Rant Thread II

[Saya]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'm saying that atheists have NO EXCUSE for being transphobic and it's easy to call them out for their dickery instead of religious people who can actually justify their shitty actions based on their religious shield. Atheists don't have that and they don't DESERVE excuses for their bad behavior.

Read my post again, you're ignoring its brilliance.

Its not brilliance. Many atheists are transphobic, I'd say most believe in gender roles and to an extent the destiny of biology. Dude, I know flaming gay atheist men who say being genderqueer is impossible. Freud was atheist and hated women, and used science to back up that opinion. Sexism and transphobia do not depend on religion, it can harm to a certain extent. Hell my Psychology And Gender text book wouldn't mention until the very end that "oh by the way, gender might just be a social construct."

Curiously, Buddhism has for a long time had the stance that gender isn't real.

[Saya]

You took a post of mine about how while I don't believe in gender, I recognize this as a privileged opinion and many people are dying because of it. And you turned it into a bitchfest about how prosecuted you are?

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Because assumption is the best I can do, and regardless of previous success of failure you can only assume science will continue to have the answers or that there is no force, spirit or God. I don't know exactly why the I believe the particular things I do but I do, and I wouldn't believe them without reason.

If you had ANY respect for me at all, you wouldn't be trying to rip apart my convictions and beliefs for nothing more than the self-gratification of then saying 'I told you so'. If you honestly wanted to convince me of something or open my eyes to some great knowledge or perspective for MY benefit you would have gone about this a very different way.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Well thankfully what I believe is not your decision to make so what you think is really quite irrelevant.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You know this is why it's so hard to consider you a friend, right?

All I'm doing is pointing out your intellectual inconsistency. You would champion a transgendered cause, but you would also champion a cause of "spiritual let it be ethos" that atheists have no say in. While your spiritual ethos still allows others to use their religion as political leverage and policy making, I can only use my reason as to the ideas that I support. Religions do NOT represent atheists and as long as they have a presence in government, then it's easy to see where there lacks real representation for atheists in that government. So long as government's laws are inspired by theists, a government can't truly represent a non-believer.

I'm sorry, what?

If we're going to make this a religion analogy, those who believe in gender are both those who enforce gender roles, those who choose gender roles and those who believe in it and die for what they are. If I champion the transgendered, it would be akin to championing those who believe in something I don't, whether it be deists or atheists, and I can say I would die defending the freedom to religious expression if I had to.

Government so far hasn't given me a Buddhist representation, and still fails to give an adequate female representation, and it almost goes without saying on how shitty LGBTQ representation is. But I'm not prosecuted on religious grounds, and at least in Canada we're pretty good (for the most part) on making laws without getting religion mixed up. Its respected that there are other religions and other beliefs, there even has been serious discussion to take "God" out of our national anthem (and make it gender neutral). Deists not only legalized same sex marriage but enshrined it in our Bill Of Rights, recently added "Freedom to gender expression" to our rights, "Interfaith" isn't a four letter word, and before Conservatives got in we were one of the top six countries with the smallest wage gap by gender. I have huge complaints regarding Conservatives, and I had complaints with the Liberals, but its rarely religious inspired. You wouldn't even know Harper was a religious man, watching the news, because its not considered a huge value to have. There are less Buddhists than there are atheists and I never felt sorely misrepresented on the basis of my religious beliefs.

I know America is full of crazy fundamentalists and the government panders to that. But in my country I have empirical evidence that religious tolerance does work and can work, for deists and atheists. Its not inherent that when religion exists in a country that it all goes to hell, its not inherent that if many people are religious (and 83.5 Canadians report being religious) that we always see whats going on in America.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

... So long as government's laws are inspired by theists, a government can't truly represent a non-believer.

Sorry to butt in, new guy. This just made me think.

Most people adhere to one religion or another and atheists are a minority. I think what you really mean is that "Atheist should be represented more then they are because they are right."

Also. I bumped the page before you responded to the other two.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Why the fuck do you keep thinking this is what I'm saying? I'd fight to defend the right of religious expression as well and if those religious start trying to make claims in my government, they will find a vicious opponent.

