Topic: Atheism

[Corkboy]

Not really, I’m just not in the mood for it today.

Well, if the mood does take you, you might give me your response to this (which I posted in response to Yorky's simulation).

That's about right, in that it's completely wrong but essentially what Iska was driving at.

I'm going to remain being me and point out in response that the societies on the planet who have less religion tend to have more equality, lower crime rates and stronger social safety nets. In other words, the less religious places are objectively more kind and good, and the wellbeing of their citizens is higher.

Just for good measure, I will add that children who receive more religious instruction tend to be meaner and more vindictive to their peers.

I can source both of those assertions but I'm not going to bother unless Iska asks and then only if he agrees not to shift the goalposts once I do.

[Riquende]

Iska had a long post which appears to have been deleted.

I did have a read of it this morning, and even had it quoted on a reply page for a time, but if Iska isn't willing to stand by it then I don't want to put it in a quote box for everyone else to see and pull apart.

In broad strokes though it was pretty much what you'd expect. Mention of Tom Holland's thesis that we're all really just small-c christians, I guess because of 2000 years of imposed religious teachings and joint mass delusion of belief in a specific deity.

I'm not sure why the idea that the hypothetical idealised Christian version of morality (as opposed to the real practised one) is just a codified version of a pre-existing (or even contemporaneously evolving) consensus on how to co-exist as a society, written by the only group of people at the time with the education & motive to do so, is just overlooked as it seems far more likely to me than messages from beardy sky bloke being the root cause of good behaviour.

I don't see how following this fundamental morality system necessary relates to belief in the specific Christian god concept, and if it doesn't, then why we need to used the highly-loaded term 'Christian' at all for the thesis being offered. I also don't see how any of this relates to other modern things Iska hints at talking about (such as the womens prison issue).

And lastly, I still wonder how Iska's view that getting back to these small-c christian shared societal values being a good thing for everyone can be squared with those people that are now free to exist as their true selves in public, and why they'd be better off living under a 'system' that would force them to hide away again and live their lives as lies.

[Yorkykopite]

I did have a read of it this morning....

I read it as well and you've pretty much described what was in it. It was broadly a repetition of his thesis that we would all become moral cretins if the Christian tradition disappeared.

There's a fundamental flaw in Iska's reasoning I think. He says over and over that the Christian tradition is so strong that, even in secular and increasingly atheistic societies, it more or less still dictates what we think morally and how we behave. That's arguable I suppose, especially if you believe that the genuine Christian societies of the past were truly moral places. But how can he separate out the stuff he doesn't approve of (eg a rapist being placed in a woman's prison) and identify that as the result of atheism? How did that decision escape the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian tradition while all the stuff he presumably does approve of didn't?

[liverbloke]

If you mean gay/trans issues, The explanation previously was that two genders one one sexuality makes it mathematically more likely that everyone will find someone.

good to see that he's prepared to use mathematics (a science in itself) as a basis to his argument, but then dismisses science if applied to the events contained within the bible/holy book/koran/scriptures (delete as applicable)

[Kenny's Jacket]

Hold on a minute, are you saying that this is something I’ve said? I saw something in passing on some other thread (I forget which) where you also seemed to be attributing anti-gay stuff to me, but I let that go because I wasn’t sure I was reading it right. I think, charitably, that you may have me mixed up with somebody else. Either cite the thing you have in mind, or retract this. It’s not on.

Not word for word, but when asked it was something along those lines

Ill have a look.
Was it in this thread you posted it?

[Corkboy]

Iska should look at the Golden Rule.

As a Christian, he would know it as the saying attributed to Jesus of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The trouble with that is that the Rule has been recorded, in some form or other, in pretty much every religion or code of ethics in human history. The first mention was in around 1,600 BCE. For you eagle eyed readers, yes, BCE used to be BC, Before Christ. It's now Before Common Era. From the above wiki...

A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002.

The point, as if it weren't screamingly obvious, is that this rule isn't Christian or indeed specifically of any one religion. It's even in Scientology, ffs. How likely is it that the rule was divinely inspired by various different deities at various different times? Or is it more likely that humanity conceived of it and it filtered into religions as they evolved, much as traditional feast days were co-opted by emerging religions?

The other point about morality, for anyone who doesn't follow my acclaimed Animal Intelligence Thread on here, is that it isn't confined to humans. Far from it.

