I found this on My Space of all places and I thought that I would share it here :


If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let’s apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion.

Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. According to a recent poll, 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on.

So here is question 1: Why won’t God heal amputees?

It’s a simple question, isn’t it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God.

If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it’s an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles.

How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God’s behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say, "well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable.

Here is another example. As a Christian, you believe that God cares about you and answers your prayers.

So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn’t make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?

To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God. Like, "God wants these children to suffer and die for some divine, mysterious reason." Then you push it out of your mind because it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.

Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.

- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

And so on… There are lots of verses like these.

It doesn’t make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters? Just because you work on the wrong day of the week, you must die? That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.

Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? You have a college degree, so you know what I’m talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.

But there is a problem. As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.

- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.

- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

- Jonah did not live inside a fish’s stomach for three days like the Bible says.

- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it? So you create some type of very strange excuse to try to explain why the Bible contains total nonsense.

Question 5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:

- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.

- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.

- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.

- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .

And so on…

And why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? You have to come up with some kind of weird rationalization to explain it.

Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God’s behalf to rationalize it.

Question 7: Why didn’t any of Jesus’ miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It’s very strange, isn’t it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.

Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

Question 9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn’t it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

And finally, Question 10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.

So, we have looked at 10 fascinating questions. In order to believe in God, you have had to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses. If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you uncomfortable. If you think about it honestly, using the critical thinking skills that you learned in college, you have to admit that your answers to these questions make no sense at all.

Now, let me show you something remarkable. What if you instead assume that God is imaginary? A funny thing happens: the answers to every one of these questions make complete sense. Just look at all ten questions as an intelligent person:

1) Why won’t God heal amputees? Because God is imaginary, and he doesn’t answer any prayers. Every "answered prayer" is actually a coincidence. All scientific evidence supports this conclusion.

2) Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because God is imaginary, and he is therefore unable to answer their prayers.

3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because God is imaginary, and the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men rather than any sort of loving being.

4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Ditto. Primitive men wrote the bible, not an all-knowing being.

5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Ditto.

6) Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God is imaginary and bad things happen at the same statistical rates to everyone.

7) Why didn’t any of Jesus’ miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? Because God is imaginary, and Jesus’ miracles are myths.

8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Because God is imaginary.

9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Because God is imaginary, and this bizarre ritual came from a pagan religion.

10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because God is imaginary.

Do you see what has happened here? When we assume that God exists, the answers to these ten questions make absolutely no sense. But if we assume that God is imaginary, our world makes complete sense.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Actually, it’s more than interesting – it is incredibly important.

Our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.

This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary.

When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion: the "god" that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary. You have to willfully discard rationality, and accept hundreds of bizarre rationalizations to believe in your "god."

Now, let me ask you one last question: Why should you care? What difference does it make if people want to believe in a "god", even if he is imaginary?

It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who talk to imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who believe in imaginary superstitions like prayer are delusional.

It’s that simple, and that obvious. Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional. The belief in any "god" is complete nonsense.

You are a smart person. It is time for you to use your intelligence to free yourself from these delusions. It is time for you to begin thinking like a rational human being, rather than clinging to imaginary friends and childhood fantasies.







Copied from :http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=120045661&blogID=371288462

Seems like about five or six years ago, Wiccan was the designer religion of choice for teenagers. Now, not so much. Did it peak, then trend out?

It's atheism now. Who the fuck knows what they'll botch next.

* * * * *

Being indifferent to the beliefs of others would put a stop to many problems.

All this does is cause more. Taking from others that same freedom you want to preserve.

I don't believe I'll opt for "indifference" while religion is still trying to saturate politics and human rights issues.

Once that's been cut out, I'll probably be the most indifferent person on this planet, as I give not one fuck what people do in their own homes and on their personal time.

I don't believe I'll opt for "indifference" while religion is still trying to saturate politics and human rights issues.

And how can I blame you.

Of course, many of those religious folk will choose not to be indifferent either, not with all these heathens/undesirables running around in defiance of Gods will. Or whatever.

I understand you would rather have a society where we would leave our beliefs at the door. So would I.

The thing is, most of the people who I share this society with don't agree with that. There nothing I alone can do to change their minds, and hell, what right do I have to try to change them? Would attempting to do so not make me just as tyrannical as they are?

