One is taught from birth and has a history of indoctrination that both you and me would likely also fall for in the same situation.
The other is willful ignorance with no historical reason to believe it and full denial of most science.
I’m not religious at all, I am happy to openly mock God and dare him to strike me down, I really don’t care. But laughing at the PEOPLE who believe it through no fault of their own is pure douchebaggery.
We’re fortunate to have the opportunity to learn about and assess the situation with as much knowledge as we like, plenty of people don’t have the same opportunity or were taught the beliefs long before they could reason any differently. 5000 years ago you’d be praising the sun God with the rest of us, everything from that to now is just shades of grey, and you’re pretty unlikely to be some special individual that derived all science from first principles and concluded that God was impossible.
You’re basically just claiming to be better due to the circumstances you found yourself in (through no fault of your own). Seems like properly cunty behaviour to me, and only a stones throw from laughing at the poor for not being born into wealth.
Sure thing kiddo. I’ll get right on that when you stop playing the edgy internet “atheist” and grow the fuck up.
Atheism- ACTUAL atheism is simply about not believing in any gods- not being so blinded by your own hatred of others that you can’t see yourself in them.
Not really m8. It brings some people solace and closure to believe that there’s an afterlife after death religion and belief. can come in many forms all are good things. Religion can make you a better person and religion can bring some closure for dead loved ones religion can teach you lots of things religion and belief can come in many forms
One could as well argue that it’s crazy to just “wake up” in some place, having no clue about where we come from and where we go. Constructing some “made up fantasy shit” might be a way to cope with that void.
If it’s not your way that’s perfectly fine, but I would still appreciate a respectful discussion.
I truly do not care what anyone else believes, so long as it doesn’t lead them to inhibit the fundamental human rights of others.
Personally, I take pride in trying to see things from multiple points of view. Logic and reason are, more often than not, the things that drive my actions… to a degree. Obviously I’m not perfect nor have I ever claimed to be, but I do my best to think clearly and deduce the best course of action. That isn’t to say that I don’t get complacent, but I see no point in trying to deny anyone anything if they aren’t hurting anyone else. Treat others as you’d like to be treated and all that.
I truly do not care what anyone else believes, so long as it doesn’t lead them to inhibit the fundamental human rights of others.
I agree. Anyone has the right to believe what ever they want.
The problem is that so many faiths have the belief their's is the only correct one and they have the right (no, the duty...) to force their beliefs on others.
It is the perfect example of the paradox of tolerance.
It is the perfect example of the paradox of tolerance.
Yep. Once the nazis start drinking at your bar, it becomes a nazi bar whether you wanted it to or not. Tolerance of the intolerant only breeds further intolerance. You gotta cut it off somewhere.
It’s one thing to be angry that someone did something wrong and to demand they be punished for it, it’s another thing entirely to continue being intolerant of them once they’ve accepted and ultimately finished that punishment. Our society has something against ex-cons (likely because our government does little to cut down on recidivism rates) but they’re just folks that’ve screwed up and did their time. Their debt to society has been paid.
In any case, what I was saying wasn’t that we should be tolerant of the intolerant. Quite the opposite. It makes no sense to tolerate others inhibiting the rights of others.
I totally agree. But I increasingly notice that logic and reason, albeit great tools to navigate the world, don’t offer any answers to the “bigger” questions.
I acknowledge the sense of community and belonging a religion can bring but I find the entire notion of believing in anything supernatural to be absurd.
<span style="color:#323232;">A monk asked Joshu, a Chinese Zen master: `Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?'
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Joshu answered: `Mu.'
</span>
I find comfort in the Zhuangzi, a text that later became associated with daoism.
To me, the zhuangzi is about accepting the inevitablity of change by remembering that the human scale is only a small part of the crazy and unknowable universe we exist in.
It's hilarious, an obvious work of genius, and surprisingly modern. Unlike the dao de jing, it uses nonsense and satire to make very real and relevant points about the human plight.
He’s the guy who said he wasn’t sure whether he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man.
It’s said that when his wife died his friend found him drumming and singing. When asked why he was behaving inappropriately, he said. “if I weren’t singing I would cry, and then I would have forgotten that all things are constantly transitioning into something else.”
There’s also a certain amount of philosophical one-up-manship.
Ziyu fell ill. Zisi went to see how he was. “How remarkable!” said Ziyu. “The Creator of things is making me into this hooked shape. A hump has thrust up from my back, my five viscera are top-wards, my cheeks are in the shadow of my belly, my shoulders rise above my head, and my pigtail is pointing at the sky! It must be some dislocation of my yin and yang qi.”
Yet he was calm at heart and unconcerned. Crawling to the well, he looked in at his reflection.
