Education by force?

[madanthonywayne]

Yeah, but over the years I found it's far too easy to write comedy for the soulless. Seinfeld, Dharma and Greg, King of Queens, Carlos Mencia, Andrew Dice Clay, Two and a Half Men ..

Seinfeld is hilarious. Mencia is funny, sometimes. Even Andrew Dice Clay is funny once in a while (not that often). Not a fan of the rest of your list. But, since you're obviously not a fan of any of those, what comedy do you approve of for a person with a soul?

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, but over the years I found it's far too easy to write comedy for the soulless.

Aren't we all soulless?

 

[Tiassa]

It's up to you

Aren't we all soulless?

Only if we choose to be.

If you so despise religion, why do you let it write the definitions? Is it because hatred is your identity?

Are you afraid to admit that you need the religious? Without them to hate, will you feel small and anonymous? Without them to blame, you might have to face what frightens you. Why, when you disagree with them, do you insist on letting them write the definitions?

 

[(Q)]

Only if we choose to be.

So, our "choices" override reality?

If you so despise religion, why do you let it write the definitions? Is it because hatred is your identity?

Despising bad ideologies that enslave mankind and cause endless human suffering is a bad thing?

Are you afraid to admit that you need the religious? Without them to hate, will you feel small and anonymous? Without them to blame, you might have to face what frightens you. Why, when you disagree with them, do you insist on letting them write the definitions?

Again, more comedy, T. Afraid of the delusional? I feel pity for them. I would be ecstatic if the cults of the world disappeared altogether.

I would ask you how one can define the imaginations of others?

 

[Tiassa]

Coming soon, the Brain-in-a-jar militant action figure!

So, our "choices" override reality?

Not at all. On some occasions, in some contexts, our choices are reality. For instance, did you masturbate this morning? (No, don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question intended to illustrate the point.)

Despising bad ideologies that enslave mankind and cause endless human suffering is a bad thing?

No. Did I say that somewhere? Point it out for me, so I can fashion whatever retraction is necessary.

But why do you let what you despise write the definitions?

Again, more comedy, T. Afraid of the delusional?

Or are you afraid of yourself?

I feel pity for them. I would be ecstatic if the cults of the world disappeared altogether.

Religion is symptomatic of our humanity. If we were not religious, we would not be human. The challenge is to figure out why our religious proclivities have selected through the ages.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it pertains to the utility of creativity. In that context, the challenge becomes one of how to use our imaginative capacities for the better. Perhaps religion served an evolutionary purpose in the past; the underlying anthropological patterns seem to suggest it is so. But the conflict between religion and utility today may not be in the concept of religion, but rather the religions we have. Even the most recent of the reasonably major religions (e.g., LDS, SDA, as opposed to Bob's Cult of Beerwhacky) came about in the nineteenth century, and seem philosophically unprepared to cope with the rapid increase in knowledge and information traffic we're dealing with today.

Of course, it's a lot easier if we skip such considerations altogether, isn't it?

I would ask you how one can define the imaginations of others?

Why?

 

[(Q)]

Not at all. On some occasions, in some contexts, our choices are reality. For instance, did you masturbate this morning?

I had sex with a woman, instead. But, if our choice is to quantify something in us that does not exist simply because we want it to exist, we only serve to create a facade.

Or are you afraid of yourself?

Yeah, that's it. :fright:

When I really think about it, there isn't a lot that frightens me, other than our future in the hands of theists.

Religion is symptomatic of our humanity. If we were not religious, we would not be human.

:crazy:

Perhaps religion served an evolutionary purpose in the past

Yes, it hindered us from thinking for centuries and forged a society of imaginary idol worshipers. Wonderful.

 

[Tiassa]

That's her problem. Yours, on the other hand ....

I had sex with a woman, instead. But, if our choice is to quantify something in us that does not exist simply because we want it to exist, we only serve to create a facade.

You still let the theists write the definitions.

Why?

Yeah, that's it.

The bravado fails to deceive, sir:

When I really think about it, there isn't a lot that frightens me, other than our future in the hands of theists.

