What I am loving about this thread, though, is that we're human, we're making our mistakes, but I also see a general underlying theme of trying to work out our differences respectfully. That's beautiful.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I am loving about this thread, though, is that we're human, we're making our mistakes, but I also see a general underlying theme of trying to work out our differences respectfully. That's beautiful.
Well, accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions is kinda pushing it I'd think. I could make the argument that they feel more responsible for their actions and how they effect others, but I really don't want to provoke people.
Well, accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions is kinda pushing it I'd think. I could make the argument that they feel more responsible for their actions and how they effect others, but I really don't want to provoke people.
Please show me where someone accused athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions?
If you can make an argument attempting to prove that an entire group of people is more responsible for their actions than others, I'd think you were distinctly operating on a false premise.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.
Please show me where someone accused athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions?
If you can make an argument attempting to prove that an entire group of people is more responsible for their actions than others, I'd think you were distinctly operating on a false premise.
I thought a few times you did point to that:
I have personally heard different athiests use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behaviour. Numerous, numerous times.
I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point.
And I never said that a group of people are more responsible for their actions than others. I said I could make the argument that they could feel more responsible or accountable for their actions than people who are following a religion. If it is fair game to point out that Atheists use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behavior, I'm sure it is fair to make the opposite argument also.
When my twin's dog died I realized "why" people need religion to help them deal with death. Not everyone needs religion of course, but it can add a form to how to deal with a permanent absence.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Are you saying that when I state my personal experience that you feel that is the same as me accusing a group of people of something?
Also, are you saying that when I described what I thought fanch75 was saying, that you felt it was the same thing as accusing a group of people of something?
I said I could make the argument that they could feel more responsible or accountable for their actions than people who are following a religion.
Again, if you feel you can make a blanket generalized argument for or against any one group of people, I will say that the argument is based on a flawed premise and therefore the logic is distorted.
If you want to make a case for how an athiest could be construed as is more accountable than a person following a religion, I'd love to hear it. I'm not talking about the "idealized" image of an athiest, and how one would ideally operate, I'm talking about that I'd love to hear a realistic argument.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying that when I state my personal experience that you feel that is the same as me accusing a group of people of something?
It seemed you were implying that in your experience that is the way Atheists are.
I'd like to hear the context of it also. In what way did they deflect personal accountablity for something because of their lack of belief?
Also, are you saying that when I described what I thought fanch75 was saying, that you felt it was the same thing as accusing a group of people of something?
It seemed that you were saying that you agreed that it was valid that people who want to justify being self-centered, non-contributing, and non-accountable would find Atheism comforting.
Again, if you feel you can make a blanket generalized argument for or against any one group of people, I will say that the argument is based on a flawed premise and therefore the logic is distorted.
I agree, blanket generalizations are almost never accurate, even towards Atheists.
If you want to make a case for how an athiest could be construed as is more accountable than a person following a religion, I'd love to hear it. I'm not talking about the "idealized" image of an athiest, and how one would ideally operate, I'm talking about that I'd love to hear a realistic argument.
It is kind of hard to account for every Atheist, just as it would be for every person in every religion. Not just the "idealized" practice of the religion.
A hypothetical argument on how an Atheist could be more self aware of his or others shortcomings than someone who practices a religion would still be valid, as that seemed to me to be what was being implied in the reverse.
Acceptance of war and intolerance as morally right by many througout the years is probably a good example. Instead of judging actions and reactions on their merits, many can just use their religion as a filter to completely deflect any sense of responsibility or accountablily to their actions or thier acceptance and support of others actions and just consider it "right".
I don't really want to get into some huge argument and offend people, but I'll just say I think it is completely incorrect that people become atheists because they don't want to feel guilt for things they do.
It seemed you were implying that in your experience that is the way Atheists are.
I'd like to hear the context of it also. In what way did they deflect personal accountablity for something because of their lack of belief?
I'm responsible for what I specifically said, and for my intent. I explained what I personally have witnessed. If you heard that as an accusation, rather than my personal expience, that is what you heard. I don't control what others hear. I choose not to elaborate on my earlier observation. My personal experience is not up for debate--it is what it is. I apologize if I was in any way unclear and led to misunderstanding at all. Ultimately, no matter how much detail I give about my personal observation, it cannot correct the separate issue of the misunderstanding that I accused anyone of anything.
It seemed that you were saying that you agreed that it was valid that people who want to justify being self-centered, non-contributing, and non-accountable would find Atheism comforting.
If that was what I said, (and it is not) it is still different than "accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions", which you felt I was doing.
