|
Apatheist club meeting newcomers welcome Say a thing! the rest of us will shrug I guess...
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:You don't just say "I want to get enlightened" and go off to become a monk and then get to that goal in a few years, or a lifetime. PBWY. Namaste
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
All isms are a choice, the desire to make sense of the world through isms is not. But you're not an adult until you're an atheist. Grow up before you die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:enlightenment isn't something you can expect to achieve in a single lifetime. there are a lot of LSD users who would disagree with this
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
God's plan for me was to become an atheist
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
I'd say from a deterministic standpoint, no, but from what people generally regard as choice, I.E. Unconscious vs. conscious decision making one could say that the point at which you are convinced is not a choice but the decision to explore a worldview that might result in you disbelieving in the supernatural is. Most individuals are raised to believe in the supernatural on some level whether merely through TV or direct indoctrination via organized religion. Also, I'd say you can learn plenty of interesting and well thought out arguments from Harris and Dawkins whilst staying away from their beliefs on Muslims or whatever you take issue with. I've enjoyed most of their books quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Also, I'd say you can learn plenty of interesting and well thought out arguments from Harris and Dawkins whilst staying away from their beliefs on Muslims or whatever you take issue with. I've enjoyed most of their books quite a bit. You can learn plenty of interesting and well-thought out arguments from Harris and Dawkins if you pretend they are talking about American Christians or Hasidic Jews (or any other non-fetishized religious group) rather than Muslims, if that's what you take issue with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Atheism, I choose you! ...Atheism has fainted!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Atheism, I choose you! Atheism has encountered an [Anti-secular Proselytizer]. It tries to amend your legal documents to enforce its beliefs! Quote: "One nation UNDER GOD. My God!" 1) Ignore 2) Whine about it 3) Items 4) Challenge to Katana Duel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
5) equip tactical trillby
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 20:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Atheism is an affliction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Religion is the refuge of the scared and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Religion is the refuge of the scared and stupid. true too bad the scared and stupid stay scared and stupid till death
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
I choose logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Serious response: There's less of a choice involved in sticking with the faith, or lack thereof, that one's parents instilled than there is to follow another path. Religion isn't immutable, like race is, but for most people it isn't entirely a choice either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I for one thank the Great Electron for the existence of Atheists: they humble the gods with their firm resolve to improve material reality as nothing more than a master of the self- alone. It can feel a bit lonely like that, though, after a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I choose logic. How did you arrive at this decision?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
At some point you have to step back and decide if some dude built a boat and stuck a pair of every animal on it to save them from a flood that scoured the thousand year old Earth. If the answer is "It's a metaphor" well that's fuckin great then isn't it? Why the gently caress should I care? It's nice to pretend everyone's take home message is "love thy neighbor" but we're stuck with creationists wasting everyone's time and money to edit text books, the FRC wasting everyone's time and money in their crusade to be dicks to gay people, and a giant majority of people that maybe sort of probably have a nebulous belief in what-the-gently caress-ever and maybe drop a couple bucks in the collection plate. Fantastic. Nobody wants to die but the salve for a lot of people's personal existential horror has a nasty habit of making GBS threads in society's Wheaties when the flock takes it too seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:There are no choices. Free will is an illusion. Pretty much. But also, no, Atheism is not a choice anymore than any other position is. You get informed and decide based on that information, but you can't just flip a switch to disbelieve or believe something because you feel like it. Unless you believe that you're some kind of reincarnated anime character or something. Then facts never really entered into the equation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The guy who would be called the buddha was a man who was born into a nice life and was really ungrateful for it and decided he was tired of having to act like a real man who fulfills his responsibilities in life and abandoned his wife and child to basically be a bum and I think there are better sources for wisdom and enlightenment on this earth than a deadbeat dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
evilmiera posted:Pretty much. But also, no, Atheism is not a choice anymore than any other position is. You get informed and decide based on that information, but you can't just flip a switch to disbelieve or believe something because you feel like it. choosing to reject God is always a choice, even if you delude yourself into believing it isnt
