Agreed, the innate anti-humanism is fundamentally based on their authoritarianism.
This religious replacement is why I expect the 4th Great Awakening to happen after the The Great Collapse (as I'm calling it). It'll take out many large scale institutions with it, but it will also cause a religious revival in the West, centered out of a kind of Neo-Protestanism, and hopefully an American Catholic schism with Rome. In response, the Left will ditch it's Secularism and embrace what South America commonly refers to as "Liberation Theology".
In response, the Left will ditch it's Secularism and embrace what South America commonly refers to as "Liberation Theology".
Speaking of South America (and giving hints at your 4th Great Awakening theory), there is some rumblings I have heard from within my own church (a Lutheran one of the Missouri Synod). Specifically, there is actually a huge amount of South American Catholics who are converting to the various Protestant faiths, especially those based out of the US like Baptist, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and yes, American Lutherans. Because apparently the Pope embracing wokeness may have sat well with the establishment and the "culturally Catholic" types (see: Most of the hardcore Dems who ignore every facet of the faith), it didnt go down so hot with the actual practicing Catholics in South America. So now the Protestants are walking on in and saying "So now that the Pope has betrayed you, how about you come with us who still follow Christ?"
Another thing that I think is interesting is that a lot of the younger Christians (millennials like me and especially Zoomers) are not their daddies Christians, the kind you [correctly] call the "Jesus Take the Wheel" types. If you want the typical result I am seeing, the most well known example would be Lord Miles of Kabul and Sudan. They follow the word of God, they hold to the moral codes, and they enjoy the sense of community that church provides. But then they turn around and shitpost on 4Chan, they see Creationism as just as much of a meme as Flat-Earth, they dont see a need to go and scream to everyone about how absolutely Christian they are, and honestly dont really see a need to go and evangelize to people ("God will call to those who will answer"). They also generally have a much more open taste of things that should be allowed, looser than the Leftist SJW's ironically. Like, most younger Christians I know are huge fans of things like video games, anime, and superheroes, and are not particularly concerned with things like scantily clad women. Hell, I have even heard some of the younger ones going full traditional and arguing "Why should we be offended by the human form?" And of course, they are getting sick and tired of the SJW's trying to break their favorite things.
And honestly, I think it will be better for everyone, from the Religious to the Atheist, that this is the direction things seem to be moving on that front.
I admit: I didn't see that shit coming. Lutheranism is weird, it seems to also be particularly strict. Martin Luther was weird dude.
(see: Most of the hardcore Dems who ignore every facet of the faith)
Oh yeah, the pro-Abrortion Catholics? Schism now.
Like, most younger Christians I know are huge fans of things like video games, anime, and superheroes, and are not particularly concerned with things like scantily clad women. Hell, I have even heard some of the younger ones going full traditional and arguing "Why should we be offended by the human form?" And of course, they are getting sick and tired of the SJW's trying to break their favorite things.
This is where we come in. Especially since we're all getting older. We're going to need to help all those 14 year old Zoomers to steer away from Leftist degeneracy. The more kids we hold back from being consumed, the more permanent anti-Leftists we will have in society, and the more developed the anti-Left will become.
Lutheranism is weird, it seems to also be particularly strict. Martin Luther was weird dude.
To be fair, a ton of us are descended from North Germans and Scandinavians, who were some of the most Protestant people on the planet and came to the US because they were sick of the bullshit happening in Europe (what else is new). So much so that my church still has a tradition of where when we sing Silent Night for Christmas, we turn off all of the lights except for candles, and then we sing it in German instead of English.
And yes, Lutheranism is one of the more conservative sects of Protestants (not as conservative as the Baptist, but not far off). But your are right that we are a little on the weird side. Because we value free thought and expression above dogma, since it was the suppression of free thought and expression in the name of dogma that led to us existing in the first place, and many of our ancestors had to shoot their way out of having to listen to what the Pope says. So you end up with situations where I once told my pastor that I disagreed with him over the message of a sermon, and his response was "I am glad you are listening and thinking instead of blindly believing me.", and they know that my fiancé is Bisexual but dont say anything about it (even if she sometimes gets shot dirty looks).
