Choose - between "Reason/Society" or "Life/Nature"

[bloom]

And you might think about (post your ideas) - do you think that Religion (esp. Christianity and/or Judaism and/or Islam - but any that you would like to consider) elevates one or the other? Does Atheism?


(edited to expand the categories)

[beam me up scottie]

1. Oh brother. Atheism doesn't "elevate" anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

Like you didn't already know that.

[bloom]

23. "Atheism" also becomes like a religion to some people.

Those who think that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins speak for atheists, for instance.


ie. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

I'm not saying that I disagree with him - I might think that a lot of what he says is just wonderful. I haven't gotten around to reading any of his books, yet.

And I'm always one to emphasize that there are religious atheists - including ones who definitely put life first.



The idea is that people could bring up their OWN ideas - like you could say what YOU think about reason and life. Outside of the usual religious concepts.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Hating Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is a cult.

With plenty of uninformed and ignorant adherents on both sides of the political spectrum.

And I'm always one to emphasize that there are religious atheists

"Atheism" also becomes like a religion to some people.

You have a gift for redefining words until they're meaningless.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

102. -> Existentialism

This is really about the basic Existential ideas. Life before Reason

...There are several philosophical positions, all related to existential philosophy, but the main identifiable common proposition is that existence precedes essence, i.e. that a human exists before his or her existence has value or meaning. Humans define the value or meaning of both his or her existence and the world around him or her in his or her own subjectivity, and wanders between choice, freedom, and existential angst. Existentialism often is associated with anxiety, dread, awareness of death, and freedom. Famous existentialists include Dostoevsky, Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Camus (although he defines himself as an absurdist and disagreed with a lot of Sartre's ideas), Fanon, Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo, and Simone de Beauvoir.

Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence; and is fundamentally opposed to the rationalist tradition and to positivism. That is, it argues against definitions of human beings as primarily rational. More generally it rejects all of the Western rationalist definitions of "being" in terms of a rational principle or essence, or as the most general feature that all existing things share in common. Camus posits, in his essay "An Absurd Reasoning," that society and religion falsely teach humans that "the other" (i.e. the world of observable phenomena outside the self) has order and structure. In fact, all attempts by the individual, termed "consciousness," to attempt to map an order or purpose onto "the other" will be met with failure, as "the other" is non-rational and random. When "consciousness" longing for order collides with "the other's" lack of order, a third element is born, "the absurd."

It then follows that, Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe, in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[SPKrazy]

69. LOL

I'm getting the popcorn

:popcorn:

[beam me up scottie]

70. Don't miss Evoman's finale!

It's fabulous! :D

[applegrove]

2. It depends on the person. People have various capacities to be

religious. Sometimes life gets hard and it is more reasonable to share the burden than to go it alone. Religion can be reasonable in that way. Depends on who you are and what your capacity is. One doesn't exclude the other. Many scientists are religious as a case in point.

[cosmik debris]

3. False choice. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

6. Are you:

1.) Good and Pure (like the author)



2.) Immoral and Mean (like the DU Atheist Posse)



3.) Out to get bryant

[cosmik debris]

8. Keep digging n/t

[Danger Mouse]

50. Obviously...

3.) Just like everybody else.

[Danger Mouse]

4. Choose nuts or gum.

CHOOSE. Or perish.
Makes about as much sense.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Beer !!!

Whaddaya mean that's not a choice?

What kind of poll is this?

[bloom]

19. I don't agree

people can live without reason (or society) - you can't live without life (and nature).


If I were going to choose between nuts or gum - nuts would be the obvious choice - you can live on nuts. You can't live on gum.

[beam me up scottie]

20. "People can live without reason"

rea·son (rē'zən)
n.

*The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because, why.

*A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.

*An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.

*The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

*Good judgment; sound sense.

*A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

*Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

Without reason, we'd still be cat food.

Or extinct.

[bloom]

25. At the rate humanity is going

we're going to be extinct. And it won't be because people lack reason. Or then, maybe it will.


Bad choices at any rate. Not putting life first, for instance.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Oh, okay. I think I'll put "life" (whatever the fuck that means) before reason tomorrow.

I'll start by ignoring my alarm clock, oversleeping and not calling my boss.

Then, I'll make coffee and pour the boiling hot liquid down my throat.

And follow it up by using my blow dryer in the shower to save time.

Oops!

BMUS is dead.

But I don't understand, I chose life over reason.

[bloom]

36. If you think that reason is equally important as life - vote for "reason" then. nt

[beam me up scottie]

37. But that's not an option.

You are clearly asking people to choose one over the other.

And you didn't even attempt to define the choices, so how is anyone supposed to know what they're voting for?



It's nothing but another useless and divisive poll posted by a person with an agenda to misrepresent the position of people they disagree with.

