U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-22-2015, 11:54 PM
 
39,522 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125

Advertisements

Emotional? Intellectual? I can't decide what the difference is. It was the same thirty years ago when being gay could get you fired from our job and the 'policy' was justified by being (supposedly) open to blackmail by soviet agents - I am not kidding - that was high level rationale - when it was obviously the policy of criminalization of gays that was providing the opportunity and of course those who got up to hanky -panky with KGB temptresses were equally open to blackmail - but policy didn't threaten the sack for playboys.

It was all wrong and I opposed it then and it is now obviously wrong. I have the same feeling about the justification of various privileges for and respect and lip -service to religion. Emotional or intellectual? I don't care. It is, I am sure, right, and a matter of campaign and education to make people see how they are being lied to. Not a war any more than arguing for gay rights was a war on those trying to perpetuate discrimination against and criminalization of gays.

It is right, it has to come eventually and I cannot agree with your post.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-23-2015 at 12:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2015, 06:12 AM
 
13,492 posts, read 5,049,955 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Emotional? Intellectual? I can't decide what the difference is. It was the same thirty years ago when being gay could get you fired from our job and the 'policy' was justified by being (supposedly) open to blackmail by soviet agents - I am not kidding - that was high level rationale - when it was obviously the policy of criminalization of gays that was providing the opportunity and of course those who got up to hanky -panky with KGB temptresses were equally open to blackmail - but policy didn't threaten the sack for playboys.

It was all wrong and I opposed it then and it is now obviously wrong. I have the same feeling about the justification of various privileges for and respect and lip -service to religion. Emotional or intellectual? I don't care. It is, I am sure, right, and a matter of campaign and education to make people see how they are being lied to. Not a war any more than arguing for gay rights was a war on those trying to perpetuate discrimination against and criminalization of gays.

It is right, it has to come eventually and I cannot agree with your post.
Yes I know you can't. That fact that you can't get past the notion "Emotional? Intellectual? I can't decide what the difference is." shows me that. This post is why I don't algin myself with that sect of athiestism. I always say "I am athiest but not that kind." I always start at data. Not hatered of religion.

"intellectually" I know there is no real reason to be scared when I go to a mall. Intellectually I know I put my kids in far more danger on the drive to the mall. "emotionally" I feel different and I keep my kids in sight at the mall. But in the car going 70mi/hr we laugh and sing on the way there.

We have to watch Equivalence. Assigning equivalences skrews the pooch. I express that notion as "improperly assigning the wrong weights" skews that data. But I am not a phooph-osophyer. This discussion doesn't leave the first page if we weren't a forum. In person, this convo never gets off of "proper weighting". I mean never. It takes abused people a long time to get over an abuse. You see religion as commie abuse. Thats wrong.

Injustice is injustice. When people perpetrate an injustice I hold the person responsible. You pointed to an injustice done by people. Communism is great on paper. Put people in the mix and how people operate and it gets Foofed. I am not at war with "communism" I am at war with people that try and force it on me or others.

"religion" is like a crutch". "religion", like the crutch, doesn't usually break a leg. But a person can break someone else's leg with crutch. Or a person can misuse a crutch to trick people that they can't walk on their own. It really is not complicated. The crutch didn't do a thing. "it aint religion its people.". I might get a bumper sticker that says that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 08:03 AM
 
39,522 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
I agree with you about Communism. In fact I came to realize in the late 70's that it was great on paper, but put people in the mix and it doesn't work. The solution is to modify the dogma but the official line was apply more dogma because if we get people to apply communism as it is on paper it will work. At the same time a catholic fellow worker was replying to my argument that Christianity had failed : rather that it had never been tried. It was the same argument as the communist one. If it doesn't work, just get people apply it more rigorously in the expectation that it will work as it does on paper.

The difference is my dear Angle is that Communism is neither right nor wrong. It a political idea and thus a construct of human thought.

