A man was riding in a train. In his lap he carried a large cage with a cloth cover which obscured its interior. The train rolled on for hours. Finally, curiosity overcame the passenger sitting across from him, and he asked, “Excuse me, but what is in the cage?”
“A mongoose”, replied the man.
“Why do you have a mongoose?”
“To kill the snakes.”
“What snakes?”
“Sometimes I drink too much, and I see pink snakes. They frighten me.”
“But those are imaginary snakes!”
“I know, and this is an imaginary mongoose.”
That story might be thought to be merely absurd humor, but it actually captures the entire essence of religion. Recently I heard it said, “It is not enough for us to know that gods do not exist; the gods need to know it, too.” And actually, the gods have been telling us that for centuries, as interpreted by their human representatives, but many of us haven’t been paying attention. Yes, that’s correct: God is an atheist. The real meaning of the allegory of Jesus being crucified is “The god you thought existed is dead.”
It was easy to miss that point when those who knew that deluded populations were easier to control for the controllers’ ulterior motives keep insisting that JC was only kidding, while they invented their own versions of his philosophy.
REDUCTIONISM
That is the approach that underlies all rational thought. It tells us that any phenomenon, no matter how complex, can be reduced to its component parts and explained as a series of physical causes and effects.
It is true that there are phenomena that we do not entirely understand…yet. That does not contradict the fact that they CAN be understood with sufficient investigation and analysis. Interjecting non-physical causes is merely a lazy cop-out.
–CosmicRat Jan. 14 2023
I think there is a rabid zealousness in anything and everything. Including atheists.
How is “rabid zealousness” defined? Is that any opinion with which someone might disagree, or does it require loud “barking” and a danger of a serious bite?
Rabid – having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something….Zealousness-passionate devotion to an interest, cause, of subject. Was it overkill on my part to use such similar adjectives for you? You can bark if you like, but no biting please.
Interesting. In the first comment, you said that such zealousness exists, which is likely true. This time you seemed to imply that you meant that you were referring to me. This puzzles me for 2 reasons. First, because I would characterize my blog as quite calm and rational; second, I wonder why your perception of the my enthusiasm is relevant to whether you agree or not.
Perhaps you believe that invisible powerful being exist, or maybe just that you don’t think such beliefs are socially harmful. Feel free to say so if that’s the case.
I said “was it overkill on my part to use such similar adjectives for you”. It SURPRISES me that you took that personally rather than an observation that I used two adjectives in explaining my response for you. It’s all perception isn’t it? My comment was that, just a comment and shouldn’t be viewed as a personal attack. Quite humorous on some respects in that I felt my comment was quite calm and rational as well….again, it’s that whole perception thing again! 😉
It is easy to accept that you weren’t referring to me, since it wouldn’t have applied if you were.
What is less clear is why you made the comment in the first place, since it was not relevant to the blog to which it was posted.
Oh Cosmic, you are missing Kimberly aren’t you? I can understand you missing your sparring partner, but I am not going to be that replacement.
I do have to smile at that first sentence of yours, about it wouldn’t have applied to you. Are you referring to the zealousness or something else? Because quite frankly you are zealous in your blogging on religion, or you wouldn’t write so much about it.
But if my comments upset you so much, I can refrain from commenting on your blogs in the future. Have a good day.
No, I don’t “miss” Kimberly, Irrational and abusive behavior such as hers is never desirable.
Your comments don’t upset me. I was merely curious why you wanted to make statements not relevant to the blog. Since it seems that it just amuses you to do that, I can simply ignore them.
So if you post a blog on religion, and atheists are mentioned in a comment, it’s not relevant? How interesting…
As long as we both understand that, there is no problem.
You are more like Kimberly than you realize.
That is an insult that was entirely uncalled for. I can’t imagine why you felt the need to say that. I don’t believe I attacked you, unless that is how you perceived my pointing out that your prior comment was irrelevant to the post on which it was made. Once I concluded that you didn’t mean anything by it, as I said, I was willing to ignore it.
If you have some grievance against me, please explain. Simply hurling insults is not the way.
How is that an insult? I never claimed you were rude, crude, or offensive like Kimberly was. I do think that you and Kimberly are/were very alike in your ideology and unable or unwilling to accept, respect, or being willing to understand an opposing viewpoint.
Religion, Atheism are the flipside of each other. How in the world can you begin to separate the two and say they do not have any relevance to each other? It’s like saying Democrats and Republicans aren’t related when it comes to politics.
Good grief Cosmic, do you want to talk privately on why you are taking my views and comments so personally? Do you have some unresolved feelings of loss with Kimberly’s passing? I can understand if you do, you were a part of each other’s life for a long time. What I don’t understand is your defensiveness that quite frankly is bordering on a bit of paranoia.
Don’t waste your time, Vic…trying to talk to cosmic is exactly like trying to talk to kim was…they are two peas in a pod…we had to deal with them on shmoo, and here we are again…sad, really. I can’t wait until Brian gets those privacy/blocking features in place.
Somehow you seemed to have missed the difference between a humanitarian advocacy of equal human rights and science-based health care for everyone, as opposed to bigoted hate and dangerous conspiracist misinformation about vaccines and masks.
Perhaps you saw no harm in Kim’s continual spouting of deadly misinformation, or no value in my attempts to counter that with truth and healthy advice.
I don’t recall your being involved in any commentary, but I’m sorry to hear you were disturbed.
Until you said I was “like” Kim I took nothing you said personally, but how could that NOT be an insult? If you had said I was like Trump or Putin it would have felt the same.
Prior to that, what seems to have resulted in misunderstanding is entirely different concepts of what appropriately relevant commentary to a blog is. To discuss or debate an opinion in a civil manner, whether you agree or disagree is fine, and expected. That shouldn’t begin with a personal opinion of the author, but about the ideas being expressed. And, to say my article was about religion and atheism is obviously true, but that is not a contribution to an exchange of ideas, anymore than pointing out that I used words to write it.
I didn’t think I had to explain that, since you seem to be generally intelligent, so it was a bit frustrating when there seemed to be no common understanding.
And, we STILL haven’t discussed the content of my blog. It’s fine if you don’t want to. But so far we have exchanged no opinions.
In the world of sports, we would first have to decide whether we’re playing tennis or volleyball before either of us could score.
Now, if you will agree to refrain from personal attacks, I will do likewise and would be happy to engage in dialog on any subject.
I disagree cos. I think Vic summed it up perfectly. In simpler terms, she meant that even atheists are/can be very passionate about their beliefs, and she accepts that from you as a person/friend. I too have had friends with qualities that I disliked very much, but that didn’t stop me from looking past the behaviors, and seeing into the heart of the person.♥
When I write something, I do mean what I say, and usually think it is important that I say it. If someone wants to call that “zealous” or “passionate”, that is not a problem. I certainly don’t advocate apathy.
That I strongly hold the opinions I express was not the subject of the blog, though. It isn’t a matter of just the intellectual value of choosing reality over myth, but the harm done by the proliferation of irrational beliefs and their manipulation to exert unwarranted control.
I don’t pretend that I can singlehandedly eliminate a problem that has afflicted humanity since prehistory. I can only address one mind at a time, and invite discussion.
Instead of wandering in somewhere on that discussion thread, I figure I might as well start fresh 😉
I’ve interacted with Cosmic probably a lot longer than anybody here, and as I recall it dates back to the Yahoo 360 days.
Cosmic is pretty consistent in stating his views, but never demanding anybody else believe the same thing. Nor has he ever denigrated anybody else’s opinion no matter how much abuse they heap on him.
I don’t always agree with him, I don’t on this one. I do believe life and the universe have a purpose, and to believe that one pretty much has to believe there is a reason for that purpose, and I define that reason as “God”.
I do agree with Cosmic that organized religion’s purpose is to manipulate, sometimes for good reasons, often times for bad.
I’m not sure I agree with this statement:
“It is true that there are phenomena that we do not entirely understand…yet. That does not contradict the fact that they CAN be understood with sufficient investigation and analysis. Interjecting non-physical causes is merely a lazy cop-out.”
Atheists sometimes refer to it as “moving the goal posts”, but it is possible to believe in God but not believe it is a humanoid, has any form whatsoever, and may in fact not be part of the universe.