[bloom]

38. Everyone has the opportunity

to present their own position as they would like to present it.


You seem to have very few ideas outside of insulting people. You obviously take great pride in it.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Right, except according to you, presenting my position is the same thing as insulting you.

You've posted similar polls in here before, bloom, and also in GD, with similar results.

So I find it hard to believe you're surprised by the responses.

If you want a circle jerk, post in a group.

[Danger Mouse]

47. I for one...

have no idea what the hell this poll is supposed to be =P
I would choose nuts, too, but I think I would quickly grow bored of both...

[beam me up scottie]

55. Well, that's good. I'd be worried about you if you did understand bloom's polls.

:D

[bloom]

54. The problem that you seem to be having

is that you assume that I am insulting you even when I'm not. (What with your talk of "agendas and other related nonsense).

Unless you think that it is a personal insult to you that I think that Life is more important than Reason. Which makes no sense to me.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=102755&mesg_id=102849

[beam me up scottie]

56. No agenda? Referencing two of your other "scientific" polls in this forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4929626

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=57603


Pardon me if I disregard the opinion of someone who thinks people can live without reason but "not without life".

[bloom]

60. So you've made assumptions

based on other polls I've made as well as this one. That proves nothing. Except that you are obsessed with my polls.

[beam me up scottie]

63. It proves I've got a good memory.

And that you're known for misrepresenting atheists. ;)

[Evoman]

77. Mind if I interrupt?

"Pardon me if I disregard the opinion of someone who thinks people can live without reason but "not without life"."

Lol...thats exactly that. What a dumb choice...honestly. How about "Choose life or religion?". Wouldnt that make a good poll...hmmmmm.......

[beam me up scottie]

81. Not at all.

I considered a counter poll but couldn't come up with something stupid enough to compete.

You've got the ball, run with it.

[Danger Mouse]

46. NOOOOO...

say it ain't so O8)

[beam me up scottie]

57. Nah, I'm just acting.

Like in evoman's plays.

[Danger Mouse]

58. Good.

I was scared for a moment there. A world without BMUS would be a little less sour. A little less sweet. A little less salty.

[greyl]

44. It's helpful to realize that you aren't really talking about humanity

You're only talking about a particular culture.

[cosmik debris]

24. Oooooo! that's heavy

"you can't live without life"

I'll have to write that in my diary so I won't forget it.

[bloom]

28. You would think it would be obvious to people.

But look at all the people who can't choose. Lots of looks. 2 votes.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Maybe it's because you gave them false choices.

You should have allowed for the possibility that people might actually think about it.

[cosmik debris]

32. Sometimes the obvious requires an emoticon

such as :sarcasm:

[bryant69]

5. Choose Life!

Choose Life.
Choose a job.
Choose a career.
Choose a family.
Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers.
Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance.
Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments.
Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends.
Choose leisurewear and matching luggage.
Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics.
Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday night.
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth.
Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves.
Choose your future.
Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

9. That certainly explains a lot. n/t

[bryant69]

10. Ah I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your cultural illiteracy

I always got the impression you were one of those people who never left his head.

Oh well.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

12. Trainspotting.

It's customary to credit the source.

And advisable, since we've had problems with plagiarism in this forum before.

[cosmik debris]

13. Did you think that I did not recognize the poem by John Hodge?

You only underestimate me because you want to feel superior. Nice try!

[bryant69]

14. I don't need this to feel superior to you, as it turns out

It is comforting to know that no matter what I post, I'll be met with hostility.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

16. You weren't met with hostility until

You slandered my cultural literacy.

But of course you probably believe that "That certainly explains a lot" is code for I need to collect more information to get Bryant banned from DU. I can see why you are confused about that.

Keep digging!

[bryant69]

18. Actually I think "That Certainly explains a lot" is code for

"You must be a Heroin Addict."

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

11. EUREKA!!! Since you modified the choices, your poll makes perfect sense!

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

48. I have one question for you...

...who bit your cookie? :bounce:

[beam me up scottie]

59. I have this thing for atheist-baiting, pseudo-science spouting children of Barnum.

Especially when they use this forum as their personal litterbox.

[Danger Mouse]

65. Naw, really?

I wouldn't have guessed ;)

[bloom]

15. This is based on a section of a book

that I'm reading.

The gist of it is the idea is that religion (mostly the patriarchal religions) are concerned with the concept of elevating reason over life. The idea that the transcendent (ie. heaven) is far more important than the life one lives.

It also occurred to me that some atheists, in a different way, elevate reason above anything else - perhaps including life.



"... In societies where man worships these mysteries (harvest & procreation), woman, on account of these powers, is associated with religion and venerated as priestess; but when man struggles to make society triumph over nature, reason over life, and the will over the inert, given the nature of things, then woman is regarded as a sorceress."

