Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Topic

We seem to have lost the old Thought Provoking (TM) mind expansion thread, so here’s a replacement.
.
Astrology:
.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/06/i-was-an-astrologer-how-it-works-psychics
.
Before you scoff, there are some interesting insights in the article that you don’t have to be a believer to appreciate. Here’s a couple of extracts that made me wonder:
.

I’d understood organised religion to be something between an embarrassment and an evil. Yet as Aids did its dreadful work – this was the 1990s – I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying. Christian volunteers checked on derelict men with vomit down their clothes. I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

.

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.

.

Some repeat customers claimed I’d made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer’s memory would add new elements. I got to test this theory after a friend raved about a reading she’d had, full of astonishingly accurate predictions. She had a tape of the session, so I asked her to play it.

The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single one. My friend’s imagination had done all the work.

.
And my favourite:
.

I can still make the odd forecast, though. Here’s one: the venture capital pouring into astrology apps will create a fortune telling system that works, because humans are predictable. As people follow the advice, the apps’ predictive powers will increase, creating an ever-tighter electronic leash. But they’ll be hugely popular – because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

Replies

The boundaries between emotions, passions, urges etc on one hand and rationality and logical thinking on the other seems a bit vague. For instance if you want to do something because it makes you feel happy, is that emotion or rationality? It seems emotional, but you could argue it is also rational: happiness is good, therefore doing something that makes you feel happy is commendable.

 

Obviously happiness, hate, anger etc are all emotional urges but they also seem to have rational aspects. People can gaslight themselves about hate and anger, thinking they should not have these emotions. But if you feel anger, there is a cause for that. You can then use reason to examine the cause of your anger and see if it is justified.

1 user thanked author for this post.

How ‘Good Vs Evil’ Narratives Are Breaking Your Brain

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave wrote:

Ultimately though your justification for the conclusion that no decision can ever be considered moral or rational is built on a foundation of logic that is based on a pre-existing assumption/observation that no decision made is moral or rational. Essentially you’re saying that your position holds true because you think it does. I can’t argue with that!

I admit that am taking a difficult position to argue against, but I’d contend it is because contrary arguments are difficult to formulate as they are likely more faulty than accepting reason is not only an illusion but an undesirable and inuman basis for guiding one’s behavior. Just as it is difficult to argue that the sky isn’t blue though one might contend that the sky is what it is and color and the concept of color are entirely imaginary. There are arguments for reason, but they are not attractive or convincing.

Here is the context to assert that rational decisions are, first, even possible, and second, better than irrational.

First, how can a rational decision actually exist? What is the basic determination of rational vs. irrational? Essentially, that it has a “reason.” However, though that is a low bar, it still devolves into irrational nonsense as a reason could be given that it “feels good.”

However, in the many (and often extremely destructive) reason-based philosophies from objectivism to Leninism to even humanist secularism, there is the equally vague and often non-sensical concept of “self-interest” (or even more basic – interest) involved. Essentially, a rational decision is made with an interest in mind – a goal. The survival or “success” of the individual or of the group or, most often, the justification of some ideology that the person involved holds to be even higher than the individual or the group. In some sense, that is the reverse or mirror of the irrational argument – the faith in reason replacing something like the faith in God or in the goodness of the human spirit.

The obvious problem here is that the elevation of whatever interest is placed in prominence is in itself irrational. There cannot be an infinite derivation of justifications to support the basic preference of that interest – that objective. At some point, it devolves into a matter of faith or belief – and that is in essence a desire or urge inherent in the person.

Next, obviously, even if the interest is something like the oft-stated “greatest good for the greatest number,” it leaves open the greatest evil for the fewest number option as we’ve seen with many rational ideologies. Often that “fewest number” grows to encompass the entire generation (as in Stalinism) and points to some imagined “new human type” as its goal which naturally excludes every actual human being in existence. It would have been better for most of us if people simply did no harm for no reason at all, than the many attempts in history for those who’ve sought the greatest good.

Now, the most obvious contrary argument to the value of reason in important decisions is that reason takes time and the most important decisions, almost by their very nature, are those in which one has very little time to consider. We seem to think that we are reasonable people because we can have these sedate conversations here or at parties or at work, but when a crisis hits, all that is thrown out the window and reason is brought down to the level of the gunslinger – “shoot first, and ask questions later.” There will be time for reasons afterwards.

Humans are not rationale animals. We are rationalizing creatures.

Anonymous wrote:

Christianity in particular seems to stress “be humble and serve others”. Islam is a bit different in that it gives license to rise up and defeat tyrannical rule that oppresses you. Islam you could say might be a fitting religion for the “woke” people in that way, always fighting oppression.

While at the same time – as with Christianity – imposing an oppressive relationship with the supreme being and its representatives.

Still, Islam is too diverse to define. Again, religions are not one thing – they are whatever the adherent deems them to be. The Nation of Islam, for example, is about as Islamic as The Church of the Later Day Saints is Christian. However, NOI is Islamic and the LDS is Christian.

Personally, I think atheists are the reason the Christian churches in America are so fundamentalist. If you’re an atheist, then you are not a member of a Church. That seems reasonable, but in the end, it means that the most liberal or accepting members of a society have likely left Churches.

However, a “rational” action of an atheist would be to remain or join or even form a Church that promotes one’s own viewpoint and have a direct effect on what should be supported by such powerful social institutions. Institutions that will never go away no matter how hard anyone tries to eliminate them. Atheists, especially radical atheists, chose to basically isolate their viewpoints from the religious sphere out of principle, I suppose, and that essentially left Churches in control of radical fundamentalists and, admittedly, charlatans.

Nevertheless, I would have preferred the atheists stayed in the churches and became a strong opposing force to the manipulations of those preying upon people with their own piety. It may not have been honest, but it would have been better.

I mean, why not be Anglican, or Episcopal or Lutheran? They don’t really care if you believe in God or not.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I’d like to advance the idea that most of the TV Evangelists in America are privately atheist.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

While at the same time – as with Christianity – imposing an oppressive relationship with the supreme being and its representatives.

Sure, I mean I don’t really like Islam as a whole, there are many terrible things in it, there are just some things I like about it. Like all religions. But in the end, all organized religions, the institutes, are a scam.

 

They do change how we think. I think in some ways I am still a cultural Christian even though I was raised an atheist.

DavidM wrote:

I’d like to advance the idea that most of the TV Evangelists in America are privately atheist.

Technically, they worship money and power.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, DavidM

DavidM wrote:

I’d like to advance the idea that most of the TV Evangelists in America are privately atheist.

It is hard to determine honestly. There is a term that was common (may still be) among carnival fortune tellers and traveling bunko psychics in the early 20th century called “Shuteye” which is what happens when a fake psychic starts to believe they actually have supernatural powers.

Most of the evangelists began in that culture and many believe in the prosperity gospel where one’s devotion to the church – usually represented by monetary support of that church – will be rewarded materially by God in one’s life. That is quite similar to MLM and other investment schemes (usually involving real estate) where the basic selling point is “the more money you put in, the more money you’ll get back.”

However, that is true of many supposedly legitimate financial opportunities as well, and, of course, MLM’s and any number of obviously harmful investment schemes are not illegal, unfortunately.

So, if you’re a true believer in the idea that God rewards faith, then that naturally justifies pretty much anything you want. You’re becoming so obscenely rich because you are doing what God wants, and – in that circular logic – as long as you are continuing to prosper from your actions, then obviously God is okay with whatever you are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

But in the end, all organized religions, the institutes, are a scam.

The thing about them is that they predate scams. When the early Christian Church formed, what did its adherents get out of it? It doesn’t seem likely that the people who made Buddhism the dominant religion in Asia really prospered materially from it.

If anything, I think that the change in culture to becoming capitalist likely is what turned churches into scams. Similarly, in the Middle Ages, the Feudal System had a strong effect on the nature of the Church. In fact, if anything, it was the Church and its universal influence that kept the worst and most violent effects of the Feudal System in check – though not by much.

Now, you’d naturally think that that would be the role of the Church in a capitalist society as well. Historically, Christian values opposed commercial interests. However, it’s had much of a reverse effect with religious institutions sanctioning and replicating the worst elements of capital. Communist regimes generally eliminated religious institutions or isolated them when they came into power, but the capitalists basically took them over, compromised their leaders and put them to work.

There is the idea that churches support power structures in society and it is pretty obviously true, but in the end, every institution supports power structures in society – that’s what makes them powerful. It’s not simply the churches, it’s the universities, city halls, banks and businesses. What makes one a scam and the other legitimate since their existence in the end supported by the people in the society?

