U.S. politics isolation tank

[Netzach]

Atheists give agnostics shit because being in a state of doubt isn't a good enough response to huge questions in their decided opinions. However, if I could call myself an Atheist, if I could find that kind of certainty in it - I would. But I'm a fake Atheist.

Periodically I do just flag Atheist, because my hunch that there IS a something is outclassed by my hunch that there isn't.

I envy Atheists the way some Atheists have claimed to envy the believer.

Not offending the religious is WAY down on my "to do" list.

 

[Homburg]

And therein lies the problem: the moderates blame circumstances for their silence. And yet silent they remain. And as long as it remains this way, the Wayne LaPierre's and Alex Joneses of the world will define the guns debate. If there are some unpleasant controls put into place, my guess is that it will be in large part because LaPierre and Jones and their ilk have pissed off too many otherwise reasonable people.

Did Gandhi wait until someone provided him with a platform? My guess is that most moderates are staying quiet for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that they maintain a confidence that the big bad NRA will win out in the end and they won't have to break a sweat to keep the status quo.

Only half of that is blaming circumstance. The first part, and first on purpose, blames insufficient motivation.

That said, what we are doing here and now is, in it's own way, a platform.

And while I could certainly lend ideas and reasoning to moderate gun owners, I am not the face. I've no desire for media scrutiny, any more than most folks that post here. As a result, I will content myself with attempting to show that people like me do exist.

And, yes, Alex Jones was brought out in no small part because he would undercut the pro-2A position with his crazy. Yay for shooting yourself in the proverbial foot.

--

stella,I am falling in love with your mind and general good sense!

Because Stella has good brains.

Personally, I'd much rather discuss this sort of thing with people that have challenging ideas and both brains and ability to make and defend their points. Partisan yahoos are a dime a dozen. Erudite folk that can string a sentence together will always be more interesting and useful in this context.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't mind saying that I do not believe. In my heart and soul there is no god. I can't believe in what doesn't exist.

I usually say "atheist," because A= no, theo= god, ist= one who espouses. I espouse no god.

Furthermore, one thing that us human beings are really really good at, is finding what we look for, we simply do not give up on that shit ever. It took us less than one hundred years to find signs of the Big Bang once we started looking for it. We found the Titanic.

In all of our long, long history on this earth we have looked for Gods and have never found any proof that they exist. If we DO, sometime in my lifetime, find proof-- then I will accept the evidence. But having proof is knowledge, not belief. I still won't "believe" in any gods.
.

 

[Homburg]

ANyone seen 0 Dark 30?

Some amazing scenes...the look of utter defeat in the eyes of a detainee after water boarding as it sinks in that he has been broken by the very same people hatred of whom inspired him to become a jihadi in the first place...commandos shooting down parents in cold blood and then immediately shushing the screaming kids "shh, it's ok, it's ok" in that All-American, we're-the-good-guys, the-firemen-are-here-to-rescue-you accent.

I heard there was some sort of congressional inquest into this where reps were trying to pressure the movie makers to simmer down a bit. Wonder if there's any truth to that.

 

[Homburg]

Furthermore, one thing that us human beings are really really good at, is finding what we look for, we simply do not give up on that shit ever. It took us less than one hundred years to find signs of the Big Bang once we started looking for it. We found the Titanic.

Finding what you are looking for can be the result of confirmation bias. That said, we do not possess the technology or wherewithal to have searched the universe for much of anything, let alone god. And I'm not supporting the idea, just accepting that we do not know all there is to know.

In all of our long, long history on this earth we have looked for Gods and have never found any proof that they exist. If we DO, sometime in my lifetime, find proof-- then I will accept the evidence. But having proof is knowledge, not belief. I still won't "believe" in any gods.
.

I think my overall attitude is as much a personal negation of belief itself. I have no personal capacity for faith, thus it is alien to me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Finding what you are looking for can be the result of confirmation bias. That said, we do not possess the technology or wherewithal to have searched the universe for much of anything, let alone god. And I'm not supporting the idea, just accepting that we do not know all there is to know.

can be, indeed. And individual scientists often suffer from confirmation bias. But that's what peer review is for, as best we can make it. And your comment is kind of weird in context. Science is supposed to question itself all the time. That it isn't always successful is a problem, but Religion isn't supposed to question anything at all.

I think my overall attitude is as much a personal negation of belief itself. I have no personal capacity for faith, thus it is alien to me.

same here. At the same time.

 

[BiBunny]

I believe in...something. This is a struggle for me because I believe that that something exists, but I don't know what it is. I still consider myself a seeker, and I question things all the time.

I don't mind if other people believe or don't believe, as long as it doesn't affect me or others negatively. I dislike believers attempting to force everybody to conform to their idea of what's right. Behave in the way you think is correct, and don't worry so much about what other people do. I also dislike non-believers who try to make me feel stupid. I may be a lot of things, but I like to think that "stupid" is not one of them.

I'm happy to talk about it to people who care. I just know that, realistically speaking, most people really don't care about my opinions on the topic.

