I'm so sick of all the people who casually rattle off "Oh I don't have a religion, I don't believe in God, I'm an atheist." As if to have any faith in a higher power is nothing but pure foolishness and ignorance.
Atheism is not that easy. To not believe in a higher power: that is an extremely upsetting and horrifying thought, and if you are not constantly chilled to your very core by reality, you are plain and simple not an atheist. God serves as a center to life, something that holds the universe and all its events together... he gives purpose and order. Take away God and what you have left is pure, bone-chilling CHAOS, death, wild abandon, a lack of direction- a lack of the ability to feel secure and calm and happy.
You can argue against me- you can claim that the universe IS ordered without God, that its laws can be explained through rational, scientific investigation. You can claim that if humans work together, we can make the world a better place to live... a just environment with little struggle and equality for all. Our medical and technological advances provide for our needs, you claim.
For all of our "wonderful" scientific work and justice system establishments, the human condition is one still completely overwhelmed by the horrifying chaos of reality... we just choose to ignore it. Natural disasters kill thousands and thousands of people every year, violence explodes everywhere, science fails to settle any foundation for its laws, deception abounds in politics and business (two cut-throat enterprises), our animal desires and impulses constantly flare up and rupture any attempt to live wholly-rational lives, humanity is destined for extinction... perhaps most arresting: I am doomed to perish and never return to life again.
THE FACT IS, YOUR HUMANISTIC BELIEFS ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER FORM OF THEISM; they are your illusory salvation, that which "saves" you from a reality of chaos and delivers you to something "better". What humanism really does is allows people to grow numb to the reality of tragedy and violent chaos. Is helps us ignore the truth- it is the higher power which (quite falsely) proposes to "transcend" reality.
And so people go strolling along through life placidly content- "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God." The fact is, they are every bit as much a theist as the religious who preceded them... their God is named "HUMANISM."
___________________________________________
Being a genuine atheist is perhaps the hardest task imaginable- it requires a perhaps impossible strength/ resolution to remain in a never-relenting state of despair. It means ceaseless awareness of the violent, chaotic tragedy which human existence consists of... and the lack of any way out.
(So all you hypocritical humanists- stop disgracing the atheistic elite with your pathetic claims. You know nothing of genuine atheism. The only one rightfully deserving of the title.... the man broken down in the street, tears flowing from his eyes, inconsolable, a rage of utter despair in his eye... the minute he finds consolation in life, a moment of peaceful calm and hope- he has once against turned his back on reality.)
Wow, you are obviously disturbed. I cant say I blame you. I just think that you shouldn't search so deeply into the hearts of atheists. They have no power over you. Faith is stronger than knowledge. They can't hurt you.
If you wish to change someone's mind, you have to change your approach. You have to respect the fact that most people are fixed in their opinions and beliefs. If you want to change minds, you have to care about where they are coming from, not insult them.
I am no "man of faith"
I am also not attacking atheists- my text concerned HUMANISTS posing as atheists. The reason I wrote it is because humanists often harbor a smug feeling of being "above" the traditionally religious (i.e. Christians), humanists think they have surpassed the religious and are no longer blind themselves to reality with false notions of "god"... when the fact is, they are really every bit as blind (and blind out of weakness- their beliefs and worldview are symptoms of an inability to look the terrorizing reality of destruction and chaos in the eye).
Perhaps you misunderstood from all the diction usage which is commonly associated with negative values... I embrace genuine atheism above all (or at least try to)- I think it requires an almost superhuman strength to practice.
" Take away God and what you have left is pure, bone-chilling CHAOS, death, wild abandon, a lack of direction- a lack of the ability to feel secure and calm and happy. "
i think you could also negate( adding God) the phrase and it would also remain true.
One pole of theistic religious practice is founded on establishing a sense of order and harmony into the experience of life; i.e. God aligns the universe and gives it direction with his divine plan.
Your comment-- as i take it-- speaks to the other possible pole of religious practice, which I agree is very powerful and very real. Members of this practice can be said to live vicariously, dramatically, through God. This dramatic experience (mystical union with God) in a sense amplifies the intensity of the tragic human condition, projecting it with infinitely greater force. This practice involves intimate empathy with a God who faces the senselessness and violence of the universe all on his own. In a sense this type of religious practice creates a cushioning distance between ourselves and authentic experience of the harshness of ultimate reality (He faces-- like a barrier-- what we ourselves are too weak for). In another sense, however, such practice can bare us nude to the raw forces of the universe even moreso than if we had no God through whom to mystically dramatize (and intensify) our own life experience (We live out the tragedy of existence on a "superhuman" level.)
Religious practice is truly a wondrous phenomenon. The fact is, "religious" or not, we all embrace one of these two poles (or, at least, the spirit which these two poles embody) in everything that we do...
In fact, I would agree that belief can be a very powerful source of emotional strength for a great many people. That does not however mean that the objects of those belief actually exist. The question of the existence of these objects is a separate matter than can only be rationally asserted through the presentation of actual, objective evidence. For example, a child might have a very powerful belief in Santa Clause. That belief can even be powerful enough to convince a child to behave in a manner that benefits both the child and his family. But when christmas morning comes, it isn't Santa Clause that puts the presents under the tree.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
My, my, my, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to take personal responsibility for the unutterable suffering of the entire world.
(I want to make a note to you, and hopefully other Christians will see this as well… I usually stop listening when you /yell/ in all caps. Stop it. It's extremely annoying and detracts from your point.)
As for this looming monster, 'chaos', you’re espousing, that's what makes being an Atheist so liberating. I am perfectly free to choose whatever path and purpose I so desire in life without fear breaking arbitrary laws (except speed limits, of course). Nothing about my life is predetermined. I am free to make my own order out of the 'chaos' and to arrange in any way I see fit. I, and I alone, determine the lens through which I interpret reality.
...the human condition is one still completely overwhelmed by the horrifying chaos of reality... We just choose to ignore it. Natural disasters kill thousands and thousands of people every year, violence explodes everywhere, science fails to settle any foundation for its laws, deception abounds in politics and business (two cut-throat enterprises)...
I agree with you that reality is often horrible, unimaginable, cruel, and ridiculous, but it can also be wonderful, awesome, beautiful, and incredible. Where I see marvels of engineering and evolution, you (may) see god's work, but either way, we can both say that the Cincinnati Arch and an ant hill are really fascinating and that, on the opposite side, genocide is terrible. However, I don't understand how you can praise a 'loving' god who allows terrible natural disasters to happen to random people or a even a single devoted follower be murdered in some ghastly way. It is a much happier thought for me that there's no one up there who could intervene in such happenings and doesn't than to think that there is and It chooses when to intervene. However, the nature of your god may be different from what I assume when I say this.
For me, natural disasters just happen, and the best we as humans can do is to try to be ready to move out of their way; Person on Person ills are caused by people not considering the consequences of their actions on their direct or distal victims. No one is punished or spared by supernatural justice, it’s all just chance. New Orleans happens to be in a bad position geographically and the actions taken by the administration were incorrect for the situation; there was no Zeus in the heavens looking down and judging that New Orleans deserved to be punished for hosting Mardi Gras.
THE FACT IS, YOUR HUMANISTIC BELIEFS ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER FORM OF THEISM; they are your illusory salvation, that which "saves" you from a reality of chaos and delivers you to something "better".
(That's that yelling I was talking about earlier, btw.)
It is honestly that bad to have hope for humanity?
I personally do not ascribe to this 'humanism' you are sure I cling to, but I don't believe that people are inherently 'evil' (though I hate to bring that word into this discussion) either.