Like, for a hypothetical, I’ll make up a fictional televangelist named Faith Chastitini. She has a dream one night about flying in a private jet with her name written on it and she obviously just knows this is a sign from God. She puts her woefully underpaid underlings (this is a non-profit, after all) to work figuring out all the costs of buying a private jet customized to fit her vision and then she goes on her show to ask all of her parishioners (also known as viewers) to contribute as much as they can. The vast majority of these people are naturally retired and on fixed incomes and barely send in a minimum of $30 per month, but there are over 15 million of them.

However, she also has a few hundred thousand that regularly give between $100 – $500 per month. Also, she has corporate sponsors and advertisers that represent tens of millions of dollars to her tax-free corporation whose “(non) profits” basically go directly to her or are under her control. If she wants a private jet, she already has the money to buy it.

But – this represents a capital expense. If she can make this a project on top of her regular business activities, then she basically doesn’t really spend anything for it as it represents “capital” a thing of value beyond the money spent to acquire it. So she starts showing all the designs and plans for the jet on her show and telling everyone that it is a vision sent her by God and anyone that helps her achieve it will be in God’s good graces. She comes up with a new support plan that gives nominal rewards to people who increase their contributions by 1000% and significant awards to those that contribute what are really mind-boggling amounts. Like if a donor gives $100,000 then they will actually fly on the Jet with Faith to the next God-Con at her megachurch convention center in Minneapolis followed by a fully catered prayer session on the tarmac.

Who could say no to that?

Now, as long as Faith actually buys or builds that Jet or even a private airstrip next to her MegaChurch to keep it, it really doesn’t matter how much that hurts the people giving her money and essentially creating a thing of value – new Capital – for her that they have no direct ownership interest in. The only way she’d get into trouble in our society is if she took that money and just kept it and did nothing with it. That’s fraud.

but that’s essentially how our social system works in everything we do – not just religion. It’s designed to create capital from the contribution in labor or investment of “losers” and it keeps working primarily because it will outlast those losers (which comprise pretty much everyone we know). Eventually, the people that support the system but receive little in return except the bare minimum will die – especially in economic downturns or natural disasters (like epidemics and hurricanes), but the capital they helped generate will endure, and there will always be new people to enter the system. Even those who really benefit substantially will die as well – no one escapes.

The faith isn’t in God, but that the capital the losers left behind will make the world a little better for the losers-to-be that take their places.

Anonymous wrote:

The thing about them is that they predate scams. When the early Christian Church formed, what did its adherents get out of it? It doesn’t seem likely that the people who made Buddhism the dominant religion in Asia really prospered materially from it.

 

The adherents didn’t gain a lot, but I’m not so sure about the leaders. I think many of them were in it for money and power.

Look at the sexual abuse in the church for instance. I think that has always existed. People get a position high up in the spiritual hierarchy so they can get away with everything. If someone accuses you, you just say they’re a heretic or possessed by the devil. (Not bashing Catholics, I think this is true for every religion.)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

Look at the sexual abuse in the church for instance. I think that has always existed. People get a position high up in the spiritual hierarchy so they can get away with everything. If someone accuses you, you just say they’re a heretic or possessed by the devil. (Not bashing Catholics, I think this is true for every religion.)

Well, the early church members were hermetic and celibate so not exactly likely to lead to direct immorality and abuse. However, this was under the Roman Empire where slavery, sexual abuse and just plain torture and murder were the norm. There were few checks on the powerful. A lot of the reason that Romans became Christian was that the Christians and their leaders were more moral and tolerant than the pagans. Similar for the Muslim conversions.

Nietzsche criticized Christianity as promoting a slave morality, but in a lot of ways, the appeal of Christianity was that it leveled people so that the powerful could not simply assert their will without the balancing force of religious justifications for using it. Again, it didn’t entirely prevent the abuse of power, but it did put a lot in the way of it as even the rulers had to consider it whether they actually believed in it – and the truth is that even most of the rulers and nobles were believers and actually worried that they would go to Hell for all the violence they committed or ordered.

In some ways, Neitzsche’s argument mirrors the pagans that opposed Christianity during the conversion of Rome’s rulers in that a large part of that was a desire for the powerful to return to the brutality of Pagan Rome – like the arena games that were basically genocide as entertainment. Nietzsche though had a more complex point. Essentially, Christianity was no longer universal and therefore in a sense “God is dead.” Just as the later Muslim schisms right after the death of Mohammed were the source of violence and social disintegration to this day, the disintegration of the Church to many different “franchises” completely nullified its social utility. Without a monolithic monopoly on monotheism, the Church cannot truly act as a divine moral force against plain human power and willfulness. So, his turn back toward pagan ethics was more directed toward acknowledging that the Christian experiment had failed and returning to something like what had sustained society before it – or using that for the basis of something new in the face of the chaos the “Death of God” would bring to the world.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, the early church members were hermetic and celibate so not exactly likely to lead to direct immorality and abuse. However, this was under the Roman Empire where slavery, sexual abuse and just plain torture and murder were the norm. There were few checks on the powerful. A lot of the reason that Romans became Christian was that the Christians and their leaders were more moral and tolerant than the pagans. Similar for the Muslim conversions.

I agree, probably the early church before it gained worldly power was more moral and tolerant, but I diubt that’s still true once they became the state religion. I am not really talking about the regular believers though, but the people in positions of leadership within the church hierarchy. I think in general those people are more concerned with their political games than doing good for the people (with exceptions.) I am not sure how many are actual believers either.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

I agree, probably the early church before it gained worldly power was more moral and tolerant, but I diubt that’s still true once they became the state religion. I am not really talking about the regular believers though, but the people in positions of leadership within the church hierarchy. I think in general those people are more concerned with their political games than doing good for the people (with exceptions.) I am not sure how many are actual believers either.

Certainly, the churches looked out for themselves, but that is true of any institution. I’m more pointing out that churches in general and organized religion as it exists in the world today and has existed in history has not been any more or less exploitative than any other institution from aristocracies to merchant ventures to today’s corporations (profit driven and non-profits) and institutions from municipalities to federal agencies to academic universities today. Essentially, they all behave in the same ways and some are better than others, but you’ll find the same range of tolerable to terrible in every institutional sector.

Wherever you look you’ll find the same abuses to the same degree whether in churches or public schools. Or you’ll find the same benefits to the same degree whether it’s in a secular or religious charity, for example. Whatever your inclination, there will be plenty of evidence to call any organization a “scam” or a “service.”

There is some truth to that but the church also posited itself as an ultimate arbiter of truth and moral worthiness.

 

I guess if you delete the church some other institute might take over that function, like the government or some other organization (academia?). I don’t know. But the church with its ultimate appeal to divine authority did that in a rather toxic way.

 

Western countries suck these days, but I still kinda prefer the chaos of people deiciding to believe whatever the hell they want to believe in over the church’s divine commandments or Kim Jong Un. I think that’s why I feel some sympathy to anti vaxxers and flat earthers.

Still, governments even in nominally democratic countries, cite the “will of the people” to wield far more destructive power and absolute authority than any church. What church has bombed a city in the name of “national defense” in the past 50 years or so? There are plenty of churches that prey upon the poor, but nothing like what municipalities or cities or our court system do to poor communities. And that is not even considered abuse. It’s completely legal and considered the duty of our public servants to, say, take and sell a person’s house because they can’t pay the property tax.

Our faith in secular institutions in practice isn’t much more or less beneficial than any faith in the divine.

So you’re saying there will always be destructive organizations and power structures…maybe, but the church isn’t better in my opinion. We still have theocracies in the world and they’re not good places to be. What is probably the world’s most dangerous looming conflict is between two of them, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Christianity has mellowed a bit, but it was never afraid of some genocide to suppress challengers to their might.

 

Also I doubt the church has been better on poverty historically than today’s Western governments. In catholicism poverty is actually seen as a virtue. To be poor is to be holy. (And that virtue is applied hypocritically…the church itself and the monasteries were very rich.)

I didn’t say the church was better but that it is no worse or less legitimate than any other human organization. Iran is a theocracy, but Saudi Arabia is actually a monarchy. The Saudi king is not a cleric like the Ayatollah. Nevertheless, Iran is more socially advanced of the two because of its culture. On the other end, an entirely secular cult of personality exists in North Korea as it did in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia — it’s not religion that leads to the abuses.

We have pretty much the same government in the US that we had 100 years ago, but what was a major force for change in Civil Rights? Black churches and even many mostly white denominations like the Quakers.

Honestly, my point though isn’t that any system or organization is better – and certainly I’m not suggesting that a church would govern better – where are you getting that idea? I’m simply pointing out that organizations of any kind whether corporations, governments or temples fall prey to the same problems when it comes to the power dynamics inside the organizations. Some handle them successfully and others very poorly but no organization is immune. Whether it is video game companies, consumer products manufacturers, police agencies, public schools or churches and mosques, we’ll see the same scandals and abuses occur in fairly the same proportion even though businesses and public institutions are supposed to be more transparent and accountable.