So how is my valuing respect for personal religious experience (sans bigotry) go against my valuing personal gender experience?

So what you're saying is that Canada has been able to accomplish what I'm talking about. Religious insignificance in their governmental policy making. Fabulous. Looks like Canada got something right.



And those faithful in Canada seem to keep their religion out of politics. Fucking brilliant. Now if only we can get that in America. Have you SEEN the shit going on in the states? The religious can't seem to make the distinction that this world is actually OUR (secularists) world and not their god's world.

We've been over this and you continue to try to demonize me as some angry atheist fascist. I'm not working to try to make religion illegal, I'm working to try to get people to realize that religion is and should be an absolute non-motivator in our governmental policies. WHY is that so bad of me? How the fuck do you continue to confuse the issue?

Then I'm not quite sure what your issue with me is. Is my religious tolerance, as a foreigner, responsible somehow for whats fucked up in your country? And where here did I say that you are an awful person for believing what you do?

[Versus]

I don't disagree that it's wrong, but you need to understand that if everyone is to be represented; the majority are supposed to get their way.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

So since you're a foreigner and you see where I'm coming from in context of my country, why are you debating with me on this? It's great that Canada is this country whose motivations are entirely based on reason for the good of their humanity, but this isn't going on in America. Government leaders are drawing lines in the sand saying things such as "Only Chrisitans are my people.", groups seek to shackle women's right to choose based ONLY on religious convictions, groups seek to keep our GBLTQ communities as second class citizens because it somehow flies in the face of their religion and nothing more, presidents must swear in on holy texts, I must testify on the fucking bible in court, and YOU HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING WHY I'D BE PISSED ABOUT THIS?

You're right. You don't get it because you're not affected by it.

I think you have every right to be pissed about it. But why are you pissed that I'm religious, and respect religious people generally (again, I do make exception for bigotry), and why are you pissed at SCC for thinking there might be a higher power?

[Despanan]

I can't believe I missed this chance to throw down. I blame Dragon Age 2: Which is awesome. Not as good as DA:O but still good.

Now, forgive me, I'm coming late to the party. Saya, I'll start with you:

Originally Posted by Saya

I think you have every right to be pissed about it. But why are you pissed that I'm religious, and respect religious people generally (again, I do make exception for bigotry), and why are you pissed at SCC for thinking there might be a higher power?

Well, for one it's silly and shoddy reasoning personally offends us, and your attitude enables a centuries old system of oppression, but if you want to get to the heart of the matter just read the next bit.

SCC:

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

Because assumption is the best I can do, and regardless of previous success of failure you can only assume science will continue to have the answers or that there is no force, spirit or God.

You are falsely equating science with faith. Stop it, it's stupid. While we all must occasionally make assumptions, scientific assumptions are based upon tested and proven observations of reality. Religious assumptions are based upon hearsay and blind emotion. The two processes could not be more different, and one is measurably better than the other.

The other difference here is that you are making a positive assumption ie: "the wind has a spirit" and whatnot. That is massively silly. It would be the same thing as if I said:

"I feel that there is an invisible teapot hovering around the rings of saturn. I have no proof but it cannot be disproved, therefore I will continue to believe in it exists until proven otherwise. This idea gives me comfort, why will you not respect my invisible teapot? What is the harm in me drawing comfort and meaning from it's existence so long as I don't hurt anybody"

Where as Kontan is saying:

"I have heard about this invisible space-teapot. As at this point, it's existence cannot be proven, nor disproved I will assume that it does not exist until I see evidence to the contrary"

You see how different these ideas are? Do you see how silly the first one is, when you remove the layers of false indoctrinated reverence surrounding religion?

These two outlooks are NOT equal. They never will be equal. And it is SILLY and potentially dangerous to ascribe to the first belief, as it leads to irrational thinking, and poor decision-making.

I don't know exactly why the I believe the particular things I do but I do, and I wouldn't believe them without reason.

You have plenty of reasons to believe them, indoctrination and an attraction to fantasy archetypes and a tendency to romanticize things spring to mind. However, whatever your reasons are; simply having reasons does not make your beliefs valid. People have reasons for everything they do. Many of those reasons are stupid and irrational.