I think that once most of the peoples in the world have interbred (sometime in the distant future) they will have a vested interest in behaving kindly towards one another (as they will be all family) and find a way to work as a world, not separate, disparate countries. I cannot, however, find solace in this proposition because I will be long gone by the time that it will be feasible, and it is saddening that even this egotistically motivated altruism is so far off.
Nevertheless, I don’t see how hope for humanity translates into a religion that ‘gives purpose and order’ to chaos.
I am doomed to perish and never return to life again.
...And that you probably believe that I will burn in hell for all eternity while worms eat the ever-replenishing flesh off my bones is somehow... not as bad?
Being a genuine atheist is perhaps the hardest task imaginable- it requires a perhaps impossible strength/ resolution to remain in a never-relenting state of despair. It means ceaseless awareness of the violent, chaotic tragedy which human existence consists of... and the lack of any way out.
I don't know what depressing philosophy you've been reading, but the 'human existence' is usually not ‘tragic’. The “human existence” is what each individual makes it for themselves. One can choose to be ‘tragic’ (and terribly annoying) or one can choose to be happy. I’m happy because I have decided that I will do what I can with the time I have here and I will accomplish that which is within my power, and hopefully, I can inspire someone to continue my purpose after I die. This is the only eternity I want. There are multitudes of people, in whose situations, you or I would be misirable, but studies show that they tend to be some of the happiest people around. It helps that their cultures tend towards a zen way of viewing hardship, but they are not happy because of ethereal promises usually, but of worldy blessings, like having a family, or that rain came.
...But despite all that, you're basically saying that Christians are happy because they wrap themselves up in a veil against the pain of reality by believing in God and Heaven. If you encourage living rationally, how can you make that statement?
Why would belief in God be required to release one from the ‘never-relenting state of despair’?
I have one final question for you; it is my standard question for people of faith. From where do you draw your faith that there is a God?
____________
haHA!
I'm not a religious man, I don't believe in God.
...Yes atheism is without a doubt liberating. I'm afraid what you don't see is what happens when liberation is taken to an extreme. (And judging from later comments you've made, I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with such circumstances- you're a humanist. You might be liberated from God, but you're far from liberated from the humanist project.)
...hmmm, humans working together to provide a hopeful and better future for mankind- sure sounds a lot like humanism to me! (you don't see how humanism gives your experience purpose and order? How is working together for a better life not a purpose-giving direction? How does "equality and justice for all" not translate into order?)
... There's a difference between being "a tragic" and seeing reality/ human experience as a tragedy. The most joyous, vibrant, and life-affirming people I've ever known had a tragic worldview. Those who fail to see the tragic destiny that is reality tend to lead extremely dull, numb, and indifferent lives.
..."It is honestly that bad to have hope for humanity?" .... Well, as a matter of fact, most would consider hope for humanity to be a "good" thing. I however was advocating what most consider bad/ evil- the genuinely tragic viewpoint. (When you're strong, chaotic tragedy invigorates you; when you're weak, you'll do anything you can to escape it)
_______________________
on a side-note, your picture's pretty damn funny
First of all, I apologize profusely for assuming that you believe in God, but in my defense, you didn't clear up that fact in your blog.
Are you assuming that I think my efforts on earth will lead to 'justice and liberty for all'? It seems to me that you are saying that I'm happy because I have faith that 'it'll all work out in the end' and people will love each other etc. etc. However, that's not the case. I don't hold onto a world peace senerio for the furture; I only believe that people work together for mutual benefits as least part of the time.
I threw in my comment about the furture because I've wondered what could happen and I'd decided that if we don't carry on exactly the way we are now, or nuke the planet, there's a possibility we might cooperate.
I can see how you might be getting that humanists are practicing "another form of theism", especially if you have a fatalistic view of the future.
So I was going to say that humanism wasn't theism because they are proposing or hoping for something that could concievibly happen, but that's not true. The idea's just more appealing that the infinitely more likely possibility that we destroy ourselves. Then I wanted to argue that my idea is not humanism, but it is, just a weak version. My difficulty in understanding your point-of-view lies in your purpose. Based on what's been said, it seems like you don't believe that you have a purpose, so I'll skip that question and go to: why do you stick around if it's all going to hell in a handbasket and there's no U turn ahead?
I'd also like to ask:
What is your "tragic worldview"? What does the furture look like to you?
Why is the 'human existence' a tragedy?
____________
haHA!
"Based on what's been said, it seems like you don't believe that you have a purpose, so I'll skip that question and go to: why do you stick around if it's all going to hell in a handbasket and there's no U turn ahead?"
... Chaos and destruction are inevitable in my eyes, true... I see explosive expenditure of energies as the ultimate end of all life's movement in the universe. But, that said, such a "tragic worldview" is in no way an inherently negative thing. How we value the truth of reality is a matter that varies with perspective. My experience of a violent universe is an ecstatic experience of the beauty of life's delicacy and extreme exuberance.
This is an experience I absolutely wish to maintain, and I can't very well do that if I'm dead. Efforts at sustenance, preservation of life, and maintaining general order do have a value in my "philosophy", but only insofar as they allow me to maintain my experience as witness to the exuberant beauty of the universe-- a position maintained on the extreme limit (the "edge", so to speak) of life and death.
I want nothing more than to feel and embody the chaos of ultimate reality, but to realize this ideal wholly (i.e. in my death) would defeat the entire purpose. (Think of the saying, "Hanging on by the seat of your pants".) As a mentor of mine once put it, I am a flame that loves to be alive... I am a self-consuming flame that loves nothing more than the squandering of my life energies (but to realize the final end of consumption is to consume no more)
I "stick around" because as an atheist I know that only humans can change the human problems we have, whether we create them for ourselves or not. Sure some disasters can't be avoided like flooding, hurricanes, and some fires as well as many others. Does that mean I'm going to say "whoa is me, I'm an atheist therefore I'll just suck it up and drink beers and do nothing.
In st
ead I choose to be pro active and try to make changes where I can. Maybe you're forgetting that 150 years ago humans died at age 40 mostly from diseases that science can now fix today. As a humanist and Transhumanist I believe that human philanthropy and scientific rigor can and will correct many problems like diseases, poverty, starvation, and my thing, the aging process in humans.
As a suscriber to religion do you see your God rescuing people from terminal illness and all the other terrible things that happen to people? Even if they are saved in the afterlife their lives are still being cut short in this one that most religions argue is THE most important life we have! I would rather remain alive in a life I know and have grown to love than to hedge my bets on a fantasy that cannot be proven, imo.
What proof do you have that he exists?
What makes you think I care about whether God exists?
Take away God and what you have left is pure, bone-chilling CHAOS, death, wild abandon, a lack of direction- a lack of the ability to feel secure and calm and happy.
I have been waiting for a good opportunity to bring this study to light...
Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception
Basically, this study demonstrated a correlation between not feeling in control and the tendency to perceive illusory patters in random events. The researchers noted that...
I would suggest that you represent an excellent case-in-point to support the findings of this study.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
First off, I think you may have made a pretty large mistake in assuming I'm "of faith"/ religious. If that's the case, re-read my passage because you obviously weren't paying close enough attention to begin with... I used religion as a close analogy with humanism- to attack humanism (as a symptom of weakness); Do you really think then that I advocate religious practice? If that was not the case, however, then my only response is the following...
I'm a little unclear what you're getting at:
-If you're suggesting that as a man loses his religious faith, he loses his sense of order and control in life, and therefore out of weakness in the face of chaos he embraces the "perception of illusory patterns" (the illusory perception of order/ non-chaos) which is the humanist viewpoint/ project... then Yes, I agree a hundred percent.
-If you're suggesting that I myself am an example of one who "perceives illusory patterns" because of my personal encounter with "lack of control" (seeing reality as chaos), I'd like to know just where in my text exactly you witnessed such "perception."