I agreed with fanch75's term of non-belief, which is NOT the same thing as athiesm. I know many athiests who believe in many things. There are a few athiests on this board whom I love and respect for their willingness to grow and learn, and for their deep desire to live their purpose in the world. They try to live to their highest beliefs. There are many other athiests I appreciate and respect for similar and other reasons. I also love and respect anyone, athiest or otherwise, who might be in a dark place and not be able to own accountability. The bottom line is, when people are unaccountable for whatever the reason, if they use non-belief to justify it, they are attempting to justify the unjustifiable. And yes people also use belief to justify the unjustifiable. Whoever does the unjustiable will seek to rationlize it, and yet it can't work. Consequences result.
It is kind of hard to account for every Atheist, just as it would be for every person in every religion. Not just the "idealized" practice of the religion.
You're making my point for me...it was you who said you could make the argument about athiests. I personally believe that athiests are people, like me and therefore they sometimes justify dumb things and have to learn the hard way....like me, and all people.
A hypothetical argument on how an Atheist could be more self aware of his or others shortcomings than someone who practices a religion would still be valid, as that seemed to me to be what was being implied in the reverse.
Again, I didn't see it being implied in reverse, and I know I personally didn't imply it in reverse. I fully agree that both scenarios are possible. edit: by the last statement, I mean that an athiest can have a raised awareness or a religious peron could too. Regardless of religious belief or non-religious belief.
I don't really want to get into some huge argument and offend people, but I'll just say I think it is completely incorrect that people become atheists because they don't want to feel guilt for things they do.
I apologize if I misunderstood your points.
No one said this or implied it, from what I understood. I accept your apology and I apologize if I have not been clear in explaining what I mean.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Religon is and always will be a major part of world. Personally I don't follow any religous belief, but respect others that do. To connect to my spritual side and uplift my mood, I like to spend time in natural surroundings, mountains, lakes etc and absorb myself in the environment. With human beings I feel theres a lack of respect and tolerance in the world and to live together peacefully we just have to show more love and understanding for each other.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
I am posting these posts together because I don't hear prejudice against all athiests. What I hear is fanch75 saying that in cases where people want to justify self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc, non-religion can be comforting. I see this as a valid point. I'm guessing athiests see this among other athiests, just as religious people see the blind spots among their own. Again, if one is non-religious, and yet believes in aspiring to truth, and to contributing to our society and planet, that's different than what I see being mentioned. I think generally, it's realistic to think we are all somewhere on the continuum: aspiring to do better, and not always being able to.
yea, i *got* that...but point is, that hardly accounts for many within the group of atheists/agnostics.....so yea, why even bring it up? i mean honestly, then what do the 'believers/religious' use as their *excuse* to justify "self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc"....b/c yea....there are many believers who are the same. so really, the point is....imo more was being said there. i personally don't know too many atheists, know lots of agnostics, and many religous...and i can honestly say i do not personally know one person like that. so the fact that one mentions that one may 'find comfort in their atheism' as a handy excuse for being a self-centered hodonist.....doesn't even seem worth mentioning without at the least acknowledging the flip side, theists who are the same way, simply without the handy 'excuse.' i've never met an atheist like that, not to say the possibility that they exist, but yea.....does seem a biased offering at best. at the very least, should've used the term for "SOME", it may be comforting. the way it's written originally strongly suggests he is of the opinion that atheists = non-accountability.
yea, i *got* that...but point is, that hardly accounts for many within the group of atheists/agnostics.....so yea, why even bring it up? i mean honestly, then what do the 'believers/religious' use as their *excuse* to justify "self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc"....b/c yea....there are many believers who are the same. so really, the point is....imo more was being said there. i personally don't know too many atheists, know lots of agnostics, and many religous...and i can honestly say i do not personally know one person like that. so the fact that one mentions that one may 'find comfort in their atheism' as a handy excuse for being a self-centered hodonist.....doesn't even seem worth mentioning without at the least acknowledging the flip side, theists who are the same way, simply without the handy 'excuse.' i've never met an atheist like that, not to say the possibility that they exist, but yea.....does seem a biased offering at best. at the very least, should've used the term for "SOME", it may be comforting. the way it's written originally strongly suggests he is of the opinion that atheists = non-accountability.
When I say "non-belief" I mean non belief.
If a religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses their faith as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
If a non-religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses non-belief as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
The reason this is entirely relevent in this thread is because I'm hearing an atmosphere of "Religion is to blame for bad things in this world--get rid of it". The truth is, people use religion to justify bad judgment. And people use non-belief to justify bad judgment.
If people are only seeing their own point of how religious people distort life, but refuse to see how it happens with people of no-faith, I'm going to call out and point to that the Emperor has no clothes. (well, actually fanch75 did and I jumped on the bandwagon). It has been called out in regards to religious people in this thread, and I think it's more than fair to point out the other side of the coin.
Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions. I see them continue the same damaging-to-others patterns, and justifying it. The bottom line is there is no justification for damaging others. If a person chooses to not accept accountability consciously, and to instead learn unconsciously through the consequences of their life choices, fair enough. I, however, cannot pretend that I have not seen this dynamic over and over in my life. Regardless who it is, we all have our unconscious issues that we are blind to, and that we will be forced to face in terms of our life patterns. Some live and learn, others do not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Religion is one path of seeking the higher ideals of human nature, and about honouring natural law. However, religion is distorted by people showing lack of faith--and this distinctly occurs with religious people, and with people of non-belief. Humans distorting religion from any side of the coin is no more a reflection of religion than it is of atheism. It's a reflection of what we deny in ourselves.
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift". --Albert Einstein.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If a religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses their faith as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
If a non-religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses non-belief as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
The reason this is entirely relevent in this thread is because I'm hearing an atmosphere of "Religion is to blame for bad things in this world--get rid of it". The truth is, people use religion to justify bad judgment. And people use non-belief to justify bad judgment.
If people are only seeing their own point of how religious people distort life, but refuse to see how it happens with people of no-faith, I'm going to call out and point to that the Emperor has no clothes. (well, actually fanch75 did and I jumped on the bandwagon). It has been called out in regards to religious people in this thread, and I think it's more than fair to point out the other side of the coin.
Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions. I see them continue the same damaging-to-others patterns, and justifying it. The bottom line is there is no justification for damaging others. If a person chooses to not accept accountability consciously, and to instead learn unconsciously through the consequences of their life choices, fair enough. I, however, cannot pretend that I have not seen this dynamic over and over in my life. Regardless who it is, we all have our unconscious issues that we are blind to, and that we will be forced to face in terms of our life patterns. Some live and learn, others do not.
How does one use atheism as a justification for bad behavior? I've been sitting here for about 5 minutes reflecting on some of my own bad behavior and trying to think how I might attempt to use atheism to justify it if I were so inclined, and I'm coming up empty. I can think of all sorts of things I might use as excuses or rationalizations, but nothing that's based on my not believing in a supernatural power.
It's easy to find examples of people using religion to justify their bad behavior. We need look no further than Al Qaeda, the Spanish Inquisition, or some jerk beating his kids and quoting the old "spare the rod" line. I can't recall seeing an atheist do anything similar. Again, that's not to say they don't come up with excuses, because of course they do, I just can't recall atheism figuring into any of those excuses. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that an example would be useful here.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
How does one use atheism as a justification for bad behavior? I've been sitting here for about 5 minutes reflecting on some of my own bad behavior and trying to think how I might attempt to use atheism to justify it if I were so inclined, and I'm coming up empty. I can think of all sorts of things I might use as excuses or rationalizations, but nothing that's based on my not believing in a supernatural power.
It's easy to find examples of people using religion to justify their bad behavior. We need look no further than Al Qaeda, the Spanish Inquisition, or some jerk beating his kids and quoting the old "spare the rod" line. I can't recall seeing an atheist do anything similar. Again, that's not to say they don't come up with excuses, because of course they do, I just can't recall atheism figuring into any of those excuses. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that an example would be useful here.
For example, I've heard people justify abusing substances over and over, because of their non-belief in the consequences of natural laws. I've heard people say "I don't believe that I am hurting myself or others", indicating non-belief. Many, many people are denying objective, psychological discernment and understanding, obtained by scientific means. Such people justify being willing to continue substance abuse with a non-belief in the consequences (natural law). I've heard the justifcations of how it's not harming anyone. I see the glaring ignorance of their underlying patterns and how they are crippling their own potential. I hear how they operate on what is literally called "negative hallucinations" in psychology: they tune out the chaos they are creating in their family systems by blotting out their fuller feelings with substances, and therefore practicing the same "objectifying" onto others, causing great suffering. Being both subjectively aware and psychologically objectively aware of this particular topic, and having lived with and beyond my own substance abuse issues, I have many understandings of the dynamics. I understand what the underlying "cycle" is about. I understand how we deny it to ourselves. I understand what coming out of the fog is and of having to learn to manage the "self" one is actively distorting in order to heal. I understand what it is to have to accept accountability for all the damage one has created through periods of blind unaccountability. I know what it is to deny natural law and learn the "hard way".
I did not once say this was about athiesm. I also don't think fanch75 did. Apparently people continue to "hear" atheism despite ongoing protestations from me that I actually said "non-belief". If my words are being changed beyond my use of them, my point will not be heard or understood.
We either understand the consequences for our actions or we don't. For many people, religion provides a few good guidelines on how to live appropriately. Some people have an attitude that they will take their chances and live and learn. At any time, if denial of natural consequences comes into place, from acting out non-belief of such natural law on any level (religious or not), we'll get what is coming to us. The bottom line is if we are to progress and grow in our lives we will/must learn our lessons--not ignore them. If we stagnate, we must live in stagnation. If we self-sabotage, we live out self-sabotage--I think eden said earlier that "live" spelled backwards is "evil". Again, I think we all have our constructive moments, and we all have our destructive ones--we sabotage ourselves and others. The reason 98 percent of the population is not self-actualized is because we are not learning the lessons of life. I personally believe we're so caught up in man's law, we've been taught man's law and lost touch with nature and natural evolutionary law even while being immersed in it.
