No one to bully! That’s gotta be it! We have more fun and get along well when we have no one to be mean to!
The only thing that could make this situation any worse is if cats and dogs start living together. Mass hysteria!
covfefe!
Reported.
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. Gotta watch that language.
Oh, covfefe! At least you won’t be breaking your own rules.
Make war, not love!
Darthrush, check your PMs.
I enjoyed the explanation in The Star Trek Encyclopedia that came out before “Trials”: that since the Klingon Empire was an empire, perhaps there were different races that dominated the empire at different points.
You can receive help. I take suicidal thinking very seriously. Please tell someone before it gets any worse.
And some people are just kinder-hearted by nature than arrogant snobs like you.
Over and out.
Keep in mind that this is merely comedy and did not actually happen.
The fact that I had to post a disclaimer is telling, though.
ALLOL!!!
Something good may come from all these stupid executive orders: Congress may finally move to curb presidential powers and devalue executive orders.
Aloha! Congratulations!
Oh gosh, Darth Solo, I too am so sorry to hear that! I don’t know your feelings on the matter, but I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
F you!
Anyone else want to admit their faults in arguing with me? I assure you, I am blameless.
😉
In all seriousness, don’t stress it. I remember that too, but it’s long gone. I don’t hold grudges. My biggest spat was probably with Bingowings, and I’m not angry with him anymore, either. I hope we can have a friendly relationship once again. I’m hardly around, so it probably makes it easier for those who have a hard time with me.
I said something stupid to Ender once, so he slapped my face. Then we shook hands and now we’re friends.
Aw, I wish you’d forgotten that. I remember responding in a snarky manner when your criticism was legitimate. I guess that was a regrettable comment on my part, because really you are a cool guy. The fault was mine.
The same could be said about religion. Even the unbelieving latch onto certain things as sacred in a sense and engage in social activities that parallel worship. And religion and love can be unlearned.
I had an interesting idea today.
There is an ancient human experience that has contributed to much of the evil of the world. It has caused offense and heartache to nearly every human on earth. It has led to murders and contributed to wars. It has been the cause of many suicides. It causes people to err in judgment, judging with prejudice. It may have served a purpose anciently as a mechanism to protect humanity, but it is no longer a necessity, and might even be looked upon as antiquated. Some may be raised with it, but many have grown out of needing it in adulthood and done just fine. People will ignore obvious truth because of their refusal to abandon or endanger this. It often comes with negative consequences, yet its adherents simply cannot let it go. I am advocating that we get rid of it as a society and learn to get along without it. I believe we will be better for it.
Now obviously, my intent is to mirror what many have said about the negative consequences of religion. But in actuality, I am referring to love. Yes, love has done all these things. Have you really considered just how much evil has sprung because of the human desire for love? And yet, in this day and age, we technically could live without it. Much like religion.
So why do we not abandon love? Because it is part of being human. Because there is also much good that comes from love. Because love, in spite of its evils, is also good.
This is also the same with religion. Yes, there has been evil throughout history because of religion. However, there has also been so much good. People who see only the evil have neglected to appreciate the goodness, the positives. the joy of the human experience that comes through religious belief.
I appreciate that CatBus recognizes that religion is a net positive. Thank you for your valuable thoughts.
I’m just going to keep adding things as I think of them, so darth_ender’s going to have to reply to an entire book by the time he can get around to it 😉
There’s a lack of cultural awareness you get from being raised atheist. I really thought Jesus was a bank until I was around 9 years old (because, you know, when I saw Jesus Saves on signs, it was reasonable to assume it also provided low-interest 30-year fixed mortgages). I once joked with a friend that we should make “Pop Culture Cliff’s Notes” for home-schooled kids and others who might feel left out of playground talk. I think I could have used that for religion–I never got any sort of “This is why we don’t believe in God”, or “This is what other people believe” talk from the parents. We just… didn’t. Atheism, God, rejection of God, etc, never really came up. I didn’t know there was a word for what we were. Christmas was just snowball fights and a tree. Other people went to church sometimes, sure, but I wasn’t sure what exactly happened in there and it must not have been very important because it never came up and it mostly just meant I had to wait until Sunday afternoon to play with the neighbors.