Do you really think then that I advocate religious practice?
If I mis-read your blog and subsequently misconstrued your positon, I apologize.
I'm a little unclear what you're getting at:
I am suggesting that anyone who actually argues the position that, "God serves as a center to life, something that holds the universe and all its events together... he gives purpose and order," (and again, I apologize if I misunderstood your original statement) is a good candidate for the principles described in the study to which I linked, i.e. suggesting that religion originates in a desire to find order and stability in the lives of those who feel that they are powerless in the face of the inescapable realities of life.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
And I'd argue that a humanist would be a good candidate for the same principles.
"Atheism is not that easy. To not believe in a higher power: that is an extremely upsetting and horrifying thought, and if you are not constantly chilled to your very core by reality, you are plain and simple not an atheist."
Wow. I really like being told what I believe. Honestly, I never knew before that I was terrified of the randomness of life without god. I don't believe in god. The likelihood that my position will be changed seems highly unlikely based on the arguments mustered against that position.
I am not scared of this idea at all.
"God serves as a center to life, something that holds the universe and all its events together... he gives purpose and order. Take away God and what you have left is pure, bone-chilling CHAOS, death, wild abandon, a lack of direction- a lack of the ability to feel secure and calm and happy."
To me, family, friends, my ambitions and dreams gives me a center and gives me purpose and order. I don't need god to that. I am secure (feeling), calm and happy.
If it quacks like a duck....
"You can argue against me- you can claim that the universe IS ordered without God, that its laws can be explained through rational, scientific investigation. You can claim that if humans work together, we can make the world a better place to live... a just environment with little struggle and equality for all. Our medical and technological advances provide for our needs, you claim."
In fact I can argue that and I think that my position is backed up based on advances in science and in the human condition over the years.
Quack
"For all of our "wonderful" scientific work and justice system establishments, the human condition is one still completely overwhelmed by the horrifying chaos of reality... we just choose to ignore it. Natural disasters kill thousands and thousands of people every year, violence explodes everywhere, science fails to settle any foundation for its laws, deception abounds in politics and business (two cut-throat enterprises), our animal desires and impulses constantly flare up and rupture any attempt to live wholly-rational lives, humanity is destined for extinction... perhaps most arresting: I am doomed to perish and never return to life again.
THE FACT IS, YOUR HUMANISTIC BELIEFS ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER FORM OF THEISM; they are your illusory salvation, that which "saves" you from a reality of chaos and delivers you to something "better". What humanism really does is allows people to grow numb to the reality of tragedy and violent chaos. Is helps us ignore the truth- it is the higher power which (quite falsely) proposes to "transcend" reality."
I thought you said you were a humanist....
And wow. You worry too much.
Quack. Quack.
"And so people go strolling along through life placidly content- "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God." The fact is, they are every bit as much a theist as the religious who preceded them... their God is named "HUMANISM.""
No. I don't worship a system of ethics.
"Being a genuine atheist is perhaps the hardest task imaginable- it requires a perhaps impossible strength/ resolution to remain in a never-relenting state of despair. It means ceaseless awareness of the violent, chaotic tragedy which human existence consists of... and the lack of any way out."
Really, I never knew how much despair I was facing everyday. In fact I don't think I am.
Maybe you think that atheism means you don't believe in anything.... If so, that's nihilism.
"(So all you hypocritical humanists- stop disgracing the atheistic elite with your pathetic claims. You know nothing of genuine atheism. The only one rightfully deserving of the title.... the man broken down in the street, tears flowing from his eyes, inconsolable, a rage of utter despair in his eye... the minute he finds consolation in life, a moment of peaceful calm and hope- he has once against turned his back on reality.)"
Why is this parenthesized? And, really, keep it up. Keep telling people how they interpret the universe.
Quack. Quack. Quack.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I didn't tell anyone how to interpret the universe- I pointed out that however you do interpret it is a symptom of your strength/ weakness in the face of the reality of chaos/ tragedy. Religious belief is a sign of such weakness; so is humanism (which everything about your post just screams).
"Maybe you think that atheism means you don't believe in anything.... If so, that's nihilism"... OR, maybe (the entire point of my post) what many confusedly label "atheism" (which is in fact humanism) and wrongly associate with strength is closer to theism (and weakness) than anyone would like to recognize/ admit, so much so that (in the sense which I've described: insofar as it allows one to cope with reality) THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.
(to run to security blanket is weakness, to endure the experience of insecurity (chaos) is divine strength)
Interestingly enough, the way you became so logically entangled in your response with various chopped-up sections of my text (instead of looking at it as a literary whole) and your misunderstanding of non-traditional diction choice and the fluster you revealed by criticizing a non-traditional use of parentheses (haha) all work to reveal the "cut and dry" tendencies/ limits of understanding that a rational humanist necessarily possesses.
"To me, family, friends, my ambitions and dreams gives me a center and gives me purpose and order. I don't need god to that. I am secure (feeling), calm and happy." Of course you feel secure, of course you're not scared- you live inside the (narcotic) security blanket of humanism I've been speaking of all along. To that extent, you are a "theist"... just because you don't call your god (humanism) a god doesn't mean it isn't one.
______________________________
And I said I was a humanist? Where was that exactly?
"awful defensive for someone whose firm beliefs cant be dictated"
Not defensive, fed up. Fed up with people who tell me how my beleifs affect me.
So, according to you, what way of interpreting the Universe is not a sign of weakness?
Humanism is a code of ethics. Atheism is disbeleif in any form of god. They are not the same thing.
I wasn't criticizing your point with the parentheses question. I just don't understand why that section was parenthesized. As for the way I responded to your previous blog (abandoned for your consideration), it was for clarity, so that you (and others) knew what I was talking about.
First of all humanism is not a god. While you may feel like wandering around calling ethical systems deities, but calling humanism a "god" is like calling existentiallism, reletivism or absolutism gods. By calling anything you want god, you're garbling the english language.
Did I say you were a humanist? If so, I apologize. Well, would you kindly tell us what you are?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"While you may feel like wandering around calling ethical systems deities, but calling humanism a "god" is like calling existentiallism, reletivism or absolutism gods. By calling anything you want god, you're garbling the english language."
... I think you have a vital misunderstanding of language. We do not exist to serve it's "rules"; rather, we create/ use language and its rules to serve us. The names you use for those so-called "ethical systems" are completely empty, as are any concrete attributes you give them. The essence behind those names is in the spirit they refer to- the humanistic spirit for example. By "deifying" the humanistic spirit, I am not "garbling the english language"- I am simply using a technique (language, to be specific) to cultivate a new outlook on reality, an outlook in which acting/ reacting in the humanist spirit is held sacred above all else.
(Though Christianity is complex as a formal, "official" institution, one relevant (and more simple) way to approach it is to see its essence as the loving spirit- as a lived state of love. The Christian god (in this approach) is nothing but the deification of the spirit of love. By practicing this religion, then, one is holding the spirit of love to be sacred above all else.)
____________________
Don't let yourself be so tripped up by the formal side of language- you're missing out on what it really has to offer if you do.
Yes, I understand that language can be used in a variety of ways, but there is still a traditional definition, so if you are going to use words in different ways, you should define that. Also, calling humanism a god does not make it the same thing as a god in the traditional meaning of the word. A code of ethics is different from a deity who controls at least some aspect of the natural world.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"Did I say you were a humanist? If so, I apologize. Well, would you kindly tell us what you are?"
... "What I am" is a STRIVING to cultivate the extreme life-affirmation, the feeling of being vividly alive, that can arise from exposing oneself bare in the face of violence and chaotic tragedy.
This has nothing to do with your answer, but in the future, please don't reply twice.
