It's sad that so many atheists never deconverted from religion and just absorbed Feminism, Socialism, or Scientism. It's like when a Christian converts to Islam.
I still don't agree that people need a God, especially how they are using it. There are so many "Jesus Take The Wheel" Christians who are using the Church as a Crutch that it's not a surprise there are many Christians embracing progressiveness and hoping the omnipotent and omnipresent government will solve all their problems if they are pious enough.
Protestantism can still be used to finally take responsibility over yourself, but I'd prefer if people went all the way and took full responsibility over their own lives and didn't rely on an abstract concept for protection. But, we're just not there yet.
There are so many "Jesus Take The Wheel" Christians who are using the Church as a Crutch
I think like in all things in life, this is good when balanced. Because sometimes people actually need crutches to heal with.
People need to not have full responsibility of their life because they don't actually have full control of it to begin with. Its a lot easier to deal with life's mysterious bullshit by simply believing its part of some grand design than sit and wonder what you could have done different to stop that drunk driver from killing your son.
There are too many chaotic variables in every day that if someone were to actually worry about them, it would create paranoia and anxiety for days. Which is something you see represented incredibly often in the Atheism/Leftist crowds, absurd anxiety over everything.
Of course, most Christians take it too far but I see that as a failing of the Church itself. So many congregations are there to simply read words to you and give you pathetic, generic advice rather than help you grasp and apply it to reality. Mixed with so many of them don't actually believe in the church other than a "applying this label makes me a good person" you end up with a legion of imbeciles.
See, the people who need church as a crutch to heel with, are focused on healing, not what they think your problems are. Some dude at AA isn't going to tell me Pokemon is the devil, and vote for politicians to start making laws.
People need to not have full responsibility of their life because they don't actually have full control of it to begin with.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy. Sure, things happen to you outside of your control. But all of your responses, even down to how you feel, are well within your control. Using your example, at the end of the day, it's going to be necessary for that father to have the emotional stoicism necessary to accept that there may have been a couple things that he could have done different, but his primary objective now is to learn from the life of his son, and prepare so he can respond better when the next tragedy may befall him or his loved ones. He'll have to learn to move on, and no one can actually do that but him.
Which is something you see represented incredibly often in the Atheism/Leftist crowds, absurd anxiety over everything.
I think the emotional incontinence is intentional and part of a system of psychological abuse for a method of control. This is why the Left are fighting against stoicism generally. Fragility makes people controllable and dependent on those who will affirm or placate them. It's not an accident, it's an attack.
I see that as a failing of the Church itself
I entirely agree. Something seems to have failed in the church's core. There doesn't seem to be a proper Christian intelligentsia anymore. I think it should truly disturb all pious Christians that Jordan Peterson is probably doing more to build a Christian moral and ethical core for young people in a modern age than pretty much any religious scholars, preachers, and disciples in over 30-50 years. I don't really know that I've ever heard anyone in earlier times say, "I don't believe in God, but I absolutely subscribe to the Christian ethic." Or "I see myself as a Christian Atheist, because although I don't believe in God, I think the Christendom forms an excellent moral foundation." The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell. And sure, you can say that a Christian Atheist is as ridiculous as a Libertarian Socialist, but the point is that they are still accepting Christendom.
The closest I can even imagine someone doing anything like that, within the entire time I've been alive, is maybe Paul Harvey & Fred Rogers. And even then, their Christianity was confined to indirectly emphasizing Christian values, rather than attributing those ethical behaviors to Christendom, or doing any philosophical Christian Apologetics.
It feels to me like the Evangelicals seized Christendom, emphasized gifting, and then hoped the US government would solve all of the social failings of America; leaving the philosophical core of Christendom effectively barren. Which, horrifically, is still better than what happened in Europe. Ugh.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized. So its not something I wish to believe in. But most people are not capable of handling such a weight. They won't be able to handle the "shoulda"s and the anxiety of it will slow them for a long time. Religion, like most things, is geared towards the common man and his common faults, and an inability to deal with the randomness of life is one of the oldest of those.
For some, accepting that full weight will help them better. For others, they need to push off some parts for the sake of their ability to move forward. And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell
I think the concept is older than his influence, but the label itself you could trace near him. But much like the "altright" it has an existence far larger and more robust than whoever named it.
But I'm fine with that type of foundations. Much like the aforementioned anxiety of chaos, some people need the "God" portion to keep their ethics and morals while others just need a common culture which may have come from God originally but they can hold to it without the looming threat of Him.