If you had ANY respect for me at all, you wouldn't be trying to rip apart my convictions and beliefs for nothing more than the self-gratification of then saying 'I told you so'. If you honestly wanted to convince me of something or open my eyes to some great knowledge or perspective for MY benefit you would have gone about this a very different way.

Kontan can be gruff, but it is MASSIVELY unfair for you to assume that he's doing what he's doing simply to shame you. Tam Li Hua didn't get this treatment, because we had no respect for her stupid, homophobic, passive aggressive ass. You don't see Kontan trying to reason with fruitbat either.

Kontan's delivery is gruff and rude because this is the internet, and it's fun to talk that way.

That said, he's not attacking your beliefs solely for your benefit. Theists currently have a stranglehold on political power worldwide (but moreso in America than most other first world nations). This isn't just about "truth" or philosophy this is about politics.

Saya waxes off all the time about "Religious Tolerance". Neither Kontan nor myself think religious tolerance is a good idea in the long run. Tolerance is a far superior option when compared with intolerance, but what we're looking for is religious indifference as in: I am completely indifferent politically to your belief in a "wind spirit", and pretty much everyone else in the world is as well. It's your belief in Jesus Christ that is a threat to long-term stability, because unlike the "wind spirit" it is taken seriously by millions of people. Belief in Jesus Christ causes people to behave in all sorts of ways, some good, and some MASSIVELY destructive, and unfortunately, the normative Jesus Christ is not one to share the spotlight with Allah, or Buddha, or "Wind Spirits".

Normative Christianity is a powerful coercive force in politics, and the only way to break it's power is to criticize mystical thinking.

Now that said, I think it probably would be best for you and Saya to surrender your silly supernatural ideas, not because I or Kontan want to say "We told you so" but because they make you smaller people, and they make your world a smaller, simpler place. I know it doesn't feel that way right now because you're so emotionally tied to the romanticism of it, and you have YEARS of indoctrination that your rational brain is currently fighting causing what I'm sure is TONS of cognitive dissonance - I was where you are myself a great many years ago.

In a nutshell, don't waste your life chasing after what is OVERWHELMINGLY likely to be made-up things. There are so many REAL things around you to romanticize, so many incredible places, and sensations, and concepts that are measurably REAL. The fantasies you and Saya indulge in take away from real life, and cause you to waste your limited time on this planet chasing after shadows, and grappling with unprovable hypotheticals.

And hey, when things end, who's to say that there's not something else? However, I am willing to bet (and I'm sure you'll agree with me here) that that "something else" isn't going to punish you for not believing in it, or having a faulty assumption, because that's fucking stupid.

But I'll tell you something that will punish you (assuming there's still a you), and that's yourself, when you realize how much time you wasted, and how many more things you could've done, and how much happier you could've been.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

So because I'm a minority, I should just keep quiet, Versus?

No. If you can convince theists they are wrong, then fucking bravo. Conversion is one thing, but what I mean is I expect them to have their way because they are represented more. If I lived is a predominately atheist (I keep spelling that wrong) country, then I would find it ridiculous if theist were represented more then their demographic should allow, too.

[Saya]

Curious, what do I believe in that is supernatural?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

Most people adhere to one religion or another and atheists are a minority. I think what you really mean is that "Atheist should be represented more then they are because they are right."

Atheist should be represent (and I would argue all governments should be inherently atheist/non-religious) because they are most likely to be FAIR.

Theists have unprovable supernatural hypotheses which are overwhelmingly coercive shaping their views about reality and dictating that their values should overwhelm everyone else's. Atheists have no such baggage, only reason and rationality (and if an atheist is behaving irrationally it's much easier to call him on it).

Basically religion, all religion demands it's followers play favorites. It's far easier to navigate policy if you lack the baggage of a theist.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Curious, what do I believe in that is supernatural?

I don't know, I assume SOMETHING or you wouldn't be religious. That's sort of the definition of religion.

Your beliefs aren't really normative buddhist so how about you tell me, what do you believe that is supernatural, and if nothing, then why identify as buddhist?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I think you have every right to be pissed about it. But why are you pissed that I'm religious, and respect religious people generally (again, I do make exception for bigotry), and why are you pissed at SCC for thinking there might be a higher power?

