The Sad Radicals- atheists with a deep, abiding faith in their own oppression

[KLB]

How was that stomped out? It's been allowed, especially recently, not stomped out.

If you want to talk about "stomping things out", let's talk about removing things from public display that have been on display for decades with no issue. Now all of a sudden those things are offensive? Why weren't they offensive 20, 40, 100 years ago? That's happening now. Statues being torn down, anything remotely "religious" being removed from the public square so to speak, etc. Are you trying to say that we've all been wrong for over 200 years and "some" people have now become enlightened enough to declare that their non-belief should be the law of the land? Talk about a first amendment violation. That's the very definition of "establishing a religion". Calling it non-belief doesn't make it anything less than a belief, aka a religion.

Those things are removed now, because:
1) It has become more acceptable to not be Christian in this country
2) Some people that don't like religion took some governments to court over some of these displays.
3) Some courts found there was a Freedom from Religion in the Constitution.
4) Others started doing the same.

Who has said that everyone should have to be an atheist?

 

[indiucky]

The militant rabid atheist **********s who think they’re “changing the world” for the better by purging society of religion should consider that they could be full of ****. Not that I think they should become religious—I’m not religious myself. But maybe the world doesn’t need their meddling to get along just fine. Maybe purging religion despite human wiring will make society worse.

That's what Nietzsche try to warn us about....

I love this clip of Hitchens basically saying what you said Jamil.....

[video=youtube;E9TMwfkDwIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TMwfkDwIY[/video]

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think in evolutionary terms, the end of a species may be eminent when the species learns how to override the behaviors which has made it successful, before it understands what made it successful.

That's an interesting point, and it may be true, but it's definitely true that many species have been at risk of extinction when the behaviors that made it successful become an impediment in a changing environment. In that case, the inability to override those behaviors has caused the demise of species. Do we humans need to learn to double down on the old tried-and-true behaviors or do we need some fresh new ones?

Utopia is just a wet dream. If we can ever wake up from it we’ll have a real mess on our hands.

I think Utopias have happened here and there, they just didn't catch on.

 

[jamil]

That's an interesting point, and it may be true, but it's definitely true that many species have been at risk of extinction when the behaviors that made it successful become an impediment in a changing environment. In that case, the inability to override those behaviors has caused the demise of species. Do we humans need to learn to double down on the old tried-and-true behaviors or do we need some fresh new ones?

Well. This is what you get for saying such things when I have time to blather on. Now I compel you to read through all of it. You literally asked for it.

Obviously I'm not saying that's the only way species become extinct. It's not clear that we're running behavioral algorithms that are currently an impediment to our survival in a changing environment. I dunno. Maybe you're talking about our physical environment, and hey, maybe fair enough, but that's not all that clear either.

But I'm talking about society destroying itself directly through overriding behaviors that have evolved through dna and socially. We've evolved socially, at least in the West, to recognize and override some bad behaviors. In terms of religion, Christians don't burn heretics at the stake anymore. For the most part, at worst they oppose ****ing any way but missionary style, and they kinda don't like teh [sic] gays. Anyway, in the West at least, we've done far better for humanity in the last 100 years than in human history. Poverty in the West is far less prevalent than in other cultures. We generally have peace. We've figured out that primacy of individual rights coupled with a sense of personal responsibility makes a better collective. I really don't see a threat for which we need fresh new behaviors to survive.

And Western society has been progressing positively, I think, is a sort of natural dialectic between the left and right, so that as we understand human nature better, the progressive and conservative inputs result in an output that is progressive enough to fix the things that interfere with human success, while being appropriately constrained from going dangerously too far.

So what happens if the dialectic between the right and left are broken, and just one side gets its way unfettered? It's not clear to me that the left puts any thought at all into the consequences of all the social changes they want. They see Utopia on the horizon while failing to realize that place is only a wet dream. They don't tend to think about the cost part of the equation. They don't think about the practicalities. They think about the externalities of the status quo without thinking about the unintended consequences. And on the other side, if the Right had its way unfettered, we'd only be allowed to **** missionary style. There'd be boundaries for the sake of boundaries.