[Elmo!]

I read it as well and you've pretty much described what was in it. It was broadly a repetition of his thesis that we would all become moral cretins if the Christian tradition disappeared.

There's a fundamental flaw in Iska's reasoning I think. He says over and over that the Christian tradition is so strong that, even in secular and increasingly atheistic societies, it more or less still dictates what we think morally and how we behave. That's arguable I suppose, especially if you believe that the genuine Christian societies of the past were truly moral places. But how can he separate out the stuff he doesn't approve of (eg a rapist being placed in a woman's prison) and identify that as the result of atheism? How did that decision escape the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian tradition while all the stuff he presumably does approve of didn't?

It also ignores all the historical treatment of women and their rights, during periods of stronger religious belief. and the correlation of the general improvement of women's rights with the decline of religion.

It's very selective to focus on the one women's rights issue and point to it as an example of moral decay whilst ignoring the history.

[Corkboy]

From earlier in this thread....

WOLVES
Wolves live in tight-knit social groups that are regulated by strict rules. If a pack grows too large, members are not able to bond closely enough and the pack disintegrates. Wolves also demonstrate fairness.
During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging in roll reversal with lower ranking wolves, showing submission and allowing them to bite, provided it is not too hard.
Prof Bekoff argues that without a moral code governing their actions, this kind of behaviour would not be possible. If an animal bites too hard, it will initiate a "play bow" to ask forgiveness before play resumes.

COYOTES
In other members of the dog family, play is controlled by similar rules. Among coyotes, cubs which bite too hard are ostracised by the rest of the group and often end up having to leave entirely.
"We looked at the mortality of these young animals who disperse from the group and they have four to five times higher mortality," said Bekoff.
Experiments with domestic dogs, where one animal was given a treat and another denied, have shown that they posses a sense of fairness as they shared their treats.

ELEPHANTS
Elephants are intensely sociable and emotional animals. Research by Iain Douglas Hamilton, from the department of zoology at Oxford University, suggests elephants experience compassion and has found evidence of elephants helping injured or ill members of their herd.
In one case, a Matriarch known as Eleanor fell ill and a female in the herd gently tried to help Eleanor back to her feet, staying with her before she died.
In 2003, a herd of 11 elephants rescued antelope who were being held inside an enclosure in KwaZula-Natal, South Africa.
The matriarch unfastened all of the metal latches holding the gates closed and swung the entrance open allowing the antelope to escape.
This is thought to be a rare example of animals showing empathy for members of another species – a trait previously thought to be the exclusive preserve of mankind.

DIANA MONKEYS
A laboratory experiment trained Diana monkeys to insert a token into a slot to obtain food.
A male who had grown to be adept at the task was found to be helping the oldest female who had not been able to learn how to insert the token.
On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted them into the slot and allowed her to have the food.
As there was no benefit for the male monkey, Prof Bekoff argues that this is a clear example of an animal's actions being driven by some internal moral compass.

CHIMPANZEES
Known to be among the most cognitively advanced of the great apes and our closest cousin, it is perhaps not surprising that scientists should suggest they live by moral codes.
A chimpanzee known as Knuckles – from the Centre for Great Apes in Florida – is the only known captive chimpanzee to suffer from cerebral palsy, which leaves him physically and mentally handicapped.
Scientists have found that other chimpanzees in his group treat him differently and he is rarely subjected to intimidating displays of aggression from older males.
Chimpanzees also demonstrate a sense of justice and those who deviate from the code of conduct of a group are set upon by other members as punishment.

RODENTS
Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock.
The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock. Similarly, mice react more strongly to pain when they have seen another mouse in pain.
Recent research from Switzerland also showed that rats will help a rat, to which it is not related, to obtain food if they themselves have benefited from the charity of others. This reciprocity was thought to be restricted to primates.

BATS
Vampire bats need to drink blood every night but it is common for some not to find any food. Those who are successful in foraging for blood will share their meal with bats who are not successful.
They are more likely to share with bats who had previously shared with them. Prof Bekoff believes this reciprocity is a result of a sense of affiliation that binds groups of animals together.
Some studies have shown that animals experience hormonal changes that lead them to "crave" social interaction.
Biologists have also observed a female Rodrigues fruit-eating bat in Gainesville, Florida, helping another female to give birth by showing the pregnant female the correct birthing position – with head up and feed down.

