The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Atheists Support Free Speech for Religious Extremists
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The percentages of people, by belief or lack thereof in God, who think “religious extremists” should be forbidden from “publish[ing] their views on the internet”:

Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

GSS variables used: RELEXT3(3-4), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6)

 
• Category: Arts/Letters, Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Free Speech, GSS, Religion 
Hide 87 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Theists require the quashing of disbelief or other beliefs in order to prop up their own. Maybe it has something to do with cognitive dissonance. Organized religious beliefs are memes that reproduce themselves and continue their own existence by killing competition and taking over the mental environments thereby conquered. It sounds pretty much like environmental biology or “evolution.”

  2. >Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

    I think Khan was onto something when he said that “natural” atheists have always been and still remain a minority. There’s certain off-kilter features, among them less than average emotional intuition. Doesn’t necessarily make you a better person. It does make you more indifferent to social norms, for better or for worse, thus making it more likely (which is not the same as ensuring) that you’ll be more indifferent to what other people say or believe.

    Most people don’t fit that profile, probably for good reasons. And that includes most irreligious people in the modern West. They might not believe in God, but they still seek out a framework of meaning that accords with their neural chemistry. So they’ll create their own religions. Exhibit 1A: Social Justice Movement. Tell me that’s not the spirit of revivalist Protestant American Christianity, without any of the humane or constructive stuff, and with all the bad stuff redoubled.

    Diversity is a mean, petty, limited deity: and also one that demands no real sacrifices, of body or soul, beyond emotional self-flagellation. Aka, a stupid cult for a stupid age. People who want better will either make traditional religion better, or gravitate to a novel religion that is more creative and better.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @nebulafox


    I think Khan was onto something when he said that “natural” atheists have always been and still remain a minority.
     
    Yes, highly intelligent people are always in the minority.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @nebulafox

    I understand what you're saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don't see the relevance.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are woke-lite "atheists" who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims. I want to see a question specifically about whether Christians should be able to post anti-homosexual opinions. Then let's see how the "atheists" are.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  3. I don’t think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that “publishing religious extremism online” means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.

    It’s incredible to think that just 5 or 6 years ago our social media willingly “provided a platform” for that sort of thing, but nowadays they ban Donald Trump and want him treated as a domestic terrorist.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I don’t think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that “publishing religious extremism online” means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.
     
    That's almost certainly correct. Although it's probably not just nominal Christians but actual Christians as well who interpreted the question in this way.

    So it's another survey that means nothing because the question posed was so hopelessly vague and ambiguous as to be meaningless.

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been "do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?"

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Audacious Epigone

  4. Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

    A combination of both, probably. The exact mix we can only guess at, as this infidel is a proponent of free speech who also loves religious fanatics humiliating themselves online.

  5. All categories might perceive “religious extremists” as Muslim migrants or children of migrants, with permissive views being a proxy for support of open borders.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird


    All categories might perceive “religious extremists” as Muslim migrants or children of migrants
     
    Pretty safe bet.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Supply and Demand
    @songbird

    As someone who falls in the "firm theist" category, I must admit that I first thought of Evangelicals.

    Do Muslims really publish their views very much on the English web? Seems like they have arabic/farsi mediums for that. For every tidbit the Ayatollah posts on twitter, I'm sure there's 100% more said in whatever Iranian platforms exist.

    Replies: @raga10

  6. 1st hypothesis:
    People who are smarter are for Free Speech. And, by the by, atheists are smarter.

    2nd hypothesis:
    People didn’t really evolve for Free Speech, so no wonder theists, who are more Evolution-adapted, would be more against Free Speech.

    3rd (and so on) hypotheses:
    Do you guys have any other ideas?

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Realist
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    The first hypothesis works for me.

    The second hypothesis is absurd.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    , @nokangaroos
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    I think it all hinges on the personality trait usually called "agreeableness"
    or maybe more aptly "susceptibility to peer pressure".
    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    ("If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?" - Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way :P

    Replies: @Realist, @Adam Smith, @Vergissmeinnicht

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Good ideas.


    Do you guys have any other ideas?
     
    American jurisprudence in the matter, anchored by the First Amendment, has been just about perfect. Whoever the American respondents opposed to American-style free speech might be, they'll miss it once it's gone.

    But Who? Whom? My stance is partly because I am the one who is being oppressed.

    As with most other surveys (I do not attack this one in particular), this survey might be nonsense with bad methodology. However, if it isn't, then I do not know what the connection to atheism is.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Vergissmeinnicht

  7. Some of us find it very satisfying to witness the spectacle of all three Abrahamic faiths fragmenting back into the kinds of nutjob cults from which they originated. It looks like the light at the end of a very long tunnel. Probably an illusion, though, but a comforting one, for now: long ago Plato observed that humanity’s most fundamental deficiency is its addiction to the irrational.

  8. @nebulafox
    >Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

    I think Khan was onto something when he said that "natural" atheists have always been and still remain a minority. There's certain off-kilter features, among them less than average emotional intuition. Doesn't necessarily make you a better person. It does make you more indifferent to social norms, for better or for worse, thus making it more likely (which is not the same as ensuring) that you'll be more indifferent to what other people say or believe.

    Most people don't fit that profile, probably for good reasons. And that includes most irreligious people in the modern West. They might not believe in God, but they still seek out a framework of meaning that accords with their neural chemistry. So they'll create their own religions. Exhibit 1A: Social Justice Movement. Tell me that's not the spirit of revivalist Protestant American Christianity, without any of the humane or constructive stuff, and with all the bad stuff redoubled.

    Diversity is a mean, petty, limited deity: and also one that demands no real sacrifices, of body or soul, beyond emotional self-flagellation. Aka, a stupid cult for a stupid age. People who want better will either make traditional religion better, or gravitate to a novel religion that is more creative and better.

    Replies: @Realist, @Chrisnonymous

    I think Khan was onto something when he said that “natural” atheists have always been and still remain a minority.

    Yes, highly intelligent people are always in the minority.

    • Agree: Adam Smith, MarkU
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Realist

    It's not about IQ, per se, but a specific type of neural chemistry. Plenty of highly intelligent people have "normal" neural chemistries, and thus share the desire for an emotionally intuitive model of the universe. It might manifest differently, but the drive isn't different.

    Ironically, in pre-modern times where there really wasn't a mental model of a universe without higher forces in it, plenty of these kinds of personalities spent a lot of effort on philosophical explanations of how the universe worked, or rationalizing the prevailing religious systems of their society. All the way up to the likes of Isaac Newton, who considered his scientific research secondary to his Biblical ponderings.

  9. Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

    Yes.

  10. @songbird
    All categories might perceive "religious extremists" as Muslim migrants or children of migrants, with permissive views being a proxy for support of open borders.

    Replies: @Talha, @Supply and Demand

    All categories might perceive “religious extremists” as Muslim migrants or children of migrants

    Pretty safe bet.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Talha

    I think Christianity has a logistical problem in the West, when it comes to terrorism, which I think is the core concept that people identify fundamentalism with.

    To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone. No analog to Saudi-financed Wahhabism. The economics aren't there.

    Organizations like the Catholic and Orthodox churches are very hierarchical. Hierarchies are basically part of the state - they've always been resistant to revolutionary spirit (not without reason.)

    Many smaller churches are completely pozzed. If anything, they would cause revolutionaries to be disenchanted with Christianity, to move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians - they are disunited by their nature.

    And ethnic neighborhoods in urban tenements are basically gone for Euro-Christians, except maybe in Eastern Europe, which is by and large pretty homogeneous, and so lacking young men who automatically feel alienated by living in alien societies.

    Replies: @Talha, @nebulafox

  11. @Vergissmeinnicht
    1st hypothesis:
    People who are smarter are for Free Speech. And, by the by, atheists are smarter.

    2nd hypothesis:
    People didn't really evolve for Free Speech, so no wonder theists, who are more Evolution-adapted, would be more against Free Speech.

    3rd (and so on) hypotheses:
    Do you guys have any other ideas?

    Replies: @Realist, @nokangaroos, @V. K. Ovelund

    The first hypothesis works for me.

    The second hypothesis is absurd.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @Realist

    My 'second hypothesis' was working with the concept of Group Selection Theory.

  12. @Vergissmeinnicht
    1st hypothesis:
    People who are smarter are for Free Speech. And, by the by, atheists are smarter.

    2nd hypothesis:
    People didn't really evolve for Free Speech, so no wonder theists, who are more Evolution-adapted, would be more against Free Speech.

    3rd (and so on) hypotheses:
    Do you guys have any other ideas?

    Replies: @Realist, @nokangaroos, @V. K. Ovelund

    I think it all hinges on the personality trait usually called “agreeableness”
    or maybe more aptly “susceptibility to peer pressure”.
    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    (“If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?” – Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way 😛

    • Replies: @Realist
    @nokangaroos


    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    (“If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?” – Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way 😛
     
    Your definition of sociopath, as one who makes up his own mind, is bullshit. Those who have the high mental capacity to think for themselves, rather than be led like sheep, are the more evolved ones.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    , @Adam Smith, @Vergissmeinnicht
    @nokangaroos

    Good idea! Thanks.

    Yeah… I think too much about IQ and just forgot the Big Five Personality Traits exist. My bad.

  13. @Vergissmeinnicht
    1st hypothesis:
    People who are smarter are for Free Speech. And, by the by, atheists are smarter.

    2nd hypothesis:
    People didn't really evolve for Free Speech, so no wonder theists, who are more Evolution-adapted, would be more against Free Speech.

    3rd (and so on) hypotheses:
    Do you guys have any other ideas?

    Replies: @Realist, @nokangaroos, @V. K. Ovelund

    Good ideas.

    Do you guys have any other ideas?

    American jurisprudence in the matter, anchored by the First Amendment, has been just about perfect. Whoever the American respondents opposed to American-style free speech might be, they’ll miss it once it’s gone.

    But Who? Whom? My stance is partly because I am the one who is being oppressed.

    As with most other surveys (I do not attack this one in particular), this survey might be nonsense with bad methodology. However, if it isn’t, then I do not know what the connection to atheism is.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other "natural rights". But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the Right permitted the Left to publish treason, sedition, obscenity and depravity because the Right considered it important to establish "freedom of speech" in case the Right ever needs to say something controversial. Well, that time is now, and behold, the freedom of speech that the Right so graciously permitted to the Left last century is now evaporating like faerie gold now that the Right needs it while the Left holds the whip hand. It turns out that that "right" consists of nothing more than the ability to enforce it.

    On reflection, this may be all that all rights are: the practical result of a balance of power. Why do we have the "right" to vote? Because voting is a proxy for combat. Rather than spill a lot of blood over every political disagreement, potential combatants realized it is easier and less destructive to count up the number of combatants on each side and award electoral victory to the likely winner of a real battle: same result, far fewer casualties, even for the winners. But this logic only pertains to those who might actually show up on the field of battle. There is a reason that membership in the state militia used to be a prerequisite for voting in America.

    Rights, it appears, belong to those strong enough to enforce them. There are occasional times, such as in the former United States, where those in charge have the conviction and curiosity to permit rights to those weaker than themselves, but those times are fleeting, as the inheritors of such noble sentiments are rarely so noble themselves.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Vergissmeinnicht
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think Freedom of Speech should apply to 'symbolic speech' and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn't be 1st Amendment-protected.
    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what's either said or written.

    For the record: I wouldn't make illegal burning the flag or the Bible, or ANY other symbol; I wouldn't outlaw porn completely, but modern porn does need some 'brakes'.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  14. Give them enough time Christians will shoot themselves in the foot. That’s why atheists are tolerant of Jesus freaks.

    • Agree: Realist
  15. @nokangaroos
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    I think it all hinges on the personality trait usually called "agreeableness"
    or maybe more aptly "susceptibility to peer pressure".
    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    ("If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?" - Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way :P

    Replies: @Realist, @Adam Smith, @Vergissmeinnicht

    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    (“If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?” – Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way 😛

    Your definition of sociopath, as one who makes up his own mind, is bullshit. Those who have the high mental capacity to think for themselves, rather than be led like sheep, are the more evolved ones.

    • Agree: RoatanBill, Adam Smith
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @Realist

    Pardon for being a bit watery ...
    it´s not the definition of sociopath, more the literal meaning of "idiot"-
    he who walks it alone ... as opposed to all organized religion, who rely on the communion of the saints :D

  16. @Realist
    @nokangaroos


    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    (“If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?” – Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way 😛
     
    Your definition of sociopath, as one who makes up his own mind, is bullshit. Those who have the high mental capacity to think for themselves, rather than be led like sheep, are the more evolved ones.

    Replies: @nokangaroos

    Pardon for being a bit watery …
    it´s not the definition of sociopath, more the literal meaning of “idiot”-
    he who walks it alone … as opposed to all organized religion, who rely on the communion of the saints 😀

  17. @nebulafox
    >Because atheists and agnostics want to let religionists hoist themselves with their own petards, or because they are genuinely more tolerant of free expression and open inquiry than theists are?