Unfortunately, we have too little of either side. And that which we do are extremists who, while of agreeable beliefs, have little hope of taking root to change towards them.
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized.
Yeah, no signs of overlap from me. I'm not the entire opposite, but order naturally entrophies to chaos; and order is naturally emergent from chaos. To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
I don't think this example is what I mean. Accepting full weight of your actions, also involves recognizing the relative weight. "I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry, and from that you can think about how to alter your behavior. But that is the full weight. The 90 lbs of "that guy shouldn't have been drunk driving" is the other part. Don't simply offload your 1 lbs of responsibility on to him, but recognize what is and is not your burden. Then, effectively, bear that cross.
Yeah, this is why I get a little uncomfortable around the converted-to-atheism crowd - more particularly, the ones who change to zealous atheists. Granted, may be my own bias as someone was raised atheist, by, to my eyes, the problem is the unquestioning zeal in general, not whether it's ire is pointed in my direction right this second.
See, the thing with me is that I was basically never raised to be religious, so I didn't have much in the way of God, and it never really made a whole lot of sense to me whenever I really thought about it. I'm not one of those people that moved away from Christendom, I never really had it except as a vague default setting of "sure, I guess God exists..." which I basically grew out of, and then slowly took more of a hard line stance against.
It drives me crazy to hear people talk about the "god shaped hole" in people's lives, or that religion is a natural aspect of humanity. I disagree, it's a construction of people's imagination to try and rationally order the world in their head, or it's an authority constructed by civilization as a modicum of behavioral control. It makes perfect sense to me that in ancient polytheist worlds, each city had their own god, and physical conflicts were also seen as conflicts between gods, and which ones were stronger. In reality, humans were taking metaphysical concepts to the fields of battle, and seeing which could bring a people more prosperity.
But the whole point is that is all still an externalization. It's an abstract philosophy manifested and personified. Which, is a bit silly outside of raw storytelling, but don't turn around and try and enforce it as a social order. If your abstraction is genuinely valid, then people will reflect it's positions naturally. If God is The Truth, then anyone reflecting truth, will necessarily reflect goodly piety. Who is more pious, the atheist who takes responsibility for himself and his family, or the prostitute who wears a golden cross and says she's a good Christian who goes to church on Christmas? I say the former, and it should not be an issue to anyone truly seeking truth and not tribe (which is why I can still get along fine with some Christians).
But then, these absolutely retarded a-Thesists literally do everything the Evangelicals ever accused them of: rejecting God because their mad and finding a new secular religion. If that was the case, why would you chose Faucism and George Floyd to be the one true God and not something like fucking Jainism. Hell, take the Church of The Flying Spaghetti monster seriously if you're gonna be that retarded! At least then I can take you seriously, and I know you aren't hurting people.
It makes perfect sense to me that in ancient polytheist worlds, each city had their own god, and physical conflicts were also seen as conflicts between gods, and which ones were stronger. In reality, humans were taking metaphysical concepts to the fields of battle, and seeing which could bring a people more prosperity.
I still don't agree that people need a God, especially how they are using it.
There are far too many random negative things that can happen for a species that has some sense of it's own consciousness and mortality to not need a need for religion as a proxy for meaning.
I'm sure there was an offshoot of early humanity that had no "instinct" for religion, but it was probably a maladaptive trait.
Life is full of random unfair suffering, animals have no concept of it so it doesn't affect them. If you don't have a mechanism to explain and/or cope with that, then you're just not going to do well in life.
I totally disagree. You don't need fairness. People want it.
(The following you's are generic and are not directed at you specifically) The world is not actually run by your parents, so when something bad happens, they are neither to blame, nor can they offer care because of it.
The world simply is not fair, and people understand that sometimes terrible things happen and you have to move on with life. Not only that, but religion promoting fairness is a modern concept. The point behind many Gods was to understand that lots of unfair forces were beyond your control and input, and your best bet was to adapt against them.
People don't need to create a personification to blame for their problems or ask for solutions. They just need to know how to move on.
To better clarify, I meant that a Zebra who loses a mate to a lion won't appear to suffer any psychic stress from wondering "why did the Lion take my mate and not somebody else" because they don't appear able to mentally create that thought. Because they can't think it than it can't threaten their existence.
Because humans can, we have had to evolve a defense mechanism to respond. A cultural mechanism to solve an issue.
