Why are there so many churchy people here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyone in particular you're referring to? Nerdy guys under 30 are indeed terribly non-religious, but I'd wager enough of them are still at least vaguely and instinctually spiritually inclined on Christmas of all days that Atlas Forum is hardly out of the ordinary.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It does seem a little disappointing at first glance, I'll agree.  But the result of the 'did you go to church last night' poll right now stands at about 65% 'no', so there's still hope for us yet.

I wonder how many of the rational folks among us still went to church anyway because of family tradition/pressure.  Poor guys.

Don't be a putz. It's Christmas.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Duh!  I'm having a blast today!  One of my favorite times of year.  The Mrs and I exchanged gifts that had been sitting under the tree, her parents came to stay for a couple days, we went ice skating at the Cosmo two days ago, we watched our favorite Christmas movies, etc.  We just don't go in for all the religious claptrap that's meant to go with it.

And, since it's Christmas, kindly show goodwill and charity to those of us who do instead of (or in addition to!--for this also is possible; believe me, I know from experience) being judgmental for no good reason.

Believe me, I know.  I went to a few as a child.  But eventually I grew up and understood the reality of Santa and God.  At least the concept of Santa is fun for the kids, however.  The God stuff is just a giant holiday buzzkill.

The God stuff is, for most people who celebrate this holiday, largely the point, at least conceptually. In some countries the God stuff is the Santa stuff. Ask Tender.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Duh!  I'm having a blast today!  One of my favorite times of year.  The Mrs and I exchanged gifts that had been sitting under the tree, her parents came to stay for a couple days, we went ice skating at the Cosmo two days ago, we watched our favorite Christmas movies, etc.  We just don't go in for all the religious claptrap that's meant to go with it.

And, since it's Christmas, kindly show goodwill and charity to those of us who do instead of (or in addition to!--for this also is possible; believe me, I know from experience) being judgmental for no good reason.

Believe me, I know.  I went to a few as a child.  But eventually I grew up and understood the reality of Santa and God.  At least the concept of Santa is fun for the kids, however.  The God stuff is just a giant holiday buzzkill.

The God stuff is, for most people who celebrate this holiday, largely the point, at least conceptually. In some countries the God stuff is the Santa stuff. Ask Tender.

Dude, it's just my opinion.  And it's just what I'm used to, virtually my whole life.  Don't act all affronted that a sizeable number of people enjoy the fun side of certain Christian holidays without bothering with the dull religious stuff associated with them.

I've no quarrel with the fact of widespread secular celebration of Christmas. I like it, more or less.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Indeed, is there anything in the world more in opposition to freedom?

Strident anticlericalism has historically come close from time to time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Once again proving the point of this thread... around the Atlas it's OFFENSIVE to have a negative opinion of religion.  Sorry, but I'm not going to moderate myself on an institution I consider to be inherently the worst kind of evil.

Your conception of just how bad evil can get is amazingly parochial. That's why it's called evil.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Your argument is essentially 'it doesn't matter who finds it liberating if I find it oppressive'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Your argument is essentially 'it doesn't matter who finds it liberating if I find it oppressive'.

Essentially, yes, because in my view anyone who is stridently religious can not truly be free.  And before you jump down my throat... are there not a very large number of things that religious people claim are not open to agnostics/atheists; namely salvation and morality?  Hell, I've been told by my religious friends that my lack of belief means I myself can never be free.

I can't answer this question as asked because 'religious people' aren't a monolith, but that's certainly true of some religious people. One might even say many. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By recognizing that other people don't share that belief, which is something that people holding belief systems purporting to be 'rationalist' have, I'm sorry to say, not historically been especially good at. My mind is significantly freer (in the sense of having room to entertain a greater variety of possibilities) treating its contents as having some depth and a mystical connection to past, future, and eternal minds than it would be were I to treat reality as some sort of Murakami Takashi installation piece.

In a way you've sort of proved his point; that's an incredibly dismissive thing to say. He was wrong to say he's 'freer' than you spiritually, as individual freedom is an internal state and cannot be objectively measured, but you can't say you're 'significantly freer' either or be as dismissive of other views of reality.

Perhaps I should have said 'uniquely good at'. What I meant was that there's no historical basis for the idea that a worldview is better at accepting the existence or understanding the content of other worldviews because it claims a rational basis. Even if I were launching invective to the effect that rationalistic worldviews are guiltier of this than others, I really don't think this particular critique constitutes being 'dismissive' at all.

I'm not necessarily freer than HockeyDude is as I don't know how free HockeyDude is and as we probably quantify freedom differently anyway. I do know that, as I understand freedom, I'm freer than I would be if I had HockeyDude's views on this subject.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

My point is the expectation being flouted by this ULTRA-'CHURCHY' FORUM TWO-FIFTHS OF WHICH GOES TO CHURCH ON CHRISTMAS!!!! seems to have been dictated by a very particular social environment, because that's the only standard by which this place could possibly be so characterized--and HockeyDude and Joe Republic have more or less admitted as such. Maybe if you interacted with a broader cross-section of American society more your 'bafflement' would decrease.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As you must understand that for many of us it isn't a question of 'blind submission' and that we by and large find that particular exercise in superciliousness exactly as offensive as anybody would find being called blindly submissive despite not being so. One need not fear political oppression to feel wounded by ill-informed insults.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ignoring the fact that i havent posted for 11 days, I don't think this forum is very churchy. Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?

Yeah, this forum is only 'churchy' relative to memphis, Joe Republic, and HockeyDude's apparent social circles. It isn't churchy relative to American society or the world as a whole at all.

It's much churchier here than I expected. And that was my entire point. Maybe it's less churchy than other people would expect.  It is true that I am beyond baffled by the culture of religion, but that's rather a different topic and I certainly have no expectation of changing any opinions. Not like anybody has ever been persuaded by political arguments on here either.

My point is the expectation being flouted by this ULTRA-'CHURCHY' FORUM TWO-FIFTHS OF WHICH GOES TO CHURCH ON CHRISTMAS!!!! seems to have been dictated by a very particular social environment, because that's the only standard by which this place could possibly be so characterized--and HockeyDude and Joe Republic have more or less admitted as such. Maybe if you interacted with a broader cross-section of American society more your 'bafflement' would decrease.

My "bafflement" is contrived from the fact that such a large number of young liberals would find so much merit in religion, particularly since so many of those liberals seem to agree with someone like me on most if not all major issues, and then we hit this wall religion where it could not be more opposite.  It's confusing on a purely psychological level.

Ah, I see. I think that's an entirely fair type of confusion for anybody to have, particularly if you perceive your beliefs as connected and mutually supported across a continuum of issues. I'm used to living with similar confusion, since I don't believe my set of views is particularly common even though I see all of them as interrelated.