    I think Khan was onto something when he said that "natural" atheists have always been and still remain a minority. There's certain off-kilter features, among them less than average emotional intuition. Doesn't necessarily make you a better person. It does make you more indifferent to social norms, for better or for worse, thus making it more likely (which is not the same as ensuring) that you'll be more indifferent to what other people say or believe.

    Most people don't fit that profile, probably for good reasons. And that includes most irreligious people in the modern West. They might not believe in God, but they still seek out a framework of meaning that accords with their neural chemistry. So they'll create their own religions. Exhibit 1A: Social Justice Movement. Tell me that's not the spirit of revivalist Protestant American Christianity, without any of the humane or constructive stuff, and with all the bad stuff redoubled.

    Diversity is a mean, petty, limited deity: and also one that demands no real sacrifices, of body or soul, beyond emotional self-flagellation. Aka, a stupid cult for a stupid age. People who want better will either make traditional religion better, or gravitate to a novel religion that is more creative and better.

    Replies: @Realist, @Chrisnonymous

    I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims. I want to see a question specifically about whether Christians should be able to post anti-homosexual opinions. Then let’s see how the “atheists” are.

    • Agree: Catdog, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Chrisnonymous

    >I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    On that question, I am coy.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims.

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Talha, @John Johnson

  18. While I would like to think that this result is because atheists are more likely to be radical humanists and have a Voltarian outlook on the value in free expression, it’s more likely that the they are postmodernists interpreting the question as pertaining to Muslims, who are an Oppressed Minority and therefore Good Guys.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    @Catdog

    Sadly, you may well be right.

  19. @nokangaroos
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    I think it all hinges on the personality trait usually called "agreeableness"
    or maybe more aptly "susceptibility to peer pressure".
    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    ("If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?" - Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way :P

    Replies: @Realist, @Adam Smith, @Vergissmeinnicht

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Thanks: Dumb4asterisks
  20. @songbird
    All categories might perceive "religious extremists" as Muslim migrants or children of migrants, with permissive views being a proxy for support of open borders.

    Replies: @Talha, @Supply and Demand

    As someone who falls in the “firm theist” category, I must admit that I first thought of Evangelicals.

    Do Muslims really publish their views very much on the English web? Seems like they have arabic/farsi mediums for that. For every tidbit the Ayatollah posts on twitter, I’m sure there’s 100% more said in whatever Iranian platforms exist.

    • Replies: @raga10
    @Supply and Demand

    Actually overwhelming majority of Muslims don't speak Arabic or Farsi. Also, many Muslims post in English because that's their native language - there are over 3 million Muslims in UK alone and many of them are first or by now even second generation English.

  21. Atheists Support Free Speech for Religious Extremists

    Well of course. Atheism is a religious extremism, so naturally atheists want Freedom for themselves.

    • LOL: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @Almost Missouri

    Atheism is a religion in the same way as sitting on the couch is a sport.

  22. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Good ideas.


    Do you guys have any other ideas?
     
    American jurisprudence in the matter, anchored by the First Amendment, has been just about perfect. Whoever the American respondents opposed to American-style free speech might be, they'll miss it once it's gone.

    But Who? Whom? My stance is partly because I am the one who is being oppressed.

    As with most other surveys (I do not attack this one in particular), this survey might be nonsense with bad methodology. However, if it isn't, then I do not know what the connection to atheism is.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Vergissmeinnicht

    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other “natural rights”. But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the Right permitted the Left to publish treason, sedition, obscenity and depravity because the Right considered it important to establish “freedom of speech” in case the Right ever needs to say something controversial. Well, that time is now, and behold, the freedom of speech that the Right so graciously permitted to the Left last century is now evaporating like faerie gold now that the Right needs it while the Left holds the whip hand. It turns out that that “right” consists of nothing more than the ability to enforce it.

    On reflection, this may be all that all rights are: the practical result of a balance of power. Why do we have the “right” to vote? Because voting is a proxy for combat. Rather than spill a lot of blood over every political disagreement, potential combatants realized it is easier and less destructive to count up the number of combatants on each side and award electoral victory to the likely winner of a real battle: same result, far fewer casualties, even for the winners. But this logic only pertains to those who might actually show up on the field of battle. There is a reason that membership in the state militia used to be a prerequisite for voting in America.

    Rights, it appears, belong to those strong enough to enforce them. There are occasional times, such as in the former United States, where those in charge have the conviction and curiosity to permit rights to those weaker than themselves, but those times are fleeting, as the inheritors of such noble sentiments are rarely so noble themselves.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other “natural rights”. But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.
     
    This is so cool. You are not far from the kingdom of God with this observation, my friend. I am so glad that you made it this far; it is the mark of a highly developed soul.

    Freedom of speech is not numbered among the natural rights. It cannot be; after all, there is no "right" to speak error, to impugn the known truth, or to calumniate and detract from others. These are all wrongs, not rights. It belongs to justly constituted government to prohibit such things and to punish them when they break out.

    Freedom of speech was one of those Masonic/rationalist concepts that gained popularity in the revolutionary age and has since showed its true colors. It is acclaimed by nobody except those who wish to abuse it.

    Replies: @MarkU

  23. @Catdog
    While I would like to think that this result is because atheists are more likely to be radical humanists and have a Voltarian outlook on the value in free expression, it's more likely that the they are postmodernists interpreting the question as pertaining to Muslims, who are an Oppressed Minority and therefore Good Guys.

    Replies: @MarkU

    Sadly, you may well be right.

  24. @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other "natural rights". But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the Right permitted the Left to publish treason, sedition, obscenity and depravity because the Right considered it important to establish "freedom of speech" in case the Right ever needs to say something controversial. Well, that time is now, and behold, the freedom of speech that the Right so graciously permitted to the Left last century is now evaporating like faerie gold now that the Right needs it while the Left holds the whip hand. It turns out that that "right" consists of nothing more than the ability to enforce it.

    On reflection, this may be all that all rights are: the practical result of a balance of power. Why do we have the "right" to vote? Because voting is a proxy for combat. Rather than spill a lot of blood over every political disagreement, potential combatants realized it is easier and less destructive to count up the number of combatants on each side and award electoral victory to the likely winner of a real battle: same result, far fewer casualties, even for the winners. But this logic only pertains to those who might actually show up on the field of battle. There is a reason that membership in the state militia used to be a prerequisite for voting in America.

    Rights, it appears, belong to those strong enough to enforce them. There are occasional times, such as in the former United States, where those in charge have the conviction and curiosity to permit rights to those weaker than themselves, but those times are fleeting, as the inheritors of such noble sentiments are rarely so noble themselves.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other “natural rights”. But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.

    This is so cool. You are not far from the kingdom of God with this observation, my friend. I am so glad that you made it this far; it is the mark of a highly developed soul.

    Freedom of speech is not numbered among the natural rights. It cannot be; after all, there is no “right” to speak error, to impugn the known truth, or to calumniate and detract from others. These are all wrongs, not rights. It belongs to justly constituted government to prohibit such things and to punish them when they break out.

    Freedom of speech was one of those Masonic/rationalist concepts that gained popularity in the revolutionary age and has since showed its true colors. It is acclaimed by nobody except those who wish to abuse it.

    • Troll: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @MarkU
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You are wrong on just about every conceivable level, your comment is very revealing with respect to the attitudes of the religiously minded.

    Who is to decide what is 'error' if we have no freedom of speech to debate matters?

    The 'known truth' is a deeply scary concept in the hands of a person who has recently touted Thomas Aquinas and his 'proof' of the existence of God (a 'proof' that no philosopher of any note has ever accepted btw) And you are going to 'punish them when they break out' What do you propose? burning atheists and scientists at the stake for being 'in error' or for impugning the 'known truth'? Perhaps imprisonment?Re-education camps? Please tell we really need to know.

    What about the phrase 'justly constituted government' What the hell does that mean? Do you have a definition in mind? It looks like a weasel word phrase which in practise means 'any government that you agree with' What about the Biden regime and their big tech enablers? Are they not following your methodology? removing peoples right to 'speak error' or to impugn the 'known truth' are they not 'prohibiting such things and punishing them'?

    I take it that you will refrain from criticising 'cancel culture' or the censoring of conservative or Christian voices in the media, the hypocrisy would be so blatant that even a person as intellectually dishonest as yourself could hardly fail to notice it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  25. @Supply and Demand
    @songbird

    As someone who falls in the "firm theist" category, I must admit that I first thought of Evangelicals.

    Do Muslims really publish their views very much on the English web? Seems like they have arabic/farsi mediums for that. For every tidbit the Ayatollah posts on twitter, I'm sure there's 100% more said in whatever Iranian platforms exist.

    Replies: @raga10

    Actually overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t speak Arabic or Farsi. Also, many Muslims post in English because that’s their native language – there are over 3 million Muslims in UK alone and many of them are first or by now even second generation English.

  26. Free speech and atheism is unpopular with theists because one might discover that:

    Both Christianity and Islam can be right. No.

    One of them can be right. Yes.

    Both can be wrong. FREEEEEEEDOM!!!

  27. @Intelligent Dasein
    I don't think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that "publishing religious extremism online" means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.

    It's incredible to think that just 5 or 6 years ago our social media willingly "provided a platform" for that sort of thing, but nowadays they ban Donald Trump and want him treated as a domestic terrorist.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that “publishing religious extremism online” means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.

    That’s almost certainly correct. Although it’s probably not just nominal Christians but actual Christians as well who interpreted the question in this way.

    So it’s another survey that means nothing because the question posed was so hopelessly vague and ambiguous as to be meaningless.

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been “do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?”

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been “do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?”

    How about a CNN version:

    Do you favor a ban on far-right Christian fundamentalism and so called "racial genetics" propaganda spread by White nationalists?

    I bet you could dupe 99% of so-called secular Whites into supporting a ban on discussing lactase persistence and its racial evolutionary history. They would clap like wind up monkeys and support it in the name of True Science.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    More charitability, it is devised in a way that assumes people's sense of morality is informed by principles they apply to various situations instead of evaluating based on personal preference. Naive, and becoming more so by the day, I confess.

  28. Non believers are pretty much who cares when it comes to religion. Believers are very suspicious of believers who don’t believe what they believe.

    But what is a “religious extremist” ? What, for that matter, is an extremist? From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

    Extremists in the U.S. come in many different forms – white nationalists, anti-LGBTQ zealots, racist skinheads, neo-Confederates and more.

    So I guess that if any of the above are religious they would be relgious extremists.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @WorkingClass

    Heh, and white Americans who are nationalists?

  29. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Agree. If anyone had asked me ten years ago, I would have said freedom of speech is a natural right, along with other “natural rights”. But events since then have moved me away from this Rousseauian-Millian view to more of a Hobbesian-Humeian view: natural rights are the ones you have the power to claim.
     
    This is so cool. You are not far from the kingdom of God with this observation, my friend. I am so glad that you made it this far; it is the mark of a highly developed soul.

    Freedom of speech is not numbered among the natural rights. It cannot be; after all, there is no "right" to speak error, to impugn the known truth, or to calumniate and detract from others. These are all wrongs, not rights. It belongs to justly constituted government to prohibit such things and to punish them when they break out.

    Freedom of speech was one of those Masonic/rationalist concepts that gained popularity in the revolutionary age and has since showed its true colors. It is acclaimed by nobody except those who wish to abuse it.

    Replies: @MarkU

    You are wrong on just about every conceivable level, your comment is very revealing with respect to the attitudes of the religiously minded.

    Who is to decide what is ‘error’ if we have no freedom of speech to debate matters?

    The ‘known truth’ is a deeply scary concept in the hands of a person who has recently touted Thomas Aquinas and his ‘proof’ of the existence of God (a ‘proof’ that no philosopher of any note has ever accepted btw) And you are going to ‘punish them when they break out’ What do you propose? burning atheists and scientists at the stake for being ‘in error’ or for impugning the ‘known truth’? Perhaps imprisonment?Re-education camps? Please tell we really need to know.

    What about the phrase ‘justly constituted government’ What the hell does that mean? Do you have a definition in mind? It looks like a weasel word phrase which in practise means ‘any government that you agree with’ What about the Biden regime and their big tech enablers? Are they not following your methodology? removing peoples right to ‘speak error’ or to impugn the ‘known truth’ are they not ‘prohibiting such things and punishing them’?

    I take it that you will refrain from criticising ‘cancel culture’ or the censoring of conservative or Christian voices in the media, the hypocrisy would be so blatant that even a person as intellectually dishonest as yourself could hardly fail to notice it.

    • Agree: raga10
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @MarkU

    You wrote to ID:


    You are wrong ...
     