The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir (from 1952)


(the idea being that the sorceress, witch, etc. operates outside of the bounds of society)

[beam me up scottie]

17. Yes, christian fundamentalists and biblical literalists always elevate reason.

It also occurred to me that some atheists, in a different way, elevate reason above anything else - perhaps including life.

Why is it the things that "occur" to you about atheists always sound so much like the things that "occur" to my racist, sexist and homophobic co-workers whenever they strain themselves and actually think about "some" brown people, women and homosexuals?

[cosmik debris]

21. I took an elevator ride with life and reason the other day

Life got off on the third floor, but reason went all the way to the seventh. But don't read too much into that. It was a hospital and I think they were just visiting sick friends.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Did they happen to mention Critical Thought?

I had heard it was in critical condition.

I hope it's not too late. :(

[cosmik debris]

26. You must be thinking of a different hospital

No one by that name in my home town.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Maybe it never existed.

It could be one of those pseudo-historical figures you read about in ancient myths.

[cosmik debris]

33. He was here for a while,

But I gathered enough information about him to get him banned.

[beam me up scottie]

35. *snort*

:rofl:

[Meshuga]

40. Can it be both?

My religion has rules on how we should conduct our lives trying to elevate reason/society. We also have instructions that take nature into account (dietary laws, protecting animals, nature, etc.)

So I would not know what to pick. Or perhaps I misunderstood the question.

[bloom]

52. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=102755&mesg_id=102849


The idea is which is the most important thing. Simone says that people/societies make a choice and that that choice is reflected in religion.

I hope that that post explained things so that the question makes more sense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. This is a thread is which everyone appears to be

drunker than I am - and I've got a 5 hour start on most people, thanks to time zones.

[beam me up scottie]

42. !

[trotsky]

43. One of the worst polls I've ever seen on DU.

What, has it been too long since you stirred up a good atheist/theist fight? Your choices in this poll are meaningless and in no way an either/or situation.

[greyl]

45. Salvationist religions denigrate both choices.

That said, I don't think the choices are real. False distinctions.

[bloom]

53. RE: Salvationist religions denigrate both choices.

I can see where you would say that. The idea is that the people in the "Salvationist religions" think that they are reasonable. Not that you do.


For more see this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=102755&mesg_id=102849

[greyl]

83. Ultimately, they don't, asfaik. They revert to "faith" enjoying higher status than reason.nt

[Danger Mouse]

49. I choose...uhm...

I choose this: :wtf:

[bloom]

51. Life over Reason/Reason over Life

I suppose it's reasonable that people didn't get the idea - since a lot people like to associate reason with atheism and reason NOT with religion. This is about Simone's quote that suggests that RELIGION is based on the IDEA that Life is not so much and that the big deal is immortality.

IOW - as I've tried to explain somewhere - that people were not to be content with mere Life - people were supposed to revere the IDEA of an afterlife and other associated IDEAS. That people thought these IDEAS were reasonable at the time. Some still do.

Simone's quote again:

"... In societies where man worships these mysteries (harvest & procreation), woman, on account of these powers, is associated with religion and venerated as priestess; but when man struggles to make society triumph over nature, reason over life, and the will over the inert, given the nature of things, then woman is regarded as a sorceress."

The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir (from 1952)


________________________________

I think that in a similar vein, without noticing the connection, some atheists get hung up on REASON over Life - as if Reason is more important than Life itself. It's another way of minimizing Life. I don't think that all atheists do this. Just as I recognize that all atheists do not think the same things about everything - as nobody thinks the same things. But we do share a culture - and people do get ideas and attitudes that cross over from religions to philosophies to whatever.

I think that it can be the kind of thing - that if people THOUGHT about it - people would see that Life is more important than Reason - but ordinarily - might just not think about it. Of course - there might be people who think that Reason is more important than Life (or just as important) even when they do take the time to weigh the relative importance of the two things.

I wanted to post the poll - to see what people would say without a big explanation - but I can see that without reading Simone's book - that it probably doesn't make sense to people. Maybe it wouldn't even if they did. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

61. "some atheists get hung up on REASON over Life"

Like atheists actually choose one over the other. :eyes:

That makes about as much sense as saying you can't live without life. :crazy:


You can't read anything without being totally sucked in by it, can you?

And using it as a weapon in your crusade to vilify men, scientists and atheists.

I can't wait to hear what your imaginary atheists say next.

[Evoman]

68. Ha...you gotta hate me. I'm a MAN, a SCIENTIST...and..an ATHEIST!

[beam me up scottie]

71. *BMUS recoils and holds up her Evolvefish pendant*

Oh, wait, that only works on the fundies.

I have no idea what to use to protect myself from you.

Maybe an inane poll or references to non-existent goddesses?