I see. So, if I understand correctly, it is your opinion that it is best to have no philosophy and just brood about how we all are, in the long term and large scale, completely pointless and that we and all our descendents and our planet, Sun, galaxy and Universe will, eventually, cease to exist.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Well, yes. Except that one with more abundant strength than yourself would not be "brooding", but rather undergoing an ecstatic experience of awe and amazement upon the meditation of our delicate existence.
I highly recommend you try it (and I mean really TRY it-- flipping one's perspective on life takes an enormous effort and constant discipline)... My life has been transformed in ways I could never begin to tie down to the dullness of words...
"My life has been transformed in ways I could never begin to tie down to the dullness of words..."
Really? I, for one, would be delighted to know how....
life transformation, that is my favorite thing....i don't care by what means or set of beliefs, so long as it is for the better...
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
Your blog was an incredibly insulting and uninformed attack on atheists. That puts people on the defensive.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Incredibly insulting"? Good, that's the point. But to atheists? No. What insults me, and what I in turn am insulting back, are humanists, the humanist movement. If you'd taken the time and given the effort necessary for a genuine reading of my blog, you would have noticed that TRUE- non-superficial- "atheism" is precisely the thing I DIDN'T attack. My attack is not uninformed; your response is. Feel free to "inform" yourself by reading back through my blog (and the follow-ups), this time with a little genuine effort to understand my words, before you post any other replies.
Putting people on the defensive is far from a bad thing- it forces them to put some intelligent thought into the things they believe/ do. That's something many religious practitioners and humanists alike could use more of.
This statement, for example:
"Atheism is not that easy. To not believe in a higher power: that is an extremely upsetting and horrifying thought, and if you are not constantly chilled to your very core by reality, you are plain and simple not an atheist."
Uninformed and insulting.
And here's another gem:
"Being a genuine atheist is perhaps the hardest task imaginable- it requires a perhaps impossible strength/ resolution to remain in a never-relenting state of despair. It means ceaseless awareness of the violent, chaotic tragedy which human existence consists of... and the lack of any way out."
Please note that in both of those uninformed and insulting statements, you are not talking about humanists. You specifically say, "Atheist."
Since it is YOUR blog, and since the goal of the blogger is to write informative articles that are worth a reader's time, perhaps you ought to make your point more clearly and in a less condescending way. You'll get more readers that way. Just a little blogging tip.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I know what I said insults. Again, that was the point.
What you are referring to as "uninformed" are my definitions of essential characteristics of atheism. By taking up this problem with my post, you are exhibiting a vital misconception of language in general (I have already discussed this with another person somewhere on this blog). Apparently, you think that words are "known", set in stone, rigid conceptions. The fact is, language is fluxual, fluid; it is defined by context- not defined within itself. (Language is not a set of rules to learn and live by- it is a malleable tool of communication.) What's quite obvious in my post is that I am re-defining the term "atheism". The text as a whole serves a context within which I use the word you accuse me of abusing.
Do you think that it really matters how the term atheism should be defined? Do you think I really care about that problem in itself? There's something a lot larger going on in my post than an elementary activity of defining. I'm using the term "atheism", along with many others, to set in motion a force against the spirit of humanism... because I feel that spirit is harmful to human life.
As for the two specific excerpts you quoted above, of course I'm speaking of (genuine) atheism: in doing so, I'm drawing its distinction from humanism (and thus defining humanism as well). It would be pretty hard to talk about boys if there was no definition for "girl". (Not to mention that while I'm attacking humanism, I also simultaneously intend to endorse GENUINE atheism... very subliminally in the post itself but quite blatantly in the follow-up discussion).
"Please note that in both of those uninformed and insulting statements, you are not talking about humanists. You specifically say, "Atheist." " ...... Things aren't that simple. I discuss two types of atheism: genuine and "ingenuine". The former I endorse, the latter I associate with humanism.
As for how I approach my potential reading audience....
First off, these blogs are designed like conversation (at least in my mind): I open up with a statement. Then that statements is discussed- further ideas are put forward. The continual, back-and-forth process of conversation is how things develop on my blogs. If this is the way I see best fit to "make my point", then this is the method I will utilize. Sometimes its not best to lay all one's cards on the table right off the bat.
My obscurity and condescension are precisely what made this blog successful. Those characteristics are what caught reader's attention and motivated them to respond. Whether through inquiry or rebuttal, the fact is that people engaged with my thoughts, often quite in-depth (a result which would not have been accomplished had I written otherwise).
All worthwhile education and thought requires struggle. The fact that so many people struggled with my text is a sign that what I put forth is something "out of the box". What I find is that on this website 99% of the posts are straightforward, predictable, cow-towing to the tendencies and concerns of the masses. If the challenge my writing presents to you is too much, perhaps you should stop engaging with it (though I would hope you don't).
I can't honestly claim that quantity of readers/ reads is an important goal for me. I take quality over quantity any day. To the extent that my blog resulted in dedicated interlocutors (dedicated enough to keep up long series of reciprocal, relatively in-depth conversation), I consider this blog successful. But even by the standard of quantity, this blog was far from a flop: the number of readers and responses speaks for itself- "respectable" in my eyes anyways, perhaps not in yours. (Just a tip to consider for your own blogging experience.)
The language IS fluid, but that doesn't give you license to change definitions and say, "I'm right, because this is MY definition." Also, your blog is not as clear as you seem to think it is. It doesn't say any of the things you claim it says. You have a funny definition of "meaning" too.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"The language IS fluid, but that doesn't give you license to change definitions and say, "I'm right, because this is MY definition." "
.... Haha so it is fluid but I don't have the proper licensing? How exactly did you think language ever evolved? Even more importantly, how did you think that single words could ever be applied to potentially infinite varieties of contexts? Sorry but no one needs a license: my original post above is case in point.
Furthermore, I'm not saying that "I'm right, because this is MY definition". My post is unveiling an essential shared characteristic between (atheistic) humanism and religion. It's also exposing that characteristic as a sign of weakness (a weakness which humanists often claim themselves to have abandoned when they split with religious belief). That message is the essence of my post. The words (and definitions) I use to get there hardly matter. They say, its the SPIRIT, not the LETTER, of the law that counts... that idea applies to more than just law.
"Also, your blog is not as clear as you seem to think it is."
.... I already said it wasn't clear. I also told you why it was intentionally so. Since it seems you didn't take the time to read that section in my reply, perhaps the reason you have so much a problem with my original blog is lack of effort in reading that as well.
"It doesn't say any of the things you claim it says."
.... Again, I explained this in already. Look in the previous reply I sent you at the section concerning the conversational approach I took to this specific blog.
I think I'll just stick to reading blogs that say what they mean, thanks.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Do you think that it really matters how the term atheism should be defined?"
Yes. Words have meanings. They represent ideas. If you use a word in a way that is contrary to how most people do, you have to define how you're using it.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Words have meaning only in relation to other words. They can never stand alone; they don't take meaning standing alone. My blog as a whole serves as the context which defines the way I use "atheism".
If you can't catch the effect of my blog- can't understand the way I use words- then stick to reading easier writers. You might just be getting familiar old cliches re-hashed over and over, but hey, at least you won't have to try as hard when reading.
Ah, the way to get people to listen to you- telling them they are stupid. You can be talking to the smartest person on the world and if you say green, but mean red, they are going to have a hard time understanding you.
And, no, your blog does not really reveal your definition of atheism. Your blog suggests that there is no difference or little difference between atheism and nihilism, which you have denied. When no one gets what you are trying to say, maybe you should take some time to think about it. What's more likely? The world is stupid or maybe you could be a little clearer?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"When no one gets what you are trying to say, maybe you should take some time to think about it. "
.... That "no one" consists of you and all of one or two other people who have conversed with me in this blog.