    ID, whose style is monastic rather than apologetic, is evidently uninterested in explaining himself to persons that have never been trained in Platonic realism or Scholastic thought—unless maybe when such persons have expressed genuine curiosity. You have made it clear that you are neither trained nor curious.

    ... on just about every conceivable level....
     
    Unfortunately, you do not conceive of his levels. Not that he makes it easy.

    Thomas Aquinas and his ‘proof’ of the existence of God (a ‘proof’ that no philosopher of any note has ever accepted btw).
     
    You lack the slightest figment of a notion of what you are talking about.
  30. @Realist
    @nebulafox


    I think Khan was onto something when he said that “natural” atheists have always been and still remain a minority.
     
    Yes, highly intelligent people are always in the minority.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    It’s not about IQ, per se, but a specific type of neural chemistry. Plenty of highly intelligent people have “normal” neural chemistries, and thus share the desire for an emotionally intuitive model of the universe. It might manifest differently, but the drive isn’t different.

    Ironically, in pre-modern times where there really wasn’t a mental model of a universe without higher forces in it, plenty of these kinds of personalities spent a lot of effort on philosophical explanations of how the universe worked, or rationalizing the prevailing religious systems of their society. All the way up to the likes of Isaac Newton, who considered his scientific research secondary to his Biblical ponderings.

  31. @Chrisnonymous
    @nebulafox

    I understand what you're saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don't see the relevance.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are woke-lite "atheists" who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims. I want to see a question specifically about whether Christians should be able to post anti-homosexual opinions. Then let's see how the "atheists" are.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    On that question, I am coy.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims.

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox

    Best line of the week:


    They suffer from no mental contradictions.
     
    , @Talha
    @nebulafox


    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.
     
    It’s funny when they come across a Muslim that doesn’t fit the image of the left-liberal Muslims that they have interacted with. They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    It's even worse because the rabid atheist crowd can't even see how zealous they are when it comes to leftism. So they can't even conceive of themselves.

    There is really no secularism in the West.

    What people think of as secularism has been merged with a hostile ideology that seeks to undermine Western society through race denial. It's inseparable.

    Anyone who doubts this is free to visit a secular function and give a talk on known racial differences and the implications to egalitarian policy. Let us know how that goes.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  32. @MarkU
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You are wrong on just about every conceivable level, your comment is very revealing with respect to the attitudes of the religiously minded.

    Who is to decide what is 'error' if we have no freedom of speech to debate matters?

    The 'known truth' is a deeply scary concept in the hands of a person who has recently touted Thomas Aquinas and his 'proof' of the existence of God (a 'proof' that no philosopher of any note has ever accepted btw) And you are going to 'punish them when they break out' What do you propose? burning atheists and scientists at the stake for being 'in error' or for impugning the 'known truth'? Perhaps imprisonment?Re-education camps? Please tell we really need to know.

    What about the phrase 'justly constituted government' What the hell does that mean? Do you have a definition in mind? It looks like a weasel word phrase which in practise means 'any government that you agree with' What about the Biden regime and their big tech enablers? Are they not following your methodology? removing peoples right to 'speak error' or to impugn the 'known truth' are they not 'prohibiting such things and punishing them'?

    I take it that you will refrain from criticising 'cancel culture' or the censoring of conservative or Christian voices in the media, the hypocrisy would be so blatant that even a person as intellectually dishonest as yourself could hardly fail to notice it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You wrote to ID:

    You are wrong …

    ID, whose style is monastic rather than apologetic, is evidently uninterested in explaining himself to persons that have never been trained in Platonic realism or Scholastic thought—unless maybe when such persons have expressed genuine curiosity. You have made it clear that you are neither trained nor curious.

    … on just about every conceivable level….

    Unfortunately, you do not conceive of his levels. Not that he makes it easy.

    Thomas Aquinas and his ‘proof’ of the existence of God (a ‘proof’ that no philosopher of any note has ever accepted btw).

    You lack the slightest figment of a notion of what you are talking about.

  33. @nebulafox
    @Chrisnonymous

    >I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    On that question, I am coy.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims.

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Talha, @John Johnson

    Best line of the week:

    They suffer from no mental contradictions.

  34. @Talha
    @songbird


    All categories might perceive “religious extremists” as Muslim migrants or children of migrants
     
    Pretty safe bet.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird

    I think Christianity has a logistical problem in the West, when it comes to terrorism, which I think is the core concept that people identify fundamentalism with.

    To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone. No analog to Saudi-financed Wahhabism. The economics aren’t there.

    Organizations like the Catholic and Orthodox churches are very hierarchical. Hierarchies are basically part of the state – they’ve always been resistant to revolutionary spirit (not without reason.)

    Many smaller churches are completely pozzed. If anything, they would cause revolutionaries to be disenchanted with Christianity, to move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians – they are disunited by their nature.

    And ethnic neighborhoods in urban tenements are basically gone for Euro-Christians, except maybe in Eastern Europe, which is by and large pretty homogeneous, and so lacking young men who automatically feel alienated by living in alien societies.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird

    Good points.


    move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians
     
    Well yes, because in the west, it’s really now-paganism. There’s nothing like the Kalash people that live in Pakistan that are remnants of the original pagan religion as it has been passed down. I don’t know if you vacan truly revive a religion once it’s dead. You can attempt to create a copy from stuff you read in books, but it’s not the original.

    Peace.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @nebulafox
    @songbird

    The long and short of it that there just isn't a Christian fundamentalist (or, for that matter, a white nationalist) equivalent to the kind of globalized, sometimes state sponsored networks that Islamic radicals had during their heyday.

    Mind, why anybody would deem our War on Terror policies as "successes" at all is baffling in the first place, before we get to the desire to apply them in America.

    >To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone

    >Many smaller churches are completely pozzed.

    These two factors are not a small reason in why non-woke young men still tend to be secularized.

    Replies: @songbird

  35. @songbird
    @Talha

    I think Christianity has a logistical problem in the West, when it comes to terrorism, which I think is the core concept that people identify fundamentalism with.

    To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone. No analog to Saudi-financed Wahhabism. The economics aren't there.

    Organizations like the Catholic and Orthodox churches are very hierarchical. Hierarchies are basically part of the state - they've always been resistant to revolutionary spirit (not without reason.)

    Many smaller churches are completely pozzed. If anything, they would cause revolutionaries to be disenchanted with Christianity, to move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians - they are disunited by their nature.

    And ethnic neighborhoods in urban tenements are basically gone for Euro-Christians, except maybe in Eastern Europe, which is by and large pretty homogeneous, and so lacking young men who automatically feel alienated by living in alien societies.

    Replies: @Talha, @nebulafox

    Good points.

    move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians

    Well yes, because in the west, it’s really now-paganism. There’s nothing like the Kalash people that live in Pakistan that are remnants of the original pagan religion as it has been passed down. I don’t know if you vacan truly revive a religion once it’s dead. You can attempt to create a copy from stuff you read in books, but it’s not the original.

    Peace.

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Talha

    The emperor Diocletian attempted to revitalize paganism after the near societal collapse of the 3rd Century, but tellingly, he did so on an empire-wide model. Classical Greco-Roman paganism was very localized, rooted in the culture of the city-state. That culture was dead, to the point where even those who wanted paganism back unconsciously made it fit the new parameters.

    > t’s funny when they come across a Muslim that doesn’t fit the image of the left-liberal Muslims that they have interacted with. They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Re, the wokesters: thing that always speaks volumes to me is the implicit racialization of Islam, as a tool against the guys on Twitter with statues of Sulla on their profile.

  36. @nebulafox
    @Chrisnonymous

    >I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    On that question, I am coy.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims.

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Talha, @John Johnson

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    It’s funny when they come across a Muslim that doesn’t fit the image of the left-liberal Muslims that they have interacted with. They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Talha


    They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.
     
    Don't take it personally, or even religion-ally. If it's any consolation, it's not just genuine Muslims they are hostile to. They hate everyone who is not like them, all their "tolerance and diversity" rhetoric notwithstanding.

    Or, said another way, there is no one so intolerant and conformist as those who preach tolerance and diversity!

    This is reason #478 why I prefer people who are honest (with me and with themselves) about their beliefs, even if they are not my beliefs. They are better people and we have fewer misunderstandings.
  37. Sorry but this graph is mostly irrelevant because liberalism is a religion that passes itself as a political outlook. Blank slate requires faith and is the basis of liberalism.

    Ask these same secular Whites if open inquiry into race should be allowed.

    • Agree: Mark G., Almost Missouri
  38. @nebulafox
    @Chrisnonymous

    >I understand what you’re saying, but this is self-reported theism (right?) so I don’t see the relevance.

    On that question, I am coy.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if there are woke-lite “atheists” who interpreted this as a question about Islam, and were CrimeStopped into refusing to restrict Muslims.

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Talha, @John Johnson

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    It’s even worse because the rabid atheist crowd can’t even see how zealous they are when it comes to leftism. So they can’t even conceive of themselves.

    There is really no secularism in the West.

    What people think of as secularism has been merged with a hostile ideology that seeks to undermine Western society through race denial. It’s inseparable.

    Anyone who doubts this is free to visit a secular function and give a talk on known racial differences and the implications to egalitarian policy. Let us know how that goes.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural. When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Studying history has really hammered home to me that human nature hasn't changed that much since ancient or medieval times. We know a lot more about the universe now, and have more sophisticated codes of ethics, but that doesn't mean our fundamental impulses and drives have shifted. If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries. (Compare South Korea's church laden landscape to Japan's syncretic streak.) Religious and ethnic identity are nearly completely divorced in a way that is definitely not true further south and west.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

  39. @Almost Missouri

    Atheists Support Free Speech for Religious Extremists
     
    Well of course. Atheism is a religious extremism, so naturally atheists want Freedom for themselves.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    Atheism is a religion in the same way as sitting on the couch is a sport.

  40. I support free speech for those who agree with me. Otherwise, I’m opposed.

  41. Let me point out some basic facts:
    1)Serious debate on theism vs atheism could be lengthy, fussy..
    2)The big majority of atheists are NOT fanatics.
    3)’Theism’ to most believers is not about the existence and associated rhetorics of God/gods/goddesses; Lets face the reality: It’s about tribalism. The ‘theists’ of one religion, say evangelical protestanism, could hate the ‘theists’ of another religion/sect, say islam or ‘liberal’ Christianity, with more fervour, than they’ve with atheists.
    4)The moderate/liberal theists of one religion dislike the rhetorics of the extremists of the same religion because they know the latters are damaging to the religion. To the moderate ‘atheists’, religious extremism could be just entertainment.
    5)Any belief system could become a religion, particularly when the leaders emphasize on ‘faith’

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  42. @Realist
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    The first hypothesis works for me.

    The second hypothesis is absurd.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    My ‘second hypothesis’ was working with the concept of Group Selection Theory.

  43. @nokangaroos
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    I think it all hinges on the personality trait usually called "agreeableness"
    or maybe more aptly "susceptibility to peer pressure".
    Atheists may not be smarter but are used to making up their own minds
    ("If there were a god how could I stand not being god myself?" - Nietzsche)
    IOW they are sociopaths and therefore less afraid of heresy because they do not give a shit either way :P

    Replies: @Realist, @Adam Smith, @Vergissmeinnicht

    Good idea! Thanks.

    Yeah… I think too much about IQ and just forgot the Big Five Personality Traits exist. My bad.

  44. Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @raga10
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.
     
    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book...

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    , @Lin
    @Bardon Kaldian

    In my ignorance, I didn't exploit such 'serious' debate on theism vs atheism but obviously we've 2 issues here:
    1)Existence of supreme deity(deities),associated nature of such supreme entities and their relation with human:
    a)A simple fact is humans are minute entities in the universe and there must be some superpowerful (beyond our understanding) extra-terrestrial beings out there, like 'Father in heaven' and one can call it/them God/gods/goddesses
    b)Another attribute of such supreme being(s) is that they provide sustenance/welfare to humans. If one goes beyond human tribalism, one big question: Do such supreme entities have the same moral standings as humans' ?
    ………..
    My conclusion is: God is so supreme to humans, just like a biologist is to his/her micro-organisms in the petri dishes. Yes, sustenance is provided but if the microbes inside the petri dishes try to peek or venture outside, those unlucky pioneering microbes will sterilized: A good example is the collapse of the Tower of Babel. Or worse, the petri dishes will be thrown into the incinerator(yes, we call it hell)
    ----I'm no atheist. I'm a baptized Christian who has stopped going to church for a long time. I revere Jesus as a moral giant.
    c)--'Atheism' came into being as reaction against suppressive theocracy
    --Secularism/irreligiousity is basically a mild or politically/socially acceptable form of 'atheism'; bear in mind that blasphemers/heretics were routinely executed in medieval Europe. A very small % of US politicians call themselves irreligious; any declared 'atheists' outright?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  45. @songbird
    @Talha

    I think Christianity has a logistical problem in the West, when it comes to terrorism, which I think is the core concept that people identify fundamentalism with.

