Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon291 | Hacker News Reader

While I would love to see this happen, I'm no longer convinced that anything other than fear of eternal torment can prompt people to actually defend the truth. It may be cynical but it's where I've been for a few years now.

I don't think there's any evidence of humans ever having actually stood up for any idea in large numbers, other than in religious settings. So to use the articles own insistence against them... What time evidence do they have that their philosophy is motivating enough to make anyone actually do what they want?

View on HN

> I don't think there's any evidence of humans ever having actually stood up for any idea in large numbers, other than in religious settings. So to use the articles own insistence against them... What time evidence do they have that their philosophy is motivating enough to make anyone actually do what they want?

That is an insightful comment and I agree with you - for the proof, just look at all our successful political leaders around the world. Rarely does a politician who advocates for atheism while disparaging all religion win. On the contrary, there are great politicians, like Moses, Muhammad and Gandhi, who really become leaders because of how they embrace religious as part and parcel of their very identity, in a very spiritual manner that earns them respect of many.

The problem is not with religion or religious people, but with fundamentalism. To accept any new truth, you need to be able to let go of the earlier truths. And that's not really easy to do as we age. That is why it often takes a generational shift for new ideas, and new truths, to emerge.

I think all you've proven is that to become a political figure that you must hold some beliefs of the governed. As the world becomes less religious this trend will disappear.

The world isn't becoming less religious. It maybe on decline in the west, but is flourishing everywhere else.

Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X were also both religious. MLK of course was a preacher. And Malcolm X was a Nation of Islam evangelist.

Considering the number of people who have beliefs and voting patterns that differ drastically from what their religion espouses as ethical and moral, the fear of eternal torment isn't the motivator you think it should be.

What you do in the voting booth, and what you do on your deathbed... those are different things.

Not heard in hospice homes around Florida: "May god forgive me for voting for Bush"

I don't know of any political party in the United States that fully encapsulates the morals of any major world religion.

The question older than Civilization itself: how to make the human behave the way you want it to?

Any good manager will tell you the answer is as long as it is varied.

> fear of eternal torment

Do people really believe this though?

I get your point in general though: religion works.

>Do people really believe this though?

Yes.

Might come as a surprise, but some people really believe the world is round. /s

Yes, people believe it. A scary large amount of people.

"Faith is believing something you know ain’t true."

Fear of torment encourages people to go along with religious dogma. What does that have to do with defending the truth?

May I ask what your beliefs are? Some of the strongest seekers-of-truth I know are atheist, or so agnostic they might as well be atheists. The biggest liars I know of are deeply religious.

To offer a contrary perspective - some of the staunchest woke people I know are former (or "born again") atheists and the "new atheism" community was among the first to become captured by that movement.

What’s interesting to me is how much of atheism, rationalism, and the various fellow travelers is dominated by people who are clearly well onto the autism spectrum.

Atheism is basically the result of an inability to read spiritual cues just as typical autistic behavior stems from an inability to read social cues. I feel for people who are spiritually blind, but I’m really not interested in their opinions on religion anymore than I am in a tone deaf person’s opinions on music.

I'm an atheist because I believe in one less god than you do.

I'm spiritual as fuck, and while I may have my issues, autism is not one of them.

> I'm an atheist because I believe in one less god than you do.

That’s not a reason, it’s just the definition of atheism. Why are you an atheist?

> I'm spiritual as fuck, and while I may have my issues, autism is not one of them.

I’m not sure we mean the same thing by spiritual. For example I believe, as St Augustine explains so marvelously in his Confessions, that God is a purely spiritual being.

Do you believe that a spiritual reality exists independently of the material one and that human beings are both material and spiritual creatures? If not then you aren’t as spiritual as any vulgarity because you don’t actually believe yourself to be spiritual at all.

I don’t want to impute beliefs to you that aren’t truly yours though, so unless you choose to clarify I’ll just consider that one possibility.

> Why are you an atheist?

Because every single religion I'm aware of so far has seemed like made up stories meant to control people. I've seen no evidence of a God who is as actively engaged as those stories purport.

My definition of spirituality is "one's connection with the universe; seeing the magic in our creation". I don't need a holy tract for that.

Speaking of such, the story I like the most in this regard is here: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

I'm too lazy/distracted to start a church around that but the appeal of that idea has not faded.

If you believe the universe is created, you are not an atheist.

Are you citing my comment: "seeing the magic in our creation"?

Let me try speaking more slowly so you get it. An example might be taking in a sunset and the scenery therein and feeling happy to be present for it, and to feel like one is part of that picture.

If you read The Egg and think that I literally believe its true then you are projecting yourself and any further conversation is pointless.

The Egg is a wonderful story and if I was forced to choose one and "believe it", I'd take it over any of the official offerings.

I'm genuinely curious: as an autistic atheist, what spiritual cues do you think I'm missing? What even is a spiritual cue?

I can conceptualize what a social cue is even if i miss them sometimes, but you seem to be describing an entirely new thing that doesn't map onto that concept in any obvious way.

>some of the staunchest woke people I know...

What does "woke" mean in this context? I'm not being snarky here, I'm just curious how you're defining the term.

Especially since I've heard so many conflicting definitions that It's not clear what someone means by "woke" in most contexts except as a counterpoint to "asleep."

Does it mean a belief in equal rights/treatment/opportunities for all sentient beings?

