Indulge me.

I posted my Tumblr a while ago. Now I want you to read some of my posts. And before "PAUL YOUR A WHINEY BITCHHH LOL" please just read it and consider what I have to say. Feel free to skip the video game-based posts.

http://ionicpaul.tumblr.com/

A few quick responses:

Zitat :

how easily and coldly I challenge mainstream things like religion.

I am worried that you do this just because they are mainstream and, like you mentioned, you feel the need to rebel. There are a ton of problems with our society that should be rebelled against, and I really think that religion in itself is not at the top of the list. Religion as a means of coping with an absurd world is not the problem, and I think you're missing the point by attacking the very ideas of 'God,' 'Heaven', etc. Instead challenge the people who use religion for political motives - the US's extreme right, for example. You may say that the very nature of religion makes it a tool for misguiding people, but consider that any ideal or philosophy can be twisted in such a way. Take 'fiscal conservatism.'

Zitat :

A random thing I noticed is that my personality almost shapes completely based off of the people I’m with. If I try to conform to one personality, I become an asshole. Am I weak-minded or just impressionable?

You are a rational person. If you acted the same way around your /b/ros and that girl you had a dream about, one of the two wouldn't like you very much.

Zitat :

This is the place I write when I have nothing else to do. And that’s when I’m either a) Procrastinating, or b) Procrastinating REALLY LATE and I’m angry and bitter at myself for doing so. And then I just go on tangential trains of thought and I decide to write them.
Coincidentally, they’re all depressing thoughts. Which is why I play video games and am good. Also if I get back on today I can talk :D:D:D

This is a super depressing post and I know exactly what you are talking about. One tends to get rather philosophical when it is 3:00AM and that pile of homework is not getting any shorter. I think that this is a trap that people of our social status (read: geeks) fall into rather easily. Homework is pointless in the long run, don't do homework, oh fuck look at how much homework I have to do, hate hate hate why can't I do it, play video games, don't sleep. We're stuck between wanting to be successful and not giving a shit about school.

Although I completely agree with your last paragraph, there are some mistakes earlier on.

Firstly, I am always sure I hate something because of its principles, not it's popularity (or lack thereof). I can't stand religion's amorality (if you dispute this you have not read the bible) or factual errors. And while Conservatives may be a little more relevant to who I hate, and while they only play on people's religion and not necessarily believe in it, it's all the zealous fucks who give the Conservatives their power in the first place. If the common dolt realized what bullshit the bible (being specific here) is, or even was secular about it, the Conservatives would be harmless shits clamoring for power.

But no. Religion is definitely at the top of my metaphorical list because it shackles our society down so much. It's not in the spotlight, but it's definitely the keystone to a vast majority of problems with society today.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about my mannerisms, which I of course have to change based on the current company. I'm talking about what I actually feel a lot of the time, and I am just a person that the regular me would hate. It makes me feel shallow.

I feel you guys should read The Dream. I'm proud of it in a weird way.

Paul schrieb:

But no. Religion is definitely at the top of my metaphorical list because it shackles our society down so much. It's not in the spotlight, but it's definitely the keystone to a vast majority of problems with society today.

Nobody is "shackled" by religion unless they let themselves be. It would be nice if we could blame everything on it but things just aren't that simple. I mean, how is religion the root of the "vast majority" of our problems?

WarHampster schrieb:

Paul schrieb:

But no. Religion is definitely at the top of my metaphorical list because it shackles our society down so much. It's not in the spotlight, but it's definitely the keystone to a vast majority of problems with society today.

Nobody is "shackled" by religion unless they let themselves be. It would be nice if we could blame everything on it but things just aren't that simple. I mean, how is religion the root of the "vast majority" of our problems?

A lot of people are "shackled" by religion. To critically examine and reject something that's effectively been hammered into your head during your formative years is no simple task. I might also remind you that we live in one of most liberal areas of the country as far as religious tolerance goes. Can you imagine "coming out," as it were, in Utah, where the first thing they want to know is whether you're "LDS?" I've spoken to people whose families literally won't speak to them. And then, there's the concept of Hell which basically serves the function of terrifying impressionable youth into submission. To some extent, you have to have been immersed in religious culture to recognize how pernicious it is, and how difficult it is to overcome. (Just yesterday, I was speaking with someone who had finally reconciled himself with being a skeptic. Because of his background, it took him the better part of 25 years.)

Instead challenge the people who use religion for political motives - the US's extreme right, for example.

Consider that behind every politician and polemicist who flirts with "tearing down the wall," stand thousands of supporters and people who are simply apathetic.