    To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone. No analog to Saudi-financed Wahhabism. The economics aren't there.

    Organizations like the Catholic and Orthodox churches are very hierarchical. Hierarchies are basically part of the state - they've always been resistant to revolutionary spirit (not without reason.)

    Many smaller churches are completely pozzed. If anything, they would cause revolutionaries to be disenchanted with Christianity, to move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians - they are disunited by their nature.

    And ethnic neighborhoods in urban tenements are basically gone for Euro-Christians, except maybe in Eastern Europe, which is by and large pretty homogeneous, and so lacking young men who automatically feel alienated by living in alien societies.

    Replies: @Talha, @nebulafox

    The long and short of it that there just isn’t a Christian fundamentalist (or, for that matter, a white nationalist) equivalent to the kind of globalized, sometimes state sponsored networks that Islamic radicals had during their heyday.

    Mind, why anybody would deem our War on Terror policies as “successes” at all is baffling in the first place, before we get to the desire to apply them in America.

    >To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone

    >Many smaller churches are completely pozzed.

    These two factors are not a small reason in why non-woke young men still tend to be secularized.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @nebulafox

    Been reading "The WEIRDest People in the World." It is interesting because it talks about the usefulness of rituals and kin - two things that are really lacking today, especially among young Euro men.

  46. @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.

    It's even worse because the rabid atheist crowd can't even see how zealous they are when it comes to leftism. So they can't even conceive of themselves.

    There is really no secularism in the West.

    What people think of as secularism has been merged with a hostile ideology that seeks to undermine Western society through race denial. It's inseparable.

    Anyone who doubts this is free to visit a secular function and give a talk on known racial differences and the implications to egalitarian policy. Let us know how that goes.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural. When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Studying history has really hammered home to me that human nature hasn’t changed that much since ancient or medieval times. We know a lot more about the universe now, and have more sophisticated codes of ethics, but that doesn’t mean our fundamental impulses and drives have shifted. If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries. (Compare South Korea’s church laden landscape to Japan’s syncretic streak.) Religious and ethnic identity are nearly completely divorced in a way that is definitely not true further south and west.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries.

    Asia is undoubtedly more secular than the west.

    But like I said Western secularism is irreversibly intertwined with liberalism. So you really can't do a 1 to 1 comparison.

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural.

    I don't care if people want to create new religions.

    But I do care if their new religion is destructive and tries to depict my ethnic group as the cause of all problems. In the "secular" University system you can give specious lectures on how White men ruined Africa but open discussions involving race and genetics will end your career. You can't even ask questions about race if they hint at the reality of genetics.

    You will find that the vast majority of secular Whites support thought suppression when it comes to race even if they can't explain why. They would alert the thought police if they existed. Spending time around secular Whites makes you realize how much the 1984 premise is possible.

    When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Yes Marxism was a religion for a period and now we have to deal with its bastard offspring we call liberalism. In both cases people are excluded for speaking openly about genetics. During the Lysenko period scientists were actually sent to gulags for supporting Mendelian genetics. Those Communists viewed themselves as secular and not religious like the Christians they also sent to gulags.

    , @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural.
     
    There is some merit to the argument that secular belief systems can in some ways resemble religions. But I think the argument can be pushed too far. A secular belief system is not a religion. I'd prefer to describe certain secular belief systems as pseudo-religions - they share some but not all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

    Some secular belief systems do function superficially very like religions. Environmentalism is a good example. On the other hand I think it's very dubious to describe secular belief systems such as libertarianism or communism as religions.

    Some people have a faith in things like the free market or science that can seem almost religious, but that does not make belief in the free market or science religions.
  47. @Talha
    @songbird

    Good points.


    move to paganism, which is a kind of larping because no core ethos survives. Modern pagans are akin to libertarians
     
    Well yes, because in the west, it’s really now-paganism. There’s nothing like the Kalash people that live in Pakistan that are remnants of the original pagan religion as it has been passed down. I don’t know if you vacan truly revive a religion once it’s dead. You can attempt to create a copy from stuff you read in books, but it’s not the original.

    Peace.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    The emperor Diocletian attempted to revitalize paganism after the near societal collapse of the 3rd Century, but tellingly, he did so on an empire-wide model. Classical Greco-Roman paganism was very localized, rooted in the culture of the city-state. That culture was dead, to the point where even those who wanted paganism back unconsciously made it fit the new parameters.

    > t’s funny when they come across a Muslim that doesn’t fit the image of the left-liberal Muslims that they have interacted with. They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Re, the wokesters: thing that always speaks volumes to me is the implicit racialization of Islam, as a tool against the guys on Twitter with statues of Sulla on their profile.

    • Agree: Talha
  48. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Good ideas.


    Do you guys have any other ideas?
     
    American jurisprudence in the matter, anchored by the First Amendment, has been just about perfect. Whoever the American respondents opposed to American-style free speech might be, they'll miss it once it's gone.

    But Who? Whom? My stance is partly because I am the one who is being oppressed.

    As with most other surveys (I do not attack this one in particular), this survey might be nonsense with bad methodology. However, if it isn't, then I do not know what the connection to atheism is.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Vergissmeinnicht

    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected.
    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.

    For the record: I wouldn’t make illegal burning the flag or the Bible, or ANY other symbol; I wouldn’t outlaw porn completely, but modern porn does need some ‘brakes’.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected. I think the same about photographs, films and the like—Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.
     
    Well, you may be right, but if the Miller Test that has governed obscenity in the United States since 1973 gets overruled, I do not suppose that whatever replaces it in 2021 is likely to work to your or my advantage.

    Which goes to prove @Almost Missouri's point, doesn't it?

    I certainly have no sympathy with flag-burning, Bible abusing or the like. Nevertheless, the argument has been that the First Amendment exists precisely to protect expressions for which I have no sympathy. Once one starts slicing that salami, where does the slicing stop?

    , @dfordoom
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like
     
    So what you're saying is that you believe in freedom of speech, as long as it's confined to things that you personally approve of. In other words you don't believe in freedom of speech.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

  49. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think Freedom of Speech should apply to 'symbolic speech' and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn't be 1st Amendment-protected.
    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what's either said or written.

    For the record: I wouldn't make illegal burning the flag or the Bible, or ANY other symbol; I wouldn't outlaw porn completely, but modern porn does need some 'brakes'.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected. I think the same about photographs, films and the like—Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.

    Well, you may be right, but if the Miller Test that has governed obscenity in the United States since 1973 gets overruled, I do not suppose that whatever replaces it in 2021 is likely to work to your or my advantage.

    Which goes to prove ’s point, doesn’t it?

    I certainly have no sympathy with flag-burning, Bible abusing or the like. Nevertheless, the argument has been that the First Amendment exists precisely to protect expressions for which I have no sympathy. Once one starts slicing that salami, where does the slicing stop?

  50. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think Freedom of Speech should apply to 'symbolic speech' and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn't be 1st Amendment-protected.
    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what's either said or written.

    For the record: I wouldn't make illegal burning the flag or the Bible, or ANY other symbol; I wouldn't outlaw porn completely, but modern porn does need some 'brakes'.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like

    So what you’re saying is that you believe in freedom of speech, as long as it’s confined to things that you personally approve of. In other words you don’t believe in freedom of speech.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @dfordoom

    I'm for ANY speech not being outlawed – if one can say, for instance, "I love gays", another one has to have the right to DISAGREE with it and, therefore, say even the opposite of it: "I hate gays". The state has NO right to discriminate which speech can be said. (search: 'viewpoint discrimination')

    The point is: what's termed 'symbolic speech' is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it's an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it's not speech, it can be made illegal by the people, OR NOT – I personally would be for the "not".

    Replies: @dfordoom

  51. @dfordoom
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    I don’t think Freedom of Speech should apply to ‘symbolic speech’ and images: that is, for instance, burning the flag/pissing in the Bible shouldn’t be 1st Amendment-protected.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like
     
    So what you're saying is that you believe in freedom of speech, as long as it's confined to things that you personally approve of. In other words you don't believe in freedom of speech.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    I’m for ANY speech not being outlawed – if one can say, for instance, “I love gays”, another one has to have the right to DISAGREE with it and, therefore, say even the opposite of it: “I hate gays”. The state has NO right to discriminate which speech can be said. (search: ‘viewpoint discrimination’)

    The point is: what’s termed ‘symbolic speech’ is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it’s an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it’s not speech, it can be made illegal by the people, OR NOT – I personally would be for the “not”.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    The point is: what’s termed ‘symbolic speech’ is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it’s an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it’s not speech,
     
    Burning the flag (or the Bible) is making a political statement so it's clearly political speech. Even just flying a flag is making a political statement. If one person has the right to fly a flag then another person must therefore have the right to burn a flag.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.
     
    Photographs and films can be (and are) used to make political statements and to make statements on social issues so anyone who believes in freedom of speech has to accept that freedom of speech must apply to photographs, films, paintings, etc.

    If you have any form of censorship (of any medium) then you don't have freedom of speech. If you support censorship then you're opposed to freedom of speech.

    The price of freedom of speech is that you have to tolerate a lot of stuff that you don't like. It's a price worth paying.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

  52. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    The long and short of it that there just isn't a Christian fundamentalist (or, for that matter, a white nationalist) equivalent to the kind of globalized, sometimes state sponsored networks that Islamic radicals had during their heyday.

    Mind, why anybody would deem our War on Terror policies as "successes" at all is baffling in the first place, before we get to the desire to apply them in America.

    >To start off, churchgoers skew old, and more female, so less testosterone

    >Many smaller churches are completely pozzed.

    These two factors are not a small reason in why non-woke young men still tend to be secularized.

    Replies: @songbird

    Been reading “The WEIRDest People in the World.” It is interesting because it talks about the usefulness of rituals and kin – two things that are really lacking today, especially among young Euro men.

  53. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @dfordoom

    I'm for ANY speech not being outlawed – if one can say, for instance, "I love gays", another one has to have the right to DISAGREE with it and, therefore, say even the opposite of it: "I hate gays". The state has NO right to discriminate which speech can be said. (search: 'viewpoint discrimination')

    The point is: what's termed 'symbolic speech' is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it's an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it's not speech, it can be made illegal by the people, OR NOT – I personally would be for the "not".

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The point is: what’s termed ‘symbolic speech’ is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it’s an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it’s not speech,

    Burning the flag (or the Bible) is making a political statement so it’s clearly political speech. Even just flying a flag is making a political statement. If one person has the right to fly a flag then another person must therefore have the right to burn a flag.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.

    Photographs and films can be (and are) used to make political statements and to make statements on social issues so anyone who believes in freedom of speech has to accept that freedom of speech must apply to photographs, films, paintings, etc.

    If you have any form of censorship (of any medium) then you don’t have freedom of speech. If you support censorship then you’re opposed to freedom of speech.

    The price of freedom of speech is that you have to tolerate a lot of stuff that you don’t like. It’s a price worth paying.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @dfordoom

    I'll just address one point that's bugging me:

    You seem to think I'm saying "speech ≠ act" because I personally don't like flag-burning and the like – I couldn't care less about flag-burning, or pissing in the Bible etc… it's not about me, it's about THE TRUTH – which I believe is "speech ≠ act". (I could be wrong, of course – but I haven't been convinced of otherwise yet.)

    Think about it this way: I'm heterosexual, if Heterosexual Marriage gets banned in my state – I'd be pissed and try to alter it, but I wouldn't campaign for it in terms of 'right', plain and simple, because there is no 'right to marriage' (be it hetero, gay, intra-racial, inter-racial etc. – or polygamous, which, BTW, is still banned).

    Replies: @dfordoom

  54. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural. When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Studying history has really hammered home to me that human nature hasn't changed that much since ancient or medieval times. We know a lot more about the universe now, and have more sophisticated codes of ethics, but that doesn't mean our fundamental impulses and drives have shifted. If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries. (Compare South Korea's church laden landscape to Japan's syncretic streak.) Religious and ethnic identity are nearly completely divorced in a way that is definitely not true further south and west.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries.

    Asia is undoubtedly more secular than the west.

    But like I said Western secularism is irreversibly intertwined with liberalism. So you really can’t do a 1 to 1 comparison.

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural.

    I don’t care if people want to create new religions.

    But I do care if their new religion is destructive and tries to depict my ethnic group as the cause of all problems. In the “secular” University system you can give specious lectures on how White men ruined Africa but open discussions involving race and genetics will end your career. You can’t even ask questions about race if they hint at the reality of genetics.

    You will find that the vast majority of secular Whites support thought suppression when it comes to race even if they can’t explain why. They would alert the thought police if they existed. Spending time around secular Whites makes you realize how much the 1984 premise is possible.

