Mark Zuckerberg says he's not an atheist anymore

[GulliverFoyle]

@anon61221983

I didn’t say anything about atheists, I said that power is a problem period, outside of religion.

Okay, I thought you were saying religion’s only downside is when it has power, and I was just pointing out that it’s not only religious abuse of power that motivates many anti-religious atheists. Thank you for clarifying and sorry I misread your comment.

@anon61221983

But it kind of is. You’re positing some level of moral superiority over them, by stating that you believe their moral foundation is less than optimal - which of course, they’d argue about you.

Well, I do know religious believers who are my moral betters. But I think they are in spite of have a less optimal foundation, not because of it. It just seems to me that operating from a position of fidelity to reality is advantageous over not.

@anon61221983

I’m suggesting that none of us exist in a morally optimal state, because all of us are products of our environment, personal experiences, language, culture, biology, etc.

I’d agree with that wholeheartedly. I don’t think my ontological system is perfect by any means. I’m not even sure my epistemological method for improving and refining it is ideal. And in other ways unrelated to religion, a religious believer’s moral foundation can certainly be superior to that of an atheist. But I still regard the belief in what I don’t believe exists to be a liability, not an asset.

I myself, being imperfect, undoubtedly hold beliefs that I don’t know are wrong but nonetheless are. And those would be my liabilities. But my goal in life is to doubt and question all my beliefs, to subject every one of them to the best tests of evidence I can given my imperfect knowledge and access to data. Since I can’t take the time to test all of them (for example, the old philosophical problem that most people have never seen the Forbidden City with their own eyes but still believe it exists), and since I’m an imperfect tester who will make errors, I know I’ll never be totally certain even in the beliefs I have access to, to say nothing of the much larger (possibly infinite) amount of knowledge I’m not even aware of.

The key difference between me and someone who believes in a Higher Power is that I don’t hold any beliefs that I would still hold if in searching for empirical evidence to support them, I found none. Since there is no empirical evidence of a Higher Power, believers of such necessarily do have beliefs for which they do not require even the possibility of empirical evidence.

@anon61221983

We use that to create a belief system or a world view that makes sense to us, to help get us through our days.

That is true. And I’ll be the first to say that religion is not all bad. Rather my position is that, in the balance, the history of the world would have been better if we were more rational beings that didn’t create things like religion. At the most I’ll say I’m weakly condemning religion as a whole. When someone does something good because of religious belief, I neither want to nor can I condemn their specific actions. But since I don’t believe in a Higher Power, I consider them to have been capable of those good things without that faith, because ultimately if it did not come from a Higher Power, then it came from something else within them and/or their world that could still motivate their goodness without that belief. And as a matter of statistics, both in their own life and in the course of history, it makes sense to me that all the good people would themselves be even more of an effective force for good without what I consider illusions.

@anon61221983

At some point, we have to take the reality of others into account and accommodate it in some way, if we can.

I agree with that. But at the same time, just as I would never expect them to censor what they believe around me, I’m outspoken about my atheism, my reasons for it and my reasons why I think it’s the best system. I like friendly disagreements. Whether or not anyone changes their beliefs, things can be learned. For example, your replies back to me have encouraged me to more carefully evaluate my attitudes toward religious belief and how I communicate that to believers. I’m sure I’m still not doing it perfectly, but it’s a chance to improve which is a wonderful thing and something for which I’m grateful to you and others who engage me on difficult subjects we don’t entirely agree on.

@anon61221983

Otherwise, we do judge others by our own internal morality. And we all generally find others wanting. I think the trick is understanding those two realities and acknowledging them.

True. And being human, I’m altogether susceptible to the sin of hubris, an altogether human mistake. I try not to find others wanting. But sometimes I can lose sight of the forest for the trees.

@anon61221983

Sorry I rambled and sorry if this doesn’t make much sense.

Your comments have always come across to me and clear and insightful. Thank you for being patient.

[Edited for my bajillion grammar mistakes ]

[GulliverFoyle]

@miasm

Anyway, this is why I can’t be mad at Zuckerberg for doing whatever he is doing.

There are plenty of legitimate complaints I can make about Zuckerberg, but his religious impulses aren’t among them.

[Ryuthrowsstuff]

That’s certainly part of it. But this past election there seemed to be a concerted effort on the media’s part to ignore most issues in favor of pure horse race and splashy headlines about Trump latest whatever. From most quarters, in between Trumps there and gone “scandals” there was radio silence or poll coverage.

[LearnedCoward]

@anon61221983

But I think the REASON that is true is because they don’t need to.

True. Neither of the major parties really cares about any specific block of their voters. The voters certainly don’t shape policy. It’s the donors who do that.