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Morkies posted:choosing to reject God is always a choice, even if you delude yourself into believing it isnt Which god?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:The best part of being a non religious kid is going with your friends on their church youth group trips, because they schedule outings to local amusement parks and you enjoy fun wholesome family entertainment and thrilling rides on questionably maintained equipment but you feel safe because god protects all of his children, even the carnie behind the shaveice stand belting up with the missing half of your seat belt. Wow which brand of Christianity does this? All I had was boring sermons in a Church more bare then a hospital (Evangelical Lutheran) Never really came as a choice to me, our family like half of families in Finland are "Christian" which means that you go to church on about ten days a year, all holidays. I liked the stories and read the Bible cover to cover but mainly because that book is crazy, desert tribes do some hardcore poo poo. The New Testament is like an interlude where you believe all things are cool and good and then you get to Revelations, God goes PSYKE MOTHERFUCKER YOU THOUGHT OLD TESTAMENT WAS SOME poo poo? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET  Can you really blame the hardcore Christians? The Bible is like 99.1% unadulterated murdersexfest with a completely off-the-tone interlude from the directors artsy son stuffed between there. And it's legal for children to read, they encourage that. I guess the drat internet generation is going to find it boring but mine was the last one who actually had hard time accessing porn and had to secretly record midnight movies if we wanted to see blood. Anyway what I'm saying is that Lord of the Rings was kind of boring after that I guess and why would you be a Christian in the future when you can watch Spartacus: Blood and Pussy on the iPad your parents got you when you were five EDIT: so that means no choice DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
evilmiera posted:Pretty much. But also, no, Atheism is not a choice anymore than any other position is. You get informed and decide based on that information, but you can't just flip a switch to disbelieve or believe something because you feel like it. Again, its a matter of looking at the problem from multiple angles. It's not impossible or even hard, that switch you are talking about is built into us naturally. Faith and reason and the ability to distinguish between the two are all built into us. Einstein and Sagan and a shitload of other scientists have been able to connect with an interpretation of the divine while remaining rooted in rational empiricism, so why are you still acting like they are mutually contradictory?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Again, its a matter of looking at the problem from multiple angles. It's not impossible or even hard, that switch you are talking about is built into us naturally. Faith and reason and the ability to distinguish between the two are all built into us. Einstein and Sagan and a shitload of other scientists have been able to connect with an interpretation of the divine while remaining rooted in rational empiricism, so why are you still acting like they are mutually contradictory? Because they are? Just because some famous and rather intelligent blokes may have used or decorated their language and expressed views that painted a nice meshing, in reality, it was just that, superficial. You can't use rational empiricism to get to "The Divine" nor can any faith actually be used to really learn about the world in a coherent and persistent way. Otherwise you start buying into the claptrap of "Some guy(s) did some science and also believe in God, therefor science and God are cool and totally compatible." People very commonly perform some mental gymnastics to compromise, either in the "God is so abstract and out there that we just can't ever grasp them" agnostic-Deist way or go the other direction and be like the dumbass creationists who keep desperately trying to hammer the square peg of science into their round-hole of beliefs until its unrecognizable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Saying two things are mutually exclusive does not make it so. You have object examples right in front of you, and the reasoning behind those examples. Which is again, rational empiricism is not the only natural and useful mode of human thought. Spirituality is just as hardcoded into us, perhaps moreso given that its a more primal mode of thought than empiricism. Denying this does not make the neural structures which light up when a human is involved in god-stuff cease to exist. Pretending that humans are unipolar empiricism machines is false and dangerous. Empiricism is certainly useful but doesn't result in Alice in Wonderland, the ode to joy, ecstatic revelation, and a hundred thousand other triumphs of the human mind. To deny other ways of thinking is to deny the value of the results of those methods, and denying yourself other angles from which to view and gain a better understanding of reality. Or to make that reality better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:The guy who would be called the buddha was a man who was born into a nice life and was really ungrateful for it and decided he was tired of having to act like a real man who fulfills his responsibilities in life and abandoned his wife and child to basically be a bum and I think there are better sources for wisdom and enlightenment on this earth than a deadbeat dad. This old starving to death dude under this tree who's never washed? he knows what's up
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Saying two things are mutually exclusive does not make it so. You have object examples right in front of you, and the reasoning behind those examples. Which is again, rational empiricism is not the only natural and useful mode of human thought. Spirituality is just as hardcoded into us, perhaps moreso given that its a more primal mode of thought than empiricism. Denying this does not make the neural structures which light up when a human is involved in god-stuff cease to exist. True, but there is no part of the human brain that only lights up for god-stuff. Everything "spiritual" things can offer can be found through secular means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Saying two things are mutually exclusive does not make it so. You have object examples right in front of you, and the reasoning behind those examples. Which is again, rational empiricism is not the only natural and useful mode of human thought. Spirituality is just as hardcoded into us, perhaps moreso given that its a more primal mode of thought than empiricism. Denying this does not make the neural structures which light up when a human is involved in god-stuff cease to exist. Spirituality is not hardcoded. Anthropomorphizing, extending our ability to think abstractly and detect patterns and image associations and draw conclusions where there are none to be made is human, but 'spirituality' is no more hardcoded in humans mentally than twerking to jazzrap is physically. quote:Pretending that humans are unipolar empiricism machines is false and dangerous. Empiricism is certainly useful but doesn't result in Alice in Wonderland, the ode to joy, ecstatic revelation, and a hundred thousand other triumphs of the human mind. To deny other