"You can be talking to the smartest person on the world and if you say green, but mean red, they are going to have a hard time understanding you."
.... "Red" and "green" are (ideally) wholly distinct from one another (although again, in the REAL world, where ideal linguistic distinctions break down and prove mere approximations and not absolutes, there are an infinitude of blended hues which might be said to contain red and green to varying degrees). "Atheism" and "nihilism" are not so distinct: it's quite possible to be both (without a breakdown in language). In other words, there is nothing in the definition of atheism which necessarily denies nihilism (and vice-versa).
Now I'm not sure if you- or anyone else who is replying to this blog- have ever heard of this thing called literature, let alone poetry (It seems to me from your frustration with my blog that you haven't). Let me give you an example: "I am a wild colt". Note first off that "I" (a human) and a "wild colt" are distinct from each other in a much more clear-cut fashion than "atheism" and "nihilism" are (after all, one can't simultaneously be both a human and a colt). NONETHELESS, the statement is far from nonsense. In fact, in one sense, it expresses something with far more clarity, intensity, and brevity than does re-wording this expression according to your "rules of standard language use". (For instance, I could say "I am wild", but that just seems watered down. I could elaborate and type out more- a paragraph, a page, a book- which better relates just in what sense and to what intensity I'm wild... but that would seem rather ridiculous: I can express what I want in 5 words.) Hopefully you can see for yourself the relevance this has to your comments about my writing.
People are having trouble understanding me. But I'm not saying green and meaning red. And it's also apparent I'm not speaking to the smartest person in the world.
"What's more likely? The world is stupid or maybe you could be a little clearer?"
.... What's most likely is that the majority of the people who have responded to this blog have never seen a piece of literature.
".... That "no one" consists of you and all of one or two other people who have conversed with me in this blog."
You mean your audience?
""Atheism" and "nihilism" are not so distinct: it's quite possible to be both (without a breakdown in language). In other words, there is nothing in the definition of atheism which necessarily denies nihilism (and vice-versa)."
Indeed. However, there is nothing in the definition of either that assumes the other to be true. Your blog suggests atheism as equatable to nihilism' rather than the possibility of coexistence it seems to suggest the necessity of that coexistence.
In poetry, describing ones self as a wild colt suggests that there is something similar between the poet and a wild colt. Similarly, when associating atheism with language suggesting nihilism is a good way to suggest that one means the other, especially when the blog uses broad generalizations.
"People are having trouble understanding me. But I'm not saying green and meaning red. And it's also apparent I'm not speaking to the smartest person in the world."
No, you are not saying that red means green, but you are using the definition of one word to describe another word. While the two words are not so opposite as green and red, that doesn't mean they have the same definition.
I agree, you are clearly not talking to the smartest person in the world. However, you are also not talking to a moron. To reiterate a point you seem not to understand: when you use words in ways that are not consistent with the way they are usually used, you should give your definition. If you don't it doesn't immediately suggest to the reader that you are using the word in a different way. It immediately suggests to the reader that you used the wrong word.
"What's most likely is that the majority of the people who have responded to this blog have never seen a piece of literature."
Not to speak for others, but I'm a lit major. I read a lot. This includes philosophy. A good example, considering your message (so far as you have been able to make yourself clear), I am currently reading The Antichrist. When Nietzsche uses a term in a way it is not used in common language, or even in a way it is used by common language but it is important, he defines it.
Unless you are really post-modern, you are not writing a poem or a story. You are stating a philosophical idea. Generally speaking, when one is stating an idea, it is not a good thing to be cryptic.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"In poetry, describing ones self as a wild colt suggests that there is something similar between the poet and a wild colt.... Similarly, when associating atheism with language suggesting nihilism is a good way to suggest that one means the other"
.... That second statement simply does not follow from the first. In the relationship between the colt and the self, you say that there is something similar between the two. Therefore, when you shift focus to atheism and nihilism, one does not "mean" the other; rather, again, there is something similar between the two. (And that there is something similar between the two is one of the major points of my blog.)
"when you use words in ways that are not consistent with the way they are usually used, you should give your definition."
.... There is no "usual"/ traditional/ standard way in which words are used. That is a common misconception. Each word can be (and is) used in a infinitude of different ways (in everyday, REAL life... not "theoretically" or "ideally"). The context defines the term- EVERY time it is used.
"Unless you are really post-modern"
.... It would be impossible for me not to be post-modern. Everyone alive is.
__________________________
In regards to your comments about Mr. Nietzsche: if there's one thing to get from that man's writing, it's that poetry and philosophy CANNOT be separated (see especially "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense"... this piece is also of value regarding the "usual"/ standard usage of language). Also, it's a little ironic that you would say, "when one is stating an idea, it is not a good thing to be cryptic," when speaking of Nietzsche as he is widely known as perhaps the most cryptic and misunderstood philosophical writer of all time.
___________________________
One last (extra) word:
What's really at issue here, what many readers are taking issue with, is that I equated the humanist spirit and god (SEE METAPHOR DISCUSSION ABOVE). The grounds on which I equated them: "they are your illusory salvation, that which "saves" you from a reality of chaos and delivers you to something "better"." (Now that message/ argument is far clearer than 90% of the stuff that comes out of Nietzsche's mouth.)
(I would also like to point out that when an "atheistic" humanist views belief in god, he/she commonly sees that belief as precisely what I spoke of when I said "illusory salvation", as if that illusory salvation were the ESSENCE of what god is to a believer. So when I (try to) expose humanism as ESSENTIALLY an illusory salvation, it follows that- ESSENTIALLY- humanism IS theism. The line here between metaphor and sheer equation is quite thin...)
I admit the analogy is perfect. My point was that there is no analogy that specifically links atheism to nihilism.
"There is no "usual"/ traditional/ standard way in which words are used."
That is absolutely not true. Obviously, the words may have different broader meanings based on context, but that doesn't mean that there is no usual meaning. Words are used by people to express ideas. A word cannot have meaning only in context because it is in the context of other words. It would make language pointlessly confusing.
"It would be impossible for me not to be post-modern. Everyone alive is."
Pardon my imprecision. I was referring to the literary movement. Not all living writers are part of that movement.
Nietzsche is not the clearest out there, I agree, but not because of misuse of language. That was the only point I was making with that. I used the example of Nietzsche and language because I am reading him now. Further more, from my reading (and I admit, it is limited. I haven't read a ton of Nietzsche at this time) he is clearly not trying to be cryptic. And, flat out, I disagree with some of his more aesthetic ideas.
"What's really at issue here, what many readers are taking issue with, is that I equated the humanist spirit and god"
Yes. I am aware of that. I do agree with them on that. (When I do reply to that posting you mentioned, which I may do after this, I'll get to that.) My point in this thread, however my point is, as I said, about clarity of language. You barely mention humanism in your initial post. And you suggest throughout that without humanism atheism is nihilism. You spend a lot more time on this, even using atheism, rather than humanism, in your title. Hence the confusion and the need that you have had to reexplain yourself so much.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
You're just buying the line being sold to you by the powerful dictionary cartel.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
As a language user, think of yourself as a musician...
You have at your hands a virtually infinite collection of tones to choose from. You can combine these tones in an infinite number of sequence-combinations. A single tone, standing alone, does make a sound. But a single tone is not music; it has no meaning to the listener. Music consists of multiple tones, existing in the context of one another (in a sequence-combination). When tones are thus strung together, that is when they have an effect on the listener, that is when they have meaning.