So to my point about messing with the behaviors that made us successful in the evolutionary sense, BEFORE we understand them, that's really dangerous. This is what Overton's Window is about. The dialectic breaks down when the boundaries of the window are exceeded. That destabilizes society. That puts humanity in a bad place.

So today, we have a powerful group of progressives, they control most of the media, which means they control a lot of the information people use to form opinions, they have academia, and they're starting to control boardrooms. They're using this power to silence the right, which tends to enforce limits to how far the left can go with its thirst for progression. It's like what I've been saying, what if they're full of ****? And it's very likely that they are full of ****, because now the dialectic relationship between the left and the right is broken.

I think we get to this place because of what I would call ideological incest. I think I've mentioned that term before. It borrows from the outcome of literal inbreeding. If we're only exposed to the ideas from one worldview, the only dialectic outcomes produce something similar to what happens with inbreeding. The worst traits stack up with literal inbreeding. And the worst ideas stack up with ideological inbreeding. On both sides. We need diversity of thought to keep a healthy dialectic. To think things out. To solve problems without creating even worse problems.

It's not apparent that we know enough about why we're wired to be religious. It's not apparent that whatever benefits of ridding humans of religious beliefs makes society better without. What does seem apparent is that rabid atheists "Stamping out" religion because they think society would be better off, without understanding why it has evolved as it has, and why we're wired for it, it seems a religion without god has replaced it that is far worse than the religion that has evolved to what it is now, with god. Social justice looks an awful lot like a religious institution with the doctrine of political correctness. You must say the right words or you'll be excommunicated, un-personed. White privilege is the new original sin. The problem is that this new religion hasn't been refined through social evolution to not be destructive.

I think Utopias have happened here and there, they just didn't catch on.

So which "Utopias" have happened? Utopias have never been realized, at least not to scale, because they're all wet dreams. They're dreamed up by people too asleep to asked themselves if their ideas are full of ****. And this is a problem with many smart people. They're so ***damn arrogant they become elitist **********s who think they know more than the universe. I think we should not leave our future to people who think men have periods, women can have penises, little 10 year old boys can dress up like a hooker and strip tease in front of pedophiles--AND THINK THAT'S PROGRESS! I'm sorry. That's not a fresh idea that will help us survive as a species. That kind of social change will result in selection for the worst survivors instead of the best. It's the kind of overriding of behaviors I'm talking about. This crop of progressives can only **** up all the things which work to propagate humanity successfully.

 

[KLB]

Sounds like the beginning of the path that Rome went down.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Sounds like the beginning of the path that Rome went down.

Pretty much... Or Sodom and Gamorrah. The progression towards "anything goes" or "if it feels good, do it" seems to have consequences. Nobody disputes the history of Rome. The only disagreement seems to be with who deals out the consequences.

 

[jamil]

Pretty much... Or Sodom and Gamorrah. The progression towards "anything goes" or "if it feels good, do it" seems to have consequences. Nobody disputes the history of Rome. The only disagreement seems to be with who deals out the consequences.

It's not just "if it feels good, do it." Going to the range and shooting for a half day feels good. Shooting full load 10mm from my Sig P220 feels good. But I think the ideological left would rather impose on my freedom to do that. So it's more like, if it feels good, and it's a politically approved activity, maybe then we won't unperson you for daring to think you're free.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It's not just "if it feels good, do it." Going to the range and shooting for a half day feels good. Shooting full load 10mm from my Sig P220 feels good. But I think the ideological left would rather impose on my freedom to do that. So it's more like, if it feels good, and it's a politically approved activity, maybe then we won't unperson you for daring to think you're free.