 

Anonymous wrote:

I didn’t say the church was better but that it is no worse or less legitimate than any other human organization. Iran is a theocracy, but Saudi Arabia is actually a monarchy. The Saudi king is not a cleric like the Ayatollah. Nevertheless, Iran is more socially advanced of the two because of its culture. On the other end, an entirely secular cult of personality exists in North Korea as it did in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia — it’s not religion that leads to the abuses.

We have pretty much the same government in the US that we had 100 years ago, but what was a major force for change in Civil Rights? Black churches and even many mostly white denominations like the Quakers.

Honestly, my point though isn’t that any system or organization is better – and certainly I’m not suggesting that a church would govern better – where are you getting that idea? I’m simply pointing out that organizations of any kind whether corporations, governments or temples fall prey to the same problems when it comes to the power dynamics inside the organizations. Some handle them successfully and others very poorly but no organization is immune. Whether it is video game companies, consumer products manufacturers, police agencies, public schools or churches and mosques, we’ll see the same scandals and abuses occur in fairly the same proportion even though businesses and public institutions are supposed to be more transparent and accountable.

 

Saudi Arabia is kind of a theocracy in that the entire law is a strict reading of sharia.

 

I think I had a similar discussion about this with Jim O’Hara, when you make a judgement about the church there are many good as well as bad things the church did because of its enormous influence throughout history and it’s tough to say they did more good or more bad because you don’t know what things would look like without the church. And especially in the Middle Ages the church had a hand in everything that was going on, wether it was good or bad. So you could condemn the church on one hand because they stopped scientific progress, but then someone might point out that they also advanced scientific progress sometimes, because some scientists were also devout believers or monks. It can be a neverending discussion that way.

 

I do think the kind of authority a high position in a religious system gives is uniquely rife for abuse. For many believers the word of a priest was law, in a way that can’t be compared to that of worldly authority like a politcian or a businessman, because clerical authority claims divine pre-eminence. Who can win an argument with a representative of God? If you’re a peasant girl who was raped by a priest in 18th century Italy, good luck getting him tried, it’s your word against his. These days at least we can get a hearing in court. And figures like Epstein and Maxwell, even if they aren’t convicted, their reputations will be destroyed.

Anonymous wrote:

I do think the kind of authority a high position in a religious system gives is uniquely rife for abuse. For many believers the word of a priest was law, in a way that can’t be compared to that of worldly authority like a politcian or a businessman, because clerical authority claims divine pre-eminence. Who can win an argument with a representative of God? If you’re a peasant girl who was raped by a priest in 18th century Italy, good luck getting him tried, it’s your word against his. These days at least we can get a hearing in court. And figures like Epstein and Maxwell, even if they aren’t convicted, their reputations will be destroyed.

At the same time, it wasn’t the church that let Epstein and Maxwell or other people like Jimmy Saville get away with it for so long. Epstein even went to trial, got a light sentence and continued to do it for another decade or more.

What I’m saying here is “compared to what?” In the 18th century (the 1700’s), you could obviously find examples of religious abuse and oppression but compared to aristocratic oppression or even commercial (the slave industry), it was right in line with the times and cultures. Of course, that century ended with the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France that had completely eradicated the influence of the Church. Then 19th century begins with the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire in large part due to Christian Churches and organizations. Though of course, a century before, the Church was supportive of slavery, but so was every other organization.

It is easy to criticize the Church and its foundation in the belief of a divine supreme power by looking at all the readily available instances of failure to live up to the example of that power, but at the same time, you can say the same about something like the court system which cites the ideal of Justice as the basis of its authority and every day provides contrary evidence to that assertion by the numerous times it fails to deliver any justice.

Anonymous wrote:

and every day provides contrary evidence to that assertion by the numerous times it fails to deliver any justice.

Didn’t you say earlier you thought we shouldn’t punish evildoers? ;) What does justice mean then?

 

It’s an interesting discussion but it’s funny you pit our contemporary justice system against the church. What do you propose, bringing back trial by fire?

Anonymous wrote:

Didn’t you say earlier you thought we shouldn’t punish evildoers? ;) What does justice mean then?

That’s my point, though. Prove the existence of justice. You’ll have an easier time defining God than even saying what Justice actually is. Plato wrote a famously (and mind-numbingly) long book to answer the question, and it was hardly satisfying.

We have faith in justice as much as religious people have faith in God, but no one can really say definitively what it is and certainly it isn’t often what results from the court system. Most of the foundations of our society are vague concepts with no solid reality – capital, democracy, equality, etc. and we operate more on feeling than real understanding.

Wittgenstein was more of this point of view. Justice isn’t a thing in itself, but a sort of “family resemblance” in many different things so we know it when we see it. However, institutions and organizations form up with solid rules, regulations and laws intended to deliver these things, but in the end, all of them just operate to sustain themselves irrespective of accomplishing anything idealistic.

They are all scams and they are all legitimate in the same ways and often appealing to the same authority – whether human or divine – which comes down to the threat of violence, suffering or physical coercion.

There is the possibly apocryphal story of a man known as the Emperor Norton of San Francisco. More precisely Norton,   Emperor of America and Protector of Mexico. This was in the late 19th Century and the story of the Emperor is too interesting and involved to summarize but essentially it involved a homeless and defeated failure of a man who in madness reinvented himself into a jester beloved and admired by all.

In this time, race riots were common especially among former Spanish now Mexican and the American Anglo invaders. So essentially there was a moment when a mass of Americans were on the verge of punishing the Mexican natives for protesting their oppression. Into the midst of this came the mad emperor Norton reading from the Bible, one assumes from the Sermon on the Mount.

The crowds, both Mexican and American dispersed without violence. Why? … Who knows? Perhaps because the satisfaction of the violence was turned bitter by the sanctity of the irrational religious reading.

it was at heart just a whim, a mass whim that turned tragedy into nothing at all. While all the rational and reasonable institutions of the world could hardly hope to achieve the same result.

I just hope you’re not a prison abolitionist like the great American intellectual Angela Davis who thought prisons in the US were bad, but people who got sent to jail in communist countries deserved to be there. ;)

 

The question of justice is easily solved in a Catholic theocracy because the judgment of the church is absolute and infallibe. There’s something weird going on in our societies I think, some kind of hunger for this type of absolutism. You see it on the right and on the left.  Liberal culture and its system of laws and institutions and checks and balances, like the justice system, is too messy and chaotic and you don’t always get what you want. So let’s burn things down and build back better.

 

Anonymous wrote:

So let’s burn things down and build back better.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Don’t nuke me bro.

 

I think I’m an incrementalist. I favor certain changes in society but we must be careful not to lose what we have in terms of democracy, human rights etc. Those achievements aren’t small and in the revolutionary camp I think there are some people who want to get rid of that and change us into something more like China.

Scientists Have Identified The Driving Force Behind Your Darkest Impulses

Go here to take a test to determine your D factor: http://www.darkfactor.org/

I took the full 70-question test and my score is 1.83 and ranks at 20%. I’m at the lower end of the spectrum and not that dark.

1 user thanked author for this post.

2.04 so still on the low end. I need to pump it up there. Should be between 2.5 – 3.5 at least. I think everyone needs to be higher on the dark side.

I have to note the wording of some questions are very poor so it is possible that you might miss a “not” in the question and respond exactly the opposite of your intent. Though it is based on the “Dark Triad” (Machiavellianism, Narcissism and Psychopathy) – the way that has been explained or used in popular psychology borders on pseudoscience. Personally, I’m not even entirely convinced there is any science behind it – and that often is the nature of psychology.

Also, there is a little nuance to the questions that the survey cannot really discern. Like a question about whether there is a right or wrong way to make money today, you could answer yes or no, but even if you answer “no” that doesn’t mean you agree or believe that there should be no right way to make money.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I got 2.77

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

2.04 so still on the low end. I need to pump it up there. Should be between 2.5 – 3.5 at least. I think everyone needs to be higher on the dark side.

I once read that there was a correlation between encephalitis and psychopathy. I don’t know if that is still true but maybe some brain inflamation could help?

A far riskier course of action would be to increase your viewing of Fox News. You do run the risk of permanent brain damage doing that, though.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Dark triad sounds like a group of supervillains

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Dark triad sounds like a group of supervillains

Or the name of a metal band!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd wrote:

I once read that there was a correlation between encephalitis and psychopathy. I don’t know if that is still true but maybe some brain inflamation could help?