@anon61221983

The fact that Pence was the VP pick illustrates the fact that they have a huge sway over the GOPs policies. They don’t need to court the religious right, because the religious right helps to set the agenda at the core of the party.

There’s a saying: the religious right are neither religious nor right. They don’t care about religion itself, they just use religion as a tool for controlling the masses. They don’t need to do that anymore, so we will see it less and less. I don’t think religious leaders have any sway anywhere in government, it’s just that the right wing has been twisting religion to push its own agenda. The religious leaders who do have a part in this are only tools.

@anon61221983

The direction that GOP controlled states are taking regarding things like reproductive rights underscores that reality, too.

The abortion issue has always seemed like a wedge issue to me. Not practical for anyone to debate it, because the Supreme Court settled this more than 40 years ago, but it gets people riled up. Also, measures limiting access to abortion, birth control, reproductive health services, etc. are more about deepening the socioeconomic divide than promoting religion. There are religious people involved, but those at the very top are not at all motivated by religion.

[anon61221983]

@LearnedCoward

The religious leaders who do have a part in this are only tools.

I’m not sure I agree. I think that they can most certainly be true believers and part of the power structure. I see no reason not to believe Pence when he has historically acted on his religious belief in office. [quote=“LearnedCoward, post:195, topic:92102”]
The abortion issue has always seemed like a wedge issue to me.
[/quote]

A wedge issue that has real world consequences for some of us. If you think it’s a wedge issue, it might be because it doesn’t personally impact your life. And while women with $$ and privilege (myself included) certainly have more opportunities to access these things, anti-choice laws still make it slightly harder for someone like me (and impossible for someone with even less means). None the less, it’s still an attack on my bodily autonomy. It’s still an attack on me, even if I can more easily avoided the consequences. It can be both economic and religious in orientation. It doesn’t have to be either or, I think.

[lolipop_jones]

That slogan may not work for all values of Saturn.

[LearnedCoward]

@anon61221983

I’m not sure I agree. I think that they can most certainly be true believers and part of the power structure. I see no reason not to believe Pence when he has historically acted on his religious belief in office.

I don’t consider Mike Pence to be a religious leader at all. However, the Christian Right influences people who then become more religious and more political, possibly becoming genuinely religious political figures, so we are who we become, I guess.

@anon61221983

If you think it’s a wedge issue, it might be because it doesn’t personally impact your life

I think the talk about overturning Roe v Wade is a wedge issue, because it never will happen.

The broader topic of reproductive rights is far from a wedge issue, so I agree there. It might not impact my life, but I still know the impact that does have on people.

[Phrenological]

@Shirley_LeGitte

The Religious Right has been curiously quiet, during this last election cycle…no mention of repealing Roe v. Wade, etc.

@LearnedCoward

I think the talk about overturning Roe v Wade is a wedge issue, because it never will happen.

Because they don’t need to. They’ve found their ways around it already. More attention is needed there

[anon50609448]

@Mungrul

Maybe this ties in with that recent New Yorker story alluding that serious Silicon Valley money is being invested in an attempt to escape the simulation…

Oh my goodness, what a bunch of morons. A friend of mine said, “They think they’re going to wake up in a room with a sign that says, ‘Welcome to REAL reality. Congratulations!’”

@nemomen

Empiricism is an epistemology not an ontology. Ontology involves claims about being as such.

Empiricism is a sort of anontological epistemology, though. We can say, “Okay, let’s just assume there is stuff and figure out how the stuff works.” It kind of just doesn’t care whether anything exists or not. That’s an not an ontology, but it’s something you select in the ontology dropdown just like atheism is selected in the religion dropdown.

@anon73430903

I hate using dyslexia as an excuse but that is just because I can usually manage and feel that I should do so all the time.

If you can realize you made a mistake because of dyslexia and then resolve the issue, that’s not an excuse is a explanation of the cause of a misunderstanding. Everyone has misunderstandings, dyslexia or no, and recognizing them, admitting them, and moving on is grade-A, top-notch, amazing shit. No sarcasm, every time you go, “Oh shit, I misread you, glad we got that settled” the world becomes a much better place. Your dyslexia just gave you an opportunity to remind us all how we ought to behave all the time, and we ought to be thanking you.

@anon61221983

They support Israel so they can make their “Christian” countries religiously homogeneous.

When California separates and takes Oregon and Washington with it, and the North East says, “Fuck it, why are we staying in this mess,” Emperor Steve Bannon is definitely going to support Israel as a place to ship all the Jews to.

@LearnedCoward

I think the talk about overturning Roe v Wade is a wedge issue, because it never will happen.

