• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What religion/faith are you?

What Religion are you part of?

  • Atheist

    Votes: 83 43.0%
  • Christian

    Votes: 60 31.1%
  • Jewish

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mormon

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 20 10.4%
  • Agnostic

    Votes: 23 11.9%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • Total voters
    193
"There are no athiests in foxholes" is best used as a aphorism, not a statement of fact. Like any aphorism it can become a cliche. In many cases people in times of extreme stress or fear hope and believe in a higher power so there is some truth to it.
 
"There are no athiests in foxholes" is best used as a aphorism, not a statement of fact. Like any aphorism it can become a cliche. In many cases people in times of extreme stress or fear hope and believe in a higher power so there is some truth to it.
Hoping for luck is not the same as believing in a higher power, though.
 
I didn't cite Descartes as a role model. I think he was an asshole and in many ways, a fraud but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I just said that his "cogito ergo sum" was spot on, though little else I am afraid.

If you want to "get me" then throw dirt on Baruch Spinoza. Him I like!

Not trying to "get you," just pointing out that there's a pretty big chunk of sociopathy in Descartes. "I think therefore I am," not so bad. But then jumping to, "Since I can't prove anyone else thinks, they probably aren't," is right out of the sociopath playbook. Spinoza goes down a lot easier, IMO.

Ah, getting to look back at someone of 400 plus years ago and pass judgement on them. A favorite past time of many today.
At the time I'm sure he was cutting edge and innovative, probably considered a genius.

People judge people. It's what we do. Being in the past or being considered a genius of one's time doesn't and shouldn't make one immune to criticism later down the line. A lot of people point to Descartes as the epitome of the Age of Reason while conveniently ignoring his sadism.
 
Not trying to "get you," just pointing out that there's a pretty big chunk of sociopathy in Descartes. "I think therefore I am," not so bad. But then jumping to, "Since I can't prove anyone else thinks, they probably aren't," is right out of the sociopath playbook. Spinoza goes down a lot easier, IMO.



People judge people. It's what we do. Being in the past or being considered a genius of one's time doesn't and shouldn't make one immune to criticism later down the line. A lot of people point to Descartes as the epitome of the Age of Reason while conveniently ignoring his sadism.

You know who else was a sadist? Thomas Edison, he electrocuted countless animals to "prove" that AC was less safe than DC. The fact that he was demonstrably wrong never stopped him. Another one who also was a fraud in many ways and scruplelessly stole most of "his" inventions but Americans usually think of him as some kind of a hero so...
 
You know who else was a sadist? Thomas Edison, he electrocuted countless animals to "prove" that AC was less safe than DC. The fact that he was demonstrably wrong never stopped him. Another one who also was a fraud in many ways and scruplelessly stole most of "his" inventions but Americans usually think of him as some kind of a hero so...

Yes. He was a horrible person, another one I think was a sociopath in plain sight, so to speak. No arguments here on that count.
 
"There are no athiests in foxholes" is best used as a aphorism, not a statement of fact. Like any aphorism it can become a cliche. In many cases people in times of extreme stress or fear hope and believe in a higher power so there is some truth to it.
Absolutely, and in that sense I don't disagree. I just got the impression that Akita was treating it like an absolute truth.
 
Well, one aphorism deserves another: "How much vanity must be concealed—not too effectively at that—in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan?"
 
I'm not sure it's always vanity. (Although there are many highly public religious and political figures for whom it demonstrably is, plus a blatant power grab.) I think for the average joe believer it's a combination of believing what they were always taught and being content enough within that not to feel the need to question plus a very human desire to feel loved and taken care of. And hey, if god is big, huge, and powerful, he/she/it can surely hold every human within some plan, right? I can't find much to fault in that for those who find it comforting or enriching. It's when they wade into trying to force it on others, legislate it, use it to justify othering others and all that nonsense that we'll come to fisticuffs. (Figuratively, at least.)
 
This brings to mind the application of Proverbs 19:2.
"It is no use to act before you think: to be hasty is to miss the mark."

So how do we "know" that we are actually thinking ,,, right? I mean how do we tell what thought is what? or when we think,, it is us thinking and not someone else's idea being ,, remembered.. btw what Mark are we going for exactly and if we miss it (the mark) is there a "second chance?" why? or how? And WHO says what the mark really is that we need to keep in line with at all? you know , I am just saying right?

Don't get me wrong the Bible is a Great book and Proverbs on of the better sections ..
 
So how do we "know" that we are actually thinking ,,, right? I mean how do we tell what thought is what? or when we think,, it is us thinking and not someone else's idea being ,, remembered.. btw what Mark are we going for exactly and if we miss it (the mark) is there a "second chance?" why? or how? And WHO says what the mark really is that we need to keep in line with at all? you know , I am just saying right?

