News:

The only BEARFORCE1 slashfic forum on the Internet.  Fortunately.

Main Menu

Plus, I Got Religion

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, March 08, 2009, 01:18:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 09, 2009, 03:33:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.


you mean there are words things that don't annoy you?
:lol:

titties and beer and ... yeah, that's about it.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

To me, there seems a big difference between irreligious and anti-religious. That is, my interpretation of Discordianism seems to promote a 'Think For Yourself, Don't Just Believe the Crazy Guy on the Pulpit" sort of vibe, while Atheism seems to promote a "There is no God, STFU Religious Person" sort of position. While some atheists may be Discordian, and some Discordians may be atheists, I really don't think that the two are even close to the same thing.

Atheism doesn't require thinking for yourself (though if you think for yourself, you may come to decide that you personally don't believe in a God). Atheism only requires an individual to make some positive statement about the non-existence of Deity in any form. A positive statement that something we cannot measure does not exist.... or a statement that something we can make a formal logic statement about must be true. Yet both of these positions require a faith in a well known untrusted source, the human neurological system. This seems as much of a stretch as the faith a religious person puts in a text or tradition.

If a person wants to believe in whatever, we can disagree with their worldview. We can find faults in their system of belief. Yet, surely, if we were to turn that same critical eye on ourselves, we would find flaws and faults in whatever perception of reality we personally hold. Who is to say that ours is less damaging or damning than theirs? In fact, if we think that we're in a better position than "THEM", aren't we putting ourselves in the position of potentially becoming a Cosmic Schmuck? Converting people, or deriding people because they don't agree with you, seems to fly in the face of much of the PD and even the writings that are generally popular here . "Thinking for yourself" might mean you disagree with many other people that Think For Themselves.  However, that's a far better sign that we're doing something right, than if we all think we "Think for Ourselves" and then agree 100% with each other.

Me, personally, I tend to see religions and belief systems as models that I can play in or not play in. However, I admit that is a limited view. By holding that position, I will probably never again have the really real perception changes that someone who really does believe in that system will. Sometimes I envy that. Sometimes it seems like I would benefit from having some system of beliefs that I held, personally, as true for me. My shrapnel and ruts and prison bars and submarine port windows, though... make such a thing very unlikely for me. But if it works for Nigel, then good for Nigel!

- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

I would agree with ECH that PD.com seems to be a bit harsh when dealing with the subject of religions, especially religions that take their unprovable ground rules too seriously.  That's just the nature of these forums, and the general attitude of the majority of people who post here.

Other forums have different attitudes.  For example, EB&G has multiple posts on the Tarot, various pagan faiths, et al; but they are also anti-MW, so you tend not to get into fluff all that much.

Please believe me when I say I'm not telling you to bugger off to another board... I like having you around.  But if you honestly feel the need to talk about formalized spirituality, then I would suggest you head over there.

AFK

Let's say for argument's sake that PD.COM is Atheist Central, so what?  Why should that keep you from talking about something you believe in?  I mean, I'm certainly in the minority here when it comes to my position on drugs and drug policy but I'm not about to let that keep me from talking about it. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#49
Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?


It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.

I personally would love to see the anti-religion crusade left to the Pastafarians, as their joke religion is actually designed for it. I take my joke religion more seriously than that, personally.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 05:01:04 PM
Let's say for argument's sake that PD.COM is Atheist Central, so what?  Why should that keep you from talking about something you believe in?  I mean, I'm certainly in the minority here when it comes to my position on drugs and drug policy but I'm not about to let that keep me from talking about it. 

That's not the point of the OP, which answers those questions BTW.

My follow-up posts are more specific to this board, while the OP wasn't. My follow-up posts are perhaps more of an appeal to my peers and friends on the board to reconsider whether they want to spend so much time deriding those of us who choose to have faith.

I, personally, am rather prejudiced against Christians. I do not, however, devote much time (I do enjoy it on occasion) to mocking or "debunking" them. It's not my bag, but I also don't really want to alienate the nice ones just because their illogical indefensible unliteral truth is different from mine.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 02:18:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

I'm kind of confused, like I'm missing some part of the conversation. The OP more or less said, "I'm spiritual, and I don't feel the need to discuss it.". Then here, a few posts later in the thread, you say, "If I'm not supposed to talk about my spirituality here, I'm going to quit."

