Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Bigotry is alive and well at Project Reason. By bigotry I mean as is defined on Wikipedia:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a “bigot”, a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
Obviously bigotry is not an intellectual expression but rather an emotional denial protected by intellectual rationalization.
My Question for Atheists thread as well as the current BM free thread are expressions of furthering bigotry.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
To make matters worse, the discussion has moved into the area of consciousness which cannot be understood unconsciously as is being done now and is the only path open to bigotry.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative. From Ouspensky’s book: In Search of the Miraculous, wherein he recounts a conversation with Georges Gurdjieff about war.
“How can one get rid of false ideas?” I asked. “We depend on the forms of our perception. False ideas are produced by the forms of our perception.”
G. Shook his head.
“Again you speak of something different,” he said. “You speak of errors arising from perceptions but I am not speaking of these. Within the limits of given perceptions man can err more or err less. As I have said before, man’s chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that they can do, all people want to do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him - all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.
“Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels - all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.
“To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens - popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire - all this happens.”...................................................
Contemplating the question of Man’s conscious potential and if he is capable of more than being a part of a collective happening goes beyond perceptions and opinions (narratives) It also requires the intent to be free of ones own bigotry rather than defending it in pursuit of “truth.”
Becoming open to human conscious potential wherein one is more than a machine doesn’t require any belief but rather the willingness to “see” But what does it mean to “see” and how can one acquire the ability to do so?”
If there are those here interested in this question of relative conscious potential and also aware how much our own preconceptions deny it, PM me let me know. If there are enough, I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not dominant and perhaps we can explore
what relative consciousness means rather than argue over beliefs and indulge in condemnation in the attempt to justify our personal idolatry.
Ideas of a certain quality must be respected in a way that keeps them free of bigoted expression. Being that I believe relative consciousness includes such ideas, I wouldn’t want the freedom they offer degraded by bigotry but furthered through reason. If it can be had, it could make for a meaningful discussion.
Bigotry is alive and well at Project Reason. By bigotry I mean as is defined on Wikipedia:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a “bigot”, a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
Obviously bigotry is not an intellectual expression but rather an emotional denial protected by intellectual rationalization.
So, in your estimation Nick, those of us on PR whom you accuse of bigotry are emotionally disgusted by which of the perceived characteristics that the Wiki quote mentions? Are we emotionally disgusted/inflamed by religious/spiritual belief in general, and then we use our rationalization techniques to support this hatred? Yet all of us have family members and close friends who are religious and we remain emotionally attached to them in positive ways, so do we have some kind of selective bigotry?
I agree with the definition of bigotry that you have supplied, but I’m struggling to understand how those of us on this forum are examples of that kind of blind stupidity. I would however, add one thing to the definition above. Bigotry is not entirely an emotional reaction to some characteristics but it also comes with one overriding intellectual component that being the rational conclusion that the bigot is in some way superior to those whom he is denigrating and dehumanizing. The notion of “supremacy” MUST be the uppermost intellectual consideration of the one doing the discrimination. This attitude is essential and necessary to the emergence of the actual bigot. All of your postings and the whole of the G. theosophy are steeped in the notion of supremacy, but of course you cannot see that because on that front you are completely blind.
Another point that reinforces your bigotted position is that you sense (emotionally perhaps) that we speak from an assumption of our own supremacy. However, that is an entirely false assumption on your part and it comes from being emotionally perturbed by our intellectual grounding. You see Nick, the only thing “superior” about us is the methodology of our inquiry. This “supremacy” is not based on our characteristics, but rather is derived from entirely NON-EMOTIONAL sources that have nothing at all to do with our particular human characteristics. Your methodology is based on emotion and grounded in the assumption that one individual can gain a supreme perception of reality against the misperceptions of the vast majority of humanity. Your methodology is steeped in the ideals of supremacy and thus it itself meets the criteria of being a bigotted position.
My Question for Atheists thread as well as the current BM free thread are expressions of furthering bigotry.
Perhaps your own emotional attachment to the G. theosophy has blinded you to seeing the human condition in any way outside of the Gurdjeiff parameters?
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
You are reading our motives entirely wrong here Nick, if you think that the scientific method promotes bigotry while your fatalistic, subjective, supremacy-driven approach promotes knowledge then you really need to give your head a shake.
To make matters worse, the discussion has moved into the area of consciousness which cannot be understood unconsciously as is being done now and is the only path open to bigotry.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative. From Ouspensky’s book: In Search of the Miraculous, wherein he recounts a conversation with Georges Gurdjieff about war.