BTW, I've got numerous examples besides the substance abuse one, but the basic plotline is the same so I thought I'd spare everyone the seeming "sermon". There is a reason all the basic life systems all point to the same thing: natural law. We're all intricately bound with it and are very concerned with it. And yet we willfully deny it by our actions all the time. Please pardon me if I choose to see, hear, and deeply revere and respect it. Some may call it a delusion. I call it being very aware of the truth we are inundated by.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions. I see them continue the same damaging-to-others patterns, and justifying it.
Is this because your 5 sibling are athiests (and use that as justification) that they avoid accountability for their harmful actions or just because they are little shitheads? Can you say that if they were not atheist they would not be like that?
Does the sixth sibling (which I assume follows a religion) not follow that pattern because he/she is religious?
Have you also seen on numerous occasions believers avoiding accountability, etc.?
To me, it seems you are implying that non-believers are a lot more prone to that then believers and that you concur with fanch that non-accountability, etc. = non believers.
It would also seem to imply that believers are more righteous and have better morals??
I did not once say this was about athiesm. I also don't think fanch75 did. Apparently people continue to "hear" atheism despite ongoing protestations from me that I actually said "non-belief".
This is a thread about religion. Non-believer will therefore be taken as atheist or agnostic. Not someone who doesn't believe that taking drugs is harmful and won't admit it, not someone who doesn't believe in santa or the tooth fairy...
I would also like to share my specific family issue very much based on non-belief, which is how my atheist siblings connect.
I began to "wake up" to stuff that is unconscious in the human blueprint. I was very dysfunctional with numerous disorders. I started becoming aware of the inner "potential" of life working through me. To me, such experiences were purely spiritual in nature--beyond physical world understanding. Due to my dysfunctioning aspects, I also distorted my experiences, hence being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.
As I was growing, progressing and learning, with the guidance of the spiritual nature of life, within myself directing the way, my non-believing siblings continually degraded and undermined my view, my words, my experiences, etc, by calling it "delusional". (I am talking of my normal day to day experiences and personal views when not being psychiatrically "delusional". They tuned out the dramatically positive ongoing positive effects such "experiences" had in my life. This happened continually, and many of my family members are, to this day, accountable for their ignorance, degradation, minimization, etc. of my life. Their impact on me depicts the 'environmental' issues that help create and sustain mental illness. I lived the fallout in my family, along with another brother, and my mother, who had to leave the family earlier to save herself. To this day, not one of them has openly admitted to the accountability of what they did. They cannot see it. I understand that they are where they are. I also know that if they are to someday break the cycles of self-sabotage, they will also have to learn to own what they did.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
we're so caught up in man's law, we've been taught man's law
That's what religion is... another set of laws.... laws laid down by men as it suited (and still suits) society, meant to reign in people and keep them in check.
Is this because your 5 sibling are athiests (and use that as justification) that they avoid accountability for their harmful actions or just because they are little shitheads?
Neither, imo.
Can you say that if they were not atheist they would not be like that?
I think you and I are talking on two lines of thinking and there is not connection.
Does the sixth sibling (which I assume follows a religion) not follow that pattern because he/she is religious?
I have actively stated throughout this thead that this applies religious or not. People of religion act on non-belief, and people of non-religion act on non-belief.
Have you also seen on numerous occasions believers avoiding accountability, etc.?
Have you read my posts?
To me, it seems you are implying that non-believers are a lot more prone to that then believers and that you concur with fanch that non-accountability, etc. = non believers.
It would also seem to imply that believers are more righteous and have better morals
Just curious....
I say what I say, directly. I don't imply. If you are hearing something I am not saying, I wonder how the communication is breaking down.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I would also like to share my specific family issue very much based on non-belief, which is how my atheist siblings connect.
First of all, I acknowledge you seem to have had it tough and I commend you for dealing with it. I'm suffering from depression myself and I know how things can be.
Next, need to define non-belief of your atheist siblings. As my previous post, this is a thread about religion so for me non-belief = atheism.
I began to "wake up" to stuff that is unconscious in the human blueprint. I was very dysfunctional with numerous disorders. I started becoming aware of the inner "potential" of life working through me. To me, such experiences were purely spiritual in nature--beyond physical world understanding. Due to my dysfunctioning aspects, I also distorted my experiences, hence being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.
You chose your path, which may have seemed 'weird' for your siblings and therefore couldn't understand and support you.
This happened continually, and many of my family members are, to this day, accountable for their ignorance, degradation, minimization, etc. of my life. Their impact on me depicts the 'environmental' issues that help create and sustain mental illness. I lived the fallout in my family, along with another brother, and my mother, who had to leave the family earlier to save herself. To this day, not one of them has openly admitted to the accountability of what they did. They cannot see it. I understand that they are where they are. I also know that if they are to someday break the cycles of self-sabotage, they will also have to learn to own what they did.