That reminds me off a piece Christopher Hitchens wrote for Slate when people, for a few weeks anyway, actually considered holding the Catholic church responsible for numerous instances of systematic (illegal) abuse.

Here's a little thought experiment on practical ethics. Suppose that you are having a drink with a new acquaintance and the subject of law-breaking comes up. "Ever been in any trouble with the authorities?"

You may perhaps mention your arrest at a demonstration, your smuggling of excess duty-free goods, that brush with the narcotics people, that unwise attempt at insider trading. Your counterpart may show a closer acquaintance with the criminal justice system. He once did a bit of time for forgery, or for robbery with a touch of violence, or for a domestic dispute that got a bit out of hand. You are still perhaps ready to have lunch next Friday. But what if he says: "Well, I once knew a couple who trusted me as their baby sitter. Two little boys they had—one of 12 and one of 10. A good bit of fun I had with those kids when nobody was looking. Told them it was our secret. I was sorry when it all ended." I hope I don't seem too judgmental if I say that at this point the lunch is canceled or indefinitely postponed.

And would you feel any less or any more revulsion if the man went on to say, "Of course, I wasn't strictly speaking in any trouble with the law. I'm a Catholic priest, so we don't bother the police or the courts with that stuff. We take care of it ourselves, if you catch my meaning"?

Yet this is exactly what we are forced to read about every day. The happiness and the health of countless children was systematically destroyed by men who could count on their clerical bosses to shield them from legal retribution and, it seems, even from moral condemnation. A bit of "therapy" or a swift change of locale was the worst that most of them had to fear.

I could go on about abortion, stem-cell research, child abuse, etc. I hope you don't get the impression that I feel the need to splash water in the face of every Christian I come across. Confronting people aggressively about their beliefs only makes them more defensive and perpetuates the myth of the "militant atheist." (Never mind that atheists constitute less than 0.3% of this nation's prison population; they're simply too crafty and frequently bribe officials with their Jew bullion.) I'm not going to shy away from saying (on the internet) that I think religion is one of the worst maladies the world over - a bit like nationalism.

Christopher Hitchens kicks ass.

Spacecow schrieb:

I could go on about abortion, stem-cell research, child abuse, etc. I hope you don't get the impression that I feel the need to splash water in the face of every Christian I come across. Confronting people aggressively about their beliefs only makes them more defensive and perpetuates the myth of the "militant atheist." (Never mind that atheists constitute less than 0.3% of this nation's prison population; they're simply too crafty and frequently bribe officials with their Jew bullion.) I'm not going to shy away from saying (on the internet) that I think religion is one of the worst maladies the world over - a bit like nationalism.

You have respect from me now.

Recommended reading: Godless, by Dan Barker. He's actually a former fundamentalist preacher who became an atheist, told his family, and then they became atheist (except his born-again Christian brother). And he just tears into Christianity with a layman's perspective (while still remaining educated). It's easy on the eyes after Hitchens and Dawkins get a bit too technical. Besides, why debunk God with science when you can just cite numerous (and humorous) contradictions in the bible?

Paul schrieb:

Christopher Hitchens kicks ass.

Spacecow schrieb:

I could go on about abortion, stem-cell research, child abuse, etc. I hope you don't get the impression that I feel the need to splash water in the face of every Christian I come across. Confronting people aggressively about their beliefs only makes them more defensive and perpetuates the myth of the "militant atheist." (Never mind that atheists constitute less than 0.3% of this nation's prison population; they're simply too crafty and frequently bribe officials with their Jew bullion.) I'm not going to shy away from saying (on the internet) that I think religion is one of the worst maladies the world over - a bit like nationalism.

You have respect from me now.

Recommended reading: Godless, by Dan Barker. He's actually a former fundamentalist preacher who became an atheist, told his family, and then [they became atheist (except his born-again Christian brother). And he just tears into Christianity with a layman's perspective (while still remaining educated). It's easy on the eyes after Hitchens and Dawkins get a bit too technical. Besides, why debunk God with science when you can just cite numerous (and humorous) contradictions in the bible?

Maybe I will! I'm just afraid of reading someone who preaches to the choir. The premise sounds interesting, though.

My stance on this is complicated... religion is less of an institution than it is a manifestation of human insecurity. People don't like things that they don't understand, this is why we have all the hate against homosexuals, intellectuals, etc. The fact that religion institutionalizes hate of the 'other' shows how deeply flawed our society is... it is the symptom of a social disease, and not the cause. I think that if religion was magically wiped out of existence, there would be no changes... idiots would still teach their children to be hateful.