There are some brain diseases and injuries that increase antisocial behavior, but naturally that is rare.

However, naturally, a lot of these traits are associated with success in many competitive situations. The point being that a low score in these traits is as much a disadvantage and potentially harmful to yourself as having a high score is potentially dangerous to others.  Aiming toward the center is a good idea.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I think it’s quite natural to have feelings of “darkness”, anger, hate over things that are bad, and to wish some kind of hurt on the perpetrator. Unless I’m very mistaken I think this is true for a lot of people, for instance if you hurt kids a lot of people will wish you ill. A dad here in the Netherlands abused and kept his kids as prisoner for a decade, and he was not put on trial because he suffered a brain hemorrage and was found not fit to stand trial. When it was said he would not be put on trial, I doubt a lot of people thought “thank God now that poor man won’t have to suffer a lengthy prison sentence.”

That’s a bit different though. What does or does not happen to that guy really doesn’t affect you personally. Any personal investment in an event in the news or a story on the internet is mostly superficial. This is often likely why the Internet is so negative. It doesn’t really matter to most people on a personal level so it’s treated like any other form of entertainment – a place to vicariously release the tension we repress in daily life – by crapping all over everything or looking for fights to start.

Fear of hurting people or anger at oneself for offending someone is hardly negative. Neither is anger at someone for committing some terrible act or crime. Positive “darkness” is more in the form of taking an advantage in a competitive situation even if it is unfair. It may seem like cheating, but if you are on a team with people, you don’t want to have one of your teammates lose the game for you because he wants to play fair. Primarily because life is mostly not a game and real opportunities are rare. Saints often become martyrs, so do you really want to be that team?

In a lot of cases, it’s darkness that forms the strongest bonds. You have friends that take your side or look to your advantage in all cases over others and you will do the same for them. Again, this can lead to destructive enabling when it isn’t balanced, but the same sort of thing happens on the light side when people hold each other to impossible standards of conduct as well.

 

There is something to be said when a group of people go through a “dark” event together or when people go through similar events and recount them to one another.

At times like those, they tend to see parts of each other that are normally hidden. They see the true core of each other. Certain hidden truths are shared. It shows that they are not as unique or alone as they thought they were.

I would say that’s the basis of group therapy and support groups, like AA.

Anonymous wrote:

Fear of hurting people or anger at oneself for offending someone is hardly negative.

Not so sure about that, it can be negative.

 

Our masters generally count on you not speaking out, not striking back, not being aggressive, not asserting yourself. Evil wants you to offer no resistance to evil. Western countries put an emphasis on oversocialization, and lately instilling men especially with fear about their own violent impulses. They want us to be submissive. Also while they preach about the need to meekness and humility they demand a monopoly on violence for themselves.

 

They’ve also begun extolling the virtue of poverty again. These people need to be fought.

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

Not so sure about that, it can be negative.

That’s a good point. Maybe it is better to say it is not “dark.”

Re-reading my last post it comes across as a bit too blood thirsty maybe… ;)

 

I am really far from being an aggressive guy, the last time I got in a fight was when I was 15 years old I think. But I think we shouldn’t be too afraid of confontation, and of trying to always play nice. There are plenty of bad things and bad people in our lives and in society we have to deal with…preferably peacefully.

1 user thanked author for this post.

In the book “Care of the Soul” by Thomas Moore, he talks about people having “shadows” within them. The shadows are our dark impulses and bad traits. Moore put forth that most people repress or let run wild their shadows. He said what people should do is first acknowledge we have them and respect them. Learn to understand them and use them as a positive force in your life.

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry

Todd wrote:

In the book “Care of the Soul” by Thomas Moore, he talks about people having “shadows” within them. The shadows are our dark impulses and bad traits. Moore put forth that most people repress or let run wild their shadows. He said what people should do is first acknowledge we have them and respect them. Learn to understand them and use them as a positive force in your life.

Sounds like a Jungian!

Personally, I find these to be metaphors – like the Id, Superego and Ego – that can be useful in that they are ways to talk about things, but they also run the risk of being taken too literally or actually adding another layer of obfuscation over actual understanding. Essentially, you start thinking in imaginary jargon instead of intelligible concepts.

The major difficulty often faced in life isn’t really getting or not getting what you want, but actually wanting what you get or even wanting what you think you want. Even in the simplest situations, it is very difficult to actually get a person to intelligibly express what it is that they want.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Some interesting history:

Some interesting background on Napoleon’s horrible campaigns:

Anonymous wrote:

Even in the simplest situations, it is very difficult to actually get a person to intelligibly express what it is that they want.

I just want to sit in a little town on a Greek island, with a beer, a piece of salami, and some people to chat with.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, DavidM, Todd

I was at my friend’s house yesterday and their cat is getting old. It’s about 17 years old and it is just very apparent. He doesn’t really clean his fur well anymore which means he looks raggedy, and he was just so wonderfully slow…he will get up on the couch and then just stare at you for like half an hour while you pet him without hardly moving at all. It’s so cute but at the same time it’s sad, you know he isn’t long for this world. It made me wonder how they feel when they are getting older, do cats know or suspect their end is approaching? How do they feel about that?

 

In many ways I think we as human beings can improve by learning from animals. Cats are bastards but their life philosophy seems to be very simple and straightforward, either they like you and they are all fuzzy snuggly warmness or they hate you and scratch you near to death. They’re tough little motherfuckers who don’t take no shit and know how to look out for themselves, they – like most animals I think – just seem to have a natural feeling for finding their way in life which is oddly missing in most modern human beings.

 

(sorry for catposting in the mind expansion thread)

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Anonymous wrote:

some people to chat with.

here’s your people to chat with, Arjan

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

some people to chat with.

here’s your people to chat with, Arjan

I’d probably talk to Alex Jones for the laughs. Trump and MTG I’d tell to get the fuck off my island.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Anonymous wrote:

In many ways I think we as human beings can improve by learning from animals. Cats are bastards but their life philosophy seems to be very simple and straightforward, either they like you and they are all fuzzy snuggly warmness or they hate you and scratch you near to death. They’re tough little motherfuckers who don’t take no shit and know how to look out for themselves, they – like most animals I think – just seem to have a natural feeling for finding their way in life which is oddly missing in most modern human beings.

Animals are much more purely rational beings than humans. Everything they do has a specific purpose – a reason – completely confined to the present moment. Those reasons or actions may be based on incorrect information, but it is also based on a billion years of evolutionarily tested behavioral cues coded in the genetics. It is an interesting element of human nature – which is almost by definition un-natural – that we feel the necessity to contravene and resist natural urges when “instincts” are the accumulated result of generation after generation facing survival-dependent (a.k.a. “life or death”) crises.

From a Western “enlightened” or “rational” position, nature is primarily hostile to the human experience. The limitations of the human organism and its drive toward comfort is inherently contrary to the “nature” of the world. This perception can actually be seen going back to ancient times when the spirits of nature were almost universally hostile and terrifying in ancient myths and the concept of “balance” with nature meant a supernatural intervention of deities to protect humanity from natural destruction.

Nowadays, “balance with nature” usually means the opposite – protecting the wilderness or climate from the ravages of humanity.

There’s obviously some sturdy or solid thinking behind that idea, too. We’re ironically naturally drawn to neutralize the power the natural world has over our existence. We don’t want to be prey and there is no good reason why we would. When death – and usually a painful, humiliating one – is the essential reward of a natural life irrespective if the life is a king or slave, then escaping nature is a desirable objective. This means escaping into the worlds of our ideals.

And honestly, that feels like it has been a very recent position. That the almost accidental emergence of the industrial revolution that reenvisaged the world against the context of utility almost by sheer luck was able to exploit the fossil fuels that entirely by random chance and natural processes locked an incredible source of energy under our feet. Our modern society is an unprecedented fluke resulting from an innovation or variation on a few thousand years of what would normally be considered esoteric knowledge – basically the gibberish of scholars.

Honestly, there is no reason why the industrial revolution did not occur in Hellenistic Greece, Ancient Egypt or Early Sumer – – and honestly, there is no reason to believe that it had not occurred ten or twenty thousand years before. It was a basic and even slight change of mindset between Da Vinci and Newton and Einstein that took these esoteric ideas and spurred the world into a mathematic – and irrational – exercise delivering us into this completely unprecedented modern and post-modern world where a lot more people survive a lot longer but still die in mostly painful and humiliating ways while pining for the lost connection to a “natural world.”

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

It is an interesting element of human nature – which is almost by definition un-natural – that we feel the necessity to contravene and resist natural urges when “instincts” are the accumulated result of generation after generation facing survival-dependent (a.k.a. “life or death”) crises.

