Since the "password protected" route didn't function quite as I thought it would, I suppose I'm going to go back to the "add readers" method that I tried once before. While I'm not keen on limiting readers, I see no other option at this point.
At this point
With blogging comes attention, both good and bad. If we happen to be in the public eye, say, from other things we do in life besides just surf the internet..e.g...artist, musician, actor, etc., we often times receive praise and attention in addition to what we do as bloggers, sometimes even in light of it.
While the people in this sort of situation can enjoy the praise and attention from legitimate, well-meaning fans, there are very rare instances when things go beyond a fan just being a little over zealous. Being enthusiastic about one's favorite writer, musician, athlete, actor, etc., is natural, and that is one thing. Exhibiting clingy, tenacious behavior and/or public ambivalence toward that person is quite another thing.
If we factor into all of this that people's most deeply-held, core beliefs are at stake, sometimes even people's careers, it's easy to see how people's livelihoods are hanging in the balance, and subsequently, we see how people might become indignant and/or put-off when/if they encounter people who are skeptical of what they hold to be true. As bloggers, we know that this is the case when we discuss religion and spirituality. But as bloggers, we also know that if we venture out from our own blogs onto someone else's blog, we are responsible for what we may find, whether it changes us, or not. IOW, "risk" comes with the turf when we bounce around the WWW checking out different perspectives.
In conjunction with being a bass player/writer, I consider myself a "reporter", of sorts. I report what I believe to most accurately align with reality, just as other people do. After many years of doing so, I am of the position that there just isn't a nice way to report to someone that they are wrong about their core-beliefs. I know that people will disagree with this and tell me things like, "You can attract more flies with honey!", etc. While that may very well be true, the person telling me this is simply doing what I'm doing, but they're being clever about it. That's it. The potential result is that the foundation of the person with whom we are conversing could very well crumble, albeit, no one can induce a "light-bulb moment" in someone; something must take place from within.
In any case, if we can agree that it's perfectly acceptable for someone's spiritual foundation to crumble into the sea as a direct result of our discussing things with our blog guests, then that, I contend, is the common denominator in all of this, in which case, the means by which it happens is immaterial.
If you'd like to remain reader of BL, please submit your email addy, along with your blog(or where I'd know you from), here:
ice_dawg514@hotmail.com
Thx.
[EDIT] Update: For the time being I've altered my blog viewer settings back to public. Using the "add readers" email method is too limiting, and really, I shouldn't let one incident silence my voice. I recall the day where I could have used the very perspectives I share today.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Supernaturalist Translator
- "God wants [X]!" = I want [X]!
- "God doesn't want [X]!" = I don't want [X]!
- "I'll be praying for you!" = I'll keep my fingers crossed!
- "My soul [.....]" = My personality [.....]
- "God works in mysterious ways!" = I know it doesn't make sense, but I believe it anyway!
- "God has a better plan for him/her!" = Death is bad. There must be a good reason that he/she died!
- "They're in a better place!" = I know your loved one was ripped away from you, but this is really all I got. 'Sorry!
- "I know in my heart!" = I don't know, but I'm going to pretend that I do!
- "God bless America!" = North America rules, I'm a patriot, and everyone else can buzz off!
- "Spirit" = some thingamabob that I can't define or explain, except in terms of the negative
- "Energy can't be destroyed!" = Co opting from science makes me sound more legit'!
- "Atheism takes faith, too"! = If evidence for my beliefs is flimsy, so is yours! Neener, neener!
- "Just believe!" = If you hear anything that opposes your beliefs, just stick your fingers in your ears like I do!
- "Praise the Lord!" = Join me in my delusions!
- "God is Love!" = Love is love!
- "Turn back before it's too late!" = I know I can't prove my beliefs, so I'm going to scare you into believing!
- "Militant Atheist" = any person who claims to not believe in God
- "You worship science!" = Everybody worships something, so if not God, then science!
- "You just want to argue!" = I keep giving you my thoughts. How dare you keep responding and not agree!
- "You seem satisfied with your position" = You're as confident as I am, maybe even more so, and I just don't like that!
- "God is my co-pilot!" = I need my life micro-managed at all times. Being soley responsible for my own life is just too scary!
Sunday, July 13, 2014
The Greater Shock
What is it that we are trying to discover? I think most of us would answer that we are trying to discover things like peace, contentment, happiness, etc. Having enough to survive..e.g...food and shelter, is one thing, and that certainly brings a certain sense of contentment. But beyond that? What else...and why?
