My reincarnation is that my atoms will be used again.
I'm hoping that the standing wave of electrical energy in my brain that makes me "me" will persist in the quantum sea or foam or whatever and that the "me" part will go on to something different. I don't actually believe it will but it's a nice thought to have.
Actually, in all seriousness, your outlook on life mirrors mine in may ways (or vice versa) and I suspect we'd get along fine over a beer or some other invigorating liquid.:)
No one is saying they did this because they atheists.
That's pretty much exactly what Bing Tsher E was saying, when he said "Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it." Perhaps I misunderstood his comment, but it seemed fairly clear to me.
-
The point is that despite their lack of religion, they committed atrocities that are as bad as, and sometimes worse, than those committed in the name of religion.
Yes, and I've agreed with that, and I'm happy to do so again for the record.
What does this have to do with drones? Would their deaths have been any more justified, if they were killed by a SEAL from short range, rather than a drone from afar?
The imagery from drones isn't nearly as great as they like to claim, and in fact SEALs would almost certainly NOT make the same mistakes as drone operators and their handlers do.
That's why they (the controllers) often ask for A-10 flybys to determine what's *really* on the ground because a lot of the time you just can't tell what the fuck is actually there from 40,000 feet.
The same goes for SEALs, they get up close and personal so they can see what's actually there, and they would rarely mistake a woman carrying a broom for a "military age male" carrying a rifle. They wouldn't mistake a caravan of families going to look for work with a "convoy of combatants", as has happened over and over again.
All that super hi-res video you see of cool "kill shots"? That's mostly taken from Apache helicopters a kilometer or two away at 1000~2000 feet elevation, a whole different imaging system that's right on top of the action. Totally different story.
Ever wonder why they don't show much actual drone imagery? Because it often sucks monkey balls, that's why- just blobs of this and that, no real definition from 4 or 5 miles up through smoke and fog and haze, surprise surprise. And that's why we all too often blow the shit out of total innocents who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You may or may not be right about it being a delusion
If a person has a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, that's a delusion. And let's be honest- that's an excellent description of religion.
-
We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.
I disagree. Sweden and Denmark are mostly atheist (according to the stats, anyway) and they have an excellent standard of living, low crime, and are generally considered to be good places to live and raise families. And they aren't the only ones by far.
And, (with special thanks to all the inept English teachers who've incorrectly taught for decades that you shouldn't begin a sentence with "and" much less put a comma afterwards!),
Agreed, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that. (I was actually taught that it was "something to avoid if at all possible", but that it wasn't specifically prohibited.)
You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists.
No. Again, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists. They did them because they were evil psychopaths, who also happened to be atheists.
Pol Pot absolutely wasn't driven by atheism as the reason for his rampage. It was all about restarting society at an agrarian level and eschewing culture and technology. I have family members who lived through his reign of terror and were his victims, who were actually tortured in his "reeducation" camps. They still have the physical scars on their bodies to this very day. They saw him come to power and were literally driven out of the city by the Khmer Rouge at gunpoint and marched into the jungle, and they have a pretty damn good idea as to what he was all about. And none of that shit was due to his atheism.
So no, Pol Pot didn't do the things he did because he was an atheist. He did it because he was a psychopathic nutjob, who also happened to be an atheist. He also happened to like very plain farmer-style food, but like atheism, that's not why he murdered millions of people.
Mao, on the other hand, wanted to replace religion with a worship of him instead of some other deity. This isn't exactly a secret, you can look it up. He saw religion as a competitor to be co-opted.
-
There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists.
Sure, but so what? The same can be said of any group, including religious people. I'm sure the Shiites and the Sunnis could explain that to you, and you can barely slide a playing card in between their beliefs.
When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me.
But you can't really draw any other conclusions from that, other than that they don't believe in a deity. That's it, period.
Whereas when you say "christian" or "catholic", that implies all sorts of follow-ons...like church attendance, being baptized, some degree of belief in the bible, certain specific moral positions, belief in or practice of prayer, performing worship in certain specific ways according to a specific theology, beliefs about marriage, birth control, abortion, belief in an afterlife, etc etc.
