This is a great post.

I’m referring to how the OP defines it. Everyone seems to have forgotten what this thread is about.

The irony of this thread is that despite having gone off topic, it essentially shows us what Atheist dogma looks like. A successful thread after all.

Quote where you think I have typed something fanatical? — universeness

lol

:clap:

I'm not an atheist and I carefully read the OP instead of immediately blaring an anti-religion foghorn, so I'm not sure what you're sending right back at me.

No, an example of what I’m talking about would be you.

I’ve read Ehrman, he’s great.

Link repeated from Paine back on page 3, who seems to be about the only person to have noticed that the thread is primarily about atheists' understanding of religion, or the lack thereof. — unenlightened

Reading comprehension tends to go out the window when some types of atheists are triggered.

@T Clark emoji. :roll:

I just learned what a tclemoji is.

Perhaps a short story. — T Clark

*Thumbs up pic*

It was a neat idea - a battle between the Nazis and the surrealists in Paris. — T Clark

If anything I think the concept is actually kind of pretentious. A military vs. an artistic movement is pretty on the nose. As long as other novels have concepts that are more realistic, in which to set the fantastic, I’m willing to give something a shot.

Wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers.

What we do, most of the time, is carefully avoid certain topics. — BC

You’re a true midwesterner. My family is the same.

It's very possible to have fruitful discussions on here; I've had many over the years. This is not one. Take care.

Fine, and the counter point is be as crystal clear and honest when you make statements about your beliefs of you will be misinterpreted, which is YOUR fault if you are unable to explain you belief sufficiently, to the average, reasonable, lay person. — universeness

I did all of those things. My point stands.

We seem to have lost the plot and are arguing about things that don't matter. This is partly why I don't get into these discussions anymore.

Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website? — universeness

No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs.

How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.

We're all connected to this source; all life forms are.
— Noble Dust
What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence? — universeness

This system of belief is not beholden to rational thought, so none of these arguments have any meaning in relation to it.

In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? — universeness

I suppose Brahma, although I'm hazy on Hinduism. It's not important to me whether I'm right or not about the comparison; I'm not a Hindu.

Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. — universeness

I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion.

It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.' — universeness

No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth.

If you play stealth then it seems to me that misunderstanding becomes more likely. — universeness

I don't feel any need to broadcast my beliefs, here or elsewhere. If I simply state that I'm no longer religious, the onus is not on me to elaborate on what that means. If you misinterpret it, that's your mistake.

That said, I will elaborate since you invited me to. I think consciousness is a universal state in the process of evolving which has it's genesis in a single, supreme, intelligent and ineffable source. We're all connected to this source; all life forms are. But this is nothing like the god of Christianity; it more closely resembles a Hindu conception. How I came to this belief is through experience, not logic or deductive reasoning.

Emotion is a very important part of what it is to be human, — universeness

I agree. But emotion also clouds judgement. I'm of course speaking from experience.

One of our best practices is our ability to question everything. — universeness

Yes I agree, and I of course think religion should be critiqued and called out when it causes harm. But the same is true of any organization, government, etc. I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided. Humans hurt one another and cause suffering in countless contexts, religion being one. Governments arguably cause as much or more harm, but no one is calling for the abolishment of government, or at least not for the most part.

If you want to start a new thread titled 'What is YOUR BEST defence for belief in god?' — universeness

I have zero interest in doing this. :smile:

Your assumption that @Hanover was a Christian because he's a theist is similar to the assumption about me you made in the shoutbox that I'm no longer a theist because I said I'm no longer religious. I am a theist, although I avoid declaring so because of the inevitable misunderstandings this leads to. Happy to elaborate. But these assumptions in a small way highlight what I'm saying: that a nuanced approach to this issue is best for gaining understanding. These blanket assumptions you made betray a lack of critical analysis of this issue, I think. Your arguments, while intelligent, are very emotional. I've made many an emotional argument myself and still do. But it's important, if you want to better understand religion, to become aware of ones biases and emotional positions and how they affect your perception of the issue. If you do this, your experience of exploring this will be greatly enhanced. That's all I was trying to get at in the shoutbox.