My old beliefs promised me that a permanent sense of happiness could be had......well, under the right conditions, of course. But think about that for a minute: A perpetual existence where there's never a conflict, never a set-back, never a thing over which to have anxiety, never any loss, whatsoever? Never one single problem, and thus, nothing to solve........ever?
Borrrrring.
If we put feelings and opinions aside, by nature, we are pattern seekers and problem solvers. That's a fact. Remove problems in their various forms, and I contend that we'd become automatons with that part of our nature completely missing. More damaging than that considering some people's worldview, problems are necessary for free agency to exist among us humans. Without any contending negative thoughts and/or without any negative circumstances, we'd be the equivalent of robots that were programmed to be content.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I would contend that seeking to impose a permanent sense of happiness on one's self is in-flippin'-sane, and furthermore, the sort of "Utopia" that religion offers, and as well, that of what other spheres of thought centered around seeking "fulfillment" and "Oneness" offer, we would ultimately be in a living "hell" if ever achieved.
'Good thing no human being ever achieves it. Can you imagine never being able to turn "off" your thoughts? Of course, as it stands, we do this for several hours every night because our survival as physical beings who burn energy(physical energy, that is) depends on it. To exist atemporally as non-corporeal beings, we would not require "rest"(sleep) because we wouldn't burn any energy. Good grief, can you imagine never sleeping? No naps?!?!? Such an existence would be one long run-on thought, never deviating from a perpetual state of "bliss". Never needing to contemplate the good and bad ramifications of any "choice" would make "choosing" obsolete. IOW, arrivederci "free will", and just one more reason why my former belief in "Heaven" was misguided, at the very best.
Moving away from a "hereafter" and focusing on here and now, it's really the same misguided sphere of thought when we examine the ceaseless optimism being peddled from certain communities and their philosophical standpoints. I can see bits of truth in wanting to have a positive outlook, as in, at least knowing the pluses and minuses of a situation or future event. But there is now compelling evidence that ruminating on, or better, imagining a positive outcome can actually lessen your chances of achieving that outcome. One of the reasons is because focusing too much on a positive outcome dulls the need to achieve that outcome in the first place.
It makes sense: If I want something from someone while putting it out of my mind, but then at a later time I get what was sought from that person, it can be a quite shocking surprise, in contrast to it being a much greater shock to not get it after ruminating on it 24/7 for months or years.
"The Secret" got it wrong, I'm afraid. There is no evidence that the "Universe" is conscious and/or that it is aware of our thoughts, much less that it will return that on which we intently focus, be it positive, or negative. Was the child who felt uncomfortable around his or her new step-father asking for it on the day that his or her step-father decided to molest them? Did the child do something horrible in a past life and this his or her payment, a cosmic "justice" meted out by a conscious "Universe"? Bull'.
As reasonable adults living in the 21st century, we must answer "no" to these questions. The aforementioned concept of "divine justice", while it might make us feel better to know that people who do bad things are "punished", it is, yes, legendary thinking that has carried over from days gone past and it has no basis in reality.
None of this is to say that there's necessarily anything wrong with submerging ourselves in "fantasy" at times, but it should be done with caution. There's times when lines can be crossed. Reality is bound to become dangerous at some point if one lives in a fantasy world 24/7. Ethical lines can also be crossed in instances where people are given false hope when they are desperate and/or at their most vulnerable. Yes, some people can find comfort in false hope(provided of course they don't know it's false). But this is nothing more than the type of "faith" that religion offers. The self-help book "The Secret" even uses scripture, alluding to the idea that people of "faith" will get what they ask for in prayer. Not only is that type of "faith" an intellectual cop-out, it can prove deadly.
My old beliefs promised me that a permanent sense of happiness could be had......well, under the right conditions, of course. But think about that for a minute: A perpetual existence where there's never a conflict, never a set-back, never a thing over which to have anxiety, never any loss, whatsoever? Never one single problem, and thus, nothing to solve........ever?
Borrrrring.
If we put feelings and opinions aside, by nature, we are pattern seekers and problem solvers. That's a fact. Remove problems in their various forms, and I contend that we'd become automatons with that part of our nature completely missing. More damaging than that considering some people's worldview, problems are necessary for free agency to exist among us humans. Without any contending negative thoughts and/or without any negative circumstances, we'd be the equivalent of robots that were programmed to be content.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I would contend that seeking to impose a permanent sense of happiness on one's self is in-flippin'-sane, and furthermore, the sort of "Utopia" that religion offers, and as well, that of what other spheres of thought centered around seeking "fulfillment" and "Oneness" offer, we would ultimately be in a living "hell" if ever achieved.
