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.
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.
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 spiritual as fuck, and while I may have my issues, autism is not one of them.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
It's possible that they are trying to communicate something you are demonstrating as a practice?
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.