Non Believers: I'm What's Called a Pessimist

[Stubby]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I agree with you that these texts are bad fiction, but you have to admit that they are easily the most fantastically successful fairy tales ever told. 

It's amazing what people will believe when you threaten them with all manner of vile punishments.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Because not participating causes more problems in many circumstances.  We all participate passively in some way simply by not point out that it's foolish fantasy.  I was passively participating in the ruse earlier this afternoon when a neighbor said he'd pray for us when we said our basement was flooding and my only response was "thanks".  The word of gratitude implies that I think his telling me that he'll go talk to himself or his imaginary friend is helpful, appropriate or even polite.  It's not any of those but telling him the truth would have caused more problems. Hence participating in the ruse, and yes being a sympathizer.  And that's why the questions posed above have been asked in the thread.

I'm not talking about going up to some random child and talking to them about anything.  I'm speaking in general.  Children learn every day that santa isn't real and we see that as an appropriate sign of growth and maturity.  We don't view it the same when it's an adult.

 

 Yeah, that's what I would call a practical example of keeping your non-belief to yourself. I think that's basically what DMC is saying about it being impractical and rude to ridicule someone for their beliefs in a classroom setting.  

 Earlier you wrote that we don't find it to be offensive to tell a child that Santa doesn't exist. I'm just pushing back against the way you worded it, I suppose. I think you'd offend many parents if you went around telling small children that their parents were feeding them a lie. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Stubby said:

It's amazing what people will believe when you threaten them with all manner of vile punishments.

RAMEN.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize we were required to know the posters we engage with.  

Wow, what?  Did I say that?

Anyway, I think you're full of shit.  In fact, I know you're full of shit.  I've been a fairly consistent presence in the American politics threads for the past few months.  To think you don't remember me - nor our interactions - is laughable.  I was gonna let it go, but you saying you "literally" have no clue who I am?  It's demonstrably false unless you're a cast member in a soap.  Please stop with the bullshit.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yeah, that's what I would call a practical example of keeping your non-belief to yourself. I think that's basically what DMC is saying about it being impractical and rude to ridicule someone for their beliefs in a classroom setting.  

 Earlier you wrote that we don't find it to be offensive to tell a child that Santa doesn't exist. I'm just pushing back against the way you worded it, I suppose. I think you'd offend many parents if you went around telling small children that their parents were feeding them a lie. 

And sometimes keeping your non belief to yourself is also participating in the ruse.  There are other ways.  Accepting religiously based holidays (which tend to only be the dominant religion's holidays), for example.  When you allow the ruse to exist all around you without speaking up, you're pretty much a participant.  

We don't find it offensive to tell a child that Santa doesn't exist.  Not sure what your issue is here.  Despite telling the lie in the first place, people generally provide plenty of clues for their child to figure out the lie and once they do, people generally do not try to insist to them that santa is definitely real.  Often they recruit them to be part of telling other kids lies because they see the learning of the lie as an appropriate stage of development.  There is no equivalent for adults who believe in similar lies.

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Wow, what?  Did I say that?

Anyway, I think you're full of shit.  In fact, I know you're full of shit.  I've been a fairly consistent presence in the American politics threads for the past few months.  To think you don't remember me - nor our interactions - is laughable.  I was gonna let it go, but you saying you "literally" have no clue who I am?  It's demonstrably false unless you're a cast member in a soap.  Please stop with the bullshit.

Yeah, sorry, I have 10.5k posts (omg that's insane).  There is no possible way I can remember every single person I correspond with.  There is no way I can remember every person who has ever posted in a thread I have read or posted in.  Sorry it seems to bother you but it's a rather bizarre reason to go to such effort to not respond. I can't imagine that everyone on this forum is going to remember each and every poster they encounter.  

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sorry it seems to bother you but it's a rather bizarre reason to go to such effort to not respond. I can't imagine that everyone on this forum is going to remember each and every poster they encounter.

Hey, if it's such a bother I have no idea why you're deigning to reply to me in the first place with all your thousands of posts and friends.  Have fun on that insane ride of yours, so sorry to interrupt.

[DMC]

I'm just worried, because you seemed to remember me quite well back in August. 

 

[Eggegg]

15 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Hey, if it's such a bother I have no idea why you're deigning to reply to me in the first place with all your thousands of posts and friends.  Have fun on that insane ride of yours, so sorry to interrupt.

I will say that despite never having spoken to you, that you have one of the more memorable avatars and I certainly know who you are. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

We don't find it offensive to tell a child that Santa doesn't exist.  Not sure what your issue is here. 

 Your own child, yes, but that same dynamic would apply to religious belief as well. Your comparison doesn't work.

You were comparing telling a child that Santa doesn't exist to telling an adult that their religion is bullshit. Most parents would be offended if you sprung the Santa is bullshit argument on their child (given that they hadn't already had that discussion with them), just the same as many adults would get offended if you told them their God was bullshit.   

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Cool it with the personal comments, please.

[/MOD]

[Eggegg]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Your own child, yes, but that same dynamic would apply to religious beliefs. Your comparison doesn't work.

