Author Topic: The $%*! frustration thread  (Read 473064 times)

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4845 on: January 10, 2010, 09:51:08 am »
Y'know, Zeality, I've been wondering lately how you would react to encountering a major religious denomination that does not visibly practice discrimination (including being quite happy to marry same-sex couples and ordain lesbians) and which doesn't preach--to anyone, including members--except during church services and other functions clearly set aside for the purpose. Would that be enough to convince you that discrimination and rudeness are not necessary components of religion? If not, what would it take? (Claiming that there is no possible way to disprove your position is at least as fundamentally irrational as believing in a deity or deities.)

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4846 on: January 10, 2010, 11:02:26 am »
It's sort of like you're saying, "I can't tolerate religion because religion is intolerant. And no type of intolerance should be tolerated."

That is sage advice. But your wording creates the potential for confusion. Intolerance against the innocent and intolerance against the intolerant are not the same thing. Worth mentioning.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4847 on: January 10, 2010, 01:53:02 pm »
Y'know, Zeality, I've been wondering lately how you would react to encountering a major religious denomination that does not visibly practice discrimination (including being quite happy to marry same-sex couples and ordain lesbians) and which doesn't preach--to anyone, including members--except during church services and other functions clearly set aside for the purpose. Would that be enough to convince you that discrimination and rudeness are not necessary components of religion? If not, what would it take? (Claiming that there is no possible way to disprove your position is at least as fundamentally irrational as believing in a deity or deities.)

The religion would still facilitate belief of the nonexistent in its adherents, undermining their reason, compartmentalizing their intelligence, and making them high-functioning delusionaries.

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4848 on: January 10, 2010, 05:17:54 pm »
So your complaint is that their delusions don't match up with your own? Talk about bigotry.

Zephira

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1541
  • You're not afraid of the dark, are you?...Are you?
    • View Profile
    • My deviantArt page
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4849 on: January 10, 2010, 05:23:07 pm »
Completely unrelated frustration: Motrin lasts nowhere near long enough, and all other pain pills leave you loopy. Medication sucks.

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4850 on: January 10, 2010, 06:13:29 pm »
Quote from: alfadorredux
Talk about bigotry.
Whether it's fair to call ZeaLitY "bigoted" may depend on how closely "bigotry" is related to "discrimination." Z holds powerful beliefs about religion, and while these obviously come out during discussion and arguments such as this one, he hasn't let his attitudes affect recognition of hard work in his administration of the Compendium, and nor has it affected his support for Barack Obama to any degree I can observe. I find this rather impressive, myself.

However, now that I think of it, I'm not sure just how closely related the concepts of "bigotry" and "discrimination" are. What a fascinating topic of discussion this could be!
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 06:15:19 pm by FaustWolf »

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4851 on: January 10, 2010, 06:15:10 pm »
So your complaint is that their delusions don't match up with your own? Talk about bigotry.

That last sentence was clearly what you wanted to say all along. If you actually gave some of Z's more comprehensive posts against religion a chance or looked into the matter with an open mind, you'd understand his position. As it is, your sensibilities have been offended, which is unfortunate, but doesn't make Z wrong here or a bigot.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4852 on: January 10, 2010, 07:07:08 pm »
ZeaLitY a bigot, eh? Interesting charge. What's your argument in support of it, alfadorredux? I'll listen!

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4853 on: January 10, 2010, 09:31:42 pm »
from dictionary.com

big⋅ot⋅ry  /ˈbɪgətri/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree]

–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion  /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] 

–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't seem to help Z's case. But the definition of "bigot" seems sort of broad - to the point where a huge volume of people could be considered bigots outright because of their actions. Even if not,  their personal thoughts could also lump them into the "bigot" category.

In the case of Z, it seems as though Alfadorredux wishes to place the blackmark of "bigot" onto Zeality to undermine anything Z has to say.
"Oh, of course he would say that about Christianity, he's a bigot."   <----- That sort of attitude.   

Nothing more than an attempt at a weak smear campaign.    Oh but wait, its okay to call Z a bigot because he curses various religious institutions with demeaning labels as well, right??? 

No.  There is a difference between the statements: "Buddhism is bad because it discriminates against women by failing to allow them equal access to certain levels of "clergy-like" status"       and      "Zeality is a bigot so what he says has lesser value."
Maybe if Z started all of his posts with "Well, religion is cool and all but...." , some people might not have such trouble with him. 

I dislike Alfadorredux's post because he merely hides his own bigotry against Zeality's stance by attacking Z directly.   
The label itself is basically meaningless because many many people will take and unshakable stance against something that someone else supports with equal fervor.   Puff, puff, pass the bigotry around, everyone gets some.   What an absolute joke.

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4854 on: January 10, 2010, 09:57:53 pm »
ZeaLitY is rigidly intolerant of theist points of view, and never ignores any opportunity to attack them, even when they are harmless. To my mind, that meets the definition of bigotry. You're free to disagree.