    When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Yes Marxism was a religion for a period and now we have to deal with its bastard offspring we call liberalism. In both cases people are excluded for speaking openly about genetics. During the Lysenko period scientists were actually sent to gulags for supporting Mendelian genetics. Those Communists viewed themselves as secular and not religious like the Christians they also sent to gulags.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  55. @Bardon Kaldian
    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51DTRmHePfL._SY346_.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41m4fLiwJ1L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ti0eW3WbL._SX343_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Replies: @raga10, @Lin

    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.

    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book…

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @raga10

    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book…

    There are plenty of books on atheism.

    They mostly follow the same pop-left formula:

    1. Pick at the flaws of Christianity and its history

    2. Review cases of evolution in the animal world

    2. Completely avoid Islam and Buddhism

    3. Completely avoid race and evolution

    There is always some atheist of the month using this formula.

    , @dfordoom
    @raga10


    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period.
     
    Whatever happened to agnosticism?

    Not to mention ignosticism (yes, there is such a thing).

    Replies: @raga10

  56. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I don’t think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that “publishing religious extremism online” means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.
     
    That's almost certainly correct. Although it's probably not just nominal Christians but actual Christians as well who interpreted the question in this way.

    So it's another survey that means nothing because the question posed was so hopelessly vague and ambiguous as to be meaningless.

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been "do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?"

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Audacious Epigone

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been “do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?”

    How about a CNN version:

    Do you favor a ban on far-right Christian fundamentalism and so called “racial genetics” propaganda spread by White nationalists?

    I bet you could dupe 99% of so-called secular Whites into supporting a ban on discussing lactase persistence and its racial evolutionary history. They would clap like wind up monkeys and support it in the name of True Science.

  57. @raga10
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.
     
    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book...

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book…

    There are plenty of books on atheism.

    They mostly follow the same pop-left formula:

    1. Pick at the flaws of Christianity and its history

    2. Review cases of evolution in the animal world

    2. Completely avoid Islam and Buddhism

    3. Completely avoid race and evolution

    There is always some atheist of the month using this formula.

  58. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Has anybody ever? In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural. When the Communists took over Russia, my impression is that Lenin and Stalin became ansatz Tsar-dear-fathers, complete with peasants writing to them in a way they might have once wrote to Peter or Alexander.

    Studying history has really hammered home to me that human nature hasn't changed that much since ancient or medieval times. We know a lot more about the universe now, and have more sophisticated codes of ethics, but that doesn't mean our fundamental impulses and drives have shifted. If we define secularism as the separation of religious identity from political/racial/ideological identity, as opposed to degree of irreligiousity, you could make an argument for East Asia being the most secularized place on the planet, despite the radically different religious dynamics of individual countries. (Compare South Korea's church laden landscape to Japan's syncretic streak.) Religious and ethnic identity are nearly completely divorced in a way that is definitely not true further south and west.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    In the absence of old faiths, humans create new ones. Even if that faith involves an explicit lack of belief in the supernatural.

    There is some merit to the argument that secular belief systems can in some ways resemble religions. But I think the argument can be pushed too far. A secular belief system is not a religion. I’d prefer to describe certain secular belief systems as pseudo-religions – they share some but not all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

    Some secular belief systems do function superficially very like religions. Environmentalism is a good example. On the other hand I think it’s very dubious to describe secular belief systems such as libertarianism or communism as religions.

    Some people have a faith in things like the free market or science that can seem almost religious, but that does not make belief in the free market or science religions.

  59. There is some merit to the argument that secular belief systems can in some ways resemble religions. But I think the argument can be pushed too far. A secular belief system is not a religion. I’d prefer to describe certain secular belief systems as pseudo-religions – they share some but not all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

    But liberalism isn’t a secular belief system.

    It holds unprovable beliefs in blank slate and paint theory (race denial). These are not beliefs in a higher power and in fact easily disprovable.

    When you take away those beliefs the entire system falls apart. What you call a secular system is revealed as a fraud based on religious beliefs. So I don’t see the pseudo part.

    We live under the thumb of this domineering religion that actively suppresses anyone that questions its deepest beliefs while ironically referring to itself as secular and open minded. What we call “Con Inc” has accepted the core beliefs of liberalism and will never question them. Meanwhile anyone can pick apart Christianity without remorse and even make full length movies that mock it.

    You call it pseudo-religious but that downplays not only its dependence on religious beliefs but its level of influence. Liberalism affects everything much like the Catholic Church once did. It means little to me that belief in blank slate isn’t tied to a religious figure or the afterlife. I still have this domineering religion that seeks to control me and my children while calling itself “reality-based” and mocking Christianity. This religion is content to watch the country burn as long as “the racists” don’t win. So it is actively destructive and in fact finances itself through forced appropriation of income while the Christian church is voluntary and depends on donations.

    The suppression of race could very well cause the implosion of this country and the West. I fail to see why we should give liberalism a prefix than implies “similar but not actually” a normal religion when it is in fact the only religion in the US that is able to suppress its critics. Liberalism is a religion. I have been around too many secular liberals to conclude otherwise. They are not merely zealous in their secular beliefs. They have unprovable beliefs regarding human genetics and would send us off to re-education camps if they could. In fact a liberal not long ago in one of these forums admitted that she would put us on trains.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    I fail to see why we should give liberalism a prefix than implies “similar but not actually” a normal religion when it is in fact the only religion in the US that is able to suppress its critics. Liberalism is a religion. I have been around too many secular liberals to conclude otherwise.
     
    You're confusing religion and fanaticism.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  60. @raga10
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.
     
    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period. I have no idea how to stretch this into a paragraph, let alone a whole book...

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period.

    Whatever happened to agnosticism?

    Not to mention ignosticism (yes, there is such a thing).

    • Replies: @raga10
    @dfordoom


    Whatever happened to agnosticism?
     
    Nothing - as far as I know, it's still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  61. @John Johnson
    There is some merit to the argument that secular belief systems can in some ways resemble religions. But I think the argument can be pushed too far. A secular belief system is not a religion. I’d prefer to describe certain secular belief systems as pseudo-religions – they share some but not all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

    But liberalism isn't a secular belief system.

    It holds unprovable beliefs in blank slate and paint theory (race denial). These are not beliefs in a higher power and in fact easily disprovable.

    When you take away those beliefs the entire system falls apart. What you call a secular system is revealed as a fraud based on religious beliefs. So I don't see the pseudo part.

    We live under the thumb of this domineering religion that actively suppresses anyone that questions its deepest beliefs while ironically referring to itself as secular and open minded. What we call "Con Inc" has accepted the core beliefs of liberalism and will never question them. Meanwhile anyone can pick apart Christianity without remorse and even make full length movies that mock it.

    You call it pseudo-religious but that downplays not only its dependence on religious beliefs but its level of influence. Liberalism affects everything much like the Catholic Church once did. It means little to me that belief in blank slate isn't tied to a religious figure or the afterlife. I still have this domineering religion that seeks to control me and my children while calling itself "reality-based" and mocking Christianity. This religion is content to watch the country burn as long as "the racists" don't win. So it is actively destructive and in fact finances itself through forced appropriation of income while the Christian church is voluntary and depends on donations.

    The suppression of race could very well cause the implosion of this country and the West. I fail to see why we should give liberalism a prefix than implies "similar but not actually" a normal religion when it is in fact the only religion in the US that is able to suppress its critics. Liberalism is a religion. I have been around too many secular liberals to conclude otherwise. They are not merely zealous in their secular beliefs. They have unprovable beliefs regarding human genetics and would send us off to re-education camps if they could. In fact a liberal not long ago in one of these forums admitted that she would put us on trains.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I fail to see why we should give liberalism a prefix than implies “similar but not actually” a normal religion when it is in fact the only religion in the US that is able to suppress its critics. Liberalism is a religion. I have been around too many secular liberals to conclude otherwise.

    You’re confusing religion and fanaticism.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    You’re confusing religion and fanaticism.

    No I'm not.

    A fanatical political ideologue can still define his platform and state his reasons for supporting the platform. A fantastical libertarian can fall back to his core explanations even if they are questionable.

    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.

    Race does not exist because you're a racist. That is a core belief for them. There is no explanation and asking the question itself is evidence of heresy and affirms their beliefs. So their core belief can be reduced to: your rejection of my faith is the only evidence I need. The core explanation doesn't exist.

    It's like if I said I am so certain this natural healing concoction will work that your mere skepticism shows you don't under recognize the power of natural healing. I don't have to explain it because your rejection is exactly what my natural healing guru told me non-believers will do since they lack understanding.

    That is not political fanaticism. It's a religion with an unexplainable void at the center. You are not to question the void and if you do then you are clearly on the dark side.

    Secular egalitarianism has to be religious. It has little choice.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  62. @dfordoom
    @raga10


    I have read no books on atheism but I consider myself an atheist, and I think the concept is one-sentence simple: there is no god and the universe unfolds according to natural laws, period.
     
    Whatever happened to agnosticism?

    Not to mention ignosticism (yes, there is such a thing).

    Replies: @raga10

    Whatever happened to agnosticism?

    Nothing – as far as I know, it’s still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @raga10



    Whatever happened to agnosticism?
     
    Nothing – as far as I know, it’s still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.
     
    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don't seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.

    And what about deists and pantheists? If they don't subscribe to organised religions do they get counted as "no religion"? I would suspect that there's a substantial number of people whose views are equivalent to vague deism or pantheism even if they would not use those terms to describe themselves. I would also suspect that a lot of the people that Christianity has lost have actually embraced some form of vague deism or pantheism. Christianity has also undoubtedly lost a lot of people, especially women, to New Ageism.

    The point I'm making is - how much reliable data do we have on what people actually believe? How many people get counted in surveys as Christians when they're not Christians in any meaningful sense, and how many people get counted as atheists when they're not strictly speaking atheists?

    How many hardcore True Believer atheists are there?

    Replies: @raga10, @Audacious Epigone

  63. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    I fail to see why we should give liberalism a prefix than implies “similar but not actually” a normal religion when it is in fact the only religion in the US that is able to suppress its critics. Liberalism is a religion. I have been around too many secular liberals to conclude otherwise.
     
    You're confusing religion and fanaticism.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You’re confusing religion and fanaticism.

    No I’m not.

    A fanatical political ideologue can still define his platform and state his reasons for supporting the platform. A fantastical libertarian can fall back to his core explanations even if they are questionable.

    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.

    Race does not exist because you’re a racist. That is a core belief for them. There is no explanation and asking the question itself is evidence of heresy and affirms their beliefs. So their core belief can be reduced to: your rejection of my faith is the only evidence I need. The core explanation doesn’t exist.

    It’s like if I said I am so certain this natural healing concoction will work that your mere skepticism shows you don’t under recognize the power of natural healing. I don’t have to explain it because your rejection is exactly what my natural healing guru told me non-believers will do since they lack understanding.

    That is not political fanaticism. It’s a religion with an unexplainable void at the center. You are not to question the void and if you do then you are clearly on the dark side.

    Secular egalitarianism has to be religious. It has little choice.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.
     
    Depends what you mean by liberal. 99% of Americans are liberals. That includes 98% of those who identify as conservatives. If you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you're a liberal.

    I assume that when you say liberal you're using is as a synonym for Democrat supporter, or you're using it as a term for people you don't like.

    Most people believe in things that they don't understand and can't explain. For example if you ask people if they believe in freedom of speech the overwhelming majority will say yes. If you then ask them to explain what they mean by the term you discover that most of them don't believe in freedom of speech at all.

    A belief can be irrational and wrong-headed or even totally false without being a religious belief.

    I don't really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

    A lot of people don't want to discuss the issue because they think it's a foolish counter-productive thing to do and they believe (correctly) that to discuss the issue is political suicide. People on the far right like to discuss race because they enjoy losing. It makes them feel special.

    Some people, like myself, are uninterested in race because they consider it to be such a hopelessly vague and fuzzy concept that it is for all practical purposes meaningless. That doesn't mean we believe in the blank slate. And you don't have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.

    Replies: @Talha

  64. @raga10
    @dfordoom


    Whatever happened to agnosticism?
     
    Nothing - as far as I know, it's still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Whatever happened to agnosticism?

    Nothing – as far as I know, it’s still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.

    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don’t seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.

    And what about deists and pantheists? If they don’t subscribe to organised religions do they get counted as “no religion”? I would suspect that there’s a substantial number of people whose views are equivalent to vague deism or pantheism even if they would not use those terms to describe themselves. I would also suspect that a lot of the people that Christianity has lost have actually embraced some form of vague deism or pantheism. Christianity has also undoubtedly lost a lot of people, especially women, to New Ageism.

    The point I’m making is – how much reliable data do we have on what people actually believe? How many people get counted in surveys as Christians when they’re not Christians in any meaningful sense, and how many people get counted as atheists when they’re not strictly speaking atheists?