[toddaa]

62. Worst. Poll. Ever.

Seriously. Did you put any thought into this before you posted it?

How is reason/society the opposite of life/nature?

Religion doesn't elevate, it debases. (Doesn't anybody read Nietzsche any more?)
And atheism doesn't do anything.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Ha! You should have seen it before she changed it.

It was only "life" or "reason".

And please don't encourage bloom to read Nietzsche! :scared:

[Evoman]

66. Quick....choose the colour blue, or a Nintendo Wii.

Lol. This is the stupidest poll in the history of polls. Okay...no, it was the second stupidest poll...I remember once a pollster called me and asked me if I would rather be raped by a goat, or eat half a pound of water chestnuts. I couldn't answer his questions, and I can't answer yours. I really hate water chestnuts. At least the goat would probably look more attractive that some of my ex girlfriends (I have low standards).

I mean...seriously. God. I think I actually feel dumber because of having read your poll. No, really. I broke the connection between the left and right sides of my brain....my corpus callum actually disintegrated after reading your poll. Point of fact..I can no longer feel love. The pure, unadulterated evil that was this poll actually stole a piece of my heart.

I have to say that if somebody gave me the choice between making a choice on your poll, or undergoing circumcision, I would probably choose circumcision. Because you stole my ability to love, or feel human emotion, I would do anything just to feel again.

Here is a list of the things that I would rather do then respond in a serious manner to your catostrophe of a poll

1)Read the Bible AGAIN.
2)Bathe in skunk spray.
3)Raped by a goat
4)Raped by a goat that DOESN'T whisper sweet nothings into my ear.
5)Go to church with Zeb...I considered putting this before the goat, but then I came to my senses.
6)Be trapped under a blanket with George Bush and Karl Rove after they ate spicy chili.
7)We've already discussed circumcision..but I will reiterate. I choose circumcision over your poll.
8)Eat farts. I don't know if its possible..but if someone could some how flash freeze farts, I would rather eat those farts (even the silent and deadly ones) then respond to your poll.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to try to rebuild the life you shattered with one of the most inane posts ever to grace DU. Thank you for your patience.

On edit: I would still choose your poll over water chestnuts. Those things are fucking gross.

[beam me up scottie]

67. ROFLMAO!!!

"Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to try to rebuild the life you shattered with one of the most inane posts ever to grace DU."

:spray: :rofl:

[Evoman]

73. I would laugh with you, but I've forgotten how it feels to find things funny.

Its funny....I am an atheist, and I've never believed in the soul. Until now...the sheer magnitude of depravity, degeneracy and intellectual corruption evident in this post has left me desolute. I haven't felt this super-corporeally empty since my mom told me that Henry Kissinger hated me for being latino.

Henry...Henry will help me. He will take care of this poll....take care of it like only a shrewd, machivellian, wise man of means and courage can do. Fight evil with evil...but who will win.......who...will win.

[beam me up scottie]

74. So Henry forgave you for being latino?

He's the man!

[Evoman]

75. Pfftt....no.

He built some really high walls to try to keep me out though. But for some inexplicable reason, neither the walls he builds, nor the infrared sensor he used to track movement, can keep me out :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

76. Evoman the invisible latino atheist.

You should write comic books!

[Evoman]

78. Heres my best shot

Oh crap...I spelled atheist wrong. Ah well.

[beam me up scottie]

79. LOL! LOL! LOL!

Hey!

Where's your trusty sidekick, APG?

[Evoman]

80. It's not my sidekick... it is my lord, saviour, and a literal pain in the ass.

I can't put it in my comic because it would be a graven image. And it looks bad in profile. Its hard to reason with a pustule. It only speak in "faith-based" language.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Damn APG unions.

I blame them for the downfall of Amerikkka.

Why, back in my day, APG's had to speak English.

[SPKrazy]

72. I'd Pick Water Chestnuts Myself

but the rest of your sentiments are great!

:evilgrin: :yourock:

[cosmik debris]

84. Let's recap

Your response rate to this poll is less than 1%. (7 votes for 850+ views)

So what have you learned for this exercise?

[bloom]

85. What I'm thinking

is that a lot of people can't see beyond the status quo or how ideas are usually presented. :shrug: It's not like we've had very many people try to understand the concept. The thread is cluttered with disruptors. That's what disruptors do. They disrupt.

As far the topic goes:

We've had threads where atheists blame religion for wars and where religious people blame atheists.

I think it goes to Simone's idea (as I understand it) - that war is a matter of reason/ideas/justifications winning out over the value of life.

Imperialism is a matter of reason/ideas/justifications winning out over the value of life.

These are actually liberal ideas - Howard Zinn would say a similar thing. There is nothing that should be esp. threatening to people here.