But two weeks ago, you were kind of indignant at the suggestion that you not flame someone. because it's fun to flame people. You felt like people were telling you how to act, and it pissed you off!

and here, you seem frustrated that this board isn't an ideal spot for discussions about certain things (spirituality for example), and I can see why,  but you're also the one leading the charge sometimes. Maybe not about religious beliefs, specifically. But like, alright, ECH for example is a pretty hardlined atheist. I've never seen him NOT quip when people talk about their relationship with imaginary superbeings  :lol:. So like, should he not do that?

I'm not saying this in a judgmental way, or trying to go after you Nigel. I'm just trying to reconcile what tone exactly you'd like this board to have.


What's so confusing about saying "if this place turns into something I don't like, I'll go away"?

I also said,
Quoteyet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too.

If I was told that I could not make fun of religion, it'd make me toodle off in my trusty Huff as well. That's not what I'm saying. I'm verbally exploring something that I've noticed seems to be an increasing trend here. It's come up in conversation with other... shall we call them "Discordians of faith". It's a topic of interest to me. It's not like my dislike of evangelism has ever been a secret, Cram. That includes Atheist evangelism. Fuck, I married an Atheist once upon a time. Fucker was in-fucking-suffererable, both as an Atheist and after he converted to Christianity (Fucking True Believers HAVE to believe in something, hard, ALL THE TIME, and they want to MAKE YOU BELIEVE IT TOO...)

:lulz:
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:05:49 PM
Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?


It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.



I'll go along with that.

Because for the most part (for me), the religious/spiritual experience is a personal one.  That moment of gnosis can't be explained or discussed, it can only be felt (Cf: The Zen act of pointing to it; "The Tao that can be told," et al).  

Plus, if you are adhering to a codified system that orbits around the spiritual experience, you are probably going to encounter several ideas or concepts that cannot be proven (hence, the faith bit), or that are more-or-less arbitrary (Artemis or Diana?).  


So it would seem that to try to discuss it in a forum like this has at least two directions to it:

1) Speaking about the unspeakable.
2) Defending the indefensible.



For example, if you started a thread about the Tarot, it would fairly quickly split off into discussions of free will v. predetermination, "Quantum", Law of Fives, psychology, James Randi, "psychic" abilities, Madgjeeek, and fraud... and almost nothing about what it would mean to get a Ten of Swords reversed in th third position.

P3nT4gR4m

Putting aside "religion" which is a whole nother can of worms, the term "faith" is another one that is just too broad and open to personal interpretation that you can't really tar everyone with the same brush. As a general rule I will mercilessly mock people who profess to having "faith" in a god-based scenario but there are exceptions.

If you'd used your first post on this board to say "Hi I'm Nigel and I have faith in the risen christ or the mercy of allah or whatever" then I'd have jumped on your case for the lulz. But I know you better than that now so whatever it is you mean by "faith" I'm pretty confident it isn't the same thing a "faithfool" would mean by it. You just don't strike me as the kind of person who would jump off a cliff cos the guy in the big hat told them they should.

So what the hell is "faith"? I'm not stupid enough to completely discount the possibility of life after death or reincarnation or whatever, in fact I remain quietly optimistic that maybe there is and I'll die and then pop up in some kind of afterlife or whatever. It's a much more comfortable scenario to look forward to. On the other hand there's a vast gulf of difference between hoping for the best and believing it with all my heart and soul - IMO it's just way too unlikely for me to have that kind of faith in. In all probability when my brain dies so will I.

The reason I'm down on that kind of faith is because once you have it you become subject to manipulation by the self appointed governors of your chosen deity and that's shaky territory in my view. That's the real lemming-scenario and, as far as I'm concerned, the cons outweigh the pros being that the pros seem to be largely centred around individuals feeling a bit less scared of the grim reaper and the cons, especially when two or more religious ideologies collide, can be strikingly messy.

At best faith is a crutch - a little shot of psychological morphine. At worst its an excuse to perpetrate all manner of horrors.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Cain

Nigel, have you ever read Kierkegaard?  He was a Christian existentialist who also claimed faith was essentially irrational and thus cannot be rationally argued for.

From the book I am reading on him:

QuoteSince it is impossible for us to work out what we need to do to become enlightened,we have two choices: to remain forever in a life of complete ignorance and uncertainty about what we ought to believe or how we should live, or alternatively we can choose to take 'the leap into absurdity', in other words, a 'leap to faith' in which we adopt the utterly irrational belief in an eternal, unchanging God who can take form in time and who can enlighten us if we passionately and whole-heartedly commit ourselves to him. Kierkegaard considers faith to be the most important of all human potentials, because he believes that an individual can only reach complete selfhood through faith.