This is where we come in.
Yep. And a lot of them didnt even need to be told, they figured it out on their own. Like I have been saying, I have in the past few years met a ton of Zoomers that I knew had been degenerate, woke Communist that are now Christians (albeit the laidback variety I described in my other post) and Anti-Establishment Populist or Libertarians. Because they saw everything that happened over the last few years, realized how empty their lives were and how messed up they were becoming, even though the people who believed everything they did had all of the power. So they finally started to realize that maybe they were wrong and/or had been lied to, and so they came looking for meaning. I know you consider yourself an Anti-Theist, but I am sure even you would admit that its at least a step in the right direction, and there are ones like me there to make sure they dont go screaming off into being zealots like existed more in the 90's (because "Remember why you hate the SJW's, and dont just become a Christian SJW").
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.
To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
"I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.
It is because you presupposed my arguments and went off on a complete tangent I wasn't even going to go in and had no interest in going into. You should try not to do that as it makes you seem incredibly pretentious. My belief is philosophical, not quantum or what have you. You have listed numerous ways we know its unable to be measured perfectly, which to me says it is in its own system of order beyond our comprehension.
You'll notice I didn't just list tech, but also distance as the limiter. Both in terms of big/small picture and the limitations of the human mind for how far away we are from even finding a starting thread. We will never have a proper fixed point with which to lever the universe, so most of its ordering will be beyond our feeble existences. An imperfect tool itself is both comprehending the universe and then attempting to measure it, which is one of the foundational paradoxes discussed in the Psychological Field.
Its ironic, that for your extreme pushing in this very conversation for internal loci of control you reject the very foundational belief that allows it, which is the delusional belief that all things can be linked back to your own actions instead of being complete chance.
I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness
The point you keep jumping over is humans are weak. You may be brick shithouse super brain, but most aren't and never will be. You can't learn them into it, you can't age them into it, you can do nothing to fix the fundamental flaws that have defined humanity for millenniums. Some people will heal their broken leg, some people will limp for the rest of their life and that crutch is in fact necessary for them to ever walk again.
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.
Great. Let me know when he does something about it.
We're well past the point where pointing out hypocrisy and lunacy was a worthwhile expenditure of effort. Everyone will know it's bullshit and civilization will continue to burn.
Very big redpill here.
That's because they were already a cult. Leftism is inherently and inextricably Satanic.
Agreed, the innate anti-humanism is fundamentally based on their authoritarianism.
This religious replacement is why I expect the 4th Great Awakening to happen after the The Great Collapse (as I'm calling it). It'll take out many large scale institutions with it, but it will also cause a religious revival in the West, centered out of a kind of Neo-Protestanism, and hopefully an American Catholic schism with Rome. In response, the Left will ditch it's Secularism and embrace what South America commonly refers to as "Liberation Theology".
Speaking of South America (and giving hints at your 4th Great Awakening theory), there is some rumblings I have heard from within my own church (a Lutheran one of the Missouri Synod). Specifically, there is actually a huge amount of South American Catholics who are converting to the various Protestant faiths, especially those based out of the US like Baptist, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and yes, American Lutherans. Because apparently the Pope embracing wokeness may have sat well with the establishment and the "culturally Catholic" types (see: Most of the hardcore Dems who ignore every facet of the faith), it didnt go down so hot with the actual practicing Catholics in South America. So now the Protestants are walking on in and saying "So now that the Pope has betrayed you, how about you come with us who still follow Christ?"
Another thing that I think is interesting is that a lot of the younger Christians (millennials like me and especially Zoomers) are not their daddies Christians, the kind you [correctly] call the "Jesus Take the Wheel" types. If you want the typical result I am seeing, the most well known example would be Lord Miles of Kabul and Sudan. They follow the word of God, they hold to the moral codes, and they enjoy the sense of community that church provides. But then they turn around and shitpost on 4Chan, they see Creationism as just as much of a meme as Flat-Earth, they dont see a need to go and scream to everyone about how absolutely Christian they are, and honestly dont really see a need to go and evangelize to people ("God will call to those who will answer"). They also generally have a much more open taste of things that should be allowed, looser than the Leftist SJW's ironically. Like, most younger Christians I know are huge fans of things like video games, anime, and superheroes, and are not particularly concerned with things like scantily clad women. Hell, I have even heard some of the younger ones going full traditional and arguing "Why should we be offended by the human form?" And of course, they are getting sick and tired of the SJW's trying to break their favorite things.
