Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?

[Walker]

Less ignorance, less desire, less attachment, less suffering … more human, more rational.

Therefore, less is more.

The less clutter of humanness that causes suffering, the more of humanity reveals in human form.

The reality is, transcend means to go beyond the limits of.

I’d say, lazy like Springtime.
Everything that needs to get done gets done, on time, no rush.

[Eodnhoj7]

So why don't you make that effort to be more conscious?

Maybe you don't realise it but you are highly repetitive. How conscious are you when blathering on about "secularists" for the umteenth time? You are on a frickin' loop, lad, and trying to preach about awakeness. Seemingly you are expressing this lack you perceive in yourself; you may unconsciously realise this tendency to switch off and fall into mindless dogma is a personal shortfall, but one that is too hard to face.

All you need do now is realise that the criticisms you level at others are the qualities in yourself that you detest, but have not yet faced. If you face these personal demons then you may be freed from your Sisyphean forum labours. You may even find some empathy for your fellow humans.

In the meantime, though, it seems that you are done with your thought experiments/psychonaut activities. You speak as though you have all the information you need and now you are telling it from the mountain. Again, you engage in the very "interpretation and self justification" on the forum that you complain about, seemingly with no interest in advancing your paradigms.

The answer lies before you - face those demons. To find them, follow the trail of that which you most detest.

Greta I agree with your interpretation of Nick's personality, however I would have to agree with Nick's conception (not argument) that this current world is a meat grinder. Now it may have always been to this way in some degree, but this increase in technologicization is giving form to some of our inner beasts.

Every time in history has been a meat grinder. The universe is a meat grinder. However, in between - and because of - the grinding there is beauty and happiness. Reality is not one thing or another but hugely complex and pluralistic.

It cannot be always complex and pluralistic if we summated it (and other phenomenon for that matter) into 1 thing, in this case "reality".

Yes, technology is just an amplifier - of the good and bad. However, evolved negativity bias ensures that most will focus on one side of the equation.

Under the premise technology is an amplifier of the human condition, and the human condition is divided, would this amplify the division? It appears to me that technology causes a greater degree of chaos in these respects and is equivalent to giving a load gun to a child in one respect while in another it is strictly just and extension of our deepest confusions.

[Walker]

Got any proof?

Of course. Look it up.

Ok, I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bia ... ted_States

You would have to be gullible to not verify, and you would have to either be from another planet...

In these days, when you can communicate with complete strangers anywhere in the world, it takes a special type of idiot to assume that their own country is representative of the entire planet.

... dishonest, oblivious, or an iconizer of words to have not noticed the liberal bias of the media on your own. It’s thick enough to choke a horse.

Well, from what I read, in the USA you either have to be very selective with the data to conclude as you do; you uncritically believe everything that demonstrably right wing media outlets tell you, or your own views are so extreme that Adolf Hitler is mainstream by comparison.

Rather uncharitable attitude.
Principles have no borders.

Modern-day liberalism infects the world.
Only the names and faces change.

Perhaps the purity of the ideal liberalism has been corrupted.
Where has the ideal ever existed?

Lots of liberals are very liberal with OPM (other people's money).
That is a defining characteristic of liberalism.

Give to the government so that the government can ostensibly give to the poor?
Who wrote that rule?
Why do folks accept that as gospel?
Fact is, if you want to give to the poor, then give to the poor.

[uwot]

Rather uncharitable attitude.

Oh? And why does your attitude deserve charity?

Lots of liberals are very liberal with OPM (other people's money).
That is a defining characteristic of liberalism.

Rather uncharitable attitude.

[Walker]

Rather uncharitable attitude.

Oh? And why does your attitude deserve charity?

A charitable attitude is its own reward.

Lots of liberals are very liberal with OPM (other people's money).
That is a defining characteristic of liberalism.

Rather uncharitable attitude.

Just the facts. Ask around.

If you think that confiscating and redistributing OPM is not charitable, then you're not a liberal.

[uwot]

Just the facts. Ask around.

Alright, I will. I'll start with you. Walker, what do you think are the most salient facts that support your contention?

If you think that confiscating and redistributing OPM is not charitable, then you're not a liberal.

Dunno if you've been paying attention, but the USA is currently over $20 trillion in debt to financiers, plutocrats and foreign governments. The collateral for this money is the good will of the American people, who will be taxed/have their money confiscated just to service this debt for at least several generations, so that the descendants of today's financiers and plutocrats can continue the dynasty and live off the work of ordinary Americans. That is where other people's money is going, and the mind-boggling trick that financiers and plutocrats have pulled off is that they have convinced enough of the people they are robbing that it is good for them. And as long as the turkeys keep voting for Christmas, the financiers and plutocrats will keep stuffing them.

[Walker]

Just the facts. Ask around.

Alright, I will. I'll start with you. Walker, what do you think are the most salient facts that support your contention?

You want verification, from me, of what I say.

I'm not your authority, and you're not my boss.

So, take it or leave it on the basis of your reasoning, and the evidence from the world that you know.

Start by asking yourself, and if that defining characteristic of liberalism doesn't fit what you know, then seek independent verification of how it could be true.