WHALES
Whales have been found to have spindle cells in their brains. These very large and specialised cells were thought to be restricted to humans and other great apes and appear to play a role in empathy and understanding the feelings of others.
Humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales and sperm whales have all been found to have spindle cells in the same areas of their brains.
They also have three times as many spindle cells compared to humans and are thought to be older in evolutionary terms.
This finding has suggested that complex emotional judgements such as empathy may have evolved considerably earlier in history than previously thought and could be widespread in the animal kingdom.

source

[stewil007]

From earlier in this thread....

yeah but what would the rats/whales/chimps etc do if they found £100 on the floor?

[Yorkykopite]

It also ignores all the historical treatment of women and their rights, during periods of stronger religious belief. and the correlation of the general improvement of women's rights with the decline of religion.

It's very selective to focus on the one women's rights issue and point to it as an example of moral decay whilst ignoring the history.

Absolutely. There are plenty of other reasons too to suggest that the era of Christian fundamentalism wasn't a particular moral period (slavery, feudalism, witch-burning, persecution of heretics, enormous disparities in wealth and property, high murder rates, generalised violence, deprivation, illiteracy etc etc). But I was letting that go by in order to make a different point. How does Iska decide what current behaviours are essentially 'Christian' and what aren't?  Is there anything more to it than 'good = Christian' (kindness, generosity etc) and 'bad=influence of non-belief' (the rapist who was put in a man's prison in Scotland)?

[Kenny's Jacket]

Hold on a minute, are you saying that this is something I’ve said? I saw something in passing on some other thread (I forget which) where you also seemed to be attributing anti-gay stuff to me, but I let that go because I wasn’t sure I was reading it right. I think, charitably, that you may have me mixed up with somebody else. Either cite the thing you have in mind, or retract this. It’s not on.

I cant find it so I will apologise. Iska Im sorry.
Ive picked the notion up from somewhere, To be clear, there are far nastier ways to oppose homosexuality than it creating an imbalance and a lack of heterosexual relationships, so this wasnt done out of malice.

Regardless I apologise, Im sorry

Also kudos to Yorkie, who in the discussion on the Nat C conference, chose to not take my explanation as gospel (nice little Christian reference for you there Iska )

[Kenny's Jacket]

Thanks Kenny. Let’s just delete our last few posts and let that one go.

You want me to delete my grovelling apology

Yeah sound  - (Joking, Im happy to own it)

Edit, Ive deleted the tweet where I made the claim

[Iska]

Just delete it, we’ve cleared it up. I’ll delete mine in any event.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Just delete it, we’ve cleared it up. I’ll delete mine in any event.

See my Edit in my previous post

As someone who values the RAWK community, I think its good if posters apologise when its necessary
are you happy for me to keep the apology up?
Its entirely your decision 

[Yorkykopite]

See my Edit in my previous post

As someone who values the RAWK community, I think its good if posters apologise when its necessary
are you happy for me to keep the apology up?
Its entirely your decision 

Now of course the rest of us want to know what is behind this edifying exchange between two adversaries.

Is it the persistence of Judeo-Christian values? Or, at least in Kenny's case, is it a sovereign human being, liberated from all religious dogma, making his own mind up about what's good and what's bad? 

I demand an answer.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Now of course the rest of us want to know what is behind this edifying exchange between two adversaries.

Is it the persistence of Judeo-Christian values? Or, at least in Kenny's case, is it a sovereign human being, liberated from all religious dogma, making his own mind up about what's good and what's bad? 

I demand an answer.

 

[Corkboy]

Now of course the rest of us want to know what is behind this edifying exchange between two adversaries.

Is it the persistence of Judeo-Christian values? Or, at least in Kenny's case, is it a sovereign human being, liberated from all religious dogma, making his own mind up about what's good and what's bad? 

I demand an answer.

As a confirmed atheist, I don't give a fuck about that or indeed anything, as I have no moral compass.

[Riquende]

yeah but what would the rats/whales/chimps etc do if they found £100 on the floor?

Well clearly the only moral path forward is to eat it. Dilemma solved.

[Corkboy]

Well clearly the only moral path forward is to eat it. Dilemma solved.