And honestly, I think it will be better for everyone, from the Religious to the Atheist, that this is the direction things seem to be moving on that front.
I admit: I didn't see that shit coming. Lutheranism is weird, it seems to also be particularly strict. Martin Luther was weird dude.
Oh yeah, the pro-Abrortion Catholics? Schism now.
This is where we come in. Especially since we're all getting older. We're going to need to help all those 14 year old Zoomers to steer away from Leftist degeneracy. The more kids we hold back from being consumed, the more permanent anti-Leftists we will have in society, and the more developed the anti-Left will become.
To be fair, a ton of us are descended from North Germans and Scandinavians, who were some of the most Protestant people on the planet and came to the US because they were sick of the bullshit happening in Europe (what else is new). So much so that my church still has a tradition of where when we sing Silent Night for Christmas, we turn off all of the lights except for candles, and then we sing it in German instead of English.
And yes, Lutheranism is one of the more conservative sects of Protestants (not as conservative as the Baptist, but not far off). But your are right that we are a little on the weird side. Because we value free thought and expression above dogma, since it was the suppression of free thought and expression in the name of dogma that led to us existing in the first place, and many of our ancestors had to shoot their way out of having to listen to what the Pope says. So you end up with situations where I once told my pastor that I disagreed with him over the message of a sermon, and his response was "I am glad you are listening and thinking instead of blindly believing me.", and they know that my fiancé is Bisexual but dont say anything about it (even if she sometimes gets shot dirty looks).
Yep. And a lot of them didnt even need to be told, they figured it out on their own. Like I have been saying, I have in the past few years met a ton of Zoomers that I knew had been degenerate, woke Communist that are now Christians (albeit the laidback variety I described in my other post) and Anti-Establishment Populist or Libertarians. Because they saw everything that happened over the last few years, realized how empty their lives were and how messed up they were becoming, even though the people who believed everything they did had all of the power. So they finally started to realize that maybe they were wrong and/or had been lied to, and so they came looking for meaning. I know you consider yourself an Anti-Theist, but I am sure even you would admit that its at least a step in the right direction, and there are ones like me there to make sure they dont go screaming off into being zealots like existed more in the 90's (because "Remember why you hate the SJW's, and dont just become a Christian SJW").
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.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.
It is because you presupposed my arguments and went off on a complete tangent I wasn't even going to go in and had no interest in going into. You should try not to do that as it makes you seem incredibly pretentious. My belief is philosophical, not quantum or what have you. You have listed numerous ways we know its unable to be measured perfectly, which to me says it is in its own system of order beyond our comprehension.
You'll notice I didn't just list tech, but also distance as the limiter. Both in terms of big/small picture and the limitations of the human mind for how far away we are from even finding a starting thread. We will never have a proper fixed point with which to lever the universe, so most of its ordering will be beyond our feeble existences. An imperfect tool itself is both comprehending the universe and then attempting to measure it, which is one of the foundational paradoxes discussed in the Psychological Field.
Its ironic, that for your extreme pushing in this very conversation for internal loci of control you reject the very foundational belief that allows it, which is the delusional belief that all things can be linked back to your own actions instead of being complete chance.
The point you keep jumping over is humans are weak. You may be brick shithouse super brain, but most aren't and never will be. You can't learn them into it, you can't age them into it, you can do nothing to fix the fundamental flaws that have defined humanity for millenniums. Some people will heal their broken leg, some people will limp for the rest of their life and that crutch is in fact necessary for them to ever walk again.
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.
Great. Let me know when he does something about it.
We're well past the point where pointing out hypocrisy and lunacy was a worthwhile expenditure of effort. Everyone will know it's bullshit and civilization will continue to burn.
Can't deny it, can you?
Amazing how fast we reached this point.