'Good thing no human being ever achieves it. Can you imagine never being able to turn "off" your thoughts? Of course, as it stands, we do this for several hours every night because our survival as physical beings who burn energy(physical energy, that is) depends on it. To exist atemporally as non-corporeal beings, we would not require "rest"(sleep) because we wouldn't burn any energy. Good grief, can you imagine never sleeping? No naps?!?!? Such an existence would be one long run-on thought, never deviating from a perpetual state of "bliss". Never needing to contemplate the good and bad ramifications of any "choice" would make "choosing" obsolete. IOW, arrivederci "free will", and just one more reason why my former belief in "Heaven" was misguided, at the very best.
Moving away from a "hereafter" and focusing on here and now, it's really the same misguided sphere of thought when we examine the ceaseless optimism being peddled from certain communities and their philosophical standpoints. I can see bits of truth in wanting to have a positive outlook, as in, at least knowing the pluses and minuses of a situation or future event. But there is now compelling evidence that ruminating on, or better, imagining a positive outcome can actually lessen your chances of achieving that outcome. One of the reasons is because focusing too much on a positive outcome dulls the need to achieve that outcome in the first place.
It makes sense: If I want something from someone while putting it out of my mind, but then at a later time I get what was sought from that person, it can be a quite shocking surprise, in contrast to it being a much greater shock to not get it after ruminating on it 24/7 for months or years.
"The Secret" got it wrong, I'm afraid. There is no evidence that the "Universe" is conscious and/or that it is aware of our thoughts, much less that it will return that on which we intently focus, be it positive, or negative. Was the child who felt uncomfortable around his or her new step-father asking for it on the day that his or her step-father decided to molest them? Did the child do something horrible in a past life and this his or her payment, a cosmic "justice" meted out by a conscious "Universe"? Bull'.
As reasonable adults living in the 21st century, we must answer "no" to these questions. The aforementioned concept of "divine justice", while it might make us feel better to know that people who do bad things are "punished", it is, yes, legendary thinking that has carried over from days gone past and it has no basis in reality.
None of this is to say that there's necessarily anything wrong with submerging ourselves in "fantasy" at times, but it should be done with caution. There's times when lines can be crossed. Reality is bound to become dangerous at some point if one lives in a fantasy world 24/7. Ethical lines can also be crossed in instances where people are given false hope when they are desperate and/or at their most vulnerable. Yes, some people can find comfort in false hope(provided of course they don't know it's false). But this is nothing more than the type of "faith" that religion offers. The self-help book "The Secret" even uses scripture, alluding to the idea that people of "faith" will get what they ask for in prayer. Not only is that type of "faith" an intellectual cop-out, it can prove deadly.
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
I'm a Pepper, He's a Pepper, We're a Pepper, Be a Pepper, Wouldn't you like to Be a Pepper, too?
Okay, jingles aside....what about a Skeptic? Wouldn't you like to be a Skeptic, too????
Case in point: We're all skeptical of someone else's claims/someone else's beliefs. The Mormon is skeptical of the Catholic's claims, the Catholic is skeptical of the Muslim's claims, the Atheist is skeptical of the claims of all three of the above, plus, any other claims held on the same sorts of "evidence".
Nearly always, this "evidence" falls into these three categories:
1. Divine revelation(revealed knowledge, usually via "holy writ"..e.g..the Bible, the Qu'ran)
2. Personal testimony(the personal experiences of the claimant, especially, the resultant "feelings")
3. The claimant's sincere, fervent belief that they are right(especially that they cannot be mistaken about 2)
Back to skepticism, namely, that of any belief held on the above-mentioned "evidence". If the Theist is going to come along and label me a "skeptic", then I guess they're going to have not mind looking misinformed at the very best. Not that it isn't perfectly within someone's right to look misinformed, mind you, but the person granting me full ownership of the sphere of thought known as "skepticism" really shouldn't wonder why we Atheists/rationalists find it extremely difficult to take them seriously. I mean, if my interlocutor cannot grasp the most basic of things - and this issue of what it means to be a "skeptic" is one of those things - then I essentially have two choices, which are walking away, or banging my head on a desk.
You cannot induce a "light bulb" moment in someone. You just can't. Many Atheist bloggers learn this the hard way, especially those Atheists who are former believers.
