Atheists and White Supremacists

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Belief specifically in neptune might be dumb.

Why?

If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.

I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality.  However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God?  And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?

I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc).  I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same?  Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?

A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism.  I wonder why that is.  I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities.   But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism?  I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary.  But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods?  Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits?  For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.

Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?

It was pretty much just one sun baked desert tribe that made the leap from "Our god is better than your god" to "Our god is perfect in ways we can't even describe. Your god just plain doesn't exist." The practice of telling people that their god(s) don't exist became extremely popular over the next couple millennia, to the point where people would seek out new territories on the off chance they could discover people and tell them their god(s) don't exist. Then said people got really good at sailing to new territories, and now the various empires of "Knock, knock, your god is fake" control most of Europe, Africa, the Americas, and dryer and colder parts of Asia.

The surviving major power bases of polytheism, pantheism, and functional atheism ("Gods are very real, but they play no part in salvation/enlightenment) are all in Asia. India traditionally hasn't been very evangelical, except for Buddhism. China recently went through a phase where it decided to disbelieve in gods, agriculture, and economics all at the same time, and it's taking some time for them and their neighbors to recover from the entirely predictable results of that.

Follow-up to add:
The new wave atheists who do nothing but go around telling people they're stupid for believing in g/God(s) can thus be thought of as the 4th Abrahamic religion, taking the seed idea of "{God} doesn't exist" from monotheism and extending it to its logical conclusion of no god existing.

Small a atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities.
Large A Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities and that's the no-God's honest Truth.

Kai's Atheism: I hold no beliefs in deities, and discovered that there were more important things to care about after making that choice, namely the well being of other humans. And anyone who doesn't like my use of the word can wank off. That's the no-God's honest Truth.

Sounds similar to Twid's Theism, but with less journeying.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I see this thread has returned to it's roots:  hating on Nigel.

Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.

I don't see any of the atheists who were hating on Nigel hating on the MRA's in atheism. (were they aware?) It's a pretty much white boys club, is the hardcore subsection. I know Kai hates on these assholes, as we have discussed this previously (especially after Dawkins on Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate).

The one hardcore atheist guy I know is going down That Path and I had to endure him talking over me and my mate Jeanne at payne's birthday outing (we ate  epic burgers and ham hocks and then failed to get drunk because of the amount of food consumed.) he's an obnoxious knob and I hate gaming with him.

[Kai]

I see this thread has returned to it's roots:  hating on Nigel.

Well, you know, it's a fine old tradition, and it's easier than thinking.

I don't see any of the atheists who were hating on Nigel hating on the MRA's in atheism. (were they aware?) It's a pretty much white boys club, is the hardcore subsection. I know Kai hates on these assholes, as we have discussed this previously (especially after Dawkins on Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate).

The one hardcore atheist guy I know is going down That Path and I had to endure him talking over me and my mate Jeanne at payne's birthday outing (we ate  epic burgers and ham hocks and then failed to get drunk because of the amount of food consumed.) he's an obnoxious knob and I hate gaming with him.

I do indeed hate on those assholes, with a passion. MRAs, PUAs, racists, sexists, bigots, the lot. Often includes followers of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, who are/were both sexist/racist in that very stick-up-the-ass way that only overstepping academics seem to perfect. Dawkins wrote an excellent text on genetic evolution and his social opinions still ended up stilted, stupid, and odious. Maybe they always were. In any case, I don't praise them.

[Golden Applesauce]

What is an MRA? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What is an MRA? 

"Men's Rights Activist".

Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time.  Sometimes women even get lippy with us.

AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE!  Someone loan me some Rohypnol?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I prefer to call them "Men Rape Apologizing".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What is an MRA? 

"Men's Rights Activist".

Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time.  Sometimes women even get lippy with us.

AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE!  Someone loan me some Rohypnol?

Oh, those fuckers that throw condoms full of baby powder?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What is an MRA? 

"Men's Rights Activist".

Because, you know, we guys have a hell of a time.  Sometimes women even get lippy with us.

AND WE CAN'T GET A DATE!  Someone loan me some Rohypnol?

Oh, those fuckers that throw condoms full of baby powder?

That's a new one on me.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Belief specifically in neptune might be dumb.

Why?

If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.

I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality.  However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God?  And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?

I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc).  I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same?  Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?

A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism.  I wonder why that is.  I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities.   But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism?  I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary.  But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods?  Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits?  For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.

Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?

I read someplace that desert cultures tend to be monotheistic since you kind of have one big view, and people in forests, jungles, etc. tend to be polytheistic. IOW it's supposed to be environmental. And we inherited a religious trope from a desert culture.

IDK, but it makes as much sense as anything else.

[Kai]

What is an MRA? 

Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What is an MRA? 

Male/Men's Rights Activist. Yes, they are exactly what they sound like.

I still want to hear about the condoms full of baby powder?  WTF?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Belief specifically in neptune might be dumb.

Why?

If he is understood to be some guy swimming around in the mediterranean causing earthquakes them that is a rather strange belief. Just as strange as the idea of jehovah having a literal cease and cloud throne.

I'll concede that a literal reading of, let's say, Homer probably isn't very representative of reality.  However, isn't it possible that Neptune does exist even if he doesn't have a beard and sea throne just like Jehovah not having a beard and cloud throne doesn't automatically discount the existence of God?  And ultimately isn't the idea of multiple gods just as possible as a single God?

I don't mean to single you out, Twid, but I've noticed that most people who believe in some form of deity (or a variation thereof) but don't subscribe to an established religion tend to believe in a monotheistic deity (or consciousness, spirit, being, etc).  I'm curious why that is. Is the idea that a single God created the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped back any more or less possible than a group of deities doing the same?  Is the idea that the universe as a whole is one massive organism any more or less possible than the idea that each individual galaxy is an organism, and the universe as a whole is simply a school of organisms swimming through the cosmic sea?

A lot of people throughout history, at least European and Near Eastern history, tend to gravitate towards monotheism.  I wonder why that is.  I wonder what about our human nature leads us towards the idea that a single deity is more logical or more possible than multiple deities.   But isn't there the same amount of evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism?  I accept that God might exist because there's no proof to the contrary.  But couldn't the same be said for multiple gods?  Or maybe some kind of infinite number of animistic spirits?  For all we know the Big Bang could be what happens when a celestial Mike fires up the misaligned cosmic ball mill.

Or maybe it just seems like our nature drives us towards monotheism because I live in a culture/hemisphere that has had a lot of contact with monotheism throughout history?

I read someplace that desert cultures tend to be monotheistic since you kind of have one big view, and people in forests, jungles, etc. tend to be polytheistic. IOW it's supposed to be environmental. And we inherited a religious trope from a desert culture.

IDK, but it makes as much sense as anything else.

What eventually became Abrahamic religions were originally polytheistic. It's just that Yahweh was better. Eventually better became only.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I went looking for the condom thing, and found this:



ENGLAND!  WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

For all I know, we're all part of a much larger organism that has agency. I think Kai has mentioned something along those lines in the past as well, as have many others in other contexts.

Although I doubt such an organism would be any more conscious of its cellular processes than we are of ours.

I'm willing to be shown wrong, but this superorganism agent sounds a lot like constructions philosophy majors come up with when they want a diety that is buzzword-compatible with what they think their friends do in science class, whose existence they can defend pedantically in class, but is ultimately meaningless and of no consequence to humans even if true.

Does believing that a higher level structures humans are a part of can be meaningfully described as an organism, and that said organism has agency, change anything about the way you live your life? For all the flack religions get about their beliefs not bing falsifiable, they do impact their followers' behavior. If there is a god that is a the ultimate source of truth about how humans should behave, it is of cosmic importance that humans know what that god wants them to do. Abrahamic religions devote considerable resources to that task. If the universe and everything in it are all reflections of a unified source, then self reflection and purifying yourself really does improve the whole universe. Buddhists and some Hindus spend a lot of time meditating. If there really is an afterlife based on your successes in this world, then it makes sense to bury people with lots of really cool grave goods. That's exactly what we find when we crack open burial sites across the ancient world.

What does all this purpose and agency floating around in the universe imply about what you think or do, besides feel more spiritually connected than those poor, insecure atheists?

How could I, or anyone, show you wrong about something that isn't even a hypothesis so much as airy speculations? I neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that life as we know it is part of a larger living organism with agency, though I will say that life as we know it contributes to ever-larger systems, and that is observable. I have no idea what happens on a scale larger than we can observe, and as I mentioned previously I have little reason to care.

You can have "spiritual connection", which I think is better simply termed "connection", without faith or belief in deities or purpose or a "higher agency".

This. WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This. WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN.

I do.

Holy Man™.