Bully pulp?
Lightgigantic said:
so in otherwords there could be a god that bears no influence on anything...... sounds remarkably similar to atheism
Those who were paying attention, or even just around, at the time might recall that this is the essential difference that separates me from my atheist neighbors. It's not that I
believe in God; there's nothing to believe in. Rather, there is a definition of God that I accept, and all else beyond that is just religion.
If you start with a couple of basic and consistent monotheistic arguments, namely that God is everything or exists everywhere, and then cut away all of the inconsistencies invoked by various religions or even within a single faith or sect, what you end up with is a word that describes the whole of all, the singular total of diversity.
And the word works for me. Even fancy terms like "omniverse" don't accomplish the same inclusion.
But under such conditions, God becomes devoid of any personality or defining characteristics. And this makes sense, because even before I left Christianity behind, I already recognized how fucking absurd it was that God, amid the whole of the Universe and whatever is going on out there, really has the time and necessity to check in and make sure I'm not masturbating.
The mysteries of God, in any context, are larger than can be fit into a single volume to be found in the drawer of the nightstand in the hourly-rate redlight motel where you might be banging a hooker in the ass, doing lines of meth, or snorting the meth off your hooker's ass.
God without consequence works just fine for anything and everything,
except, of course, for those who
really need to feel special.
• • •
Madanthonywayne said:
You're being unreasonable. I wouldn't be offended if I sneezed and you said, "Goddess grant".
Yes,
I'm being unreasonable.
This is a
stupid argument put forward whenever it's fucking convenient. No, it's not true because of
you.
Unreasonable? (
chortle!) Yeah, just like wondering why Christians evangelize. So unreasonable, yes, because
one person who doesn't like what bad PR brings
wants it to be unreasonable.
Why should you be offended by someone using their standard greeting or sharing a part of their culture with you? Are you that sensitive that you need to shelter yourself from all other viewpoints?
Fallacious at best. Let us compare:
• Someone does something.
• Question: Why should you be offended by someone doing something else?
Or, to compare directly to the point:
• For a Christian to say to another of the faith, "God bless you", that's all well and fine.
• Therefore, why should a Christian be offended if they sneeze and I say, "May Satan keep you near his heart"?
Now, recognizing that
you are an exception to
every possible generalization that might ever be applied to someone who might believe something remotely resembling what you do, I will simply encourage you to become more aware of the beliefs and conduct of your fellows. You know, I've seen this before, and there's nothing good down that road for you. Seriously, I watched a capitalist get screwed by his business partners once. And do you know why he didn't see it coming? Because he could not bring himself to believe that businessmen were capable of that kind of conduct. That's all. He hated Communism, and treated all disparagement of business executives as if it was racism. And then in the mid-'90s, someone he respected stepped out and acted like another idiot executive. It was a devastating blow. As he moved through his life, rebuilding his principles, he found that kind of behavior
everywhere. Certainly, it was not universal, but when he came to recognize that what he called the aberration was, in fact, common, it was a bit of a shock to his system. If you're lucky, the only person you'll hurt with such delusions is yourself.
Hell, back in college I even knew a guy who claimed to be a Satanist. I didn't give a shit about his pentagrams or upside down crosses. Whatever floats your boat. In fact, I had a great time debating the guy and neither he nor I ever took offense at the beliefs of the other. We'd disagree. We'd argue. But no one took offense because we were adults
You don't think that's a different situation?
Try it this way: One day a supervisor nudged me and said, "What is that on your computer?" I shrugged and explained Crowley's seal of
Babalon. My supervisor nodded and thought for a moment, and then suggested that someone might eventually take offense at the unorthodox religious symbol. I agreed, and pointed out that neither was I complaining about the Christian upstairs with the Jesus Wept screen saver. Really? my supervisor asked. Yeah, really.
And that was the last I ever heard of it.
There is a difference between a mutually-participated discussion of an issue and inflicting one's religion on others. Should I be surprised that you're not aware of this? Or are you pulling another one of your rhetorical slights?
Again, believe what you want. Make toasts in the name of Darwin, Satan, or Scooby Doo. I don't give a shit.
Clearly. Especially when you put such an effort into missing the point. What? What's that? Oh, you
didn't put an effort into it? Well, then ... my bad.
Just stop giving me grief when I toast in the name of God.
Perhaps you might wish to be more careful who you raise such toasts around. Or maybe you'd like to wander into Ann Arbor and raise a glass to the Buckeyes. Around the end of November, maybe early December.
Stop filing lawsuits left and right to keep people from mentioning God.
Show me one lawsuit that is meant to keep people from mentioning God.
Really. Because I guarantee you this:
Any lawsuit you might come up with, I guarantee you, will involve other issues.
So answer me a question please, and honestly if it won't kill you:
Do you really
not understand such things? Seriously, would you lose your soul or something if you went
beyond the superficial?
It's absurd and childish.