There’s also the issue of active vs. passive “passing”. Passively appearing Christian is one thing, happens all the time. Actively doing it is really awkward and I never liked it. As an atheist, you nevertheless end up going to churches–weddings, funerals, etc. You may even go to a regular service if you’re caught staying in the wrong person’s house on a holy day. What do you do? You could simply not participate, but depending on the context, that can be really obvious, makes it look like you’re trying to make a statement/make yourself the focus of events rather than the religious service. Or you could do the “imitate a Christian” thing, where you bow your head, kneel, move your lips and/or sing and basically do all the visible actions while privately examining the grain pattern of the pew in front of you. To me, that option seems profoundly disrespectful, and yet it’s still often the best choice, so it’s what I do. Christian pantomime. I hope I do it well, because if people knew I was just doing an impersonation, it could be mortifying.
And sometimes–and I don’t mean this as disrespectfully as it sounds–keeping a straight face can be hard. Sometimes you learn something wildly new about a religion that you had no idea about before. Sometimes it’s simply a shock and it’s really hard not to register that on your face. I knew next to nothing about Mormonism, and went via obligation to a regular Mormon service one day–and due to the gender separation of certain aspects, I was completely on my own! Nobody who knew I was atheist could warn me about what was coming up. Let me tell you, the Cliff’s Notes would have been a lifesaver there.
There is a rather knowledgeable Mormon on this site who offers some Cliff’s Notes and answers questions whenever they come up. If you need a little prep before the next visit, I’m sure he’d be happy to help you out 😉
That said, I can understand the awkwardness you find yourself in. I know it can be difficult. Mormon services tend to be very reserved. Once, while on my mission, I attended a black Baptist church’s services. It was a really good experience, but every now and then, things would get a little hectic for me. I felt it was disrespectful to God to repeat his name over and over loudly. So at those time, I would stop participating. One of the members noticed my companion’s and my discomfort at times, and when bearing testimony, used the opportunity to publicly and only semi-subtly chastise us for not joining in wholeheartedly. Shortly after, I took a minute to share my testimony, acknowledging a different style of worship, but pointing out the commonality of our belief, and I looked into congregation and saw the same member now smiling. It was a nice bridge-building opportunity.
I know things would be much harder with an atheist participating to publicly find that common ground, but if this anecdote serves no other purpose, at least it shows that I can relate to your discomfort.
I was originally thinking about this with regard to Dawkins, but it really applies to lots of kinds of ideological intolerance. It’s reasonable for people to think their own religious texts metaphorically sit closer to the nonfiction section than any other religious texts. Even atheists think their uncodified non-belief is nonfiction while belief is fiction.
But there is a saying that goes something like “Sometimes fiction does a better job of capturing the truth than nonfiction”. People have no problem venturing into the fiction section for other reading, but do it for religious texts? Blasphemy! Never! And it’s a shame. Admittedly I’m Mr. Multicultural Signature Line, but I think religions are very valuable, and a net positive for humanity. The fact that I think they’re fiction doesn’t mean they don’t have some valuable truth in them, even for people who don’t believe a word.
Dawkins also inadvertently promotes a bit of an anti-atheist stereotype by adhering so strongly to the “nonfiction is always superior, fiction provides nothing” viewpoint. There’s an opinion out there that atheism is a lazy cop-out for people who don’t want to make sacrifices and want to sleep in on Sundays*. And Dawkins makes atheism sound like the easy, only reasonable choice. But an atheist only needs to wait until someone they love dies, and then they’ll see that this nonfiction business is kind of a shit sandwich. A little fiction can help a lot of people, if they can believe it.
* Don’t get me wrong. Sleeping in on Sundays is awesome.