    How many hardcore True Believer atheists are there?

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @raga10
    @dfordoom


    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don’t seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.
     
    I suspect you are right about that. I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don't dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    The GSS from 2010-2018 in the US (response to "what you believe about God"):

    4% atheist (Don't believe)
    6% agnostic (No way to find out)
    12% deist (Some higher power)
    4% lapsed theist? (Believe sometimes)
    17% theist (Believe but have doubts)
    57% firm theist (Know God exists)

  65. @Bardon Kaldian
    Actually, it is difficult to define atheism. Having read a few supposedly authoritative works on atheism, all I can say is- they are inadequate.



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51DTRmHePfL._SY346_.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41m4fLiwJ1L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ti0eW3WbL._SX343_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Replies: @raga10, @Lin

    In my ignorance, I didn’t exploit such ‘serious’ debate on theism vs atheism but obviously we’ve 2 issues here:
    1)Existence of supreme deity(deities),associated nature of such supreme entities and their relation with human:
    a)A simple fact is humans are minute entities in the universe and there must be some superpowerful (beyond our understanding) extra-terrestrial beings out there, like ‘Father in heaven’ and one can call it/them God/gods/goddesses
    b)Another attribute of such supreme being(s) is that they provide sustenance/welfare to humans. If one goes beyond human tribalism, one big question: Do such supreme entities have the same moral standings as humans’ ?
    ………..
    My conclusion is: God is so supreme to humans, just like a biologist is to his/her micro-organisms in the petri dishes. Yes, sustenance is provided but if the microbes inside the petri dishes try to peek or venture outside, those unlucky pioneering microbes will sterilized: A good example is the collapse of the Tower of Babel. Or worse, the petri dishes will be thrown into the incinerator(yes, we call it hell)
    —-I’m no atheist. I’m a baptized Christian who has stopped going to church for a long time. I revere Jesus as a moral giant.
    c)–‘Atheism’ came into being as reaction against suppressive theocracy
    –Secularism/irreligiousity is basically a mild or politically/socially acceptable form of ‘atheism’; bear in mind that blasphemers/heretics were routinely executed in medieval Europe. A very small % of US politicians call themselves irreligious; any declared ‘atheists’ outright?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Lin

    As I said- it is not so simple. For instance, Aristotle is usually categorized among "theists". He explicitly says that God exists & it is the prime mover of everything. In a celebrated passage, Aristotle defines God as thought that thinks itself. His version of God is not that of creator; his God does not concern itself with human, or any type of beings; has nothing to do with morality; in Aristotle's views, there is no "immortality of the soul".

    So, for Aristotle, "God" is simply an answer he could accept why the empirical world is in motion & everything happens, motion & life goes on. Beyond the imagined Prime Mover- Aristotle's God has no function, "history" or significance at all.

    According to all textbooks, Aristotle is a theist; but, if one looks closely, he is basically an atheist who affirmed God's existence only to solve, using concepts & knowledge of his times, the riddle why the world is in motion. Nothing beyond that. For Aristotle, all empirical world does not possess some hidden or higher purpose, nor was it created- it has always existed. God only "pushed" it into motion.

    Regarding religions, there are a few basic questions: why there is anything rather than nothing?; is this empirical world all that is?; do human beings possess some "higher" purpose beyond mere existing?; are there beings who, somehow, influence human & non human life (free will etc.)?; does individuality of a human person continues after death of her/his physical body & if yes, how and what next; do non-physical beings & worlds exist and, if they do, do they interact with beings & events of the empirical world? ....

    There are numerous world- views where these questions overlap & answers are not clearly defined. For instance, in the early Taoism, as well as in Spinoza- there is some kind of Intelligence, conatural with human intelligence, that somehow inheres in the world & lives through it. Just, that Intelligence (Tao, God) is not transcendent, so there are no supra- or nonphysical worlds; this Intelligence does not possess personality nor being as humans understand them; "soul" or personality of a human being does not survive bodily death; "God" is not humanoid in a sense that it would be particularly concerned either with individual humans or with humanity as a whole; there is no communication or commerce with that Intelligence. And yet, even if we take into account differences between them, these world-views strongly affirm that natural world is governed by some kind of Intelligence without humanly defined being & has not evolved "out of itself" without this immanent & not transcendent Intelligence.

    I could go on & on, but from the most primitive forms of religion through various philosophies & world-views, there are numerous "answers" to "eternal questions" that do not fit easily with mostly Abrahamic conception of God (nor with those found in India & elsewhere) - so that's why I say that atheism is not easy to define. God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.

    Replies: @raga10, @V. K. Ovelund

  66. @dfordoom
    @raga10



    Whatever happened to agnosticism?
     
    Nothing – as far as I know, it’s still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.
     
    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don't seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.

    And what about deists and pantheists? If they don't subscribe to organised religions do they get counted as "no religion"? I would suspect that there's a substantial number of people whose views are equivalent to vague deism or pantheism even if they would not use those terms to describe themselves. I would also suspect that a lot of the people that Christianity has lost have actually embraced some form of vague deism or pantheism. Christianity has also undoubtedly lost a lot of people, especially women, to New Ageism.

    The point I'm making is - how much reliable data do we have on what people actually believe? How many people get counted in surveys as Christians when they're not Christians in any meaningful sense, and how many people get counted as atheists when they're not strictly speaking atheists?

    How many hardcore True Believer atheists are there?

    Replies: @raga10, @Audacious Epigone

    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don’t seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.

    I suspect you are right about that. I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don’t dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @raga10


    I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don’t dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.
     
    There's some truth in that. Atheists, agnostics, deists and pantheists all probably have pretty similar approaches to the problems of life. And all probably have pretty similar approaches to social issues.

    Perhaps it would be more meaningful to distinguish between people who are strict materialists and those who are not.

    The distinction becomes relevant when people make the claim that atheism is a religion.

    Replies: @Talha

  67. @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    You’re confusing religion and fanaticism.

    No I'm not.

    A fanatical political ideologue can still define his platform and state his reasons for supporting the platform. A fantastical libertarian can fall back to his core explanations even if they are questionable.

    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.

    Race does not exist because you're a racist. That is a core belief for them. There is no explanation and asking the question itself is evidence of heresy and affirms their beliefs. So their core belief can be reduced to: your rejection of my faith is the only evidence I need. The core explanation doesn't exist.

    It's like if I said I am so certain this natural healing concoction will work that your mere skepticism shows you don't under recognize the power of natural healing. I don't have to explain it because your rejection is exactly what my natural healing guru told me non-believers will do since they lack understanding.

    That is not political fanaticism. It's a religion with an unexplainable void at the center. You are not to question the void and if you do then you are clearly on the dark side.

    Secular egalitarianism has to be religious. It has little choice.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.

    Depends what you mean by liberal. 99% of Americans are liberals. That includes 98% of those who identify as conservatives. If you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you’re a liberal.

    I assume that when you say liberal you’re using is as a synonym for Democrat supporter, or you’re using it as a term for people you don’t like.

    Most people believe in things that they don’t understand and can’t explain. For example if you ask people if they believe in freedom of speech the overwhelming majority will say yes. If you then ask them to explain what they mean by the term you discover that most of them don’t believe in freedom of speech at all.

    A belief can be irrational and wrong-headed or even totally false without being a religious belief.

    I don’t really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

    A lot of people don’t want to discuss the issue because they think it’s a foolish counter-productive thing to do and they believe (correctly) that to discuss the issue is political suicide. People on the far right like to discuss race because they enjoy losing. It makes them feel special.

    Some people, like myself, are uninterested in race because they consider it to be such a hopelessly vague and fuzzy concept that it is for all practical purposes meaningless. That doesn’t mean we believe in the blank slate. And you don’t have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    I don’t really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

     

    I agree here. I don’t think anyone who has come across the phenomenon of Down’s Syndrome has any doubt that there is, say, a genetic component to attributes like intelligence.

    And you don’t have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.
     
    Genetics is horribly inadequate to explain the vast shifts in so many societies on so many fronts we have seen within living memory and within one or two generations. It certainly factors in, but on its own? Incoherent.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  68. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    Liberalism is not merely political fanaticism.

    Blank slate and race are religious issues for them. They cannot explain them and it is sacrilegious to question them.
     
    Depends what you mean by liberal. 99% of Americans are liberals. That includes 98% of those who identify as conservatives. If you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you're a liberal.

    I assume that when you say liberal you're using is as a synonym for Democrat supporter, or you're using it as a term for people you don't like.

    Most people believe in things that they don't understand and can't explain. For example if you ask people if they believe in freedom of speech the overwhelming majority will say yes. If you then ask them to explain what they mean by the term you discover that most of them don't believe in freedom of speech at all.

    A belief can be irrational and wrong-headed or even totally false without being a religious belief.

    I don't really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

    A lot of people don't want to discuss the issue because they think it's a foolish counter-productive thing to do and they believe (correctly) that to discuss the issue is political suicide. People on the far right like to discuss race because they enjoy losing. It makes them feel special.

    Some people, like myself, are uninterested in race because they consider it to be such a hopelessly vague and fuzzy concept that it is for all practical purposes meaningless. That doesn't mean we believe in the blank slate. And you don't have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.

    Replies: @Talha

    I don’t really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

    I agree here. I don’t think anyone who has come across the phenomenon of Down’s Syndrome has any doubt that there is, say, a genetic component to attributes like intelligence.

    And you don’t have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.

    Genetics is horribly inadequate to explain the vast shifts in so many societies on so many fronts we have seen within living memory and within one or two generations. It certainly factors in, but on its own? Incoherent.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Genetics is horribly inadequate to explain the vast shifts in so many societies on so many fronts we have seen within living memory and within one or two generations. It certainly factors in, but on its own? Incoherent.
     
    And sudden and dramatic social changes have happened many times in history and it's difficult to see how most such shifts can be explained by genetics. The Enlightenment and the decline of Christianity from its dominant position in western civilisation are obvious examples. Going back much further in history the rise of Christianity is another example. The rise of Islam is another.
  69. @Lin
    @Bardon Kaldian

    In my ignorance, I didn't exploit such 'serious' debate on theism vs atheism but obviously we've 2 issues here:
    1)Existence of supreme deity(deities),associated nature of such supreme entities and their relation with human:
    a)A simple fact is humans are minute entities in the universe and there must be some superpowerful (beyond our understanding) extra-terrestrial beings out there, like 'Father in heaven' and one can call it/them God/gods/goddesses
    b)Another attribute of such supreme being(s) is that they provide sustenance/welfare to humans. If one goes beyond human tribalism, one big question: Do such supreme entities have the same moral standings as humans' ?
    ………..
    My conclusion is: God is so supreme to humans, just like a biologist is to his/her micro-organisms in the petri dishes. Yes, sustenance is provided but if the microbes inside the petri dishes try to peek or venture outside, those unlucky pioneering microbes will sterilized: A good example is the collapse of the Tower of Babel. Or worse, the petri dishes will be thrown into the incinerator(yes, we call it hell)
    ----I'm no atheist. I'm a baptized Christian who has stopped going to church for a long time. I revere Jesus as a moral giant.
    c)--'Atheism' came into being as reaction against suppressive theocracy
    --Secularism/irreligiousity is basically a mild or politically/socially acceptable form of 'atheism'; bear in mind that blasphemers/heretics were routinely executed in medieval Europe. A very small % of US politicians call themselves irreligious; any declared 'atheists' outright?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    As I said- it is not so simple. For instance, Aristotle is usually categorized among “theists”. He explicitly says that God exists & it is the prime mover of everything. In a celebrated passage, Aristotle defines God as thought that thinks itself. His version of God is not that of creator; his God does not concern itself with human, or any type of beings; has nothing to do with morality; in Aristotle’s views, there is no “immortality of the soul”.

    So, for Aristotle, “God” is simply an answer he could accept why the empirical world is in motion & everything happens, motion & life goes on. Beyond the imagined Prime Mover- Aristotle’s God has no function, “history” or significance at all.

    According to all textbooks, Aristotle is a theist; but, if one looks closely, he is basically an atheist who affirmed God’s existence only to solve, using concepts & knowledge of his times, the riddle why the world is in motion. Nothing beyond that. For Aristotle, all empirical world does not possess some hidden or higher purpose, nor was it created- it has always existed. God only “pushed” it into motion.

    Regarding religions, there are a few basic questions: why there is anything rather than nothing?; is this empirical world all that is?; do human beings possess some “higher” purpose beyond mere existing?; are there beings who, somehow, influence human & non human life (free will etc.)?; does individuality of a human person continues after death of her/his physical body & if yes, how and what next; do non-physical beings & worlds exist and, if they do, do they interact with beings & events of the empirical world? ….

