RoR: Forum

Rich, Why are you acting surprised that people on an atheist site would poke fun at believing in god?

Also, they say you do not have to be a believer to be in a 12-step program, although from my own experience they seem to push the higher power thing pretty hard. I found al-anon to be a lot of crap, and I was an agnostic at the time I attended. Fortunately MSK was able to recover without falling into the pseudo-religious bromides of 12 step programs. Anyway, bringing up his past like that was a cheap shot. Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and belief in a supernatural god contradicts reason and is incompatible with objectivism.

Post 141

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 2:37pm

Alright, now...

First off, I mentioned 12-step methodology for specific reasons related to the discussion, specifically the nature of Step One. Secondly, if you think I would ever trash someone that has managed recovery for that length of time, you've got another thing coming. The difficulty of doing that is something that most people can't imagine, and don't do when faced with it. The fact of the matter is that he wrote about it himself, last week, so please don't think I was "outing" someone. I consider what he describes to be a badge of honor. I didn't get that from outer-freaking space, I got it from his words. That he writes openly about it is even more commendable.

I am extremely aware of where atheism lies within Objectivism. Puuuleeze.

As far as the fun-poking goes, I truly don't care, other than the fact that I have repeatedly said (at this point just short of resorting to an engraving tool) that I am not a Deist. I am not a conversionist, and my purpose is not to fiddle-fuck with how other people look at existence. What I pointed out was that in a community that normally would be all over someone for backing off a discussion by making juvenile jokes about something not even relative to the topic at hand, apparently in this case, it is OK. That is duplicity. It reeks of hitting a sore spot, and it reeks of running out of rope.

It seems that there are a few who take the tack that anyone who is not a lock-step Objectivist (as defined by...), or at least not an atheist is mentally inept, incapable of having good judgment, and is otherwise not to be trusted. That is cult behavior, and it makes other people laugh, throw things, and poke at you with sticks.

Post 142

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:56pm

Rich,

Sorry I didn't get back on this sooner. My Kitten's a ferocious protector (and actually I am quite proud of her), but on the 12 step thing, you did ask a good question, albeit for some reason you limited it to Step One and included the God thing there.

What I will describe below is precisely how I faced the first three steps in Narcotics Anonymous as I gradually underwent the hell of detox. (I did not have the privilege of being locked up in an institution - I had to do detox the hard way, out on the street, all by myself and making money that easily could be spent on drugs. btw - My drug of preference was crack cocaine.) I will admit that I had a bit of practice with these steps from my first stint in Alcoholics Anonymous, where I faced them in a similar manner.

Step One is not the issue:

1. We admitted that we were powerless over our addiction, that our lives had become unmanageable.

If you put that into a time context, meaning we were powerless over our addiction at that moment, I don't think there is any problem at all. Nobody goes to one of those meetings for the first time because he/she has power over their addictions. They go because they completely lost control. I know I did.

2. We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Step Two is trickier. The meat they feed you on this when you declare yourself to be an atheist (which I did) is to say that this higher power can manifest itself through the very existence of NA meetings. I agree completely with that approach.

I came to the conclusion that to recover from addiction, I needed help. I tried to stop by myself 50 gazillion times but it never worked. The real magic of all 12 step programs is the point of one sufferer talking to another. This actually is consonant with Nathaniel Branden's mirror (Mutnik) principle of reflected psychological visibility. Even today an addict can say things to me that mean much more than someone who has never been there. He knows. Other people only can speculate.

3. We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understood Him.

Here is where all 12 step programs start sneaking in Christianity. They call God a "Higher Power," but the word "God" keeps coming up over and over again. In my own mind, I put in the word "nature" and tried to understand what my own nature as a human being would have me do, even if I, as an individual, wanted matters differently. I admitted defeat on not being able to rise above nature and thus surrendered my will to reality. In Objectivist jargon, I would say that I took control of my whims - but we both know it goes deeper. It is a surrender of my whims to nature to be able to control my thriving.

As to the other people present in those meetings, including their own belief in God (please note that I always write that word with a capital "G"), I completely respected their positions and, frankly, did not think about it. My issue there was to get a gorilla off my back, not to debate theology. And I did what I set out to do - with their help.

Once my problem was under control, I stopped going to the meetings. There are many reasons why I stopped, but I have nothing but gratitude for the existence of these organizations.

I don't see hardly any non-religious groups that are widely available for free for treatment like what they provide. Addicts and alcoholics need free treatment to start with because they are usually broke in every sense possible, including monetarily.