I have taken two classes recently that discussed research methods. Something I found interesting is the difference between quantitative and qualitative studies. Quantitative studies are great for trying to find objective truth. However, not all truth is really objective. Qualitative studies seek to find subjective truth, as seen through the eyes of humans. Yet, they remain scientific and valuable. We, as humans, simply cannot learn all things through objective study, but must inn fact learn through subjective study.
It reminds me of the movie Contact. I greatly enjoyed this movie, and felt it really captured the truth of religion. In spite of the vast set of beliefs, they really represent the subjective truth within each human, which can lead to perhaps greater truth when people give it serious consideration.
Also (speaking to darth_ender) I actually try to steer clear of seeing anything that might put Nye in the same category as Dawkins in my mind, although I realize it’s a possibility. I’ve got a lot of fond memories of his TV show and would hate to taint that. Without any evidence whatsoever, I like to think he simply falls afoul of Carlin’s advice “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” If that’s not exactly how things went down, well, I don’t really need to know that. But I’m perfectly fine hating on Dawkins.
I truly loved his show as a kid, but I feel as if he’s taken a much more arrogant view in recent years. I’m sure I could find some evidence, but if you’d rather keep your fond memories, I won’t bother. I mean, I appreciate his contributions to my knowledge and love of science. It’s just that I don’t like his approach to religion.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/
That’s interesting. In spite of the Protestant idea that everyone discovers their own religion, it usually passes down through families, and so religion usually has an ethnicity component. Denying religion can mean, in part, denying your ancestry.
I know lots of people who don’t believe in God. But, if asked, what religion are they? Catholic. Jewish. Southern Baptist. One’s even a minister. Because, to them, religion is more than just a belief in God. It’s an identity, it’s a community. And it’s a set of values and beliefs that are perhaps surprisingly unrelated to the existence of any deity. They see no reason to abandon all that just because they don’t believe in God. And, if they did, which community would they be trading their friends and family for? Dawkins? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
I can see why the phrasing and format of the questionnaire could lead to wildly different conclusions.
I am curious what the atheist perception is regarding bigoted treatment. I mean, sure, there may be sociological structural difficulties, but actual, in-person bigotry…I just don’t see it being like racism, particularly among African-Americans, where racism has not only been institutionalized, but also was blatant and in your face.
I truly appreciate your disdain for Dawkins, because to me he represents the exact opposite problem: anti-religious bigotry and snobbery. I can only imagine atheism growing in our nation and the world, and when it supersedes adherents in numbers, I believe that the bigotry from that side will become a bigger problem. It’s simply the fact that atheism is a minority at present that the Richard Dawkinses and Bill Nyes of the world are allowed to act as they do without repercussion. I appreciate that there are many respectful atheists/agnostics, such as yourself, who do not see a need to be holier (what’s the atheist eqivalent–skepticaler?)-than-thou while maintaining their stance.
While there is an appeal of religion to the under-educated and an appeal of atheism to the educated, there are really many very intelligent people who still believe in God (and many uneducated atheists as well).
Well, I’d like to preface this with a “whenever I’m asked to speak on behalf of my entire ethnic/religious/racial group, I half want to do a respectable job and half want to hide under a table until everyone goes away.” I can’t speak on behalf of all atheists. Maybe moreso than any other religious group, we all followed very different paths to get to this point in our lives. But with that in mind, I’ll try to give you the best answer I can.
Anti-atheist bigotry isn’t something I’ve got a lot of personal experience with. There’s something called the “heterosexual assumption”. If you see a man walking down the street, you assume he’s heterosexual unless you see some evidence to the contrary. Statistically speaking, it’s a good assumption, even if there’s no reason to make the assumption in the first place. Same thing with being atheist in the US. The Christian majority does not have any visible defining characteristic–nor do atheists–so if I’m walking down the street people assume I’m part of that majority. Basically, I “pass” for Christian. All the damn time, without even trying.