“Oh, my! The Creator’s made me even more crooked!”
“Do you resent it?” asked Zisi.
“Why, no! What is there to resent? If this goes on perhaps he’ll turn my left arm into a rooster and I’ll keep watch over the night. Or perhaps in time he’ll transform my right arm into a crossbow pellet and I’ll shoot down an owl to roast. Or perhaps he’ll turn my buttocks into cartwheels and I’ll ascend into the sky with my spirit as my horse! Why would I ever want a new carriage again?
“I received life because the season had come. I will lose it in the flow of time. Content with the seasons and dwelling in the flow of time, neither sorrow nor joy can get within me. In ancient times this was called ‘untying the bonds.’ There are those who cannot free themselves because they are bound by things. Besides, no thing can ever prevail over Heaven – that’s the way it has always been. What would I have to resent?”
...
“The Great Clod burdens me with form, labors me with life, eases me in old age, rests me in death. So if I think well of my life, for the same reason I must think well of my death. Were a skilled smith casting metal, if the metal should leap up and say, ‘I insist on becoming a Moye-type sword!’ the smith would regard it as most inauspicious metal indeed. Now having had the audacity to have once taken on human form, I should now say, ‘I won’t be anything but a man! Nothing but a man!’ the Creator would surely regard me as a most inauspicious person."
That's a section I love from chapter 6.
This is the end of the inner chapters. Note that 'Hundun' means both chaos and wonton, so think something like a metaphorical primordial meatball.
The god of the Southern Sea was Swift; the god of the Northern Sea was Sudden. The god of the center was Hundun. Swift and Sudden would often meet in the land of Hundun, and Hundun would host them with great courtesy. Swift and Sudden made a plan to return Hundun’s generosity. “All men have seven orifices,” they said, “so that they can see and hear, eat and breathe. Hundun alone has none. Why don’t we bore these for him?”
Each day they bored one orifice and on the seventh day, Hundun died.
Gotta appreciate philosophy that knows how to stick the punchline.
That's just the bit we think Zhuangzi definitely wrote, but the 'outer' and 'miscellaneous' chapters have some good stuff. The happiness of fish story from Autumn Floods really sticks with me. The whole chapter on Cutting Satchels is a vicious refutation of the state:
"In taking precautions against thieves who cut open satchels, search bags, and break open boxes, people are sure to cord and fasten them well, and to employ strong bonds and clasps; and in this they are ordinarily said to show their wisdom. When a great thief comes, however, he shoulders the box, lifts up the satchel, carries off the bag, and runs away with them, afraid only that the cords, bonds, and clasps may not be secure; and in this case what was called the wisdom (of the owners) proves to be nothing but a collecting of the things for the great thief."
this chapter is especially interesting when you compare it in style and subject to Neither Lord Nor Subject.
Here's a combined translation/commentary from a scholar. It has some important context.
It's only the 'Inner' chapters - this is the section that is generally accepted as written by Master Zhuang himself because it's "governed by a single creative vision". The 'outer' and 'miscellanious' sections still have some great chapters - 'stealing' is one of my favorites.
Also, here's an 8m video of a semi-related daoist text called Neither Lord Nor Master. I find it so relevant. The first sentence is basically: Confucians say heaven ordained authority, but that's a lie told by people who benefit from oppression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs23tDAaEho
Stoicism. The two major figures that I use to discuss stoicism are Viktor Frankl and Epictetus. Epictetus was born a slave and was crippled by his owner, but eventually was freed and found a happy life teaching Stoicism. Viktor Frankl wrote about finding meaning in life even living in the concentration camps. While not explicitly Stoic, his Logotherapy lines up very well with Stoic principles.
As an athiest I also like stoicism a lot. Epictetus is definitely a real one, loved reading discourses. Would also recommend Seneca although I found it a bit drier. And the famous Meditations from Marcus Aurelius.
Nothing, I guess I just never needed any spiritual support. I grew up an atheist, my parents never took me to any church or prayed or told any religious stories of any kind. Then suddenly, in high school, I decided to tell them I was non religious they were surprised. They said we are Methodists. Well, that’s news to me. Maybe you are, but I was never baptized or anything.
Funny thing, I also never got “the talk.” I managed to figure things out for myself there, too.
I am Catholic, I was born there, growing there, and then I became a real Catholic. For the scientific evidence you have. Fight against my many defects, with the help of God. Looking to reach the heaven, without going through the purgatory (preferably). I would not see it as finding support, but to seek the objective truth.
None. When I consider death/existence/morality I get quite frustrated that I don’t have an answer. Give me omniscience (while preserving my morality and sanity), damn it!
Add comment