What I am doing that is different is that I am saying that atheists who elevate reason over life are essentially following the same path as religious people who do that. Not all atheists and not all religious people do that, of course. But some do. And that wasn't even my intent - when I started this thread - but it's the reaction that I have gotten from some of the atheists that have led me to that conclusion. I must have pushed somebody's button. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea that other people put life first.

And this topic, of course, has nothing to do with the fake "pro-life" movement. Those people are often pro-war and pro-control of others. This is about being truly for life. And it doesn't mean that reason is not useful or necessary for people. It's necessary just for talking about this subject. It's a matter of priorities.

[cosmik debris]

86. That certainly explains a lot. (see post 18)

Two people looking at the same evidence and reaching different conclusions.

What I learned is that a poorly designed poll with undefined terms and false choices invites ridicule.

And that the predetermined conclusions of the pollster will be validated. (in thier own mind)

[bloom]

87. It never ceases

to amaze me that some people are so threatened by such a simple subject. People who consider themselves to be "reasonable", no less.


I didn't really expect these ideas to threaten anyone - I would have understood it if people chose to ignore it. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

88. What ideas?

Your so called ideas are so poorly defined that I can't even begin to comprehend them. And I certainly find no threat in them. How can they be threatening when they are incomprehensible?

No one disrupts you polls because they are threatening, but rather because they are ridiculous.

Did you fail to understand the concept of undefined terms or false choices? Do you really believe that you communicated a coherent set of ideas that oppose each other?

[bloom]

90. I haven't seen evidence

of people trying to understand the concept even when I have explained it. And that includes you, of course.

[cosmik debris]

92. And it never occurred to you

And it never occurred to you that it was you who failed to limit, define, or explain your terms or to create a rational choice.

It is always someone else's fault.

[bloom]

93. I think you should reread

what I've posted instead of just trying to be a jerk.

[cosmik debris]

95. I took my time and I reread everything you wrote in this thread

And I found no place where you defined or limited the terms, or equated reason with society. Nor did I find the place where you equated life and nature. Nor did I observe any any explanation of how they are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you will indulge me by explaining how you came to believe that the terms you use interchangeably are, in fact, synonymous. And perhaps you will also indulge me by explaining how the terms you use as opposites are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Just saying "you can't live without life" doesn't cut it as an explanation.

[bloom]

97. Did you find

Simone's quote? Did you see that she has reason and life at odds? The same way that she has society and nature at odds?


She thinks that the patriarchal problem started with the bronze age (I think it was) - that men became property (and control)-oriented and consumed with their power to control nature at that time.


Did you find my comments where I tried to explain that for Simone "reason" is about ideas that you might not think are reasonable at all:


"This is about Simone's quote that suggests that RELIGION is based on the IDEA that Life is not so much and that the big deal is immortality.

IOW - as I've tried to explain somewhere - that people were not to be content with mere Life - people were supposed to revere the IDEA of an afterlife and other associated IDEAS. That people thought these IDEAS were reasonable at the time. Some still do."

__________

And perhaps you will also indulge me by explaining how the terms you use as opposites are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be seen as opposites. Just like the person who threw out the nuts and gum idea. Which ironically is a good example. As I explained - a person could live on nuts. You can't live on gum.

So it might sound ridiculous to you that someone has to assert that life is necessary and that reason is not. There are species that live without reason. No species lives without life. It's so obvious as to be ridiculous, I agree. And yet religions and other concepts are based on ideas that say that ideas - fantasies, even, are more important than life itself. Heaven is an obvious one. People are convinced by religion that heaven is more important than their life. It's amazing that people can be convinced of such a concept - but there you go.

The word reason is being used more as interchangably with ideas or concepts than with what is the most reasonable thing that a person can think. I can only guess that that is where some people are getting hung up - even when I have tried to explain it. I was using the word in the same way that Ms. de Beauvior used it. And as I've pointed out - I'm sure that it would make more sense if you read her whole book.

[cosmik debris]

98. That certainly explains a lot.

"No species lives without life."

I give up.

[bloom]

99. Reasons/ideas that are more important than life.

(You go right ahead and give up (as if what you quoted was the only thing I wrote). :eyes: )

But I'll just post this here - because is what I was thinking about after I logged out.


The only "reasonable" argument that a person could make for voting for "reason" over "life" would be (IMO) if someone had a concept that was more important than life itself.

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the life of all the species on the planet is more important than one's individual life. So it makes sense to me for people to consider not what they do only in terms of how it affects theirself - but how it affects the planet as a whole.

Some people live for "God" - I would think that you would agree that that is an abstract concept and that "living for God" may or may not be in the best interests of other's lives - depending on how one understands the concept. I do not think that the idea of "God", by itself, is more important than life. If ""God" is defined as life - then that obviously changes the equation.


You may have some other ideas. Or not. As the case may be.