ways of thinking is to deny the value of the results of those methods, and denying yourself other angles from which to view and gain a better understanding of reality. Or to make that reality better. This is just a asinine strawman. Deliberately thinking logically or using empirical methods to explore and explain the world takes both mental effort, intellectual honesty, humility, and it doesn't suddenly turn you into an unfeeling robot unable to experience the flavor and color of the world. If anything the work put into understanding the world only allows one to appreciate it in context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:True, but there is no part of the human brain that only lights up for god-stuff. Everything "spiritual" things can offer can be found through secular means. Granted but as an argument it's a bit off point. Rational empiricism is great and all, but it's merely one part of human existence. The left-brained part, to use a somewhat falicious metaphor. There are many aspects of human existence that have little to do with it. The right brained parts, to extend my lovely metaphor. No matter how much empirical rationalizing (  ) you do, you won't get moby dick or temples to ra or pretty "elvish" script from lord of the rings. These other aspects of human thought which include emotion and poetry and a yearning toward a power greater than ourselves are just as concrete and arguably as useful.Now, that's not to say empiricism has nothing to do with these realms of thought. Human brains are machines with interconnected parts, luckily. Music and poetry have their roots in math, for example. But math alone doesn't get you there. They also require that emotional, creative urge. So let's step back, and consider (as I feel we should strive to do often) not just our thoughts on the matter, but the modes of thought which give birth to those individual perscriptions. It is clearly possible to mix and match those modes as one desires. Tolkien was foremost a linguist and second a armchair historian, but he also had a love of myth and culture and creation stories. The Lord of the Rings is therefore the product of such a mixing. Nathilus fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not currently having an explanation is not an excuse to just make poo poo up. I'm not talking about not having an explanation for autism as an excuse to eschew vaccines. I'm mystified by the nature of experience and reality, whatever that means, and I'm okay with it. Not into woo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Again, its a matter of looking at the problem from multiple angles. It's not impossible or even hard, that switch you are talking about is built into us naturally. Faith and reason and the ability to distinguish between the two are all built into us. Einstein and Sagan and a shitload of other scientists have been able to connect with an interpretation of the divine while remaining rooted in rational empiricism, so why are you still acting like they are mutually contradictory? Einstein didn't believe in a personal god and Sagan was a science communicator and public figure in a time when contemporary ideas about atheism hadn't really gelled, or at least were less socially acceptable. Regardless, whatever ideas they may have entertained about god don't strike me as particularly useful for defending anything beyond some nebulous concept of a god that isn't found in most mainstream religions. If someone's conception of god is tailor made to fit within the bounds of the current empirical understanding of the universe, more power to them. The crap outlined in the bible? That is incompatible with rational empiricism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Apologies gotta run an errand. I'll get to your post later berk. I appreciate the interest in this tangent though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Is being swole a choice? Well yes, and no. You can potentially maybe choose what you want to believe, and that choice surely will impact your actual belief downstream, but for the most part it's nothing like actual control. However I'm pretty sure if I felt I truly wanted to be religious I could probably get ahold of a ton of benzos and acid and ask a cult to brainwash me. In that sense I guess you could say that my atheism wasn't a choice a minute ago, when I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it sure is now. To sum it up, I was hardcore atheist I guess, long before I knew the word or knew much about religion at all except that it's some sort of A) Babies are too atheist B) I am too a shoe C) I am a baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
People actually honestly believing in a god itt.Cnut the Great posted:How did you arrive at this decision? Rationality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:The guy who would be called the buddha was a man who was born into a nice life and was really ungrateful for it and decided he was tired of having to act like a real man who fulfills his responsibilities in life and abandoned his wife and child to basically be a bum and I think there are better sources for wisdom and enlightenment on this earth than a deadbeat dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
The real question is whether religion is a choice. You can fake being religious, but can anyone rewire their brain enough so that they genuinely believe in a God? Seems doubtful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Planarch posted:The real question is whether religion is a choice. You can fake being religious, but can anyone rewire their brain enough so that they genuinely believe in a God? Seems doubtful. Psychadelics with a side of sexual abuse seemed to work for the Manson Family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:People actually honestly believing in a god itt. Yeah like most people in the world. Wait let me guess, you don't get out much and jack it to cartoon ponies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Yeah like most people in the world. Wait let me guess, you don't get out much and jack it to cartoon ponies. Unless "getting out" means literally hanging out at churches and mosques I'm now sure exactly how it would help then again neither do I ever meet people who are smug about not being religious so your guess is probably the correct one. There's probably a correlation between smugness and being ex-religious as opposed to never haven taken religion remotely seriously in the first place. Maybe because the former at least feels like more of a choice even though both are just what your mind settled on based on the information available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:19
|
|