Atheists and White Supremacists

[Nephew Twiddleton]

See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.

Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.

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 haven't ruled out the notion that biological life itself is divine. In fact, I find the notion compelling.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, I've come to the decision that my view of people who believe in gods is indeed bigoted. It's a rather disturbing realization to make. I still don't think insecurity has anything to do with it, but if Nigel's point was to get people to really examine their own prejudices, I guess it was a success.

Thanks, Hoops.

[Salty]

People react to the word "insecure" poorly. It's one of those words.

It doesn't have mean anything malicious.

Reasonably glad the thread seems to have turned out more or less OK and didn't involve me being beheaded in my absence. If there's anyone who hates me now or who I'm supposed to hate, just let me know by PM and I'll make note.

Alty, you said that turning to tribal rivalry out of a sense of insecurity is natural. YES, it is natural; that's exactly what I'm saying. I also think that everyone here is better than that, and that's a big part of why we're here in the first place.

I would have to agree. I  thought about that, beating people in the face with a rock to get a bunch of berries is pretty natural as well.

[Aucoq]

 

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?

[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?

Until I went on my spiritual journey, my religious beliefs were best described as Irish polytheism. Lugh Lamhfada, Brid, and in fact Manannan mac Lir (Ireland's analogue to Neptune) were my primary deities. Currently I'm a Hebrew Catholic. I accept the idea of polytheism as equally valid, it's just that right now, that's not the sort of way I describe my God, who, at the moment happens to be Yahweh incarnate.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To further elaborate, I singled out Neptune because Hoops singled him out as to why atheists talk about magical sky daddy instead of thundering sea uncle.

ETA: Hoops said Poseidon, ECH said Neptune. Mythologically, identical

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To further further elaborate, describing "God" as a term to describe the focus as all theistic sentiment as farcical adjective sky relative is a strawman on several levels. You won't find a lot of literalist theists. People who believe in the Rapture literally think that Jesus will meet them in the skies, but at least a billion other Christians (those who fall under Catholicism) find that specifically American evangelical belief not only heretical but flat out insane even without the injunction of heresy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It might be illustrative to describe my religious history. I'll give it in my exploration thread momentarily.

[Golden Applesauce]

See, I think the idea that the universe has to contain purpose is a strange belief. But there's a reason why I never bring this shit up in polite conversation so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

The universe contains more than enough purpose to blow my mind without ever involving anything supernatural. We don't stand a chance of understanding even our own tiny corner of the universe, let alone the fantastic order that is the rest of it. Ever. Let alone why or whether there even is a reason. IMO.

Agreed, though I was using the word "purpose" more in the context of agency.

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?

edit: restored full quote b/c keeping track of this thread is getting hard.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

Because Gods are like spouses.  ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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?

Speaking as a generally theistic, probably deistic, spiritual tourist who believes in some form of survival after death, my belief doesn't impact my behavior. My behavior impacts my interpretation of belief. I previously said that I don't know what God is. I suspect its laws aren't moral but rather physical. I could be wrong. That's for God to judge, and if it is to judge me at all, I hope it will be lenient towards my ignorance of its will.

The idea that God influences human ethical behavior is abhorrent to me. We, for example, know it is wrong to kill another human. Is that God's law, or rather a recognizing that our foes are also us? I suspect it's the later. God cares not if we eat kill for food or whatever. That's our nature, just as it is our nature to be disgusted with murder. A stressed out mouse who eats her pups is not held to the same standards, because she is merely doing what mice do under certain circumstances.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

Because Gods are like spouses.  ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.

I will say that polytheistic committees and bureaucracies are more reflective of modern society than the King of the World monotheistic model.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

Because Gods are like spouses.  ONE AT A TIME IS PLENTY.

I will say that polytheistic committees and bureaucracies are more reflective of modern society than the King of the World monotheistic model.

I tend to think of God more as an absentee landlord.