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.
I don't see this as political. I see it as "seeking wisdom" which is the definition of philosophy. And you are correct, the actions of the amygdala with regards to tribalism and xenophobia can be manipulated. The tribalism and xenophobia tends to go away with common cultural values despite differences in appearance and phenotype.
You should consider learning how to modulate your limbic system next time you encounter a hard core christian. It can be done if you practice. However, this modulation is extremely hard to do when there is stress and anger. At the end we revert back to our tribal nature if things are not going well.
I too see it as 'seeking wisdom'. Or at least arguing it out. And the human instincts can, be manipulated, or trained. There just has to be the will. And I can advise that I am well able to control my anger and stress when I encounter Hard Core Christians, or soft core or even partially draped Christians. Rather, it is the Christians who tend to lose their rags when they start losing the argument.
What does frazzle me a bit is when i encounter 'agnostics' or even atheists who have a deep -seated antipathy towards atheism, the atheist campaign, secularism, the secularist mission and anything Liberal or PC, when they are actually in fsvour of it. Yet there still seems to be this need, this sort of educated instinct, to put down atheism.
It is done by telling us what's wrong with us or the way we are or think - commonly by accusing us of things that aren't true or valid. Pointing out where the opposition or critics (even when they produced books about it) seem wrong is taken as bias, or rudeness or stuck in a mindset. Or as you say reacting with stress and anger, when (at least in my case) that isn't it all. I remind you of the 'mad' icon you posted when you first heard of my desire to see a secular US and an end to the old order. That looked to me like an instinctive reaction (1).
I'm not attacking you, but I'm asking to to think about where you are after all the discussion we had. I haven't had to change my position, but I think that you have.
(1) I could be wrong - as i say, it's a puzzle as we Don't have this in the UK or Europe, so far as I know - only in the US. Hear the word 'Atheist' (or 'Liberal' and immediately start to bristle up the spikes. 'This is all wrong..why? Let's find a string of reasons'. Tradition, PC gone mad, trying to stamp on the rights of the religious, (some, doing the good old projection go after our supposed Doctrine of Evolution) going on the attack is always good - accuse them of being aggressive, rude, mocking, get some stock objections from books or websites (the ones that disprove atheism 'logically' or attacking Dawkins as an atheist 'authority figure' are always good), like they are biased, intransigent, in denial about how wrong they are, and as a last resort (or sometimes, a first), Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2019 at 08:30 AM..
That one disbelieves another's philosophy, faith, religion, politics, and others must embrace their own in stead is it not hypocrisy but proclaiming every one has a right to their own thinking? .just as long as they all think like you ?
What is t to you that a man wants to believe in God . your excited about being an atheist and encouraging others to do so as well. isn't that hypocritical in opposition of those sharing their faith toward God ?
That one disbelieves another's philosophy, faith, religion, politics, and others must embrace their own in stead is it not hypocrisy but proclaiming every one has a right to their own thinking? .just as long as they all think like you ?
What is t to you that a man wants to believe in God . your excited about being an atheist and encouraging others to do so as well. isn't that hypocritical in opposition of those sharing their faith toward God ?
Thank you. This is just the point that I made to our pal CC - who is constantly in my mind as he is a critic of atheism (or atheists, at least) from within - while defending Church/state separation through the law is fine, the need for public support is paramount. That's why constant 'preaching' is necessary.
And the bottom line of such preaching of the doctrine is - is it true?
'Atheism, if reason and evidence counts for anything, is true'. That, if anything is, is the doctrine. But it is of course based in the tried, tested and trusted methods of Validated science (evidence) and logical reasoning. Thus the reason why we do what we do and the validation for our doing it.
What are we trying to do? Educate people to re-evaluate believing religion. We have to be clear about that. If we think it isn't true, it would be pointless to say that we don't want to see that.
But it isn't about taking away rights of religion (privileges, yes, and preventing religious values being imposed on those who don't want them), but about wanting to uphold the rights of believers to believe 'whatever they want'. Whatever religion, fad or even cult they want - within the law. That also means the rights of those who do not want to believe in any particular religion, too.
