TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Anything But An Atheist
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

Re: Re: Re: Anything But An Atheist

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm quite sure it's neither. Pedophiles would be a better guess.

But then how can he be the victim here?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira As a matter of fact, I've just read about intolerance in Academia. It's a very interesting account of what does happen both on the intarwebs and off-line.

quote:

Linda Henneberg, [...] wrote a blog post about her experiences at the laboratory[...] �I�ve never felt more constantly objectified, hit on, and creeped on than while at CERN.�

And instantly I knew that text was full of crap.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec looks like you can't read what I write either.. i said it ought to be there. ooga booga! '[cissexism] is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals."

Would Micheal Jackson be authentically white?

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzQi I will hug an atheist to show my support for their beliefs even though they are not my own.

Let me guess. You're a deist who thinks God is everywhere. Hence, a Pandeist!

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo Would Micheal Jackson be authentically white?

I encourage you to read the essay 'Understanding Michael Jackson', by Armond White. I think it's only found in this book:

quote:

Michael Jackson's new face stares right at you from the cover of his album Bad (Epic) looking lost and accusatory. In the Martin Scorsese music film for the single "Bad", it has even frightened grown children who screamed their outrage in the international press. But michael's face may be outside the legitimate realm of music and film criticism. As he says on "The Way You Make Me Feel", the album's most infectious cut, "Ain't nobody's business 'cept mine and my baby." Only the intimates of Jackson's life have a right to complain - or be surprised - at the physiological changes he has made of himself. The skin lightening, eye widening, nose sharpening, chin clefting, plus hair weave and processing are mad-scientist variations on the ethnic grooming and image creation that have long been part of the Black performer's understood contract with the white-controlled world of show business. Most artist submit to some degree. Jackson's only gone the Jewish entertainer's nose-job ritual - known as the "Hollywood circumcision" - several organs better. Almost a hundred years after minstrel shows, Jackson has engineered the ultimate critique/reversal of the blackface tradition. His plastic surgery answers the exploitation and humiliation that have always loomed ambiguously before Black performers who were ready to give the marketplace the face or hairstyle it demanded. Jackson has speculated on the possibility of becoming the perfect model entertainer. He has cribbed notions of showbiz decorum from that most desperate integrationist, Diana Ross - specifically in terms of music and vocal nuance. But another important touchstone has been the pencil-thin, art-deco stylization of Fred Astaire in movement and dance. As a recombinant showbiz entity Michael Jackson has surpassed both of them. He's the assimilation ideal made flesh; showbiz excellence evolved into lightning-quick speed and efficiency. Jackson's development, his growing up in public, matters to so many people because he makes the processes of cultural exploitation so plain. From his beginnings as a tinytot James Brown to his current eccentricity as the owner of a hyperbaric chamber and exotic menagerie, he has followed the steps of previous entertainers - becoming an icon for millions, then seeking a personal refuge for his own sensitive/fantasy needs. But the imperatives set before Jackson, structuring his maturation , are to be an artist, an individual, and a Black person. That's one obligation more than Elvis Presley or the Beatles had to deal with. And being Black is more complicated than the other goals. Racial Identity impinges on every move Jackson makes. So it's too simple and insensitive to say that he's trying to be white. His new face is just a manifestation of the compromises he's forced into as private and public person; as a naive young man in an industry of predatory cunning; and as a powerful Black cultural presence skeptically admitted into a largely white hierarchy. Michael Jackson has become the social and ethnic anomaly he was raised to be. Having achieved with Thriller (1982) the greatest success of any performer in two decades (over 40 million sold, ushering in the music video age), Jackson has fashioned himself into what the Western world has ordained: an androgynous, uniracial creature of presumably limitless appeal. His acceptance of this role may certainly indicate a weak ethnic and political foundation (a moral slackening for which his parents should weep). But it's not simply the psychopathology people are eager to cite. The Bad Album shows that Jackson is in control of his various projections. The success of his art is that he expresses his dilemma well enough for us to understand his neurosis in a larger sense. Think of Michael Jackson's new face as the Portrait of Dorian Grey for a modern, racially stressed culture. Yet the evidence of brainwashing, self-denial (rather than self hatred), and willed infantilism denotes more than a Black person's horror story - consider the pop-star-turned-grotesque examples of Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Keith Richards, et al. ...

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 And instantly I knew that text was full of crap.

Why, do you know her? It may be well true that this is the first time in her life she's getting that much attention!

quote:

Originally posted by mr.bison Atheism doesn't have a philosophy, a doctrine, a holy book of rules... Atheism can't make you do anything because atheism is simply a tag expressing what you AREN'T; An atheist is simply not a theist. That's it. It doesn't say anything about the person's political or philosophical view. It doesn't say anything about what the person thinks. Etc.