I hate to point this out, but making an exception for bigotry, while socially IS a good policy, is inconsistent with the idea of religious respect and tolerance.

If fundamentalist Muslims are right than women really DO need to be oppressed by men, gays and transgendered folks really DO need to be killed, and infidels DO need to be converted or eliminated. It's not their fault, Allah wills it, and if Allah is really divine, then all the reason and compassion in the world won't change the fact that they're right.

In order to truly respect and tolerate their fucktardedly stupid and medieval beliefs we must then forgive them of wrongdoing.

Ascribing to religious tolerance but making exceptions for religious bigots is like being a vegetarian, but only refusing to eat the cute animals. Socially and emotionally it feels right, but it is completely inconsistent with your professed beliefs. It's biting a rhetorical bullet and behaving illogically so that you still are square emotionally and socially.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't know, I assume SOMETHING or you wouldn't be religious. That's sort of the definition of religion.

Your beliefs aren't really normative buddhist so how about you tell me, what do you believe that is supernatural, and if nothing, then why identify as buddhist?

Not really, schools of Mahayana have rejected supernatural notions over and over, and it jives pretty well (as an example, the denial that gender is a real thing). Zen particularly has stayed away from supernatural beliefs, the only two infamous Zen masters I can think of that put emphasis on reincarnation was Ikkyu and Seung Sahn, the latter who said that while he believes in it, its not required and ultimately doesn't matter, and teachers are not believed to be infallible anyway. Even Buddha taught that you shouldn't believe something just because he said it, if belief in reincarnation can't be found to be true, discard it.

We can grapple with the definition of religion. There are supernatural elements to many forms of Buddhism, so I will label it a religion, but I don't feel out of line with a long tradition of practice that doesn't require faith in anything other than my own ability. I don't feel right saying I'm an atheist if I practice a religion, but I'm no theist.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Atheist should be represent (and I would argue all governments should be inherently atheist/non-religious) because they are most likely to be FAIR.

Theists have unprovable supernatural hypotheses which are overwhelmingly coercive shaping their views about reality and dictating that their values should overwhelm everyone else's. Atheists have no such baggage, only reason and rationality (and if an atheist is behaving irrationally it's much easier to call him on it).

Basically religion, all religion demands it's followers play favorites. It's far easier to navigate policy if you lack the baggage of a theist.

Would you attribute those predispositions to be caused by religion specifically, or stupid people and people that can't think rationally? I don't know if a theist that understands their beliefs are only beliefs and should not force others to comply with is impossible.

It's not normal, but I don't see why religion would be the cause of the way most people think concerning society. Feel me?

[Versus]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You haven't told me WHY I should not speak or WHY I should not be pissed about these kinds of things. Just because a majority gets represented more doesn't mean it's inherently fair.

Understand that a truly secularist government, or a religiously indifferent government would more likely represent ALL people based solely on the fact that they are a citizen of that country. A government should have a duty to protect the rights of religious expression, but a government should NEVER permit any religion to dominate its policies. A government is for the PEOPLE, NOT the theists. At least it should be.

I'm not saying you shouldn't speak out that it's wrong. Like I said, if you can then fucking do! You know? I don't think I can argue or reason on that level, so I have a deep respect for people that do it well. Like British guy.

How are atheists (spelled it wrong again...) unfairly represented?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I hate to point this out, but making an exception for bigotry, while socially IS a good policy, is inconsistent with the idea of religious respect and tolerance.

If fundamentalist Muslims are right than women really DO need to be oppressed by men, gays and transgendered folks really DO need to be killed, and infidels DO need to be converted or eliminated. It's not their fault, Allah wills it, and if Allah is really divine, then all the reason and compassion in the world won't change the fact that they're right.

In order to truly respect and tolerate their fucktardedly stupid and medieval beliefs we must then forgive them of wrongdoing.