Let's make this simple: LP is low pitch, MP is medium pitch, HP is high pitch. Consider two sequences: LP, MP, HP and also HP, MP, LP. The MP in the first sequence is not the same MP as that in the second sequence... the two have totally different effects on the listener... BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTEXTS. Since there are infinitely many pitches, there are infinitely many sequences... and there are infinitely many effects that the "same" MP can have on the listener. (This is the exact same case with language; one word can have infinitely different "effects" on the reader.)
_______________________________
Now learning the "traditional" meaning of a word from a dictionary (which by the way differs from dictionary to dictionary; and even within one dictionary (assuming its a quality, thorough one), there are many many meanings given)...
A keen observer might note that the more thorough a dictionary is, the larger the amount of meanings there are allotted to each word. (They don't just add more words to define.) If you were to find the most thorough dictionary of the English language, the amount of meanings for each word would blow your mind... it might even lead you to consider that the only reason there aren't an infinite many meanings listed is because the writer (or even publication company) died before more could be published.
It's obvious you've never come into contact with a "powerful dictionary cartel." What you meant to say he was buying his lines from one was this: a weak, "common-man's", severely watered down, everyday, convenience-based (not "thoroughness-based") "dictionary cartel".
uh....
:???:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Unless there really is a powerful dictionary cartel...Is there?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You have no idea.....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
That was really condescending. How many degrees do you have that you have the standing to be so condescending to your audience? I can tell you one thing...I won't be giving your future (or past) blogs any reads. Why would I want to be insulted by a first year philosophy minor?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
HAha. You might want to give some more thought to associating authority with "degrees"; if you only listened to widely distinguished academics you'd be missing out on the majority of the fruits life has to offer.
That said, I'd be pretty damn impressed if a first year philosophy minor found a way to tie ("atheistic") humanism and theism together and also considered himself able to affirm tragic and chaotic experience. (Not to mention one able to write with undertones of the thought of Nietzsche and Bataille.)
By the way, was my post just below- the one called "Maybe this helps?"- unworthy of your response? I re-worded things to help you understand what I am trying to communicate, and it was completely disregarded. Again this leads me to believe that certain people are reading my blog with the sole intention of picking at word choice rather than making a genuine attempt to understand it...
I am not, at this point, talking about your message. I am talking about your method of communication. As you said, I am picking at word choice. I don't deny that because I don't think it some minor issue. Clarity, as I said above, is a good thing.
The reason that I have not replied to "Maybe this helps?" is because I am thinking about it. Yes, it does seem to be clearer. Obviously, as I haven't yet responded, I don't know if my interpretation of your message is closer to the mark.
Also, please don't double reply. If you forgot to say something, there is an edit tab at the bottom the text box, which you can use until someone replies to the comment.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I still don't understand your problem with Humanism...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I think one way to sum it up is my feeling that humanism (in at least one, important, sense) has the same effect as religion: both work as a narcotic to numb people to experience and feeling... they take away everything awesome and amazing in life... "awesome and amazing", in my mind, correlating to the tragic in life.
When I meditate on the things I value in life, the situation always comes down to rarity and fleeting temporality. The things I treasure most are the things most at risk of being lost. The more I get into touch with the "tragical" (a process which I think some systems like humanism seek to reverse), the more I value life, the more I feel "ecstatically" alive.
Some etymology on the word "ecstasy" is appropriate here. From the Latin "exstasis": to exist "beside" oneself, beside one's "normal" state, outside of it... to escape oneself. By focusing solely on how to oppose "tragedy" (tragic occurrences), one effectively maintains stasis, preserves the state of things. On the other hand, enhancing one's awareness of tragedy reverberates into ecstasy: the state of things is ruptured: life experience becomes "divine".
De-tensify the tragic and you de-tensify the ecstatic (the valuable) depths of life experience.
OK, I've had my thinking time.
"both work as a narcotic to numb people to experience and feeling"
I agree and disagree. They both give people an idea that life and existence is not pointless to them and they to it. I don't know if I'd use the phrasing you did, for either religious or humanistic ideas. What that is is what I understand spirituality to mean. That is- a connection to something greater to yourself. With religion, that is god. With humanism, that is humanity. (I actually knew a religious humanist, so I guess for her, it was both...)
I don't think that this necessarily numbs them to experience and feeling. I think that it helps them process them, especially negative emotions and experience. In a thread lower down you said:
If I understand, you claim to have a problem with these coping-aides, so to speak, because they stop people from experiencing these negative emotions which you consider to be useful. In part, I agree with you. I do agree that there is use in experiencing these things. However, that belief is,itself, a coping mechanism. The fact that one can find purpose (even only for yourself) in tragedy, helps one to deal with it. Even if that is not the intention, it seems to me to be an inevitable effect.
"The more I get into touch with the "tragical" (a process which I think some systems like humanism seek to reverse), the more I value life, the more I feel "ecstatically" alive."
Again, I partially agree with the sentiment of this idea. I agree fully with the idea stated in the first half of the paragraph, that it is things that are most easily lost that are most greatly treasured. Again, I disagree that humanism inherently distance people from the "tragical". This is where humanism differs from religion. One of the main points of religion, at least in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic sense, is to take the tragic out of these circumstances. By postulating a grand scheme where everything works out and the soul lives forever in eternal bliss with god, religion is suggesting the non-existence of true tragedy. Humanism does not do this. As I understand it, all humanism does is ask people to participate in the human experience. While this has the potential to approach the fanatical destruction of tragedy that religion does. It takes the incredibly naive and stupidly optimistic to allow it to do so.
"De-tensify the tragic and you de-tensify the ecstatic (the valuable) depths of life experience."
I think this fairly sums up your last point. Again I agree. I disagree, however that anyone exists in a state where they do not do this. I don't think it is possible. Are there ridiculous extremes of this? Certainly. I do not think, however, that humanism is guilty of this in most of its rational adherents, so to speak.
A side note- I personally don't believe that any philosophy determines morality. This can be seen by the near unanimity of the moral code of every even vaguely successful philosophy. While I am,obviously, no scientist, it is my opinion that evolution explains morality fairly clearly. That humanity, evolving as a pack animal, developed morals as a way to effectively work as a group. Naturally, this is easily subject to reevaluation.
Earlier I did describe humanism as a code of ethics. My stance does not change, but I admit I was unclear. It is a code of ethics in as much it tries to explain, perhaps for many even justify, why we are ethical. I believe that it does this in a pretty good way in advocating each individuals connection, at least to other individuals, if not to humanity on the whole.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I'm so sick of all the people who casually rattle off "Oh I don't have a religion, I don't believe in God, I'm an atheist." As if to have any faith in a higher power is nothing but pure foolishness and ignorance.
ooh, ooh, ooh ... that would be me!
I think having "faith" in anything without justifiable reason is pure foolishness and ignorance.
Atheism is not that easy.
Seems to come pretty naturally to me.
To not believe in a higher power: that is an extremely upsetting and horrifying thought, and if you are not constantly chilled to your very core by reality, you are plain and simple not an atheist.
Oh, poppycock!
God serves as a center to life, something that holds the universe and all its events together... he gives purpose and order. Take away God and what you have left is pure, bone-chilling CHAOS, death, wild abandon, a lack of direction- a lack of the ability to feel secure and calm and happy.
(1) The natural laws of nature give order.
(2) The near infinite variety of the universe gives ample opportunity to find purpose.
(3) Knowledge gives security, calmness, and for me happiness.
So, I'm afraid I don't agree with your premises here.
You can argue against me- you can claim that the universe IS ordered without God, that its laws can be explained through rational, scientific investigation. You can claim that if humans work together, we can make the world a better place to live... a just environment with little struggle and equality for all. Our medical and technological advances provide for our needs, you claim.
That certainly was some of my argument.
For all of our "wonderful" scientific work and justice system establishments, the human condition is one still completely overwhelmed by the horrifying chaos of reality... we just choose to ignore it.