Which begs the question as to why you find yourself asserting it so regularly. It seems like your not-ingness that you take pride in is predominantly based on assumptions about religious people; many of which you've yet to substantiate and which I would argue are more incorrect than suits any validation of your point of view.

You've taken this nil identification and super-imposed, onto those you're taking issue with, something which you believe they're not that has you relatively free from any debit or credit about your character which, juxtaposed with the people you bemoan, puts them in a negative balance.

I didn't quote it all, but you maintain that religious people are more apt to commit some form of atrocity out of a false belief in the protections afforded them by their faith. You go onto say that religious faith breeds ignorance. Unfortunately, you've yet to prove any eloquence about your lack of faith other than the creation of a convoluted theory based largely on your own conjecture and the anecdotal, outlying nut-bars who actually fit into your argument on what one might consider its modestly factual integrity.

To recap, you've asserted that atheists are not, theists are not atheists, and theists have a negative value. At which point, we arrive at the following equation:

Mr. Bison (and presumably other atheists who follow his logic): y

Religious People: r

|y| = 0 = -r(-r+|y|)

|y| = -r(-r) + -r(|y|)

|y| = r^2 - r(|y|)

|y| = r^2

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzQi Perhaps those are within-group percentages

Ahh, see, I knew I was missing something. Polls aren't my strong point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews quote: Originally posted by nefardec I'm not that sure anymore. People fall into three camps: - bigoted idiots who demean me at any chance. - people who feign acceptance, so long as i don't talk about it. - people who keep quiet. edit, a 4th - trolls who pretend to be the first because they crave approval from the TA hive mind Hey, there is a 5th category of people who are accepting and nice. I said good on you and good luck, you bitch

Seriously. For someone who talks about acceptance and decries bigotry, it's a bit odd to flat out state that "people fall into three camps", none of which include those of us who are genuinely accepting and supportive. I know that I can't say that I've been super supportive, because I've been fairly inactive around here lately, but unless I'm missing something it kind of sucks to be told that the person I support believes that I'm not.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Seriously. For someone who talks about acceptance and decries bigotry, it's a bit odd to flat out state that "people fall into three camps", none of which include those of us who are genuinely accepting and supportive. I know that I can't say that I've been super supportive, because I've been fairly inactive around here lately, but unless I'm missing something it kind of sucks to be told that the person I support believes that I'm not.

Listen, I was a little ticked off when I wrote that.

But in any case, you said yourself that you have been fairly inactive, so what's the problem? What do you want credit for? In fact, I think this critical post is the only time in recent memory that you've made an attempt to speak to me.

quote:

Originally posted by mr.bison Plus religious faith breeds ignorance.

you were spot on until this last comment..which is in itself ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Listen, I was a little ticked off when I wrote that.

Totally understandable.

quote:

But in any case, you said yourself that you have been fairly inactive, so what's the problem? What do you want credit for? In fact, I think this critical post is the only time in recent memory that you've made an attempt to speak to me.

The problem I have is that there are certainly people on here who are genuinely supportive and accepting, and I just feel like it's poor form to completely write off the possibility of their existence. That's all. If your post was made when you were ticked, then no worries.

I'm not trying to take "credit" for anything, and nowhere in my post do I act, at least intentionally, as though I feel I should receive some sort of praise or thanks.

And you're right; that critical post was the first time that I've spoken directly to you in quite some time. I can't help that I haven't been around here all that much, that I don't usually respond to your posts if I am, or that I don't write on your wall on Facebook. Just because I haven't been in the position to communicate my thoughts doesn't mean that I can't have them, that I can't be accepting or supportive.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Just because I haven't been in the position to communicate my thoughts doesn't mean that I can't have them, that I can't be accepting or supportive.

And that's why you'd fit into the 'quiet' camp.

I'm not trying to be a bitch by saying this, but that's the way I experience it - doesn't mean you're not supportive in your own heart. I imagine a fair number of people here are supportive but quiet. There is simply not a measurable 'vocally supportive' group really on the forum, and that's just the way it is. And I don't expect that any more than that.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec And that's why you'd fit into the 'quiet' camp.

"Quiet" only because I haven't been around enough. But, that's just quibbling over semantics at this point.

quote:

I'm not trying to be a bitch by saying this, but that's the way I experience it - doesn't mean you're not supportive in your own heart. I imagine a fair number of people here are supportive but quiet. There is simply not a visibly 'vocally supportive' group really on the forum, and that's just the way it is.

For what it's worth, I respect and admire your decision to go down the path you've chosen. It's hard, you're going to have to put up with a lot of bullshit for the rest of your life, but it's going to make you a happier and more content individual.