So fuck it. Let the slaves believe they are actually under real control. Let the oppressors believe they actually have real power. I already recognize my own freedom. Why make myself miserable while trying to change the world, while trying to control things I have no control over?


I would love to live in that ideal society AF. But, it is idealism. Based on the last ten thousand years of human history, I have no hope things will change anytime soon. I think it is better to accept things the way they are, then to make myself miserable trying to change the world to suit my desires. I have control over myself, I have the power to be indifferent, content, even happy.

Maybe, one day, others will realize that too ... I'm certainly not the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoics). Maybe, one day, everyone will realize it, and our ideal society will come into light. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I would love to live in that ideal society AF. But, it is idealism. Based on the last ten thousand years of human history, I have no hope things will change anytime soon.

In regards to religious delusions affecting the secular, things HAVE CHANGED drastically in the past 400 years or so, and even more so these past 50.

Knowledge has been a great enemy of the major religion here in America. Now that knowledge, in the beginnings of this country, was only reserved for those few (comparitively) who did not attend a one room schoolhouse (they mostly taught with the bible).

With the advent of the internet human knowledge is easier for most everyone to access. Finding the truth, and finding answers has never been easier for human beings.

Where knowledge once was a trickle it is now a damn burst.

The truth will set you free.

In regards to religious delusions affecting the secular, things HAVE CHANGED drastically in the past 400 years or so, and even more so these past 50.

Are we to believe 400 years ago, change did not ever occur? Of course things change, everything changes, nature is change.

Who is to say this change is right? Or good? Of course it will seem that way to some, but not to others. I am sure you are familiar with tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).

Who can say this change or any change is permanent? Is it a change towards being indifferent to the beliefs of others? Because if not, then it appears to be the same situation as before.

Where knowledge once was a trickle it is now a damn burst.

Before the collapse of the Roman Empire, people knew to bathe. After, they forgot.

Before Tasmania was separated from Australia, the Tasmanians knew how to hunt, sew, make fire, etc. After, they forgot.

The truth will set you free.

What truth? Free you from what bondage?

So fuck it.

I'm sorry, but "fuck it" just isn't in my vocabulary. Unless it applies to video games or broken guitar strings or losing at Scrabble.

Let the slaves believe they are actually under real control. Let the oppressors believe they actually have real power. I already recognize my own freedom. Why make myself miserable while trying to change the world, while trying to control things I have no control over?

I'm not miserable, far from it. In fact, trying to change the world is what gives me enthusiasm, vigor and the dogged determination to keep on keepin' on. And I do feel that politically, there is something to have control over, as a voter. I feel like socially, there are things I have control over, as a contributing citizen. To just sit back and think: "I have no control over the state of my planet" ... man alive, I'd might as well just hang up my hat, move to the red sea and become a lone fisherwoman. I like to believe that one person can make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I also believe that just throwing in the towel and saying "fuck it" is a very defeatist attitude.

I would love to live in that ideal society AF. But, it is idealism. Based on the last ten thousand years of human history, I have no hope things will change anytime soon.

I'm sure Harriet Tubman and the rest of the slaves felt that way at some point, too. But look what kind of change they effected during their short lives! Had they taken on a defeatist attitude, I doubt they'd have made such an impact on history.

Call me crazy, but I'll remain an optimist until the last breath bellows outta my lungs. It's what feels right, to me.

I'm not miserable, far from it.

Great.

In fact, trying to change the world is what gives me enthusiasm, vigor and the dogged determination to keep on keepin' on. And I do feel that politically, there is something to have control over, as a voter. I feel like socially, there are things I have control over, as a contributing citizen. To just sit back and think: "I have no control over the state of my planet" ... man alive, I'd might as well just hang up my hat, move to the red sea and become a lone fisherwoman.

Sure, you contribute to the world. You contribute to society. You contribute to the total number of votes. But individually? I mean, if you alone wanted everyone else to wear purple socks, could you alone make that change? All on your own?

You could certainly wear them yourself. And then the world would have one more purple sock wearing person.

If you can desire a change you will never cause and still be content, then so be it. Thats great.

I like to believe that one person can make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I also believe that just throwing in the towel and saying "fuck it" is a very defeatist attitude.

I believe it is certainly possible for one person to ... we all contribute something to society everyday.

But is it probable that one person will change this society into one of people indifferent to the beliefs of others, where those beliefs are left at the door during political/economic/social matters? Based on all I know about human history, I would say not.