And we don’t exist for the sole purpose of singing its praises. Frankly I can’t imagine any reason something that created everything would need that, I think we came up with that one to puff up our own importance.
As such it may never be possible to understand everything with sufficient investigation and analysis because we may never have the necessary tools to investigate everything. We certainly don’t now, there is no particular reason to believe we ever will.
And since I sometimes come across as an arrogant know it all myself, I’m going to say this is only my opinion, I of course have no proof, and your opinion on the subject is every bit as good as mine.
Carry on 🙂
Very well-put Brian. I admire your levelheadedness. When the insulting adjectives start flying, the argument is lost (IMHO)
That was an excellent example of the kind of comment I was hoping for.
Naturally, opinions vary on the nature, purpose, and origin of the universe. The problem arises when organisations decree “this is what you must believe or be burned at the stake, actually or virtually.
The use of the power that can provide over believers is often quite devastating. There is a long list of instances.
Currently, beyond the obvious direct effects, the basis of religion, the creation of an altered reality, is being used politically. It is not such a big leap from “If you believe in our God-dogma your soul will be saved” to the secular proclamation “If you believe what Trump tells you, he will make the country great”. Most people may be able to judge whether a belief without evidence is harmless and personal, or whether it interferes with the rights and well-being of others, but clearly not all people can do that.
I wrote a comment on this blog about there being a “rabid zealousness” in everything. It is in those who practice religious beliefs and in those who don’t believe in any form of religion. It was a general comment in that in EVERYTHING in life there are two sides to every subject, belief, argument, etc.
It was in NO way an “insulting” adjective, but a statement made by me of life and reality in general. Was it off topic? That is up to each individual to decide. Was it an assassination of character? NO. What is it an attack? NO.
If I was a sensitive, paranoid, victimizing individual, I could have claimed Cosmic’s reply to me in asking my DEFININTION of those words was goading, baiting, and in some ways insulting as well.
I did not take it that way as I like to think that is not who he is as a person.
I do try to give people credit WITHOUT a blanket judgement or finger pointing waggle that someone was being “insulting” in giving a difference of opinion and my use of the English language that involves adjectives.
I believe that people are allowed to have a voice, isn’t that why we all blog? Isn’t that why there is commenting enabled? Isn’t that what is meant by freedom of speech?
I don’t know which is worse… a stifling of people’s views and thoughts, or the waffling of individuals to side whichever way they feel the political correctness or of behavioral influence for personal gain.
(and NO, that last comment has nothing to do with you Cosmic but an observation of life today)
Viccles, there is a problem with “rabid zealousness” in about anything, I have found pretty much any concept humans have come up with has problems when it gets to the extremes.
The problem I have is that you are making this statement on Cosmic’s blog in relation to one of his posts, it would be a better subject on a different blog.
One of the reasons I personally prefer this format over what we had at shmooze is there is a better separation of whose page you are on – with shmooze, everything ended up right up front and we couldn’t avoid it.
Here you pretty much have to come to the home site to read and comment on the blog.
If if somebody doesn’t want to read Cosmic’s posts, the answer is simple: don’t go to his blog. And I will be setting it up so if we want a home site with invited friends only it will be possible to set that up in regards to what Suzi mentioned. We need to be able to control the visitors on our own blogs if we so desire. Some will, some will not, and since we can have more than one blog site, we can set one up for each way, a public and a private.
I think there should be further discussion of this subject, but I really don’t think Cosmic’s blog is the place for it. I’ll write a blog about it today on my site, we can discuss it there.
Are you referring to the above statement that I made or the very first statement that you have a problem with? As far as the last statement that I made, I did send you a private message that my last statement was not directed at you either. My apologies if it was misconstrued that way.
I don’t have a problem with anything you said in that first statement. I was remarking more about why Cosmic reacted to it the way he did. Actually I shouldn’t have started that second line out with “The problem I have is”. I tend to reuse words in my writing pattern, it annoys me when I do that. That second line would better read:
“The issue is that you are making this statement on Cosmic’s blog in relation to one of his posts, it would be a better subject on a different blog.”
The reason that triggered Cosmic’s response is that it is similar to a typical line of attack theists make on atheists – that atheism is a religion and that atheists are zealots.
I replied to your PM 😉
Gotcha.