I have heard these groups called beauty salons and they are. I have witnessed many people arrive in a complete state of bum-ness, dirty, smelling, sniffing and coughing loudly and wiping their nose on their sleeves, clothes all ripped and filthy and stuff like that. After a while they start cleaning up. They start getting a bit heftier and some color starts coming to their cheeks. They take on a healthy look and respectful demeanor. As time goes on, new arrivals (the bums) look at them and think they are church volunteers or something. Little do they know at first.

Anyway, if these groups want to claim there is a God, then let them. The cultural battle of atheism has no business trying to start there anyway. That kind of organization should be one of the last to change - the members simply are not mentally strong enough to handle a philosophy they can't see functioning in the society around them. They can see good people in churches, though. So God it is over there. That works.

I have a whole lot more to write on this (and I will in an article), but I hope that satisfies your question for now.

Now I want to address some issues you raised on tolerance. You claim about my humor:

Your choice of innuendo, and left-handed weaponry is telling.

I want to state VERY STRONGLY that my joking is not intended as innuendo or weaponry. It is simply clowning around from joy. The kind of mentality I have exists. That you could say what you did after reading my last post (the Wiley Coyote one) shows clearly that you do not believe that I exist. But I do. That leads me to think there is a problem with your own perception. You wrote:

It pains me some to watch someone do that, because it inevitably seems to point at a certain kind of uncomfortable meanness not normally seen in the same person. It has many possible origins, the main one usually ending up to be a self-esteem issue.

Uh oh. I am starting to smell someone who is going to try to tell me how fucked up I really am. That I am not having a good time, but actually I am mean.

Now why would someone say that when I have stated emphatically (and throughout countless posts) that my posture is from a benevolent outlook? And how many times have I seen someone stumbling and helped them up because it pains me to see them being trampled? Here on Solo I sometimes warmly welcome newcomers, I have intervened in several intellectual crucifixions to defend the victims, and I have provided long technical explanations to those whom I deem are really interested - and most of that stuff is easily available in Objectivist literature.

But maybe I do have a mean streak, because how many control freaks on this forum alone have I pissed off? I lost count. I am simply not afraid to get in someone's face and say, "Take your control-mongering bullshit somewhere else." In fact, I kinda like it, so I guess that does make me a bit ornery. But I digress... You continue:

I never attacked nor insulted your position, which would be as easy to do as any other position, if one chooses the path of humor. It's easy, I practically wrote the book on it. I used to be a very stupid man in that respect; and on occasion I still will lose sight of humanity and resort to that.

Now I see the issue. You never learned how to laugh without strings attached. And not being able to do it, you don't think it exists. I feel for anyone who does not know that joy - of emotionally going back to a time where no fear existed (neither of politically correct, nor of God). The belly-laugh comes, explodes and feels great when it happens. Pure joy - not put-downs. Neither you nor anyone else enters the picture. I am sorry you have not permitted yourself this capacity.

I will not give up my humor for the sake of your lack of it, however. Nor for the sake of anyone's. NOW, at the very moment, not when I am joking, I am stating very clearly that I will not respect your feelings if they impose undue restrictions on me. If this gets heated, then yes, I will get just as disrespectful as I am approached. And I will be clear and address it to you (for example), not make insinuations at large. I have no problem with scrapping.

I much prefer joyously laughing, though. Did you notice that Barbara tried to trump me with her little Green Man? She knows what I am talking about. She knows how to laugh. Others who joke with me do too. Some don't. (Well, anyway, little Green Men don't lay eggs and my Easter Bunny does, so there.) You finally wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks very much like you have rules about that, and they go beyond the nature of everyone accepting what "is", "is". It is in forays beyond that where your lack of manners present themselves.

OK, I will correct you. You are wrong.

You are the one wanting to establish rules, not me. I am saying VERY LOUDLY that I will not observe your rules - nor those of any religious person - here on Solo.

Do you want to talk about God and see me never make a joke? Not one? If we ever meet, I will gladly go to an NA or AA meeting with you. There, in that house, I will temper my humor.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/23, 8:20am)

Post 143

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:01am

Michael-

I don't establish rules. Generally, I don't get along with them. As far as me being humorless, not freaking likely. What I was trying to point out is that there is hypocritical behavior in Objectivist waters when it comes to religion, and that the fact that most O'ists are atheists doesn't make for much of an excuse. If it were anything else being discussed, and that kind of stuff came up, whoever did it would be crawled on like flies over shit. If you find it joyous to send up any and all non-atheists, that's your right, whether I question why that gives you satisfaction or not. I'm not trying to tell you that something is wrong with you, because for one, I don't know you, and secondly, it's not my job. It is my opinion that most times self-esteem issues come into play when that kind of stuff gets done. Lampooning is an entirely different thing. A lot of Objectivists like to say stupid shit about non-atheists, and it usually implies that the non-atheist is incapable of rational thought, and is kind of a sad/funny little excuse of a person. I say fuck those people, because in the end they are going to be just a scared as hell of dying as any other human. It's intolerant, incompassionate, and two-faced, because it's a particular kind of attack reserved for any and all religious folks, and that's shitty to do to other human beings, just like the shit that O'ists take, at least from people who even know what that is.

