspiracy. Atheists are organized and they do have shared beliefs. I simply stated the obvious, atheism has become a modern belief system.
<I'm sorry, but . . . unless you have proof, I cannot believe your story, as interesting as it sounds. Prove that non-belief is a religion. If you can't do it, then I can't believe you. If you can, well, then I'll have much respect for you. I'm all ears. Or, rather, eyes. Go to it.>
I said atheism is a modern BELIEF SYSTEM, I never used the word religion.
<Oh yeah: and what you describe as the exploration of "the internal self, self discovery, the world around, what is knowable, and exploring one's mind" . . . that has a good name. It's called Art. I practice it all the time. Of course, despite all the artist collectives and coteries and so forth, I don't see how Art, either, can be designated a "belief system", unless you want to assign the description "belief system" to every sort of occupation or intellectual or social interest whatsoever. >
I completely agree, however, art isn't belief, it's concept, craft and discipline. Really the analogy doesn't work.
Is still say atheism is a modern belief system, you don't have to agree with me. What you do have to agree upon is that others, whether you like it or not, have the right to believe in/participate in organized religion. If not, then you're no better than christian and muslim zealots. Just because you and I think it's foolishness doesn't mean they don't have the right to believe it, and practice those beliefs as they see fit within the bounds of the law.
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions."
– Blaise Pascal -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 1:39 PMHell, ipsiss... I've never suggested that people don't have the right to believe what they want; in fact I've said exactly the opposite. I just don't want anybody forcing their beliefs down anyone else's throat, or anybody telling ME that I'm wrong for not believing something without proof. Again, I've never had any "issue" with religion -- they've never made me angry -- until these last few years.
Nor have I met a single atheist -- and I've known a bunch -- who did/does not believe likewise. I don't know where you're getting your info, but I'd suggest you might be somewhat stained by prejudice. Of course, where this prejudice comes from beats the shit out of me. Perhaps it's simply narcissism? Well, you're the only one who can clear this up.
Nor have a met an atheist who felt it necessary to join a group. By nature, people who are atheists tend to be independent thinkers -- this is usually how they end up as non-believers. Those few atheists who seek to validate themselves by forming groups to discuss how great they are (like the Mensa people) are just as bad as agnostics who, almost confoundingly, throw vile rhetoric at atheists.
I think it's only natural -- I am human, after all -- that I get annoyed -- even angry sometimes -- when people cast aspersions on people such as myself who just happen to have decided that they cannot believe the Story they've been told. So, when an occasionally self-important agnostic picks up this bigoted rhetoric in order to prove their intellectual superiority -- as I've just said -- that offends me.
Perhaps you're going to have to define more clearly what you mean by this charged phrase "belief system", because, as I've said before . . . shit, do I have to keep repeating myself? Read the posts, don't just respond. It's all there.
The art analogy WAS apt, because it was a means of trying to strip away all the bark in order to get at your essential meaning. I'm working around the tree here; it's a difficult tree, because it doesn't seem to make much sense. If you agree that art, and all other practices and pursuits, cannot similarly be called a "belief system", then that indicates that you're attacking "atheism" specifically, for a reason you're yet to clarify. If it's really because you've met a bunch of people who talk about controlling other people's minds, well, I'd like to know where you meet such people. Is it just from carelessly googling phrases like "atheist groups" or "atheist conspiracy"?
...sigh...
Minja: I think we agree (and Ipsissimus, too, at base), there just seems to be a little misunderstanding here among a lot of people -- perhaps this, too, is one of those myths propagated by Christian bigots -- that there's a huge atheist conspiracy out there trying to restrict people's rights to "believe" in something or even to daydream.
As for the guy in CA: I liked him, from the limited transcript I read in the Times (I think) I concluded he was quite intelligent. I understood where he was coming from but I thought his quest was a bit silly. While it's wrong, in the first place, that the government should be advertising monotheism in the courthouses, on our money, in the pledge of allegiance -- honestly: in the end this is almost innocuous. I've never seen how the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance amounts to oppression.
Oh . . . just a suspicion. (For both of you): Does a lot of this rise from your observation of the bitterness that some atheists, more in the past than present, who've had to struggle against ACTUAL religious oppression? If so, then you're regarding those people out of context. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: hate organized religeon?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 7:58 PMHuman wrote: I think we agree (and Ipsissimus, too, at base), there just seems to be a little misunderstanding here among a lot of people -- perhaps this, too, is one of those myths propagated by Christian bigots -- that there's a huge atheist conspiracy out there trying to restrict people's rights to "believe" in something or even to daydream.