You were comparing telling a child that Santa doesn't exist to telling an adult that their religion is bullshit. Most parents would be offended if you sprung the Santa is bullshit argument on their child, just the same as many adults would get offended if you told them their God was bullshit.   

I wouldn't be surprised if someone got offended if I called out their religious beliefs. But at the same time I think that there is a difference here, there isn't a lot of danger coming out of believing in Santa, but holding a number of superstitious beliefs that could impact other peoples lives if they are spread widely is serious business. I do find it troubling when I meet religious people, I will admit that. I know we are all irrational creatures but that is a level of irrationality I'm not comfortable with. 
 

[DireWolfSpirit]

On November 23, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Martell Spy said:

 

!. What type of non believer are you? How do you define it? I'm sure I don't know all the terms that are out there, so I'd be interested. (I used to consider myself agnostic and now I consider myself an atheist)

2. Did you ever believe? (I did not)

3. Were you ever part of a faith? (My parents were Jehovah Witnesses, but I never really got into it. I found the meetings boring)

4. Do you tell anyone you are a non? Are you a combative non? (I rarely tell anyone because I'm a careful person)

1. I usually describe myself as agnosic, rather than atheist, due to the protracted circle discussion that proving an unknown involves. Its just easier to go with the agnostic title because of the lack of evidence for gods. That said, i'm quite convinced a belief in the existence of gods is superstition from my reference point.

2. No of course not. I have a controversial view that noone has ever believed, they have only successfully repressed their inner most thoughts.

3. Raised and baptised as a Methodist (Sunday school, services, bible study, communion, etc.). Even as a child I recognized the absurdity of the basic tenants of that faith- https://www.bible-knowledge.com/basic-tenants-of-christian-faith/ and realized very early that I just did not believe the story. 

4. I will openly respond to folks who initiate a religious topic, I would say that usually I wont start that conversation though. I am not combative, im perfectly comfortable listening to what others think they believe, I dont believe them, but its a little fascinating to hear.

I find all religion(s) pretty interesting.

[Dr. Pepper]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm just worried, because you seemed to remember me quite well back in August. 

 

Again, I don't know how you expect me to remember every person I engage with on this forum.  I'm sure we all purge unnecessary info from our brains.  The names of thousands of posters is info that I frequently purge.  I'm sorry it upsets you that you may be one of those names, but I really just wanted to discuss the topic.  This is my last post on this.  If you have further grievances about my lack of memory of you, I assure you I'll respond to a pm and similarly apologize for not knowing who you are or why you could not respond to the topic.

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Your own child, yes, but that same dynamic would apply to religious beliefs. Your comparison doesn't work.

You were comparing telling a child that Santa doesn't exist to telling an adult that their religion is bullshit. Most parents would be offended if you sprung the Santa is bullshit argument on their child (given that they hadn't already had that discussion with them), just the same as many adults would get offended if you told them their God was bullshit.   

Again, I'm not saying to literally go up to someone's child and tell them this.  Perhaps "lead" instead of tell would make this easier to understand.  We don't have a problem when we lead children to understanding santa is a lie, we find it appropriate.  We lead them to this conclusion in a number of ways ... through formal and informal education, to facial gestures like winks, to getting purposely lazy in how we try to hide the lie, etc.  From the day people start the santa lie they are aware that the lie will soon be revealed and it's accepted as a positive thing.  

This is not how it works with adults.  "Leading" them isn't really a thing. For believers, it can be classified as offensive to tell (or in other words, lead) them to understanding the god bullshit.  Sometimes even things that might naturally lead to the revelation of the lie - such a science classes, or maybe fantasy novels- might be considered offensive and great policy fights are made to try to alter what's deemed appropriate for the sake of the aging believer.  

[Dr. Pepper]

13 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone got offended if I called out their religious beliefs. But at the same time I think that there is a difference here, there isn't a lot of danger coming out of believing in Santa, but holding a number of superstitious beliefs that could impact other peoples lives if they are spread widely is serious business. I do find it troubling when I meet religious people, I will admit that. I know we are all irrational creatures but that is a level of irrationality I'm not comfortable with. 
 

Yes, I agree.  When someone asks me my religion, I have to really calculate the costs of saying I'm atheist because it could be dangerous.  That doesn't exist for a santa situation.  Sometimes I'd even have to pretend to be religious just to safely navigate a situation or even to participate in certain things not even religious related.  

Although I think much of that reaction might have to do with having spent most of my life in the bible belt, many years deep in the buckle of the belt.  Everything is coated in layers upon layers of religion that I don't find in other areas of the U.S.  In my last location, I couldn't meet a new person without being asked what church I attend.  In my new Rust Belt location, not a single person has asked me and the closest I've gotten to religious talk has been a neighbor saying he'd pray for me and other casual tidbits in conversation.  It's just very different and that nervous fear I felt is a lot less.

[Seli]

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Perhaps (and this isn’t directed at you but the other posters who quoted me) I shouldn’t have used the word creation, maybe origin would have been better.   I’ll admit, creation is easier for me, or comes more naturally, but it was not meant as some kind of slight.

