• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

I'm not religious enough to call myself...

I called it out a good few posts ago, now I'm thinking more along the lines of, "do some people lack insight into how they are coming across?"
 
bluesjnr said:
I called it out a good few posts ago, now I'm thinking more along the lines of, "do some people lack insight into how they are coming across?"
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure people on both sides understand that.

The religious know they're seen as feeble-minded babies, but they don't care because the sky-fairy is on their side.

On the flip side, almost all atheists never even mention their atheism. It's only obnoxious psychopaths like me who do that and I'm fully aware of how it comes across.

Yes, my other screen name is ArrogantB'Stard.
 
Religion requires ceremony, rituals and follows traditions.
Atheism is just avoiding all that. Literally doing nothing of the sort.
Because none of it matters.

If you can find a place nobody notices that you aren't doing any of the religious stuff there is no need to be abrasive either way.

The people I know and live among do not care there might be a difference in ideas. The ideal situation.
 
8enotto said:
Religion requires ceremony, rituals and follows traditions.
Atheism is just avoiding all that. Literally doing nothing of the sort.
Because none of it matters.

If you can find a place nobody notices that you aren't doing any of the religious stuff there is no need to be abrasive either way.

The people I know and live among do not care there might be a difference in ideas. The ideal situation.
Click to expand...
While I'm a strong believer in getting along with others, I am strongly opposed to going along to getting along. Unless you absolutely have to. Religious people and con men count on people not pushing back. This allows them to carrying on their con in broad daylight. I use to go along. I did it a lot in my life. So I understand the predicament. But those days are passed. I'm not going to knock on your front door to tell you that religion is crap. I'm also not going to interrupt Mass.

But if you bring it to the public square, I'm going to oppose it.
 
8enotto said:
Religion requires ceremony, rituals and follows traditions.
Atheism is just avoiding all that. Literally doing nothing of the sort.
Because none of it matters.

If you can find a place nobody notices that you aren't doing any of the religious stuff there is no need to be abrasive either way.

The people I know and live among do not care there might be a difference in ideas. The ideal situation.
Click to expand...
I would say that religion requires sacred texts, dogma, heresy, inquisition, and autos-da-fe. I would also say that Soviet communism is an excellent example of an atheistic religion, complete with the texts, the dogma, and all the rest of the trappings.

Yes, the ceremonies and rituals, too. And woe to you if anyone noticed you weren't doing any of the communist stuff. Of if you weren't doing all of the communist stuff.

Atheists, being human, are just as liable to the failure modes of ideology as any other human. The hallmark of atheism isn't a lack of religion, but rather all the failure modes of religion plus self-congratulation about not believing in a theos.


Or take our own Gawdzilla Sama, for example. He says he's not religious. However, it's clear he cherishes his time in the US Navy, its ceremonies, rituals, and traditions. He remembers fondly his services to the organization, which included the hunting down of apostates. There are a lot of churchgoers who are just about exactly that religious in their practice. Minus the hunting down of apostates, which is pretty turbo religious.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I would say that religion requires sacred texts, dogma, heresy, inquisition, and autos-da-fe. I would also say that Soviet communism is an excellent example of an atheistic religion, complete with the texts, the dogma, and all the rest of the trappings.

Yes, the ceremonies and rituals, too. And woe to you if anyone noticed you weren't doing any of the communist stuff. Of if you weren't doing all of the communist stuff.

Atheists, being human, are just as liable to the failure modes of ideology as any other human. The hallmark of atheism isn't a lack of religion, but rather all the failure modes of religion
plus self-congratulation about not believing in a theos.
Click to expand...
I disagree wholeheartedly that I congratulate myself for not believing.

Belief is NOT A CHOICE. You're either convinced of a proposition or you're not.

On so many levels I wish I did believe. It's hard to be outside the group. In many ways very hard. But I can not, nor can anyone, believe that which is unbelievable.. They can fake it. (Which I believe many people do.) But that doesn't mean they really believe.

I lived that way until my late twenties. Faking it. Going along to get along. But eventually I stopped. But I wasn't outspoken in my atheism until my 50s. That's when it became important to me to openly declare the Emperor isn't wearing clothes. To tell others they can get out of those mind forged manacles.

theprestige said:
Or take our own Gawdzilla Sama, for example. He says he's not religious. However, it's clear he cherishes his time in the US Navy, its ceremonies, rituals, and traditions. He remembers fondly his services to the organization, which included the hunting down of apostates. There are a lot of churchgoers who are just about exactly that religious in their practice. Minus the hunting down of apostates, which is pretty turbo religious.
Click to expand...
This is true. But the moderates provide cover for the zealots. They offer legitimacy for the illegitimate.
 
Last edited:
Some forms of Buddhism are also atheistic. There are no gods, but plenty of dogma, devotion, and ceremonies. Mind you, there are also some forms of Buddhism with gods.
 
I served in the US military and most of us were just there for a while. Many lifers were in for the pension and benefits.
Patriotic fervor wasn't a part of our person.

In the marines and some elite units being gung ho and unthinking was a first consideration to be part of the unit. It what was made that unit highly effective. Follow orders and we got you covered. Don't worry about anything else.
It was a religion that made you capable of doing horrible things to others knowing you had impunity and good reason to do it.

Even if what you were doing was based on a hatred that you didn't foster.

Just don't challenge thse guys while they are armed or drunk on the morals of following military orders or defending YOUR freedoms. It doesn't end well.
 
8enotto said:
I served in the US military and most of us were just there for a while. Many lifers were in for the pension and benefits.
Patriotic fervor wasn't a part of our person.
Click to expand...
I slept in 72 countries while doing the 20. The USN was how I got to play tourist.

The shooting people was just a side benefit. They all had just one face. Made my aim more precise.
 
theprestige said:
I would say that religion requires sacred texts, dogma, heresy, inquisition, and autos-da-fe.
Click to expand...
Organized religion, perhaps. But there are plenty of people who have unorganized religious beliefs. I'd say a religion is any set of beliefs in the supernatural that posit an underlying (over-arching?) order to existence. The sort of beliefs that used to be categorized as "New Age" are an example of that. They might be shared by a group or just for one individual, but anybody can cobble together some religious beliefs even if they can't fit it into an officially IRS-listed religion.

It's still probably all nonsense, of course, but I do think it's nice when people utilize creativity and make the effort to at DIY.
 
The Atheist said:
I know you like to be wrong about almost everything, so I take no real pleasure in pointing out Buddhists were equally culpable.
Click to expand...
Taking a look at that article, it appears to be using the term "Buddhist villagers" to distinguish them from the Rohingya Muslim villagers. I think it's a case of xenophobia rather than religiously motivated, and the non-Rohingya would have taken part in the atrocities even if they weren't Buddhists.
 
arthwollipot said:
...and the non-Rohingya would have taken part in the atrocities even if they weren't Buddhists.
Click to expand...

Very likely. Your worst enemy is usually your closest neighbour.

The point is that Buddhism sells itself as peace-loving vegans.

Until they're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom