What's the bottommost turtle? Could a human being design a computer virus that could generate a viral community within which a self-conscious virus could evolve as part of a civilization of such entities? If so, it seems unlikely the designing human could feel much correlative empathy with each such viral member. God, I don't believe, is like that. Because God would be of a qualitative difference. There is a fundamental logical difference between The Holism and a Subholism that merely sponsors sub-sub holisms.
So consider how The Holism may retain connecting empathy and feedback reconciliation with each subholism. How might a boggled submind conceptualize such a situation?
Well, think about fractals, indiscernibly similar iterations, and subroutines. Think about what appears before us as a trinity: Immeasurable aspects or qualities of Consciousness, measurable aspects of math-based and conserved translations of Sub-stance, and absorption of present forms into recordations of past In-form-ation.
Consider: Does the past continue also to exist, qualitatively, as a Trinity, or does it pass only into accumulations of "dead" and recorded information? May the past "return eternally," to qualitative experience? Or may it only be stored within the memory-potential of the Trinitarian Godhead of Consciousness-Substance-Information?
The "physical" mechanics seem beyond mortal comprehension or control. But, the metaphysics may be potentially inspiring, even where empirically bizarre. That is, for moral/spiritual/inspirational/communicative/metaphorical purposes, one may conceptualize a fluxing, trinitarian Godhead that functions qualitatively beyond math, but that can signify only within systems of math-based conservation. In that case, the Godhead could not be proved by mortal maths, but math-based mortal measurements could not unfold without it. As to limits on the qualitative potential for such a Source to feedback to us, what mortal could say? IOW, one may conceptualize how ought may unfold from is, metaphysically but not physically.
If that seems bizarre, consider how obvious it is that our unfolding experiences consist entirely of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Is God a mathematician? Is Nature merely a web of math? Is all that unfolds to our qualitative and quantitative experience an appreciation of the flux of God functioning in respect of a web of math? Is God the ultimate Simulator?
*********************
You somehow "divined" snark and fear? Interesting, yet an ironical leap of faith (based on my divine intuition of your agenda-ridden angst). Lucky for me that I have above average competence for most situations. You?
So your faith is that altruism and empathy are built into the human condition. Is that In common with all atheists or just your sect? Does the human condition include AIs? Are altruism and empathy built or programmed into all Cyborgs? Among those built into, would it trouble your built in pride to respect its Source as God? When you communicate with like minded believers, do they share your preference that its Source be referred to as the Source instead of as God? I can respect that preference.
Well, does a-theism give you happiness, comfort, and purpose? Is life basically good or dreary? If dreary, would the "good" thing be to set off a globe-destroying bomb/apocalypse to put people out of their misery?
By an atheist's moral code, "should" we help or hinder apocalyptics? And forego having children?
I take it, then, that you rely (for resolving moral concerns) instead on innate intuition? So do I. My intuition is that the Godhead abides. I mean no disrespect to those who believe their intuition is otherwise.
I grok that. I am rather fond of the Church of the Cosmic Big Sky. I am also fond of some preachers that conveyed wisdom to help me and my wife raise our daughters. Sometimes it can be worthwhile to search for a fit. I am not especially tied to any organized doctrine. The value is in the humble feedback.
I like the NAP. I just think it works better when related to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Not so much when legislated by knowitall busybody make-a-new-law atheistic-ACLU types. Do you think we need more laws, lawsuits, and lawyers?
What is your authority to say what is shameful or not? Is this just your personal authority? Do you have some objective shame-measuring stick that you defer to? That sounds pretty religious.
I don't think you read what I said. Maybe you read what you wanted to read?
In any case, I don't think a fine line can be drawn between altruism and selfishness. But neither do I believe they are one and the same. Rather, I believe there abides an innate feedback relationship that fluxes between a perspective of the whole and a perspective for each part.
Sort of like a Godhead that nurses each perspective. Neither the Nurse nor the Nursee need be entirely altruistic or selfish, but connected, caring, empathetic, and intuitive. Good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule). Spiritual Feedback, not severance between Pearly Gates and Hell.
When so-called atheists try to conceptualize a non-God Source of morality, I think they fall into spiritual incoherence. Just my opinion.
As to historical facts, my reading of history leads me to find atheists and cultists more likely to incline towards religious-like rationalizations for collectivism, dhimmism, elitist legalism, communism, socialism, fascism, and other varieties of intrusive degradation of human liberty and responsibility. No thanks.
The reason to look to higher-minded guidance is based in humble recognition of one's mortal limits. I do not believe in YOLO, but neither do I much concern myself with Pearly Gates. As to Karma, I do not claim knowledge.
But I do believe all perspectives of consciousness are connected under a Trinitarian Godhead that abides beyond our empirical proof or control, but not beyond our innate and humble receptivity in intution and empathy. Connection and Empathy: Good faith and Golden Rule. I see nothing shameful in that.
Too often, the NAP seems to morph into the toenail-regulating, family-destroying, gov-marrying principle. NAP from the one-way street view of militant atheists united only by the pleasure principle? No thanks.
Religion is not morality, but morality in the abstract is derivative of something beyond empiricism, i.e., spiritual. Religion can provide a language of metaphors with which to converse about spiritual morality. Many religionists are not literalists, but they are conversant with the language of assimilating parables.
That assimilation is how we aspire to avoid the busybody intrusiveness of toenail-regulating knowitall ACLU secular-humanists that want to replace the family with the friendly local gov regulator and bureaucratic redistributer.
If they appreciate "morality inherently," then I would not call them atheists. Why should a "true atheist" (if there is such a thing), be concerned about altruism -- except for calculating, temporary, and selfish purposes?
Even in that case, he would seem merely to be "self godding" personal pleasure. How do these "true atheists" derive "ought from is" -- if not by some kind of meta-leap of faith?
YOLO makes little sense to me. Then again, neither does Pearly Gates.
Most Americans are already non-religious. Or religious in name only. American Catholics? Hello. We already know what happens when most Americans forsake good spiritual sense, good faith, and good will in trade for the alt-religion of personal pleasure and security. It's what we have now: A lot of crap.
There are a lot of very smart secular Jews. Including Einstein. Was he not a "real" Jew? Many would tsk tsk believers as being bafflegabbers and science illiterates. Many are political Marxists or busybody ACLU toenail regulators bent on screwing up America.
I do not tsk tsk believers in an inviting, loving, purpose driving Reconciler. I DO take the Bible as containing much metaphorical wisdom. But I am not a literalist. Nor do I believe Jews are "chosen." Then again, I do not claim to know.
I believe you're blind in one eye and obstructed in the other. Look to the larger point. What I am saying is that everyone -- and I mean everyone -- who chooses -- consciously or subconsciously -- to found his/her identity primarily under a group is to that extent inclined towards being a profiler, racist, chauvenist, bigot. I am pointing out to all who may otherwise be blind and obstructed that the streets go more than just one way. Wake up.
I am NOT saying that skin color, intellect, ethnicity, etc., dictate a person's worldview. I am saying that people often self select for cultural groupings, and often are indoctrinated from birth to cultural groupings. And those groupings will tend to be "one-way blind." (Birds of a feather. https://youtu.be/1O6z-oG18Fc)
When I say this, I don't just pull the pants down for Jews. I pull them down for everyone whose vision is blinded. And I try to be open to understanding that even in my own case.
I don't target knowitall Jews any more than I target all other kinds of knowitalls. I think failing to adequately target knowitall Soros, ACLU, Hollywood, etc., has by default gone far towards screwing up America. In my view, Knowitall Legalism (ACLU) equals anti-freedom-loving Americanism. I do not target only Jews, but I do not run from Jews that want to screw up America, either. https://youtu.be/nvlTJrNJ5lA. So, yeah, I have a freedom-loving American agenda. That leads me to like Israelis and to loathe Islam.
Patterns organize. That's how groupings form out of otherwise chaos. To deny that is to be silly.
If they don't identify as Jews, then take that up with the pollsters that tell us 70% voted for Obama. Or do you disbelieve that? Hello?
Why do you suppose atheistic and liberal Jews still want to identify as Jews? What is the point of that? Is it because they like the "stolen honor" of presumptive elitism?
I prefer the Jews that are Jews first.
There are many examples of people being educated beyond their intellects and being smart without having decency or common sense. Unfortunately, such characteristics often cluster among groups. Not because the individual members are necessarily stupid or corrupt, but because something about their mutual attraction (or wolf packing) brings out some of the worst in them.
Race, religion, and ethnicity do not prescribe character. But characters often form, solidify, and identify around races, religions, and ethnicities. To deny that general characteristics tend to form in such a way is to deny practical reality. To fail to see that, is to fall easy prey to that. Profiling, per se, is not the problem. The problem is inadequate factoring while profiling. Vetting can help resolve some of that.
It is not a mark of group intelligence when 70% of its voters went for Obama.
So why did 70% of Jews vote for Obama instead of for Romney? Are 70% of Jews anti-semites? Within my old OCS class, there abides at least one Jew (with more than a few supporters) that fervently believes Trump is Hitlerian for wanting to vet immigrants from Islamic nations. Seems like some kind of self hating death wish sickness. I like Israel. I just wish more American Jews had better sense.
True. But Islam is exponentially rocketed. Are the non- empirical religions of Global Warming, Gaia, Human Secularism, MultiCulti, and Feministas patriarchal?
There is at least a factor of ease of cleanliness behind male circumcision. Apart from culture-driven oppression, what is the purpose behind either scarring a female or impeding the development of her sexual expression as an adult? Why strain to be so patient with what is clearly cultural oppression and primitive savagery?
People of good sense tend to heap disrespect on Clinton and Bush also. In Obama's case (he of the Nobel Prize), he seems to invite disrespect like sticky paper invites flies. It's like he craves it, so give it to him. Maybe more people will think better before ever voting for such a creep again.
Islam is tailor made for incompetent s for brains parasites.
Neo-cons claim to be wanting to export democracy. Two things: First, most cultures are not presently amenable of growing representative democracy. Second, it's not democracy the wannabe masters want to export. It's NWO, with the freedom and dignity of the masses to be traded for phony promises by elites to secure them.
When you raise generations of perpetual infants, it's no wonder that everyone soon enough becomes a whinnyazzvictim. At this point, I'm almost surprised that it isn't "hate speech" to call whinnyazzvictims what they are. Now we are engaged in a great civil hissy fit, testing which whinnyazz is the biggest victim. We are gathered over the ruins of patriots that never saw this farce of walking diapers coming.
This is what happens when everything is "normal," when everyone is "married" to everyone, when gov redistribution is "charity," when "free" trade trumps assimilated borders, when ACLU lawgivers replace God, and when infants are licensed to run the world before they're qualified to leave the crib. Mass stupidity and corruption. "Stronger together." Gag!
Too many people think they have to buy into a culture just because they happen to share a skin color with prevailing practitioners. As if skin color were a causal agent.
They default to a lowest common denominator because they don't have decent exemplars in their lives. Race baiters are the opposite of moral exemplars. Too many people complain about racism, but then they choose to adopt culural behaviors for no better reason than because they share a skin color. Or a tattoo. Or a dress style.
They don't know what they are, want to be, or should be. So they follow the first strutting thug. Or jerkofff. Our leaders have become fake, hollow, chestless, soft, undisciplined, corrupt, lying, treasonous, and stupid. In the ghettos, in Congress, in media, in academia, in Hollywood, in music, in banks, in corporations, in charitable foundations, in churches.
What has happened to leadership everywhere is ugly, infantalized, incompetent, amoral, stupid, and faithless. It's just more noticeable in the hoods.
We need a miracle, and we need to function as if we have the sense to receive it.
Over time, I have considered myself a believer, agnostic, atheist, believer. Never a literalist. Always a metaphorist. Since I have changed, I cannot say what "I" always have been or will be.
I tried to make sense out of atheism and thought I had. Worked hard at it. But the pieces never could fit. I looked for empirical consistency, coherence, and completeness. I could not find it, and I think it cannot be found by logic based in math or empiricism.
Yet I seem to sense that a trinitarian Source of consistency, coherence, and completeness abides. That gives me peace. I hope you find a system that satisfies you intellectually and that works for you.
If you're confident in your atheism, why broach the topic? I can think of two main reasons. One, you want to explore the idea. In that case, choose appropriate forums. Second, you want to evangelize because you think society would do better to substitute reams of legalese for simple guidelines of good will.
Problems: One, most people are not interested in questioning their foundational belief systems. Second, most Americans don't want to be ruled under an intrusive system of legalese "gifted" by supposed elite and "better" thinkers.
I care little what a person's literal beliefs are, provided they support his social and political participation in good faith and good will. (So long as I sense good faith and good will in a person, I consider him to be religious or spiritual, whether or not he prefers different terms. Of course, I tend not to dwell on that with him.)
That said, some creeds do not support good faith or good will among humanity, outside their tribes. Islam tends to be in that vein. Those are creeds that I abhor.
But atheists? As to them, I only abhor the militants and legalistas. Indeed, many of my friends, in person or in books, avow to be atheists. So long as I sense human good faith and good will in them, I care little about that.
What was Benjamin Franklin as a young man and later as a patriot?
I don't find reasonable doubters to be scary per se. Not in the least. But I do find dramatic militant law roaches to be obnoxious.
You're chasing rainbows when you ask for empirical evidence of that which is innately spiritual. If you have not developed a sense of spiritual balance beyond the empirical based senses, that is a personal problem. Not a resume enhancer for being elected.
The problem most people have with doubters is only with the dramatic militants. The ones that think they should prescribe manmade regulations in lieu of spiritual good faith and good will. The ones that want to regulate all speech and enterprise, right down to the toenails. To save Gaia.
Those are the nose-in-air knowitalls that most people abhor. As to religious faith, the other side of the coin of belief is doubt. No mortal empirically "knows."
There is nothing innately supremacist about any created perspective of the Conscious Godhead. Every perspective is a work in progress.
That said, in a long view of recorded history, the coming together of conditions to birth a representative republic comprised of states federated under a system of checks and balances designed to secure the freedom and dignity of ordinary citizens was a spiritual rarity. A gift from above. That ought not be underappreciated or undervalued. That ought to be a beacon. As well as a workshop for learning from others.
But not a gift to be deliberately drowned under a flood of liberty illiterates and illegal invaders. Or to be defiled by faithless pervs, dopers, and self-godded people-farming heathen-hedonists. I.e., infantilized Progs.
So consider how The Holism may retain connecting empathy and feedback reconciliation with each subholism. How might a boggled submind conceptualize such a situation?
Well, think about fractals, indiscernibly similar iterations, and subroutines. Think about what appears before us as a trinity: Immeasurable aspects or qualities of Consciousness, measurable aspects of math-based and conserved translations of Sub-stance, and absorption of present forms into recordations of past In-form-ation.
Consider: Does the past continue also to exist, qualitatively, as a Trinity, or does it pass only into accumulations of "dead" and recorded information? May the past "return eternally," to qualitative experience? Or may it only be stored within the memory-potential of the Trinitarian Godhead of Consciousness-Substance-Information?
The "physical" mechanics seem beyond mortal comprehension or control. But, the metaphysics may be potentially inspiring, even where empirically bizarre. That is, for moral/spiritual/inspirational/communicative/metaphorical purposes, one may conceptualize a fluxing, trinitarian Godhead that functions qualitatively beyond math, but that can signify only within systems of math-based conservation. In that case, the Godhead could not be proved by mortal maths, but math-based mortal measurements could not unfold without it. As to limits on the qualitative potential for such a Source to feedback to us, what mortal could say? IOW, one may conceptualize how ought may unfold from is, metaphysically but not physically.
If that seems bizarre, consider how obvious it is that our unfolding experiences consist entirely of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Is God a mathematician? Is Nature merely a web of math? Is all that unfolds to our qualitative and quantitative experience an appreciation of the flux of God functioning in respect of a web of math? Is God the ultimate Simulator?
*********************
You somehow "divined" snark and fear? Interesting, yet an ironical leap of faith (based on my divine intuition of your agenda-ridden angst). Lucky for me that I have above average competence for most situations. You?
So your faith is that altruism and empathy are built into the human condition. Is that In common with all atheists or just your sect? Does the human condition include AIs? Are altruism and empathy built or programmed into all Cyborgs? Among those built into, would it trouble your built in pride to respect its Source as God? When you communicate with like minded believers, do they share your preference that its Source be referred to as the Source instead of as God? I can respect that preference.
Well, does a-theism give you happiness, comfort, and purpose? Is life basically good or dreary? If dreary, would the "good" thing be to set off a globe-destroying bomb/apocalypse to put people out of their misery?
By an atheist's moral code, "should" we help or hinder apocalyptics? And forego having children?
I take it, then, that you rely (for resolving moral concerns) instead on innate intuition? So do I. My intuition is that the Godhead abides. I mean no disrespect to those who believe their intuition is otherwise.
I grok that. I am rather fond of the Church of the Cosmic Big Sky. I am also fond of some preachers that conveyed wisdom to help me and my wife raise our daughters. Sometimes it can be worthwhile to search for a fit. I am not especially tied to any organized doctrine. The value is in the humble feedback.
I like the NAP. I just think it works better when related to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. Not so much when legislated by knowitall busybody make-a-new-law atheistic-ACLU types. Do you think we need more laws, lawsuits, and lawyers?
What is your authority to say what is shameful or not? Is this just your personal authority? Do you have some objective shame-measuring stick that you defer to? That sounds pretty religious.
I don't think you read what I said. Maybe you read what you wanted to read?
In any case, I don't think a fine line can be drawn between altruism and selfishness. But neither do I believe they are one and the same. Rather, I believe there abides an innate feedback relationship that fluxes between a perspective of the whole and a perspective for each part.
Sort of like a Godhead that nurses each perspective. Neither the Nurse nor the Nursee need be entirely altruistic or selfish, but connected, caring, empathetic, and intuitive. Good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule). Spiritual Feedback, not severance between Pearly Gates and Hell.
When so-called atheists try to conceptualize a non-God Source of morality, I think they fall into spiritual incoherence. Just my opinion.
As to historical facts, my reading of history leads me to find atheists and cultists more likely to incline towards religious-like rationalizations for collectivism, dhimmism, elitist legalism, communism, socialism, fascism, and other varieties of intrusive degradation of human liberty and responsibility. No thanks.
The reason to look to higher-minded guidance is based in humble recognition of one's mortal limits. I do not believe in YOLO, but neither do I much concern myself with Pearly Gates. As to Karma, I do not claim knowledge.
But I do believe all perspectives of consciousness are connected under a Trinitarian Godhead that abides beyond our empirical proof or control, but not beyond our innate and humble receptivity in intution and empathy. Connection and Empathy: Good faith and Golden Rule. I see nothing shameful in that.
Too often, the NAP seems to morph into the toenail-regulating, family-destroying, gov-marrying principle. NAP from the one-way street view of militant atheists united only by the pleasure principle? No thanks.
Religion is not morality, but morality in the abstract is derivative of something beyond empiricism, i.e., spiritual. Religion can provide a language of metaphors with which to converse about spiritual morality. Many religionists are not literalists, but they are conversant with the language of assimilating parables.
That assimilation is how we aspire to avoid the busybody intrusiveness of toenail-regulating knowitall ACLU secular-humanists that want to replace the family with the friendly local gov regulator and bureaucratic redistributer.
If they appreciate "morality inherently," then I would not call them atheists. Why should a "true atheist" (if there is such a thing), be concerned about altruism -- except for calculating, temporary, and selfish purposes?
Even in that case, he would seem merely to be "self godding" personal pleasure. How do these "true atheists" derive "ought from is" -- if not by some kind of meta-leap of faith?
YOLO makes little sense to me. Then again, neither does Pearly Gates.
Most Americans are already non-religious. Or religious in name only. American Catholics? Hello. We already know what happens when most Americans forsake good spiritual sense, good faith, and good will in trade for the alt-religion of personal pleasure and security. It's what we have now: A lot of crap.
There are a lot of very smart secular Jews. Including Einstein. Was he not a "real" Jew? Many would tsk tsk believers as being bafflegabbers and science illiterates. Many are political Marxists or busybody ACLU toenail regulators bent on screwing up America.