My problems with his behaviour have nothing to do with the specific target of his actions, actually--I'd be just as happy not to have to defend the religious, because some of them are guilty of the sexist and other nasty actions that he accuses them of. But ZeaLitY really, really rubs me the wrong way because he effectively sets himself up as the thought police. Who the fuck is he to decide what other people should think or believe? That's exactly what the people he's complaining about are doing. He's preaching a religion just as much as they are--it's just that his happens to be antitheism and "rationality". And I consider preaching to be wrong no matter who is doing it, or what their topic is. It's an attempt to force people to accept your way of thinking, instead of letting them make their own decisions. Thing is, unless they do make their own decision, whatever you force into them will never be more than a thin veneer over what they truly believe. Preaching is a recipe for creating resentment and backlash.

And there's another little problem with what he's preaching: some of mankind's greatest achievements are founded on the irrational. Art and literature are not rational--in fact, I would describe them as the active pursuit of delusion. A perfectly rational, perfectly well-adjusted human shouldn't need escapist entertainment...say, what is this board supposedly devoted to, again?

(Side note: I hatehatehatehateHateHATEHATE debates--my first instinct when someone comes at me trying to prove a point is to cower in a corner like an abused child trying to escape an inevitable blow--and so I have no debating skills. ZeaLitY, and other people who make statements that I think are seriously, dangerously wrong, occasionally cause the bottled-up mixture of terror and resentment involved to reach a critical pressure, at which point I explode...as I did this morning. I always regret it afterwards, because it's as much an emotional as a rational reaction and between that and my lack of debating skills, I can't defend my position effectively and end up looking like an idiot (which I hopefully am not) as well as a basket case (which I arguably am). Sorry. You'd think I'd know enough to keep my mouth shut.)

Zephira

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1541
  • You're not afraid of the dark, are you?...Are you?
    • View Profile
    • My deviantArt page
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4855 on: January 10, 2010, 10:07:43 pm »
Alfadorredux, this is the internet. There is absolutely no way Z, tordeal, J, Genesis, or anyone else can force you to believe anything. You can choose not to read anything related to debate, religion, or atheism. The only one who can force you to believe anything is yourself. If it bothers you, why bother taking the time to read it?

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4856 on: January 10, 2010, 10:38:30 pm »
@Zephira: I usually try to avoid reading certain people's posts to the General board, but it doesn't always work, for a couple of reasons.

One is that it really frustrates me that I have to oh-so-carefully avoid even getting near a whiff of opposition, and so I make sporadic attempts to desensitize myself. They tend to be counterproductive.

The other is due to the fact that I sometimes use the Recent Posts function to figure out what's been going on here during my absence, and that means I see posts from every part of the forums. I don't always have the willpower to skip past the ones that I know are potentially dangerous...which is my own fault. My judgement isn't always everything it could or should be.

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4857 on: January 10, 2010, 10:44:42 pm »
ZeaLitY is rigidly intolerant of theist points of view, and never ignores any opportunity to attack them, even when they are harmless. To my mind, that meets the definition of bigotry. You're free to disagree.
As per the definition I gave above, Z would be considered a bigot. I, however, do not find that label to be of any value - it does support or cripple any point he makes.

Quote from: alfadorredux
...people who make statements that I think are seriously, dangerously wrong, occasionally cause the bottled-up mixture of terror and resentment involved to reach a critical pressure, at which point I explode...

Sound familiar?


ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4858 on: January 10, 2010, 11:05:10 pm »
ZeaLitY is rigidly intolerant of theist points of view, and never ignores any opportunity to attack them, even when they are harmless.

I don't attack "Jesus said, help the poor." But I do attack the behavior of the Salvation Army, which helps the poor so that it can use its clout to influence policymaking decisions of cities to support its beliefs. Same goes for the Catholic charity in DC, which also threatened to close its homeless shelters this season as DC mulled over giving homosexuals the right to marry. DC approved the right, called the Catholics' bluff, and the Catholics backed down. This is evil, evil behavior. It needs to be exposed and publicly damned.

Quote
My problems with his behaviour have nothing to do with the specific target of his actions, actually--I'd be just as happy not to have to defend the religious, because some of them are guilty of the sexist and other nasty actions that he accuses them of.

Most, not some. The Catholic flock who give donations to Papal coffers are enablers for the Pope to execute his drastic, anti-human policies and spread his ignorance. Mere adherents of a religion are also usually walking promulgators of that religion, even if in subtle ways. And beyond this, religious people who predicate their behavior on an irrational worldview (such as people who live based on gender roles prescribed by holy texts) are hindering themselves and the rest of the humanity in their behavior.

Quote
But ZeaLitY really, really rubs me the wrong way because he effectively sets himself up as the thought police. Who the fuck is he to decide what other people should think or believe?