“How can one get rid of false ideas?” I asked. “We depend on the forms of our perception. False ideas are produced by the forms of our perception.”
G. Shook his head.
“Again you speak of something different,” he said. “You speak of errors arising from perceptions but I am not speaking of these. Within the limits of given perceptions man can err more or err less. As I have said before, man’s chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that they can do, all people want to do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him - all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.
“Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels - all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.
“To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens - popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire - all this happens.”...................................................
Contemplating the question of Man’s conscious potential and if he is capable of more than being a part of a collective happening goes beyond perceptions and opinions (narratives) It also requires the intent to be free of ones own bigotry rather than defending it in pursuit of “truth.”
Becoming open to human conscious potential wherein one is more than a machine doesn’t require any belief but rather the willingness to “see” But what does it mean to “see” and how can one acquire the ability to do so?”
If there are those here interested in this question of relative conscious potential and also aware how much our own preconceptions deny it, PM me let me know. If there are enough, I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not dominant and perhaps we can explore
what relative consciousness means rather than argue over beliefs and indulge in condemnation in the attempt to justify our personal idolatry.
Ideas of a certain quality must be respected in a way that keeps them free of bigoted expression. Being that I believe relative consciousness includes such ideas, I wouldn’t want the freedom they offer degraded by bigotry but furthered through reason. If it can be had, it could make for a meaningful discussion.
Framing your perspectives in terms of ‘potentialities’ is a technique that allows you to always circumvent rational, science-based conclusions in favour of your own interpretation of the future. You keep talking “as if” some kind of future condition is already known and then you base all your perceptions of reality on that erroneous assumption. But that’s the method which all religions use to instill their dogma into the minds of the gullible, they claim to know what the future will be like and then they tell you what to do in order to make it come true. This is not intelligence Nick, but wishful thinking.
Ideas of a certain quality must be respected in a way that keeps them free of bigoted expression. Being that I believe relative consciousness includes such ideas, I wouldn’t want the freedom they offer degraded by bigotry but furthered through reason. If it can be had, it could make for a meaningful discussion.
One thing an atheist and anyone else can “do” is to take a stand against a philosophy whose outcome has shown itself to produce results that are particularly harmful, mentally unbalanced, deadly. By your definition, such a stand amounts to bigotry because you happen to be on the receiving end of the stand, assuming you’re at heart a theist. Everyone’s a bigot by this definition.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
Disagreement / disinterest / apathy do not = bigotry.
Bigotry is alive and well at Project Reason. By bigotry I mean as is defined on Wikipedia:
Bigotry is the state of mind of a “bigot”, a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, personal habits, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
Obviously bigotry is not an intellectual expression but rather an emotional denial protected by intellectual rationalization.
So, in your estimation Nick, those of us on PR whom you accuse of bigotry are emotionally disgusted by which of the perceived characteristics that the Wiki quote mentions? Are we emotionally disgusted/inflamed by religious/spiritual belief in general, and then we use our rationalization techniques to support this hatred? Yet all of us have family members and close friends who are religious and we remain emotionally attached to them in positive ways, so do we have some kind of selective bigotry?
I agree with the definition of bigotry that you have supplied, but I’m struggling to understand how those of us on this forum are examples of that kind of blind stupidity. I would however, add one thing to the definition above. Bigotry is not entirely an emotional reaction to some characteristics but it also comes with one overriding intellectual component that being the rational conclusion that the bigot is in some way superior to those whom he is denigrating and dehumanizing. The notion of “supremacy” MUST be the uppermost intellectual consideration of the one doing the discrimination. This attitude is essential and necessary to the emergence of the actual bigot. All of your postings and the whole of the G. theosophy are steeped in the notion of supremacy, but of course you cannot see that because on that front you are completely blind.
Another point that reinforces your bigotted position is that you sense (emotionally perhaps) that we speak from an assumption of our own supremacy. However, that is an entirely false assumption on your part and it comes from being emotionally perturbed by our intellectual grounding. You see Nick, the only thing “superior” about us is the methodology of our inquiry. This “supremacy” is not based on our characteristics, but rather is derived from entirely NON-EMOTIONAL sources that have nothing at all to do with our particular human characteristics. Your methodology is based on emotion and grounded in the assumption that one individual can gain a supreme perception of reality against the misperceptions of the vast majority of humanity. Your methodology is steeped in the ideals of supremacy and thus it itself meets the criteria of being a bigotted position.
My Question for Atheists thread as well as the current BM free thread are expressions of furthering bigotry.