The first two points are the most important. — Jamal

So you're old and still mobile. Impressive. This feels like a BC bit.

You can look up words quickly and easily — Jamal

I in some ways envy this, but I also am able to grab my iPhone and do the same in maybe 12 seconds more time total.

Most e-readers now have a backlight, so you don’t have to rely on external light-sources and you can read in the dark — Jamal

I was reading in the dark from age 6. I don't get it.

You can start reading a book seconds after you decide to read it — Jamal

Fair.

Yeah, I'm done here.

Oh yeah, I'm done here. Forgot to mention that.

It is true I don't have a kindle or some such and only read paper books. Do with that information what you will.

Tis a joke. I realize the "Come on brah" vs. "com'n brah" or some such can be confusing. I feel the need to break the 4th wall here and clarify. Typical overthinking shit.

I only read books made out of paper, which is what I mean by "real". I know you know this, and I know you know that I know that you know this. Come on brah.

I wouldn't want to read a Mieville book on paper. — T Clark

Ironically, I only read real books. You're more modern than me here. Funny. And sad on my part, perhaps. Or not. I'm not sure.

His way of making impossible worlds seem normal. — T Clark

Realized that I forgot to give a big thumbs up to this. *Clarky thumb emoji*

I like the sound of that.

It's dense, long, and pretty bleak. — T Clark

Nothing about that is off-putting to me, unless dense means constant use of obscure words to which no one knows the meanings. I found that to be the case with New Paris. But maybe my vocab is low. I like the goodreads blurb on Railsea. Good luck on Last Days. You might get more out of it than me; please let me know.

I remember the writing as occasionally and undeservedly pretentious — Jamal

This is what turned me off of Last Days of New Paris. I felt like I was reading someone's flowery summary of a novel they had read. The City and the City was very brusk which I liked (PKD much?) because he was purposefully writing in a crime noir style. This worries me as to whether I'll enjoy any of his other novels.

Btw I’m reading Now Wait For Last Year by… drum roll… PKD. I promise the UBIK thread is coming.

This one is fascinating. It’s early period, so the writing is even worse but somehow the characters are more complex and more human. And all of the perennial PKD themes are there. It just has a bit more youthful energy. Just as much a bizarre, terrifying, hilarious acid trip as later stuff, just more juvenile, and more overtly sci fi.

@Jamal @Manuel

I enjoyed The City and the City so much that I feel I owe it to myself to give him at least one more shot after failing with Last Days Of New Paris. Is Perdido the one? I get the sense The City and the City was atypical, so I’m unsure of how to proceed.

Truenorth is quite good, although it's kind of 3 songs in one. I love the last section.

Thundercat himself is the bass player, so yes the bass is good. The sheer amount of chord changes on the C section is absurd. Fun music.

Anyone agree?????

As a non-philsopher these days, this thread has been way more informative than I had anticipated. I went in with zero expectations and left with a lot to think about. I learned a lot, as Clarky would say.

Why not, eh?

Time to take a load off and have a laugh, Maw-y (that doesn't really work; huh).

Wow Clarky, please don't take this the wrong way but I'm frankly shocked that you're a Mieville fan. Not out of any disrespect, but simply because I don't recall discussing any fiction with you, compiled with the fact that you seem to philosophically oppose the short story contests.

I liked it quite a bit. When it comes to current jazz, I tend to prefer the "spiritual" corners of the genre that are being explored; Like this. simpler and more repetitive, and not for everyone, but it does it for me. Hypnotic music.

Cool. More melodic variation would help, but I always love watching an open-hand-lead drummer, as one myself. Actually I guess he's just playing half left-handed with his ride on his left, Carter Beauford style. So left-handed hands and "right-handed" feet. Anyway. I also would include Snarky Puppy as a comparison.

Thanks. I'm overdue on the Perdido stuff; Last Days turned me off for awhile. Have you read The City and the City?