Oddly enough, there was once an experiment where capuchin monkeys were taught how to use money, by showing them that particular discs could be exchanged for treats. One monkey then traded his disc for sex with another monkey, and then that monkey exchanged the disc for a grape.

[Yorkykopite]

As a confirmed atheist, I don't give a fuck about that or indeed anything, as I have no moral compass.

Once I've finished butchering my neighbour I'm gonna hunt you down and kill you Corkboy. Why? No idea. Call it primal impulse.

[Kenny's Jacket]

As a confirmed atheist, I don't give a fuck about that or indeed anything, as I have no moral compass.

Sidestepping for a moment
You used to post in the Drugs thread a lot Corky, I heard a free podcast recently that I think you would find interesting,
Origin Story - The war on drugs.  I got it off Spotify

Anyway getting back on track; Atheism, isnt it great?

[Corkboy]

Sidestepping for a moment
You used to post in the Drugs thread a lot Corky, I heard a free podcast recently that I think you would find interesting,
Origin Story - The war on drugs.  I got it off Spotify

Thanks, but I think I stopped posting about that stuff because of how depressing it was.

[Riquende]

Oddly enough, there was once an experiment where capuchin monkeys were taught how to use money, by showing them that particular discs could be exchanged for treats. One monkey then traded his disc for sex with another monkey, and then that monkey exchanged the disc for a grape.

Finally, proof that prostitution truly is the 'oldest profession', followed closely by greengrocery.

[Riquende]

Once I've finished butchering my neighbour I'm gonna hunt you down and kill you Corkboy. Why? No idea. Call it primal impulse.

But what if you're distracted by £100 left on the doorstep? How could you know which is the least moral option, murder or theft, unless Satan has been able to write it on your heart?

Atheists might just plump for the murder, as on the face of it it seems less moral, but what if that £100 was going to go towards some medical equipment at a nearby hospital that would definitely be responsible for saving countless lives? Could you actually increase net suffering by a mere act of misappropriation, leaving Corkboy unharmed? Only worship of Satan can lead you to the certainty of belief & action sadly lacking in todays secular society.

[Jiminy Cricket]

From earlier in this thread....

I see what you are saying. That WOLVES, COYOTES, ELEPHANTS, DIANA MONKEYS, CHIMPANZEES, RODENTS, BATS and WHALES are all God-fearing Christians.

[The_Nomad]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150419-are-you-honest-without-realising

“ But capuchin monkeys prefer grapes to cucumber slices. If the researchers paid one of the monkeys in grapes instead, the monkey in the neighbouring cage – previously happy to work for cucumber – became agitated and refused to accept payment in cucumber slices. What had once been acceptable soon became unacceptable when it was clear a neighbour was getting a better reward for the same effort.”

How very un-Christian of these monkeys. 😡 😝

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150419-are-you-honest-without-realising

“ But capuchin monkeys prefer grapes to cucumber slices. If the researchers paid one of the monkeys in grapes instead, the monkey in the neighbouring cage – previously happy to work for cucumber – became agitated and refused to accept payment in cucumber slices. What had once been acceptable soon became unacceptable when it was clear a neighbour was getting a better reward for the same effort.”

How very un-Christian of these monkeys. 😡 😝

Not at all. Just good Christian Socialists. Just as some animals have helped out other animals who are being cheated by their 'masters', they feel they too should receive their fair share of 'the fruits' of their labours.

[thejbs]

Pakistan: Mob burns churches over blasphemy claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66525150

It’s 2023. Two face a potential death sentence for blasphemy based on a law introduced by the British*

*they’ve never actually sentenced anyone for blasphemy in the past because mobs have tortured and killed them first.

[Yorkykopite]

Pakistan: Mob burns churches over blasphemy claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66525150

It’s 2023. Two face a potential death sentence for blasphemy based on a law introduced by the British*

*they’ve never actually sentenced anyone for blasphemy in the past because mobs have tortured and killed them first.

I think that many individuals have been sentenced for blasphemy by the Pakistani courts, death sentences included. The mobs/police do tend to lynch the 'guilty' people first though. Such is their own devotion to Allah.

[Nobby Reserve]

I think that many individuals have been sentenced for blasphemy by the Pakistani courts, death sentences included. The mobs/police do tend to lynch the 'guilty' people first though. Such is their own devotion to Allah.

Religion of peace and love, though...