Maybe saying "fuck it" is a very defeatist attitude ... but without desire, where is the struggle?

By saying "fuck it", I'll never change a thing ... but why shouldn't I be happy anyways?

I'm sure Harriet Tubman and the rest of the slaves felt that way at some point, too. But look what kind of change they effected during their short lives! Had they taken on a defeatist attitude, I doubt they'd have made such an impact on history.

I doubt they would have either. But even if they had not, they could still have been content. They could still have been happy. Maybe this group of slaves was able to change the world, but think of the countless other slaves throughout history who desired and attempted to achieve that same freedom, but failed miserably. And maybe in two hundred years, slavery will be back.

I'm not saying give up, AngryFemme. I'm not saying lay down and let the Nazi's roll over us. Because maybe you'll be able to stop 'em.

But what I am saying is that if you cannot stop them, if you cannot change the things affecting your life, you do not need to suffer because of them. Even if I am a crippled slave, I have the freedom to be happy.

Call me crazy, but I'll remain an optimist until the last breath bellows outta my lungs. It's what feels right, to me.

If that makes you happy, great.

I believe it is better to accept things how they are and to be happy, then it is to expect them to get better (optimistic) or to expect them to get worse (pessimistic ).

Sure, you contribute to the world. You contribute to society. You contribute to the total number of votes. But individually? I mean, if you alone wanted everyone else to wear purple socks, could you alone make that change? All on your own?

Poor analogy, for several reasons. The main point: A purple sock-wearing society wouldn't effect me, or anyone else - as the color of our socks doesn't have wide-reaching political and social implications; it's trivial and nonsensical. Fringe point: I'm not alone; there is a big chunk of humanity who share my sentiments and entire movements that support it.

If you can desire a change you will never cause and still be content, then so be it. Thats great.

Never say never, Obbe. All possibilities exist. Though if I stewed in passivity and incorporated that defeatist attitude while lying down, I'm sure it would be the cause of much malcontent on a personal level. I just ... don't.

But is it probable that one person will change this society into one of people indifferent to the beliefs of others, where those beliefs are left at the door during political/economic/social matters? Based on all I know about human history, I would say not.

You've clearly accepted that human history is unchangeable, and you are still operating under the assumption that I, as one individual, am the only one interested in this particular cause.

Maybe saying "fuck it" is a very defeatist attitude ... but without desire, where is the struggle?

By saying "fuck it", I'll never change a thing ... but why shouldn't I be happy anyways?

We should find a means to be happy, regardless. If being super-passive and using "fuck it" as a catharsis when you're unwilling, unable or unmotivated to effect change you'd like to see, then by all means - keep it as a mantra. If you prefer to shy away from struggle and live a life devoid of effort or endeavor because you're afraid to define your desire due to an unhealthy fear of not achieving it, then knock yourself out. I personally thrive on it.


I doubt they would have either. But even if they had not, they could still have been content. They could still have been happy. Maybe this group of slaves was able to change the world, but think of the countless other slaves throughout history who desired and attempted to achieve that same freedom, but failed miserably. And maybe in two hundred years, slavery will be back.

Perhaps that latter group took a lesson from the former group and decided that "just being happy" was an easy task - but effecting real change was a meaningful challenge that served not only themselves, but many generations after them. Sure, they could have just had the "Don't worry, be happy" attitude and just rolled over - but they had a larger vision, one outside of their own level of content. They were able to look past their own content and act on the behalf of others. Their action (versus their inaction) improved on this happiness. When we become satisfied with a state of being and believe there is no room for improvement - stagnation occurs. I'm glad this latter group had the guts to strive for improvement.

I'm not saying give up, AngryFemme. I'm not saying lay down and let the Nazi's roll over us. Because maybe you'll be able to stop 'em.

But what I am saying is that if you cannot stop them, if you cannot change the things affecting your life, you do not need to suffer because of them. Even if I am a crippled slave, I have the freedom to be happy.

Again ... why are you assuming that I suffer?

I believe it is better to accept things how they are and to be happy, then it is to expect them to get better (optimistic) or to expect them to get worse (pessimistic ).

Passivity doesn't suit me. Expectations be damned - I am still going to exercise ambition over apathy.

Fringe point: I'm not alone; there is a big chunk of humanity who share my sentiments and entire movements that support it.