Far from wanting to point a finger anywhere, this seems very one-sided.
Mental illness is difficult. My mother is bi-polar and I have great difficulties with her for various reasons and I'm sure she could use some of the arguements you use against your family, against me.
Would my reaction to her be different if I was a believer (in the religious sense), if I belonged to a religion which would "provide a few good guidelines on how to live appropriately". I'm accountable for my actions, just like she is for hers...even if it is easier for her to 'blame' it on others. BTW, my mother is a staunch catholic.
This is a thread about religion. Non-believer will therefore be taken as atheist or agnostic. Not someone who doesn't believe that taking drugs is harmful and won't admit it, not someone who doesn't believe in santa or the tooth fairy...
I stand behind what I said, and my clarifications.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I stand behind what I said, and my clarifications.
But this is a thread about religion. You seem to be losing yourself in lots of words and explanations that are therefore not relevant to the subject!
I think we will continue to speak 'cross-wired' if we do not understand the definition of some basic words the same way (or use them in the same way).
The general consensus on the thread seems to be non-believer=atheist/agnostic, believer = religious (whatever formal religion it may be), and spirituality does not automatically mean religion.
The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God." They are corrupt,
their deeds are vile; there is
no one who does good.
~Psalms 14:1
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica, your statement that "Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions," combined with this being a thread about religion, led me to believe that you were discussing religious belief. Clearly I was mistaken, but I'm sure you can see how pointing out that your siblings were atheist and then grouping them with other "non-belief people" would lead me in that direction.
Because this is a religion thread, I have been looking at belief in that sense. Believing or not believing in a supernatural force is entirely different than saying you don't "believe" that you are harming yourself or others when you drink a pint of vodka every day. That you are indeed harming yourself can be proven, so it's beyond the realm of belief or faith. People can deny it if they like, but it's a denial of a fact that can be shown to exist with a simple blood test of your liver function, and probably mounds of other evidence as well. A person may say that they don't believe it, but what they really mean is that they choose to ignore it because it's inconvenient for them to acknowledge. Either that, or they possess insufficient intelligence and/or knowledge to understand and make use of the clear evidence that's right in front of them.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "non-belief people." Some of your examples lead me to think that you're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge facts, and I would certainly agree that's very foolish indeed.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
First of all, I acknowledge you seem to have had it tough and I commend you for dealing with it. I'm suffering from depression myself and I know how things can be.
Thank-you. I'm sorry to hear you suffer from depression.
Next, need to define non-belief of your atheist siblings. As my previous post, this is a thread about religion so for me non-belief = atheism.
They had non-belief of my experiences. They had non-belief of my experience and therefore they were destructive, rather than neutral or supportive. They would not accept they were destructive, because they justified that they were being helpful (setting me straight). They judged me as "wrong"/ill because "God is not real", displaying their higher power non-belief to a degree where they gave themselves permission to contribute to the continuation of major family illness for myself and them.( They judged my words, and personal experiences as delusional (they acted out non-belief of the concept of "higher power"/natural law)when I was in periods of non-active illness--many, many times. They pathologized my personal views, due to their personal non-belief, directly to my children who were grappling with enough pain. One sibling went to my son's school to kidnap him because she had a non-belief in what I was saying about my mental state because again, God was involved in my beliefs. In this instance, my non-ill boyfriend stood behind that I was working on issues, but that I was sane. Still, this sibling went to illegally abduct my son, to the degree of telling the school vice-principle that I was delusional. Her non-belief went so far as to include not believing the words of my boyfriend! These are but a few experiences.
Far from wanting to point a finger anywhere, this seems very one-sided.
Your opinion noted.
Mental illness is difficult. My mother is bi-polar and I have great difficulties with her for various reasons and I'm sure she could use some of the arguements you use against your family, against me.
I am also accountable for my each dysfunctioning thoughts, words, and deeds in my family. throughout this thread, I use the words "we", including myself--when one is acting from non-belief, that includes my own self--I accept natural law, completely. I own my dysfunctioning accountability 100%, my siblings each own theirs (acknowledged or not), 100%. You own accountability of your dysfunctioning actions, 100%; your mother owns the accountability of her dysfunctioning actions, 100%.
Would my reaction to her be different if I was a believer (in the religious sense), if I belonged to a religion which would "provide a few good guidelines on how to live appropriately". I'm accountable for my actions, just like she is for hers...even if it is easier for her to 'blame' it on others. BTW, my mother is a staunch catholic.
I've said all along we all do the denial when it suits us. I am making a clear point about non-belief in this thread because there is such avoidance of looking at it. When I bring it up, I keep hearing--"well religious people do it too" as if it makes the non-belief actions of non-religous people okay.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions is kinda pushing it I'd think. I could make the argument that they feel more responsible for their actions and how they effect others, but I really don't want to provoke people.