There also seems to be a little misunderstanding among a lot of people that there's a huge Christian conspiracy out there trying to restrict people's rights to believe in something. I won't argue that a certain group of Christians - aka "The Religious Right," among other names - has seized a lot of power in this country and not only try but DO restrict people's rights. But just Sunday, wasn't it, that big meeting of Baptists attended by former president Carter and lots of other people, and the Southern Baptists were pretty much no-shows. The meet was still a huge deal though, because really, you can talk about "Christians in America" but from my experience I need to know, which ones? Northern Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mormon, Quaker, Pentecostal, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic - these "Christians" run through theentire political spectrum. I know a number of uber-liberal Christians who also tend to proselytize more than I'd like - but then I live in coastal California.
Anyway, my point in all this - having a religion and having a belief system is not the same thing, as I see the term "belief system" (and it's a topic I've considered and researched and experimented quite a bit, so obviously my definition is heavily biased by that). Religions are just one type of belief system. Political opinions, morality, all of these abstract concepts of ours are belief systems. A belief system is quite simply what we believe to be true. These belief systems are our biases, which we wear like contact lenses - it shapes how we see the world, yet it's so transparent it's often taken for granted. And mosbunall people seek out others with similar belief systems because we naturally want to have our belief systems validated by those around us.
Let's face it - the problem's really not with "Christianity", is it? It's with those assholes who decide it's their duty to keep evolution out of schools, or to protest at some poor kid's funeral because he was killed in what they call an unholy war, or to keep those with sexual orientations that make them uncomfortable unable to gain the same rights and privileges as partners. A few assholes herding along a big ass flock of lovey-eyed bobbleheads to do all the work.
And as for your last query -
"Oh . . . just a suspicion. (For both of you): Does a lot of this rise from your observation of the bitterness that some atheists, more in the past than present, who've had to struggle against ACTUAL religious oppression? If so, then you're regarding those people out of context."
I'm not quite sure what your first sentence means, but I'll tell you that my views on atheists come from observing atheists on a mostly Christian message board I trolled for a few years and my time as a Fundamentalist Atheist. I was very much anti-Christian for a long long long time. Only in the past 5 years has that changed. I read a book by Robert Anton Wilson called The New Inquisition, and at the same time in my chem class we were tested on material that the textbook clearly told us in a footnote was obsolete. I started to wonder, how can I call myself scientific if I just accept what the scientific community tells me? And which "scientific community" do I listen to when they argue? Then I did this thing for a couple weeks where every time I argued with someone or wanted to argue, I asked myself, do you really believe that? And it became really clear really quickly just how much I believe. After that I stopped saying that I didn't believe in anything. I guess I'd also credit this time as the birth of my definition of belief system.
The sad fact is that there are a lot of atheists out there who also happen to be mean-spirited intellectual snobs who spend their "fun time" making Christians cry or feel stupid. There are also atheists out there who for some reason I cannot understand believe that saying 'under God' in school will somehow turn their kid religious. I mean, didn't any of these now-parents have to do shit as kids that they didn't like, that they didn't agree with, but you do it anyway? I dunno. The pledge was such a meaningless mantra to me, and I certainly don't believe in baby Jesus smiling down on the US.
I find that some atheists have more in common with their supposed "enemies" the far right christian coalition - a rigidity of thought and belief that refuses to allow its opposite. I also find that some atheists I know and some Christians I know have more in common with each other than with their more rigid spiritual counterparts - both flexible enough to allow space for the other without feeling compromised oneself.
I could give a shit if someone believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and tithes 10% to the Church of Cthulhu. The way I see it, it doesn't matter. What matters to me - Are you rigid or flexible?
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: hate organized religeon?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 11:48 AMHuman,
I never said atheism IS a religion, I said it IS a belief system, and they have every right to believe it. I also never said I have a problem with atheists. What I said was:
"Many athiests have become so adament that there is no god/devil, heaven/hell, etc. that that has become their belief system, and thus, a religion, or anti-religion if you will, in it's own right."