Thus you learn something new, old dog.

If you think that confiscating and redistributing OPM is not charitable, then you're not a liberal.

Dunno if you've been paying attention, but the USA is currently over $20 trillion in debt to financiers, plutocrats and foreign governments. The collateral for this money is the good will of the American people, who will be taxed/have their money confiscated just to service this debt for at least several generations, so that the descendants of today's financiers and plutocrats can continue the dynasty and live off the work of ordinary Americans. That is where other people's money is going, and the mind-boggling trick that financiers and plutocrats have pulled off is that they have convinced enough of the people they are robbing that it is good for them. And as long as the turkeys keep voting for Christmas, the financiers and plutocrats will keep stuffing them.

If you bet that lots of folks are paying attention to the government auto-deductions on their paychecks, you're gonna be a winner.

[uwot]

You want verification, from me, of what I say.

Well, it was your idea.

I'm not your authority, and you're not my boss.

No, but this is a philosophy forum and it is fair to ask whether people can provide any evidence or argument to support the assertions that they make, or whether they are just blathering away with no idea what the facts are. The problem with that is that you are very quickly sucked into groupthink, where like minded people reinforce each other's opinion, even though none of them know what they are talking about. When this is pointed out to you, you respond with petulant insistence that what you happen to believe, is obvious.

So, take it or leave it on the basis of your reasoning, and the evidence from the world that you know.

I think that's your problem, Walker. You have started with reasoning, which, face it, isn't your strong point and then sought evidence to support your conclusions. Personally, I think it is wiser to start with the evidence and draw your conclusions from that.

Start by asking yourself, and if that defining characteristic of liberalism doesn't fit what you know, then seek independent verification of how it could be true.

I did. It doesn't. I did-I asked you.

Thus you learn something new, old dog.

Great. Whaddya got, Walker?

If you bet that lots of folks are paying attention to the government auto-deductions on their paychecks, you're gonna be a winner.

Perhaps. But if those same people paid attention to where their government auto-deductions were actually going, they might be on a winner. What do you think of the fact that generations of Americans will spend a portion of their working week just earning the money to give to people who have done nothing to earn it, and already have colossal amounts in the bank?

[Walker]

Old tricks, old dog.

Maybe the saying is true ...

*

You're right about auto-deductions.

People have been conditioned to accept them. Now, digital credits are replacing cash and when that becomes law, you'll have to meet the terms of credit issuers to survive, or else live by an alternative, illegal system*.

*such as untraceable pallets of cash sent to Iran by military cargo plane during the previous POTUS administration.

[uwot]

You're right about auto-deductions.

People have been conditioned to accept them.

They have been conned. In Merrie Olde England, the Sheriff of Nottingham would simply send out his thugs to take from the peasants whatever he needed to fight some other robber-baron who was trying to muscle in on his turf. Taxes have always been about the rich taking from the poor to support their lavish lifestyle. Trouble is, the peasants sometimes revolt and taking money off the people you are fighting, in order to fight them is tricky. So instead, you make up some fairytale about god or nation in an attempt to win hearts and minds. The clergy will do what it can to keep order, where they fail, the law will step in and as a last resort, the military will intervene, the last two of which are paid for by taxing and if religion actually worked at controlling the population, it too would probably get 'government' support. This is understood by some American conservatives, it even has a name, fusionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism

This is how the founder of the Gestapo put it:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

[Nick_A]

Uwot

They have been conned. In Merrie Olde England, the Sheriff of Nottingham would simply send out his thugs to take from the peasants whatever he needed to fight some other robber-baron who was trying to muscle in on his turf. Taxes have always been about the rich taking from the poor to support their lavish lifestyle. Trouble is, the peasants sometimes revolt and taking money off the people you are fighting, in order to fight them is tricky. So instead, you make up some fairytale about god or nation in an attempt to win hearts and minds. The clergy will do what it can to keep order, where they fail, the law will step in and as a last resort, the military will intervene, the last two of which are paid for by taxing and if religion actually worked at controlling the population, it too would probably get 'government' support. This is understood by some American conservatives, it even has a name, fusionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism

A nice description of the Great Beast. Plato describes the Beast. The beast master controls the Beast

I think this is true. Our adoration may be directed at a person (such as a leader) or object (such as a flag), but what we really bow down to is the power this person or object represents. And we all acknowledge the great power of the collective, the group, the many: "Alone we can do nothing, but together we are strong." Thus "We" becomes the god we look to for protection, provision, salvation.

