Ode to Postmodernism

[Gribble]

You do realize how horribly that reeks of entitlement, right? That groups of people simple deserve something?

The concept of deserving something doesnt extend to "groups" how it does to the individual. Ethnic minorities are entitled to more freebie handouts and attention relative to the accomplishments of the groups they identify with than others, as therefore as individuals are getting more pie than they deserve

Demanding. As in taking. As in **** you, give me that or I'll curb your ass. That has nothing to do with entitlement or deserving.

What I meant, though, is that atheists do not have a unified voice. Every other minority does. That is going to change.

[IndiReloaded]

The idea of being labelled as part of a unified group of atheists holds about as much appeal as being part of an organized religion. Same sheep, different pasture.

[Gribble]

I see where you're coming from and I guess it depends just how unified this voice will be. Right now discrimination against atheists is still more or less okay in the US. I'd like to see that change. I'm not talking about PC bullcrap. I mean in the realm of government and labor. Where it actually counts. Not because atheists are a poor, poor minority and woe is them, but because atheists do something about it and make changes happen.

[Mish]

I agree the above isn't rational. In fact, its obviously irrational. But, who is it that is supposedly teaching these things, Mish?

Our culture. Our culture puts too much emphasis on importance of subjective reality over everything else. You read it in the papers, you learn it in schools, you see it on the TV, in the movies, you hear it in the music you are surrounded by it 24/7. If you appeal to people's subjective reality (how ever flawed it may be), you are suddenly popular. But, how often to you hear about importance of being objective, of thinking about things from another person's point of view and achieving common goals together?

And I dispute the loss of religion as being the *reason* for people feeling loss of meaning in their lives. Certainly there must be factors, but I doubt that reinstituting religion into society would suddenly give everyone's life new meaning. That experiment would fail Koch's test, I think, so its not the cause per se.

I actually didn't say much about Religion in my posts. Though I acknowledge the fact that it did satisfy a certain need for being part of something greater. It provided a universal truth (at the time), various support groups and various certainties. Since Religion was not replaced with something else which would quench that thirst, the need for many remains unfulfilled. And once a number of other additional agents are in play it becomes a problem.

I would actually say that rational pursuit of happiness IS the cure, not a la subjectivism (as you describe, Mish) but more along the lines of Ayn Rands Objectivism. Few people have the courage this takes, tho. And the reason for *that* is what I mentioned about instilling a base sense of worth in our young at an early age.

I agree. Though, I see part of the pursuit of happiness lies in some form interdependence and synergy in strong interconnected relationships with others. That requires a high degree of listening, empathy and understanding as well as infrastructure of social groups ready to accommodate others. These are around, just few and far between.

[DoesntMatter]

The only person who has implied religious = stupid is you, DM.

Complete bullshit. Just saying that won't make it so

[IndiReloaded]

I see where you're coming from and I guess it depends just how unified this voice will be. Right now discrimination against atheists is still more or less okay in the US. I'd like to see that change. I'm not talking about PC bullcrap. I mean in the realm of government and labor. Where it actually counts. Not because atheists are a poor, poor minority and woe is them, but because atheists do something about it and make changes happen.

I'm just not sure that any card-carrying atheist will be much better than a raving fundamentalist. The answer to the query "religion?" should be "personal". Much like how someone's sexual orientation is none of anyone else's business. Those are the kinds of leaders I would support.

Obama claims to be Christian, for example, but I suspect would have been just as happy keeping that proclamation to himself except he is intelligent and knew it would help obtaining certain votes. But it seems he runs his government more like a meritocracy, which is how it should be. Separation of chuch & state and all that.

Just vote for intelligent moderates. Something Sarah Palin was clearly neither. Idiots will be just as prevalent in rabid atheists as much as rabid religious types, DM is correct about that.