I suspect the problem is that you’re a visual learner so I’ve taken the liberty to literally draw it out for you. Enjoy...

The person or the thing you are looking at may or may not fall in the box you have mentally created, yet does that stop you from stereotyping? — skyblack

What we call stereotyping is part of how our minds work. It’s not possible to not do this. Perhaps your ideas about innocence are, well, innocent. Perhaps you intentionally attempt to mislead or corrupt because your mind has been corrupted. So there exists two boxes in my mind. A box where you are innocent. A box where you are corrupt. And a box for the unknown. Wait, that’s three boxes. Anyway, more information is required to determine which box you belong to.

Unfortunately, you can’t tell me which box you belong to if you’re innocent because if you’re innocent then you are innocent of the required knowledge. If you’re corrupt then you’ll conceal the corruption because you’re corrupt. The box for the unknown is where you currently reside.

Before the sky was blue it was black. Blue corrupts, and when it corrupts it corrupts absolutely.

No, there is no personal god to commune with in pantheism. — baker

Right, a God without personality. That being the case, communing with nature (or literally whatever) could be seen as communing with God. Doesn’t seems there’s any point to pantheism without experiencing the “sense that one is part of divinity”. I formally submit that the pantheist could become lost in this sensing and unwittingly become quietist. Stranger things have happened.

Ah, but only a corrupt mind is stingy with their energy and time.

I’ll read the article and then...

An innocent mind doesn’t fear unhealthy dialogue.

You believe that Pantheism somehow prevents Stoicism from being Quietism?
— praxis

Of course, because pantheism gives one a definitive sense that one is part of divinity, and that as such, one's life is worth living, that life is a big and worthy project worth striving for, all taking place in a big and worthy universe. — baker

You haven’t shown how this prevents Quietism. Actually I might assume the Pantheist to have quietist tendencies, wanting to contemplate and commune with God at the expense of all worldly concerns.

Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism. — DingoJones

So not just disbelief but belief that theism is dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior.

We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias. — Bitter Crank

"Blind” auditions for symphony orchestras reduced sex-biased hiring and improved female musicians' likelihood of advancing out of preliminary rounds, which often leads to tenured employment.

Stereotypes are unquestionably useful, we can glean a lot from a mere glance at a stranger, for instance, but they typically contain negative attributes and promote biases.

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward.
— praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher. — Fooloso4

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim.

"If Jesus is white and God is white, then authority is white," Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. Also, Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. Religious life doesn't require moral development at all, in fact it purposefully suppresses it, because moral development leads to independence, and independences leads to loss of control. The religious person is granted higher moral status for merely being part of the tribe.

Someone mentioned a Pew Research survey earlier in the topic that showed how some people who did not identify as religious nevertheless held some religious views. Of course the inverse of that must also be true and those who identify as religious hold secular views. I recently thought it remarkable when some religious conservatives condemned the current Pope for supporting climate change efforts. A case of the secular tribal identity Trumping the religious tribal identity.

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders.
— praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder. — Fooloso4

I’ll answer it. Apparently they were something like the following before wise men domesticated them.



How the mighty have fallen. :sad:

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control. — Fooloso4

You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested.

antitheism — 180 Proof

Don’t really have the gist of this term. Opposed to all theistic concepts?

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself. — Fooloso4

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

My first Prof. of Religious Studies was old school - religion was a phenomenon to be studied like pinning butterflies to a board. — Wayfarer

Really old school apparently.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (4 BC – AD 65)

I used to think that consciously using religion like a tool was a relatively new phenomena, but maybe it was like that from the start?

Perhaps my reading skills have declined in my elder years, but I believe the original topic had something to do with this Einstein fellow? — EricH

Einstein’s words have weight. They have the same kind of weight as he described the ‘chains of religious belief’ having. The chains he claimed that fanatical atheists had freed themselves of but still felt the weight of. The truth is that we all feel the weight of religious chains, if it’s part of our culture. It has influence. We can embrace it or push it away, love it or hate it, flow with it or flow against it. We can do this relatively freely or as a slave.

The claim is apparently that fanatically resisting weight, as I now generically refer to it, interferes with any kind of spiritual experience. I’d be the first to agree that high anxiety isn’t fertile ground for spirituality, and a newly freed slave might be disoriented and anxious.

What of the slave who is still chained? Are they immune to anxiety? No, chains can offer comfort and it may only be about that comforting embrace and not about listening to spheres.

Don’t be fooled by weight.

As an angry non-believer I’d prefer to watch pistols at dawn but I guess that’s out of the question.

If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. — Apollodorus

Right, that appears to be the point, sad as it is.

acosmism — 180 Proof

At the briefest glance looks very Eastern.

So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism? — Apollodorus

Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride).

Perhaps he believes that all languages besides English are of a different ethnicity to your ethnicity, and he resents the implications that he's not stupid.

At least NOS’s trolls have a bit of sophistication.

The comment was aimed more at Amen, but you have been supporting the ad hom towards atheists.

Rather than address atheist critiques you attack their character. They’re angry, you claim, therefore their criticisms are invalid because they’re based in irrational emotion.

It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. — Apollodorus

I’m not scared of you. :rofl:

I also agree that 3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion. — Apollodorus

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or euphemism. In any case...

Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling... — 3017amen

:rage: :lol:

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride. — Apollodorus

You appear to be saying that the cure for atheism (and the inherent anger and groundless pride that comes with it) is cured by religion because atheists have been culturally influenced by religion to begin with, and they have nothing to lose regardless.

What's to lose? Starting with Buddhism, potential losses might be along the lines of this kind of thing, if nothing else. Obviously there are all manner of cults and evangelists of various persuasions who would love to take advantage of "covertly" superstitious people.

I stand corrected.

Veneration for this force — Wayfarer

I knew it, he was a Jedi.

Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said. — TheMadFool

I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza.

That Einstein, doubtless an authority on matters physical should be considered an authority on matters relating to god. — Banno

Religious folk require validation by a higher authority, and who's smarter than frick'n Einstein.

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Adaptive vs maladaptive.

Maladaptive emotions don't align with the situations that they arise in, like something benign triggering a panic attack when there's no actual threat. Somehow that conditioning developed. Fortunately it can be reconditioned.

Everyone grows up eventually.

I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff — 3017amen

Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal.

I figure the ratio of baby to bathwater is about the same in both religious and secular life. Religion isn't about developing virtue, it's about binding a community with shared values, goals, narrative, etc.

Marcus Aurelius (emperor) — 180 Proof

Does standup too...

Link to them, with a reason. — Banno

You neglected to share the reasons you like Plato's Phaedo so much.

You believe that pantheism somehow prevents stoicism from being quietism?

No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks! — 3017amen

Correction, the worst kind of troll is a childish troll.

Weird, didn’t work for me copying and pasting the title on an iPhone but did work on my desktop when I tried it later.