And yes, some or all of those things can vary to quite a degree, some may be absent, some may be emphasized more than others, and so on...but there's definitely some correlation to those other things as a whole, as a set of practices or beliefs. Otherwise the words "christian" or "catholic" would have no real meaning.
It's a lot different with "atheist", which has one and only one value associated with it, namely the lack of belief in a deity. That's it, there's nothing else associated with it- no dogma, no practices, no follow-on beliefs, no rituals, no assumptions, nothing whatsoever.
That's why when people try to make generalized statements about atheists they're almost always wrong. The same isn't true in a general sense about "christian" or "catholic" (or Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc), because those terms imply all sorts of additional things even if every single one doesn't apply- some of them surely do or the term itself doesn't apply.
If someone identifies as a catholic but doesn't believe in any of the dogma or any of the teachings of the church or the bible or any of the moral positions or practices of the catholic church, then are they a catholic? No, not any more than someone who claims to be a bicyclist but who doesn't own a bike, never rides a bike, and partakes in no bike-related activities.
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
The funny part is that they already do. For example, Ra or Ptah aren't popular anymore.
Exactly. No one will take you seriously if you say you worship Thor or Neptune or Ganesh or Anubis, but lots of people will happily try to lop off your head if you don't worship Jesus or Mohammad. And really, what's the difference?
(Although at least Mohammad appears to have been an actual living person, as opposed to Jesus, who is now pretty well proven to have never actually existed. And yes, I'm serious- there's a ton of proof now that Jesus never really existed.)
So yeah, we're ALL atheists to some degree. I just happen to believe in one less god than my neighbor (a devout Christian) does.
And it's the same way with atheism- it's a single specific data point, and that's all it is.
I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points.
You're correct. However, "Christian" and "Psychotic" do imply certain very specific things that are generally agreed upon. I don't think the same can really be said of the term "atheist".
The reliability of those implied things (assumptions or maybe conclusions?) are often kind of fuzzy and wide-ranging, but they do relate back to things that are normally associated with those terms (and usually with good reason).
-
My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda.
Yep, in that I completely agree. The things you mention are often incubators for fanatics, both religious and non-religious. It's often a combination of factors that foster fanaticism, but in truth I just don't see that many fanatical atheists out there (although there are some, to be sure).
-
What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.
Yes, this is very often the kind of thing that can and does turn a generally peaceful person into a fanatic, religious or otherwise. Unfortunately, religion seems to be "baked into" the core of many societies and is therefore present to be used as a convenient touchstone with which to rally people around. If there was no religion people would still find things to fight over, but it seems to me that religion is often a baseline item that causes more problems than it solves.
For example, practically the entire Middle East has been fighting over nonsensical religious issues for thousands of years, and to what end? What has been accomplished, what has been gained or resolved? Nothing, as near as I can determine, and it only seems to be getting worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I agree, but then I'm not sure I disagree, either. We'll call this one a wash. ;)
My reincarnation is that my atoms will be used again.
I'm hoping that the standing wave of electrical energy in my brain that makes me "me" will persist in the quantum sea or foam or whatever and that the "me" part will go on to something different. I don't actually believe it will but it's a nice thought to have.
Actually, in all seriousness, your outlook on life mirrors mine in may ways (or vice versa) and I suspect we'd get along fine over a beer or some other invigorating liquid. :)
Cheers
In many ways - religion (not spiritual understanding) is the scourge of this planet.
Absolutely, I agree completely.
No one is saying they did this because they atheists.
That's pretty much exactly what Bing Tsher E was saying, when he said "Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it." Perhaps I misunderstood his comment, but it seemed fairly clear to me.
-
The point is that despite their lack of religion, they committed atrocities that are as bad as, and sometimes worse, than those committed in the name of religion.
Yes, and I've agreed with that, and I'm happy to do so again for the record.
Did you piss yourself again, you addle-brained shitcock?
You really shouldn't talk to yourself like that. What would your boyfriend say?
What does this have to do with drones? Would their deaths have been any more justified, if they were killed by a SEAL from short range, rather than a drone from afar?