Please show me where someone accused athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions?
If you can make an argument attempting to prove that an entire group of people is more responsible for their actions than others, I'd think you were distinctly operating on a false premise.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thank you. You got it 100%.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I thought a few times you did point to that:
And I never said that a group of people are more responsible for their actions than others. I said I could make the argument that they could feel more responsible or accountable for their actions than people who are following a religion. If it is fair game to point out that Atheists use non-belief to excuse not owning their personal behavior, I'm sure it is fair to make the opposite argument also.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Also, are you saying that when I described what I thought fanch75 was saying, that you felt it was the same thing as accusing a group of people of something?
Again, if you feel you can make a blanket generalized argument for or against any one group of people, I will say that the argument is based on a flawed premise and therefore the logic is distorted.
If you want to make a case for how an athiest could be construed as is more accountable than a person following a religion, I'd love to hear it. I'm not talking about the "idealized" image of an athiest, and how one would ideally operate, I'm talking about that I'd love to hear a realistic argument.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It seemed you were implying that in your experience that is the way Atheists are.
I'd like to hear the context of it also. In what way did they deflect personal accountablity for something because of their lack of belief?
It seemed that you were saying that you agreed that it was valid that people who want to justify being self-centered, non-contributing, and non-accountable would find Atheism comforting.
I agree, blanket generalizations are almost never accurate, even towards Atheists.
It is kind of hard to account for every Atheist, just as it would be for every person in every religion. Not just the "idealized" practice of the religion.
A hypothetical argument on how an Atheist could be more self aware of his or others shortcomings than someone who practices a religion would still be valid, as that seemed to me to be what was being implied in the reverse.
Acceptance of war and intolerance as morally right by many througout the years is probably a good example. Instead of judging actions and reactions on their merits, many can just use their religion as a filter to completely deflect any sense of responsibility or accountablily to their actions or thier acceptance and support of others actions and just consider it "right".
I don't really want to get into some huge argument and offend people, but I'll just say I think it is completely incorrect that people become atheists because they don't want to feel guilt for things they do.
I apologize if I misunderstood your points.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If that was what I said, (and it is not) it is still different than "accusing athiests of feeling unaccountable for their actions", which you felt I was doing.
I agreed with fanch75's term of non-belief, which is NOT the same thing as athiesm. I know many athiests who believe in many things. There are a few athiests on this board whom I love and respect for their willingness to grow and learn, and for their deep desire to live their purpose in the world. They try to live to their highest beliefs. There are many other athiests I appreciate and respect for similar and other reasons. I also love and respect anyone, athiest or otherwise, who might be in a dark place and not be able to own accountability. The bottom line is, when people are unaccountable for whatever the reason, if they use non-belief to justify it, they are attempting to justify the unjustifiable. And yes people also use belief to justify the unjustifiable. Whoever does the unjustiable will seek to rationlize it, and yet it can't work. Consequences result.
You're making my point for me...it was you who said you could make the argument about athiests. I personally believe that athiests are people, like me and therefore they sometimes justify dumb things and have to learn the hard way....like me, and all people.
Again, I didn't see it being implied in reverse, and I know I personally didn't imply it in reverse. I fully agree that both scenarios are possible. edit: by the last statement, I mean that an athiest can have a raised awareness or a religious peron could too. Regardless of religious belief or non-religious belief.
No one said this or implied it, from what I understood. I accept your apology and I apologize if I have not been clear in explaining what I mean.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yea, i *got* that...but point is, that hardly accounts for many within the group of atheists/agnostics.....so yea, why even bring it up? i mean honestly, then what do the 'believers/religious' use as their *excuse* to justify "self-centeredness and non-contribution, non-acceptance-of-accountability etc"....b/c yea....there are many believers who are the same. so really, the point is....imo more was being said there. i personally don't know too many atheists, know lots of agnostics, and many religous...and i can honestly say i do not personally know one person like that. so the fact that one mentions that one may 'find comfort in their atheism' as a handy excuse for being a self-centered hodonist.....doesn't even seem worth mentioning without at the least acknowledging the flip side, theists who are the same way, simply without the handy 'excuse.' i've never met an atheist like that, not to say the possibility that they exist, but yea.....does seem a biased offering at best. at the very least, should've used the term for "SOME", it may be comforting. the way it's written originally strongly suggests he is of the opinion that atheists = non-accountability.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
When I say "non-belief" I mean non belief.
If a religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses their faith as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
If a non-religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses non-belief as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
The reason this is entirely relevent in this thread is because I'm hearing an atmosphere of "Religion is to blame for bad things in this world--get rid of it". The truth is, people use religion to justify bad judgment. And people use non-belief to justify bad judgment.
If people are only seeing their own point of how religious people distort life, but refuse to see how it happens with people of no-faith, I'm going to call out and point to that the Emperor has no clothes. (well, actually fanch75 did and I jumped on the bandwagon). It has been called out in regards to religious people in this thread, and I think it's more than fair to point out the other side of the coin.
Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions. I see them continue the same damaging-to-others patterns, and justifying it. The bottom line is there is no justification for damaging others. If a person chooses to not accept accountability consciously, and to instead learn unconsciously through the consequences of their life choices, fair enough. I, however, cannot pretend that I have not seen this dynamic over and over in my life. Regardless who it is, we all have our unconscious issues that we are blind to, and that we will be forced to face in terms of our life patterns. Some live and learn, others do not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift". --Albert Einstein.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's easy to find examples of people using religion to justify their bad behavior. We need look no further than Al Qaeda, the Spanish Inquisition, or some jerk beating his kids and quoting the old "spare the rod" line. I can't recall seeing an atheist do anything similar. Again, that's not to say they don't come up with excuses, because of course they do, I just can't recall atheism figuring into any of those excuses. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that an example would be useful here.
For example, I've heard people justify abusing substances over and over, because of their non-belief in the consequences of natural laws. I've heard people say "I don't believe that I am hurting myself or others", indicating non-belief. Many, many people are denying objective, psychological discernment and understanding, obtained by scientific means. Such people justify being willing to continue substance abuse with a non-belief in the consequences (natural law). I've heard the justifcations of how it's not harming anyone. I see the glaring ignorance of their underlying patterns and how they are crippling their own potential. I hear how they operate on what is literally called "negative hallucinations" in psychology: they tune out the chaos they are creating in their family systems by blotting out their fuller feelings with substances, and therefore practicing the same "objectifying" onto others, causing great suffering. Being both subjectively aware and psychologically objectively aware of this particular topic, and having lived with and beyond my own substance abuse issues, I have many understandings of the dynamics. I understand what the underlying "cycle" is about. I understand how we deny it to ourselves. I understand what coming out of the fog is and of having to learn to manage the "self" one is actively distorting in order to heal. I understand what it is to have to accept accountability for all the damage one has created through periods of blind unaccountability. I know what it is to deny natural law and learn the "hard way".
I did not once say this was about athiesm. I also don't think fanch75 did. Apparently people continue to "hear" atheism despite ongoing protestations from me that I actually said "non-belief". If my words are being changed beyond my use of them, my point will not be heard or understood.
We either understand the consequences for our actions or we don't. For many people, religion provides a few good guidelines on how to live appropriately. Some people have an attitude that they will take their chances and live and learn. At any time, if denial of natural consequences comes into place, from acting out non-belief of such natural law on any level (religious or not), we'll get what is coming to us. The bottom line is if we are to progress and grow in our lives we will/must learn our lessons--not ignore them. If we stagnate, we must live in stagnation. If we self-sabotage, we live out self-sabotage--I think eden said earlier that "live" spelled backwards is "evil". Again, I think we all have our constructive moments, and we all have our destructive ones--we sabotage ourselves and others. The reason 98 percent of the population is not self-actualized is because we are not learning the lessons of life. I personally believe we're so caught up in man's law, we've been taught man's law and lost touch with nature and natural evolutionary law even while being immersed in it.
BTW, I've got numerous examples besides the substance abuse one, but the basic plotline is the same so I thought I'd spare everyone the seeming "sermon". There is a reason all the basic life systems all point to the same thing: natural law. We're all intricately bound with it and are very concerned with it. And yet we willfully deny it by our actions all the time. Please pardon me if I choose to see, hear, and deeply revere and respect it. Some may call it a delusion. I call it being very aware of the truth we are inundated by.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Is this because your 5 sibling are athiests (and use that as justification) that they avoid accountability for their harmful actions or just because they are little shitheads? Can you say that if they were not atheist they would not be like that?
Does the sixth sibling (which I assume follows a religion) not follow that pattern because he/she is religious?
Have you also seen on numerous occasions believers avoiding accountability, etc.?
To me, it seems you are implying that non-believers are a lot more prone to that then believers and that you concur with fanch that non-accountability, etc. = non believers.
It would also seem to imply that believers are more righteous and have better morals??
Just curious....
This is a thread about religion. Non-believer will therefore be taken as atheist or agnostic. Not someone who doesn't believe that taking drugs is harmful and won't admit it, not someone who doesn't believe in santa or the tooth fairy...
I began to "wake up" to stuff that is unconscious in the human blueprint. I was very dysfunctional with numerous disorders. I started becoming aware of the inner "potential" of life working through me. To me, such experiences were purely spiritual in nature--beyond physical world understanding. Due to my dysfunctioning aspects, I also distorted my experiences, hence being diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.