This is why I argue that you should not hate religion, it's simply missing the point. Instead, hate the people who exploit human weakness to become powerful. If there was no religion, you can bet that the same issues would plague our society, just under a different guise, and that smart and immoral people would still take advantage of them.

WarHampster schrieb:

My stance on this is complicated... religion is less of an institution than it is a manifestation of human insecurity. People don't like things that they don't understand, this is why we have all the hate against homosexuals, intellectuals, etc. The fact that religion institutionalizes hate of the 'other' shows how deeply flawed our society is... it is the symptom of a social disease, and not the cause. I think that if religion was magically wiped out of existence, there would be no changes... idiots would still teach their children to be hateful.

This is why I argue that you should not hate religion, it's simply missing the point. Instead, hate the people who exploit human weakness to become powerful. If there was no religion, you can bet that the same issues would plague our society, just under a different guise, and that smart and immoral people would still take advantage of them.

I'm going to be brief. Firstly, people are naturally going to follow what they've been raised with (like 99% of the time), at least religion-wise. If that religion teaches hate (it's in the bible, everywhere), they're going to be a little more open to it.

Secondly, why would wiping out religion have no effect? It's been the basis of so many wars and disagreements over the stupidest things. Sure, idiots would still be idiots, but they'd have to find something else to gain traction on, and without religion (i.e. magic) they are prone to being easily debunked.

I had another point but to be honest, I forgot it.

Do you think that the West would be buddies with the Middle East if religion did not exist? Do you think that Hitler would not have been genocidal if there were no such things as Christianity and Judaism?

Religion teaches hate because people are hateful. If Christianity didn't assert that homosexuals are evil, people would still hate them. People would still teach their children to hate them. Religions are nothing more than elaborate mythologies created around human instincts. The reason that they are successful is because they justify things that people already feel.

WarHampster schrieb:

Do you think that the West would be buddies with the Middle East if religion did not exist? Do you think that Hitler would not have been genocidal if there were no such things as Christianity and Judaism?

Why yes. The whole reason the Middle East hates us is because we helped the Jews create a religious state whilst shitting on all the Palestinians who were already there. Wars ensued literally within days, and the whole reason the Middle East is so devoted is because they believe in a religion that preaches eternal bliss from killing dozens or hundreds or thousands of people. Hitler said that he was finishing the job Jesus had started to destroy the Jews.

I certainly don't dispute that people can do terrible things, but one can sure as hell justify them with a magical story that literally billions of people believe (for both Christianity and Islam). A good example is sexual repression and misinformation. There's literally nothing in our nature that would inherently make us do such a thing. The thing is, after so many religions that preach that natural human emotions and actions are sin, the world is a worse place, and this isn't exaggeration: Think of Africa. Think of the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Now think of the fucking Catholic Church sending priests to discourage the use of condoms and indirectly allowing the spread of HIV/AIDS to continue.

The problem isn't that people are bad and are falling for the bible just by a matter of chance. The problem is that we're having our lives dictated by a book from thousands of years ago, when morals were vastly different. We're raised from birth to believe it, so we assume those morals.

I don't see why you're so vehemently defending religion when it directly and indirectly causes so many problems today.

I'm not defending religion. I'm arguing that attacking religion is counter-productive because people will be people. Religion exists because people think a certain way. People like religion because they also think in that way. Namely, it is nice to think that there is some Truth, and that people who do not believe the Truth are Wrong and should not exist.

The nitty-gritty politics of it are irrelevant. Everything stems from this fundamental fear and hatred of the 'other.'

We shouldn't take out our anger on the various groups that represent human nature.

You have a quite negative view of human nature. The way you describe people, the people who escape their religions (read: the two survivors of the WBC) should not have done so because it caters to their innately bad natures. Even I, a pessimist, know that isn't true.

You know... It's my biggest problem with religion. I see people daily who are so sharp and such kind people, and then I see them following (and proselytizing for) religions that preach hate and intolerance. It disgusts and saddens me, but they've been raised with it, so what can I do?

Nothing. It's what makes me feel so lonely at school, knowing that the vast majority of my friends are two-faced.

People are not naturally evil. People are easily misguided. People are stubborn. These are the reasons why religion flourishes and does such terrible things with such good people.

I'm not saying that people are naturally evil. Evil to me is understanding what would be the right thing to do and then doing the wrong thing. Rather, humans are naturally... misguided, as you put it.

Look at it this way: to you, religion is Wrong. You have said on a few occasions that you would like to destroy the entire Middle East to get rid of all the extremism. You didn't mean for that to be taken seriously, but it demonstrates your anger quite nicely. You think that religion is Wrong because it encourages people to do things that you do not agree with. The reason that you do not agree with those things is because you think that they are immoral and based on lies.

