Misc posts

Here are some topics I haven’t taken the time to flesh out.

  • Is this 2002 Gallup poll evidence against the idea that more education means you are less likely to be religious? Well, I ought to check if the gap still exists since atheism has been on the rise in the past few years. It would not surprise me if the business and social connections help post-graduates. Is church just a social thing for them? Are they going just because their wives are going, or because they think religion is a useful lie to perpetuate for society or for your kids?
  • Superstition in names: Mongols who have seen their kids die like to give their newborns unflattering names to prevent their infants from dying. It is not uncommon for a boy to be named “nobody,” “vicious dog” or given a female name to confuse the evil spirits and keep them from snatching him. I’m not a Mongol, but kids should be allowed to choose their own names, and it sucks that society allows parents to choose semi-permanent names which their kids must use for their entire life, and I would love to change my name to a cooler one if it wasn’t so expensive.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_name#Taboo_names

    A nice name for a bar in Mongolia.

  • Would you rather live in a designed universe? It would be fun to be in a universe where the natural laws gave a few heroes incredible luck. There could be immortals fighting one another for petty feuds for millenia, power ranger mechanics, or we could fight existential threads like the giant monsters rampaging through our cities instead of interal forces. There could be sudden plot twists and inexplicable phenomenon like teleportation, invisible people, and miraculous healings whenever “the gods” got bored. There would then be no doubt that the whole world could be a play put on to entertain a higher being, and if we knew how the story is goes then we could enjoy our roles knowing we were minor actors.

 

  • Wiki had an article I’m calling “former atheistic states,” which was rather misleading when I looked into the details. Many times when a president was elected for a term and tried to weaken the church or drive it out, it was put on the map, and I still don’t have any clue why Yemen is on the map. I suspect the map is mostly Christian propaganda, and attacks on Christians in that country are being used to justify putting them on the map. To be fair attempts at state atheism have not gone well, the two main examples being the USSR and the first phase of the French Revolution when they wanted to replace Christianity with an abstract Deism. Of course neither attempt lasted long – religion fights back, and the leaders decided to compromise and use organized religion as a tool for supporting their legitimacy. In the case of the USSR, Marxism optimistically asserts that religion will go away when people stop suffering under capitalism – when this didn’t happen, at least not quickly enough, Stalin decided to try to spread atheist propaganda, to curb the power of the church, and limit the power of church leaders to defend themselves in debates. World War 2 stopped the anticlericalism, because a desperate Stalin needed the support of the church to fuel patriotism, and thereafter religion was mostly tolerated.

 

  • I find it interesting that Albania is one of the least religious predominately Muslim countries, allegedly due to the USSR’s occupation there and opposition to religion. Even though they’re 80% Muslim, they’re more like “cultural Muslims,” in the way that being Muslim is part of your heritage. They’re more tolerant of other religions there, and the Muslims there hardly ever visit a mosque.

Sometimes the Soviets tried cool ideas and they did weaken the influence of religion even though they couldn’t eradicate it. If they had stayed and kept the course they might have wiped Islam out of Albania. Imagine if the US had let the Marxists takeover the Middle East and neuter religion?

Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, “The State recognises no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in the people”,[37] and the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for “religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature.”

Another example where they apparently weakened religion is Kyrgyzstan. I really should make a point of researching how they did it, and for how long, given that Communist governments everywhere usually relaxed their opposition to religion over time. It’s unfortunate that the Red Scare has made people associate atheism with Communism though, which can turn people against it just by association. The Red Scare certainly made Americans insert the word God on their currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on and so forth, and I remember there being a similar uptick in religiosity and patriotism right after 9/11. (Some liberals have claimed that the reactionary feeling was not truly a newfond love of one’s country, which is another interesting point to debate.)

  • Here is a list the actual religiosity of today’s europe:

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/e23a056d9fb5449a74680e5b513e0ba5f546940c538a1dd9e355026c0b59782b.jpg

It is misleading when an article says Finland or Iceland are especially atheist, when half of them believe in spirits and life forces. I strongly dislike technical atheists who aren’t skeptics to all metaphysical things. (Supposedly the Finns aren’t as newagey as the Islandic people though, maybe ‘cas they’re close to Russia, lol.)

 

>>15925
>The finns I know aren’t new agey at all but I’ve heard bad things about Islandic people.

Maybe ‘cas they share a border with Russia, lol. I’ve been reading about how the USSR working within the axioms of Marxism believed religion would quickly die out once they overthrew capitalism, and when it didn’t, they decided to try and stamp out religion within their borders with atheistic propaganda and restrictions on clergy, etc, but when Germany invaded Stalin got desperate and mostly gave up and brought the churches back. Cuba tried to restrict religion too, but quickly gave up, and the story seems to be shared across the Communist countries. I now suspect there wasn’t enough political will to commit to an atheistic propaganda campaign, and so most of them never truly lost their religion, which is why it sprang back as soon as it became legal to admit that your family was secretly Christian the whole time.