This is why all religions have some common themes. They have a all powerful being of some kind, they have a story that explains creation, they have a "post death" story as well as having rules on how to live in order to pass a judgement of some kind at death.
I'm sure there were proto humans or cultures and civilisations that differed from this at some point, but they didn't last long enough for us to know about them. Which means that they probably were inherently inferior to societies/peoples with religion.
It's sad that so many atheists never deconverted from religion and just absorbed Feminism, Socialism, or Scientism. It's like when a Christian converts to Islam.
I still don't agree that people need a God, especially how they are using it. There are so many "Jesus Take The Wheel" Christians who are using the Church as a Crutch that it's not a surprise there are many Christians embracing progressiveness and hoping the omnipotent and omnipresent government will solve all their problems if they are pious enough.
Protestantism can still be used to finally take responsibility over yourself, but I'd prefer if people went all the way and took full responsibility over their own lives and didn't rely on an abstract concept for protection. But, we're just not there yet.
I think like in all things in life, this is good when balanced. Because sometimes people actually need crutches to heal with.
People need to not have full responsibility of their life because they don't actually have full control of it to begin with. Its a lot easier to deal with life's mysterious bullshit by simply believing its part of some grand design than sit and wonder what you could have done different to stop that drunk driver from killing your son.
There are too many chaotic variables in every day that if someone were to actually worry about them, it would create paranoia and anxiety for days. Which is something you see represented incredibly often in the Atheism/Leftist crowds, absurd anxiety over everything.
Of course, most Christians take it too far but I see that as a failing of the Church itself. So many congregations are there to simply read words to you and give you pathetic, generic advice rather than help you grasp and apply it to reality. Mixed with so many of them don't actually believe in the church other than a "applying this label makes me a good person" you end up with a legion of imbeciles.
See, the people who need church as a crutch to heel with, are focused on healing, not what they think your problems are. Some dude at AA isn't going to tell me Pokemon is the devil, and vote for politicians to start making laws.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy. Sure, things happen to you outside of your control. But all of your responses, even down to how you feel, are well within your control. Using your example, at the end of the day, it's going to be necessary for that father to have the emotional stoicism necessary to accept that there may have been a couple things that he could have done different, but his primary objective now is to learn from the life of his son, and prepare so he can respond better when the next tragedy may befall him or his loved ones. He'll have to learn to move on, and no one can actually do that but him.
I think the emotional incontinence is intentional and part of a system of psychological abuse for a method of control. This is why the Left are fighting against stoicism generally. Fragility makes people controllable and dependent on those who will affirm or placate them. It's not an accident, it's an attack.
I entirely agree. Something seems to have failed in the church's core. There doesn't seem to be a proper Christian intelligentsia anymore. I think it should truly disturb all pious Christians that Jordan Peterson is probably doing more to build a Christian moral and ethical core for young people in a modern age than pretty much any religious scholars, preachers, and disciples in over 30-50 years. I don't really know that I've ever heard anyone in earlier times say, "I don't believe in God, but I absolutely subscribe to the Christian ethic." Or "I see myself as a Christian Atheist, because although I don't believe in God, I think the Christendom forms an excellent moral foundation." The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell. And sure, you can say that a Christian Atheist is as ridiculous as a Libertarian Socialist, but the point is that they are still accepting Christendom.
The closest I can even imagine someone doing anything like that, within the entire time I've been alive, is maybe Paul Harvey & Fred Rogers. And even then, their Christianity was confined to indirectly emphasizing Christian values, rather than attributing those ethical behaviors to Christendom, or doing any philosophical Christian Apologetics.
It feels to me like the Evangelicals seized Christendom, emphasized gifting, and then hoped the US government would solve all of the social failings of America; leaving the philosophical core of Christendom effectively barren. Which, horrifically, is still better than what happened in Europe. Ugh.
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized. So its not something I wish to believe in. But most people are not capable of handling such a weight. They won't be able to handle the "shoulda"s and the anxiety of it will slow them for a long time. Religion, like most things, is geared towards the common man and his common faults, and an inability to deal with the randomness of life is one of the oldest of those.
For some, accepting that full weight will help them better. For others, they need to push off some parts for the sake of their ability to move forward. And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
I think the concept is older than his influence, but the label itself you could trace near him. But much like the "altright" it has an existence far larger and more robust than whoever named it.
But I'm fine with that type of foundations. Much like the aforementioned anxiety of chaos, some people need the "God" portion to keep their ethics and morals while others just need a common culture which may have come from God originally but they can hold to it without the looming threat of Him.