There’s a Dutch saying “recht praten wat krom is”, literally “talk straight what’s crooked”, meaning using a lot of words to justify something that is unjustifiable. I think we have a lot of that in our culture, basically counter-instinctual, perverse and in the long term destructive features in our customs that get justified by things like our education, our politics and our philosophies. I have an aversion to much of Western philosophy, I can’t really read Plato anymore for instance. I prefer Zhuangzi, Laozi and Confucius.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Here’s the story behind Black History Month — and why it’s celebrated in February

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

@johnnyjoseph suggested we all go here for further discourse.

So…

I will say now that Hypocrisy may be too strong a word.
Inconsistent may be more appropriate

My point was it appears “inconsistent” to badmouth that belief system and then
turn around to participate in one of it fun holidays.
Something like badmouthing someone and sh*tting all over them, then expecting
a something from them like borrowing $500 or so.

I think something like Christmas is to a lot of people divorced from the religious aspect and just an opportunity to have a good time. Is that bad? No, there is nothing wrong with having a good time, for whatever reason.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

You are right. It is true that a lot of people have divorced themselves from the religious aspect of it.

Mind expansion… We used to call it religion on MW, but that was a limited name. Mind Expansion is a much better
way to put it.

My compliments to the change.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I think something like Christmas is to a lot of people divorced from the religious aspect and just an opportunity to have a good time. Is that bad? No, there is nothing wrong with having a good time, for whatever reason.

December 25th is my birthday. I thought that was what all the hubbub was about.

It was weird since my name’s not Chris, but what do I know.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Just do what the Romans did: Rebrand the day after your name Johnny.

😂

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Seriously though, I think it was the Roman Saturnalia originally and just the day the Nativity is celebrated rather than any realistic idea of the date Jesus could have been born (assuming there even was a living rather than mythical Jesus of Nazareth).

As the Winter Solstice, it certainly was an astrologically significant date in many cultures long before Christianity.

Obviously, Santa Claus or Saint Nicholas Day is Dec 6th and the combination of the formerly separate holiday traditions are what makes up the secular view of Christmas. For the Orthodox Christians, Christmas isn’t a very important holiday, and even Roman Catholics put more emphasis religiously on Easter (though different dates for each).

Naturally, there is no rabbit laying eggs on the Sunday Jesus rises from the dead, so it is likely that Easter is another pre-Christian fertility celebration that was rebranded by the Church.

So, you could also ask Christians why they would celebrate these holidays and do not observe the holidays Jesus himself would have observed – the Jewish holidays. In the end, they are about the culture and not really about the religion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

In fact, the only annual observance Jesus started or instituted was the Last Supper. He did say in the passage to do it as a rememberance.

So I take it that everything else was just the Romans rebranding their holidays to bring in their people.

Was original Christianity (that is, before the Romans came in) boring then?

Original Christianity wasn’t even called Christianity. Even when gentiles started joining up “Christians” meaning “Little Christs” is what the pagan Romans called them. However, obviously, the original followers of Jesus celebrated all the Jewish holidays so they were probably a lot more fun.

Also, the Last Supper isn’t an annual remembrance. It is the Mass which happens every Sunday – or maybe Wednesday or Saturday. Whenever.

Unless it’s the Maundy Thursday which is part of the whole Easter cycle, but every Christian holiday has a mass or three related to it, so everything is about the Mass!

The crazy thing about Christianity is how nihilistic it actually is. Christ eventually becomes very similar to a Western Buddha – teaching that life is suffering and nothing in this world is really important other than to do as little as possible to add to the suffering until finally you die. There are even cases of early hermetic Christians killing themselves in religious ecstasy to get to heaven since, to them, this world is just a meaningless nightmare.

That may have something to do with the decision to make suicide a mortal sin. Keep telling people that this is a world of sin and suffering and the reward lies after death, and you might actually convince them that it’s true.

Well, as I recall Jesus and the 12 did Passover that night and after Judas was dismissed (to round up the mob to get Jesus later on) Jesus then started the Last Supper as a new thing, that it was to be followed once a year like the Passover.
I guess when the Romans came in and started their church traditions, they take it now as an every week thing.

I don’t know how hard it is to track down what is original and authentic, or even if doing that would make you a genuine Christian. I kind of see it like this: Every Jan 1st, people have resolved to get in better shape. Some will do it casually and find themselves quitting even before February. Others will be more intense, following a strict regimen of working out, dieting and wind up losing the weight. May not be in the comfort zone, but which of the two were really into it? Which one was the real deal?

As said in the Random Thread, there are so many denominations of it. I would be interested in the one that gets the whole thing right for the most part, that comes the closest to what was actually intended.

Al-x wrote:

Well, as I recall Jesus and the 12 did Passover that night and after Judas was dismissed (to round up the mob to get Jesus later on) Jesus then started the Last Supper as a new thing, that it was to be followed once a year like the Passover.

That depends on which Gospel. In John, it is the supper on the day before the Passover while in the other three it is a Passover meal. The bible has a lot of contradictions in the details which is understandable as they were written a long time after the events and based on stories passed along by word of mouth about things that may not ever have even happened by authors no one actually knows who may or may not have read the other Gospels including the ones that are not in the New Testament.

The nativity stories are likely entirely made up just to provide a reason Jesus born in Bethlehem – and no one is sure which Bethlehem since there are more than one – so that it matches the prophecy of the Messiah at the time. However, this ironically provides evidence that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth because if he was completely a myth then they would have simply had him born in Galilee rather than make up a story to explain why he was raised in Nazareth but born somewhere else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule

Anonymous wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule

Mind expansion… Philosophy, theology, cosmology and more!

It was Johnny that posted this vid of those Revelation monsters and the end of days. Then I stated I was getting all these letters from groups on this. Someone said there was nothing to it, not supernatural. I was saying I don’t rule that out so fast, and the fact that atheists still love to party Xmastime. That truth p*ssed everyone off. (Must have struck a serious nerve. 😂)

Now we have this.

But @johnnyjoseph … I know this is not a serious term paper thing or a Wiki page where you have a bibliography. But still…. what are your sources?

For which part? Most of it is well known by Bible scholars. But even if you read the Bible you notice different versions of the stories. just look at the two nativity stories.

In one, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and move to Nazareth after Jesus is born, in the other they live in Nazareth and have to go back to Joseph’s home town for the census. One has the Magi while the other doesn‘t. Obviously, since they live in Bethlehem in Matthew’s version, Jesus isn’t put in a manger or anything unusual. Herod and the flight to Egypt are in Matthew and the census is in Luke.

The Gospels also have Jesus being crucified the day after Passover (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the day before Passover (John). These are things Christians and Bible Scholars have always known about and study, but it’s not that big a deal since no one could reasonably expect them to be consistent in all the details. The source for this, of course, is the New Testament,

Al-x wrote:

My point was it appears “inconsistent” to badmouth that belief system and then turn around to participate in one of it fun holidays.

My point was that all of the fringe groups probably would not be considered Christian if the organized church actually took a look at them.

A metaphor of this would be be bad mouthing the town fool and celebrating the Town Festival. the fool is considered a member of the town but he has nothing to do with the town or the people organizing the festival.

There was a college coach who got fired for not getting vaccinated. He sued claiming religious discrimination. A local priest came out and said The Church does not support antivaxxing. Anyone can call themselves Christian but you have to follow the Christian doctrine to be considered one.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

It is an interesting question. some religions are less organized while others have strong formal structure.

Obviously, there has been church support for wars and violent dictators just within the past century. So it gets tougher when individuals are jailed or executed for refusing to support wars, totalitarian regimes or genocide on religious bases.

even though they are opposing the authority of their own churches, it would be difficult to accuse them of not being Christians.

Anonymous wrote:

even though they are opposing the authority of their own churches, it would be difficult to accuse them of not being Christians.

I understand and agree with this point. IMO, The fringe cults are most often trying to add obscure or illogical beliefs to Christian doctrine rather than disagreeing with established doctrine. e.g. a giant Sequoia tree named Squeegee is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit and wants us to campaign for #Hewhoshallbenamed Former Cheeto-In-Chief because he wants less ballots used and that saves paper which means less trees will be cut down.

Rocket wrote:

The fringe cults are most often trying to add obscure or illogical beliefs to Christian doctrine rather than disagreeing with established doctrine. e.g. a giant Sequoia tree named Squeegee is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit and wants us to campaign for #Hewhoshallbenamed Former Cheeto-In-Chief because he wants less ballots used and that saves paper which means less trees will be cut down.

Still some established churches have beliefs that others will find “fringe”. Like the Church of latter day saints. Are they less Christian than Catholics?

Rocket wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

even though they are opposing the authority of their own churches, it would be difficult to accuse them of not being Christians.