To be one's true self, Kierkegaard asserted the necessity of becoming what he termed a 'single individual'. The single individual is central to all areas of his thought. At its highest level of evolution the single individual stands alone before God and is answerable first and foremost to God. According to Kierkegaard, it is only when a human realises that he stands naked before God that he becomes a fully fledged human being. To be a 'single individual' requires passionate self-commitment to a single purpose in life. Kierkegaard explains, 'Purity of heart is to will one thing.' 'Every call from God is always addressed to one person, the single individual. Precisely in this lies the difficulty and the examination, that the one who is called must stand alone, walk alone, alone with God' (JP,I,p.100).

As a 'single individual', my true self, I create and choose my own values and way of life irrespective of whether or not it harmonises with the society in which I live. Total commitment to the fundamental path that I have freely chosen in life is the key feature of this state of consciousness. This lends a sense of cohesiveness and integrity to my existence, for now my actions are a genuine expression of what I really want to be doing with my existence.

There is a lot more to it than that, but themes of individualism, faith and choosing ones own cause in life are central to his numerous works.  He's also very funny.  Going by your OP, you may like him.

Cain

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:05:49 PM
Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?


It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.



I'll go along with that.

Because for the most part (for me), the religious/spiritual experience is a personal one.  That moment of gnosis can't be explained or discussed, it can only be felt (Cf: The Zen act of pointing to it; "The Tao that can be told," et al).  

When I studied religious experiences, one of the key components of such an experience was its ineffability.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

I think the other reason that it isn't discussed here much is because of the freedom people have here to post what they want.  I know that sounds like a paradox, but hear me out.

Let's say a person here posts their belief in the Cosmic Turtle, and let's say that there are 5 other people who agree, and they start a thread discussing the Great Carapace, or whatever.

But then, one or two people counter with, "What is this horseshit!?"

The Turtlites are free to post what they will, and so are the doubters.  No one's going to stop them.

But now, they have to defend their positions, which (as noted above) are indefensible, almost by definition.  Short of igoring the doubters completely, any further discussion becomes impossible; and even then, they'll have to skip over posts filled with mockery by the two doubters.

See what I mean?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Cain on March 09, 2009, 05:37:03 PM
Nigel, have you ever read Kierkegaard?  He was a Christian existentialist who also claimed faith was essentially irrational and thus cannot be rationally argued for.

From the book I am reading on him:

QuoteSince it is impossible for us to work out what we need to do to become enlightened,we have two choices: to remain forever in a life of complete ignorance and uncertainty about what we ought to believe or how we should live, or alternatively we can choose to take 'the leap into absurdity', in other words, a 'leap to faith' in which we adopt the utterly irrational belief in an eternal, unchanging God who can take form in time and who can enlighten us if we passionately and whole-heartedly commit ourselves to him. Kierkegaard considers faith to be the most important of all human potentials, because he believes that an individual can only reach complete selfhood through faith.

To be one's true self, Kierkegaard asserted the necessity of becoming what he termed a 'single individual'. The single individual is central to all areas of his thought. At its highest level of evolution the single individual stands alone before God and is answerable first and foremost to God. According to Kierkegaard, it is only when a human realises that he stands naked before God that he becomes a fully fledged human being. To be a 'single individual' requires passionate self-commitment to a single purpose in life. Kierkegaard explains, 'Purity of heart is to will one thing.' 'Every call from God is always addressed to one person, the single individual. Precisely in this lies the difficulty and the examination, that the one who is called must stand alone, walk alone, alone with God' (JP,I,p.100).

As a 'single individual', my true self, I create and choose my own values and way of life irrespective of whether or not it harmonises with the society in which I live. Total commitment to the fundamental path that I have freely chosen in life is the key feature of this state of consciousness. This lends a sense of cohesiveness and integrity to my existence, for now my actions are a genuine expression of what I really want to be doing with my existence.

There is a lot more to it than that, but themes of individualism, faith and choosing ones own cause in life are central to his numerous works.  He's also very funny.  Going by your OP, you may like him.

No, I haven't, but I'll give him a whirl. Thanks!

I do agree that there's really very little point in discussing faith or religion with people who don't have it, because... well, it can't be explained. It doesn't make sense. It's the thing that I call unliteral truth. Either someone gets it or they don't, and I have no place in that process.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?


Interesting you should say "art"... I consider one of my spiritual triggers to be music, both in playing and listening.