No, we don't.
Natural disasters kill thousands and thousands of people every year, violence explodes everywhere, science fails to settle any foundation for its laws, deception abounds in politics and business (two cut-throat enterprises), our animal desires and impulses constantly flare up and rupture any attempt to live wholly-rational lives, humanity is destined for extinction... perhaps most arresting: I am doomed to perish and never return to life again.
Well, I can tell why you are a pessimist.
Shit happens. Shit happens that is out of my control. Shit happens that I have absolutely no influence over at all. It could happen to me ... It could happen to someone I love. I am aware of that ... but where is it written that I have to worry about it?
In Steven R. Covey's book THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE, he talks about a person's sphere of interest and a person's sphere of influence. There are a lot of things I am interested about in this world. Only some of those things can I influence. I worry about the things I can influence, and not about the things I can't. When it comes to unforeseeable natural disasters ... like the hurricane we actually had here a few weeks ago (and still are recovering from) ... my sphere of influence is what I can do to minimize the effects and what I can do to help family and friends get through it better. That is certainly enough for me to NOT feel "overwhelmed by the chaos of reality".
I will most certainly die. While the timing of it lies within my sphere of influence the ultimate reality of it doesn't. But I have interests that will live on after I am dead. I can make my life (and possibly my death) meaningful by how I influence the outcome of those interests after I die. The primary interest is my son. I want to influence him by instilling within him values that promote a good life. If I do that then he will thrive after I am gone and I will have had a hand in that.
So the reality that these things happen does not necessarily equate to hopelessness.
THE FACT IS, YOUR HUMANISTIC BELIEFS ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER FORM OF THEISM; they are your illusory salvation, that which "saves" you from a reality of chaos and delivers you to something "better". What humanism really does is allows people to grow numb to the reality of tragedy and violent chaos. Is helps us ignore the truth- it is the higher power which (quite falsely) proposes to "transcend" reality.
No, it isn't. See how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
And so people go strolling along through life placidly content- "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God." The fact is, they are every bit as much a theist as the religious who preceded them... their God is named "HUMANISM."
No, it isn't. See how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
But let's get serious. Before you can equate my "HUMANISM" (in both quotes and all-caps) with religion, you need to define religion. To me religion is the belief in God or Gods and the ceremonial practices that go along with that belief. I wont speak for the "HUMANISM" of others, but for mine there is no belief in God or Gods, nor is there anything ceremonial about my beliefs of what are right and wrong..
Now, how do you justify claiming that "HUMANISM" is a religion? Because our belief system gives us comfort? Then you are tacitly defining atheism as the denial of any belief system that gives one comfort. I doubt seriously if very many people will accept that definition. I certainly don't. Thus, I have no reason to accept your implication of utmost despair as a part of atheism.
___________________________________________
Being a genuine atheist is perhaps the hardest task imaginable- it requires a perhaps impossible strength/ resolution to remain in a never-relenting state of despair. It means ceaseless awareness of the violent, chaotic tragedy which human existence consists of... and the lack of any way out.
Poppycock!
(So all you hypocritical humanists- stop disgracing the atheistic elite with your pathetic claims. You know nothing of genuine atheism. The only one rightfully deserving of the title.... the man broken down in the street, tears flowing from his eyes, inconsolable, a rage of utter despair in his eye... the minute he finds consolation in life, a moment of peaceful calm and hope- he has once against turned his back on reality.)
I would argue that it is you who knows nothing of genuine atheism.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"I worry about the things I can influence, and not about the things I can't.... my sphere of influence is what I can do to minimize the effects and what I can do to help family and friends get through it better. That is certainly enough for me to NOT feel 'overwhelmed by the chaos of reality'.
I will most certainly die. While the timing of it lies within my sphere of influence the ultimate reality of it doesn't. But I have interests that will live on after I am dead. I can make my life (and possibly my death) meaningful by how I influence the outcome of those interests after I die. The primary interest is my son. I want to influence him by instilling within him values that promote a good life. If I do that then he will thrive after I am gone and I will have had a hand in that."
Man that's funny, it's almost like you just rationalized away at the chaotic tragedy of death and insufficiency (without actually altering it's reality one bit), and then found comfort in your rationale... That almost sounds a little bit like exactly what I said of casual, placid (and hypocritical) self-proclaimed atheists.
______________________
Your views on religion are extremely limited. Funny thing is, I don't even have to address that because I never equated humanism with "religion," I equated it with "theism." Now, ALL theisms necessarily suppose some type of a "higher power" (hence they have organized reality according to a principle) by definition, and if that is not true they at least attempt to build a rational world on the grounds of an irrational supposition. That is what all theisms share. Whether or not you are going to admit they do so out of anguish in the face of irrationality hardly matters. The fact is, that quality that all theisms share is also a quality of humanism. It's irrational foundation is supposed as soon as one decides that they will not let the violent jaws of time worry them. If you are 50 y.o. and know you are going to die in a relatively short time, the fact that you "rationally" choose not to let the imminent annihilation of your existence weigh you down does nothing to change the fact that it WILL happen... The fact that you don't think or worry about death has no effect whatsoever on its imminent reality. A Christian does no more when he does not think/ worry about death because god will provide him with an afterlife. BOTH attempt to flee reality, or make themselves numb to it. To that extent, humanism is unquestionably a theism.
The matter of having a literal god-figure is completely arbitrary. The basic fact is that all theisms suppose some type of order/ purpose to the universe. And humanism does just that when it dictates what are matters of concern and what are not.
____________________________
By the way, I'm not a pessimist in the least. I just don't have to be numb to reality in order to affirm life.
I worry about the things I can influence, and not about the things I can't.... my sphere of influence is what I can do to minimize the effects and what I can do to help family and friends get through it better. That is certainly enough for me to NOT feel 'overwhelmed by the chaos of reality'.
I will most certainly die. While the timing of it lies within my sphere of influence the ultimate reality of it doesn't. But I have interests that will live on after I am dead. I can make my life (and possibly my death) meaningful by how I influence the outcome of those interests after I die. The primary interest is my son. I want to influence him by instilling within him values that promote a good life. If I do that then he will thrive after I am gone and I will have had a hand in that."
Man that's funny, it's almost like you just rationalized away at the chaotic tragedy of death and insufficiency (without actually altering it's reality one bit), and then found comfort in your rationale... That almost sounds a little bit like exactly what I said of casual, placid (and hypocritical) self-proclaimed atheists.
Since you didn't respond to the most important question, I'll rephrase the question for you. Exactly what is your rationale for implying that just because bad things happen in life, one must be upset about it?
Hmm ... Casual atheist --- as opposed to a formal atheist?? Well I have formally announced my atheism. But I don't attend any meetings.
Placid atheist --- I'm pretty vocal about my atheism but pretty laid back otherwise.
(Hypocritical) atheist -- Perhaps, but how so?
Self-proclaimed atheist -- Absolutely
______________________
Your views on religion are extremely limited.
I didn't tell you my views on religion, I told you my definintion.
Funny thing is, I don't even have to address that because I never equated humanism with "religion," I equated it with "theism."
And the difference between theism and religion is ...?
But if you insist then I'll give you my definition of theism: It is the belief in God or gods. Atheism is the LACK of a belief in God or gods. Thus in my view atheism is the antithesis of theism.
Now, ALL theisms necessarily suppose some type of a "higher power" (hence they have organized reality according to a principle) by definition, and if that is not true they at least attempt to build a rational world on the grounds of an irrational supposition.
Let's break this down so we can see where we agree and perhaps disagree.
