Then there are the Christian Dominionists, who want the Jews repatriated to Israel and Israel involved in a holy war, all so the End Times can begin.
8 Likes
Yeah, but I suspect that’s not even the majority of them, either. Just one subset, who believe in a literal interpretation of the end times. I’d suspect the belief in “every people has a state” driving more of them. Their own ethnocentrism drives them to think of people as races and races as needing to be separate.
5 Likes
I do wonder about the intersection of those dominionists with the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul and David Duke “right to associate” crowd, who use the Nation Of Islam as an example that black persons shouldn’t have to be forced to provide service to white persons, so white persons should be able to exclude black persons and we don’t “need” civil rights legislation.
1 Like
The last White Nationalist I’d met had used this argument, so that’s certainly a factor.
2 Likes
I’m agnostic with regards to the possibility that something we could recognize as intelligent had a hand in the origin of our universe (whatever that means). No evidence for or against.
But I’m atheist regarding obviously made-up deities like Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, ect…those are transparent anthropomorphizations of the natural world by confused humans. Yeah, they might exist. So might the tooth fairy, but they still don’t. No evidence for, plenty of evidence against.
Yes…and no. Some of the concepts in Buddhism, and in Indian philosophy generally, are extremely difficult to translate into Western language. It’s not impossible, but it’s subtle and patient work, and requires real one-on-one interaction because the differences in individual interpretation can have substantial effects on understanding. A lot of Westerners would be unwilling to put in the time. I once had a philosophy teacher in college who scared me away from it for years by convincing me that it was an impossible task and you either magically thought in the concepts to begin with or there was no way to get there from here. He was wrong (and kind of a putz), but he was covering his own lack of patience by assuming sloth on the part of his students.
I agree with both freedom of and from religion. But one thing to understand about atheists, who are both of the logical positivist and empirical variety and who others would classify as the “new atheists”, is that they believe that believing in what they regard as unreal things leads to a flimsy moral foundation. The flip side, which humanists recognize, is that this isn’t a repudiation of moral foundation, but rather the opposite, making one all the more necessary since the only thing worse than a flimsy moral foundation is nihilism.
I personally agree with them, but not too strongly. Here’s how I described it to a Christian relative of mine over the holidays. Two people have a map of a winding road with many obstacles. They know the speed they’re going, but they can only see the map, not the actual road itself. And their maps are different. They each believe their map to be the more accurate, and they want the other person to have that more accurate map because they care about them or at least the other people sharing the road. But even if they could force their map on the other person, each of them being people of good conscience, they won’t try to force their own map on the other. They wouldn’t even if it would work, which history has shown it wouldn’t, because they want the other person to become a proponent of the map, not merely an unwilling tool of their own will, and a potential saboteur.
The key things is, only one map is more accurate than the other. They cannot both be more accurate than each other.
Fanatics will get around to atheists before too long. They already do in some places in the world. It’s that Martin Niemöller quote that springs to mind. Being last into the gas chamber is cold comfort.
@enso - @Wanderfound did a better job of replying. Empiricism requires ontologies to be actively doubted, subjected to repeated tests, and abandoned if measurements contradict them. It’s fundamentally different from declaring ontologies to be true. Empiricism isn’t an ontology, it’s a method of doubting them.
Yes, I know. I was not clear. See my reply to @Wanderfound above in this comment. I was catching up on the thread. I think you were probably replying to me here?
2 Likes
Well, his son argued that civil rights laws trampled on that “right to associate” as did Barry Goldwater. I think they feel that free of government coercion, racism wouldn’t exist. But I bet at least some would feel that, pushed hard enough, that the right to associate means the right to drive others back to the “right” place too.
They just ignore history and reality to suit their own needs/beliefs. They don’t discriminate, so it’s not a problem, because in their mind, the only unit that matters is the individual one. They think they are the only people whose freedom matters.
Yep.
So, is that the only acceptable point of view for an atheist? For that matter, what happens to people who don’t conform to this world view? What does a world with only atheists look like, how do we get there, and what is lost in the transition? Does it even matter?
How about we all work together to make that not happen then?
4 Likes
Because one of the richest dudes, who presents as white not “Jewish” when people look at him for markers, has anything to fear from anyone?
3 Likes
I’m happy to declare you can. I have had teachers who did the same. Unless we want to get into the “who is a real Buddhist” and “who is a legitimate teacher” game, it is what it is. Opinions vary.
I’ve seen this and, personally, think it is a bullshit idea but to each their own. Zen, having studied its history and writings (in Japan, Korea, and China) in translation as much as possible, is pretty clearly Buddhism with a Chinese Character (and later Korean and Japanese). It borrowed heavily but it is still the Dharma.
I don’t take refuge in teachings that I reject. That’s your projection on what I and others like me are doing. I reject your assignment of what I, as another person, am doing, based on your decisions and beliefs around the Dharma. (I don’t say this with rancor or take it personally. I’m just trying to be clear.)
I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha (Says so right there!). The difference between us (and many folks for a looooong time) is how we define each of those things, along with the Eightfold path, Shunyata, etc.
3 Likes
Not at all. I was just saying that some atheists don’t consider power to be the only problem with religion.
Most get on just fine. But as an atheist I still consider belief in religion to be less optimal as a moral foundation than a foundation without religion. That’s not a condemnation of religious believers. Many believers are morally excellent people and many atheists are not. But I wouldn’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending that I think their map of the road doesn’t have the flaws that I’m fairly confident it does.
I strongly doubt we can. I think supernatural belief and faith in High Powers derives from humans not being entirely rational beings, and thus is inextricable from human nature. I don’t think we’ll ever move beyond it, and if anyone does, they’ll probably no longer be the same subspecies as us, whether by divergent evolution over countless generations or (more likely) people tinkering with the human brain (which is likely to have all manner of unintended consequences that could well be far worse than irrationality).