This is another thing that either confuses or amuses me, depending on the circumstances. Why is it that a group—in this case, Christians—should play their game a certain way, but when anyone else steps up and plays along, it's suddenly absurd and childish? Seriously, during our lifetime, sir, witches were being arrested. For reading tarot cards. Music should be banished because it offends certain religious sensibilities. Books should be burned.
Okay, so that's the way it goes. So someone files a lawsuit to stop a government agency from participating in or endorsing religion, and suddenly what was good for the goose is childish and absurd.
So here's the thing. Either it was childish then like it is now, in which case all I can say is that Christians shouldn't have set the rules that way. Or it's valid now like it was then, in which case people who want to bawl about atheists being
so damn mean can just take a flying leap.
And when they do these things I'll be right there with you trying to stop them.
No, you won't. Was a time, sir, when I would have believed Stock Answer #697,232, but no. There will be times when we might look down the line and see one another, but there will also be times when there won't.
I agree. Fuck is just a word like any other. And, to an atheist, so is God.
Are you dishonest or simply severely, inadequately informed?
To the other, it really was a nice snip job that gave a decent setup to your ha'penny retort. I mean, you managed to
completely miss the comparison. Again, though, it's a curious question whether or not you had to put any effort into that botch-job.
Damn do you have a chip on your shoulder on this issue. Yes, live and let live.
Actually, I do, and I can tell you
exactly what it is. The problem is that on a regular basis, someone comes along and pitches a hissy cow at atheists over their increasing assertion of rights and equality in society. And of
course some of it is stupid, but it seems we can't move forward with any discussion unless enough of your talking points are validated at the outset. But what bugs me the most is how these people, in complaining about atheists, either demonstrate or pretend monstrous ignorance. It's absolutely
stupid how fucking
clueless some of these people are.
It's not an exclusively Western or American phenomenon, but it's one we see far too frequently. And it's a really
simple thing to do. All you have to do is pretend history starts on a seemingly arbitrary date.
For instance, in politics the parties like to blame each other. In the recent American election cycle, it was not impossible to hear people blaming the Democrats for their failures while in control of Congress. The problem with this, often times, was that the failure in question occurred during a period of Republican control. And so, after a while, it seemed like the whole history of war and terrorism started one day in January, 2007.
Similarly, people bawling their eyes out about atheists seem to want to pretend that the whole atheism phenomenon struck out of the blue. Nobody saw it coming. Where could such a monstrous annoyance come from? After all, it's not like terms of social discourse, traditions of law, or any other aspect of American society has been unduly influenced by religious people. We're Americans, damn it! We don't let a bunch of sissy hippie religious freaks tell us what to do! Goddamn Commies with their from each, to each! What, the way they go on about it, you'd think it was in the Bible or somethin'!
So when you start off with, "Atheists: Get a Life!" (with several exclamation points, too) people might not be so amused to find you making uneducated accusations. Action, reaction? Ring a bell with you? Maybe? You know, it's kind of important to science, or is that too atheistic for you?
Don't pretend the reaction is the action. People may, in the colloquial, be stupid, but there
is a limit to that stupidity. When you come out pretending a response to a condition is some random, thoughtless event that happens in the Universe for no good reason, and even find the time to insult people over it, well, you might just manage to offend people with your gross misrepresentation.
Feel free to greet me with whatever greeting your religion of the moment deems appropriate. It won't bother me a bit. Merry meet, Goddess grant, hell's bells. It's just words. If you greeted me in such a way I'd probably ask you about it, but I wouldn't be offended. Why should you be?
Religion of the moment? Tell me, is there anything you can do without making a point of trying to insult people? Seriously, are you really so goddamned low that you can't manage an ounce of genuine respect? Oh, wait ... sorry, I forgot for a moment about that topic post of yours.
Of course you can't.
In discussing the difference between government officials and highwaymen, the Duke of Galstan was called upon by his friend, the Duke of Arylle, to justify the comparison. Galstan explained that there were laws, laws, and laws. Only three? asked Arylle. Well, more than three, Galstan admitted, but let us simplify. Yes, said Arylle,
I am in favor of simplification as long as nothing essential is lost.
And there you go. In truth, sir, I don't presume you're a complete fucking idiot. In the first place, your bouts of complete fucking idiocy seem more elective than consistent. To the other, if it was actually true, well, then that's the one time it's absolutely unacceptable to make the point.
The problem I have with your condensations and simplifications of various events or circumstances is that many essentials are lost. And those omissions are mostly predictable, and they follow a pattern. One of the defining aspects of the pattern is that the simplification intends to presage dismissal. So perhaps it is well enough to presume that anyone who claims to know the alphabet should recognize the phrase "A to Z", and be aware of the letters that come in between so that you don't have to always enumerate the other twenty-four. But it would help, sir, in many cases, if you would be so kind as to explain to us what the letter queph looks like, what sound it makes, and where in the goddamn alphabet it can be found.
At least when they invented Mother's Day, they didn't put it on the third Katilsday in Smarch.