I’ll put down $20 that it will in the next eight years. I’d go up to $50 if we were willing to count CNN saying that a supreme court ruling “effectively overturns Roe v Wade” as overturning it.

[kpkpkp]

The big one is GM, the little one is Saturn!

[tigkiwi]

@Ryuthrowsstuff

Neiztche’s work was used to justify and feed antisemitism and the holocaust despite his explicit opposition to antisemitism and his atheism.

Religious motives, of religious people, given the “cover” of his reasonings.[quote=“Ryuthrowsstuff, post:136, topic:92102”]
Tons of bullshit racial science was used to justify the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and genocidal policies toward Native Americans.
[/quote]
Far more of that was simply religious people, used to quoting Hams’ fated slavery in the bible, attempting to cloth themselves in borrowed “science”.

@Ryuthrowsstuff

Along with various ethnic biases and restrictions.

ethnicity in most of history was simply a synonym for religious distinction.[quote=“Ryuthrowsstuff, post:136, topic:92102”]
You’ve got the secular atrocities of the French revolution. Explicitly atheist communist/socialist states.
[/quote]
Did not come to exist in a vacuum, the direct result in fact, of eons of religious oppression by the upper classes in both states “God appointed rulers of the meek”. So, you know, my thesis that religion is at root of most of the worlds ills? covers the rise of State sponsored atheism pretty well perfectly. you could say, in effect, that religion is to blame for the evil that is extreme atheism even ![quote=“Ryuthrowsstuff, post:136, topic:92102”]
Where not only was there forced indoctrination, including atheist indoctrination of children.
[/quote]

I grant you this one thing. Though it has very little to do with the behaviour of atheist members of modern society, which is the topic at hand. It was merely a political tool aimed entirely at eradicating the evil that religious people had done to them; reaction, not action. And entirely to be blamed on religion.

[nemomen]

@anon50609448

Empiricism is a sort of anontological epistemology, though. We can say, “Okay, let’s just assume there is stuff and figure out how the stuff works.”

Agreed. Empiricism (as it is generally taken/practiced) is effectively a kind of methodological naturalism. Jumping to metaphysical naturalism requires a priori propositions.

[tigkiwi]

@anon61221983

But I also think that it didn’t get as much attention in the mainstream press because it’s considered a “special interest” issue.

Very true, sadly. Though quite how they ignore the fact that the entirety of our existence relies on women, their issues, and their safety, while deciding it is only of “special interest” to some people, I can not understand. Much like the issues of childhood well being, and schooling, being considered “special interest”, when they are the interests of the whole of society in no uncertain terms.

[tigkiwi]

@anon50609448

just like atheism is selected in the religion dropdown.

No. That is totally false. Religion is not the default setting of minds, it is the result of someone imposing a lot of nonsense. All minds are naturally atheist, so the “toolbar” you are talking about is one of those Bing toolbars, effectively a virus corrupting the operating system. Its dropdowns are bugs, not features.

[nemomen]

@tigkiwi

No. That is totally false. Religion is not the default setting of minds, it is the result of someone imposing a lot of nonsense.

I’d recommend you look into anthropology of religion a while. The topic’s really much more complex and much more interesting than that.

@tigkiwi

All minds are naturally atheist

This is a difficult position to justify well. You might assume minds are a tabula rasa, but there’s plenty of evidence to show that if not false, that’s at least an assumption fraught with complexity. While it’s not conclusive, there’s some research that suggests brains are hard-wired to invent gods.

[anon50609448]

@tigkiwi

No. That is totally false. Religion is not the default setting of minds, it is the result of someone imposing a lot of nonsense. All minds are naturally atheist, so the “toolbar” you are talking about is one of those Bing toolbars, effectively a virus corrupting the operating system. Its dropdowns are bugs, not features.

I invoked dropdowns because they are found on forms. I didn’t mean them as a metaphor for the internal workings of the mind, but that you literally find “atheist” or “atheism” on the religious dropdown or checkbox list on some forms.

[miasm]

@GulliverFoyle

his religious impulses

Whatever they are, that’s not what I’m implying is contemptible. I am saying that they are almost entirely beside the point.

Unless you consider Machiavellian displays of piety to be a core part of religion…

[miasm]

[enso]

[GulliverFoyle]

@miasm

Whatever they are, that’s not what I’m implying is contemptible. I am saying that they are almost entirely beside the point.

Yes I know. I was agree with you on the part of your comment I quoted. Apologies if I was unclear.

@miasm

Unless you consider Machiavellian displays of piety to be a core part of religion…

It could be Zuckerberg was doing that. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. But I’m skeptical that it was intrigue. I think the more likely explanation is he’s another of the many people who found religion after becoming a parent. Either way, only he will ever know, so my sentiment is: why worry about it?