I do not tsk tsk believers in an inviting, loving, purpose driving Reconciler. I DO take the Bible as containing much metaphorical wisdom. But I am not a literalist. Nor do I believe Jews are "chosen." Then again, I do not claim to know.
I believe you're blind in one eye and obstructed in the other. Look to the larger point. What I am saying is that everyone -- and I mean everyone -- who chooses -- consciously or subconsciously -- to found his/her identity primarily under a group is to that extent inclined towards being a profiler, racist, chauvenist, bigot. I am pointing out to all who may otherwise be blind and obstructed that the streets go more than just one way. Wake up.
I am NOT saying that skin color, intellect, ethnicity, etc., dictate a person's worldview. I am saying that people often self select for cultural groupings, and often are indoctrinated from birth to cultural groupings. And those groupings will tend to be "one-way blind." (Birds of a feather. https://youtu.be/1O6z-oG18Fc)
When I say this, I don't just pull the pants down for Jews. I pull them down for everyone whose vision is blinded. And I try to be open to understanding that even in my own case.
I don't target knowitall Jews any more than I target all other kinds of knowitalls. I think failing to adequately target knowitall Soros, ACLU, Hollywood, etc., has by default gone far towards screwing up America. In my view, Knowitall Legalism (ACLU) equals anti-freedom-loving Americanism. I do not target only Jews, but I do not run from Jews that want to screw up America, either. https://youtu.be/nvlTJrNJ5lA. So, yeah, I have a freedom-loving American agenda. That leads me to like Israelis and to loathe Islam.
Patterns organize. That's how groupings form out of otherwise chaos. To deny that is to be silly.
If they don't identify as Jews, then take that up with the pollsters that tell us 70% voted for Obama. Or do you disbelieve that? Hello?
Why do you suppose atheistic and liberal Jews still want to identify as Jews? What is the point of that? Is it because they like the "stolen honor" of presumptive elitism?
I prefer the Jews that are Jews first.
There are many examples of people being educated beyond their intellects and being smart without having decency or common sense. Unfortunately, such characteristics often cluster among groups. Not because the individual members are necessarily stupid or corrupt, but because something about their mutual attraction (or wolf packing) brings out some of the worst in them.
Race, religion, and ethnicity do not prescribe character. But characters often form, solidify, and identify around races, religions, and ethnicities. To deny that general characteristics tend to form in such a way is to deny practical reality. To fail to see that, is to fall easy prey to that. Profiling, per se, is not the problem. The problem is inadequate factoring while profiling. Vetting can help resolve some of that.
It is not a mark of group intelligence when 70% of its voters went for Obama.
So why did 70% of Jews vote for Obama instead of for Romney? Are 70% of Jews anti-semites? Within my old OCS class, there abides at least one Jew (with more than a few supporters) that fervently believes Trump is Hitlerian for wanting to vet immigrants from Islamic nations. Seems like some kind of self hating death wish sickness. I like Israel. I just wish more American Jews had better sense.
True. But Islam is exponentially rocketed. Are the non- empirical religions of Global Warming, Gaia, Human Secularism, MultiCulti, and Feministas patriarchal?
There is at least a factor of ease of cleanliness behind male circumcision. Apart from culture-driven oppression, what is the purpose behind either scarring a female or impeding the development of her sexual expression as an adult? Why strain to be so patient with what is clearly cultural oppression and primitive savagery?
People of good sense tend to heap disrespect on Clinton and Bush also. In Obama's case (he of the Nobel Prize), he seems to invite disrespect like sticky paper invites flies. It's like he craves it, so give it to him. Maybe more people will think better before ever voting for such a creep again.
Islam is tailor made for incompetent s for brains parasites.
Neo-cons claim to be wanting to export democracy. Two things: First, most cultures are not presently amenable of growing representative democracy. Second, it's not democracy the wannabe masters want to export. It's NWO, with the freedom and dignity of the masses to be traded for phony promises by elites to secure them.
When you raise generations of perpetual infants, it's no wonder that everyone soon enough becomes a whinnyazzvictim. At this point, I'm almost surprised that it isn't "hate speech" to call whinnyazzvictims what they are. Now we are engaged in a great civil hissy fit, testing which whinnyazz is the biggest victim. We are gathered over the ruins of patriots that never saw this farce of walking diapers coming.
