Hurmanetar
New
What a dunce!
Jay Dyer, What’s the Endgame for Atheists? |352|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
What a dunce!
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I [recall] Shermer also claimed to be a scientist in a debate with Sheldrake but AFAICTell he just has a bachelor's in psychology so even less qualified than Nye.
I guess they think skeptical arrogance is a substitute for academia. ;)
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think this might be true of some Hindus but my guess is the question isn't religion in isolation but religion as part of a power structure. There are numerous examples of anti-Christian violence in India, though you'll likely find similar hate crime incidents whenever religion X which uses orthodoxy to preserve worldly power is confronted by foreign religion Y which comes in with a mystical element challenging that power.
Even within Hinduism you'll likely see this in the future as the diversity of Hinduism (really a catch-all term for a variety of similar beliefs in a localized part of the world) will fracture the power of the top-down Hindu Nationalists which inspire things like raping lower caste women and the like. There've already been mass conversions to Buddhism in the lower caste that Hindu Nationalists tried to prevent for example.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
On Gloria Steinem and Satanic Ritual Abuse (apologies for the political article but it presents a clear summary):
So how does this fit not only with her apparent CIA involvement but with the CIA's own work with missionaries spreading Christianity? I could take these points and say the convert forces shaping the culture are tied to religious fundamentalists....or go further and create some fan fiction theories about the Abrahamic deity Yaweh being the Gnostic Demiurge by citing Rense.com...Seems to me this is the problem with conspiracy theories - you find a narrative you want and you can push it forward with a selective slice of data....
I wouldn't go so far as to say all conspiracy theories are bad and all their followers are kooks, that's just ad hominem. But I've yet to be persuaded by this globalist atheist Satanic agenda and the above is partially why.
So how does this fit not only with her apparent CIA involvement but with the CIA's own work with missionaries spreading Christianity? I could take these points and say the convert forces shaping the culture are tied to religious fundamentalists....or go further and create some fan fiction theories about the Abrahamic deity Yaweh being the Gnostic Demiurge by citing Rense.com...Seems to me this is the problem with conspiracy theories - you find a narrative you want and you can push it forward with a selective slice of data....
I wouldn't go so far as to say all conspiracy theories are bad and all their followers are kooks, that's just ad hominem. But I've yet to be persuaded by this globalist atheist Satanic agenda and the above is partially why.
Hurmanetar
New
I think you're right re: power struggles between orthodox institutions.
Hindu nationalists... I didn't know that was a thing. I guess remnants of the old caste system that don't want to give up their bit of status?
This is kind of a tangent but I'd be curious to hear your perspective on it: the general attitude towards honesty in Indian culture. The only experiences I've had with Indians combined with other reports I've heard - that honesty is difficult to come by in that culture - make me wonder if the Hindu notion that life is a great drama and each of us actors (paraphrasing from Alan Watts interpretations) results in a lower standard of honesty than in the West where "truth" is more highly valued and "liars go to hell"?
I like the notion that life is a great cyclical drama, but if the "uninitiated profane masses" believe that, what does that do to honesty and value of truth in the culture at large? I recall Rupert Sheldrake saying he noticed there were some key elements of the Christian faith that made people want to make things better and ease suffering and that these elements were generally lacking in India because there was a very fatalistic mindset about karma and that's one thing that led him back to his roots in Christianity and to rejoin the Anglican Church.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Truth is more valued in the West? Heh, I'm not sure truth is valued much in this world at all though I think it's easier to get away with fraud at the local level in India than it is in the West. That seems more about the distribution of technology though.
The story I recall from Sheldrake was he asked some yogi in India who told him that his identity was tied up with England and he should thus become/remain a Christian?
I suspect it's less to do with religion and more to do with poverty and wage gaps that seem to be permanent. I recall a writer talking about his experiences growing up near the tobacco farms in Canada - people felt fine cheating the system because they figured the "system" (possibly meaning the oligarchs of the world, or at least the upper economic classes) were cheating them all anyway.
My own experiences talking to people around Philly is similar. More and more it seems people don't think their lives can improve beyond a certain point - oddly enough I wonder if it's flipped so more people in India feel like they can close wage gaps even as less people in the West do. Likely too early to tell, likely they're all screwed:
David Bailey
Member
Well for one thing, a gay/lesbian person can't have children in the same way as heterosexual couples can. Also, however tolerant society becomes, such a person will still encounter pockets of intolerance - not least in the playground.
I also have a feeling that there is a pendulum effect here. Political groups have forced the pendulum of public opinion beyond its natural point of equilibrium, and it will inevitably rebound. This is one reason I oppose extreme 'liberal' views - they simply drive the next cycle of intolerance - partly because modern PC politics is hugely intolerant of those who disagree in any way at all.