To evangelicals, atheism is Wrong. They think that atheism is Wrong because atheism does not discourage things that they do not agree with. The reason that they do not agree with those things is because they think that they are immoral and based on lies.

There is no universal moral code that determines what is Right and what is Wrong. Or, if there is, we do not know it, and should assume that there is not one, because: believing that there is can ONLY lead to hatred and anger, for it necessitates the belief that there are groups of people who are good and groups of people who are bad, and therefore makes conflict inevitable.

Unfortunately we have evolved in such a way that we innately feel that there must be some fundamental truth. Which brings us back to the beginning: people make up truths, those truths necessarily include that people who believe other truths are wrong, and conflict ensues.

You are probably a sharp and kind person. Nevertheless, you follow and "proselytize" for the idea that certain groups of people are wrong and should be hated.

You see, I'm not a nihilist. I think that the closest thing to what I'm saying would be absurdism:

Wikipedia schrieb:

1. There is such a thing as meaning or value: Yes

2. There is inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God): Maybe, but humans can never know it

3. Individuals can create meaning in life themselves: Yes, but it must face the absurd and it must be individual by the "absurd creation" in order to have meaning and sense

4. The pursuit of gaining intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe is possible: No, but the pursuit itself may have meaning

5. The pursuit of constructed meaning is possible: Maybe

6. There is a solution to the individual's desire to seek meaning: Yes, but it is based on the individual's personal meaning since it's impossible to know the inherent meaning in the universe (if one exists)

I don't want to leave anything out (other than your first remark because that's a personal belief that, unlike religion, I can't dispute) so I'll go paragraph by paragraph.

WarHampster schrieb:

Look at it this way: to you, religion is Wrong. You have said on a few occasions that you would like to destroy the entire Middle East to get rid of all the extremism. You didn't mean for that to be taken seriously, but it demonstrates your anger quite nicely. You think that religion is Wrong because it encourages people to do things that you do not agree with. The reason that you do not agree with those things is because you think that they are immoral and based on lies.

I hate to come from a moral high ground, but that's what I have. When religion is counterintuitive to so many instincts (the AIDS example is good; self-preservation is thrown out the window because we might offend God by killing sperm... I'm still waiting for an address from you to that) it just can't be defended, but because these people have been raised with it ingrained into their heads, they think they're doing the right thing by indirectly encouraging the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. How can you defend this except with made-up beliefs? (I guess I also come from a logical high ground; that people's words are a lot more valuable than a made-up entity). Again, this is why I am so strongly against religion in any form other than bedtime stories and some non-magical beliefs (Buddhism is semi-this way).

WarHampster schrieb:

To evangelicals, atheism is Wrong. They think that atheism is Wrong because atheism does not discourage things that they do not agree with. The reason that they do not agree with those things is because they think that they are immoral and based on lies.

They think this simply because they have been raised to do so, whereas I (with plenty of other atheists), although raised in an atheist home, was never taught that religion is amoral; I reached that conclusion by myself when I saw all the discrimination. These people think atheism is wrong simply because it threatens their beliefs, whereas I believe it's wrong because it threatens people. And while you could say "well its your belief that human life should be protected herp derp" you know that's fundamentally flawed because we have a natural altruistic instinct, and in the scheme of things, what are we but what our minds have made of us? It's a slightly unorthodox way of thinking (it hurts my head to think about it sometimes), but if our minds think certain ways, then why are we fighting them? In a weird way, free will is an illusion because when you get down to it, our minds are just electrons and chemical reactions that have no thought, but react in a way that we do collectively.

That was a bit of a tangent, but our nature fully dictates our morals, and it's just stupid to fight them. Which is exactly what Halo religion does: wipe the galaxy clean of all sentient life fight our instincts for nothing. I'm not going to preface everything I say or think with "because our minds work a certain way," but because our minds work a certain way, that's all we have to base our morals off of. Religion tries to inject morals into our lives that make no sense (i.e. if you catch someone working on the sabbath, they are to be stoned to death because THEY OFFEND GOD).

WarHampster schrieb:

There is no universal moral code that determines what is Right and what is Wrong. Or, if there is, we do not know it, and should assume that there is not one, because: believing that there is can ONLY lead to hatred and anger, for it necessitates the belief that there are groups of people who are good and groups of people who are bad, and therefore makes conflict inevitable.