Perhaps your own emotional attachment to the G. theosophy has blinded you to seeing the human condition in any way outside of the Gurdjeiff parameters?
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
You are reading our motives entirely wrong here Nick, if you think that the scientific method promotes bigotry while your fatalistic, subjective, supremacy-driven approach promotes knowledge then you really need to give your head a shake.
To make matters worse, the discussion has moved into the area of consciousness which cannot be understood unconsciously as is being done now and is the only path open to bigotry.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative. From Ouspensky’s book: In Search of the Miraculous, wherein he recounts a conversation with Georges Gurdjieff about war.
“How can one get rid of false ideas?” I asked. “We depend on the forms of our perception. False ideas are produced by the forms of our perception.”
G. Shook his head.
“Again you speak of something different,” he said. “You speak of errors arising from perceptions but I am not speaking of these. Within the limits of given perceptions man can err more or err less. As I have said before, man’s chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that they can do, all people want to do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him - all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.
“Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels - all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.
“To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens - popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire - all this happens.”...................................................
Contemplating the question of Man’s conscious potential and if he is capable of more than being a part of a collective happening goes beyond perceptions and opinions (narratives) It also requires the intent to be free of ones own bigotry rather than defending it in pursuit of “truth.”
Becoming open to human conscious potential wherein one is more than a machine doesn’t require any belief but rather the willingness to “see” But what does it mean to “see” and how can one acquire the ability to do so?”
If there are those here interested in this question of relative conscious potential and also aware how much our own preconceptions deny it, PM me let me know. If there are enough, I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not dominant and perhaps we can explore
what relative consciousness means rather than argue over beliefs and indulge in condemnation in the attempt to justify our personal idolatry.
Ideas of a certain quality must be respected in a way that keeps them free of bigoted expression. Being that I believe relative consciousness includes such ideas, I wouldn’t want the freedom they offer degraded by bigotry but furthered through reason. If it can be had, it could make for a meaningful discussion.
Framing your perspectives in terms of ‘potentialities’ is a technique that allows you to always circumvent rational, science-based conclusions in favour of your own interpretation of the future. You keep talking “as if” some kind of future condition is already known and then you base all your perceptions of reality on that erroneous assumption. But that’s the method which all religions use to instill their dogma into the minds of the gullible, they claim to know what the future will be like and then they tell you what to do in order to make it come true. This is not intelligence Nick, but wishful thinking.
CZ
I agree with the definition of bigotry that you have supplied, but I’m struggling to understand how those of us on this forum are examples of that kind of blind stupidity. I would however, add one thing to the definition above. Bigotry is not entirely an emotional reaction to some characteristics but it also comes with one overriding intellectual component that being the rational conclusion that the bigot is in some way superior to those whom he is denigrating and dehumanizing. The notion of “supremacy” MUST be the uppermost intellectual consideration of the one doing the discrimination. This attitude is essential and necessary to the emergence of the actual bigot. All of your postings and the whole of the G. theosophy are steeped in the notion of supremacy, but of course you cannot see that because on that front you are completely blind.
This is what interests me. The idea of a hierarchy is repulsive to you. The very fact that there may be qualities of consciousness that dwarf ours is somehow seen as unfair and degrading. You seem closed to the concept of hierarchy because of the harmful results of some artificially created hierarchies
Kasparov is a better chess player than I am. He is superior to me. I don’t see any reason for considering this insulting. He is higher on the hierarchy of chess strength than me.
It is not insulting for me to consider that there are those far superior to me as conscious human beings. The trouble is that we have a scale of chess strength but not of human consciousness. Without this scale, you consider contemplating it insulting. I call it essential since without such a scale. I believe humanity is doomed
It is frightening to me that this bigotry against expressions of secular religion has graduated to include relative consciousness making its collective contemplation impossible. It must be limited to “under the table” forms of discussion so as to appeal to the conscious sameness of political correctness.
It seems atheists here are open to hierarchy of reactions as with hippo, now, and flashlight, but are emotionally closed to being less of a reactive machine and more of a conscious being. Where the human machine is glorified, the objective conscious hierarchy of human “being” is emotionally denied
But if that is how recognition of the human condition and what is lost through the blind acceptance of it must start, then that is the way it is. it is obvious that nothing good can come from the bigotry of dominant emotional denial.
The trick is finding those not burdened with emotional denial and open to impartial reason as it pertains to the question of consciousness. It is not as diffucult in real life as it is on the Internet. Yet I cannot believe that it wouldn’t be possible on the Internet to discuss relative consciousness without the need for a personal God concept. It is just easier said than done.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
Disagreement / disinterest / apathy do not = bigotry.