I would like to say this: look at who the demographic of atheists out there (hint: the demographic seems to look like the folks you'd see in a star wars convention). I would say that is why they are atheist, and a lot of this anti-theist sentiment unintentionally points out to us "plebs" that we are plebs and don't belong to your frat.

I would go as far as to say that a lot of atheists are blind to their privilege, and aren't really an oppressed minority in some ways.

I mean look at all the proto-hipsters who didn't like religion:

Pol Pot: had some money
Che Guevara: rich guy
Jean Paul Sartre: rich guy
etc. etc.

so a bunch of guys with some money or had a lot of it or had the privilege to have an education at a brand name institution (money is a factor in going to one of these) are trying to show us "plebs" that we are wrong. It sounds like atheism is just another symbol of power, and that's why i feel a lot of americans dont like them.

im not excusing theist intolerance at all, it's just that they have one leg in oppression and one leg in power.

Religion should be oppressed, it is detrimental to human progress.

Progress should be regulated as it is detrimental to religion!

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- I would like to say this: look at who the demographic of atheists out there (hint: the demographic seems to look like the folks you'd see in a star wars convention). I would say that is why they are atheist, and a lot of this anti-theist sentiment unintentionally points out to us "plebs" that we are plebs and don't belong to your frat.

So, they are atheist because they are dorky white guys? How is that causality supposed to work?

Or are you saying that atheism is really just a "fashion statement" designed to place them above the credulous masses?

Not all

No. What I'm saying is you need food in your stomach and a few $ to even say religion is BS. Of course there are exceptions to this and im not denying that. As for being a "fashion statement" I don't know if a "fashion statement" can be applied here, but I was not trying to imply it is one. It just becomes a symbol of people who have money and some circles of the intellectual class.

Re: Not all

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- No. What I'm saying is you need food in your stomach and a few $ to even say religion is BS. Of course there are exceptions to this and im not denying that.

That is also illogical.

Re: Not all

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- No. What I'm saying is you need food in your stomach and a few $ to even say religion is BS.

"Food in the stomach and a few dollars" is a darn low bar to clear in modern secular nations, and one that the majority of people there do clear. You seemed to be saying something quite a bit bolder, like "atheism is just for rich white dudes" or some such.

Re: Not all

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- No. What I'm saying is you need food in your stomach and a few $ to even say religion is BS. Of course there are exceptions to this and im not denying that. As for being a "fashion statement" I don't know if a "fashion statement" can be applied here, but I was not trying to imply it is one. It just becomes a symbol of people who have money and some circles of the intellectual class.

I agree with what you're saying to a degree, especially as it relates to inequities in education and cultural exposure.


I could also speak about why i feel this way by bringing up a similar situation in another minority community that cannot be named.

Re: Re: Not all

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That is also illogical.

How? People with higher IQs (take note of the controversies in IQ tests as a measurement of intelligence) tend to be atheist. if you have higher a higher IQ that means you may likely have or had money to help boost that score, and education (ask yourself why students are key to some protests) so I don't think it's illogical.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Religion should be oppressed, it is detrimental to human progress.

I think religious EXTREMISM is bad for human progress, but you're crazy to think that the secular world really gives a shit about religious interference.

Edit: western secularism.

And i'm not saying "atheism is for rich white dudes" but a whole lot of white people in the USA are more likely to be atheist (look at the stats), and having enough money helps too, just like you'll see a few black kids from the inner city become pro athletes. I'm stating just stating sociological phenomenons.

I'm also saying that pointing out injustices of a given idea (religion, capitalism) sometimes paradoxically ends up showing who's who on the social stratification ladder.

Re: Not all

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- No. What I'm saying is you need food in your stomach and a few $ to even say religion is BS. Of course there are exceptions to this and im not denying that. As for being a "fashion statement" I don't know if a "fashion statement" can be applied here, but I was not trying to imply it is one. It just becomes a symbol of people who have money and some circles of the intellectual class.

Isn't it more logical to turn it around and claim that religion has a bigger base or is more important to people who lack food in their stomach. I'm looking at the influence the church has in Africa and parts of South-America.

In general (keyword), people with a higher life standard, tend to care less for religion and therefore might be considering themselves to be atheists. I doubt it's a snobby fashion thing though. The only thing trending is the fact that in my surroundings over the last decades, it has become more socially acceptable to not belong to any religion. Apart of the increased aggregate level of education/life quality, this level of atheism here has increased by the disputes we have with finding a coexistence between an increasing number of muslims and a decreasing number of devoted christians, combined with the exposed scandals within religious institutions in Belgium.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.