David
Obiwan
Member
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here David. Firstly, plenty of heterosexual people decide not to have children - I presume their lives are less fulfilling 'on average' too? I know plenty of heterosexual couples who don't have kids, they don't want them. Plenty of people I know have children and wish they hadn't, or other people wish they hadn't :).
Some gay couples do have kids, either adopted or from other relationships. Because sometimes they don't arrive 'in the same way' does that make their relationship less fulfilling? How? Most gay people I know definitely have some sort of family connection with children as uncles etc and find it fulfilling.
So the inability or decision not to have kids may well resonate with your own sense of what constitues fulfilment but yours certainly isn't the only way to a fulfilling life. I think you're making an assumption that is based on your own experiences - which is natural of course - but ultimately shows a lack of insight into the lives and values of others.
With regards to prejudice and intolerance: Prejudice affects all areas of society. If you're different from the majority where you live, you're going to encounter intolerance: religion, sexuality, colour, gender you name it. I do not see how other people's prejudices necessarily lead to a less fulfilling life. Martin Luther King would not, I think, agree with you. It's disappointing that people need to stand up for injustice but the fact that they do can have astonishing benefits for others and for their own development.
In fact for many, those very intolerances lead to triumphs of human spirit in many cases which would not have been achievable if they had 2.5 kids and half a Labrador and spent the weekend at a garden centre in Chipping Norton waiting for their pension to kick in. Many of those who strive to oppose ignorance and prejudice have the kids and Labrador - it isn't enough to make them complacent because their spirit is moved by the injustice they see.
I suppose it depends what you find fulfilling. One must be careful not to automatically transfer one's own values to others no?
This 'modern PC liberalism' you appear to be sneering at, whilst sometimes used disingenuously for sure, makes a real difference to many people's lives and shows those in society who are comfortable in their confidence that their way is the only way, that the world is much more diverse than they think and you know what? Maybe they'll even develop a little empathy.
If by Political Correctness you mean 'avoiding prejudicial or perjorative language or behaviour which may cause offence' I can't see how anyone can object to that. Sometimes it is necessary to have rules which some people don't need but clearly others do because they're either too ignorant, selfish or dumb to reach that conclusion themselves. Rules that delineate what is acceptable and what isn't. Whatever the rule is about anything, someone will find a way to use it for their own advantage. That's not a reason to denigrate it imho.
Last edited:
LetsEat
Member
He said on average, do you think that all homosexuals experience the exact same level of 'fulfillment' as all heterosexuals?
From: Melbourne self report surveys
http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.e...l_life_satisfaction_discrimination_dp8127.pdf
5. Conclusion This paper uses a measure of SWB to empirically investigate the extent of potential discrimination against sexual minorities in the UK and Australia. Using a structural equation modelling approach, where the different channels through which being a member of a sexual minority could affect life satisfaction are simultaneously analyzed in the same estimation process, we are able to show that LGB individuals are significantly less satisfied with theirlivesthan the heterosexual majority. Also, by estimating a structural equationmodel, thedirect association between being a member of an LGB group and life satisfaction can beseparated from the set of indirect effects resulting from different observable individualcharacteristics, thereby adding extra information to what has been lacking in the estimation ofsingle-equation models.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think it's more the legal question?
For example the success of secularism is, in part, due to the prevention of blasphemy laws religious fundamentalist wanted to have once upon a time.
"Hate speech" laws, it seems to me, are potentially another kind of "blasphemy" law?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I'm curious - there seems to be a tacit assumption that there is an incredible amount of "conservative" intellectual tolerance....where is it?
In fact it seems to me "conservative" concern about speech magically appeared when they felt they were on the receiving end of speech restrictions they previously loved to enact?
Why I don't take "conservatives" or "liberals" very seriously....
Obiwan
Member
That's a really interesting article. Clearly being subject to prejudice makes life more difficult. Who would argue with that?
The point I was making was that's not a function of sexuality only (though it certainly is a factor) but any difference to the 'perceived norm' and that that can happen for a host of reasons. As the report itself says the question of sexuality is complex. Even the levels of satisfaction mentioned (leaving aside any difference between satisfaction and fulfilment) seem to vary a lot, especially from the Australian sample. In effect the report says that levels of satisfaction in this minority group (simplistically defined) tend to be lower for some segments. This dissatisfaction isn't because they are gay, but because of the way gay people are treated by some people.
This was however not the point David made. He was sayIng firstly that this lack of fulfilment derived from his perception that 'they' couldn't have children 'in the same way'. The study didn't deal with that but more the prejudices of society and their impact on individuals.