I understand and agree with this point. IMO, The fringe cults are most often trying to add obscure or illogical beliefs to Christian doctrine rather than disagreeing with established doctrine. e.g. a giant Sequoia tree named Squeegee is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit and wants us to campaign for #Hewhoshallbenamed Former Cheeto-In-Chief because he wants less ballots used and that saves paper which means less trees will be cut down.

Tell us about it….There was some evangelist woman preacher who openly campaigned and said things like he was God ordained to do great things for the country and so on. She came across (and probably is) as bat sh*t crazy, even a huge prayerfest to overturn the election results.

We can go on about some ridiculous stances taken. This Westboro Baptist church has been in the news for years.
This one still gets to me: There is no reason to worry about climate change and global warming leading to sea levels rising because in the Bible passage, God told Noah that he wouldn’t flood (or allow flooding on the Earth) again.

Still… Is any of this ridiculousness real Christianity? I mean it is verified that historically some things did get fused and twisted with original Xianity…

Al-x wrote:

Is any of this ridiculousness real Christianity?

I’ll ask Jesus next time I see him.

 

Really I think “batshit insane” fits in very well with the core teachings of the church. If you read the Bible you got divinely commanded genocide, Abraham willing to sacrifice his son for God, the Mosaic law with its brutal punishments for homosexuals, adulterers, and apostates, the crazy happenings in Revelations, etc. Nothing the Westboro Baptist church says is too crazy to be in the Bible

Al-x wrote:

Still… Is any of this ridiculousness real Christianity?

No, real Christianity is completely separate ridiculousness.

Interesting that most of this atheistic anti-church and anti-Bible stuff is because the Western world has historically been
Judeo Christian and most church doctrine and interpretation didn’t rise up to the challenge by secular education and science.

Not too much is about bashing Islam although the Islamic countries are so anti women with burkas and this imposing a second class citizenship. And then there is a matter of blatant xenophobia of non white/non Europeans.

Eastern philosophy gets a little better treatment. In the 60’s their peace/inner peace message and meditations came through with the sitar music and even the Beatles listening to that yogi.

They still don’t get bashed as much…

So many (maybe too many) schools of thought.

Al-x wrote:

Xianity…

That word has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a word used by athiests so that they can avoid referencing Jesus Christ. Please do not use it as a substitute for Christianity.

X-Mas is fine as a reference to secular Christmas, to separate it from the acknowledgement and celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. As far as I’m aware, there is no celebration of anyone called Jesus X.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Why Is “Christmas” Abbreviated As “Xmas”?

Here’s a holiday surprise that only the dictionary can provide. Do you find the word Xmas, as an abbreviation for Christmas, offensive? Many people do, but the origin of this controversial term might change your mind!

You won’t find Xmas in church songbooks or even on many greeting cards. Some people associate Xmas with the holiday as a commercial, secular occasion instead of as a particular cultural and religious ritual.

Where did Xmas come from?

But, the history of the word Xmas is actually more respectable—and fascinating—than you might suspect. First of all, the abbreviation predates (by centuries) its use in gaudy advertisements. It was first used in the mid-1500s. X represents the Greek letter chi, the initial letter in the word Χριστός (Chrīstos). And what does Χριστός mean? “(Jesus) Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word Christ for hundreds of years. (And why would people need to abbreviate Christ? Well, the word is very widely written.)

Other abbreviations for Christ include Xt and Xp, the P here representing the Greek letter rho, source of our letter R. A stylized version of the Greek chi (X) and rho (P) is ☧, a symbol of Christ called a Christogram.

In the same vein, the dignified terms Xpian and Xtian have been used in place of the word Christian.

Where does the –mas in Christmas come from?

The –mas in Xmas comes from the Old English word for mass, as in a church service, especially one in the Roman Catholic Church including a celebration of the Eucharist. That word, mæsse, is believed to have been derived from Church Latin missa, ultimately from Latin mittere which means “to send (away).” It was perhaps derived from the concluding formula in the Latin mass, Ite, missa est, meaning “Go, it is the dismissal!” That is, the service is over.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Al-x wrote:

Interesting that most of this atheistic anti-church and anti-Bible stuff is because the Western world has historically been Judeo Christian and most church doctrine and interpretation didn’t rise up to the challenge by secular education and science.

Well I’m not really anti-Bible, it is the most fascinating book ever written. And Jesus’s teachings from the gospels are wonderful.

 

You have to see it in its time. There is genocide in the Bible, which was awfully common in the ancient world, the Greeks and Romans did it too. But through a modern lens much of the Bible is of course indefensible. That’s why the only modern approach to Christianity that makes any sense is cherry picking.

That’s interesting. I assumed X was chosen because it is the letter closest to a cross.

though you do encounter the word “christos” a lot even before Jesus was born. It was the common term used for the coming Messiah.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

[DavidM]

Anonymous wrote:

I assumed X was chosen because it is the letter closest to a cross.

What if… it’s two things?

What if God’s plan was so clever that he made sure the Greek letter chi would look like the implement that would centuries later be used to crucify his Son and centuries after that would let us write the name (via Latin translation) of a schmaltzy gift-giving holiday in English (via Latin transliteration of the Greek) with fewer letters?

Thank about that and tell me you’re still an atheist

 

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by DavidM.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by DavidM.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by DavidM.

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Dave

I now wonder if the practice is the reason X is used as an abbreviation in general. Like why it became the common variable in math formulas or used as a signature for illiterate people to make their mark (if they ever really did that as a common practice)

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Al-x wrote:

Interesting that most of this atheistic anti-church and anti-Bible stuff is because the Western world has historically been Judeo Christian and most church doctrine and interpretation didn’t rise up to the challenge by secular education and science. Not too much is about bashing Islam although the Islamic countries are so anti women with burkas and this imposing a second class citizenship.

There’s a comedian, I think it was Dara O’Briain, who spoke about this. He was being asked all the time why he did jokes about Christianity and not Islam etc. He said primarily because he knows Christianity and doesn’t know the world of a Muslim. Being informed is an important element to speaking about something.

As an example: the Islamic countries are so anti women with burkas 

Almost no Islamic countries have women who wear burkas (it’s mainly just Afghanistan under the Taliban), a small minority wear any kind of face covering (mainly in a few middle eastern countries) although in most Islamic countries headscarves are pretty common. So if you go to speak about Iranians or Indonesians or Egyptians all wearing burkas you’ll be discussing something that doesn’t really exist.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

garjones wrote:

There’s a comedian, I think it was Dara O’Briain, who spoke about this. He was being asked all the time why he did jokes about Christianity and not Islam etc. He said primarily because he knows Christianity and doesn’t know the world of a Muslim. Being informed is an important element to speaking about something.

There’s a great Stewart Lee routine where he talks about the “why don’t you make jokes about Islam” criticism at length and makes the point that it’s very difficult to develop good, creative and meaningful comedy about a subject where the comedian and the audience will only have a limited shared pool of knowledge and cultural references. In amongst which he makes a deliberately ham-fisted attempt to do “Islam” jokes in line with his regular style (and also the styles of other comedians) to show how crap it would be.

The full transcript of that bit is here for anyone interested.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

That is how it appears in the States @garjones

——————————–

Now… Faith

Dictionary defines faith as “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

This obviously goes against the grain of science with it’s research, testing for confirmation, and scientific proof.

There is no evidence that there was a huge flood and Noah made a huge ark, neither is there proof that the Red Sea parted for Moses and the Hebrews. Religion tells you to believe they actually happened because of the magic word “faith”.
Thing is, the text says that the Ark eventually settled on Mount Ararat which is an actual place and the Red Sea is a real sea.
But suppose we sent all these geologists, land surveyors, infra red radars, even those satellites way up above, and we covered every square inch of Mount Ararat. And if we found old wooden remains of some structure, would that prove anything?
Similarly, suppose we sent the fanciest state of the art submarines with their radars to the Red Sea to check out the bottom and we discovered remains of ancient Egyptian chariots, what would that prove?

There really is no way to prove anything. You’ll never find conclusive evidence that says “God was here”. If it did, that would make things so obvious, no one would need faith.

Personally, I am none too crazy about these Bible thumpers who want to dogmatically assert that these “events” happened, but how different is that from these zealots who insist that science is the ONLY way?

Talk some more later.

Nice thread though. In the true Thought Provoking tradition and rather cathartic tbh. 😂

Al-x wrote:

That is how it appears in the States @garjones

Yes, we have to be careful about accepting these received opinions as fact as often they can be misinformed.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, garjones

Al-x wrote:

That is how it appears in the States @garjones

Maybe worth questioning why the assumption is so very far from the truth.

