Watching my cat, thinking about god and human nature

[Astonished]

You went WAAAAAAAY the fuck overboard with all that, honestly, it was a struggle to read it. Let me try to address a few of your points that actually matter.

I don't get this hangup about homogeneity. I never said a culture couldn't exist that is vastly different from another; my problem, specifically about religious ones, is that they're derived from an irrational framework and that way lies madness. You get rid of the irrational shit, hey, I'm down. And I was taken aback by your absolutely bonkers, completely unwarranted and out-of-left-field comparison of religion to race, that is baffling how you could make the assumption I was in any way making that implication (or if you weren't insinuating that, why the fuck you'd even think to bring that up), nobody chooses their race, which is superficial and stupid as a social construct anyway, but people CAN choose to reject an irrational set of beliefs. Utterly incomparable and irrational statement to make on your part, so much so that now I am kind of worried about what kind of effects your worldview may have had on you; whether you were exaggerating or joking, I can't tell, but if not, that's kind of proof of the point I'm making.

Cultures that may not necessarily be religious can still be harmful to others, if ritualistic mutilation or ostracism of homosexuals, for example, are practiced because those are both irrational and harmful (although I'd think it would be difficult to find a culture that practices either of those things without a religious basis). There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of something like that in the interest of human well-being. Some have suggested that 'religious reform' is the solution but when you actually look at the framework of those religions, you realize the framework is the problem in the first place, and would have to be entirely scrapped to make any significant difference or improvement. If whatever benign cultural implements of religions want to remain and the harmful aspects are surgically excised, I could be comfortable with that IF there is no effort to indoctrinate children in any way. No one should be forced to adopt a worldview at the exclusion of all others with no chance to question, change or adapt. If they decide on their own to walk the path of reality denial, they can live with the consequences (if they're the sort unwilling to reflect upon this and change their mind, which, BTW, is the polar opposite of how science works, which I'm a big fan of).

There are some viewpoints that just demonstrably do not deserve respect and I think you understand that, your seemingly naive level of tolerance aside. I'm attacking THOSE and today the biggest and best example is, unsurprisingly, religion. As I've said, the kind of reform needed to fix the problems is such that they would largely have to become unrecognizable, but if it's a matter of keeping people from harm, then I'd be derelict in my secular humanist duty to not do what I could to help that happen.

Since the secular community is basically trying to negate their very identity by removing all religious labels everywhere, the fact that you identify as whatever, and plan to raise a child as whatever, perpetuates that system of labels and differentiation. That's not exactly productive or positive, simply reeking of elitism and exclusionary rhetoric. Maybe you don't see it that way but then I find that it's very difficult for those on the inside to have an outsider's perspective. Cultures are much easier to adopt and be welcomed into than religions because of the absence of dogma (at least, non-religious cultures) unless they're also derived from an irrational perspective and have exclusionary beliefs. Those kind of labels are more benign than any religious ones, and would be more like what kind of restaurant to eat at rather than any kind of personal identity one could use to evaluate one's position in relation to another. The only kind of thing that would be justifiably used to do that would be someone's educational credentials.

You use a shitload of hyperbole and I can't tell if it's intentional or not but it makes reading it uncomfortable. But I've said my piece, and I still disagree with you because you don't seem to grasp my position even though I did my best to pose the question in the simplest form I could.

[Aliza]

You went WAAAAAAAY the fuck overboard with all that, honestly, it was a struggle to read it. Let me try to address a few of your points that actually matter.

I don't get this hangup about homogeneity. I never said a culture couldn't exist that is vastly different from another; my problem, specifically about religious ones, is that they're derived from an irrational framework and that way lies madness. You get rid of the irrational shit, hey, I'm down. And I was taken aback by your absolutely bonkers, completely unwarranted and out-of-left-field comparison of religion to race, that is baffling how you could make the assumption I was in any way making that implication (or if you weren't insinuating that, why the fuck you'd even think to bring that up), nobody chooses their race, which is superficial and stupid as a social construct anyway, but people CAN choose to reject an irrational set of beliefs. Utterly incomparable and irrational statement to make on your part, so much so that now I am kind of worried about what kind of effects your worldview may have had on you; whether you were exaggerating or joking, I can't tell, but if not, that's kind of proof of the point I'm making.

Cultures that may not necessarily be religious can still be harmful to others, if ritualistic mutilation or ostracism of homosexuals, for example, are practiced because those are both irrational and harmful (although I'd think it would be difficult to find a culture that practices either of those things without a religious basis). There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of something like that in the interest of human well-being. Some have suggested that 'religious reform' is the solution but when you actually look at the framework of those religions, you realize the framework is the problem in the first place, and would have to be entirely scrapped to make any significant difference or improvement. If whatever benign cultural implements of religions want to remain and the harmful aspects are surgically excised, I could be comfortable with that IF there is no effort to indoctrinate children in any way. No one should be forced to adopt a worldview at the exclusion of all others with no chance to question, change or adapt. If they decide on their own to walk the path of reality denial, they can live with the consequences (if they're the sort unwilling to reflect upon this and change their mind, which, BTW, is the polar opposite of how science works, which I'm a big fan of).

There are some viewpoints that just demonstrably do not deserve respect and I think you understand that, your seemingly naive level of tolerance aside. I'm attacking THOSE and today the biggest and best example is, unsurprisingly, religion. As I've said, the kind of reform needed to fix the problems is such that they would largely have to become unrecognizable, but if it's a matter of keeping people from harm, then I'd be derelict in my secular humanist duty to not do what I could to help that happen.

Since the secular community is basically trying to negate their very identity by removing all religious labels everywhere, the fact that you identify as whatever, and plan to raise a child as whatever, perpetuates that system of labels and differentiation. That's not exactly productive or positive, simply reeking of elitism and exclusionary rhetoric. Maybe you don't see it that way but then I find that it's very difficult for those on the inside to have an outsider's perspective. Cultures are much easier to adopt and be welcomed into than religions because of the absence of dogma (at least, non-religious cultures) unless they're also derived from an irrational perspective and have exclusionary beliefs. Those kind of labels are more benign than any religious ones, and would be more like what kind of restaurant to eat at rather than any kind of personal identity one could use to evaluate one's position in relation to another. The only kind of thing that would be justifiably used to do that would be someone's educational credentials.

You use a shitload of hyperbole and I can't tell if it's intentional or not but it makes reading it uncomfortable. But I've said my piece, and I still disagree with you because you don't seem to grasp my position even though I did my best to pose the question in the simplest form I could.

Do you have a problem properly socializing with people? I'm thinking something isn't quite right here. You've got 820 posts and only 11 reputation points. Clearly you aren't turning any heads around here. You don't seem to know how to tactfully discuss mature subjects with people, nor do you seem to even be able to recognize when people are attempting to engage in adult conversation.

[The Valkyrie]

Most cats think they are God's.

[Astonished]

You went WAAAAAAAY the fuck overboard with all that, honestly, it was a struggle to read it. Let me try to address a few of your points that actually matter.

I don't get this hangup about homogeneity. I never said a culture couldn't exist that is vastly different from another; my problem, specifically about religious ones, is that they're derived from an irrational framework and that way lies madness. You get rid of the irrational shit, hey, I'm down. And I was taken aback by your absolutely bonkers, completely unwarranted and out-of-left-field comparison of religion to race, that is baffling how you could make the assumption I was in any way making that implication (or if you weren't insinuating that, why the fuck you'd even think to bring that up), nobody chooses their race, which is superficial and stupid as a social construct anyway, but people CAN choose to reject an irrational set of beliefs. Utterly incomparable and irrational statement to make on your part, so much so that now I am kind of worried about what kind of effects your worldview may have had on you; whether you were exaggerating or joking, I can't tell, but if not, that's kind of proof of the point I'm making.

Cultures that may not necessarily be religious can still be harmful to others, if ritualistic mutilation or ostracism of homosexuals, for example, are practiced because those are both irrational and harmful (although I'd think it would be difficult to find a culture that practices either of those things without a religious basis). There's nothing wrong with wanting to rid the world of something like that in the interest of human well-being. Some have suggested that 'religious reform' is the solution but when you actually look at the framework of those religions, you realize the framework is the problem in the first place, and would have to be entirely scrapped to make any significant difference or improvement. If whatever benign cultural implements of religions want to remain and the harmful aspects are surgically excised, I could be comfortable with that IF there is no effort to indoctrinate children in any way. No one should be forced to adopt a worldview at the exclusion of all others with no chance to question, change or adapt. If they decide on their own to walk the path of reality denial, they can live with the consequences (if they're the sort unwilling to reflect upon this and change their mind, which, BTW, is the polar opposite of how science works, which I'm a big fan of).

There are some viewpoints that just demonstrably do not deserve respect and I think you understand that, your seemingly naive level of tolerance aside. I'm attacking THOSE and today the biggest and best example is, unsurprisingly, religion. As I've said, the kind of reform needed to fix the problems is such that they would largely have to become unrecognizable, but if it's a matter of keeping people from harm, then I'd be derelict in my secular humanist duty to not do what I could to help that happen.

Since the secular community is basically trying to negate their very identity by removing all religious labels everywhere, the fact that you identify as whatever, and plan to raise a child as whatever, perpetuates that system of labels and differentiation. That's not exactly productive or positive, simply reeking of elitism and exclusionary rhetoric. Maybe you don't see it that way but then I find that it's very difficult for those on the inside to have an outsider's perspective. Cultures are much easier to adopt and be welcomed into than religions because of the absence of dogma (at least, non-religious cultures) unless they're also derived from an irrational perspective and have exclusionary beliefs. Those kind of labels are more benign than any religious ones, and would be more like what kind of restaurant to eat at rather than any kind of personal identity one could use to evaluate one's position in relation to another. The only kind of thing that would be justifiably used to do that would be someone's educational credentials.

You use a shitload of hyperbole and I can't tell if it's intentional or not but it makes reading it uncomfortable. But I've said my piece, and I still disagree with you because you don't seem to grasp my position even though I did my best to pose the question in the simplest form I could.

Do you have a problem properly socializing with people? I'm thinking something isn't quite right here. You've got 820 posts and only 11 reputation points. Clearly you aren't turning any heads around here. You don't seem to know how to tactfully discuss mature subjects with people, nor do you seem to even be able to recognize when people are attempting to engage in adult conversation.

Not in person, but then people in real life don't generally make such bad impressions. I suppose it's like getting behind the wheel of a car; I find most people's performance and intelligence drops dramatically based on how many close-calls I have while out on my bike.

And I don't give two shits about rep or adding to my friendslist; if this was a larger forum then I might but it's not and I don't.

The fact that you missed the mark so wide and so hard was simply baffling to me, and you criticize me for not engaging in adult conversation? Look in a mirror, for crying out loud. Two completely empty paragraphs about being a Floridian, explaining why racism is bad when a five-year-old understands that, I honestly was under the impression I was dealing with someone who genuinely didn't understand some very basic concepts. What good is it to use my best effort when I have good reason to think it's going to go to waste?

[RedgraveStorm]

Most cats think they are God's.

I have two cats and this is 100% accurate. Those adorable little beasts seem to think that I must feed them at their every whim, lest they get angry.

[Astonished]

Most cats think they are God's.

I have two cats and this is 100% accurate. Those adorable little beasts seem to think that I must feed them at their every whim, lest they get angry.

Weren't they considered actual gods, or somewhat divine, in ancient Egypt?

[The Valkyrie]

I have two cats and this is 100% accurate. Those adorable little beasts seem to think that I must feed them at their every whim, lest they get angry.

Weren't they considered actual gods, or somewhat divine, in ancient Egypt?

Yup.

Bastet is the Egyptian cat goddess.

[Astonished]

Weren't they considered actual gods, or somewhat divine, in ancient Egypt?

Yup.

Bastet is the Egyptian cat goddess.

LOL, yes! Black Panther mentioned that character in Captain America: Civil War, probably no coincidence.

[Astonished]

Yup.

Bastet is the Egyptian cat goddess.

LOL, yes! Black Panther mentioned that character (Bastet...but I think he just called it Bast?) in Captain America: Civil War, probably no coincidence.