Thank you. This is just the point that I made to our pal CC - who is constantly in my mind as he is a critic of atheism (or atheists, at least) from within - while defending Church/state separation through the law is fine, the need for public support is paramount. That's why constant 'preaching' is necessary.
And the bottom line of such preaching of the doctrine is - is it true?
'Atheism, if reason and evidence counts for anything, is true'. That, if anything is, is the doctrine. But it is of course based in the tried, tested and trusted methods of Validated science (evidence) and logical reasoning. Thus the reason why we do what we do and the validation for our doing it.
What are we trying to do? Educate people to re-evaluate believing religion. We have to be clear about that. If we think it isn't true, it would be pointless to say that we don't want to see that.
But it isn't about taking away rights of religion (privileges, yes, and preventing religious values being imposed on those who don't want them), but about wanting to uphold the rights of believers to believe 'whatever they want'. Whatever religion, fad or even cult they want - within the law. That also means the rights of those who do not want to believe in any particular religion, too.
You are like the Queen of Dragons. What is going on? Two steps forward, one step backwards. Is that how it works? I see hints of intolerance. The Queen was ready to kill the IMP no "ifs and buts".
You are like the Queen of Dragons. What is going on? Two steps forward, one step backwards. Is that how it works? I see hints of intolerance. The Queen was ready to kill the IMP no "ifs and buts".
You see a lot of things, don't you. Most of them existing only in your own head. "Two steps forwards - one step back" . Shows that you hold a fixed position and what others say is measured according to whether you approve or disapprove, and by how much.
I rather look at what seems evidentially, logically and indeed morally (if necessary) correct and let that be in the 'matrix' that you sometimes talk about, which is letting things fall as they may and never mind what my personal standards are. That's why it confuses you.
That's because, just as the echo -chamber of the personal prejudices is yours rather than ours, the 'matrix' of fixed values is also yours rather than ours.
You are like the Queen of Dragons. What is going on? Two steps forward, one step backwards. Is that how it works? I see hints of intolerance. The Queen was ready to kill the IMP no "ifs and buts".
You see hints of intolerance?
And yet in another thread you're preaching racial purity in the nation.
Then you'll have to explain to me how if you say, "...I would strive for the acquisition of a unifying culture. Nations that are monocultural (even if they are multiracial) tend to do better". How in America would you get to a monoculture when roughly 13% of the nation is of African descent, 5% of Asian culture, and then we have the growing percentage of the population that is of Hispanic/Latino culture. We are moving further away from a unifying culture. How are you going to solve that. Please be specific. I don't see how "monoculture" and multiracial are congruent.
Either stop saying you're not going to discuss politics, or stop discussing politics.
The latter would be HIGHLY recommended. We've seen far too much political opinion, thinly veiled, but clearly visible to all of us with functioning brains. This is NOT the Politics forum.
Thank you. This is just the point that I made to our pal CC - who is constantly in my mind as he is a critic of atheism (or atheists, at least) from within - while defending Church/state separation through the law is fine, the need for public support is paramount. That's why constant 'preaching' is necessary.
And the bottom line of such preaching of the doctrine is - is it true?
'Atheism, if reason and evidence counts for anything, is true'. That, if anything is, is the doctrine. But it is of course based in the tried, tested and trusted methods of Validated science (evidence) and logical reasoning. Thus the reason why we do what we do and the validation for our doing it.
What are we trying to do? Educate people to re-evaluate believing religion. We have to be clear about that. If we think it isn't true, it would be pointless to say that we don't want to see that.
But it isn't about taking away rights of religion (privileges, yes, and preventing religious values being imposed on those who don't want them), but about wanting to uphold the rights of believers to believe 'whatever they want'. Whatever religion, fad or even cult they want - within the law. That also means the rights of those who do not want to believe in any particular religion, too.
I don't think it is possible to prevent religious values from being imposed. Those who don't want them imposed already keep them at bay. I don't think these people are being targeted. The target audience are people who want something more than science and logical reasoning. But, is there actually more? And if not, why is there a perception that there is more?
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.
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.
is necessary. 