Thats great, AngryFemme, but the reason I used the purple sock analogy is because you don't always have a group to rely on for aid. Somethings, you will never be able to change.

Can you change the colour of the sky? Alone? I would think that it would be fairly improbable. Lets say I, alone, really hated blue. So much, that I, alone, really, really desired to change the sky. Unfortunately, as much as I try, I never succeeded. It would be better for me to stop caring about it, then to make myself miserable.

Never say never, Obbe. All possibilities exist. Though if I stewed in passivity and incorporated that defeatist attitude while lying down, I'm sure it would be the cause of much malcontent on a personal level. I just ... don't.

Of course all possibilities exist. But some of them aren't very probable.

If doing what I suggest would cause a person dissatisfaction, then that person hasn't really done what I have suggested. They just gave up, but they obviously carry a great desire for change.

What are some changes that can never be caused, AngryFemme? Well lets see ... a blind man can't will himself to see, but he can lose his desire to. A cripple can't will himself to walk, but he can lose his desire to. People do not have to live in suffering.

You've clearly accepted that human history is unchangeable, and you are still operating under the assumption that I, as one individual, am the only one interested in this particular cause.

No, human history is change. "History" is constantly being created, collectively, by all of us ... and anything you choose to do differently is a part of that.

What I do not believe is probable, is one person being able to change the opinions of every other person on the planet.

And no, I do not think you're the only one interested in an indifferent society. I have no clue if you are! I am the one interested in an indifferent society. All you have told me is that you wish religion no longer saturated politics and human rights issues.

If you feel the need to go out there and try to change things, then do it. History is made by people like you.

Personally, I believe that forcing indifference would be defeating the purpose. I believe it is very unlikely that people will change and become indifferent to other beliefs, especially in my short lifetime. Especially people who believe indifference is foolishness.

If you prefer to shy away from struggle and live a life devoid of effort or endeavor because you're afraid to define your desire due to an unhealthy fear of not achieving it, then knock yourself out. I personally thrive on it.

Again, AngryFemme, I am not saying to give up. Not saying to let the Nazi's roll over us.

But if you cannot cause the change you desire, I believe maintaining that desire will only cause suffering. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you enjoy trying again, and again, and again and always failing. Always left wanting.

You seem to have confused pretty basic stoicism with pessimism. I am not saying to be a Negative Nancy. I believe that would cause suffering, too.

When we become satisfied with a state of being and believe there is no room for improvement - stagnation occurs. I'm glad this latter group had the guts to strive for improvement.

I am sure they were not the first to attempt it ... do you think all slaves took my advice? Do you think, before this group of slaves, all were stoic and unaffected by their situations? You don't think nearly every slave in human history desired change?

Even Epictetus, one of the propagators of this same stoic philosophy, eventually attained his freedom.

If a change that you feel would improve your life is possible, then go for it. What I am saying is not contrary to that. What I am saying is that even if you can't make that change, you do not have to continue to suffer because of your situation.

Again ... why are you assuming that I suffer?

Sorry for using the word 'you', I did not mean to imply you could at all suffer, AngryFemme. You are content, you've already explained that.

Heres the same thing, with 'I' in place of 'you':

"But what I am saying is that if I cannot stop them, if I cannot change the things affecting my life, I do not need to suffer because of them. Even if I am a crippled slave, I have the freedom to be happy."

Passivity doesn't suit me. Expectations be damned - I am still going to exercise ambition over apathy.

Great. I believe, however, that optimism and pessimism are like masturbation.

Thats great, AngryFemme, but the reason I used the purple sock analogy is because you don't always have a group to rely on for aid. Somethings, you will never be able to change.

Great! So save the analogy for when we're talking about something where there's not a group to rely on for aid, or something that definitely can't be changed over the course of time. In this point, it's not a fair comparison, or a good analogy.

Can you change the colour of the sky? Alone? I would think that it would be fairly improbable. Lets say I, alone, really hated blue. So much, that I, alone, really, really desired to change the sky. Unfortunately, as much as I try, I never succeeded. It would be better for me to stop caring about it, then to make myself miserable.

Again, good point - I'm in total agreement with you that some things just aren't worth caring about. The color of the sky is one of those things. It just doesn't apply to what we were discussing.

Of course all possibilities exist. But some of them aren't very probable.


You don't say! :eek:

If doing what I suggest would cause a person dissatisfaction, then that person hasn't really done what I have suggested. They just gave up, but they obviously carry a great desire for change.