The imagery from drones isn't nearly as great as they like to claim, and in fact SEALs would almost certainly NOT make the same mistakes as drone operators and their handlers do.
That's why they (the controllers) often ask for A-10 flybys to determine what's *really* on the ground because a lot of the time you just can't tell what the fuck is actually there from 40,000 feet.
The same goes for SEALs, they get up close and personal so they can see what's actually there, and they would rarely mistake a woman carrying a broom for a "military age male" carrying a rifle. They wouldn't mistake a caravan of families going to look for work with a "convoy of combatants", as has happened over and over again.
All that super hi-res video you see of cool "kill shots"? That's mostly taken from Apache helicopters a kilometer or two away at 1000~2000 feet elevation, a whole different imaging system that's right on top of the action. Totally different story.
Ever wonder why they don't show much actual drone imagery? Because it often sucks monkey balls, that's why- just blobs of this and that, no real definition from 4 or 5 miles up through smoke and fog and haze, surprise surprise. And that's why we all too often blow the shit out of total innocents who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I know, I live outside Seattle and overall I like it quite a bit. But not as much as I did 10 or 20 years ago. :)
Still, all in all, the Pacific Northwest is a pretty good place to live.
You may or may not be right about it being a delusion
If a person has a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, that's a delusion. And let's be honest- that's an excellent description of religion.
-
We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.
I disagree. Sweden and Denmark are mostly atheist (according to the stats, anyway) and they have an excellent standard of living, low crime, and are generally considered to be good places to live and raise families. And they aren't the only ones by far.
So you guys figure that these new brain cells are going to be pre-implanted with thoughts or something?
I can't speak for the others here, but I was mostly just going for some yuks. :)
Although, to be honest, it would not surprise me in the least if some marketing weasel saw this news story and had the reaction I outlined, lol.
"Wow, what if there was some way to use this to sell more ChocoBars? Hmmm...."
There you go again, embarrassing the idiots with simple, irrefutable logic... but don't feel too bad about it; in their heads, they're still right. ;)
I know...they'll never be convinced by mere proof. :(
How is the future, and can you get us lottery numbers?
1) The future isn't nearly as good as we hoped it would be.
2) 26 15, 31, 44, 11, 38, and 29 (but not necessarily in that order, sorry)
(I can if I want to.)
If you have access to a time machine then Seattle WA is a pretty nice place to live, as long as it's in the early 1980s or so.
Where I love to live I need to be making $550,000 a year to live there.... unless I am OK with living in the dumpster behind work.
But is it a nice dumpster, or one of those icky ones?
Crippling heat and humidity come to mind.
And Texans, there are shitloads of them all over the place down there. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
And, (with special thanks to all the inept English teachers who've incorrectly taught for decades that you shouldn't begin a sentence with "and" much less put a comma afterwards!),
Agreed, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that. (I was actually taught that it was "something to avoid if at all possible", but that it wasn't specifically prohibited.)
Word got out that it's in Texas.
And that would be enough right there to cross it off my list of places to live.
I spent 20 years in Texas one week, and that was it for me.
Bangalore is pretty good. You can literally live like a king on tech money.
This is probably true for very small values of "king".
I've had a few people tell me that Cedar Rapids is a pretty livable "techy" place, but I've never been there myself.
Also mentioned was Scottsdale AZ and places like the Beaverton / Aloha area in OR.
You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists.
No. Again, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists. They did them because they were evil psychopaths, who also happened to be atheists.
Pol Pot absolutely wasn't driven by atheism as the reason for his rampage. It was all about restarting society at an agrarian level and eschewing culture and technology. I have family members who lived through his reign of terror and were his victims, who were actually tortured in his "reeducation" camps. They still have the physical scars on their bodies to this very day. They saw him come to power and were literally driven out of the city by the Khmer Rouge at gunpoint and marched into the jungle, and they have a pretty damn good idea as to what he was all about. And none of that shit was due to his atheism.
So no, Pol Pot didn't do the things he did because he was an atheist. He did it because he was a psychopathic nutjob, who also happened to be an atheist. He also happened to like very plain farmer-style food, but like atheism, that's not why he murdered millions of people.