[Boston always unofficial]

Makes a change from attacking/burning embassy's.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Religion of peace and love, though...

It's exactly the same as its cousins.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's exactly the same as its cousins.

Essentially, yes, although some of the cousins have grown up, leaving others to be immature, petulant and embittered.

[thejbs]

Christianity hides its evil under the veil of morality. They might not be lynching people, but they’re happy to destroy lives. Be it the Catholic Church exacerbating AIDS in Africa or Roe v Wade in the US, it happens today.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Essentially, yes, although some of the cousins have grown up, leaving others to be immature, petulant and embittered.

That's down to the Countries though or more importantly the majority of people who vote, run & call them home, not the bat shit book that links them all.

[Bullet500]

"Hindutva mob vandalises church, assaults Christians in Delhi" - https://scroll.in/latest/1054636/hindutva-mob-vandalises-church-assaults-christians-in-delhi

[lobsterboy]

Essentially, yes, although some of the cousins have grown up, leaving others to be immature, petulant and embittered.

Mainly by large chunks of their population leaving or ignoring those religious cousins though.
Except Jeebusland over the pond, were many are regressing back to the old fire and brimstone stuff as the new testament is too socialist for them.
Unfortunately, especially for the woman and LGBTQ communities, America's Christian right and the muslim extremists will soon be indistinguishable.

[Yorkykopite]

The reason for the hijab, we are told, is that without it men would be unable to resist raping women. In the Islamic Republic of Iran women who fail to wear the hijab in public can be subjected to this. Not rape, as such, but extreme physical violence.

But watch the way she fights back.

https://twitter.com/omid9/status/1696215393885462963

[Riquende]

Interesting to see this bobble back up again in the last few days, I've been thinking for a while about some of the things in Iska's last posts, about people being lost and all that (but without all the garbage about turning to God to sort their lives out). I do wonder if what is missing from the modern secular lifestyle is a strong sense of (local) community, of the sort the Church used to provide? A few months ago we buried my Aunt. She was the matriarch of the religious wing of the family, and she was a Christian in the proper sense of the word - heavily involved in Church her entire life, and when she retired and moved out of London to be closer to her kids she immediately picked that habit up in her new parish. This was actually the first properly religious funeral I'd been to (I've been to ones in churches, but more out of tradition than belief). And the turnout was immense, with scores of people from both her old and new congregations turning up to say goodbye.

"Back in the day" as it were, people would generally know all of their neighbours. That could be down to just smaller local communities, the more interconnected era (you'd have to go to a local butcher, so would know the butcher etc) or the semi-enforced attendance at Church every Sunday. I vaguely remember going to Sunday school when we first moved to the village I grew up in, as my ex-Londoner parents wanted us to integrate into the community.

But if people with a choice stopped attending Church en masse over time, then what can you do to get that sense of local, physical community back? Is there a way that doesn't explicitly involve religion? I'd bet a significant percentage of CofE churchgoers don't really believe, but would miss the regular meetups and the tradition of it all, but they're still there singing hymns, saying prayers and all that stuff that non-believers aren't looking for.

I don't really have a conclusion for these thoughts, they've just been tumbling around since the funeral as I tried to imagine some sort of common ground with the thrust of Iska's post that doesn't involve forcing people back into closets, gender conformity and all the other stuff that the far-Right would love to smuggle in under the guise of fixing a society that "doesn't work anymore".

[Iska]

Great post.  This is probably 90% of how I feel about things. Since this board is so horribly adversarial it often seems like we’re diametric opposites, but I really don’t think that’s the case - with one pretty significant exception (see below) I think both you and I are seeing that there’s a glaring absence in the way we live now … it’s more than an atomisation, it’s been an active turning away from the idea that there are any objective values and that it’s even appropriate for us to pass values on between ourselves, or wisdom from generation to generation – it’s like the only seemly way to be is to be non-judgemental, and work everything out for yourself, without prejudgment and (nominally) without influence except what happens to be the fashion at any particular time.  That’s an unspeakably lonely way to live, and imo it’s slowly driving people mad.