 

[Homburg]

can be, indeed. And individual scientists often suffer from confirmation bias. But that's what peer review is for, as best we can make it. And your comment is kind of weird in context. Science is supposed to question itself all the time. That it isn't always successful is a problem, but Religion isn't supposed to question anything at all.

Science is, in essence, why I will not say there is no god. Every time someone says x specific thing is impossible, twenty years later some smart monkey is working out how to do it. So I don't say god is impossible. God is simply unproven and exceedingly improbable.

And, well, basic logic tells us that you can't prove a negative.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Science is, in essence, why I will not say there is no god. Every time someone says x specific thing is impossible, twenty years later some smart monkey is working out how to do it. So I don't say god is impossible. God is simply unproven and exceedingly improbable.

And, well, basic logic tells us that you can't prove a negative.

The existence of gods is about as negative as it gets. Really.

I don't say that there COULD be a god, because believers take that as an invitation to explain this devastating argument they've thought up that I've probably never heard before.

And then I get accused of being arrogant and smug when I tell them some guy name of Pascal wrote it down in the seventeenth century, and a fear of gods doesn't prove that gods exist.

 

[intothewoods]

ANyone seen 0 Dark 30?

Some amazing scenes...the look of utter defeat in the eyes of a detainee after water boarding as it sinks in that he has been broken by the very same people hatred of whom inspired him to become a jihadi in the first place...commandos shooting down parents in cold blood and then immediately shushing the screaming kids "shh, it's ok, it's ok" in that All-American, we're-the-good-guys, the-firemen-are-here-to-rescue-you accent.

Trying hard not to flashback to your Girl with the Dragon Tattoo moment. You don't do that to all violent movies, do you?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I heard there was some sort of congressional inquest into this where reps were trying to pressure the movie makers to simmer down a bit. Wonder if there's any truth to that.

Oh yeah, there sure is.

 

[Netzach]

I believe in...something. This is a struggle for me because I believe that that something exists, but I don't know what it is. I still consider myself a seeker, and I question things all the time.

I don't mind if other people believe or don't believe, as long as it doesn't affect me or others negatively. I dislike believers attempting to force everybody to conform to their idea of what's right. Behave in the way you think is correct, and don't worry so much about what other people do. I also dislike non-believers who try to make me feel stupid. I may be a lot of things, but I like to think that "stupid" is not one of them.

I'm happy to talk about it to people who care. I just know that, realistically speaking, most people really don't care about my opinions on the topic.

I think that "IDK" is actually a great place to find your personal philosophy. It has made me more science friendly rather than less. I won't be made to feel stupid for having no idea with my meagre monkey brain, or for finding the myth versions laughable as anything but good literature.

I also think the least interesting possibility for a God is a sentient-like-we-are human-like one with a plan. Our inquiries are pretty narcissistic.

 

[Netzach]

Do you all remember the faux crisis over the "Ground Zero Mosque?" And how the rational response to the outrage was to point out that of the several hundred million followers of Islam, only a few thousand were actually threats on the order of al Qaeda? And then the reply to this was, "Where are the moderate Muslims? Why are they not speaking out against their irrational brothers?"

Remember all that?

Where are the moderate gun owners? Why are they allowing the crazies dictate the pro gun-ownership side of this discussion?

I don't think it's my job as a Jew to constantly apologize for the West Bank, the average Muslim to explain jihad and what it really means *yet again* to people to won't listen anyway, or that the Presbyterians up the street need to apologize for Pat Robertson because they're both Jesus fans.

I think you're responsible to call bullshit as you see it, but you aren't charged with going onto a quest to seek it out.

I *happen to agree with* some positions, but these are people who are hardly going to accept me as some kind of indicative.

If anything I think I do more important work knee-jerk checking people on my general side of the debate. An actual discussion won't kill anyone.

I know some moderate gun owners who ARE fighting the good fight and having dialogues all the time with people about everything else you could think of, as well as some pretty bitter arguments with conservatives close to them.

 

[Netzach]

can be, indeed. And individual scientists often suffer from confirmation bias. But that's what peer review is for, as best we can make it. And your comment is kind of weird in context. Science is supposed to question itself all the time. That it isn't always successful is a problem, but Religion isn't supposed to question anything at all.

Depends on which religion you're talking about. A lot have debate traditions and doubts in their central narratives.

Science as we do it owes almost as much to religion as it's been suppressed by religion.

 

[intothewoods]

I consider myself agnostic, but I lean atheist and don't have a problem with that ID. I don't think the presence of atheists make religious folks feel stupid. I've been something of a believer in the past and never felt the least bit bothered. There is unknown in the universe -- for some, the unknown is explained by God, for others it's just unknown (at this time, at least).

 

[intothewoods]

Depends on which religion you're talking about. A lot have debate traditions and doubts in their central narratives.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Depends on which religion you're talking about. A lot have debate traditions and doubts in their central narratives.

Science as we do it owes almost as much to religion as it's been suppressed by religion.

For instance?

And, for instance?

Truth to tell, I am talking about the only religion that is constantly up in my face. Those other religions, maybe they have a doubt or five in their central narratives, but doubt is not a function of religion. quite the opposite. You start a theory from a priori-- such as gods and holy writs-- and you are going to run into all kinds of functional issues. Religion just points back to the Good Book. Or papyrus or smoke-sniffing oracle as it may be.