The Czech Republic seems to be an exception where religion might have already taken a fatal blow, but that was more because there was already a strong history of anti-clericalism and irreligiousity, due to local history and conflicts with the church, before the USSR invaded. They now might have the highest proportions of atheists (and nones), and it’s really too bad that the drawbacks of air pollution, xenophobia, rude unfriendliness, and poor service would deter me from taking an interest in ever moving there. They’re also still very superstitious. (I hope their relative rationality lets them realize they need to clean up those other issues.)

Kyrgyzstan too is supposed to be unusually tolerant of non-Muslims for a Muslim country, with the secular government going so far as to try and stamp religion out of the public schools.

>15948
Yeah, but it’s interesting he stopped being a Socialist, although he doesn’t say much about it, and if something made him decide that doesn’t work. He pussy-footed about it, saying it’s not politically viable to join a Socialist movement now, rather than saying he changed his mind and doesn’t work.

Support for Free Speech is Falling

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/grjfiOZdak

Of course I’ve heard leftists counter that the concept of free speech is just a buzz word and were never truly felt, and that 60 years ago most Americans would have wanted the state to shut up the Communists, and most of the older generation still want to shut up the atheists just as they have since Thomas Paine wrote “the Age of Reason.” The survey targets willingness to have the government restrict so called hate speech towards racial and sexual identities, but is still illuminating, particularly with regards to the international comparison. Props to Spain.
(Freedom indexes have also done poorly in the last few years, following a net increase of freedom for a few years.)
Hey religious people, which mountain is the truly holy one?

Which of these mountains is the most likely to be holy? I say kunlun in China, because I know Mount Sinai, Olympus and Fuji.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mund

 

The good in setting a bad example

I do understand what some people mean about the importance of setting a good example in certain situations. But we have to define what is a good example? Is it really always civility and the virtues we want others to emulate, or can it be useful to teach by making a bad example? I will explain later.

There is a lot of room for disagreement on what is a generally good behavior, and while peter boghossian takes a softer Socratic approach to persuade Christians, Christopher Hitchens is combative and debates on hard facts. Certain techniques work better on certain personalities and we need to support both doves and hawks to get our message out.

I personally think I need to be more aggressive. I think we should even mimic their hypocrisies at times if we see an individual using them, so that Christians will see it and call us out on them, and then hopefully realize they’re looking in a mirror and fix their ways. For example, it might be useful to act like you’ve lost your temper around someone who loses their temper easily, to teach them a lesson about maintaining self-control if you want to be listened to. It might be useful to be excessively prideful around a proud psrson for the same reason. I guess this is the opposite of setting a good example, and I haven’t heard anyone else use it, but I think it has uses.

It’s a pre-liminary lesson that needs to be learned somehow or other to listen. Otherwise no discussion or real exchange of ideas can occur. If you ever meet someone who is 70 years old and cannot remain calm, rational or humble enough to listen to a word you say on anything, but who loves to berate and throw out uninformed prejudices, I think It’s justified to mirror them and show utter disrespect until they realize their wrong.

Why am I so amazingly smart?

 

Why am I so amazingly smart? QFT

Nietzschecrying.jpg

You experience this illusion because you’ve been surrounded by your intellectual inferiors your whole life. Leave your home and find a place where you will frequently be the least intelligent person in the room, and you will be able to grow and learn far more than ever before.

 

/ fucking saved. Someone took my shitpost on te philosophy board seriously, and reaffirmed the value of something I’ve told myself for years.  I gotta trust myself and get out of this stupid country.  To do anything but seek intellectual abroad is the real escapism!

Why I don’t study Chinese

Chinese can be open and unapologetic about their racism, as though they don’t realize the importance of either civility or genuine empathy beyond borders. Anyone who moves to China has sold their soul and mental health for money. Don’t listen to the moronic sociopaths who tell you China is gonna be a superpower so you ought to study their language, because you really don’t. I stopped studying Chinese because the Chinese I met were so damn unpleasant, and the country was dreary and so obviously polluted that I kept getting a sore throat and coughing. You can’t have good conversations with them because they’re nationalistic and apathetic, and they frown mightilly if you talk about the pollution even on days when it’s HANGING LIKE A BLACK CURTAIN OF DEATH THAT BLOTS OUT THE SUN AND IS CHOKING TRAFFIC. Let someone who has baser motivations deal with the cult of Mao worshipping sociopaths.

 

Ps: fuck Denmark.

https://rottenindenmark.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/why-i-could-never-move-back-to-denmark/#comments

article: why rural america wont change

Hah, he burned the south pretty well! http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fundamentalism-racism-fear-and-propaganda-an-insider-explains-why-rural-christian-white-america-will-never-change/

I don’t think white racism as well covered up as some people believe. The excues used by racists sound hollow to anyone who is commited to removing biases and I have a pertinent anecdote.

It used to annoy me how often “right wingers/American conservatives/the alt-right/colourists” would say Obama wasn’t fit to be president because he was not an American, or how they would circulate emails about how the bible said it’s justified to not follow illegitimate leader like Obama (in regards to Obama, the Kenyan Muslim.) Not long after he was first elected, I listened to one Christian teacher explaining the birther conspiracy to another Christian US history teacher. She went on a long rant about the bible, and the American constitution, and how there was a section that didn’t allow anyone who had been born in America to become a president.

(In my view this is a historical safeguard, meant to prevent a British politician or hostile invader from legally taking over a new country.) I turned to one of them and asked if were technically true, why would it matter if he had lived in America for his entire life? (Obama was educated in America and worked there his entire life. Voters had decided he shared sufficient views and connection, and was therefore good enough.)

“IT DOES MATTER!” One of them shouted at me, as Christians like to do. And that was all they had to say, as if that line had decisively answered the question.

What the birthers really want is a narrow excuse to act like bigots and be stubbornly opposed to groups or individuals, while pretending they aren’t bigots and their words are both clever and acceptable. But their mask is transparent to anyone outside of their bubble of bigots. The cleverest excuse is transparent to anyone who doesn’t actually want to delight in saying stupid prejudiced things, like a tribal savage, or listening raptly to the invalid arguments that constitute hate speech.

 

後生は?

後生は何の姿? 僕たちは周期をずっとずっと繰り返す者の存在ですか?

それでは、僕たちはゲームの中に不具合を経験しているの?

ずっと。。。ずっと。。。?

天国と地獄は同じで、どんどんに楽しくなくなるですよね?

 

この問題に、黙示録仏教はあまりじゃありませんね?

Why can’t singles adopt kids?

Why can’t a single easily adopt children?

The kid would be a hell off a lot better than living in a foster home where kids are seen as nothing more than a government paycheck. Maybe I will never get married, but I could probably afford to take care of one kid, at least if the adoption costs aren’t like 30 k right off the bat. I would probably enroll the kid in after-school programs and tutoring, have the kid help with some chores around the house, and raise an independent, self-reliant, and well-read child. A stay at home parent isn’t necessarily better off she’s gonna watch TV or brainwash the kid, and two parents is hardly better if both are working.

Isn’t this just a religious bias against people who don’t follow the conventions?

And why shouldn’t I be “prejudiced” against Christians?

I don’t agree with what Dawkins retweeted. This website with its platitudes did not make me see a reason to become more accepting when dealing with irrational bigots. The only parts that spoke to me were the point that if you can’t correctly explain someone else’s argument and have it accepted, then you don’t understand it enough to refute it. Active listening is a problem in our society. Of course, theists are bad listeners and very impatient so you will not usually get that far.

The other line I liked from the comments is that “Perfection is the enemy of the good” -Volataire. I take it to mean that we must choose our allies and work for small changes if we are to be progressive, rather than being ideologically pure isolationists/special snowflakes. It’s true I don’t agree with Sam Harris on certain things, while he is clear minded and has insights in others and shouldn’t be shunned simply because he doesn’t fit into a familiar box idealize.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/

So if I agree with that, then what is the problem you ask? I’ll tell you. Reddit and others tell you to attack ideas and not people. So It’s okay to attack Christianity or Islam but not Christians or Muslims. I question why not?

The two are interwoven. If you are a Christian you subscribe to Christianity.

You will potentially act in ways that hurt me. If an skeptical atheist hears a voice and sees visions telling him to go to an abortion clinic and blow up some doctors, he will dismiss it and get psychiatric help. A Christian might too, but he could potentially think It’s the voice of God. That alone makes Christians a threat. And generally Christians are predictable, irrational bigots, and are relatively lame to hang out with. I feel justified in disliking Christians and attacking them along with Christianity. The only argument that might stay me is that attacking groups of people and/or individuals can sometimes be ineffective or counter-productive.

Moreover. I do not respect their underlying epistemology enough to even respect a difference of opinion as I might with someone who looked at the same set of facts I did, and came to another opinion of politics. That’s just finding a difference of view when there is a margin of doubt. But with Christians their underlying facts are definitely wrong. And if I attack Christianity you will still feel insulted that I don’t respect your core values, and react as though I attacked you personally. Why keep up the pretext of not attacking them? For civility? As Hitchens quipped, “Civility is overrated.”