I was thinking more in terms of things that were up until recently were considered (by the majority of people) to be abhorrent behaviors. (Deciding there are more than two genders, that you can be any gender you consider yourself to be, etc. for example). In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and Rome, the societies came to accept behaviors that were previously seen as abhorrent. We're heading down that path. Not just heading down it, but we're a long way down it.

Sodom and Gomorrah and Rome didn't fall because people were using their swords, spears and bows for recreational purposes. Again, I'm not trying to come off as a prude, but stuff happened to those civilizations. Bad stuff. Like I said, it's fair to debate the reason for their comeuppance and eventual fall, but...

 

[jamil]

I wouldn’t say thinking that women don’t have penises, and men don’t have periods isn’t prudish.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I wouldn’t say thinking that women don’t have penises, and men don’t have periods isn’t prudish.

I hope that was supposed to be "is"... But yeah, it's not a prudish/non-prudish issue really. It's whether to consider mental illness as normal or not in that case.

 

[jamil]

I hope that was supposed to be "is"... But yeah, it's not a prudish/non-prudish issue really. It's whether to consider mental illness as normal or not in that case.

Yeah. I’m blaming the iPhone.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah. I’m blaming the iPhone.

I think the Romans and Sodom and Gammorah-ites used iPhones. Android is the way to the salvation of civilization as we know it. Think about it... Eve gave Adam an apple and things went to crap after that... coincidence? I think not!

 

[NKBJ]

Well, I wasn't sleeping through the part where the 1st amendment was discussed. You can ban some behaviors. You can't ban belief. You can't stomp out beliefs you don't like. At least not yet. We've not been completely overrun by authoritarian **********s. Yet.

To be a self-regulating society you have to promote by public acclamation what is agreed to as beneficial and to publicly disapprove of what is not. That works. That tells your representatives what they have to provide in order to be re-elected. That is why our form of government will only work with a moral, religious and self-regulating people.

Now people have been bamboozled into mute toleration of bad behavior.
What we have been morphed into will not work.
We will either regulate ourselves and our representatives or we will lose our remaining freedoms.

 

[NKBJ]

An internet gift to the forum.
Merry Christmas you guys.
Hope you enjoy a fun read.

http://plausiblefutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/victoria.pdf

 

[jamil]

To be a self-regulating society you have to promote by public acclamation what is agreed to as beneficial and to publicly disapprove of what is not. That works. That tells your representatives what they have to provide in order to be re-elected. That is why our form of government will only work with a moral, religious and self-regulating people.

Now people have been bamboozled into mute toleration of bad behavior.
What we have been morphed into will not work.
We will either regulate ourselves and our representatives or we will lose our remaining freedoms.

Yeah. ***damn first amendment was invented by librhals anyway. Let’s ban Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or anyone who doesn’t **** up and down.

 

[mmpsteve]

Yeah. ***damn first amendment was invented by librhals anyway. Let’s ban Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or anyone who doesn’t **** up and down.

I need to consult the wife on this.

 

[Route 45]

I am me, an individual in a representative republic that has a form of government only suited to a people that is self-regulating, moral and religious. It's my responsibility to decide what what will be accepted or not (and therefore stomped out) and to provide (through voting) representatives who reflect my value judgements to maintain and to safeguard the culture and the social structure that I hold dear. To do any less is to be negligent. As religion is the source of all laws our religion dictates our beliefs in what is right and what is wrong.
Now, what part of that did were you sleeping through class or were you in school after the commies took over education?

You can easily tell that our nation was founded on Christianity by the number of times that Jesus was mentioned in the founding documents, including the Constitution.

 

[indiucky]

You can easily tell that our nation was founded on Christianity by the number of times that Jesus was mentioned in the founding documents, including the Constitution.

Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Route 45]

Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Still no mention of Jesus. So...we are Jewish?

 

[jbombelli]

Still no mention of Jesus. So...we are Jewish?

Have you accepted Cthulhu into your heart?