The overall point I was trying to get to is that life, existence, creation, our origin; is at this point, and perhaps always will be, beyond our comprehension.  I wasn’t raised in the church, quite the opposite.  My road to believing was long and troubled and filled with doubt.  Every believer has doubts, just as I assume every unbeliever does too.  It’s our nature.

But we understand life (a natural result of the properties of chemicals, which can be understood by way of physics). We are starting to understand our existence (as in the 'I', the mind; and with an emphasis on starting). We understand our origin (evolution, and the development of our universe). We have models for the deeper origin of our observable universe (although we have no way to test them). We know we can handwave how it is possible we can observe this universe we exist in (weak anthropic principle). And all of these form a more or less coherent whole.

What they do not answer is a 'why'. And that is what makes people deeply uncomfortable.

 

[Martell Spy]

14 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Pre-Big Bang is unobservable to us at present.  And there may plausibly be a vast array of things that are unobservable to us, e.g. other "universes" (we should really drop the "uni") too distant in space-time to see, our own universe going through successive cycles of expansion and contraction with varying values for the cosmological constant until we reach the current instance where the cosmological constant is high enough for the universe to end in entropy (slowly enough for us to emerge to observe it) rather than contraction, other universes at different energy levels, etc.  There are lots of theories, but no data or testable hypotheses yet.

I don't understand why we have to call any unknown "god", especially when there is no evidence of agency involved.  We may even have to accept that within the limits of our lifespans and perception range, we will probably never be able to observe/measure phenomena beyond a certain scale.

Yeah, I wanted to bring up Multiple Worlds Theory and String Theory, actually. It seems very likely to me based upon what has already happened that someday, perhaps beyond our own lifetimes, we will undergo great shocks as we discover how little we actually knew before about the nature of reality based upon some sort of new discovery. 

Multiple universes does seem likely. Nature loves to repeat. It's also possible we are on some multiple cycle of our own universe.

Given all that, I don't really see why you'd then make the leap to god from there. Thinking about what's possible about the nature of reality and how little we actually know of it should make one humble.

Do parallel universes really exist?
   
Many Worlds Theory

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe2.htm

Parallel Universes: Split or String?

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe3.htm

[TrueMetis]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

No, I am sorry because I really don't understand your point.  Are you saying Mormons should just be mocked more than mainstream denominations?  Or they should be subjugated because they - and you're certainly correct about this - institutionally were racist for a longer time than mainstream denominations?  As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm frankly not familiar enough with the religion, but I assume the "leaders" are similarly fundamentalist and reactionary.

Anyway, all that aside, what are you implying by bolding what you did?  That I should ridicule the cohort that's Mormon?  If so, you're a dick.  If not, I don't really get your argument.

Did you not read my second sentence? Here it is again with the important part bolded,

Quote

Since I would argue this means they should all be mocked, much like homeopathy, crystal healing, and the idea that aliens come to earth so they can stick probes up people's buts.

I don't know how to make it more clear than that, I really don't. And I really have no idea where you got any ideas about subjugation from.

And I bolded the part I did because that's the specific part I was responding to. It does not logically follow that because Mormon's shouldn't be ridiculed more than Catholics that they all shouldn't be ridiculed. Because stupid things deserve ridicule. Homeopaths deserve ridicule, anti-vacers deserve ridicules, climate change deniers deserve ridicule, and people who believe in magic men in the sky deserve ridicule.

It's also not bullying to call ridiculous things ridiculous. When I tell a homeopath that they're an idiot for believing that water can cure their cancer I'm not bullying. I'm telling them the truth.

[The Mance]

43 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

It's also not bullying to call ridiculous things ridiculous. When I tell a homeopath that they're an idiot for believing that water can cure their cancer I'm not bullying. I'm telling them the truth.

The truth of a statement doesn't make it not bullying.  A message can be both true and bullying because of tone and context.

[DMC]

49 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

It's also not bullying to call ridiculous things ridiculous. When I tell a homeopath that they're an idiot for believing that water can cure their cancer I'm not bullying. I'm telling them the truth.

Looks like The Mance beat me to the punch, but this statement demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of what bullying is.  Like, seriously, have you ever been in a group of friends?  You don't think saying "hey, being a Mormon is ridiculous and makes you an idiot" is bullying?

[Iskaral Pust]

I actually think atheists are in aggregate far more polite and respectful than theists.  There is less proselytizing or even inquiry about belief by atheists, and certainly no forcible conversion or overt persecution.  Atheists generally demur out of good manners to avoid shock and awe.  I wouldn't be surprised if intellectual bullying occurs sometimes by a small minority of jerks seeking social dominance, but that is nothing compared to evangelism, religious law, etc.  And that's the nature of bullying rather than the nature of atheism.

If anyone felt intellectually bullied in this thread, for example by my description of theism as an intellectual and/or emotional immaturity, then I'm afraid you cannot claim bullying when you knowingly enter a discussion about unbelief which will contain impersonal contrasts between belief and unbelief.  If you have become over dependent on the cultural lip service toward your faith, then I suggest you start acquiring some resistance through exposure.  You don't have to undertake your own rationalism journey but the demographic trend certainly suggests that you prepare yourself for more dissenting views.