It’s easier in a big town, and I’ve always lived in small cities or larger. In a super-small town, everyone goes to church on Sunday and you weren’t there! So this super invisibility trick doesn’t work for all atheists, everywhere. It’s also gotten better over time. When I was growing up, one of the neighborhood families stopped by our door every Sunday to ask if the kids would like to join them for Sunday School. My parents (bless them!) opened the door wide, stepped aside so everyone could see everyone else’s faces, and asked us “Hey kids, would you guys like to go to Sunday School today?” We’d look at each other and answer an incredulous and emphatic “No” and they’d leave us alone for another week. I bemoan the lack of neighbors who know each other just as much as everyone else, but I can’t see this scenario being nearly as common today.
Now, assuming you get found out, things get trickier. Sometimes, as with the neighbors in the previous story, you become a project. You are a wayward soul that they can straighten out. Happens to any other minority religious group too. Or it’s assumed that you became atheist with the specific purpose of offending Christians. One minister we met found out I was atheist and tried to start the so-clever-I’ve-heard-it-a-million-times argument by saying “I don’t believe atheists exist”. I think he was actually disappointed I had more important things to talk about, and left the bait on the hook.
Then there’s your family/community. I was “born atheist”, with an atheist dad and an agnostic mom. But for people who decide at a later age? Watch out, it can get ugly. Like I mentioned earlier, proclaiming atheism can seem like rejection of family/community/ethnicity and that occasionally goes very badly. And that’s why a lot of people stay “in the closet” so to speak. They go to church every Sunday, honestly wish they could believe, but simply don’t.
So by virtue of being born atheist and staying out of small towns, I’ve really only personally dealt with pretty small-potatoes bigotry. As I see it, the bigotry that’s out there is mostly in terms of impersonal structural things that favor the religious, from school voucher programs to the Hobby Lobby case and so on. But I’ve heard pretty terrible things about being atheist in the military these days, for example, so my experience really might not match up with someone else’s.
As for Dawkins, etc. The guy is an ass. Can I say that in a thread that’s supposed to be civil? A-S-S ass. I am hoping (without evidence) that Dawkins and his ilk are a case of “the zeal of a convert”. There are probably more converts among atheists than any other religious group. The coming-out process may have been particularly nasty and left a lot of spite and anger. Maybe a few generations down the line people will be more chill. But this is religion we’re talking about, so probably not.
I’m glad you’ve not experienced too much. I suspect you are right about the “theist assumption” scenario, and it probably contributes to the lack of overt bigotry. I have read many complaints about institutionalized bigotry against atheists, and I can see how these are legitimate complaints. On the other hand, I feel that there is genuine maliciousness on the part of those with the convert’s zeal, as you describe it. Take, for instance, insulting billboards. If I put up a billboard that proclaims my belief that Jesus is Lord, I fail to see how that is insulting to someone who disagrees. It is simply proclaiming I believe in a presence of something where an atheist finds an absence of that same thing. But how many atheists put up billboards saying critical things about believing in Jesus? They equate the posting of both kinds of billboards, but theirs is actually a disparaging remark, saying there is an absence where I believe there is a presence. The two are not equal. If I said, “Jesus is better than Muhammad” on my billboard, or “I have faith because I’m not so arrogant as to rely on my own intellect,” maybe I’d see equivalence. If an atheist’s billboard read, “Skepticism and rational thinking are my virtues,” I don’t see that as particularly offensive. Unfortunately, the zealous atheist does not agree. I feel there can be common ground, but it takes a compromise on both sides.
If you’re willing to share, what medications are you taking? Might be time to rejig then again.
Split (2016)
What a frightening, depressing, thrilling movie! I loved it! I’ve hung in there with Shyamalan, even when others abandoned him. Sure, he’s made some flops, but he really is willing to try something different. He is an ingenious storyteller. And vague spoiler alert I love that he tied this one in with one of my previous favorites of his. With that, I hope he can tie the divergent storylines together in a final sequel.
Bottom line: I loved this movie!
CatBus, I’ve read your replies and genuinely appreciate them. I will respond when I am able, but I’m pretty busy. Just wanted you to know I enjoy your comments.