What you're suggesting is that they flat out stop caring if the possibility of effecting change isn't very probable. For your blue sky example, that would be great advice. For the purple sock mission, that would be great advice.

However, for a group of like-minded citizens that have the capacity to effect real change on public policy and procedure by voting, educating others on their agenda and taking civic measures to further their cause - it's not very good advice. In that case, you either take the apathetic route and be uninvolved with your country's government affairs, or you do what little you can to further the policies you'd like to see implemented in regard to your cause.

People do not have to live in suffering.

I understand that you may be making a side point here irrelevant to what you and I are discussing - but just in case you're not, I'd like to reiterate that I never implied that people have to live in suffering. Just wasn't sure where you were going with this.

The malcontent I would "suffer" from having an apathetic, "fuck it" attitude towards the public policies implemented by my government wouldn't stem from having my desire to further my own civic agenda stifled - it would stem from my knowing that I didn't make an effort. Now mind you, this isn't a useless endeavor such as insisting everyone wear purple socks or that the color of the sky be changed to a nice hue of orange... this is effecting public policy by having a vote, having a voice, and exercising my right as a citizen of this country to shape it's laws. The way I see it - if I'm not a part of the solution, then I'm a part of the problem. Do you kind of see where I'm coming from?


No, human history is change. "History" is constantly being created, collectively, by all of us ... and anything you choose to do differently is a part of that.

Exactly how I feel. However, you seem to be hung up on a point I did not bring to the table, which is: one person will change this society.

I don't believe getting religion out of politics can be done by one person, or even a small group of people. I believe it will be done when people of this country as a collective whole realize that forcing each other's religions down one another's throats through public policy implementation is a terrible blunder that has been proven throughout history to fail, time and time again.


What I do not believe is probable, is one person being able to change the opinions of every other person on the planet.

Yeah, but let's not forget the fine point you made earlier:


If you feel the need to go out there and try to change things, then do it. History is made by people like you.

:)

Personally, I believe that forcing indifference would be defeating the purpose. I believe it is very unlikely that people will change and become indifferent to other beliefs, especially in my short lifetime. Especially people who believe indifference is foolishness.

Well, personally, I believe that forcing indifference isn't even a remote possibility, which is why that's not my agenda.

Again, AngryFemme, I am not saying to give up. Not saying to let the Nazi's roll over us.

But if you cannot cause the change you desire, I believe maintaining that desire will only cause suffering. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you enjoy trying again, and again, and again and always failing. Always left wanting.

Based on what I've learned from history, the only way to change your world is to be actively involved with your world. The changes you desire may not bring immediate gratification in your lifetime, but may be just a small stepping stone for generations well after you that may be able to benefit from it. I can expire at the end of my life knowing I did my part, and what you may call "failure", I call "honest effort".

Am I really left wanting, stewing in my own desires, a complete failure because my efforts didn't immediately pay off so that I could benefit from it in this lifetime? Absolutely not. I'll know my ambitions were well-placed, with good intentions, and I participated in what I felt was important to humanity as a whole. I could have easily said "fuck it", and stopped caring - but to me, that's the height of laziness.

You seem to have confused pretty basic stoicism with pessimism. I am not saying to be a Negative Nancy. I believe that would cause suffering, too.

I'm just surprised that you embrace stoicism, when one of their most defined tenets is the certainty of knowledge. For some strange reason ( ;) ), I associated your 'All that can be known is "I am"/Everything is an illusion' philosophy to be a bit removed from the logic of stoicism. Stoics seem to embrace the validity of certain knowledge by "verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgement of humankind." How do you manage to jive the two when you're not even certain that your peers actually exist???

Nevermind ... whole other thread, some other time - entirely different forum.

I am sure they were not the first to attempt it ... do you think all slaves took my advice? Do you think, before this group of slaves, all were stoic and unaffected by their situations? You don't think nearly every slave in human history desired change?

I don't think that every slave in human history had the ambition to effect change in their predicament. But for the ones who did - they sure paved the way for other generations to have more human rights and the opportunity to crawl out from under the oppression.

Great. I believe, however, that optimism and pessimism are like masturbation....

LOL! Finish the punchline, please... I must hear it.

But to be fair, you answered that to my comment on Ambition VS. Apathy. You are confused if you think that I misunderstood your quasi-stoicism with pessimism.