Ascribing to religious tolerance but making exceptions for religious bigots is like being a vegetarian, but only refusing to eat the cute animals. Socially and emotionally it feels right, but it is completely inconsistent with your professed beliefs. It's biting a rhetorical bullet and behaving illogically so that you still are square emotionally and socially.

Should we define the different kinds of religious tolerance?

Formal Religious Tolerance: Everyone has the right to freedom of religious expression.

I would add to that I don't really care what others believe when it doesn't affect anyone else negatively. Well, I care in an academic sense, obviously, and while I do believe many beliefs are silly, I feel its none of my business to get up in someone's grill about it. Back to my gender beliefs, if someone identifies as a lady boi, I'm not going to get up in their face about how gender isn't real. I think a dialogue is valuable and everything should be debated! But I still respect people if they don't agree with me on tricky topics.

Intrinsic Religious Tolerance: Belief that faith has validity. You might have seen this with Christians decrying interdenominational intolerance. For example, after Catholicism was legalized here in Newfoundland, in the late 1700s, there was a Congregationalist minister brought to court for saying anti-Catholic things. The local Catholic bishop here in St.John's defended him in court, and later wrote him a letter that basically said he'll never hate someone for not praying in the same manner that he does, they are both brothers in faith.

Cool story bro, I know, but I can't think of many examples, I suck at keeping up with what other religious leaders are saying today. I suppose Universal Unitarians fall into that category as well.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Not really, schools of Mahayana have rejected supernatural notions over and over, and it jives pretty well (as an example, the denial that gender is a real thing). Zen particularly has stayed away from supernatural beliefs, the only two infamous Zen masters I can think of that put emphasis on reincarnation was Ikkyu and Seung Sahn, the latter who said that while he believes in it, its not required and ultimately doesn't matter, and teachers are not believed to be infallible anyway. Even Buddha taught that you shouldn't believe something just because he said it, if belief in reincarnation can't be found to be true, discard it.

We can grapple with the definition of religion. There are supernatural elements to many forms of Buddhism, so I will label it a religion, but I don't feel out of line with a long tradition of practice that doesn't require faith in anything other than my own ability. I don't feel right saying I'm an atheist if I practice a religion, but I'm no theist.

huh, I always thought the idea that gender doesn't matter stemmed from the supernatural belief that there is no "self". You're more into it than I am, so I'll cede to your judgement. Buddhism is fairly unique as a religion, and I don't see it as a threat to liberty and reason so much as Christianity or Islam.

And it's certainly less ridiculous than that neopagan crap. (I mean seriously the movement was started in the 50's and it's based on fantasy novels and a disneyfied vision of actual pagan tradition).

So I apologize if I've erred and lumped you in with SCC accidentally.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

huh, I always thought the idea that gender doesn't matter stemmed from the supernatural belief that there is no "self". You're more into it than I am, so I'll cede to your judgement. Buddhism is fairly unique as a religion, and I don't see it as a threat to liberty and reason so much as Christianity or Islam.

And it's certainly less ridiculous than that neopagan crap. (I mean seriously the movement was started in the 50's and it's based on fantasy novels and a disneyfied vision of actual pagan tradition).

So I apologize if I've erred and lumped you in with SCC accidentally.

The belief in no self is simply that there is no permanent "you". You're a stream of consciousness, but you have no soul. You're empty of permanence. Which I think doesn't really jive with reincarnation so its easier to discard it anyway. And basically what I'm learning from Butler.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Should we define the different kinds of religious tolerance?

Formal Religious Tolerance: Everyone has the right to freedom of religious expression.

I agree. However that right does not trump MY right to tell them that I think what they're doing is stupid. I don't want to use force to coerce a lack of belief, that won't achieve my ends and moreover it's WRONG>

I would add to that I don't really care what others believe when it doesn't affect anyone else negatively. Well, I care in an academic sense, obviously, and while I do believe many beliefs are silly, I feel its none of my business to get up in someone's grill about it. Back to my gender beliefs, if someone identifies as a lady boi, I'm not going to get up in their face about how gender isn't real.

See, I would say it's not possible for belief to NOT effect someone else (whether positively or negatively) We're living in a society. While there are certainly degrees of wrong (Active oppression vs. passive endorsement vs. simply irritating me) no man is an island, and to say you go over there and do your thing - it doesn't effect me is a fallacy. It DOES affect me for good or ill.