Does it mean a belief that all those of European extraction are racist, slave-mongering monsters?

Does it mean a belief that Marxism is the only acceptable political ideology?

I've heard all of the above (and more) as "definitions" of "woke," with so much variation as to make the term useless.

So if you wouldn't mind, please provide your definition of the term so I actually have some idea what the hell you're going on about. Thanks!

I won't answer for op, but that's a big offense you seem to have taken. All those questions but you aren't actually asking anything.

It's possible that they are trying to communicate something you are demonstrating as a practice?

>I won't answer for op, but that's a big offense you seem to have taken. All those questions but you aren't actually asking anything.

Offense? Not sure how you got from confusion about defining terms to "offense."

>It's possible that they are trying to communicate something you are demonstrating as a practice?

My concern here is a lack of clear definition of the term. Which is required in order to have a reasonable discussion.

What, exactly, do you believe I'm "demonstrating as a practice"? Critical thinking?

Edit: Fixed prose.

I use it as a catch all term for people who "are into" Critical Social Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynical_Theories).

It seems to be primarily as a slur now.

I go by the initial Webster's definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke -- "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"

By that definition I consider myself to be woke. Aware and care. Easy peasy.

I've seen this game played before, and it was called "politically correct": take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement.

It looks like you're doing exactly that (the word soup of your wiki link at least implies that).

Precisely that. While it has a clear definition, by and large anyone using the term "woke" these days is dogwhistling, and using it as a slur.

The fact that accusing you of caring about society and intersectional justice is supposedly insulting to some people, is really quite remarkable. It's not insulting to be "woke," but it's certainly telling with folk like the commenter above use it as a slur.

Looks like you got downvoted too. The fact that they dance around the core concept without acknowledging that the problem exists is something that still makes me SMDH.

It's one thing to be ignorant by virtue of an absence of information, but to remain willingly so in the face of obvious evidence is shameful.

> take well intended movement, find egregious examples of it being applied, and then make those examples the definition of the movement.

This is basically what people do to the Christian religion. Find egregious preachers who buy luxury yachts and sportscars; ignore all the good work; and use the worst examples as emblematic of the whole thing.

Or what happened with Islam and the terrorism stuff in the 2000s.

I've encountered plenty of "good Christians" (and other faiths).

That said, there's plenty of not so nice versions out there -- enough to matter. I'd buy you a tee shirt that said "I hate Jesus" and have you walk around some small town in Idaho and see how well that plays out for you.

I mention Idaho because they're actively working to create a Christian state, e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/christ-church-...

There's millions of Americans believe that the US should be a Christian Country, and they have guns.

Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that?

> Thought experiment: imagine if the Muslims took power in the US. And they wanted us to live as "God intended". How chill would you be about that?

Realistically, it would depend. There are a large varieties of muslim states. Historically, some have been quite nice to live in. If by 'muslim state' and as 'God intended', they mean a good social safety net, minimal interference in religious liberty, open celebrations of non-muslim worship, but also a return to a more traditional social structure (re-emphasis on married parents, which is in the minority today; stricter rules on divorce; stricter rules on working hours; public acknowledgement that God exists; etc). I would actually think that's fine. Realistically, I don't see how it's substantially different than the civil authority today, which holds plenty of beliefs I disagree with and forces me to pay for them / go along with them.

I honestly don't understand the attempt to scare Christians about Islam. While I am not a Muslim and think it's wrong-headed, the muslims are substantially closer to Christian beliefs (esp when only considering moraolity) than the majority of atheists. I don't see why that's even controversial.

Anyone who is familiar with this type of person immediately knows what Evangelical Atheism means.

Their religion is to eschew yours. They worship, just differently. They see no hypocrisy in being critical of your beliefs, but demand you fall in line with theirs.

Its inside humans to contain something that is commonly satiated with religion. We can fill it with something else, just can't pretend to be a better person for doing so. It's the same flaw.

> The biggest liars I know of are deeply religious.

Seems like you already made up your mind. That doesn't come across as someone interested in truth at all.

As a piece of anecdata I am deeply confident in my agnostic doubts and I lie pretty consistently.

Not sure you think I've already made up my mind on this. I'm in no way saying that all, nor even close to a majority of religious folk are big liars. But the ones who commit the biggest, farthest reaching lies tend have largely been openly religious. They largely wouldn't be able to be in their positions otherwise, since they wouldn't be able to get the votes to make their affecting lies.

They might not actually be deeply religious, since they are liars, they might be lying about that.

Gandhi was a self-proclaimed seeker of truth (his autobiography is titled, "The Story of My Experiments with Truth") and a religious and very spiritual man. Do you believe he was liar too?

Why would I base his extent of lying on his spirituality or faith? That's not an argument I'm attempting to make here.

No, this just makes our language a failure in explaining complexity. If you believe something is true and profess that to others, it does not make you a liar, it just makes you wrong.

My comment is actually not about truth seeking. It's about truth defending. I know some atheists who surpass me in terms of being interested in truth. Few will stick up to defend what they think is true unfortunately. They'll privately confess their reservations about being complicit to lies, but they won't actually do anything public. Thus their truth seeking is fruitless, and a waste of time. Knowing something and not having it change your behavior is just wasting time. If you're the same person after having discovered the truth as you were before, what was the point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com