Another way to put that it’s fundamentally against our natures.  We aren’t blank slates and we physically can’t make that our ideal - we need community, and we just don’t have time to reinvent every wheel.  So what happens is we don’t live like that at all, and instead we look for exactly those qualities in other places.  I was struck by this post while I was away:

Christianity hides its evil under the veil of morality. They might not be lynching people, but they’re happy to destroy lives. Be it the Catholic Church exacerbating AIDS in Africa or Roe v Wade in the US, it happens today.

which is moronic even on its own terms—if there must be an evil side in the whole Roe v Wade thing, it can’t on any sensible view be the one seeking to protect the unborn—but it illustrates the point well.  There’s a running joke on here to the effect that I think atheists have no morals.  Other than in a semantic sense, that’s not what I think – what I’ve repeatedly said is that atheism lends itself to *any* values.  “When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything”, if you like.  This mentality (and apologies to the poster for putting the boot in, but obviously my objection is to the message - I’m sure you’re a perfectly nice fellow; the PM exchanges I’ve had in my time suggest nearly everyone on here is lovely once you get away from the toxicity) wants to believe in something, but all he has is his politics, so he has to resort to “evil”, the biggest word in the book.  The problem, I think obviously, is that politics shift and change, so if that’s your guide then the anchor that you need to live a proper human life just isn’t there.  This not only risks driving people mad and lonely, it actually denies them an important core part of humanity and even puts them at risk of doing evil (as I would put it) things themselves.  If your political tribe turned evil, how could you even know?  Without an objective source of morality, you can’t.  You’re at the mercy of what your tribe might deem expedient from time to time.

So that’s my 10% disagreement with you; the value of religion as that objective source.  Even then I don’t think we’re that far apart, because I know you do see the value of a set of codified wisdom, but can’t be doing with the metaphysics.  What I think is fundamental, and I expect you disagree with me, is that it must be objective (in the sense of being handed down from on high, not man-made and man-changeable) and have at the heart of it something that we can’t understand, because it’s that bit of faith/unprovability/magic which turns it into something that’s beyond what might be expedient from time to time.  Of course there’s massive scope for argument in such a code – being honest, that’s probably the main thing for me, that kind of weekly communal practice of philosophy; it doesn’t sound much like the social aspect that your aunt enjoyed, in terms of social anchorability, but perhaps it isn’t so far away.

(Also, although you do have a tendency to ascribe the most reactionary views to religion, I do have to take issue with that; being protestant to my core, I have to emphasise what I see as the almost-duty to work out the meaning for yourself and that there’s plenty in there which would be very far from reactionary, even if I’m not entirely convinced that this approach to religion doesn’t bring problems of its own; indeed at times I’d be inclined to ascribe a lot of these issues we’re discussing to a kind of protestantism-gone-haywire; but that’s definitely not a discussion I’ll be having here).

Your story about your aunt moved me because it’s such a great example of a life well-lived, but also because I happen to have lost two family members in the past six weeks myself.  Neither were religious but one service was and one wasn’t, and the difference was immense.  As it happens, it was the non-religious one which got the really bumper turn-out (though both were good) – the difference was in weight and heft of the actual ceremony.  I found it incredibly stark.  The religious one could draw on and fit his life into a continuum of importance, significance and meaning stretching back 2,000 years; the other had just nothing to draw on, except cliches and family anecdotes.  Everyone could see it and was embarrassed so we put it behind us, but I found it really saddening, having seen the two in succession - it was just so unworthy of the occasion, whereas the religious one left you in no doubt that this was a life that mattered.

I came away with thoughts maybe not unlike your own – what have we done to ourselves, imagining we could live without a culture so meaningful, something that our own ancestors took meaning from and shaped for themselves and for us?  And yes, turning away from the gatherings, the local communities, and even participating in things for the sake of participating; and even doing so in the sneaking suspicion that you may not measure up, and what does that mean?

So yes, I recognise your thinking, and something a lot like it is what’s prompted this turn in my life these past few years.  Your mileage will of course vary, but my conclusion was that region is the only game in town, and that I have no real choice but to at least try.  That’s really the root of where I’ve been coming from on this thread.  Make of it what you will, and perhaps in some sense it might even be a useful couple of avenues to keep thinking about these things.

PS I’ve gone in over the ball on you a couple of times as we’ve disagreed on this thread over the past year or so. As this will probably be my last post on rawk—majorly disappointed with it for reasons mostly not to do with this thread—I feel like trying to make up for that is the least sour way for me to go out, so please accept my apologies for that, and all the best.