This is what happens when everything is "normal," when everyone is "married" to everyone, when gov redistribution is "charity," when "free" trade trumps assimilated borders, when ACLU lawgivers replace God, and when infants are licensed to run the world before they're qualified to leave the crib. Mass stupidity and corruption. "Stronger together." Gag!
Too many people think they have to buy into a culture just because they happen to share a skin color with prevailing practitioners. As if skin color were a causal agent.
They default to a lowest common denominator because they don't have decent exemplars in their lives. Race baiters are the opposite of moral exemplars. Too many people complain about racism, but then they choose to adopt culural behaviors for no better reason than because they share a skin color. Or a tattoo. Or a dress style.
They don't know what they are, want to be, or should be. So they follow the first strutting thug. Or jerkofff. Our leaders have become fake, hollow, chestless, soft, undisciplined, corrupt, lying, treasonous, and stupid. In the ghettos, in Congress, in media, in academia, in Hollywood, in music, in banks, in corporations, in charitable foundations, in churches.
What has happened to leadership everywhere is ugly, infantalized, incompetent, amoral, stupid, and faithless. It's just more noticeable in the hoods.
We need a miracle, and we need to function as if we have the sense to receive it.
Over time, I have considered myself a believer, agnostic, atheist, believer. Never a literalist. Always a metaphorist. Since I have changed, I cannot say what "I" always have been or will be.
I tried to make sense out of atheism and thought I had. Worked hard at it. But the pieces never could fit. I looked for empirical consistency, coherence, and completeness. I could not find it, and I think it cannot be found by logic based in math or empiricism.
Yet I seem to sense that a trinitarian Source of consistency, coherence, and completeness abides. That gives me peace. I hope you find a system that satisfies you intellectually and that works for you.
If you're confident in your atheism, why broach the topic? I can think of two main reasons. One, you want to explore the idea. In that case, choose appropriate forums. Second, you want to evangelize because you think society would do better to substitute reams of legalese for simple guidelines of good will.
Problems: One, most people are not interested in questioning their foundational belief systems. Second, most Americans don't want to be ruled under an intrusive system of legalese "gifted" by supposed elite and "better" thinkers.
I care little what a person's literal beliefs are, provided they support his social and political participation in good faith and good will. (So long as I sense good faith and good will in a person, I consider him to be religious or spiritual, whether or not he prefers different terms. Of course, I tend not to dwell on that with him.)
That said, some creeds do not support good faith or good will among humanity, outside their tribes. Islam tends to be in that vein. Those are creeds that I abhor.
But atheists? As to them, I only abhor the militants and legalistas. Indeed, many of my friends, in person or in books, avow to be atheists. So long as I sense human good faith and good will in them, I care little about that.
What was Benjamin Franklin as a young man and later as a patriot?
I don't find reasonable doubters to be scary per se. Not in the least. But I do find dramatic militant law roaches to be obnoxious.
You're chasing rainbows when you ask for empirical evidence of that which is innately spiritual. If you have not developed a sense of spiritual balance beyond the empirical based senses, that is a personal problem. Not a resume enhancer for being elected.
The problem most people have with doubters is only with the dramatic militants. The ones that think they should prescribe manmade regulations in lieu of spiritual good faith and good will. The ones that want to regulate all speech and enterprise, right down to the toenails. To save Gaia.
Those are the nose-in-air knowitalls that most people abhor. As to religious faith, the other side of the coin of belief is doubt. No mortal empirically "knows."
There is nothing innately supremacist about any created perspective of the Conscious Godhead. Every perspective is a work in progress.
That said, in a long view of recorded history, the coming together of conditions to birth a representative republic comprised of states federated under a system of checks and balances designed to secure the freedom and dignity of ordinary citizens was a spiritual rarity. A gift from above. That ought not be underappreciated or undervalued. That ought to be a beacon. As well as a workshop for learning from others.
But not a gift to be deliberately drowned under a flood of liberty illiterates and illegal invaders. Or to be defiled by faithless pervs, dopers, and self-godded people-farming heathen-hedonists. I.e., infantilized Progs.