Intrinsic Religious Tolerance: Belief that faith has validity. You might have seen this with Christians decrying interdenominational intolerance. For example, after Catholicism was legalized here in Newfoundland, in the late 1700s, there was a Congregationalist minister brought to court for saying anti-Catholic things. The local Catholic bishop here in St.John's defended him in court, and later wrote him a letter that basically said he'll never hate someone for not praying in the same manner that he does, they are both brothers in faith.

But they AREN'T. That's a lie. It's a pleasant lie, but a lie. He shouold have defended him by pointing out that he's free to believe and say what he wants.

Instead the bishop pretended that there wasn't a conflict, how is that productive? there WAS a conflict.

Cool story bro, I know, but I can't think of many examples, I suck at keeping up with what other religious leaders are saying today. I suppose Universal Unitarians fall into that category as well.

What little I know Universal Unitarianism...I find it to be socially agreeable, but intellectually bankrupt.

You don't solve conflicts by ignoring them, that just postpones the problem. You work out conflicts through mature, appropriate communication, carried out in the proper social context.

ie: I will call you a shit-fucker on the Internet, and tell you to die in a fire, I will avoid the subject at thanksgiving dinner.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I agree. However that right does not trump MY right to tell them that I think what they're doing is stupid. I don't want to use force to coerce a lack of belief, that won't achieve my ends and moreover it's WRONG>



See, I would say it's not possible for belief to NOT effect someone else (whether positively or negatively) We're living in a society. While there are certainly degrees of wrong (Active oppression vs. passive endorsement vs. simply irritating me) no man is an island, and to say you go over there and do your thing - it doesn't effect me is a fallacy. It DOES affect me for good or ill.

Some do. But I can't see how SCC thinking the wind is something special affects me any. I more or less have the "Cool story, bro" reaction.

But they AREN'T. That's a lie. It's a pleasant lie, but a lie. He shouold have defended him by pointing out that he's free to believe and say what he wants.

Instead the bishop pretended that there wasn't a conflict, how is that productive? there WAS a conflict.

What little I know Universal Unitarianism...I find it to be socially agreeable, but intellectually bankrupt.

I didn't say it was right, I was just noting the different types of religious tolerance so we understand what we mean when we say that. We're both in the same camp, just have different levels of caring.

I think where the bishop was coming from was that he could remember a time when it was illegal to be Catholic, you could be beaten and deported. I think he probably saw brotherhood as a means to ensure something like that wouldn't happen to someone else.

The minister he defended didn't agree, but seemed pretty touched by the sentiment so it definitely had a good effect.

You don't solve conflicts by ignoring them, that just postpones the problem. You work out conflicts through mature, appropriate communication, carried out in the proper social context.

ie: I will call you a shit-fucker on the Internet, and tell you to die in a fire, I will avoid the subject at thanksgiving dinner.

Oh I'm fine with discussion, in proper channels and please don't think that I don't want this discussed at all on Gnet, it just comes off to me as rude to defriend SCC on the basis that he thinks there might be a higher power, without any dogma attached to that belief, and I'm just tired that everytime it is mentioned we need to have the debate, its an annoyance, not a declaration that discussion is never productive. I do believe in some level of etiquette on the internet, but you're right in that its not comparable to RL.

[korinna5555]

I'm on a maintenance program of 16mg of suboxone per day, and apparently I'm allergic to something in it. I've been having severe migraines every day, along with nausea, hives, and itching. I'm reallllllly hoping it's not the buprenorphine I'm allergic to; it's probably an allergy to the naloxone. I'm going to talk to my doctor about switching to Subutex, to see if it's the naloxone. (Suboxone has naloxone, Subutex doesn't)

Urgh.




On another note, the outpatient rehab program I'm in doesn't even allow the use of vanilla extract, because of the alcohol content. I'm a fucking heroin addict, I don't get my kicks drinking vanilla extract. >_<

[Saya]

Bwah? I thought alcohol was used in the processes of extraction, not an actual ingredient. Do they ban mouthwash too?