Humanity's very civilization and modern existence is founded on an attachment to reality. Humanity didn't invent airplanes and molecular science by reading the Bible. Humanity did so only after thousands of years of the scientific method in action—observing; hypothesizing; learning from mistakes and results—not by asking "God" or listening to seers and revelators. Reason is how an average human learns to fix a computer error; how a child learns to avoid touching a hot stove; how a scientist learns how to cure a disease.

Religion (or rather, faith) is diametrically opposed to reason. It is based on preconceived, fictional conclusions about the universe and phenomena. It suspends the process of learning and asks its adherents to accept prefabricated results. These tenets of belief were not handed down by divine authority; they were dreamed and written by humans, just as L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology, the Greeks created their pantheon, and early humans created the Abrahamic religions. These are works of fiction, taken to be reality. This is ignorance.

So to answer your question, I can be the thought police because this is a matter of reason, and faith is unreasonable. And I exercise that capacity because faith is also detrimental to humanity.

Quote
That's exactly what the people he's complaining about are doing. He's preaching a religion just as much as they are--it's just that his happens to be antitheism and "rationality". And I consider preaching to be wrong no matter who is doing it, or what their topic is. It's an attempt to force people to accept your way of thinking, instead of letting them make their own decisions. Thing is, unless they do make their own decision, whatever you force into them will never be more than a thin veneer over what they truly believe. Preaching is a recipe for creating resentment and backlash.

The "atheist fundamentalist" label doesn't hold water. The "new atheists" are named so simply because they're actually defending reason and science, rather than hiding in the corner.

As for your second point, there is a justifiable need to "preach" reason. Because of religious belief, today, several newborn boys and girls have just been ritually mutilated. Several people have been discriminated against because of different beliefs. Several of those have been attacked because of different beliefs. Even more have had to spend a day in a world in which their rights are denied because of differing beliefs, or an absence of them. Today, women have been raped and sequestered in homes because religious belief grants this privilege to men. Other women have endured time in gender roles supported by religion. And the entire lot have wasted another day living a less meaningful life because of their irrational belief.

Religion's sins are innumerable—rape, violence, murder, discrimination, oppression, mutilation, ridicule, and tyranny—and every day, they make life on earth a living hell for some, and an illucid blunder for most others. Many religious people believe this world is fated to end in an apocalypse, and that humanity is inherently corrupted, and cannot avoid this self-destruction. I lack this irrational belief, and I'm committed to an earth and a humanity that is sustainable, even such that it can explore the wonders of the stars and the wonders of the mind. Religion is fighting that. For the sake of humanity, religion must be fought; faith must be battled with reason.

Quote
And there's another little problem with what he's preaching: some of mankind's greatest achievements are founded on the irrational. Art and literature are not rational--in fact, I would describe them as the active pursuit of delusion. A perfectly rational, perfectly well-adjusted human shouldn't need escapist entertainment...say, what is this board supposedly devoted to, again?

Artists and writers don't actually believe that the fictional worlds they've created actually exist, or that they're actually the omniscient Gods of those worlds. That's the difference. I don't defend reason as if I'm advocating some kind of Vulcan lifestyle. It is completely reasonable for a writer to imagine fantastic stories and create art based on his or her experiences, thus celebrating the human condition. It is completely unreasonable to actually believe in fairy tales like religion.

To return to your original charge of bigotry, I am intolerant of ignorance. So are businesspeople, engineers, artists, electricians, graphic designers, and even more so than many, schoolteachers and professors. To function in this world, we must be intolerant of ignorance; we demand logical behavior from our peers and ourselves to navigate the puzzles of life. Atheists and rationalists are merely being intolerant of an ignorance that's been institutionalized and romanticized for thousands of years. Of course some people are going to be offended. But they are believing in fairy tales, and their behavior is actively damaging and hindering humanity. Again, we don't call a teacher who corrects a child's math problem a "bigot of ignorance." I'm doing the same as that teacher. You are treating the religious as if their beliefs are worthy of respect, but their beliefs are naked emperors, demanding baseless, unwarranted respect. Let their assertions about the universe be treated just as all the others—with observation, testing, and reason.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 11:16:30 pm by ZeaLitY »

Asafigow

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • It's the middle of the story, go crazy!
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4859 on: January 10, 2010, 11:42:22 pm »
faith must be battled with reason.

These two things have battled on since the beginning of mankind. Who do you think sought them out in the first place? There were many reasons why religion was created. And a few why rationality was searched for. A reason for religion was for war and power, which were some of the things that came from rationality. For example, conquest of enemy territory. Rationality was found so that one could live a free life. And some religions have come to the same conlusion. Though these two things are complete opposites, they end up the same way.

So go ahead Zeality, fight for reason! But that will not end faith in others!

I myself have not taken a side for I seek both, thus I believe my life we'll head down a road majorly different from yours. But honestly, keep fighting. The world needs people to see reason. And there are people out there just like you who are doing the same for faith. And please, don't take anything out of context. Think of it as a whole. It works better that way, or at least that's what I've come to understand.