Suffice it to say that consistency is very important. As for science, it is science's job to be consistently skeptical. Why? Because being skeptical weeds out error. If we, ourselves, don't apply skepticism comprehensively, across the board, etc., then we are leaving ourselves wide open to being duped, whether that be by the next guy's religion, the newest fad "money-maker" from the New Age camp, or the vacuum cleaner salesman at our front door.
And then of course, we can be duped by our own desires, emotions, and feelings, as well. If I, as a former believer, was duped by my feelings in the past, then I owe it to myself to make sure that I don't allow my feelings to dupe me again, especially considering that I wasted so many years being self-deceived, years that I'll never get back. 'Seems like that goes without saying, but for some incredibly irritating reason, some people don't "get" this.
When I catch myself wasting time I become irked and agitated. Guilty. Time is more precious to me now that I know it's limited. And please note that when I say "I know", it's in the colloquial, practical sense of the word...e.g..."I know gremlins don't hide my car keys". Now, do I have life's greatest questions all figured out? Lol! Good grief, no....of course I don't! Notwithstanding, if you were to ask me this....
"Hey, Boomslang, do you have explanations for the things which your former Theistic beliefs at one time supplied?
...you will get a resounding, unapologetic "YES".
E.g...
"sin"- imperfection inherent in being human
"heaven" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to overcome the observable fact that he dies just like every other living thing
"hell" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to control the masses
"afterlife" - imaginary state of existence for those who cannot fathom nonexistence
"soul" - legendary hokus pokus for "personality"
"God" - self-projection/argument from ignorance
"devil" - deflecting responsibility/scare tactic
"evil" - sh*t happens. Sometimes we're responsible, other times we're not
"Thou shalt not kill" - duh?
That more or less covers it. I don't need to know for 100% certain if some other "God" besides the Christian one exists, or not, nor do I need to have an answer to that question any time before I expire. I also don't need to have an answer for whatever happens after my brain dies, albeit, the available evidence points to "nothing"---nothing happens. Furthermore, I know enough about myself to know that I'd never be able to "R.I.P." knowing that my loved ones are sad that I'm gone and/or that they're suffering in some way. But that's just me.
So, aside from the total lack of scientific evidence that I will exist in or on "clouds" and that I will have the wherewithal to take time out of my busy, perpetual existence to chat with the living, this whole notion of a "spirit world" that exists in a "metaphysical" realm - literally, beyond physical - is, in and of itself, also nonsensical and actually quite preposterous.
This brings me to back to applying skepticism evenly and comprehensively. Most if not all Theists are guilty of applying skepticism selectively, but yet, this is to be expected to a degree since we know that Theists compartmentalize their beliefs. But believe it or not there are a select few who are capable of ditching one set of worn-out, no longer applicable beliefs by applying a good dose of skepticism, while retaining equally unsubstantiated beliefs by omitting that very same skepticism. In these rare instances, I suppose that in some ways it makes sense if these people want to lurk in the shadows and not venture far out their respective internet microcosms. The problem is determining if someone is sincerely questioning, or merely feigning it to keep other possible reasons undisclosed. We have to be cautious.
Since time immemorial, people have believed all sorts of unfounded, ridiculous things. But it should be noted that not all of these ideas are rooted in the supernatural. For instance, people of color(sadly, even today referred to as "niggers") were once prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains. In this day and age we hopefully agree that such a prohibition is (and was) just plain ridiculous. But yet, at some point, someone evidently ridiculed that ridiculous notion, got firm in their stance, gave a crap less about calling out people's deeply held convictions, and things eventually changed.......for the better.
Leaving a few thoughts...
If one is skeptical of my being "a skeptic", then they are, by definition, a skeptic, too.
If one is unwilling to tolerate my intolerance of certain beliefs, then by definition, they, themselves, are exuding intolerance.
Case in point: We're all skeptical of someone else's claims/someone else's beliefs. The Mormon is skeptical of the Catholic's claims, the Catholic is skeptical of the Muslim's claims, the Atheist is skeptical of the claims of all three of the above, plus, any other claims held on the same sorts of "evidence".