Likewise, science and religion share some driving forces in the human psyche-- the need to know most of all, and science has been forced to crowd up against religion a lot because of that. But I don't know what religion gave science that wasn't already available in the first place.

 

[Homburg]

I don't say that there COULD be a god, because believers take that as an invitation to explain this devastating argument they've thought up that I've probably never heard before.

I welcome it. If my own stance cannot weather the arguments of the opposition, it is not worth keeping. And, at worst, by not being a jerk ass, I might leave said person with a less negative view of secular humanity's.

Oh yeah, there sure is.

Disgusting.

--

If anything I think I do more important work knee-jerk checking people on my general side of the debate. An actual discussion won't kill anyone.

I know some moderate gun owners who ARE fighting the good fight and having dialogues all the time with people about everything else you could think of, as well as some pretty bitter arguments with conservatives close to them.

I've done this regularly and with vigor, to the point if being told to not come back by hard right wing types. I've gotten many frothing mad and yelling LIBERAL at me like a sure epithet.

Bullshit is bullshit, and as much as I despise it when the opposition misrepresents me (I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews) I despise it even more when on the same side of the ideological fence (on the issue du jour) misrepresents me as well. Those folks truly bring out the big guns when

After all, no matter how much they hate the heathen, truest loathing is reserved for the apostate.

 

[BiBunny]

For instance?

Hindusim. Deism. Zoroastrianism, to a degree. Gnosticism. Certain schools of Judaism, even. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I know enough about to feel confident in listing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I welcome it. If my own stance cannot weather the arguments of the opposition, it is not worth keeping. And, at worst, by not being a jerk ass, I might leave said person with a less negative view of secular humanity's.

I just don't welcome Pascal'
s Wager anymore. Call me jaded, but I figure I hear it once very couple months or so. And that adds up.

Thing is, each one of them thinks it's their very own invention and it's going to convince and fill me with the holy spirit and it will be because of this one dudes absolute brilliance.

The argument is pretty easy to counter; Behaving as if I believe in God just in case there is one? Isn't going to fool any omniscient being and I would then be guilty of lying and hypocrisy.

What I have a difficult time with is the self-satisfied smirks on the faces of people who feel zero compunction about behaving like a jerkass towards a secular human being. It depends on the person, but I really don't have many fucks left to give about 'being nice' to the people who think that their imaginary skydaddy should control my life. It's not like I can open the mind of a believer during one conversation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hindusim. Deism. Zoroastrianism, to a degree. Gnosticism. Certain schools of Judaism, even. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I know enough about to feel confident in listing.

What doubts and questions do the followers of those religions grapple with?

also-- what does science owe to religion?

 

[Homburg]

What I have a difficult time with is the self-satisfied smirks on the faces of people who feel zero compunction about behaving like a jerkass towards a secular human being. It depends on the person, but I really don't have many fucks left to give about 'being nice' to the people who think that their imaginary skydaddy should control my life. It's not like I can open the mind of a believer during one conversation.

Might be a regional difference. Lots and lots of religious folk here in VA but I don't all this much dickery. Could also be because I'm relatively genial and a big dude and don't get all that much dickery in person. (Male privilege in action?)

I've found that it costs me nothing to be basically nice. And it's often satisfying yo watch the cognitive dissonance in action.

"The godless heathen is being nice?!?"

 

[BiBunny]

What doubts and questions do the followers of those religions grapple with?

I have no idea. It depends on the person, I'm sure.

Would you like for me to answer about how that applies to me personally, or are you looking for something more general that can be applied across a population? (I don't want to bore you with a long monologue if that's not what you're looking for.)

also-- what does science owe to religion?

I defer to Netz on that one.

 

[Netzach]

For instance?

And, for instance?

Well, I don't frame it as "owes" because I don't feel like it's really productive. I think it's an interesting quirk of history and finance that makes these things less adversarial and more related, or at least more like adversarial siblings with the same inheritance, and that we should pay attention to that relationship carefully.

Money. Unreal amounts of it so that a guy named Mendel could dick around with peas, as one example.

The only reasons the Greeks and Romans had any authority with the Renaissance was that these guys thought Aristotle and Virgil had predicted the birth of Jesus in some way. A happy accident, but without it I shudder to think.

An academic structure, in fact the only ones in existence for centuries. A geneticist or astronomer give or take a few. Anything resembling medicine for centuries.

There wasn't much competition in the understanding shit around us game prior to 1700, but the relationship between institutions can't be reduced to ignorance versus not.

And because of who was driving the funding, I will assert that I think the *way* we do knowledge is shaped by Christianity and its agenda, if you're raised in the western mainstream. ....I don't like it, but I don't think you can get away from it.

 

[Netzach]

Hindusim. Deism. Zoroastrianism, to a degree. Gnosticism. Certain schools of Judaism, even. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I know enough about to feel confident in listing.

These. Tibetan Buddhists debate like crazy.

Quakers, Sikhs, and some Hindus place great weight on personal conviction leading the individual.