[cosmik debris]

100. There is only one reasonable answer you say

And yet you posed two possible answers. And you wonder why you were mocked?

[bloom]

101. I only recognized one.

The point of the poll was about why concepts that are not related to life are elevated over life.

The only thing that I wonder about is what's up with the bullies who like to mock people over trivialities. And why such people are still posting.

[Evoman]

109. Lol..don't worry so much...you can say EVOMAN.

You don't have to say "such people". I'm not going to alert on you.

Since I mocked you on your poll, and you say that I'm mocking over trivilities, does that mean that your poll was a triviality? I think your being too hard on yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

111. My hobby is mocking over trivialities.

It's a fun and inexpensive hobby, you never have to worry about running out of trivialities to mock over.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. Here's one of your big problems

The only de Beauvoir quote you provided was "In societies where man worships these mysteries (harvest & procreation), woman, on account of these powers, is associated with religion and venerated as priestess; but when man struggles to make society triumph over nature, reason over life, and the will over the inert, given the nature of things, then woman is regarded as a sorceress."

You have somehow taken that to imply "RELIGION is based on the IDEA that Life is not so much and that the big deal is immortality". But de Beauvoir was talking about some religions (and, in the excerpt you gave, not necessarily Abrahamic ones), not religion in general, and she said nothing about immortality in the quote. Besides, you haven't talked about immortality or an afterlife anywhere else. How were we meant to know that when you said "Reason/Society" you meant "immortality"?

You say "I tried to explain that for Simone "reason" is about ideas that you might not think are reasonable at all". All I can see is that de Beauvoir used 'reason' as something that might triumph over life, with no expansion on what she means by 'reason'. Where did you do this explaining?

I'd ask de Beauvoir (if I could, but feel free to speak for her): What do you mean when you say 'making reason triumph over life'? Are you talking about coming up with a rationale for killing people, or is that too literal (I'd say that the two needn't have a battle, if you're talking about abstract concepts)? Isn't harvest part of 'society triumphing over nature'? And why do you associate woman with nature, life and the inert, and not with society, reason and the will?

And I'd ask you: is your real purpose for this poll that you want people to say "we can't get rid of life", and so therefore you can claim "then we must follow religions which venerate harvest and procreation, and therefore we must have priestesses"?

[bloom]

115. ...

re: "But de Beauvoir was talking about some religions" - yes- you're right - she was talking about "some" religions - patriarchal ones.


re: "she said nothing about immortality in the quote" - some of the explanation that I added was my interpretation of her line of thought - from other things that she wrote.


"What do you mean when you say 'making reason triumph over life'? " - The way I see what she's saying is that the really obvious example is that "eternal life" is elevated to a status over life. But I think that she was also talking about a lot things in society (some of which are inspired by the the "eternal life" idea and others that are not) including but not limited to war and imperialism and exploitation of people.

"Isn't harvest part of 'society triumphing over nature'?" She talks a lot about the whole farming thing. And the difference in perception when tools like plows are used as opposed to someone using their hands and working on a small scale.

"is your real purpose for this poll....?"

I thought it would make in interesting discussion for people who are open to such things. I think that the ideas that Simone brings up are pretty different than how most people in the R/T section generally think about things. Plus I think that the whole concept could be looked at from many angles.

There are uncomfortable ideas that people tend to not like to talk about - like are women choosing life over reason whenever they have a child?

And what about that analogy that conflates women with nature and men against it. I've heard feminists complain that men associate women with nature as if it's a bad thing. Simone clearly has women and nature together (she goes into this whole concept from various angles).

I guess, ideally - I would like to see people examine a lot unexamined patriarchal values as they are expressed in various religions or non-religions and various philosophies. I think some people recognize them some times and not others. I think that people end up encouraging things that they would oppose if they thought about them.

I think that it's pretty complicated - even if you do put life as a priority - because there are individual lives and then there are larger communities and then there is the whole planet. And those lives are going to conflict. I think that the "eternal life" idea may partly be a way for people to ignore that fact that they are, in fact, putting their life and the lives of their group over other lives - or to pretend that it doesn't matter.

If I am holding on to anything - it is the idea that people should be concerned about others lives - whether it is practical or not. While I think that procreation should be valued - I also think that it should be limited - just to try to keep any sort of balance. If it were up to me - my religion would consist of everyone being a vegetarian, living much more simply, and being in touch with the rhythms of the earth. Whether people want to listen to "priestesses" or not - is beside the point. Though I think that there are people who have a better perspective on some of this than others and it can be useful to listen to such people (and I'm not talking about me, btw) - just as people listen to anyone who they think has words of "wisdom". I would like to see the ideas of women, in general, esp. people like Simone de Beauvior be given as much consideration as the philosophies of men.

