Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism rules.

Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 04:16:28 AM
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear. As an atheist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escapes fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
The thing to consider is not just religion itself and the culture is has created. We must look at the divide it creates within groups: those who buy into it without convincing, those who follow religion but are smart enough to listen to rationality, and the skeptic. In a post-modern society, we must all play the skeptic and we wary of the human desire for values and sense. In any field, whether it be music, philosophy, or religion, we are only free once we break free of our own self-imposed values.

However, when atheism becomes a hive mind, it becomes as detrimental as religion.

NHA

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 05:28:35 AM
Quote
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear.

That pretty much goes for any idea in general heh.

Quote
Dostoyevsky as a "spiritual realist" based his novels on the premise of the "life of ideas".[7] In Demons, Dostoyevsky applies this theory not so much to the human condition and human suffering but rather to human political reality in general. Dostovesky's analysis is not to deal or honestly reflect the human condition (as in his other "existentialist" novels) but rather to portray the reality of power, mankind's desire to manifest its will and obtain power. Dostoyevsky defines evil here as the passion for power and control, showing that reason and logic are a ruse to justify rebellion against existence. The heart of nihilism is the belief that existence is meaningless and should be destroyed and that this idea is even more "irrational" in its reasoning and justification than the ideas it opposes. Nihilism, in its claims to overthrow the old order, which it calls irrational and unjust, is hypocritical, because the new order shows itself to be even more irrational and unjust in its ideas and the implementation of those ideas. Dostoyevsky takes a Russian Orthodox stance on ideas as demons: that it is the "isms" of mankind that, as demonic possessors of man, lead him away from God. The demons are ideas, such as: idealism, rationalism, empiricism, materialism, utilitarianism, positivism, socialism, anarchism, nihilism and ultimately atheism. Getting man to relinquish these ideas is to have mankind embrace the asceticism of Russian Orthodoxy . This is in direct opposition to the Nietzschean perspective that treated religion as tyrannical and as the basis for mankind's suffering.

"It was not you who ate the idea, but the idea that ate you."
Pyotr Verkhovensky

Copy-pasted from wikipedo 'caus i'm a lazy sack of shit. Anyway, his symbolism is pretty apt in describing how most people interact with ideas.






Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 06:04:42 AM
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear. As an atheist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escapes fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

Modern atheism is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with theists and/or a high capacity for reading reddit. As a theist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escaped fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

(I can be stupid too!)

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 03:53:23 PM
One idea about certain aspects of religion (you can stretch it to a lot of other stuff) has always persisted and appealed to me. The Andalusian philosopher Ibn-Tufail wrote, in the 12th century, a tract about a feral child who is lead into realization by his own faculties alone. It's called Hayy-ibn-Yaqdhan ("Alive, son of Awake", translated in 1708 by Simon Ockley as Philosophus Autodidactus). Anyway, here are some excerpts directly from the translated text, with parts of interest and relevance bolded:

"Only there were two things stuck in his Mind, which he wonder'd at, and could not comprehend wherein the Wisdom of them did consist. The one was, why this Messenger of God, in describing most things which relate to the Divine World, us'd to express them to Men by Parables or Similitudes, and wav'd a perspicuous Explication of them; by which occasion'd Men in a great Measure to fall into that Error of asserting a Corporeity in God, and believing Things of that TRUE Being, from which he is absolutely free; and so in like manner, concerning, those Things which relate to the Rewards and Punishments of a Future State. The other was, why he went no farther than these Precepts and Rites of Worship, but gave Men leave to gather Riches, and allow'd them a Liberty as to matter of Food; by which means they employed themselves about vain Things, and turn'd away from the Truth, Whereas his Judgment was, that no Body ought to eat any thing, but only just to keep him alive; and as for Riches, He had no Opinion of them at all. And when he saw what was set down and prescrib'd in the Law, with Relation to Wealth, as Alms, and the Distribution of them, and Trading and Usury, Mulcts and Punishments; these things seem'd all very odd to him, and he judg'd them superfluous; and said, that if Men understood Things aright, they would lay aside all these vain Things, and follow the Truth, and content themselves without any thing of all this; and that no Man would challenge such a Propriety in Riches, as to have Alms ask'd of him, or to cause his Hands to be cut off, who privily stole them; or their lives to be taken away, who had openly robb'd him.