    There are numerous world- views where these questions overlap & answers are not clearly defined. For instance, in the early Taoism, as well as in Spinoza- there is some kind of Intelligence, conatural with human intelligence, that somehow inheres in the world & lives through it. Just, that Intelligence (Tao, God) is not transcendent, so there are no supra- or nonphysical worlds; this Intelligence does not possess personality nor being as humans understand them; “soul” or personality of a human being does not survive bodily death; “God” is not humanoid in a sense that it would be particularly concerned either with individual humans or with humanity as a whole; there is no communication or commerce with that Intelligence. And yet, even if we take into account differences between them, these world-views strongly affirm that natural world is governed by some kind of Intelligence without humanly defined being & has not evolved “out of itself” without this immanent & not transcendent Intelligence.

    I could go on & on, but from the most primitive forms of religion through various philosophies & world-views, there are numerous “answers” to “eternal questions” that do not fit easily with mostly Abrahamic conception of God (nor with those found in India & elsewhere) – so that’s why I say that atheism is not easy to define. God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.

    • Replies: @raga10
    @Bardon Kaldian


    God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.
     
    That is true, god can take different forms for different cultures or even individuals. Nevertheless non-existence means only one thing, and belief there is no god applies equally to all of them.
    Differences you're talking about are there, certainly, but they are not in the domain of atheism - they are for deists to grapple with.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I do not believe that this is accurate:


    ... in Aristotle’s views, there is no “immortality of the soul” ...
     
    However, I have just spent half an hour searching for evidence to support my belief in Aristotle's On the Soul (De Anima); I didn't find it.

    Aristotle however begins On the Soul with a review of earlier philosophy on the topic. He does not seem to find it necessary during this review to contradict Socrates' proof of the soul's immortality as recounted in Plato's Phaedo, for what that's worth.

    Do you have some other information?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Bardon Kaldian

  70. @raga10
    @dfordoom


    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don’t seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.
     
    I suspect you are right about that. I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don't dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don’t dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.

    There’s some truth in that. Atheists, agnostics, deists and pantheists all probably have pretty similar approaches to the problems of life. And all probably have pretty similar approaches to social issues.

    Perhaps it would be more meaningful to distinguish between people who are strict materialists and those who are not.

    The distinction becomes relevant when people make the claim that atheism is a religion.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The distinction becomes relevant when people make the claim that atheism is a religion.
     
    I mentioned elsewhere that; I find that the Arabic word for atheist is very interesting. It is mulHid (faithless) and derives from the tri-letter root l-H-d which is the root for digging a grave.

    Peace.
  71. @dfordoom
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    The point is: what’s termed ‘symbolic speech’ is NOT even stricto sensu speech, it’s an ACT – that is, burning the flag or the Bible is an act; and hence if it’s not speech,
     
    Burning the flag (or the Bible) is making a political statement so it's clearly political speech. Even just flying a flag is making a political statement. If one person has the right to fly a flag then another person must therefore have the right to burn a flag.

    I think the same about photographs, films and the like – Free Speech, in my understanding, applies only to what’s either said or written.
     
    Photographs and films can be (and are) used to make political statements and to make statements on social issues so anyone who believes in freedom of speech has to accept that freedom of speech must apply to photographs, films, paintings, etc.

    If you have any form of censorship (of any medium) then you don't have freedom of speech. If you support censorship then you're opposed to freedom of speech.

    The price of freedom of speech is that you have to tolerate a lot of stuff that you don't like. It's a price worth paying.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    I’ll just address one point that’s bugging me:

    You seem to think I’m saying “speech ≠ act” because I personally don’t like flag-burning and the like – I couldn’t care less about flag-burning, or pissing in the Bible etc… it’s not about me, it’s about THE TRUTH – which I believe is “speech ≠ act”. (I could be wrong, of course – but I haven’t been convinced of otherwise yet.)

    Think about it this way: I’m heterosexual, if Heterosexual Marriage gets banned in my state – I’d be pissed and try to alter it, but I wouldn’t campaign for it in terms of ‘right’, plain and simple, because there is no ‘right to marriage’ (be it hetero, gay, intra-racial, inter-racial etc. – or polygamous, which, BTW, is still banned).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    You seem to think I’m saying “speech ≠ act” because I personally don’t like flag-burning and the like –
    I couldn’t care less about flag-burning, or pissing in the Bible etc…
     
    I do understand that.

    it’s not about me, it’s about THE TRUTH – which I believe is “speech ≠ act”. (I could be wrong, of course – but I haven’t been convinced of otherwise yet.)
     
    No, that's not the truth. It's merely an opinion.
  72. @dfordoom
    @raga10


    I also think the exact ratio of atheists to agnostics is not really that meaningful for any real-world purposes and that might be why those surveys don’t dive deeply into this issue: what is relevant in practice is the position of people vs. organised religion and in this regard it makes sense to lump agnostics and atheists together.
     
    There's some truth in that. Atheists, agnostics, deists and pantheists all probably have pretty similar approaches to the problems of life. And all probably have pretty similar approaches to social issues.

    Perhaps it would be more meaningful to distinguish between people who are strict materialists and those who are not.

    The distinction becomes relevant when people make the claim that atheism is a religion.

    Replies: @Talha

    The distinction becomes relevant when people make the claim that atheism is a religion.

    I mentioned elsewhere that; I find that the Arabic word for atheist is very interesting. It is mulHid (faithless) and derives from the tri-letter root l-H-d which is the root for digging a grave.

    Peace.

  73. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Lin

    As I said- it is not so simple. For instance, Aristotle is usually categorized among "theists". He explicitly says that God exists & it is the prime mover of everything. In a celebrated passage, Aristotle defines God as thought that thinks itself. His version of God is not that of creator; his God does not concern itself with human, or any type of beings; has nothing to do with morality; in Aristotle's views, there is no "immortality of the soul".

    So, for Aristotle, "God" is simply an answer he could accept why the empirical world is in motion & everything happens, motion & life goes on. Beyond the imagined Prime Mover- Aristotle's God has no function, "history" or significance at all.

    According to all textbooks, Aristotle is a theist; but, if one looks closely, he is basically an atheist who affirmed God's existence only to solve, using concepts & knowledge of his times, the riddle why the world is in motion. Nothing beyond that. For Aristotle, all empirical world does not possess some hidden or higher purpose, nor was it created- it has always existed. God only "pushed" it into motion.

    Regarding religions, there are a few basic questions: why there is anything rather than nothing?; is this empirical world all that is?; do human beings possess some "higher" purpose beyond mere existing?; are there beings who, somehow, influence human & non human life (free will etc.)?; does individuality of a human person continues after death of her/his physical body & if yes, how and what next; do non-physical beings & worlds exist and, if they do, do they interact with beings & events of the empirical world? ....

    There are numerous world- views where these questions overlap & answers are not clearly defined. For instance, in the early Taoism, as well as in Spinoza- there is some kind of Intelligence, conatural with human intelligence, that somehow inheres in the world & lives through it. Just, that Intelligence (Tao, God) is not transcendent, so there are no supra- or nonphysical worlds; this Intelligence does not possess personality nor being as humans understand them; "soul" or personality of a human being does not survive bodily death; "God" is not humanoid in a sense that it would be particularly concerned either with individual humans or with humanity as a whole; there is no communication or commerce with that Intelligence. And yet, even if we take into account differences between them, these world-views strongly affirm that natural world is governed by some kind of Intelligence without humanly defined being & has not evolved "out of itself" without this immanent & not transcendent Intelligence.

    I could go on & on, but from the most primitive forms of religion through various philosophies & world-views, there are numerous "answers" to "eternal questions" that do not fit easily with mostly Abrahamic conception of God (nor with those found in India & elsewhere) - so that's why I say that atheism is not easy to define. God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.

    Replies: @raga10, @V. K. Ovelund

    God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.

    That is true, god can take different forms for different cultures or even individuals. Nevertheless non-existence means only one thing, and belief there is no god applies equally to all of them.
    Differences you’re talking about are there, certainly, but they are not in the domain of atheism – they are for deists to grapple with.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @raga10

    For Spinoza, it was Deus sive Natura, i.e. he uses the word "God" for "Nature". God is for theists, always, "supernatural" - that means, it is not made of, say, atoms. If "God" is interchangeable with "Nature" or nature's laws- there is no "God", however one stretches the meaning.

    Western 18th C Deists were quite another sort. They believed that some supernatural being had created the empirical world & then left it to operate according to laws it had implanted into the world from the beginning. If there is no creation, no beginning, not anything similar- then, there is no "God". Atheists may now & then use the word "God" poetically or metaphorically, but this does not mean that "God" exists.

    Doubtlessly, Homer's Gods do exist for Homer, but no serious mind would place Homer in the company of theists in the way we use this word. Homer was not an atheist, either. He is a great example of meaninglessness of either-or position in the debate about (a)theism.

  74. @raga10
    @Bardon Kaldian


    God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.
     
    That is true, god can take different forms for different cultures or even individuals. Nevertheless non-existence means only one thing, and belief there is no god applies equally to all of them.
    Differences you're talking about are there, certainly, but they are not in the domain of atheism - they are for deists to grapple with.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    For Spinoza, it was Deus sive Natura, i.e. he uses the word “God” for “Nature”. God is for theists, always, “supernatural” – that means, it is not made of, say, atoms. If “God” is interchangeable with “Nature” or nature’s laws- there is no “God”, however one stretches the meaning.

    Western 18th C Deists were quite another sort. They believed that some supernatural being had created the empirical world & then left it to operate according to laws it had implanted into the world from the beginning. If there is no creation, no beginning, not anything similar- then, there is no “God”. Atheists may now & then use the word “God” poetically or metaphorically, but this does not mean that “God” exists.

    Doubtlessly, Homer’s Gods do exist for Homer, but no serious mind would place Homer in the company of theists in the way we use this word. Homer was not an atheist, either. He is a great example of meaninglessness of either-or position in the debate about (a)theism.

  75. @Talha
    @dfordoom


    I don’t really know to what extent most people, or most liberals, believe in the blank slate as an absolute. I suspect the answer is, not very many.

     

    I agree here. I don’t think anyone who has come across the phenomenon of Down’s Syndrome has any doubt that there is, say, a genetic component to attributes like intelligence.

    And you don’t have to believe in the blank slate in order to believe that cultural factors are just as important, if not more important, than genetics.
     
    Genetics is horribly inadequate to explain the vast shifts in so many societies on so many fronts we have seen within living memory and within one or two generations. It certainly factors in, but on its own? Incoherent.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Genetics is horribly inadequate to explain the vast shifts in so many societies on so many fronts we have seen within living memory and within one or two generations. It certainly factors in, but on its own? Incoherent.

    And sudden and dramatic social changes have happened many times in history and it’s difficult to see how most such shifts can be explained by genetics. The Enlightenment and the decline of Christianity from its dominant position in western civilisation are obvious examples. Going back much further in history the rise of Christianity is another example. The rise of Islam is another.

    • Agree: Talha
  76. Lumping all under the term ¨theist” obscures meaning. Christianity – the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creator of the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind in six days defined by rotation of the earth – has absolutely nothing in common with any other so-called religion. I guarantee that percentage of ¨theists¨ against free expression of religious beliefs increases dramatically when Christians are separated from that loose collection.
    Only head choppers, animists, cockroach and cow worshipers, naval contemplaters, and purgatory salesmen need to rely on force to perpetuate their superstitions. As for Christianity, the universe and living things are evidence enough of the six days of creation to force atheists into insanity to prop up their hope of escaping eternal judgment. Parallel universes and primordial pools producing life from random collections of elements themselves inexplicable in a self-creating universe of hydrogen is one more definition of insanity.

    • Replies: @raga10
    @David Parker


    Christianity – the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creator of the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind in six days defined by rotation of the earth – has absolutely nothing in common with any other so-called religion.
     
    Well that is obviously incorrect - Christianity has plenty in common with Judaism and Islam: The Old Testament for one thing. Even if you deny spiritual similarities you cannot deny they share the foundation of the OT. (Islam in turn derives from Judaism with smattering of Christianity)

    Only head choppers, animists, cockroach and cow worshipers, naval contemplaters, and purgatory salesmen need to rely on force to perpetuate their superstitions.
     
    Also incorrect; cow worshipers and navel contemplators are not especially interested in proselytizing since they don't particularly care what others believe; you know, that goes with that whole navel gazing thing :)

    Christianity on the other hand is actually one of two faiths most interested in converting nonbelievers. The other such religion is Islam, but even Islam claims, however insincerely, that "there is no compulsion in religion" - Christianity had no such qualms throughout most of its history.

  77. For Spinoza, it was Deus sive Natura, i.e. he uses the word “God” for “Nature”. God is for theists, always, “supernatural” – that means, it is not made of, say, atoms. If “God” is interchangeable with “Nature” or nature’s laws- there is no “God”, however one stretches the meaning.

