|
Anything But An Atheist (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| FuzzQi |
Today
I will hug an atheist to show my support for their beliefs even though they are not my own. |
|
|
| mr.bison |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
do you know what the word atheist means?
I study the spiritualistic philosophy of advaita vedanta, which is indeed atheistic. |
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.
It's like me being an a-blond (as I do not have blond hair). That doesn't say anything about my philosophical or political view, or personality etc.
Atheist isn't an expression of something you are, but something you are not.
If one is religious on the other hand, it can tell you a lot about one's political and/or philosophical view (most likely on the right side of politics and of course supporting the philosophy of the religion). There are exceptions to every rule, with both atheists and theists, but this is the way it is in general.
when you have an all-powerful and all-knowing god on your side, and even better; promises of eternal bliss in a paradise when you die, it's a lot easier to do extremist actions than if you're an atheist. Since being an atheist would most likely imply that you wouldn't waste this life since this is the only life you will ever have.
Plus religious faith breeds ignorance. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
"the most hated and mistrusted minority in the united states"
uh, no. that would probably be transgender people. |
I'm quite sure it's neither. Pedophiles would be a better guess. |
|
|
| VDub |
| 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.
It's like me being an a-blond (as I do not have blond hair). That doesn't say anything about my philosophical or political view, or personality etc.
Atheist isn't an expression of something you are, but something you are not.
If one is religious on the other hand, it can tell you a lot about one's political and/or philosophical view (most likely on the right side of politics and of course supporting the philosophy of the religion). There are exceptions to every rule, with both atheists and theists, but this is the way it is in general.
when you have an all-powerful and all-knowing god on your side, and even better; promises of eternal bliss in a paradise when you die, it's a lot easier to do extremist actions than if you're an atheist. Since being an atheist would most likely imply that you wouldn't waste this life since this is the only life you will ever have.
Plus religious faith breeds ignorance. |
Excellent post... |
|
|
| VDub |
| 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? |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| 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. |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| 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? |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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! |
|
|
| nefardec |
| 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.
...
|
|
|
|
| Lira |
| 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! |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| 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|)
Using the distributive property, we arrive at the following:
And then:
Since we know y has a nil value when we multiply it times r we get:
Which proves your equation is insoluble, because y cannot be both 0 and r^2. |
|
|
| idoru |
| 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. :p
| 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 :mad: |
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. |
|
|
|
|