Very few people seem to realise that the vast majority of Muslims don’t even live in the middle east. The most populous Muslin country by a massive margin is Indonesia in South East Asia. Then Pakistan and Egypt are very high up. Only Egyptians would identify as Arabs.

It’s important for facts to push through stereotypical assumption, I think many of your recent posts have emphasised that correctly when discussing perceptions of African Americans.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Well… here in the States from what the news says women have to walk a few feet behind their man, in some countries they aren’t allowed to drive, and a few other things. That is the narrative on Muslim countries.

——————————–

@njerry… fellow

I meant you no harm in using the X and saying Xianity

We still good?

——————————

I know @johnnyjoseph loves eating up this thread.
I will add a little more later on.

Al-x wrote:

Well… here in the States from what the news says women have to walk a few feet behind their man, in some countries they aren’t allowed to drive, and a few other things. That is the narrative on Muslim countries.

Well that must be correct then. All Muslim women cannot drive because the US news.

In eastern European countries they make monkey noises and throw bananas on the pitch at black football players. I guess that must be the right narrative for them, just how it is where you live.

A young Muslim Pakistani woman may also wonder why Christians in America have never elected a woman when they had a female President 34 years ago.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, njerry, Dave

Dave wrote:

There’s a great Stewart Lee routine where he talks about the “why don’t you make jokes about Islam” criticism at length and makes the point that it’s very difficult to develop good, creative and meaningful comedy about a subject where the comedian and the audience will only have a limited shared pool of knowledge and cultural references. In amongst which he makes a deliberately ham-fisted attempt to do “Islam” jokes in line with his regular style (and also the styles of other comedians) to show how crap it would be.

I think it was another Brit comedian – maybe Jimmy Carr – who always points out the tension in the room when he makes a joke about Muslim suicide bombers or cartoons about Mohammed or the Quran. Naturally, these are the most fertile areas for comedy, though, because that is something the entire audience can relate to. The fact that some extremely violent groups in Europe will shoot up a newspaper for a cartoon making fun of the prophet. I mean, with all the violence against Muslims – especially from other Muslims – and a cartoon is what sets them off…?

However, the fact that a cartoon can set them off is part of why people might get tense at a joke about suicide bombers.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it was another Brit comedian – maybe Jimmy Carr – who always points out the tension in the room when he makes a joke about Muslim suicide bombers or cartoons about Mohammed or the Quran. Naturally, these are the most fertile areas for comedy, though, because that is something the entire audience can relate to.

This might be true, but is also an example of what we’re talking about with the audience’s knowledge being fairly limited in this area, meaning that only fairly blunt and crude jokes about suicide bombers or whatever are going to get traction.

Whereas you can make some fairly subtle and funny jokes about Christian mythology in a room where the audience is familiar with that mythology in depth and detail.

I guess the equivalent would be to imagine a country where the only things they know about Christianity are high-profile negative aspects, so the comedians constantly make gags about sexual abuse and gay-bashing. Which would probably sound quite crass to our ears.

Al-x wrote:

Well… here in the States from what the news says women have to walk a few feet behind their man, in some countries they aren’t allowed to drive, and a few other things. That is the narrative on Muslim countries.

I think that’s only Saudi Arabia. And even there women are allowed to drive now.

 

(Mind you, that country is still an authoritarian hell hole. But the strict Islamic rule is changing somewhat)

 

I think when it comes to Islam in general, you can say many Islamic majority countries are more conservative than say Sweden or Canada. But there are lots of differences between Islamic majority countries, just like there are between Christian countries. I mean the Netherlands is not like Russia, or like Nigeria, or like Colombia. All these places are very different.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

there are lots of differences between Islamic majority countries, just like there are between Christian countries. I mean the Netherlands is not like Russia, or like Nigeria, or like Colombia. All these places are very different.

Absolutely and that’s the point I was making that whether in comedy or in a serious debate there is no value taking part if you don’t know what you are talking about. Yes Saudi Arabia is very restrictive in what women can do in freedom of movement and occupation but the majority of Muslim countries aren’t. I’ve met the CEO of Microsoft in Asia who’s a Muslim woman, my IT team in Malaysia had a far higher female percentage than the one in the UK.

There are nuances like Lebanon legalised homosexuality over a decade before the USA and Canada. Jordan 30 years before Scotland. If you base what you know on episodes of 24 or similar then it’s not really engaging with the more complex reality. I think any religion is as open to criticism as any other but if your debating point is ”in all Muslim countries women have to wear a Burka” then it’s opening with a fiction. It would be as useful as me saying all Christians flog themselves because a tiny offshoot of Catholicism does.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

garjones wrote:

There are nuances like Lebanon legalised homosexuality over a decade before the USA and Canada. Jordan 30 years before Scotland. If you base what you know on episodes of 24 or similar then it’s not really engaging with the more complex reality. I think any religion is as open to criticism as any other but if your debating point is ”in all Muslim countries women have to wear a Burka” then it’s opening with a fiction. It would be as useful as me saying all Christians flog themselves because a tiny offshoot of Catholicism does.

I think you have to careful not to just look at official legalization though. I doubt gay couples can be really open with their orientation in a country like Jordan for example, I think it’s still very conservative. In Iraq it’s also legal, but gay people are constantly in danger of being murdered.

 

Murder, Torture, Sexual Orientation and Gender in Iraq

 

trigger warning: it’s a long and grisly read

 

Al-x wrote:

@njerry… fellow
I meant you no harm in using the X and saying Xianity
We still good?

Of course we are. I was just expressing my opinion that, while referring to secular Christmas as “X-Mas” is fine, referring to the actual religion as Xianity is not fine. To be glib: you can take “Christ” out of Christmas, but you should not take Christ out of Christianity….although these days it seems like plenty of so-called “Christians” have done exactly that.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I think you have to careful not to just look at official legalization though. I doubt gay couples can be really open with their orientation in a country like Jordan for example, I think it’s still very conservative. In Iraq it’s also legal, but gay people are constantly in danger of being murdered.

I’d agree it’s possible/likely, I’ve been to Jordan but have no insight into the social side.

I think that also works both ways that the law is a narrow way to look at things. In Muslim and non Muslim parts of south and east Asia technically homosexuality is illegal but not prosecuted and socially there’s a ‘none of my business’ approach to very obviously camp men or butch women.

Edit: I think with Iraq too the issue is their laws and constitution are largely imposed rather than from local public/political direction.

Dave wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it was another Brit comedian – maybe Jimmy Carr – who always points out the tension in the room when he makes a joke about Muslim suicide bombers or cartoons about Mohammed or the Quran. Naturally, these are the most fertile areas for comedy, though, because that is something the entire audience can relate to.

This might be true, but is also an example of what we’re talking about with the audience’s knowledge being fairly limited in this area, meaning that only fairly blunt and crude jokes about suicide bombers or whatever are going to get traction.

Whereas you can make some fairly subtle and funny jokes about Christian mythology in a room where the audience is familiar with that mythology in depth and detail.

I guess the equivalent would be to imagine a country where the only things they know about Christianity are high-profile negative aspects, so the comedians constantly make gags about sexual abuse and gay-bashing. Which would probably sound quite crass to our ears.

<span style=”caret-color: #222222; color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;”>” I guess the equivalent would be to imagine a country where the only things they know about Christianity are high-profile negative aspects, so the comedians constantly make gags about sexual abuse and gay-bashing. Which would probably sound quite crass to our ears”</span>

Hard to say. Comedians are making those jokes about Christians. Again, it is the most fertile material. Crass is far more common in comedy on any subject than subtlety.

garjones wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I think you have to careful not to just look at official legalization though. I doubt gay couples can be really open with their orientation in a country like Jordan for example, I think it’s still very conservative. In Iraq it’s also legal, but gay people are constantly in danger of being murdered.

I’d agree it’s possible/likely, I’ve been to Jordan but have no insight into the social side.

I think that also works both ways that the law is a narrow way to look at things. In Muslim and non Muslim parts of south and east Asia technically homosexuality is illegal but not prosecuted and socially there’s a ‘none of my business’ approach to very obviously camp men or butch women.

Edit: I think with Iraq too the issue is their laws and constitution are largely imposed rather than from local public/political direction.

This wiki article says most people in Jordan don’t approve of homosexuality.

 

LGBT rights in Jordan – Wikipedia

 

However I also read that in Saudi Arabia even if it is socially deemed unacceptable, there are ways to do it discretely, and there are even semi-secret gay bars. I think even if many people don’t think it is alright to be gay, they don’t actually care enough to do anything about it. Maybe that’s true for Jordan as well.