Nick_A - 01 July 2012 07:31 AM
I’ll begin a thread on another site.
could have been done 625 posts ago, IMHO.
“If I had a dollar for every time…....” etc…
Disagreement / disinterest / apathy do not = bigotry.
Jefe, for some reason you seem proud of your bigotry which prevernts you from experiencing it for what it is. it just seems to pour out without your knowledge of it. From the OP
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
You are denying the light and contracting from it. I don’t see how this attitude can result in anything but bigotry.
Ideas of a certain quality must be respected in a way that keeps them free of bigoted expression. Being that I believe relative consciousness includes such ideas, I wouldn’t want the freedom they offer degraded by bigotry but furthered through reason. If it can be had, it could make for a meaningful discussion.
One thing an atheist and anyone else can “do” is to take a stand against a philosophy whose outcome has shown itself to produce results that are particularly harmful, mentally unbalanced, deadly. By your definition, such a stand amounts to bigotry because you happen to be on the receiving end of the stand, assuming you’re at heart a theist. Everyone’s a bigot by this definition.
Hasn’t science also produced results that are particularly harmful, mentally unbalanced, deadly?.
Does this mean we shoud abandon science? I don’t believe so. It seems it would be better to outgrow the abuse of science and the devolution of its intent as revealing truth to satisfying societal whims.
This is what interests me. The idea of a hierarchy is repulsive to you. The very fact that there may be qualities of consciousness that dwarf ours is somehow seen as unfair and degrading. You seem closed to the concept of hierarchy because of the harmful results of some artificially created hierarchies
Kasparov is a better chess player than I am. He is superior to me. I don’t see any reason for considering this insulting. He is higher on the hierarchy of chess strength than me.
It is not insulting for me to consider that there are those far superior to me as conscious human beings. The trouble is that we have a scale of chess strength but not of human consciousness. Without this scale, you consider contemplating it insulting. I call it essential since without such a scale. I believe humanity is doomed.
How do we suffer from emotional denial when you present nothing more than emotional rants which we acknowledge as such? So, you present a hierarchy of consciousness beyond ours that dwarfs it, yet the only support you can provide is our consciousness for comparison. Now, if Kasparov played against God in a chess match, you might have something. Sure, we have a scale of human consciousness, of which you seem to be operating at the lower end, yet you take insult. And then you wonder why no one pays you any heed. You’ve presented yourself as one TwistedPretzle trying to make it work.
I believe it doesn’t have to be the case. The attempt is being made to explain the man machine as Gurdjieff described to Ouspensky. The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
Disagreement / disinterest / apathy do not = bigotry.
Nick_A - 01 July 2012 07:31 AM
I’ll begin a thread on another site.
could have been done 625 posts ago, IMHO.
“If I had a dollar for every time…....” etc…
Disagreement / disinterest / apathy do not = bigotry.
Jefe, for some reason you seem proud of your bigotry which prevernts you from experiencing it for what it is. it just seems to pour out without your knowledge of it. From the OP
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
You are denying the light and contracting from it. I don’t see how this attitude can result in anything but bigotry.
I know Nick. But then anything that doesn’t equate to agreement with you and a desire to follow your lead into the world of G&O Mysticism must - by your position - be labelled as some sort of negative - whether it be emotional denial or bigotry.
I would say you’re projecting pride onto me, when it’s not really there. I also think you would be happier by demonstrating more follow-through by carrying out your promise to engage on another forum. (unless you’re grooving on the self-righteous dopamine rush here). Either way makes no difference to me. But I don’t see you changing your inherent position based on any input here, and I don’t see any further conversation with you - other than agreement - being anything more than a running series of similar projections.
But by all means, carry on with your projection and accusatory self-righteousness if it makes you happier. I have no desire to silence you or stop you from posting. I just recognize the ongoing lack of value for you, and engaging you, here.
This is what interests me. The idea of a hierarchy is repulsive to you. The very fact that there may be qualities of consciousness that dwarf ours is somehow seen as unfair and degrading. You seem closed to the concept of hierarchy because of the harmful results of some artificially created hierarchies
Kasparov is a better chess player than I am. He is superior to me. I don’t see any reason for considering this insulting. He is higher on the hierarchy of chess strength than me.
It is not insulting for me to consider that there are those far superior to me as conscious human beings. The trouble is that we have a scale of chess strength but not of human consciousness. Without this scale, you consider contemplating it insulting. I call it essential since without such a scale. I believe humanity is doomed.