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

"I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

[uwot]

Uwot

They have been conned. In Merrie Olde England, the Sheriff of Nottingham would simply send out his thugs to take from the peasants whatever he needed to fight some other robber-baron who was trying to muscle in on his turf. Taxes have always been about the rich taking from the poor to support their lavish lifestyle. Trouble is, the peasants sometimes revolt and taking money off the people you are fighting, in order to fight them is tricky. So instead, you make up some fairytale about god or nation in an attempt to win hearts and minds. The clergy will do what it can to keep order, where they fail, the law will step in and as a last resort, the military will intervene, the last two of which are paid for by taxing and if religion actually worked at controlling the population, it too would probably get 'government' support. This is understood by some American conservatives, it even has a name, fusionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism

A nice description of the Great Beast. Plato describes the Beast. The beast master controls the Beast

I think we are talking about different things. The beast that Plato refers to is the people. The Republic was basically Plato's response to what he saw as the problems of democracy. In it he recommends that authority is shared by a group of enlightened 'philosopher kings'; beast masters to control the beast. Part of their job was to come up with a 'Noble Lie'; some myth that would keep the great unwashed mollified. His own suggestion was to tell the public that different metals, gold, silver and iron were mixed into their constitution, making them suitable members of the ruling elite, the bureaucracy or the working class respectively. It wasn't a popular myth and it wasn't until 700 years later that the Romans hit on the idea of the meek inheriting the Earth, as a reward for doing exactly what the powerful wanted them to, that their catholic church really took off. As a bonus it's as hard for a rich man to get into heaven, as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Not only do the meek get their 'reward', they get revenge.
Without wishing to sound like a conspiracy nut, in addition to a range of religious and nationalistic myths, the elite also have the myth of trickle down economics and, thanks to the excesses of nutters like Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, the idea that any democratic control is undemocratic. In my view, if anything is 'beastly', it's the systematic lying and coercion by the elite.

I think this is true. Our adoration may be directed at a person (such as a leader) or object (such as a flag), but what we really bow down to is the power this person or object represents. And we all acknowledge the great power of the collective, the group, the many: "Alone we can do nothing, but together we are strong." Thus "We" becomes the god we look to for protection, provision, salvation.

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato.

Maybe, but from what she says about "together we are strong", she is advocating the exact opposite of Plato.

Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

"I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him...

Well yeah, Plato rarely missed an opportunity to slag off Sophists.

[Walker]

uwot: Here's a comment that applies to an early posting in the thread, which I mistakenly edited in place.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24149&start=90#p359670

This just popped up on the machine, almost by itself.
btw: I'm not a reader of Academic Questions.
People on the planet Earth paying attention, over years and decades, know the drift of this, if not the statistics down to the fraction.

Ask, receive. Knock, open.

“In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.”

- Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty
Apr 24, 2018 | Mitchell Langbert

https://www.nas.org/articles/homogenous ... te_liberal

[uwot]

People on the planet Earth paying attention, over years and decades, know the drift of this, if not the statistics down to the fraction.

Ask, receive. Knock, open.

Okie-dokie.

“In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic."

Well, I could simply conclude from this that Democrats are smarter, but I suspect you would protest that it doesn't follow and you'd be right. By the same token, you should be wary of drawing any conclusion without knowing the affiliation and purpose of the writer.
So the article was published in Academic Questions, a quarterly journal run by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) which according to wikipedia:

"...is an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education. It promotes free speech on college campuses for dissident political trends...

which I wholeheartedly approve of.

"...a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms...

Well, any imposition of scholarship norms is a restriction on freedom of choice and involves government interference.

...and an increase in conservative representation in faculty."

Which smacks of positive discrimination; not something I would have thought they approve of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... f_Scholars

The way the piece opens, "I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know" is an admission that the purpose is to reinforce the readership's groupthink. How many of the readers will understand or even notice that the sample is restricted to "top-tier liberal arts colleges". In other words, not universities and certainly not Ivy League.
I suspect there is a liberal bias in academia, not least because conservatives are more inclined to more lucrative professions. The way the article is written though, gives the impression that it is trying to mislead people into thinking that any such bias is much larger than it actually is.

Having said all that, thank you for the article, I appreciate the effort you went to.

[Walker]

People on the planet Earth paying attention, over years and decades, know the drift of this, if not the statistics down to the fraction.

Ask, receive. Knock, open.

Okie-dokie.

“In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic."

Well, I could simply conclude from this that Democrats are smarter, but I suspect you would protest that it doesn't follow and you'd be right. By the same token, you should be wary of drawing any conclusion without knowing the affiliation and purpose of the writer.
So the article was published in Academic Questions, a quarterly journal run by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) which according to wikipedia:

"...is an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education. It promotes free speech on college campuses for dissident political trends...

which I wholeheartedly approve of.

"...a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms...

Well, any imposition of scholarship norms is a restriction on freedom of choice and involves government interference.

...and an increase in conservative representation in faculty."

Which smacks of positive discrimination; not something I would have thought they approve of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... f_Scholars

The way the piece opens, "I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know" is an admission that the purpose is to reinforce the readership's groupthink. How many of the readers will understand or even notice that the sample is restricted to "top-tier liberal arts colleges". In other words, not universities and certainly not Ivy League.
I suspect there is a liberal bias in academia, not least because conservatives are more inclined to more lucrative professions. The way the article is written though, gives the impression that it is trying to mislead people into thinking that any such bias is much larger than it actually is.

Having said all that, thank you for the article, I appreciate the effort you went to.

You're welcome, no effort, it just popped up while surfing, no search required.

The bios of the site members appear normal enough.

The paper appears reputable.

Liberal bias on campus, confirmed.