An ego defense mechanism. Deflection, at the very least.

You cling to a specific context for a concept, yet that context is established by that which you willfully and continuously reject. If you reject their context, then why do you continue operating within it?

:crazy:

You said it yourself, sir: imaginations.

Would you pretend you can bind the imaginations of all humanity? That you can prevent another's imagination from treading in realms that you would not?

Yes, it hindered us from thinking for centuries and forged a society of imaginary idol worshipers. Wonderful.

And that is all it did?

Pharaohic deification certainly seems ridiculous to our modern perspective, but the Pyramids would not have been built without it. Nor would the society that built the pyramids.

Is it only by blind luck that humanity has persisted as long as it has?

There are arguments about the relationship between the individual and the collective that I cannot convince some atheists to view as rational. You cannot pretend these elements are inherent in the cold, atheistic, logical outlook. What do you think would have bound communities together through the ages? Patriotism is but a myth. Nation is but a myth. What ambition toward a greater cause would rationally have held humanity together?

And, really, why do atheists sit forward in their seats on the two and two in the bottom of the ninth, with a runner in scoring position? I've seen it. I've felt it. I know it happens. I also know it's irrational. The shouting and stomping and cheering in the stadium? Yeah, there's a direct effect there. But in the bars, or on the sofas at home in front of the television? I know damn well atheists aren't immune to the components of religious belief. And the reason is because they're human.

So we come back to the question of what utility religion has served the human endeavor. And if that pathetic, bigoted crap is all you can come up with, why? It's not because there's nothing to see. Rather, it's because you don't want to look.

Yes, no. Yes, no. Is not, is too. Life, the Universe—these things are not binary conditions. One thing you have in common with your religious counterparts in zealotry is that you can't see the possibilities. For them, it's because to view their faith in that light robs them of that special feeling of being chosen and saved and loved by God. For you, it's an even more naked overdose of egocentrism: You've painted yourself into a corner, and even though the paint might well be dry, you're not going to find out, are you? You're not going to step over and take another look because you'd rather sit and sulk in your corner, and cuss people out, than find out you may have been wrong about a thing or two.

Don't let them write the fucking definitions, (Q). If you loathe that perspective so much, why is it the only one you see? Yeah, it's real easy to believe the whole world is nothing but clouds and rain if you're always staring up at the sky. And it's real easy to believe the night is eternal if you never open your fucking eyes.

This isn't about anything that has to do with humanity, is it, (Q)? This is all about you. You're such a fucking paranoiac hatemonger that you'll let the people you loathe continue to write the definitions just so you can rage against them. Keep holding them accountable for your own decisions if you must, (Q), but don't ever pretend it's rational, don't ever pretend it's logical, and don't ever pretend there's any other point to it.

You know why I stopped identifying with atheism, (Q)? Because I was tired of—exhausted by—the nihilistic dead end that comes with the abandonment of hope. And when all you can do is invoke the definitions that suit the people you hate in order to nitpick a completely petty and irrelevant point, you are the living embodiment of that sadness.

You don't have to be such a hate-thumping fundamentalist, (Q). It's not like becoming a dead-eyed religious zombie is the only alternative. And you would see that if this was about anything other than yourself.

Musicians, actors, dancers—you would condemn all the artists in the world, (Q), just so you can feel better about having to share the planet with religious fanatics? You would spend your life drowning in their dictionary, just so you could blame them?

Get the fuck over it, and grow the fuck up.

 

[madanthonywayne]

And that is all it did?

Pharaohic deification certainly seems ridiculous to our modern perspective, but the Pyramids would not have been built without it. Nor would the society that built the pyramids.

Is it only by blind luck that humanity has persisted as long as it has?

There are arguments about the relationship between the individual and the collective that I cannot convince some atheists to view as rational. You cannot pretend these elements are inherent in the cold, atheistic, logical outlook. What do you think would have bound communities together through the ages? Patriotism is but a myth. Nation is but a myth. What ambition toward a greater cause would rationally have held humanity together?

Whoa. I was about to make that same argument. It seems we've stumbled across an issue we agree on.