Reblogged:'Not Collecting Stamps' Isn't a Hobby

[Gus Van Horn blog]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." -- Penn Jillette

***

Lately, articles about the increasing percentage of Americans who aren't "religious" -- like this and this -- have been popping up.

Please consider the italicized quote above any time you encounter one of these.

Why?

Because (1) In today's increasingly tribalistic, anti-individualist Zeitgeist, it would appear that the first impulse is to lump together any group of people to which one can apply a label. (2) So many people lack intellectual rigor that many labels are next to meaningless, anyway.

The first piece, about "nonreligious" people includes some whose stated beliefs include all the hallmarks of religion; they just aren't enrolled in a church:

Although he doesn't believe in organized religion, he believes in God and basic ethical precepts. "People should be treated equally as long as they treat other people equally. That's my spirituality if you want to call it that."

Indeed, somewhere, buried in the piece, is the closest thing it comes to offering its own definition of "nonreligious:" They. Really. Don't. Like. Organized. Religion.

Given how "the nones' diversity splinters them into myriad subgroups," don't expect to be able to learn anything meaningful from the rest of the piece.

Even the second article, about "atheists" talks about people I'd say are actually religious:

Image by François Barraud, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Atheists also have different interpretations of what it means to not believe. While nearly all self-described atheists don't believe in the God described in the Judeo-Christian Bible, 23% do believe in God or some other higher power or spiritual force in the universe, according to a Pew Research Center report published in January. [bold added]

With that much latitude in the term, it is ridiculous to wonder -- as the article starts out doing -- why more atheists are reluctant to volunteer that fact about themselves.

The negative stereotypes and bigotry on the part of many religious people don't help, but if a term has been emptied of all meaning, why bandy it about?

I am an atheist, and would describe myself as circumspect, but not shy about it. I reject nearly everything about religion, especially professing to believe things absent evidence, and equating morality to a set of supernatural orders that have nothing to do with reason or life on earth. These two things are direct threats to a life proper to a rational animal.

If I have a realistic chance of making my world a better place by challenging these evil practices, I will do so. (This is the not shy part.) If doing so will change nothing, except expose me or loved ones to harm by bigots or actual thugs, I will not. (This is the circumspect part.) Self-sacrifice is against my moral code.

But simply saying I'm an atheist, or I'm not religious at all is only the start of a conversation.

Religion is not the only alternative out there for moral guidance or reflection. Not adhering to religion is not the only aspect of my thinking and my personality.

Stating that I am an atheist is thus something that I would hope would at least provoke thought in another, and perhaps require a conversation on my part. The person hearing that from me, or the occasion calling for me to say this, has to be worth it.

I find the widespread need to "come out" as something that is so common today both sad and puzzling. Our culture causes most people to feel alienated because it is increasingly blind to or disdainful of the individual. Many people yearn for some measure of visibility, and aren't getting it. But past a certain point, it is puzzling that many people have such a weak sense of themselves that they will compromise on almost anything to "belong."

I'm not sure what to say about that, except, perhaps to advise that one should well understand one's reasons for disclosing one's beliefs, or not. Fashion is probably the worst reason to do either.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[EC]

Gus has been running the table (forum) lately with his blogging.  Too bad he has never really posted here as he would exponentially increase value. 

[necrovore]

There used to be a lot of bloggers aggregated here, but Gus seems to be the only one left.

[DavidOdden]

23 hours ago, EC said:

Gus has been running the table (forum) lately with his blogging.

Even though I’m a native speaker of English, there are tons of expressions which I don’t really understand, like “gaslight” or “run the table”, which I only have a vague idea about the meaning. Best I can tell, “run the table” means “dominates” or “accounts for a majority of”. If that’s what you mean, it certainly seems to be true that most posts here are Gus’s rebloggings.

Which then raises another question: why has this befallen OO? Not the fact that Gus produces a daily blog, but that there is very little else happening here. And, incidentally, anywhere else. Something has changed, but what?

[necrovore]

The term "gaslight" comes from a play, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Light.

The other one, may be defined here? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Run the Table

I suspect the lack of blogs is because people had to shut down their blogs because of the crowd who believe in imposing "consequences" for speech. It can be dangerous to run a blog if one's views are unpopular with certain people (even more so if the blog can be tied to your real name). I used to have a blog (which I never linked to from this site) but deleted it for that reason.

[EC]

18 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Even though I’m a native speaker of English, there are tons of expressions which I don’t really understand, like “gaslight” or “run the table”, which I only have a vague idea about the meaning. Best I can tell, “run the table” means “dominates” or “accounts for a majority of”. If that’s what you mean, it certainly seems to be true that most posts here are Gus’s rebloggings.

Which then raises another question: why has this befallen OO? Not the fact that Gus produces a daily blog, but that there is very little else happening here. And, incidentally, anywhere else. Something has changed, but what?

@necrovore gave the definition for both terms. I meant "run the table" (which is when a player in pool sinks every shot without another player having a chance) as a colloquial term for "dominating, or excellent" in regards to the quality and subject matter which has been spot-on in regards to being excellent analysis of what is happening in reality and 100% true essentially at all times. 

As necro posted to "gaslight" or "gaslighting" is to do little (negative) things behind an individual's back over a period of time to get them to question their sanity and/or mental fitness, and is derived from the 1944 movie "Gaslight" where a husband tried to make his wife think she was falsely insane for obviously evil reasons by messing with the amount of gas going into an old fashioned home gaslight system. These things are done by extremely evil people for all types of crimes and nefarious purposes. 

David, aren't you a linguist? 

[EC]

18 hours ago, necrovore said:

The term "gaslight" comes from a play, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Light.

The other one, may be defined here? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Run the Table

I suspect the lack of blogs is because people had to shut down their blogs because of the crowd who believe in imposing "consequences" for speech. It can be dangerous to run a blog if one's views are unpopular with certain people (even more so if the blog can be tied to your real name). I used to have a blog (which I never linked to from this site) but deleted it for that reason.

"Dangerous" in what ways? This question is rhetorical in that I know exactly what you are inferring to, but I'd like it stated explicitly without implying any suggestions beforehand for two reasons.  One, this is an excellent topic about the horrible state of today's culture, and two the things that are done are extremely serious crimes committed against individuals by large groups of philosophically corrupt and extremely evil, and even dangerous groups. 

[DavidOdden]

1 hour ago, EC said:

David, aren't you a linguist?

I am indeed, but linguists aren't word-mavens. Nevertheless since these are not expressions used by My People, I don’t really understand how Other People use them. Which is why it is useful to ask a person who uses one of these expressions what they intended, especially the details.

The issue that I was addressing is not just about blogs, which I don’t like in the first place. It is more generally about the withdrawal of Objectivism from public fora, and the shuttering of Objectivist fora. Maybe fear and the increase of viewpoint-intolerance in society does explain it. Perhaps I should be more fearful, but at least so far, I find OO to be a useful venue for reasoned discussion.