Religions are supposed to be real and true and based on fact apart from human thought. This is false - if reason and evidence counts for anything - and pushing it not because it makes sense and is good for humanity is one thing, doing it even if it does not fit with human thought because it is true is another and it is wrong and that false idea is what I am making 'war' on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,198 posts, read 9,126,735 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It was the same thirty years ago when being gay could get you fired from our job and the 'policy' was justified by being (supposedly) open to blackmail by soviet agents - I am not kidding - that was high level rationale - when it was obviously the policy of criminalization of gays that was providing the opportunity and of course those who got up to hanky -panky with KGB temptresses were equally open to blackmail - but policy didn't threaten the sack for playboys.
I don't think they denied that heterosexuals could be blackmailed, but it was rather a circular argument of the general form: (1) we have made the outing of gays particularly shameful and horrible to have happen to you, therefore (2) once a gay person is compromised by a gay soviet lover (3) they can be more completely and thoroughly blackmailed than someone who is merely unfaithful to their wife let alone maybe just an unattached playboy.

I would imagine this worked particularly well in Britain, where gays where imprisoned and/or "chemically castrated" when outed -- one of the few instances in another country they outdid the US in these areas of sanctioned torment for unapproved lifestyles. Here in the US we imprisoned gays, often at hard labor, until the repeal of the sodomy laws, but we didn't to my knowledge do chemical castration, which is a pretty horrible thing without proper medical research that caused all sorts of side effects and could drive people to suicide. Most notably this happened to Alan Turing, who should have been lauded as a hero for his role in saving lives during WW2.

In, e.g., 1950 I suspect being outed as a heterosexual fornicator was of minimal consequence, as an unfaithful spouse of moderate consequence, but as a gay person of any sort, it would pretty much ruin you for life, particularly if you'd accumulated any station in life ... if not in fact actually endanger your life. Hence ... the security threat.

Of course the threat only existed because an unacceptable and unfair stigma existed and was nurtured in society. And I'm sure that the actual threat was overstated anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 07:47 AM
 
39,522 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
You are right. In fact the compromising and blackmailing and even turning to use as agents by the wiles of gorgeous KGB sirens was constantly being talked about. But being a bit of a lad was never a reason to be sacked. Being gay was. Perhaps it was still illegal at the time.

In any case it was discriminatory and wrong and decriminalization was the right way to go. They dragged their feet over it (though never as much as the church) but eventually did the right, fair and sensible thing. O hope the armed forces have done so. They were being discriminatory long afterwards as I recall. And it wasn't that long ago that you couldn't hope to be elected as an MP if you were gay. Now I think it doesn't matter. It doesn't mater if you're atheist.

That's a lot of progress and still some work to be done on dismantling church authority, but obviously a longer way to go in the US. I don't think it matters about religion in the Bible belt. Just cut back on slobbering subservience to church and Bible in the rest of the US and the politicians will magically never mention God ever again. And the South won't matter, even if Austin Atheists haven't won over the younger of the confederates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxfVg48X18
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 05:59 AM
 
13,492 posts, read 5,049,955 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I agree with you about Communism. In fact I came to realize in the late 70's that it was great on paper, but put people in the mix and it doesn't work. The solution is to modify the dogma but the official line was apply more dogma because if we get people to apply communism as it is on paper it will work. At the same time a catholic fellow worker was replying to my argument that Christianity had failed : rather that it had never been tried. It was the same argument as the communist one. If it doesn't work, just get people apply it more rigorously in the expectation that it will work as it does on paper.

The difference is my dear Angle is that Communism is neither right nor wrong. It a political idea and thus a construct of human thought.

Religions are supposed to be real and true and based on fact apart from human thought. This is false - if reason and evidence counts for anything - and pushing it not because it makes sense and is good for humanity is one thing, doing it even if it does not fit with human thought because it is true is another and it is wrong and that false idea is what I am making 'war' on.
yes people. I agree. yes, religion can be dangerous. I agree again. Like a car, like fire, like a gun.