Don't get me wrong the Bible is a Great book and Proverbs on of the better sections ..

There may not be a second chance. I mean if you miss the mark, it's likely they'll wise up and you won't get them to buy your stuff anymore.

This is from a manual for crooks.:D
 
I'm not sure it's always vanity. (Although there are many highly public religious and political figures for whom it demonstrably is, plus a blatant power grab.) I think for the average joe believer it's a combination of believing what they were always taught and being content enough within that not to feel the need to question plus a very human desire to feel loved and taken care of. And hey, if god is big, huge, and powerful, he/she/it can surely hold every human within some plan, right? I can't find much to fault in that for those who find it comforting or enriching. It's when they wade into trying to force it on others, legislate it, use it to justify othering others and all that nonsense that we'll come to fisticuffs. (Figuratively, at least.)

I am just saying, the Universe (as we can see it) has existed for 13.8 billion years and all that time without us (homo sapiens).

We (homo sapiens) have been around for at most 200,000 years and it looks like we've already overstayed our welcome, plus we live on a little spec of a planet that is to the Universe actually less than what a grain of sand is to all the beaches of the world! Isn't it a little presumptuous to think that the Universe was created for us? (That's actually a rhetorical question but if you wish to answer it regardless then be my guest).
 
"There are no athiests in foxholes" is best used as a aphorism, not a statement of fact. Like any aphorism it can become a cliche. In many cases people in times of extreme stress or fear hope and believe in a higher power so there is some truth to it.
Yes, but some people only see in black and white when the mood stikes them.:hugegrin:
And, it seems if they can disagree with me the time is ripe.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Sure, just like there are no gay people in Russia, according to Putin. "They" don't know what they are talking about:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...re-atheists-in-foxholes-idUSBRE83009P20120401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Association_of_Atheists_&_Freethinkers

Not that the military hasn't made frequent efforts to try and force religiosity on its members or punish them or deny them rights based on their non-belief:

https://theweek.com/articles/461428/military-problem-atheists
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/03/26/no-atheistchaplains-lawmakers-tell-navy/
I was in the Army and the marines and I really never felt pressure to be religious.
In what military did you serve?
 
I was in the Army and the marines and I really never felt pressure to be religious.
In what military did you serve?

I've done my time in the French Army back when it was mandatory for every able-bodied male civilian, except maybe a few dodgers, to spend twelve months there. My commanding officer (a man) hit on me but he wasn't offended when I told him that I wasn't interested. In fact, I even felt like I could have asked a favor of him anytime. I never did though.
 
I was in the Army and the marines and I really never felt pressure to be religious.
Both the Army and Marines? Wow, that's impressive.
Your individual experience doesn't contradict anything said in the articles I posted, though.
In what military did you serve?
The 1976th Destroyer Division of the KISS Army under Gen. "Demon" Simmons in the War Against the Juggalos of the ICP. Their Fucking Magnetrons killed a lot of good soldiers, even though they didn't seem to know how they worked.
 
Last edited:
So how do we "know" that we are actually thinking ,,, right? I mean how do we tell what thought is what? or when we think,, it is us thinking and not someone else's idea being ,, remembered.. btw what Mark are we going for exactly and if we miss it (the mark) is there a "second chance?" why? or how? And WHO says what the mark really is that we need to keep in line with at all? you know , I am just saying right?

Don't get me wrong the Bible is a Great book and Proverbs on of the better sections ..

The point is simply don't be hasty, think before you do something impulsive and embarass yourself. It's a failing I've committed time and again.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself!
 
I am just saying, the Universe (as we can see it) has existed for 13.8 billion years and all that time without us (homo sapiens).

We (homo sapiens) have been around for at most 200,000 years and it looks like we've already overstayed our welcome, plus we live on a little spec of a planet that is to the Universe actually less than what a grain of sand is to all the beaches of the world! Isn't it a little presumptuous to think that the Universe was created for us? (That's actually a rhetorical question but if you wish to answer it regardless then be my guest).

I don't think it's presumptuous to think the earth was made to support life. The conditions have to be just so, there are laws and patterns, and order, that make life very pleasant. There's such a delicate balance between natural laws and the ecosystem, things interdependent on each other which we don't even realize. There's beauty too. I've been guilty of taking it for granted too long.
 
I guess I got the point but the metaphor could be translated many other ways and still mean the general point.. That does not answer the questions ... How do we know that we are actually thinking? and where can I make a mark so as to just ---- absurdly ignore it for what it is , a standard that was made at some point by someone whom I would disagree with -- probably right?

The point is simply don't be hasty, think before you do something impulsive and embarass yourself. It's a failing I've committed time and again.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself!

we need to set our own marks maybe that are reasonable maybe? or not.. ----
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top