Mao, on the other hand, wanted to replace religion with a worship of him instead of some other deity. This isn't exactly a secret, you can look it up. He saw religion as a competitor to be co-opted.
-
There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists.
Sure, but so what? The same can be said of any group, including religious people. I'm sure the Shiites and the Sunnis could explain that to you, and you can barely slide a playing card in between their beliefs.
When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me.
But you can't really draw any other conclusions from that, other than that they don't believe in a deity. That's it, period.
Whereas when you say "christian" or "catholic", that implies all sorts of follow-ons...like church attendance, being baptized, some degree of belief in the bible, certain specific moral positions, belief in or practice of prayer, performing worship in certain specific ways according to a specific theology, beliefs about marriage, birth control, abortion, belief in an afterlife, etc etc.
And yes, some or all of those things can vary to quite a degree, some may be absent, some may be emphasized more than others, and so on...but there's definitely some correlation to those other things as a whole, as a set of practices or beliefs. Otherwise the words "christian" or "catholic" would have no real meaning.
It's a lot different with "atheist", which has one and only one value associated with it, namely the lack of belief in a deity. That's it, there's nothing else associated with it- no dogma, no practices, no follow-on beliefs, no rituals, no assumptions, nothing whatsoever.
That's why when people try to make generalized statements about atheists they're almost always wrong. The same isn't true in a general sense about "christian" or "catholic" (or Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc), because those terms imply all sorts of additional things even if every single one doesn't apply- some of them surely do or the term itself doesn't apply.
If someone identifies as a catholic but doesn't believe in any of the dogma or any of the teachings of the church or the bible or any of the moral positions or practices of the catholic church, then are they a catholic? No, not any more than someone who claims to be a bicyclist but who doesn't own a bike, never rides a bike, and partakes in no bike-related activities.
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
The funny part is that they already do. For example, Ra or Ptah aren't popular anymore.
Exactly. No one will take you seriously if you say you worship Thor or Neptune or Ganesh or Anubis, but lots of people will happily try to lop off your head if you don't worship Jesus or Mohammad. And really, what's the difference?
(Although at least Mohammad appears to have been an actual living person, as opposed to Jesus, who is now pretty well proven to have never actually existed. And yes, I'm serious- there's a ton of proof now that Jesus never really existed.)
So yeah, we're ALL atheists to some degree. I just happen to believe in one less god than my neighbor (a devout Christian) does.
Clearly, plenty do. There's always some "disease to be eradicated." It could be a religion or other ideology, or an ethnicity.
The difference is that the 3rd thing actually exists and can be proven or demonstrated.
Ideology is demonstrable (for better or worse), but religion has never had a good track record in the laboratory, to put it politely.
I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points.
You're correct. However, "Christian" and "Psychotic" do imply certain very specific things that are generally agreed upon. I don't think the same can really be said of the term "atheist".
The reliability of those implied things (assumptions or maybe conclusions?) are often kind of fuzzy and wide-ranging, but they do relate back to things that are normally associated with those terms (and usually with good reason).
-
My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda.
Yep, in that I completely agree. The things you mention are often incubators for fanatics, both religious and non-religious. It's often a combination of factors that foster fanaticism, but in truth I just don't see that many fanatical atheists out there (although there are some, to be sure).
-
What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.
Yes, this is very often the kind of thing that can and does turn a generally peaceful person into a fanatic, religious or otherwise. Unfortunately, religion seems to be "baked into" the core of many societies and is therefore present to be used as a convenient touchstone with which to rally people around. If there was no religion people would still find things to fight over, but it seems to me that religion is often a baseline item that causes more problems than it solves.
For example, practically the entire Middle East has been fighting over nonsensical religious issues for thousands of years, and to what end? What has been accomplished, what has been gained or resolved? Nothing, as near as I can determine, and it only seems to be getting worse.
It's all just sheer insanity to me. :(
After they rewired my brain I immediately realized that this was a wonderful thing and that everyone should do it right away!!
("Don't be afraid of brain slugs," says man infected with brain slug._