    Exactly as you say, this stretches the meaning to the point where any discussion becomes meaningless. Deist who equates Nature with God is not actually a deist, he is just using wrong terminology.

    As for your Homer example, I don’t think I follow where you are going with it. Sure, Homer’s gods were different from God of Christianity but I don’t need to place Homer in company of theists of today to say that neither Zeus or Christian God exist.

  78. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @dfordoom

    I'll just address one point that's bugging me:

    You seem to think I'm saying "speech ≠ act" because I personally don't like flag-burning and the like – I couldn't care less about flag-burning, or pissing in the Bible etc… it's not about me, it's about THE TRUTH – which I believe is "speech ≠ act". (I could be wrong, of course – but I haven't been convinced of otherwise yet.)

    Think about it this way: I'm heterosexual, if Heterosexual Marriage gets banned in my state – I'd be pissed and try to alter it, but I wouldn't campaign for it in terms of 'right', plain and simple, because there is no 'right to marriage' (be it hetero, gay, intra-racial, inter-racial etc. – or polygamous, which, BTW, is still banned).

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You seem to think I’m saying “speech ≠ act” because I personally don’t like flag-burning and the like –
    I couldn’t care less about flag-burning, or pissing in the Bible etc…

    I do understand that.

    it’s not about me, it’s about THE TRUTH – which I believe is “speech ≠ act”. (I could be wrong, of course – but I haven’t been convinced of otherwise yet.)

    No, that’s not the truth. It’s merely an opinion.

  79. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Lin

    As I said- it is not so simple. For instance, Aristotle is usually categorized among "theists". He explicitly says that God exists & it is the prime mover of everything. In a celebrated passage, Aristotle defines God as thought that thinks itself. His version of God is not that of creator; his God does not concern itself with human, or any type of beings; has nothing to do with morality; in Aristotle's views, there is no "immortality of the soul".

    So, for Aristotle, "God" is simply an answer he could accept why the empirical world is in motion & everything happens, motion & life goes on. Beyond the imagined Prime Mover- Aristotle's God has no function, "history" or significance at all.

    According to all textbooks, Aristotle is a theist; but, if one looks closely, he is basically an atheist who affirmed God's existence only to solve, using concepts & knowledge of his times, the riddle why the world is in motion. Nothing beyond that. For Aristotle, all empirical world does not possess some hidden or higher purpose, nor was it created- it has always existed. God only "pushed" it into motion.

    Regarding religions, there are a few basic questions: why there is anything rather than nothing?; is this empirical world all that is?; do human beings possess some "higher" purpose beyond mere existing?; are there beings who, somehow, influence human & non human life (free will etc.)?; does individuality of a human person continues after death of her/his physical body & if yes, how and what next; do non-physical beings & worlds exist and, if they do, do they interact with beings & events of the empirical world? ....

    There are numerous world- views where these questions overlap & answers are not clearly defined. For instance, in the early Taoism, as well as in Spinoza- there is some kind of Intelligence, conatural with human intelligence, that somehow inheres in the world & lives through it. Just, that Intelligence (Tao, God) is not transcendent, so there are no supra- or nonphysical worlds; this Intelligence does not possess personality nor being as humans understand them; "soul" or personality of a human being does not survive bodily death; "God" is not humanoid in a sense that it would be particularly concerned either with individual humans or with humanity as a whole; there is no communication or commerce with that Intelligence. And yet, even if we take into account differences between them, these world-views strongly affirm that natural world is governed by some kind of Intelligence without humanly defined being & has not evolved "out of itself" without this immanent & not transcendent Intelligence.

    I could go on & on, but from the most primitive forms of religion through various philosophies & world-views, there are numerous "answers" to "eternal questions" that do not fit easily with mostly Abrahamic conception of God (nor with those found in India & elsewhere) - so that's why I say that atheism is not easy to define. God is a noun which can have many meanings in different cultures.

    Replies: @raga10, @V. K. Ovelund

    I do not believe that this is accurate:

    … in Aristotle’s views, there is no “immortality of the soul” …

    However, I have just spent half an hour searching for evidence to support my belief in Aristotle’s On the Soul (De Anima); I didn’t find it.

    Aristotle however begins On the Soul with a review of earlier philosophy on the topic. He does not seem to find it necessary during this review to contradict Socrates’ proof of the soul’s immortality as recounted in Plato’s Phaedo, for what that’s worth.

    Do you have some other information?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Bardon Kaldian is completely wrong about Aristotle in his comment above. The proof that the rational component of the soul is naturally immortal can be found in De Anima, Book III, Chapter V:


    Actual knowledge is identical with its object: in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, but in the universe as a whole it is not prior even in time. Mind is not at one time knowing and at another not. When mind is set free from its present conditions it appears as just what it is and nothing more: this alone is immortal and eternal (we do not, however, remember its former activity because, while mind in this sense is impassible, mind as passive is destructible), and without it nothing thinks.
     
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There is no immortality of the individual existence. Only Nous is immortal, but it is impersonal & somehow there is no substantially individualized Nous by Nature. The remaining Nous is universal. Apart from the Nous, all technical terms which are associated with a psychological life of a person, refer to psychological functions that perish with the body.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  80. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I do not believe that this is accurate:


    ... in Aristotle’s views, there is no “immortality of the soul” ...
     
    However, I have just spent half an hour searching for evidence to support my belief in Aristotle's On the Soul (De Anima); I didn't find it.

    Aristotle however begins On the Soul with a review of earlier philosophy on the topic. He does not seem to find it necessary during this review to contradict Socrates' proof of the soul's immortality as recounted in Plato's Phaedo, for what that's worth.

    Do you have some other information?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Bardon Kaldian

    Bardon Kaldian is completely wrong about Aristotle in his comment above. The proof that the rational component of the soul is naturally immortal can be found in De Anima, Book III, Chapter V:

    Actual knowledge is identical with its object: in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, but in the universe as a whole it is not prior even in time. Mind is not at one time knowing and at another not. When mind is set free from its present conditions it appears as just what it is and nothing more: this alone is immortal and eternal (we do not, however, remember its former activity because, while mind in this sense is impassible, mind as passive is destructible), and without it nothing thinks.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  81. @David Parker
    Lumping all under the term ¨theist" obscures meaning. Christianity - the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creator of the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind in six days defined by rotation of the earth - has absolutely nothing in common with any other so-called religion. I guarantee that percentage of ¨theists¨ against free expression of religious beliefs increases dramatically when Christians are separated from that loose collection.
    Only head choppers, animists, cockroach and cow worshipers, naval contemplaters, and purgatory salesmen need to rely on force to perpetuate their superstitions. As for Christianity, the universe and living things are evidence enough of the six days of creation to force atheists into insanity to prop up their hope of escaping eternal judgment. Parallel universes and primordial pools producing life from random collections of elements themselves inexplicable in a self-creating universe of hydrogen is one more definition of insanity.

    Replies: @raga10

    Christianity – the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creator of the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind in six days defined by rotation of the earth – has absolutely nothing in common with any other so-called religion.

    Well that is obviously incorrect – Christianity has plenty in common with Judaism and Islam: The Old Testament for one thing. Even if you deny spiritual similarities you cannot deny they share the foundation of the OT. (Islam in turn derives from Judaism with smattering of Christianity)

    Only head choppers, animists, cockroach and cow worshipers, naval contemplaters, and purgatory salesmen need to rely on force to perpetuate their superstitions.

    Also incorrect; cow worshipers and navel contemplators are not especially interested in proselytizing since they don’t particularly care what others believe; you know, that goes with that whole navel gazing thing 🙂

    Christianity on the other hand is actually one of two faiths most interested in converting nonbelievers. The other such religion is Islam, but even Islam claims, however insincerely, that “there is no compulsion in religion” – Christianity had no such qualms throughout most of its history.

  82. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I do not believe that this is accurate:


    ... in Aristotle’s views, there is no “immortality of the soul” ...
     
    However, I have just spent half an hour searching for evidence to support my belief in Aristotle's On the Soul (De Anima); I didn't find it.

    Aristotle however begins On the Soul with a review of earlier philosophy on the topic. He does not seem to find it necessary during this review to contradict Socrates' proof of the soul's immortality as recounted in Plato's Phaedo, for what that's worth.

    Do you have some other information?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Bardon Kaldian

    There is no immortality of the individual existence. Only Nous is immortal, but it is impersonal & somehow there is no substantially individualized Nous by Nature. The remaining Nous is universal. Apart from the Nous, all technical terms which are associated with a psychological life of a person, refer to psychological functions that perish with the body.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Bardon Kaldian

    By the way, those interested in the early Christian thought on the body-soul-immortality, may consult following works (of course, there are tons of them, so just a slice)...



    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/518ofJ6X84L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41d-pjTOq3L._SY346_.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41yFqty-g-L.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51U3FOwhPgL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ujzf46j1L._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51DVEHVJTTL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    ....

  83. @Bardon Kaldian
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There is no immortality of the individual existence. Only Nous is immortal, but it is impersonal & somehow there is no substantially individualized Nous by Nature. The remaining Nous is universal. Apart from the Nous, all technical terms which are associated with a psychological life of a person, refer to psychological functions that perish with the body.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    By the way, those interested in the early Christian thought on the body-soul-immortality, may consult following works (of course, there are tons of them, so just a slice)…

    [MORE]


    ….

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  84. @Talha
    @nebulafox


    The overwhelming majority of woke-lite types have never interacted with an actual, believing Muslim from the Islamic World, and therefore envisions someone who thinks just like them, but who wears funny clothes and does some exotic stuff. They suffer from no mental contradictions.
     
    It’s funny when they come across a Muslim that doesn’t fit the image of the left-liberal Muslims that they have interacted with. They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    They get very, very hostile and it escalates very fast. I came across some of these people on Twitter. When the kumbayah facade falls off, it’s something to behold.

    Don’t take it personally, or even religion-ally. If it’s any consolation, it’s not just genuine Muslims they are hostile to. They hate everyone who is not like them, all their “tolerance and diversity” rhetoric notwithstanding.

    Or, said another way, there is no one so intolerant and conformist as those who preach tolerance and diversity!

    This is reason #478 why I prefer people who are honest (with me and with themselves) about their beliefs, even if they are not my beliefs. They are better people and we have fewer misunderstandings.

    • Agree: Talha
  85. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I don’t think we should read too much into this. Of the firm theists queried, many were probably nominal Christians who think that “publishing religious extremism online” means ISIS uploading their head-chopping videos.
     
    That's almost certainly correct. Although it's probably not just nominal Christians but actual Christians as well who interpreted the question in this way.

    So it's another survey that means nothing because the question posed was so hopelessly vague and ambiguous as to be meaningless.

    It would have been much more illuminating had the question been "do you favour an online ban on religious extremism, including Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism?"

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Audacious Epigone

    More charitability, it is devised in a way that assumes people’s sense of morality is informed by principles they apply to various situations instead of evaluating based on personal preference. Naive, and becoming more so by the day, I confess.

  86. @WorkingClass
    Non believers are pretty much who cares when it comes to religion. Believers are very suspicious of believers who don't believe what they believe.

    But what is a “religious extremist” ? What, for that matter, is an extremist? From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

    Extremists in the U.S. come in many different forms - white nationalists, anti-LGBTQ zealots, racist skinheads, neo-Confederates and more.
     
    So I guess that if any of the above are religious they would be relgious extremists.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Heh, and white Americans who are nationalists?

  87. @dfordoom
    @raga10



    Whatever happened to agnosticism?
     
    Nothing – as far as I know, it’s still around and doing well. But I speak for atheism.
     
    Most of the surveys one sees on religion don't seem to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Is there any data on how many people who fall into the no religion camp are atheists and how many are agnostics? I would suspect that agnostics outnumber atheists by a wide margin.

    And what about deists and pantheists? If they don't subscribe to organised religions do they get counted as "no religion"? I would suspect that there's a substantial number of people whose views are equivalent to vague deism or pantheism even if they would not use those terms to describe themselves. I would also suspect that a lot of the people that Christianity has lost have actually embraced some form of vague deism or pantheism. Christianity has also undoubtedly lost a lot of people, especially women, to New Ageism.

    The point I'm making is - how much reliable data do we have on what people actually believe? How many people get counted in surveys as Christians when they're not Christians in any meaningful sense, and how many people get counted as atheists when they're not strictly speaking atheists?

    How many hardcore True Believer atheists are there?

    Replies: @raga10, @Audacious Epigone

    The GSS from 2010-2018 in the US (response to “what you believe about God”):

    4% atheist (Don’t believe)
    6% agnostic (No way to find out)
    12% deist (Some higher power)
    4% lapsed theist? (Believe sometimes)
    17% theist (Believe but have doubts)
    57% firm theist (Know God exists)

    • Thanks: dfordoom

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS