Skip to main content

Foolish people who coincidentally (heh) have religious beliefs often mistake atheism for nihilism, so I would like to liberate them from this misimpression: We can be full of reverence.  Just not necessarily reverence of things that don't exist, dreamed up in the fevered imaginations of people long dead. Real life is no "kingdom" - it is a vast, uncharted territory with many things to discover, and many things worthy of worship.  The following are a few things I don't merely like and enjoy, but which I find enriching on a personal level.  They may mean nothing to you, or they may seem entertaining but hardly profound.  That is the awesomeness of a world without limits: That you can find what you seek, in places that surprise you, and that in some cases may remain mysterious to those around you.  Some cliches are truly profound; some obscure things soar above everything famous; you just don't know anything until you find it.

There is more living truth below than in any "holy" book:



Originally posted to Troubadour on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM PST.

Also republished by Street Prophets .

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  but everyone knows that atheists are a (17+ / 0-)

    monolithic group, all of them having exactly the same beliefs on every subject and gathering quietly every night to plot for world domination and subjugation and pushing teh secular agenda.

  •  I'll see your Pachelbel Canon. (7+ / 0-)

    And raise you a Monty Python.

    I think it provides a sense of real perspective.

    In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

    by Tailgunner30uk on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:53:26 AM PST

  •  Something a little more serious. (11+ / 0-)

    Someone pointed me to this a couple of years ago.

    Amazing talent and an awesome track from the Beatles.

    Nothing more need be said.

    In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

    by Tailgunner30uk on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:48:36 AM PST

  •  I Ain't Most Wonder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, Troubadour

    ao many tithings here ....

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:59:46 AM PST

  •  It is also possible (10+ / 0-)

    to be an atheist, to revere many aspects of both the human and the natural world and NOT to denigrate the values and or faith of people who do have a theist faith.

    While I find myself agreeing with the content of your post; those parts resonate, I'm troubled by the tone -- it does not resonate at all.  My experience of being a person without a faith who reveres many things, is that I don't find the denigration of someone's faith to be a particularly reverent attitude.

    There are many models of how to be an atheist, just as there are many models of how to be a person of faith.  I hope between the two of us, we've offered at least two.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:58:51 AM PST

    •  Could you be more specific... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreenPA, Troubadour

      about which parts of this diary are denigrating the values or faith of theists?

      •  for starters: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marko the Werelynx, Troubadour
        Foolish people who coincidentally (heh) have religious beliefs
        not necessarily reverence of things that don't exist, dreamed up in the fevered imaginations of people long dead
        There is more living truth below than in any "holy" book:
        While I am an atheist as well, I really don't see a need for such denigrating language. I don't personally believe in a god or gods or that the "holy books" are anything more than man's projected desires passing off as being of divine origin, but i find his tone and language defensive and unnecessarily provocative.
        •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

          I agree.

          Nothing makes me want to hide my atheism under a rock more than the "better-than-thou" atheists.

          I tore up my membership card ages ago.

          It's one thing to show, by example, that it is quite possible to lead a moral and charitable life without God and it is quite another thing to flaunt one's beliefs as superior and belittle others for having inferior beliefs.

          It's like a pathetic schoolyard bully puffing himself up by pushing someone else down.

          “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.”

          by Marko the Werelynx on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:47:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your first citation is out of context. (0+ / 0-)
          Foolish people who coincidentally (heh) have religious beliefs often mistake atheism for nihilism
          Where I would quibble with Troubadour is "who coincidentally (heh) have religious beliefs" is a non-restrictive clause that should be surrounded by commas.  Clearly that sentence does not read that people with religious beliefs are foolish, but that foolish people often mistake atheism for nihilism.  The non-restrictive clause adds that those foolish people have religious beliefs.  I don't know if I'd agree that that is necessarily so, but it is almost certainly generally so.

          Your second citation is also out of context.

          We can be full of reverence.  Just not necessarily reverence of things that don't exist, dreamed up in the fevered imaginations of people long dead.
          Troubadour is talking about what atheists revere.  I know that some theists will take exception to "things that don't exist", but not believing those things exist is kind of central to being an atheist.  Objecting to that language speaks more of the intolerance of theists than of atheists.

          As for "fevered imaginations", religious mythology must come from somewhere.  Given that atheists do not believe it is the inspired word of any god, it is reasonable to state that it comes from the imagination of men.  Again, objecting to that is objecting to atheism.  The only thing remaining that could reasonably be interpreted as denigrating is the word "fevered".  

          Fevered could mean delusional or it could mean at a heightened pace.  You'd have to ask Troubadour what he meant by that. But even if he meant delusional, I don't really see how that denigrates religion.  If it is imagined, it is either the product of delusion, a deliberate attempt to deceive, or it was written as fiction and adopted as true by the gullible.  I don't know which of those is not going to be offensive to believers.  Again, the atheist position is offensive to the believer.  A theist tolerant of atheists should be able to accept that position even if they find it offensive.  

          In your third citation I see nothing at all that could be interpreted as denigrating.  The atheist's position is that holy books needn't be considered either truth, or holy.  I see no justification for your criticism of this sentence.

          I think it has become fashionable to have these sorts of knee-jerk reactions to almost anything atheists say or write that isn't overtly complimentary to religion.  Given that atheism is essentially the negation of religion, that is not always going to be the case.  Anyone truly interested in respecting everyone's beliefs should recognize that.

          •  The "(heh)" after "coincidentally" (0+ / 0-)

            is a very clear statement that foolishness and religious beliefs go together, and that the combination is not coincidental at all.

            I don't see any other way to read that.

            •  Of course it is not coincidental. (0+ / 0-)

              There is an assumption there that atheists would not be prone to mistake atheism for nihilism.  That leaves theists, though it could be argued that theists and people who "have religious beliefs" are somewhat different subsets of individuals.

              Perhaps you can't see any other way to read it because you own prejudices cause you to read in the most negative of lights.

              •  If that were the intent (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                then the "coincidentally (heh)" would be applied to religious people mistaking atheism for nihilism, not to foolish people having religious beliefs.  Read the sentence again; it doesn't match your interpretation.

                Personally, I've been religious my entire life and it's always been obvious to me that atheism and nihilism are entirely unrelated.

    •  There is a big difference (0+ / 0-)

      between revering a lie as the truth and revering something because it's beautiful.

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:53:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The beliefs of an atheist (10+ / 0-)

    The life here might not always seem so intelligent, but evidence is building that sentience may in fact be very rare. We are a miracle of evolution, and since we each only have one precious, miraculous life, each is much more valuable than we treat it (not to be confused with a so-called "Pro-Life" stand, which in fact is anti-life, causing increased human misery rather than reducing it).

    The earth is not the anteroom to some much more fabulous place in the sky. It is a miraculous oasis, much grander than any limited concept of heaven.  It is the home to endless forms of life most beautiful, but we do have the capacity to make it unlivable for our own species and many others. We need to treat it as the unimaginably invaluable treasure that it is.

    To go along with appreciation of beautiful creations of man that can be inspired either secularly or religiously, these are basic tenets to this atheist, at least.

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:04:32 AM PST

    •  Sentience rare? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WarrenS, Munchkn, GreenPA, rb608, Troubadour

      We have dolphins self-aware enough to seek out a diver for assistance with a hook and line caught in it's fin. We have evidence of other species of humans (now extinct) that were self-aware enough to have burial rituals for the deceased. We're only beginning to realize just how common planets are in other solar systems, including those in the "Goldilocks zone".

      The only thing rare about sentience is our understanding of it.

      •  orrg1 is probably referring to the recent (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box, SilentBrook, Troubadour

        discoveries of exoplanets. It is growing more and more likely that planets that are compatible with complex life needed for sentience are a good deal rarer than we supposed before there were data to work with. The discovery of hot Jupiters and the chaotic planetary systems took everyone by surprise, and lowers the number of Earth-like planets in the galaxy - by how much, we are still uncovering.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:49:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are still a number of Earth-like planets... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          UnaSpenser, rb608, Troubadour

          ...discovered. In fact, some are statistically more habitable than earth, at least in their projected ability to maintain vegetation. (Though the discovered candidates so far are somewhat larger than earth with more gravity: you wouldn't want to walk around on one).

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:04:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  given that we don't come close to knowing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            the vastness that is the universe, nor can we even estimate how many planets are out there, nor can we likely imagine what all the possibilities are for the expressions of life,

            I am always amazed that people think it is logical to reach the conclusion that we some kind of rare, miraculous thing in existence.

            I love life, but I can't, based on a lack of evidence, which we are so unlikely to ever have a grasp on, claim that our life form is miraculous. Fascinating, yes. Miraculous? No.

            •  There are very strong chemical reasons to think (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              that any life form anywhere will use liquid water. If you are interested in the biochemistry I can expand on that, but it is a very strong, if not quite universal, consensus among scientists interested in exobiology.



              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:35:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, I know. but, this is based on our limited (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                perspective of the universe.

                We believe that all that we know somehow defines the limits of what can be.

                I find that kind of thinking very problematic. It doesn't allow us to break out of a human/earth-centric perspective.

                I'm not saying that I don't value life. I do.

                I'm not saying that I don't get why we see our form of life as special in the context of what we know.

                Miraculous, though? I don't get that.

                And, we must always hold onto the perspective that we will likely never know enough to have a full sense of what is "rare" or "miraculous".

          •  I am not aware of any that are more habitable, and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            I use and follow the exoplanet app that continuously updates its database (>850 so far). Do you have a cite for that?

            In any case no one anticipated the chaotic planetary systems that lead to hot jupiters so often - it is clear that many stellar systems will not contain any kind of life, and that is the opposite of what was assumed as little as twenty years ago.

            I have been a biologist since the early seventies - it was an enormous surprise to discover how cockamamie many planetary systems are.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:34:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              Got the info here. For example, Gilese 667c has a higher vegetation suitability index than Earth (0.98 to Earth's 0.72).

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:20:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That link doesn't include a "vegetation (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                suitability index" - maybe you meant the "Standard Primary Habitability " index in that link? That is just a surface temperature measure (and humidity if known which it can't be for now).

                Gliese 667c is a star, the third member of a triple star system. Since it is "a red dwarf with a stellar classification of M1.5...radiating only 1.4% of the Sun's luminosity from its outer atmosphere at a relatively cool effective temperature of 3,700 K." the so-called "habitable zone" is probably inside the tidally locked zone. You probably are thinking of " Gliese 667 Cc, the second planet out that orbits along the middle of the habitable zone" but for red dwarfs most planets in the habitable zone are tidally locked.



                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:03:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Gravity on most super-Earths, as far as I've seen (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            wouldn't be that much higher than on Earth.  Having twice the mass of Earth doesn't mean twice the gravity.  Density as a product of composition determines surface gravity.  If it's mostly silicate with a smaller iron core, the gravity won't go up at much of a rate with greater mass.

            Pour yourself into the future.

            by Troubadour on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:00:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  While I share your appreciation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      for this big blue marble we call home; one place where atheists and others diverge is on that concept of "miracles" you mention thrice.   We are not a miracle of evolution, we are merely a product of it, determined by millions of years of mutations, adaptations, and survival.  There is no miracle there.  

      I'll grant you the use of miracle as synonymous with incredibly small probabilities; but as an atheist, I can't accept the supernatural implication.

      "It is not, you fucking liberal prick." ..My RW friend Dave's last words to me.

      by rb608 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:59:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I always thought that scene from (9+ / 0-)

    Almost famous when they all sang 'Tiny Dancer" on the tour bus was magical. lol Seriously, it almost makes me cry. I always sing with them. I'll run in from the other room just to sing with them.

    And that entire Unplugged show of Nirvana was the most wonderful Unplugged ever made.

    You know what else a lot of people don't get about atheists? Some of us are deeply touched by the beauty of the world where it is beautiful. Since I began to come out as an atheist, I see the world with different eyes. Sometimes I describe it using a cheesy line from "Interview With a Vampire".

    "I was a newborn vampire, weeping at the beauty of the night..."

    When a creator or an intelligent designer is absent from your fundamental thinking, you can't help but develop an appreciation for life and the patterns it creates and how it has sustained and adapted and persevered...especially the beauty of it. Untouched, natural landscapes and waterfalls bring tears to my eyes. Because I believe we're all alone in this universe, without a parent figure of savior, I see love, tolerance, beauty, kindness, happiness as that much more miraculous. Love, life, the evolution of complex life is truly a wonderful thing to behold and I am lucky to be the mirror in which the universe sees the miracle of itself.

    Whenever I have to discuss or defend my lack of faith to my believer friends, they never expect that. They always expect me to be cynical. They're always wrong. They usually find that they are the cynical ones who have taken the beauty of life for granted. :-)

    "It's not enough to acknowledge privilege. You have to resist." -soothsayer

    by GenXangster on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:32:36 AM PST

    •  I like to tell people that we are all made out of (7+ / 0-)

      stuff created by stars.  Think about that.  We--and everything else in our world--are made out of the stuff created by stars.  How could anything be cooler than that?  

      So much more beautiful and breathtaking than being made out of clay or a rib or some other imagined story.  

      Metaphors be with you.

      by koosah on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:26:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well said. (0+ / 0-)

      The Almost Famous scene is one of the most profound in the history of film.  Not because they're singing, obviously, but the combination of singing with the "You are home" and the look of realization on the kid's face.  

      And I have the same feelings about the end of Lost in Translation.  I will always worship Sofia Coppola for making that, even though I haven't really liked anything else she's made.

      Pour yourself into the future.

      by Troubadour on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:09:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My atheist creed: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Munchkn, SilentBrook, rb608, Troubadour, ExStr8

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:02:02 AM PST

  •  If this isn't reverent, then I don't know what is (7+ / 0-)

    Robert Green Ingersoll's eulogy for Walt Whitman.

        MY FRIENDS: Again we, in the mystery of Life, are brought face
    to face with the mystery of Death. A great man, a great American,
    the most eminent citizen of this Republic, lies dead before us, and
    we have met to pay a tribute to his greatness and his worth.

         I know he needs no words of mine. His fame is secure. He laid
    the foundations of it deep in the human heart and brain. He was,
    above all I have known, the poet of humanity, of sympathy. He was
    so great that he rose above the greatest that he met without
    arrogance, and so great that he stooped to the lowest without
    conscious condescension. He never claimed to be lower or greater
    than any of the sons of men.

         He came into our generation a free, untrammeled spirit, with
    sympathy for all. His arm was beneath the form of the sick. He
    sympathized with the imprisoned and despised, and even on the brow
    of crime he was great enough to place the kiss of human sympathy.

         One of the greatest lines in our literature is his, and the
    line is great enough to do honor to the greatest genius that has
    ever lived. He said, speaking of an outcast: "Not till the sun
    excludes you do I exclude you."

         His charity was as wide as the sky, and wherever there was
    human suffering, human misfortune, the sympathy of Whitman bent
    above it as the firmament bends above the earth.

         He was built on a broad and splendid plan -- ample, without
    appearing to have limitations -- passing easily for a brother of
    mountains and seas and constellations; caring nothing for the
    little maps and charts with which timid pilots hug the shore, but
    giving himself freely with recklessness of genius to winds and
    waves and tides; caring for nothing as long as the stars were above
    him. He walked among men, among writers, among verbal varnishers
    and veneerers, among literary milliners and tailors, with the
    unconscious majesty of an antique god.

         He was the poet of that divine democracy which gives equal
    rights to all the sons and daughters of men. He uttered the great
    American voice; uttered a song worthy of the great Republic. No man
    ever said more for the rights of humanity, more in favor of real democracy, of real justice. He neither scorned nor cringed, was
    neither tyrant nor slave. He asked only to stand the equal of his
    fellows beneath the great flag of nature, the blue and stars.

         He was the poet of Life. It was a joy simply to breathe. He
    loved the clouds; he enjoyed the breath of morning, the twilight,
    the wind, the winding streams. He loved to look at the sea when the
    waves burst into the whitecaps of joy. He loved the fields, the
    hills; he was acquainted with the trees, with birds, with all the
    beautiful objects of the earth. He not only saw these objects, but
    understood their meaning, and he used them that he might exhibit
    his heart to his fellow-men.

         He was the poet of Love. He was not ashamed of that divine
    passion that has built every home in the world; that divine passion
    that has painted every picture and given us every real work of art;
    that divine passion that has made the world worth living in and has
    given some value to human life.

         He was the poet of the natural, and taught men not to be
    ashamed of that which is natural. He was not only the poet of
    democracy, not only the poet of the great Republic, but he was the
    Poet of the human race. He was not confined to the limits of this
    country, but his sympathy went out over the seas to all the nations
    of the earth.

         He stretched out his hand and felt himself the equal of all
    kings and of all princes, and the brother of all men, no matter how
    high, no matter how low.

         He has uttered more supreme words than any writer of our
    century, possibly of almost any other. He was, above all things, a
    man, and above genius, above all the snow-capped peaks of
    intelligence, above all art, rises the true man, Greater than all
    is the true man, and he walked among his fellow-men as such.

         He was the poet of Death. He accepted all life and all death,
    and he justified all. He had the courage to meet all, and was great
    enough and splendid enough to harmonize all and to accept all there
    is of life as a divine melody.

         You know better than I what his life has been, but let me say
    one thing. Knowing, as he did, what others can know and what they
    cannot, he accepted and absorbed all theories, all creeds, all
    religions, and believed in none. His philosophy was a sky that
    embraced all clouds and accounted for all clouds. He had a
    philosophy and a religion of his own, broader, as he believed --
    and as I believe -- than others. He accepted all, he understood
    all, and he was above all.

         He was absolutely true to himself. He had frankness and
    courage, and he was as candid as light. He was willing that all the
    sons of men should be absolutely acquainted with his heart and
    brain. He had nothing to conceal. Frank, candid, pure, serene,
    noble, and yet for years he was maligned and slandered, simply
    because he had the candor of nature. He will be understood yet, and
    that for which he was condemned -- his frankness, his candor --
    will add to the glory and greatness of his fame.

         He wrote a liturgy for mankind; he wrote a great and splendid
    psalm of life, and he gave to us the gospel of humanity -- the
    greatest gospel that can be preached.

         He was not afraid to live, not afraid to die. For many years
    he and death were near neighbors. He was always willing and ready
    to meet and greet this king called death, and for many months he
    sat in the deepening twilight waiting for the night, waiting for
    the light.

         He never lost his hope. When the mists filled the valleys, he
    looked upon the mountain tops, and when the mountains in darkness
    disappeared, he fixed his gaze upon the stars.

         In his brain were the blessed memories of the day, and in his
    heart were mingled the dawn and dusk of life.

         He was not afraid; he was cheerful every moment. The laughing
    nymphs of day did not desert him. They remained that they might
    clasp the hands and greet with smiles the veiled and silent sisters
    of the night. And when they did come, Walt Whitman stretched his
    hand to them. On one side were the nymphs of the day, and on the
    other the silent sisters of the night, and so, hand in hand,
    between smiles and tears, he reached his journey's end.

         From the frontier of life, from the western wave-kissed shore,
    he sent us messages of content and hope, and these messages seem
    now like strains of music blown by the "Mystic Trumpeter" from
    Death's pale realm.

         To-day we give back to Mother Nature, to her clasp and kiss,
    one of the bravest, sweetest souls that ever lived in human clay.

         Charitable as the air and generous as Nature, he was negligent
    of all except to do and say what he believed he should do and
    should say.

         And I to-day thank him, not only for you but for myself, --
    for all the brave words he has uttered. I thank him for all the
    great and splendid words he has said in favor of liberty, in favor
    of man and woman, in favor of motherhood, in favor of fathers, in
    favor of children, and I thank him for the brave words that he has
    said of death.

         He has lived, he has died, and death is less terrible than it
    was before. Thousands and millions will walk down into the "dark
    valley of the shadow" holding Walt Whitman by the hand. Long after
    we are dead the brave words he has spoken will sound like trumpets
    to the dying.

         And so I lay this little wreath upon this great man's tomb. I
    loved him living, and I love him still.

    I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

    by wretchedhive on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:57:23 AM PST

  •  Antireligious bigotry (2+ / 0-)

    is still bigotry.  

    I am religious, but feel no need to convince non-believers, or mock their belief or lack of it.  Live and let live, thank you very much.

    •  If only 1/10th of the religious really believed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ExStr8, Troubadour, billybush

      that and acted upon it.

      Live and let live, thank you very much.
      Instead they are constantly exerting and invoking their privilege and demanding laws and public observances that are based on their beliefs and their holy books and doctrines. When all the religious rise up and demand that religion be keep 100% out of both politics and the public square, then I will take silly crap like that seriously.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:01:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, wait -- all of us or only 1/10th of us? (0+ / 0-)

        How many of us have to believe in live-and-let-live and act accordingly before you stop tarring us all with the same brush?

        •  Not tarring anybody with any brush, I'm (0+ / 0-)

          simply not believing in any magikal reality, including the one where "the religious"  aren't constantly exerting and invoking their privilege and demanding laws and public observances that are based on their beliefs and their holy books and doctrines. IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:02:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Talking about what "the religious" do (0+ / 0-)

            is exactly what "tarring us all with the same brush" means.

            I invite you to list all the laws and public observances that I, personally, as a religious Jew, have demanded.  I further invite you to list the laws and public observances demanded by my devout pagan friends, or for that matter any of their coreligionists.

            Take your time.  I'll wait.

            •  No, the commenter presented this picture, (0+ / 0-)

              encapsulated in the "Live and let live" phrase, as if it were universal, let alone common. Calling bullshit on that theory requires that a descriptor be used to denote that group for whom it is alleged but vastly far from universally true.

              That is tarring nobody with  nothing because it does not attack or denigrate them and because it does not say all are or behave the same.

              So here's something else you can whine about, thought the priveleged class, a shitload of them are constantly whining and claiming that they are being persecuted.

              I said nothing about you, so I decline your invitation, and I invite you to lose the creative reading habit and discuss wht people say, not what you choose to impute to them if you wish me to take you seriously.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:01:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  False. (0+ / 0-)
                I said nothing about you
                You said "the religious" and that is a group that includes me.  I don't know how you can claim it doesn't.

                It takes no creative reading to take it personally when I am a member of the group you are talking about.

                It does, however, take a considerable amount of creative reading to think that the commenter who said "live and let live" was ascribing that phrase to anyone but him/herself.  It's not a religious tenet and has never been claimed as one.

                •  Find the word "all", and paste the quote. (0+ / 0-)

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:08:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is clear that "all" or "most" is intended (0+ / 0-)

                    when no qualifier is added.  It is also apparent when the discussion begins with:

                    If only 1/10th of the religious really believed that and acted upon it
                    and later includes
                    IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.
                    •  Yes, I clearly imply "not all", ergo "all", nice (0+ / 0-)

                      creative reading. If you ever feel like discussing something I actually have said, let me know, but you're just wasting my time with that phony "help, I'm being oppressed" shit. Do you really not know what a tenth is? Bye.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:56:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not being oppressed, I'm being insulted. (0+ / 0-)

                        And misrepresented.  Since you don't have any actual power over me, that isn't oppression.  I'm quite clear on the difference.

                        Tell me: in your language, does "if only 1/10th of X did" mean something other than "not even 1/10th of X does" and therefore "all or most X do not"?  Does "I'll believe it when I see it" mean something other than "I have never seen it"?

                        Did you mean "if only more than 1/10th did"?  Because now would be an excellent time to say so.

                        •  No, as with the rest of this thread, you are (0+ / 0-)

                          standing things on their head. I am the one being misrepresented. You are simply playing that tired, tiresome, sorry ass "look, look, the non-religious are attacking me" horseshit game.

                          Had I said "ANY" instead of 1/10th, then you could've extrapolated "all", but since I clearly said 1/110th, you could not. That, of course did not and cannot stop you because your case  is based on a predetermination that you are being attacked, no matter how much creative reading and wilfull misinterpretation it takes to make that case.

                          Tell me: in your language, does "if only 1/10th of X did" mean something other than "not even 1/10th of X does" and therefore "all or most X do not"?  Does "I'll believe it when I see it" mean something other than "I have never seen it"?
                          I see, "If only one tenth did" means "none do". Can't you see how stupid and farfetched that is?
                          Did you mean "if only more than 1/10th did"?  Because now would be an excellent time to say so.
                          Nice try, but I am not going to change my language which was perfectly clear to those not trying to wilfully misrepresent me simply so as to gie the appearance that there was some basis for your ludicrous horseshit.

                          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                          by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 11:40:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Don't be so surprised... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        enhydra lutris, Troubadour

                        when a theist sees things that are not there. ;)

  •  I see atheism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    as basically the absence of certain beliefs,  forced by our culture into a position of negation. Atheism is not only subject to this distortion, but all non-Abrahamic religious beliefs also. Within the broad spectrum of Christian belief,   Christians able to accommodate themselves to science, historical fact, metaphor, acceptance of sexual orientation, gender equality, etc. are placed "outside the veil" by more conservative, literalist "brethren". I suggest that Mitt Romney wasn't only dumped by most Repugs for losing to President Obama, but because they blamed his Mormonism for his unwillingness or inability to play the True Religion "card" fully on the President, since himself wasn't a true believer.  I don;t know if there are any ambitious Mormons  in the wings, but they won't nominate another one.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:41:21 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site