It was this question that put religious doubt during my fundamentalist days... nonetheless I never gave up in the possibility of there being a God.

I'll finish the punchline for you, AF: You're only fucking yourself.

In regards to the OP, since when was lack of evidence of a single concept of God out of billions viable proof against all concepts?

Great! So save the analogy for when we're talking about something where there's not a group to rely on for aid, or something that definitely can't be changed over the course of time. In this point, it's not a fair comparison, or a good analogy.

Its too bad you disagree, but I think its a relevant analogy whether the change being discussed is supported by other people or not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but we are discussing the change from this state of people fighting over beliefs, to one where everyone is indifferent of the beliefs of others. Right?

I do see this as a very improbable change, even if there was a group supporting it. Why? As I said before:

... most of the people who I share this society with don't agree with that. There nothing I alone can do to change their minds, and hell, what right do I have to try to change them? Would attempting to do so not make me just as tyrannical as they are?

Or as a group effort? Would my group not become just as tyrannical, pushing our views onto everyone who disagreed?

That certainly doesn't seem very indifferent in my eyes.

Of course, other people may not care about that. Some may attempt to cause change fruitlessly, making themselves miserable, and could use my advice. Others, as you suggest, would be able to cause the change they desire.

The part of that which I disagree with, is that to do so would be doing so at the expense of other peoples desires. It clearly would not be indifference.

If you're fine with that, then go ahead. I said history was made by people like you.

What you're suggesting is that they flat out stop caring if the possibility of effecting change isn't very probable.

What I am suggesting, as has been said a few times, is that

... if I cannot change the things affecting my life, I do not need to suffer because of them.

The way I see it - if I'm not a part of the solution, then I'm a part of the problem. Do you kind of see where I'm coming from?

I went off topic, and began to discuss suffering and control in issues unrelated to what we had started out talking about. Sorry for that.

I do understand you AF, I just don't agree with you. If I want everyone to be indifferent, I can't try to change them ... it wouldn't be very indifferent of me.

Exactly how I feel. However, you seem to be hung up on a point I did not bring to the table, which is: one person will change this society.

Yes. This is because I was originally typing about how creating threads like this do nothing to help the problem, but make it worse.

Its also why I continued to use examples where only one person desired change. I disagree with you, not because I do not think a group has a greater probability of causing some sort of change, but because I disagree with trying to make everyone else indifferent.

... as a collective whole realize that forcing each other's religions down one another's throats through public policy implementation is a terrible blunder that has been proven throughout history to fail, time and time again.

Thats the only way I can see everyone becoming indifferent.

And like I said ... based on the last ten thousand years, it doesn't seem very likely. I think it would be better not to worry about it.



Based on what I've learned from history, the only way to change your world is to be actively involved with your world.

I am actively involved, even if I am completely indifferent and content, and try to cause no change. If everyone did exactly that, then everyone would all be contributing to the change I desire ... total indifference.

Too bad not everyone is doing that, and that attempting to cause them to would destroy my own contribution.

I could have easily said "fuck it", and stopped caring - but to me, that's the height of laziness.

Then your desires are being fulfilled anyways, because you did not desire the change ... only to 'do your part'. There is no suffering, so there is no reason to consider my advice.

I'm just surprised that you embrace stoicism, when one of their most defined tenets is the certainty of knowledge. ... Stoics seem to embrace the validity of certain knowledge by "verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgement of humankind." How do you manage to jive the two when you're not even certain that your peers actually exist???

You noticed.

And it looks like you read that wiki I linked you to.

What I agree with in stoicism isn't their opinions on knowledge and virtue, etc. You understand I prefer a more solipsist view. But I do agree with their approach to dealing with suffering, desire, the things you appear to have control over and the things you do not appear to control.

I don't think that every slave in human history had the ambition to effect change in their predicament. But for the ones who did - they sure paved the way for other generations to have more human rights and the opportunity to crawl out from under the oppression.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But for those who had no control over their situation, do you think it was better for them to pine away for freedom, or accept their situation and be happy?



LOL! Finish the punchline, please... I must hear it.

I'll finish the punchline for you, AF: You're only fucking yourself.

Thats no joke, either.

As much as I dislike Christians, MGCBTSOFYG is NOT the place for myspace and copypasta

Correct me if I am wrong, but we are discussing the change from this state of people fighting over beliefs, to one where everyone is indifferent of the beliefs of others. Right?