[Evoman]

91. C'mon Bloom...

Its not that your topic of discussion is not interesting, or even worth discussing. In fact, the book your reading actually sounds somewhat interesting. The problem is that you don't know how to present your ideas...to lay them out as a topic of conversation. Not only that, but you turn an interesting topic into a "I need to show how different I am, and how atheists and theists are the same" discussion...like you ALWAYS do. Its almost like you read an interesting book, and get a completely wrong interpretation from it...or else you just give that impression.

Next time, please...just don't click the poll button. Present your idea in a NON-"I am different than other atheists" framework, and we can have a good discussion.

Edit: Your poll is completely non-sensical. I ask that you please read it again, and see how any discussion is supposed to originate from it. Take a real honest look at it.

Edit2: I also think its ironic that you talk about people believe, no matter their position, that they are being reasonable. Thats EXACTLY what your doing. Your justifying your poll, justifying your actions...even when you get absurd, you would rather believe your being reasonable (case in point: remember when you said that we worshipped Sam Harris?)

[kwassa]

94. It is not reason winning out, it is rationalization winning out

Rationalizing being a false reasoning process basically used to mask a desire or want, to give an air of legitimacy before the scrutiny of others.

It really isn't reason at all, because reason would honor the sanctity of life, I think.

[bloom]

96. everyone

thinks that their reasoning is rational.


I think that the best reasoning would make life a priority. But people give credence to power. People are influenced by groupthink. All that stuff.


I was reading through the Krugman/Rolling Stone article - and this reminded me of this concept (of course we would say greed is rationalized - but the people with the money always think it's reasonable):

"It's no coincidence that ringing endorsements of greed began to be heard at the same time that the actual incomes of America's rich began to soar. In part, the new pro-greed ideology was a way of rationalizing what was already happening. But it was also, to an important extent, a cause of the phenomenon. In the past thirty years, right-wing foundations have devoted enormous resources to promoting this agenda, building a far-reaching network of think tanks, media outlets and conservative scholars to legitimize higher levels of inequality. "On average, corporate America pays its most important leaders like bureaucrats," the Harvard Business Review lamented in 1990, calling for higher pay for top executives. "Is it any wonder then that so many CEOs act like bureaucrats?"

Although corporate executives have always had the power to pay themselves lavishly, their self-enrichment was limited by what Lucian Bebchuk, Jesse Fried and David Walker -- the leading experts on exploding executive paychecks -- call the "outrage constraint." What they mean is that a conspicuously self-dealing CEO would be forced to moderate his greed by unions, the press and politicians: The social climate itself condemned executive salaries that seem immodest.

Lately, however, we have experienced a death of outrage. Thanks to the right's well-funded and organized effort, corporate executives now feel no shame in lining their pockets with huge bonuses and gigantic stock options. Such self-dealing is justified, they say: Greed is what made America great, and greedy executives are exactly what corporate America needs."


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print

[greyl]

89. One lesson is that OPs without the necessary groundwork

to establish context for the attempted point can be inscrutable. ;)
(speaking from personal experience)

[bloom]

103. Of course it helps

when people make an attempt to understand.

Though you're probably familiar with basic existential ideas. If you were - it wouldn't seem so far off.

I still think it's a valid question on it's own. At least for people who are actually interested in religion and philosophy. (Other people really have no business here - the lounge would be more suitable for most of the nonsense posted - at least on this thread.)



Then again - maybe some of the posters embrace absurdism. :sarcasm: That would explain a lot.

[Evoman]

104. Lol...you know, I would miss you if you were gone.

Nobody has taught me more about passive-aggresiveness than you....your like the queen....no, the GODDESS of PA. Haha.

But you know what bloom...no matter how hard you try, I still like you. Your outspoken feminist point of view, as hammy as it can get sometimes, is sorely needed. And as much as "some people" are starting "absurd polls", its still interesting to have some of these discussions with you.

And c'mon...don't tell me you didn't laugh at my comic just a little...a little?

Later,

Evoman

[beam me up scottie]

105. "you're probably familiar with basic existential ideas. If you were-it wouldn't seem so far off."

Oh, right, your poll is just too complicated for everyone too understand.

:rofl:

Then again - maybe some of the posters embrace absurdism. That would explain a lot.

Your poll is a textbook example of one of the definitions of absurdism: "An act or instance of the ridiculous".

Wikipedia doesn't give courses in philosophy, bloom.

Try again.

[beam me up scottie]

106. As far as where threads belong, bloom, shouldn't yours be in the feminist or philosophy forum?

It appears the only reason you posted them in here is so that you could creatively re-interpret the ideas presented in the book and use them to take cheap shots at atheists.

You remind me of Falwell, Dobson, Coulter, O'Reilly and the other hate spewing preachers/pundits who use everyday examples having NOTHING at all to do with atheism and spin them in order to vilify us.