Perhaps I could have stated that better by saying "that has become their belief system, and thus, their religion" them being some, but not all atheists. I have many friends who are atheists and christians as well. My issue isn't with atheists as a whole but those who like to get up on a soap box and talk down to and belittle anyone who doesn't think like they do, they're just as bad as the bible beating jesus freaks. For my part about a quarter the atheists I've encountered fall into this catagory, as do a fair number of christians. Their rigid mindset disallows them to examine anyone elses viewpoint objectively.
As for conspiracies, I don't believe that there's an atheist conspiracy trying to restrict people's rights to "believe" in something anymore than I believe that there's a christian conspiracy trying to restrict people's right not to believe in something or to repress those that do. To quote Minja:
"Let's face it - the problem's really not with "Christianity", is it? It's with those assholes who decide it's their duty to keep evolution out of schools, or to protest at some poor kid's funeral because he was killed in what they call an unholy war, or to keep those with sexual orientations that make them uncomfortable unable to gain the same rights and privileges as partners. A few assholes herding along a big ass flock of lovey-eyed bobbleheads to do all the work."
That pretty much sums it up (thank you Minja).
As for "the guy in CA" I think he's hyper reactionary. I understand what he's trying to say and actually I agree with him, but to me the question is does it harm anything? Are your children going to go all "Jesus Freak" because they said "under god" while saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school? No. If it really bothers someone that much they can teach their child the original word to the Pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands. One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I accept that 75% percent of the people in my country are christians and that nearly half of them are devout bible beating, church going fundamentalist idiots. Now that doesn't mean I'm going to lay down and let my rights be trampled on, but then again, as I choose not to believe in any religion, nor the need to stand in the pulpit and preach my beliefs (or lack thereof) it's really not an issue. No one is going to make go to church. It's not like I'm being oppressed, though I've met more than a few atheists who act like they are.
Fact is the atheists who are my friends are just everyday folks who choose non-belief as their belief. As most of the rest of the atheists I've encountered, whether online or in person, I knew they were atheists because they felt the need to state the fact that they are and to tell everyone else how stupid they are. It always seemed to me that they were more interested in calling attention to themselves than anything else. Those are the people I've been refering to, and if you're not one of them then don't take offense because I'm not talking about you.
In the end all I'm really trying to say is keep an open mind, be flexible. Ideas are better than beliefs, ideals are mutable where as beliefs are ridgid.
Peace -
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sat, March 15, 2008 - 11:35 AMPerplexed is more like it. See Christopher Hitchens for more reasons why to question, though I never gave up my ability to think critically despte the fact that I fall under a Boddhi Tree.
MA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: hate organized religeon?
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 6:20 PMHating organized religion is like a hating French poodles. I human made entity or phenomenon that lends well to our needs.
It is the doctrine that is screwed up, too often taken literally, organizations meet many needs
-
Re: hate organized religeon? - (usually spelled religion)
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 11:00 AMThe development of a belief system arrived in the human experience even before language was perfected. It served the purpose of tying individuals to mutual support of one another for the common good. It allowed the choosing of the groups leaders to be based upon something other than brute strength. Further, without a belief system, agriculture would not have been developed.
It has been only recently that social contracts not tied to a religious belief, have slowly, and as yet imperfectly supplanted religion as an organizing force. (Islam, for example, has never had a Reformation, the source of much of the strife therein today.)
"It is anyone man or woman who invests more of their sense of identity in any group then they do in themselves. It is everyone who decides to ignore the emptiness inside where they should find themselves and and instead decides to look outside for the answer"
If we had not looked outside for an answer, we would still be extremely small bands of little bipedal critters intent on finding today's meal while looking over our shoulder for the predators who see us as just another snack. We would certainly not have become the dominate species on the planet.
Perhaps your intent was to delineate the "True Believer" In that case your arguments would be quite valid.
How did this thread become a debate on atheism? -
-
Re: hate organized religeon? - (usually spelled religion)
Wed, May 28, 2008 - 11:49 PMI'm a Hindu Buddhist pagan secular humanist drumming juggling astrology student who got some memorable wisdom from a book called Flow:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) and from a book called Seven Habits for Highly Effective People. I also learned some interesting things about myself at the Human Awareness Institute. Recently I saw this thought-provoking movie which seems relevant to this discussion: thegodmovie.com/
-