I agree with you here, but don't see why you bring it up; it only establishes that religion has no place. Besides, our innate morals do dictate that some people are good and some are bad: Would you let someone kill a child and get away with it? While you may argue that we only would because of morals we have been taught, this is an unwise thread of argument seeing as if we had no morals, we would have been extinct long before now as we would have killed each other. The problem is that religion is injecting morals that do not mix with our morals (even if you're going to talk about today's morals and not innate ones; ever wonder why there's no favorable mention of the passage in the bible where God summons 42 bears to kill 42 children who are making fun of an old man?).

WarHampster schrieb:

Unfortunately we have evolved in such a way that we innately feel that there must be some fundamental truth. Which brings us back to the beginning: people make up truths, those truths necessarily include that people who believe other truths are wrong, and conflict ensues.

Do we, now? It's not a question of evolution; it's a question of the situation we're in. In a time when people died whenever, and life was terrible, I can understand the flourishing of religion, especially Christianity and its promise of eternal bliss in the afterlife. Times have changed, though. We're not living terrible lives. We don't need hope from magic, and we should have the heart to break free of it and educate the poor and unlucky souls who have reason to believe so they don't start another holy war (the not-so-well-off Middle East seems itching to do so, and so does some of the not-so-well-off American right, which is made up of power-hungry rich people who capitalize on stupidity, and the uneducated poor people who will believe what makes them feel good; not a good recipe).

WarHampster schrieb:

You are probably a sharp and kind person. Nevertheless, you follow and "proselytize" for the idea that certain groups of people are wrong and should be hated.

False (not the first part >_>). I appeal to logic, and people's innate human nature, to make the smart choice, and not hear what they want to hear, but hear what is right. I don't hate those people. I hate what they've become. Pretty much everyone (bar mentally ill people) has a potential for good, but it's hard to exploit that potential when you've been raised with hate. That's why I sit here in my little corner of the universe, hopefully instilling enough doubt in their minds that they start to question their beliefs.

-----------

This next part, I'll comment in olive.

WarHampster schrieb:

You see, I'm not a nihilist. I think that the closest thing to what I'm saying would be absurdism:

Wikipedia schrieb:

1. There is such a thing as meaning or value: Yes Only in our minds; the universe does not have intrinsic values. I guess what counts is that we have them.

2. There is inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God): Maybe, but humans can never know it No. This is opposite everything scientific findings have pointed to. As depressing as it sounds, it's true.

3. Individuals can create meaning in life themselves: Yes, but it must face the absurd and it must be individual by the "absurd creation" in order to have meaning and sense The only meaning in life is what we make of it. Seeing as we are just products of, essentially, a long series of coincidences, and a concept only exists in a mind, we are the only ones that can create a meaning for life other than the one that has been imprinted into every successful organism: To survive and reproduce.

4. The pursuit of gaining intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe is possible: No, but the pursuit itself may have meaning Again, the only meaning is in our minds. My meaning of life is "Do whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't sink others'" but this is just my meaning. However, plenty of other people agree with this, and although there's the saying that the majority doesn't dictate what is right, they do in matters that are not completely of logic. This is hard for me to come to terms with, but our nature is dictated by evolution, and so a lot of our values are hard-wired, and the more successful are the more-believed ones. Before you go and say religion is a successful value/idea and is therefore what is dictated right, think that it's just been passed down by a domino relation of generation to generation, and values of ourselves DO NOT sync up with those of 99% of religions.

5. The pursuit of constructed meaning is possible: Maybe To be honest, you're using a terminology I don't understand, and I don't want to respond to something I don't understand. Please explain this to me so I can respond.

6. There is a solution to the individual's desire to seek meaning: Yes, but it is based on the individual's personal meaning since it's impossible to know the inherent meaning in the universe (if one exists) I agree with this but submit that there is no meaning in the universe.

Sure is srs, I'll just leave this here.

Paul - I don't have time to respond right now, don't think that I'm ignoring you.

What Warhampster said; I also have a response, but no time.

It's almost time for school; I understand.

There is no universal moral code that determines what is Right and what is Wrong. Or, if there is, we do not know it, and should assume that there is not one, because: believing that there is can ONLY lead to hatred and anger, for it necessitates the belief that there are groups of people who are good and groups of people who are bad, and therefore makes conflict inevitable.


Decided I don't feel like debating right now. Maybe later. (Irate about having to suffer a week-long ban for pointing out that Moot has delicate sensibilities.)

Anyone else going to apply for a 4chan janitor position?

Why did you post that in here? Also no.

I'm waiting.

Also the whole religion debate was sort of off the plot, but I guess still on-topic.