Last edited:
Obiwan
Member
I can see an analogy with blasphemy laws. So are you saying people should be able to say whatever they like in any way they like without being concerned about the consequences? On the one hand I can see the freedom of speech argument, on the other we've already seen what can happen haven't we?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
But who decides the limits? This is the challenge.
Note I'm talking about State control over speech. If consumers influence corporations via boycotts that's just life, or movies influence the public, etc that's part of free enterprise.
Universities, even private ones, are a more complicated case though legally compelling a private university to have certain [politically slanted] coursework seems to slide into tyranny? I do think part of the problem is that there's not an introduction to critical thinking an early age nor the emotional control needed to use it.
A study of logic + meditation would possibly help.
David Bailey
Member
That comment is so cryptic, I don't think I understand it - some examples of what you mean might be helpful.
So far, there has been very little discussion about what I consider vital. Tolerance of 'non standard' sexual behaviour, seems to oscillate from generation to generation (or maybe a little longer). As with most oscillations, almost everyone would be happier if some damping were applied!
David
David Bailey
Member
That is correct - we took that decision, partly because at the time, a nuclear war seemed very probable.
Very few straight people start off down that route - so it must be that they see some advantage in having a baby with their partner. Clearly homosexuals don't have that option.
It seems to drive some couples mad - others aren't so bothered.
Well I very carefully said 'on average' and I meant that. I would be sorry if I lost a finger (say), but i would expect to get over it and continue.
The main reason why I sneer, is because politicians of an earlier generation took all the flak to repeal the laws against homosexuality, and those politicians banging the drum now, are taking no political risk at all.
As I keep on saying, there is a pendulum effect here - push too hard in one direction and you get a backlash. Trust me, I would not be part of the backlash!
I know someone who used to live in Eastern Europe in the communist era. She reports how many of the politicians that supported communism, swiftly became capitalists once the change occurred. I suspect a lot of ardent LBGT-supporting politicians would change sides in exactly that way if we got a backlash.
David
Last edited:
Obiwan
Member
Hi David
..so it must be that they see some advantage in having a baby with their partner.
Of course you're right, there's an advantage to procreation - it's how all humans arrive (as far as I know anyway). You mention "partner" - if you mean sexual partner that's true, if you mean "life partner" that's debatable. I think the divorce rate is getting towards 50% these days in the UK (not really a sign of fulfilment in most cases I'd have thought) and who knows what the true rate of childbirth outside marriage is. Pretty high I'd say. There are very many children growing up and even being born not part of a heterosexual nuclear family (not the nuclear family you referred to :)).
Well I very carefully said 'on average' and I meant that.
Yes you did say "on average" but then when I asked, you said it was to do with how the children are produced i.e. through heterosexual sex. I'd say that's not a factor in fulfilment. I think you may be confusing lack of satisfaction with life and fulfilment which you're original answer suggests is a function of sexuality and a similar feeling which is a result not of sexual orientation but of societies' opposition to a person's natural sexual orientation. In short, I am saying that being gay doesn't make people unfulfilled but rather the actions of other people towards them. This is true of any minority and is not a function of their sexuality.
What you mean by "average" is unclear to me. When I asked, you referred only to having children.
The main reason why I sneer, is because politicians of an earlier generation took all the flak to repeal the laws against homosexuality, and those politicians banging the drum now, are taking no political risk at all.
Thank you for clarifying what you're sneering at. :)
..so it must be that they see some advantage in having a baby with their partner.
Of course you're right, there's an advantage to procreation - it's how all humans arrive (as far as I know anyway). You mention "partner" - if you mean sexual partner that's true, if you mean "life partner" that's debatable. I think the divorce rate is getting towards 50% these days in the UK (not really a sign of fulfilment in most cases I'd have thought) and who knows what the true rate of childbirth outside marriage is. Pretty high I'd say. There are very many children growing up and even being born not part of a heterosexual nuclear family (not the nuclear family you referred to :)).
Well I very carefully said 'on average' and I meant that.
Yes you did say "on average" but then when I asked, you said it was to do with how the children are produced i.e. through heterosexual sex. I'd say that's not a factor in fulfilment. I think you may be confusing lack of satisfaction with life and fulfilment which you're original answer suggests is a function of sexuality and a similar feeling which is a result not of sexual orientation but of societies' opposition to a person's natural sexual orientation. In short, I am saying that being gay doesn't make people unfulfilled but rather the actions of other people towards them. This is true of any minority and is not a function of their sexuality.
What you mean by "average" is unclear to me. When I asked, you referred only to having children.
The main reason why I sneer, is because politicians of an earlier generation took all the flak to repeal the laws against homosexuality, and those politicians banging the drum now, are taking no political risk at all.
Thank you for clarifying what you're sneering at. :)