Now that which prompted him to this Persuasion, was this, that he thought all Men were indu'd with an ingenuous Temper, and penetrating Understanding, and a Mind constant to itself; and was not aware how blockish and stupid they were, how ill-advis'd, and inconstant in their Resolutions; insomuch, that they are like Brute Beasts, nay, more apt to wander out of the way. Since therefore he was greatly affected with Pity towards Mankind, and desir'd that he might be an Instrument of their Salvation; a Resolution came into his Mind of going over to them, to declare and lay before them the Truth. This Intention of his he communicated to his Friend Asāl and ask'd him if there could possibly be any way contriv'd to come at them.

But Asāl told him what sort of People they were, and how far from an ingenuous Temper, and how averse from obeying the Commands of God; but he had no Notion of that, but still his Mind was intent upon that which he hop'd to compass: And Asāl desir'd that it would please God, by his means, to direct some of his Acquaintance which were of a more pliable Temper than the rest, and had more Sincerity in them, into the right way. So then he was ready to further the Design and Endeavour of Hai Ebn Yokdhan. Upon which they resolved to keep close to the Sea Shore, without stirring from it either Day or Night, till God should please to afford them an Opportunity of crossing the Sea. And all the while they were intent upon this, they continu'd praying to God to direct them in this their Business, and bring it to an happy Issue.
"

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16831/16831-h/20018-h.htm

The main point I wanted to highlight; "a lot of people are stupid, they need trappings so they can function." A "real" religion must be a crowd pleaser to some extent. It has to be. At the very least, the crowd must be functional and satisfied. A little off-topic? Something to think about?

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 04:01:09 PM
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear.

Modern conservatism -- as manifested in modern conservatives -- is also blighted.

This doesn't change the fact that conservatism as a principle makes sense, where liberalism as a principle is drivel, even if applied by highly competent people.

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 07:45:21 PM
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear. As an atheist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escapes fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

Modern atheism is reactionary, directionless drivel for the slightly above-average who have some weird obsession with materialism and/or a high capacity for pretension. As a theist, you can pretty much ignore it, just as a white person ignores rap music. It's the same concept.

I have a question: To what end?

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 08:24:38 PM
The main point I wanted to highlight; "a lot of people are stupid, they need trappings so they can function." A "real" religion must be a crowd pleaser to some extent. It has to be. At the very least, the crowd must be functional and satisfied. A little off-topic? Something to think about?

Point well taken, and thank you for the quote. Yes, there is no better method to educate a people and to let them participate, as much as possible, in virtue, than to let them practice a religion. Metal music and culture is a reaction against a degenerate civilization and at the same time a vision of a better future; a vision that is in many aspects traditional and visionary, but far too often blind in its rebellion; by repulsing it becomes repulsive. There are many intelligent listeners of metal music who are capable of understanding this eventually, and many of them visit this forum.

"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea." --Gandhi

Re: Atheism rules.
December 17, 2011, 10:02:51 PM
You guys are missing the point. I see rightists bashing atheists, when religion today is absolutely atrocious. This thread is another example. Have fun with that bullshit.

Re: Atheism rules.
December 19, 2011, 03:02:29 AM
Modern religion is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with death and/or a high capacity for believing everything they hear. As an atheist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escapes fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

Modern atheism is dumbed-down, self-esteem-appeasing dribble for the crowd who have some weird obsession with theists and/or a high capacity for reading reddit. As a theist, you've gotten away from that, just as a fit person escaped fast food. It's the same concept. Any questions?

(I can be stupid too!)

This is just being a smart ass. To say that modern atheism is as intellectually baron as modern religion is intellecturally dishonest.

Modern religion views the universe in anthropomophic fashion, it's either a man sitting in the clouds or its some mystical, fundamental property called 'love'. When you love other people unconditionally you display the grace of 'god'. Horseshit.

Re: Atheism rules.
December 19, 2011, 03:12:59 AM
If I find it helpful to conceptualise a God then I will do so. I'm dubious as to the "real" existence of anything which I think of so declaring absolutely that some abstract entity does or does not exist seems silly.

Re: Atheism rules.
December 19, 2011, 03:27:36 AM
Adopting Monism and Divinity can resolve all this. But Being needs to be better understood by the atheist side (or the religious side needs to drop the grey bearded guy on the throne ruling an alternate reality myth) for this to function.

A boolean truth table has no exceptions to its elementary logic. That's but one example of consistently ordered perfection we may access for reference, the ultimate source of which is Being. But just like people can and do screw up truth tables, so does the privation of Being take place.

Monist belief can therefore account for the very few perfections we can observe along with the most egregious forms of defect, all under the same tent so to speak. No dubious parallel cosmos was ever necessary.

Re: Atheism rules.
December 19, 2011, 04:02:15 AM
I am an atheist myself, but I can see the purpose of religion and spirituality (not the pussy, liberal kind) as important organizing tools for a civilization. Reverence is a must.