Given what would probably have to happen to acomplish it, I’d say that’s anyone’s guess since, in our current state of ignorance about how the brain functions, the results of brain-modification would be wildly unpredictable. But if you mean can a culture abandon belief in the supernatural without abandoning the other religious aspects of their culture, I don’t see why not. Secular or atheist Judaism seems to have done just that. Obviously the belief in the supernatural itself would be lost in the transition, so insofar as one regards that as essential to the culture, something is lost. IMHO, it’s a net benefit in the balance, but that’s not up to me nor would I want it to be. People can and should decide for themselves what to believe or not believe in. Erasing independent thought to achieve agreement is never a victory, it’s a scorched Earth tactic that leads only to ruin. I’m not even out to convert anyone. They’ll either be convinced by the good arguments and evidence, or they won’t. Since that’s all anyone really can do, I’m just fine with it.
Of course we should.
Sorry for the longish replies. This is a delicate subject and I want to be as clear in my communication as I can.
2 Likes
David is a friend of mine and he’s largely spot on though he has a bit of an axe to grind as well. 
These two books were quite good as source material though the latter is a f’ing slog.
2 Likes
Zuck: “There is a God, and it is undeniable that He LOVES Mark Zuckerberg…!”
3 Likes
The Religious Right has been curiously quiet, during this last election cycle…no mention of repealing Roe v. Wade, etc.
1 Like
Where were you? Trump made at least a few anti-choice comments, but given what’s happening in many states regarding reproductive rights and the ongoing attacks on Planned Parenthood, in many places, they don’t need to say much, because they are winning in their war on women’s bodies.
12 Likes
I didn’t say anything about atheists, I said that power is a problem period, outside of religion. [quote=“GulliverFoyle, post:177, topic:92102”]
That’s not a condemnation of religious believers.
[/quote]
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. 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.Because we are all flesh bound, and only have our own senses, experiences, temporal/physical location to ground us morally speaking, we can only act from that. Hence we seek out something outside of ourselves to make sense of the complex world we live in - some do that through religion, others through non-religious means - science, art, culture, philosophy, what have you. We use that to create a belief system or a world view that makes sense to us, to help get us through our days. But however we do it, it’s going to be extremely limited in nature and probably constantly butting up against both reality and the reality of other people. At some point, we have to take the reality of others into account and accommodate it in some way, if we can. Sometimes, we absolutely shouldn’t - and often we have to make that judgement individual, but sometimes we make it collectively (like during the Civil Rights era). And as you rightfully point out, we’re not rational beings (no matter how much some economists would try and make us believe we are).
I guess my point is that we can only have a limited understanding of others and why they think and believe the way they do. Art, science, literature, and even an understanding of religion as people live it, can help us to understand others. 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.
Sorry I rambled and sorry if this doesn’t make much sense. Thanks for sharing your world view.
4 Likes
Including an explicit promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would over turn Roe v Wade.
8 Likes
Well, that is the rub isn’t it? But once you have obtained that perspective, you can then refer to your own cultural heritage in order to find strong routes through, a ‘stream’ of ideation that leads to the insight you wish to encode. I’m not sure exact simulaca are even desirable unless you are really interested in the historical context in which the original insight was had or at least encoded. Unless the thing is tied so strongly to the place that context is everything, I suppose. (I remain unconvinced the history lesson is absolutely necessary.)
But these are all just the normal problems of translation, no?
Anyway, this is why I can’t be mad at Zuckerberg for doing whatever he is doing. Religion means so many different shades of so many different things to so many people that even the behaviour of being completely mercenary about promoting your piety falls well within the normal context. That’s another reason I feel like the conditions of the context, place and setting of the encoded insight should be malleable to different cultural environments or they’re just bad memes.
I suppose the most sublime realisation might emerge from some occult situation but what does it matter unless it can get out into the world and exist in context? And if that’s what religion is to you, or to me or Mark, then who the fuck cares what he says he is?
1 Like
Among other things. But I also think that it didn’t get as much attention in the mainstream press because it’s considered a “special interest” issue. Because it happens TO women, a fair number of men will ignore it or consider it a less important issue, I think.
5 Likes
Trump did make that comment about women who get abortions needing to be punished, which he quickly walked back because not even pro-life people believe that (yay benevolent sexism). He also made some cryptic comment about overturning Roe v Wade but gay marriage is somehow protected 
I swear he’s on autopilot practically all the time. Nothing he says makes sense, not even to him. He probably thinks Roe Versus Wade is a debate about boat ownership.
Mike Pence is really the extreme pro-life person. Trump could care less about this, he’s just making the mouth sounds he things pro-lifers want to hear, when he’s up to it. Ditto for all other social conservative issues. Mike Pence is the social conservative (to put it lightly… and for a start), and he’s going to be the one running the show. I am not looking forward to that.
I agree with @Shirley_LeGitte though, in that there seems to be less pandering to the Christian Right in this past election than in most. Trump didn’t treat them as the one group he absolutely had to win over. He just made some mouth noises here and there, and picked Pence as his VP (mostly because Kasich laughed in his face… I think that pick was either accidental or made by someone much smarter than Trump). I actually expect to see a lot less pandering to the Christian Right in the future, because the Christian Right were a little blip in history centered around the 1980s and 1990s. By now, people are learning that they don’t need to couch their assholishness in fake religious trappings, they can say it loud, they’re an asshole and they’re proud.
7 Likes
But I think the REASON that is true is because they don’t need to. 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. The direction that GOP controlled states are taking regarding things like reproductive rights underscores that reality, too.
11 Likes