"religions are supposed to be "real and true"? really? who says that? religious people? You just said it?
arg that is false. You are basing stance on a false claim. The line of logic linked to that axiom is false.

I am half with ya arg over all. My problem is more with "how" people believe I guess. I don't understand things like evolution means no god to some believers. Or how "natural laws" means no god for some non-believers. And I certainly do not like how "obsolete certain" some people are based on what they do not know.

Or how some believers just say "I don't believe that" to justify themselves. I have no understanding of how a person sits on that as if it were real. I have just as little understanding how non-believers say that "aint proof" every time a piece is offered when they themselves only have "ballpark" understandings. The evidence points to "something more". period. I don't care what religion says. There is no evidence of "Omni-anything". I don't care what atheist say. I only care what the data seems to say.

Now once we remove god then I have to address what religious people say over all in the context of what it means to be "human". there is no "Christian god" so everything said about that god is not real. That leaves me In the context of low IQ, mentally ill, alcoholics, drug addicts, and the abused. Along with "normal crazy stupid" humans.

I see religious people talking about "accountability", "due diligence", "personal improvement", "moderation", balance", and helping people that need help. And I see the above mentioned religious people screwing up such simple notions and using these notions as a weapon. I see pew runners letting them. Now that tinklez me off to tell ya the truth.

I am stuck in the middle arg. some say "lack of conviction'. I think they are 1/2 right. I don't make up BS to self justify me self and make that little arach inside "feel better". I look and listen and see what the data may suggest. "lack of conviction" based on what I know is "true" because I don't know enough to indiscriminately attack and hurt a group of people. However, I do know enough to attack and shut down a type of person. Those being fundamentalist atheist and militant theist. When needed they are cannon fodder. That's it. The price to pay for "honesty in the mirror" HITMe, is anxiety.

When those two types of people are not in the picture the rest of us can coexist quite easily. It is what NoCap talks about. I wish we could make it real too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 07:20 PM
 
43 posts, read 39,882 times
Reputation: 15
This is for your own preference: You may call yourself a Realist if you no longer want your identity tied to theism.

EL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 08:00 PM
 
39,522 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by .EL. View Post
This is for your own preference: You may call yourself a Realist if you no longer want your identity tied to theism.

EL
That'll do for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 03:43 AM
 
39,522 posts, read 11,015,060 times
Reputation: 5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
...

"religions are supposed to be "real and true"? really? who says that? religious people? You just said it?
arg that is false. You are basing stance on a false claim. The line of logic linked to that axiom is false.
...
Those who say frankly that it isn't real and true are just what we need. I don't want to get into an arguments about defining religion or what it is about religions that the believers find real and true, but if you say that is a false claim I think the burden of proof is on you to justify that line of thought.

Imagine you and me talking to an audience of religious believers and I say they consider their religion real and true and you say they don't. I think they'd agree with me, not you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 06:13 AM
 
13,492 posts, read 5,049,955 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Those who say frankly that it isn't real and true are just what we need. I don't want to get into an arguments about defining religion or what it is about religions that the believers find real and true, but if you say that is a false claim I think the burden of proof is on you to justify that line of thought.

Imagine you and me talking to an audience of religious believers and I say they consider their religion real and true and you say they don't. I think they'd agree with me, not you.
"imaginine" thats a problem.

This is as "false" the second time as it was the first. Basing a line of logic on an incorrect "fact" makes the rest "false". Pages and pages of stuff doesn't change the first incorrect statement.

yeah, we never want to have an argument about the truth when it gets in the way of our personal feelings. Your last line is right. When we make up bull sit-ups and we can get any group to agree with us too. That's how we got into this religous mess.

When we wanna "fact" fight and not "pit our feelings against "the enemy's feelings'. I'll join ya. I can't help ya with the "feeling angle", I don't have enough "feeling". Just didn't suffer enough abuse I guess. I had "crazy normal" relationships with the all people in my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top