Unfortunately, we have too little of either side. And that which we do are extremists who, while of agreeable beliefs, have little hope of taking root to change towards them.
Yeah, no signs of overlap from me. I'm not the entire opposite, but order naturally entrophies to chaos; and order is naturally emergent from chaos. To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
I don't think this example is what I mean. Accepting full weight of your actions, also involves recognizing the relative weight. "I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry, and from that you can think about how to alter your behavior. But that is the full weight. The 90 lbs of "that guy shouldn't have been drunk driving" is the other part. Don't simply offload your 1 lbs of responsibility on to him, but recognize what is and is not your burden. Then, effectively, bear that cross.
Yeah, this is why I get a little uncomfortable around the converted-to-atheism crowd - more particularly, the ones who change to zealous atheists. Granted, may be my own bias as someone was raised atheist, by, to my eyes, the problem is the unquestioning zeal in general, not whether it's ire is pointed in my direction right this second.
See, the thing with me is that I was basically never raised to be religious, so I didn't have much in the way of God, and it never really made a whole lot of sense to me whenever I really thought about it. I'm not one of those people that moved away from Christendom, I never really had it except as a vague default setting of "sure, I guess God exists..." which I basically grew out of, and then slowly took more of a hard line stance against.
It drives me crazy to hear people talk about the "god shaped hole" in people's lives, or that religion is a natural aspect of humanity. I disagree, it's a construction of people's imagination to try and rationally order the world in their head, or it's an authority constructed by civilization as a modicum of behavioral control. It makes perfect sense to me that in ancient polytheist worlds, each city had their own god, and physical conflicts were also seen as conflicts between gods, and which ones were stronger. In reality, humans were taking metaphysical concepts to the fields of battle, and seeing which could bring a people more prosperity.
But the whole point is that is all still an externalization. It's an abstract philosophy manifested and personified. Which, is a bit silly outside of raw storytelling, but don't turn around and try and enforce it as a social order. If your abstraction is genuinely valid, then people will reflect it's positions naturally. If God is The Truth, then anyone reflecting truth, will necessarily reflect goodly piety. Who is more pious, the atheist who takes responsibility for himself and his family, or the prostitute who wears a golden cross and says she's a good Christian who goes to church on Christmas? I say the former, and it should not be an issue to anyone truly seeking truth and not tribe (which is why I can still get along fine with some Christians).
But then, these absolutely retarded a-Thesists literally do everything the Evangelicals ever accused them of: rejecting God because their mad and finding a new secular religion. If that was the case, why would you chose Faucism and George Floyd to be the one true God and not something like fucking Jainism. Hell, take the Church of The Flying Spaghetti monster seriously if you're gonna be that retarded! At least then I can take you seriously, and I know you aren't hurting people.
For some reason this reminds me of Black & White 2
There are far too many random negative things that can happen for a species that has some sense of it's own consciousness and mortality to not need a need for religion as a proxy for meaning.
I'm sure there was an offshoot of early humanity that had no "instinct" for religion, but it was probably a maladaptive trait.
Life is full of random unfair suffering, animals have no concept of it so it doesn't affect them. If you don't have a mechanism to explain and/or cope with that, then you're just not going to do well in life.
I totally disagree. You don't need fairness. People want it.
(The following you's are generic and are not directed at you specifically) The world is not actually run by your parents, so when something bad happens, they are neither to blame, nor can they offer care because of it.
The world simply is not fair, and people understand that sometimes terrible things happen and you have to move on with life. Not only that, but religion promoting fairness is a modern concept. The point behind many Gods was to understand that lots of unfair forces were beyond your control and input, and your best bet was to adapt against them.
People don't need to create a personification to blame for their problems or ask for solutions. They just need to know how to move on.
To better clarify, I meant that a Zebra who loses a mate to a lion won't appear to suffer any psychic stress from wondering "why did the Lion take my mate and not somebody else" because they don't appear able to mentally create that thought. Because they can't think it than it can't threaten their existence.
Because humans can, we have had to evolve a defense mechanism to respond. A cultural mechanism to solve an issue.
This is why all religions have some common themes. They have a all powerful being of some kind, they have a story that explains creation, they have a "post death" story as well as having rules on how to live in order to pass a judgement of some kind at death.
I'm sure there were proto humans or cultures and civilisations that differed from this at some point, but they didn't last long enough for us to know about them. Which means that they probably were inherently inferior to societies/peoples with religion.