It went down like this:

-OP serves up some copypasta

-YOU suggest that if people were indifferent to others, no problems would occur

-I opt out of indifference, given the current state of affairs

-You continue to opine about how my strategy will never work, and attempt to point out the errors you perceive in my strategy, using examples that are irrelevant to the strategy I outlined.

If you were truly indifferent to my strategies, it seems like you wouldn't spend much time debating them.

Would my group not become just as tyrannical, pushing our views onto everyone who disagreed?

That certainly doesn't seem very indifferent in my eyes.

Most of the discussions you partake in here doesn't seem very indifferent in my eyes, Obbe. Maybe you failed to realize that a great deal of my strategy (re: ridding the saturation of religion into politics and human rights issues) is through peer-to-peer discussion and debate, like this. Offering up alternative opinions, beliefs and solutions for others to consider, even though it may not jive with what they've always believed in. I admit, that is a huge absence of indifference on my part, for if I were truly indifferent, I would not concern myself with offering up alternative views to others who are comfortable with their own belief systems.

With your posting history here, you cannot claim to be exempt from doing the same - that is, offering up your opposing views to belief systems already in place for people by continually opining on your views. You realize that there is a chance that you may strike a chord with someone and turn their beliefs upside down if they latch onto your suggestions. Deny it if you must, but you're a mover and a shaker, too. Your desire to have others realize the power of your suggestions is evident in the frequency of you inserting your opinions into discussion and pointing out the errors in another person's strategies.


The part of that which I disagree with, is that to do so would be doing so at the expense of other peoples desires. It clearly would not be indifference.

If you're fine with that, then go ahead. I said history was made by people like you.

I am fine with that; Indifference was your strategy, not mine.


I went off topic, and began to discuss suffering and control in issues unrelated to what we had started out talking about. Sorry for that.

It's alright - I forgive you.

I am actively involved, even if I am completely indifferent and content, and try to cause no change. If everyone did exactly that, then everyone would all be contributing to the change I desire ... total indifference.

You mean to tell me, of all the times you've ever posted on here, arguing incessantly with others who oppose your strain of solipsism - you're not running the risk of causing them to change their mind? If you totally lacked concern or interest, you wouldn't participate in so much discourse.

But for those who had no control over their situation, do you think it was better for them to pine away for freedom, or accept their situation and be happy?


But they did have control over their situations. They could control how they react to the oppression, and they could control their emotional responses to their oppressors. Being happy in spite of their situation does not mean that they could not still actively look to change it. They could be happy in their defeat while allowing themselves to continue to strive for freedom.

"What is defeat? Nothing but education; nothing but the first step to something better."

- Wendell Phillips

Are we to believe 400 years ago, change did not ever occur? Of course things change, everything changes, nature is change.

Who is to say this change is right? Or good? Of course it will seem that way to some, but not to others.

Arguing the subjectivity of good and evil, eh? I won't.

I THINK things are better since the church stopped ruling us without our personal choice. I think things are better when people are free to dream up their own fantasy lands than things were when they were FORCED to believe in a collective fantasy.

I think this b/c that particular collective fantasy HATED science, and science has done a lot for humankind.

Yes things could change and they could change for the worse. What's your point? That the glass is half full? Ok.....

Pessimissim is like masterbation.

Then you have clearly been jerking off through this entire thread.

Can you change the colour of the sky? Alone? I would think that it would be fairly improbable. Lets say I, alone, really hated blue. So much, that I, alone, really, really desired to change the sky. Unfortunately, as much as I try, I never succeeded. It would be better for me to stop caring about it, then to make myself miserable.

Stopped reading right here.

This marks the point in your and AF's conversation where you transformed into a complete fucking idiot.

I will not explain why, as I am sure it will be explained to you, and you will refuse to understand; or be unable to understand.

I'll finish the punchline for you, AF: You're only fucking yourself.

In regards to the OP, since when was lack of evidence of a single concept of God out of billions viable proof against all concepts?

This is the flavor of the month that we're lambasting. Do you want to propose another theory we can rip apart?

Ultimately, none of your concepts of a god are real in any sense. You are deluding yourself and by spreading that delusion you are hurting humanity and increasing the chance of a hostile takeover.

Religion is an occupying army in the minds of those it infects, waiting for a commander. Waiting for someone to turn on the remote control is no way to exist, individually or collectively.