Many O'ists are less even-toned than normal when they talk about religion- they go into fight/flight mode. A lot of that is because they have been screwed with by certain parts of it, certain people, and they're sick of the shit. Me too.

No harm, no foul, I was simply trying to discuss something that's reasonably serious, and when I do that I usually try to back off on the monkey business. You don't, and that's fine too. If it were most any other topic, though, the behavior would have been different.

I have a little different perspective on this than I used to because I'm in a religious community, but I'm also having to fight one that's destroying the church/state separation. What you find out if you're in that kind of position is that an attack is an attack, it doesn't matter which side of the fence it comes from- they're all about the same thing.

Best,
rde

Post 144

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:01pm

There is an old lady in Paris named Ms. Lilly she is in her late eighties. Every morning she goes to the park in Paris, seats on a chair, and put out a little sign which reads � Let�s talk ?�
She speaks 7 languages, she is originally from Holland. She just loves to talk, she talk with you about any subject. When she was asked why not religion and politics ,she said �People never agree on religion and politics. These are two major causes of war and hatred among men. I am here to help people to be happy and because I love to talk. I am not young enough to be approached by any mal intentioned young guy, and I am old enough, and wise enough to enjoy what I do �

When you guys go to Paris look for Ms Lilly, she would love to talk to you, "BUT DON'T TALK RELIGION".
Rich, my dear friend , what happened to your �magic underwear� show this people how humorous you are.
I learned so much from your posts on Dr. Branden's forum, I still want to be able to do that.
You will see that even Michael with time will come to like and respect you for what you are, because you are real and a lovely intelligent guy .
Best dc.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/26, 2:05pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/26, 8:00pm)

Post 145

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:20pm

Ciro,

I like Rich - I like a lot of his posts. But when he starts a post to me telling me how disappointed he is with my behavior, then goes on to explain that I have self-esteem issues or whatnot, I have to call him on it. Nothing more.

He even just now stated that if the subject were something different than religion, my behavior would be different. Sorry, not even close. I discussed that already on this thread. Here it is:

Luke Setzer is a good friend of mine. He is an atheist and favors a strongly analytical approach to life, with charts, lists and so forth. One day, when he went on a strong Inner Grandmother and Inner Child kick on Solo. I couldn't resist the opportunity to horse around and I cut loose with the best I had - almost Vonnegut-style. Here is a quote from a former post of mine on this very thread:

This does not extend to religion alone. You should see what I did to poor Luke's "Inner Grandmother" and "Inner Child." Then look at his response. No put-downs. No flame wars. Just horsing around.

Check out the links, then see if this is not on par with the Easter Bunny thing.

What I find hypocritical about religious people in general is the lack of seriousness with which they treat atheism (oh... the form is there, but never the content - there's always a subtle sanctimonious attitude of "you will think better and come around to God when you grow out of this phase"), but then they demand RESPECT according to their standards for their brand of faith.

I repeat, I exist. I laugh in a manner that falls outside these mind games. I like it and I intend to keep on doing it. There are others who share my brand of humor.

There is an explanation, however, I would like to make about one religious guy. There was a poster on Solo (who even posted on this thread) - another of those who made a grandstand exit. His brand of faith demanded hatred of Islam, and such hatred had to include a recognition that it was vastly inferior to Judaism. He slanted everything in this direction and sought to convert people over to this view. He was always respectful and always signed off wishing people well. (All that comes from training, by the way. I know the techniques because I have been trained in them from another denomination.)

Well, when I started reading this guy a couple of months ago, I smelled a prophet wannabe sucking up to his synagogue and going after converts. I called him on it - but in a respectful tone of voice.

He declared flat out back then that he was not Jewish (but thanked me for my mistaken impression).

In his grandstand exit, he admitted to being a Jewish convert.

You see how the posters on Solo were respected by the religious? Fucking liar. All he wanted was converts so he could show off to his Rabbis. (There might even be some sincerity mixed in - but the fucking lying and missionary work was definitely there too - in extra large doses.)

I am not saying that this is Rich's case. I like him, but I still feel the pressure put on him from where he worships.

Frankly, I'll take the Easter Bunny and pie in the face any day,

Michael

Post 146

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:23pm

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/27, 9:58pm)

Post 147

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:57am