 

That’s a funny thing in the Netherlands too I think. People think sometimes the Netherlands is super progressive, but there is a contrast between the US and the Netherlands where in the US LGBT culture is “fabulous”, and extraverted, and shouted from the rooftops. Whereas in the Netherlands most people just don’t care about it. I think most people in the Netherlands – outside the People’s Republic of Amsterdam anyway – are somewhat conservative and don’t like overly flamboyant behavior, but they think if anybody’s gay, or transgender, that’s just their business and they wouldn’t be bothered.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

That’s a funny thing in the Netherlands too I think. People think sometimes the Netherlands is super progressive, but there is a contrast between the US and the Netherlands where in the US LGBT culture is “fabulous”, and extraverted, and shouted from the rooftops. Whereas in the Netherlands most people just don’t care about it. I think most people in the Netherlands – outside the People’s Republic of Amsterdam anyway – are somewhat conservative and don’t like overly flamboyant behavior, but they think if anybody’s gay, or transgender, that’s just their business and they wouldn’t be bothered.

That could be simply a cultural thing, too. Americans, across cultural and political spectrums, tend to be more outgoing and expressive of their feeling and emotions. The Netherlands does sound progressive, but they don’t wear their heart on their sleeve like a lot of Americans do.

It sounds like the Netherlands have mostly normalized LGBT+ people and made them part of the greater society. If that is the case, that is actually a good thing. A lot of the American “loudness” probably stems from those in margenialized communities having to fight for equality and respect, especially when there are those actively trying to suppress and eradicate them.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Arjan Dirkse

Todd wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

That’s a funny thing in the Netherlands too I think. People think sometimes the Netherlands is super progressive, but there is a contrast between the US and the Netherlands where in the US LGBT culture is “fabulous”, and extraverted, and shouted from the rooftops. Whereas in the Netherlands most people just don’t care about it. I think most people in the Netherlands – outside the People’s Republic of Amsterdam anyway – are somewhat conservative and don’t like overly flamboyant behavior, but they think if anybody’s gay, or transgender, that’s just their business and they wouldn’t be bothered.

That could be simply a cultural thing, too. Americans, across cultural and political spectrums, tend to be more outgoing and expressive of their feeling and emotions. The Netherlands does sound progressive, but they don’t wear their heart on their sleeve like a lot of Americans do.

It sounds like the Netherlands have mostly normalized LGBT+ people and made them part of the greater society. If that is the case, that is actually a good thing. A lot of the American “loudness” probably stems from those in margenialized communities having to fight for equality and respect, especially when there are those actively trying to suppress and eradicate them.

Fair enough, that’s probably true. We do have some mostly in the orthodox protestant community who would like to outlaw homosexuality, but that’s a very tiny minority. In our Muslim population there also seems to be a shift the last few year with most people of Turkish ancestry being OK with homosexuality, I think in a poll it was something like 55 %. People of Moroccan ancestry were lower, maybe 45 %.

 

Dutch culture is weird in some ways:  one one hand it is very liberal, on the other hand there is strong pressure to conform in certain ways. Like I said, overly flamboyant behavior is frowned upon, like many Dutch people aren’t big fans of gay pride parades. But I think this is true both for homosexual and heterosexual behavior. People can be quite uptight about showing affection in public. One of the most common sayings here is: “Doe maar normaal dan doe je al gek genoeg.” Meaning:  just act normal, that’s crazy enough.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd

Originally, I said about atheists mainly bashing the Bible because of the history in the Western world. I added that not so much is bashed about Islam or Eastern philosophy. Somehow, you guys picked up on my Muslim mention and ran with it.

I am a little flattered that you love to hang on my every word, but you don’t really have to. 😂
I actually regret a lot of what I said all these years in the relationship thread and other postings (WTF was I thinking?)
Self reflection, self awareness, etc.

Now, I posted a video quite some time ago of these discourse with Lawrence J. Krausse and Richard Dawkins. They were together in this crowded university auditorium discussing atheism, bashing religious mythologies… the usual. That kind of bashing and ridiculing is age old but I digress… I got into Krauss back in the 90s when he wrote this great book “The Physics of Star Trek” on the tech stuff on TV vs. the real current understanding.

Ok… suppose you were to, instead of asking “Does God exist”, ask “Do you want God to exist?” how would you answer? Would you want a Higher power to set boundaries and regulate your life? Whether you view that original Genesis story as real or an allegory, the simple and small test of staying away from that tree was either they let “God” set the boundaries or they give Him the finger and decide to go on their own.

I see some who look to atheism as being liberating as they don’t have to follow church rules and doctrine and so on. I have to say that wanting or not wanting a higher power to exist will affect your objectivity on the matter.

@johnnyjoseph and the rest… Have at it 😂

It’s complex because I think even within countries experiences can be very different.

I am not gay but I had a friend and work colleague out here from England who was. There were clear gay pubs he went to in Kuala Lumpur which he found via online guides and got plenty of action. Everyone knows they are gay pubs, they operate subtly, nobody does anything. Nobody (apart from one very high profile politically motivated stitch up) gets prosecuted for being gay. As long as it’s called something like ‘Pink Flamingo Bar’ and not ‘Gay Pub’ they stay open. That would not happen at all outside the to 4 big cities.

In the UK gay rights in legislation are very strong, as they should be, but in the last year a man was beaten to death in a park my home capital city of Cardiff because he was gay. In London a nail bomb was laid outside a gay bar in Soho by a neo Nazi because they were gay. Not that far removed from the mob justice descriptions in that article about Iraq.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, Arjan Dirkse

Al-x wrote:

Somehow, you guys picked up on my Muslim mention and ran with it.

Sure because it was quite dumb and inaccurate. Which is okay, you can learn from what we’ve written, expanding knowledge.

My response was mainly because of this repeated ‘in the States/in Europe’ refrain. Facts don’t change because of where you live, whether you think most Muslim women wear burkas and can’t drive based on your media in the US doesn’t mean that it is accurate, it is not.

Perceptions may vary but sometimes those are wrong and neither the US nor Europe are hive minds of same thinking. Being gay or trans in San Francisco or Paris will deliver a very different response than Salt Lake City or Budapest.

Most people find that social and political attitudes in diverse metropolitan areas like New York and London are far closer than areas within their own country.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave

Ok then… I should have added in my original post “the reports we get in the States”… let’s please move on.

Oh… regarding gay bars. In NYC, the main gay neighborhood in Manhattan is Christopher St. in the West Village. In other neighborhoods, gay bars are noted with the rainbow flag posted or hanging outside at the entrance.

Al-x wrote:

Ok then… I should have added in my original post “the reports we get in the States”…

You did say in your original post “here in the States from what the news says…” – but that isn’t the issue. The issue is holding up those reported views as fact when they may not be, and suggesting that something should be given credence just because it has been reported (or is the widespread view) in the US.

None of us is perfect, we all get our information from somewhere and sometimes our sources can be faulty. But part of discussions like this is accepting when you may have been misinformed, and arming yourself with better information for the future.

garjones wrote:

In the UK gay rights in legislation are very strong, as they should be, but in the last year a man was beaten to death in a park my home capital city of Cardiff because he was gay. In London a nail bomb was laid outside a gay bar in Soho by a neo Nazi because they were gay. Not that far removed from the mob justice descriptions in that article about Iraq.

yeah violence happens here too, not sure about murders for homosexuality but it could sure happen, there are some crazies everywhere.

 

The province where I live, South Holland, contains some of the most liberal areas but also the most conservative. There is a town just next to Rotterdam named Krimpen that is strictly protestant where some crazy preacher wrote a letter to the city council demanding they ban gay people from their town.

Al-x wrote:

should have added in my original post “the reports we get in the States”… let’s please move on.

Only if you learn from it and don’t repeat it again in a few months.

You have been doing a good job here sharing insights into how African Americans are perceived and treated in the US that are very informative but it’s rather invalidated if everyone just comes back with ‘well in Europe (urgh) we think they are all gangsters and pimps because we saw Kojak in 1978 so nothing we can do’.

An international forum is a great place to learn and share from all parties, coming back with ‘my TV told me the Muslim countries all do this so that’s a cultural difference, say no more’ is an abdication of responsibility.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave

[Al-x]

garjones wrote:

You have been doing a good job here sharing insights into how African Americans are perceived and treated in the US that are very informative but it’s rather invalidated if everyone just comes back with ‘well in Europe (urgh) we think they are all gangsters and pimps because we saw Kojak in 1978 so nothing we can do’.

An international forum is a great place to learn and share from all parties, coming back with ‘my TV told me the Muslim countries all do this so that’s a cultural difference, say no more’ is an abdication of responsibility.

Fair enough.

Edit: I apologize

• This reply was modified 2 years, 9 months ago by Al-x.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, garjones, Dave