How do we suffer from emotional denial when you present nothing more than emotional rants which we acknowledge as such? So, you present a hierarchy of consciousness beyond ours that dwarfs it, yet the only support you can provide is our consciousness for comparison. Now, if Kasparov played against God in a chess match, you might have something. Sure, we have a scale of human consciousness, of which you seem to be operating at the lower end, yet you take insult. And then you wonder why no one pays you any heed. You’ve presented yourself as one TwistedPretzle trying to make it work.
I am not insulted. it would be nice to find intelligent atheists who haven’t adopted a position of emotional denial leading to bigotry. Albert Camus was a sensible atheist IMO.
I shall not, as far as I am concerned, try to pass myself off as a Christian in your presence. I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But I do not share your hope, and I continue to struggle against this universe in which children suffer and die. —Albert Camus, addressing Dominican priests in 1948, quoted by himself in The Unbeliever and Christians, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, p. 70, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
He wasn’t cursing out Christians in an emotional rant but rather acknowledging a commonality of motivation. Such people are capable of discussion beyond expressions of bigotry including what it means to “struggle.”
I am not insulted. it would be nice to find intelligent atheists who haven’t adopted a position of emotional denial leading to bigotry. Albert Camus was a sensible atheist IMO.
Of course you are. You’re an awfully persistent one-note tune who keeps coming back for more like an energizer bunny. If you keep banging your head against this brick wall in frustration, go to Albert Camus’ or the like forum so you can be happy with your one-way conversation. Or are you just getting a brain-buzz off of slinging indiscriminate, erroneous and irrational accusations around like TheTwistedSister. What I think I’m imparting at this point is not my particular brand of Atheism, it’s common courtesy.
I am not insulted. it would be nice to find intelligent atheists who haven’t adopted a position of emotional denial leading to bigotry. Albert Camus was a sensible atheist IMO.
Of course you are. You’re an awfully persistent one-note tune who keeps coming back for more like an energizer bunny. If you keep banging your head against this brick wall in frustration, go to Albert Camus’ or the like forum so you can be happy with your one-way conversation. Or are you just getting a brain-buzz off of slinging indiscriminate, erroneous and irrational accusations around like TheTwistedSister. What I think I’m imparting at this point is not my particular brand of Atheism, it’s common courtesy.
There is nothing to be insulted about. I am concerned about the human condition in the world that leads to everything being as it is. Its chief characteristic admitted to by all the great traditions is a lack of consciousness expressed in many ways such as “sleep” and maya for example. I don’t see any reason why atheism must deny it since it has nothing to do with a personal god concept. Yet it is evident by reactions here that atheism attracts this emotional denial of what is beyond our literal understanding.
Take the two birds in Hinduism as an example. They describe levels of consciousness. Atheism cannot intellectually deny what it cannot understahnd literally but it seems that they can emotionally deny it leading to bigotry against its expression.
I believe it would be beneficial somewhere for atheists to contribute to the question of the human condition as it relates to a conscious perspective which by definition must include concepts of above or below. otherwise consciousness is just a means for explaining reactions. The harsh reality is that emotional denial prevents it. This doesn’t insult me but just leaves the question open as to why emotional denial and its associated bigotry becomes so dominant.
A discussion will take place somewhere on the Internet and hopefully it can clarify the attractions of the emotional denial of a conscious perspective beyond our normal animalistic reactions justified by egoistic narratives.
Didn’t we just figure out that lavishing the most stupidified posts with attention probably isn’t the best way to go?
Yes it is the way to go for all professing any form of bigotry. If that is ones goal, then it is the way to go. However, for all seeking knowledge as opposed to self justified opinion, it just gets in the way.
The BM thread was created by moving posts from a thread begun by the one atheist’s bigotry seeks to eliminate.
This is as if Faux News were covering the events of PR. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate BM’s?
The emotional denial of atheists here expressing itself as bigotry against some sort of narrative concerning religion prevents being open to the question if a human being can be more than a living machine with a narrative.
No… we are saying no we cannot be. No just means no. We do that with our brains and it will take more than an emotional appeal to our cardiac system to convince us otherwise. You make no attempt to live up to the argument you claim to be making.
I’ll begin a thread on another site if I can find one where bigotry is not… etc.
That is a really good idea. Be sure to wear plenty of that Bigotry-brand Sunscreen. It seems effective.
Actually, why not just let Nick start a thread here where he has final decision as to who is allowed to participate. That could get interesting pretty quickly. My own suspicion is that he would end up banning everybody.