I will agree with you that all theisms necessarily suppose some type of a "higher power" if you equate "God or gods" with "higher power"
Strictly speaking it is impossible to organize reality according to a principle ... but you can use principles to organize your UNDERSTANDING of reality. However, one's understanding of reality is seldom organized around one single principle. There will be many. A theist may believe that God is the ultimate cause of reality, while I believe it is the ultimately uncaring laws of nature. But I'll bet we both agree that gravity keeps us planted on the earth. Finally, no one knows the proper principles well enough to understand what causal event (if any) lies behind every event, so our understanding of reality is always going to be limited.
I agree that theistic beliefs are irrational. Thus, I believe that any belief that theists have that require a theistic interpretation is going to be irrational as well. But not all their beliefs do require that.
That is what all theisms share. Whether or not you are going to admit they do so out of anguish in the face of irrationality hardly matters. The fact is, that quality that all theisms share is also a quality of humanism.
So, who set you up as God. Exactly what makes you think these are "facts". The fact is you are making an unsubstantiated assertion. That assertion is that humanism shares that quality with theism.
Let's review, shall we: The quality that all theisms share is the belief in a "higher power". It is this belief that we agree is the basis for theisms irrationality. Humanism doesn't share this belief. So there is no basis for your claim that it is irrational.
It's irrational foundation is supposed as soon as one decides that they will not let the violent jaws of time worry them. If you are 50 y.o. and know you are going to die in a relatively short time, the fact that you "rationally" choose not to let the imminent annihilation of your existence weigh you down does nothing to change the fact that it WILL happen... The fact that you don't think or worry about death has no effect whatsoever on its imminent reality.
The fact of the matter is that I am well into my 50's. I'm very unlikely to make it into my 100's so time-wise I am almost certainly much closer to my death than I am to my birth. So what? Nobody has asked that the fact that I will die change. The fact of my death is something that I cannot influence. So why worry about it? The mere fact that I don't worry about it, does not mean that I don't think about it. It is going to happen. I have tried to prepare for it so that my interests that will live on after I am gone (ie family and friends) will be as minimally disturbed by as I can make it.
A Christian does no more when he does not think/ worry about death because god will provide him with an afterlife.
Well, that's not quite true, is it? In addition to my acknowledging it and preparing for it, a Christian is holding out what we seem to agree is an irrational hope of seeing his loved ones again in some future never-ending paradise.
BOTH attempt to flee reality, or make themselves numb to it. To that extent, humanism is unquestionably a theism.
Bullshit! Nowhere is there an attempt to ignore reality. You seem to have this bizarre notion that the only thing that constitutes reality is a death and deAstruction. But this is YOU ignoring reality which constitutes other things as well. I have not advocated fleeing from or becoming numb to reality. I advocate a recognition that reality encompasses things that you can influence and things that you can't. And I advocate putting one's focus of concern on the things one can influence.
The matter of having a literal god-figure is completely arbitrary.
Er ... no, it is not. That is the defining difference between the two.
The basic fact is that all theisms suppose some type of order/ purpose to the universe. And humanism does just that when it dictates what are matters of concern and what are not.
Again, this is bullshit. There is order to the universe. That order arises from the laws of nature. Nowhere have I advocated that the universe as a whole has a purpose. What I have advocated is that the universe is a place of opportunity where a person can find a purpose of his own. There is nothing irrational about that.
____________________________
By the way, I'm not a pessimist in the least. I just don't have to be numb to reality in order to affirm life.
:rofl:
Let's take a look at a few things you said:
Unless I miss my guess that makes you an atheist.
Er ... unless you happen to be one of those "casual, placid (and hypocritical) self-proclaimed atheists" that you accuse others of, that pretty much fits anyone's definition of a pessimist ... and a pathological one at that.
Perhaps "hypocrite" does fit best ... since the only one trying to make the argument that you DO have to be numb to reality to affirm life is ... YOU.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Er ... unless you happen to be one of those "casual, placid (and hypocritical) self-proclaimed atheists" that you accuse others of"
... Well yeah, I am definitely this to some extent. Everyone is- no one is strong enough to face the violence/ tragedy that is reality without following up with periods of weakness.
"that pretty much fits anyone's definition of a pessimist ... and a pathological one at that"
... Pessimism is a saying no too life, a negative evaluation of it. If you presume that the experience of despair means evaluating life negatively, then what you said holds... I guess it never crossed your mind that despair might yield extreme life-affirmation. In fact, I have never felt so charged and overfull with life as when I'm intimate with the reality of loss/ destruction. It seems the closer I get to death, the more intensely and vibrantly life flows out of my being.
(Cover up death, cover up despair, and life stagnates like a swamp)
"Exactly what is your rationale for implying that just because bad things happen in life, one must be upset about it?"
... First off, instead of "bad," let's say chaotic or violent or tragic (if you want to evaluate those things as "bad," that's a personal choice on your part). Now the question seems a little silly once worded properly... seeing as the essence of "chaos" (and violence and tragedy) is rupture of form... and that "upset" literally means the settled form is turned upside down (i.e. has undergone chaotic rupture).
If you meant "upset" more in the sense of "a negative evaluation of life"- a "negating of life's worth"- well, I never claimed that as a necessary result of intimacy with tragedy.
Acknowledging tragedy is only useful insofar as you can do something about it.
Your claim assumes that there's nothing valuable in tragedy itself. The foundation of usefulness is value. Why would I want to "do something about" something I treasure with the utmost intensity. To "do something about it" then would be about polar opposites with "useful."
Thats a new one! I didn't think there were people who wake up in the morning hoping for school bus crashes and tsunamis. I mean I can see how you'd value the sense of awe, the epic-ness of it, but tragedy itself seems by definition to be VERY BAD.
I have to say, I'm nondenominational. I really find the concept of God to be ridiculous. I've tried various manifestations, but I really can not grasp the concept. I truly do not believe in a god or gods. I think you're being a bit harsh and preachy. (I don't want to offend you, but I'm a little bit offended myself).
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
You mean to tell me that because I find the concept of a god or gods unimaginable I must also find the concept of life miserable? I tell you this is not true. I take comfort in ideas that can be supported with evidence. I believe in this inherent goodness of people. I find comfort in knowing that I will one day die, like every one else, that when I am tired I will reach the end. I DO NOT believe in some greater all-knowing and all-powerful being. The concept seems ridiculous to me. This does not mean I have no respect for your theistic religions, my simple mind is just unable to comprehend them. Sadly, I think your mind might be closed because you are so quick to tell me why my ideas are wrong.
I hope I'm wrong about your mind.
Have a nice day!
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
I'm not endorsing theistic religions (I'm actually- indirectly at least- attacking them). My post is intended to criticize humanism: I mean to show a quality shared in a major way between it (humanism) and religion... and a quality which I personally find detrimental to humanity. I do not use "theist" in the traditional sense: you have to read my post closely to figure out what I specifically mean for the term to convey. The same goes for the term "atheism". I discuss a genuine atheism and a superficial- "ingenuine"- atheism. Humanism, I claim, is not compatible with genuine atheism (Again, my notion of "theistic" in this post is non-traditional: you must derive my meaning from the post's text and follow-ups). The superficial atheism I associate with humanism is the detrimental characteristic I just made reference to a few sentences ago (though I really don't get into the meat of it's being detrimental until later on in various follow-ups).
That being an athiest, without faith in god, puts people into a state of constant hoplessness and despair? That seems kind of... idiotic, to put in nicely. Personally, im christian, but this is a bit ridiculous to me because it seems more like a rant than anything else. I've gone through times without belief in my life and really, it just doesn't matter. I wasn't in a constant state of terror or fear of the chaotic universe, that sounds a bit like the kind of thing someone locked in a padded room would say. Just like to point that out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Put your best foot forward, just watch what you step in..."