Why is it that no matter what book you claim to be reading, you always manage to twist the author's words around so that you can draw a negative parallel to atheists?:

Atheists are like religious fundamentalists, atheists are like misogynists, atheists want to ban religion, atheists worship science, atheists think Sam Harris is a god, atheists are mean to you, blah blah blah...

I bet you can't read The Ladies Home Journal without finding something in it to use against atheists.

for people who are actually interested in religion and philosophy. (Other people really have no business here

Who made you the arbitrator of who is and isn't interested in religion and philosophy and who should and shouldn't post in this forum?

Should we start calling you Mrs. Decider?

Perhaps if you posted coherent ideas having to do with either subject, instead of using threads like this to bash atheists, you would actually receive serious responses.

If you want to discuss your anti-atheist philosophy and new age religion du jour without being challenged, bloom, try using one of the groups, because as you well know, someone's going to call you on it when you do it in here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. No, it really was an incomprehensible poll

'Choose - between "Reason/Society" or "Life/Nature"'

When I saw it as a title, I expected to get an explanation in the OP. The nearest to that is "do you think religion ... elevates one above the other? Does atheism?"

So, we're still stuck wonder what we're choosing.

What we'd like to talk about?
What we'd like a religion to talk about?
Which one (later, pair) we'd rather have, without the other one?
Something else?

Your later post, buried down the thread, that this comes from a Simone de Beauvoir book, seems to imply the second option. But your comment "people can live without reason (or society) - you can't live without life (and nature)" seems to imply the third. So, even after all these replies, I'm not sure what your original intention was. So what was it you thought was a 'valid question'?

There's also the problem that Reason and Society aren't particularly linked. And their relation to Life and Nature are different.

Create a nonsense poll, and you'll get nonsense replies.

[bloom]

113. what I think

I you put 3 or 4 people on ignore who just have made nonsense posts - there are just a few things left. Some people have a history of being ridiculous whenever I post anything that they don't want to think about. I would think that they could just ignore it - but some people think it's more fun to be ridiculous and to disrupt the whole conversation. I posted a similar thing in GD and after a couple of clarifying posts - the thread was fine and not ridiculous at all.


Simone de Beauvoir's idea was that people have elevated reason and society above life and nature and made religions about them.

For the most part - I would think that this is an idea that atheists, esp. would find interesting. And that people could consider if there are ways that they think that they themselves or society in general has elevated ideas over life.

The obvious one is "eternal life". It's just an idea and yet people think it is more important then life (I discussed this somewhere on this thread - but it no doubt got lost in the mess).

Atheists would no doubt recognize this idea as being a threat to life (or at least I would think that a lot of atheists would - who think about such things).

And you can see people on this board who argue that life is not the important thing - that "salvation" is all that really matters.

While I can see that such people would not be thinking in terms of their religious idea (and "salvationist" theories) as necessarily being under the realm of "reason" or "society" - if you think about it - you could probably see where someone could have paired those concepts and made the connection.

Anyway - since Simone put the the ideas (reason and life / society and nature) at odds in her book - I wanted to see what people thought about it. Being the religion and theology section - I expected more people to try to think of it in those terms. And like I said - where you have people who expect to try to figure something out instead of just assuming that the whole idea was to personally offend them - it's possible to have a discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

114. " I posted a similar thing in GD and ... the thread was fine and not ridiculous at all.

You mean this thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2939493#2939506

First of all, that poll was much different from the one you posted in here.

This poll:

Poll question: Choose - between "Reason/Society" or "Life/Nature"

And you might think about (post your ideas) - do you think that Religion (esp. Christianity and/or Judaism and/or Islam - but any that you would like to consider) elevates one or the other? Does Atheism?

The poll in GD:

Poll question: Do you think that there are any concepts that are more important than life?
The life of you, your family, your community, the health of the planet as a whole - as a place that can sustain life.

The GD poll has two choices, yes or no, they either do or don't agree with your statement.

The R/T poll forces posters to choose between Reason/Society and Life/Nature with no explanation of either choice.


And let's take a look at some of the non-"ridiculous" replies you received in GD:

*"flawed poll, IMO...."

*"ROFLMAO!"

*"The concept of Cheese"

*"I respectfully disagree. It's all about Cheeto's! n/t"

*"You can't have Cheeto's without a good conceptualization of what is cheese and what is..."

*"I declare that the concept of importance is in and of itself unimportant."

*"Weird poll. nt"



Yes, the Cheetos references in particular were dead serious compared to the responses in here.

[Danger Mouse]

110. Is this thread STILL going?

What, couldn't decide yet if people could live without life?

[beam me up scottie]

112. BMUS tried to live without reason and died yesterday morning.

Remember?