As I was growing, progressing and learning, with the guidance of the spiritual nature of life, within myself directing the way, my non-believing siblings continually degraded and undermined my view, my words, my experiences, etc, by calling it "delusional". (I am talking of my normal day to day experiences and personal views when not being psychiatrically "delusional". They tuned out the dramatically positive ongoing positive effects such "experiences" had in my life. This happened continually, and many of my family members are, to this day, accountable for their ignorance, degradation, minimization, etc. of my life. Their impact on me depicts the 'environmental' issues that help create and sustain mental illness. I lived the fallout in my family, along with another brother, and my mother, who had to leave the family earlier to save herself. To this day, not one of them has openly admitted to the accountability of what they did. They cannot see it. I understand that they are where they are. I also know that if they are to someday break the cycles of self-sabotage, they will also have to learn to own what they did.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think you and I are talking on two lines of thinking and there is not connection.
I have actively stated throughout this thead that this applies religious or not. People of religion act on non-belief, and people of non-religion act on non-belief.
Have you read my posts?
I say what I say, directly. I don't imply. If you are hearing something I am not saying, I wonder how the communication is breaking down.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
First of all, I acknowledge you seem to have had it tough and I commend you for dealing with it. I'm suffering from depression myself and I know how things can be.
Next, need to define non-belief of your atheist siblings. As my previous post, this is a thread about religion so for me non-belief = atheism.
You chose your path, which may have seemed 'weird' for your siblings and therefore couldn't understand and support you.
Far from wanting to point a finger anywhere, this seems very one-sided.
Mental illness is difficult. My mother is bi-polar and I have great difficulties with her for various reasons and I'm sure she could use some of the arguements you use against your family, against me.
Would my reaction to her be different if I was a believer (in the religious sense), if I belonged to a religion which would "provide a few good guidelines on how to live appropriately". I'm accountable for my actions, just like she is for hers...even if it is easier for her to 'blame' it on others. BTW, my mother is a staunch catholic.
I stand behind what I said, and my clarifications.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But this is a thread about religion. You seem to be losing yourself in lots of words and explanations that are therefore not relevant to the subject!
I think we will continue to speak 'cross-wired' if we do not understand the definition of some basic words the same way (or use them in the same way).
The general consensus on the thread seems to be non-believer=atheist/agnostic, believer = religious (whatever formal religion it may be), and spirituality does not automatically mean religion.
This is what I'm basing my discussions on.
The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God." They are corrupt,
their deeds are vile; there is
no one who does good.
~Psalms 14:1
Because this is a religion thread, I have been looking at belief in that sense. Believing or not believing in a supernatural force is entirely different than saying you don't "believe" that you are harming yourself or others when you drink a pint of vodka every day. That you are indeed harming yourself can be proven, so it's beyond the realm of belief or faith. People can deny it if they like, but it's a denial of a fact that can be shown to exist with a simple blood test of your liver function, and probably mounds of other evidence as well. A person may say that they don't believe it, but what they really mean is that they choose to ignore it because it's inconvenient for them to acknowledge. Either that, or they possess insufficient intelligence and/or knowledge to understand and make use of the clear evidence that's right in front of them.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "non-belief people." Some of your examples lead me to think that you're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge facts, and I would certainly agree that's very foolish indeed.
Must also remember the bible is composed of only a few, well chosen gospels among many (some of them a lot more controversial!)
Matthew 10:34 (New King James Version)
Christ Brings Division
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:34;&version=50;
They had non-belief of my experiences. They had non-belief of my experience and therefore they were destructive, rather than neutral or supportive. They would not accept they were destructive, because they justified that they were being helpful (setting me straight). They judged me as "wrong"/ill because "God is not real", displaying their higher power non-belief to a degree where they gave themselves permission to contribute to the continuation of major family illness for myself and them.( They judged my words, and personal experiences as delusional (they acted out non-belief of the concept of "higher power"/natural law)when I was in periods of non-active illness--many, many times. They pathologized my personal views, due to their personal non-belief, directly to my children who were grappling with enough pain. One sibling went to my son's school to kidnap him because she had a non-belief in what I was saying about my mental state because again, God was involved in my beliefs. In this instance, my non-ill boyfriend stood behind that I was working on issues, but that I was sane. Still, this sibling went to illegally abduct my son, to the degree of telling the school vice-principle that I was delusional. Her non-belief went so far as to include not believing the words of my boyfriend! These are but a few experiences.
Your opinion noted.
I am also accountable for my each dysfunctioning thoughts, words, and deeds in my family. throughout this thread, I use the words "we", including myself--when one is acting from non-belief, that includes my own self--I accept natural law, completely. I own my dysfunctioning accountability 100%, my siblings each own theirs (acknowledged or not), 100%. You own accountability of your dysfunctioning actions, 100%; your mother owns the accountability of her dysfunctioning actions, 100%.
I've said all along we all do the denial when it suits us. I am making a clear point about non-belief in this thread because there is such avoidance of looking at it. When I bring it up, I keep hearing--"well religious people do it too" as if it makes the non-belief actions of non-religous people okay.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!