Nearly always, this "evidence" falls into these three categories:
1. Divine revelation(revealed knowledge, usually via "holy writ"..e.g..the Bible, the Qu'ran)
2. Personal testimony(the personal experiences of the claimant, especially, the resultant "feelings")
3. The claimant's sincere, fervent belief that they are right(especially that they cannot be mistaken about 2)
Back to skepticism, namely, that of any belief held on the above-mentioned "evidence". If the Theist is going to come along and label me a "skeptic", then I guess they're going to have not mind looking misinformed at the very best. Not that it isn't perfectly within someone's right to look misinformed, mind you, but the person granting me full ownership of the sphere of thought known as "skepticism" really shouldn't wonder why we Atheists/rationalists find it extremely difficult to take them seriously. I mean, if my interlocutor cannot grasp the most basic of things - and this issue of what it means to be a "skeptic" is one of those things - then I essentially have two choices, which are walking away, or banging my head on a desk.
You cannot induce a "light bulb" moment in someone. You just can't. Many Atheist bloggers learn this the hard way, especially those Atheists who are former believers.
Suffice it to say that consistency is very important. As for science, it is science's job to be consistently skeptical. Why? Because being skeptical weeds out error. If we, ourselves, don't apply skepticism comprehensively, across the board, etc., then we are leaving ourselves wide open to being duped, whether that be by the next guy's religion, the newest fad "money-maker" from the New Age camp, or the vacuum cleaner salesman at our front door.
And then of course, we can be duped by our own desires, emotions, and feelings, as well. If I, as a former believer, was duped by my feelings in the past, then I owe it to myself to make sure that I don't allow my feelings to dupe me again, especially considering that I wasted so many years being self-deceived, years that I'll never get back. 'Seems like that goes without saying, but for some incredibly irritating reason, some people don't "get" this.
When I catch myself wasting time I become irked and agitated. Guilty. Time is more precious to me now that I know it's limited. And please note that when I say "I know", it's in the colloquial, practical sense of the word...e.g..."I know gremlins don't hide my car keys". Now, do I have life's greatest questions all figured out? Lol! Good grief, no....of course I don't! Notwithstanding, if you were to ask me this....
"Hey, Boomslang, do you have explanations for the things which your former Theistic beliefs at one time supplied?
...you will get a resounding, unapologetic "YES".
E.g...
"sin"- imperfection inherent in being human
"heaven" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to overcome the observable fact that he dies just like every other living thing
"hell" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to control the masses
"afterlife" - imaginary state of existence for those who cannot fathom nonexistence
"soul" - legendary hokus pokus for "personality"
"God" - self-projection/argument from ignorance
"devil" - deflecting responsibility/scare tactic
"evil" - sh*t happens. Sometimes we're responsible, other times we're not
"Thou shalt not kill" - duh?
That more or less covers it. I don't need to know for 100% certain if some other "God" besides the Christian one exists, or not, nor do I need to have an answer to that question any time before I expire. I also don't need to have an answer for whatever happens after my brain dies, albeit, the available evidence points to "nothing"---nothing happens. Furthermore, I know enough about myself to know that I'd never be able to "R.I.P." knowing that my loved ones are sad that I'm gone and/or that they're suffering in some way. But that's just me.
So, aside from the total lack of scientific evidence that I will exist in or on "clouds" and that I will have the wherewithal to take time out of my busy, perpetual existence to chat with the living, this whole notion of a "spirit world" that exists in a "metaphysical" realm - literally, beyond physical - is, in and of itself, also nonsensical and actually quite preposterous.
This brings me to back to applying skepticism evenly and comprehensively. Most if not all Theists are guilty of applying skepticism selectively, but yet, this is to be expected to a degree since we know that Theists compartmentalize their beliefs. But believe it or not there are a select few who are capable of ditching one set of worn-out, no longer applicable beliefs by applying a good dose of skepticism, while retaining equally unsubstantiated beliefs by omitting that very same skepticism. In these rare instances, I suppose that in some ways it makes sense if these people want to lurk in the shadows and not venture far out their respective internet microcosms. The problem is determining if someone is sincerely questioning, or merely feigning it to keep other possible reasons undisclosed. We have to be cautious.
Since time immemorial, people have believed all sorts of unfounded, ridiculous things. But it should be noted that not all of these ideas are rooted in the supernatural. For instance, people of color(sadly, even today referred to as "niggers") were once prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains. In this day and age we hopefully agree that such a prohibition is (and was) just plain ridiculous. But yet, at some point, someone evidently ridiculed that ridiculous notion, got firm in their stance, gave a crap less about calling out people's deeply held convictions, and things eventually changed.......for the better.
Leaving a few thoughts...
If one is skeptical of my being "a skeptic", then they are, by definition, a skeptic, too.
If one is unwilling to tolerate my intolerance of certain beliefs, then by definition, they, themselves, are exuding intolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)