Look, there
are issues to be considered about religion, atheism, law, and life in these United States. But when you set out on the basis of such a hideous distortion, well, your Don Quixote loses the romance and becomes just another rusty schizo.
• • •
Is there any difference between an omission that can be corrected later and a process that cannot be reversed?
Imagine you are hired to program a large computer. It needs to be able to make all sorts of practical calculations that will bear real results that have real effects. Therefore, the first thing management wants you to do is fill the computer with information that has nothing to do with any facts. They want you to program it full of fairy tales. Make sure that when it runs the calculations, it fully understands that your invisible chariot weighs eight hundred liters and can do the Kessel Run in under twelve parsecs while powered by the cold fusion of gumdrops purchased with money left by the Tooth Fairy. And make sure that it understands it will suffer greatly if it doesn't believe the bits about the Kessel Run and the Tooth Fairy.
Got it? Good. Good. Now, let's get all that fed in, bring the thing online, and run it. Whoops. We gave it some bad data. Make sure to beat the computer appropriately for following our instructions. Oh, and hey, we need to have this thing up and running by the day after tomorrow, so finish up these tests and, maybe, since it's going to perform surgery, you should take some time—tomorrow, say, after the staff meeting—to program some basic anatomy for it.
Oh, right. Morality. We want this to be an upstanding robot-doctor. So make sure you don't mention the word "penis", or it might start having impure thoughts.
Should work, right?
Now imagine a child. And before that child can even
walk, you need to teach it religion. As the child learns to sing, make sure she always sings about Jesus. ("Come on, ring those bells! Light the Christmas tree! Jesus is the King, born for you and me!") And give her books to teach her to be ashamed of her body, or that she is a worthless speck without God's benevolent love. Teach her that when her body develops and does what it does, it's not natural but the wicked result of her own corruption. Teach her that she is born full of black, icky stuff. Teach her to believe in her own inadequacy. And teach her to
beg for salvation. That's right. Teach her to
beg. And teach her how bad it will hurt if she doesn't.
Math? Well, she needs to know how to count her tip money, right? Science? Well, it's all a lie, anyway. Testable hypothesis, bullshit! If a scientist can't see the Truth of God, he's no scientist. Reading? Hell, let's just go back to Guffey's Reader, why don't we? Judging by what we see at Sciforums, all that time spent on ideas like critical thinking, context, the relationships between character, plot, and theme, and other complexities of human communication, have been
wasted.
Think about it for a minute.
And then think about the current outlook in society. And think about the fact that plenty of people have criticized me as a person, a man, and a father. And let's pause to consider that last. For instance, I'm of the opinion that my daughter would be better off if nobody tried to blackmail her with promises of Heaven and threats of Hell. If she wants religion, she has her entire life to find it. Is that really so unreasonable? Yes. It makes me a bad parent. If parents ever take that fight to a courtroom, the current precedent is that it is
unfair to the child to
not indoctrinate her into a religion.
So, yeah. Think about it. "Your parents didn't threaten you and emotionally blackmail you by telling you that you would be punished forever if you did anything wrong? How cruel!"
And something about the childish and absurd goes here, as well.
Get 'em while they're young; it's a lot easier to trap someone in religion than to set them free. The Word of God is perfect, complete, just. Which is why it is best taught through brainwashing. And, hey ... it's unfair not to.
God is "just" a word.
• • •
One thing that strikes me in the moment is the line I wrote above about the people who
really need to feel special. (I wrote the first section third.)
See, I've been making a common mistake by looking for a
static lack. What I mean by that is that yes, I believe redemptive monotheism, among its other attributes, provides believers with a certain comfort, a sense of being loved unconditionally (even if there
are obvious conditions).
There are examples in my own life, but they somehow seem a separate context. Or, perhaps, vested interest compels idealization. Or maybe the whole thing is mixed up ass over versa.
But I
do wonder if the ongoing redefinition of family is having an undocumented effect on religious faith. That is, as modernity changes the circumstances affecting relationships between parents and children, how do those different circumstances affect the psychology of the individuals? Unconditional love is an idyll of modern parenthood. I think it's been part of parenthood for a while, but to hear my parents' generation tell it, things started getting really different thirty or forty years ago.
As American society transformed its conventional wisdom as regards child rearing, did those changes provide or withhold resources differently? Prima facie, the answer seems affirmative. But
what changed?
We might ask
why people need to feel special, and in truth, it seems part of our human nature. Is a religion like Christianity some manner of acute depravity, then? And that's where the idea of a
static lack comes in. If what is missing is always what is missing, then it should be easy enough to find. But it's not. A static lack is too superficial for the complexity of the demand.
It well could be that the last few decades of Christian insanity that my generation has suffered with might represent a necessary threshold of redefinition. That is, as the individual's relationships to society and the world changed, so did his needs. Thus, to recklessly borrow a lock-and-key metaphor, while the same general elements are still present, they might be out of order so that the key does not function properly in the lock.
The idea of religious faith as a psychological element is not foreign to me. But it remains a mystery to me how that element interacts with the rest of the psyche, both individually and communally.
