I've read other, very candid, posts of yours in which you sound disillusioned, depressed and just plain unhappy. Maybe putting so much validity in material and equating your neighbor's barbecue with "freedom" has made you look at life and think "is that it?" I don't put an impressive amount of validity in materialism. But I do respect it. I respect it more than I respect people's feelings about God, their feelings of patriotism, in some cases their sense of decency. Why? Because simply discussing such things can show a lack of respect for them. But if you show a lack of respect for people's property, you engender ill will far and above the type I get from insulting people who believe the other things.

I don't hold to materialism. My personal stuff, I hold fewer attachments to them than most anyone I know. But respecting it, that is a virtue that few care to cultivate. I am, as you say, careful not to put scratches in the car of the person next to me. I do not go about littering other people's property willy nilly. Because even though I do not identify with my own stuff, other people do.

As far as my life's purpose goes I do indeed have one. I don't need to connect it with either God or materialism or patriotism. The state of mind that comes from belief in God or patriotism is not locked to those ideas, and I feel them just as easily when they're connected to ideas of personal growth and love for one another. You do not need to be a patriot or a believer in God to perform heroic acts for one's country. I joined the military, even as I did I was not a patriot. And so I would risk my own life to save another's.

Life does not lose it's meaning as soon as you disavow God, disavow one's country. But as soon as you do, you realize how much of that meaning is fake, manufactured. You realize that most of what people say in the name of religion and patriotism is staged, even if the person doesn't know it themselves. They're not really doing it for God and country. They're doing it so they can be seen to be for these things, so that other people would think well of them. They use phony sentiments, like calling on, "all the people that died so you could say what you just did," to defend themselves. It's not an argument, it's a cop-out, and it surprises me to see that coming from you.

It is a measure of one's character what one does when one has the opportunity to save a person's life, save your compatriots life, even at serious risk to one's own. You don't know whether you'll be able to do it no matter how much you believe in patriotism or God. Allegiance to these things does not make one automatically capable of doing so. It is something other people attribute to his actions after the fact. In fact, doing these things will make you a patriot in the minds of others, even if you don't hold to the idea yourself. Life is not without a sense of irony.

As much as I respect Mark Twain he forgot about those that died several decades before his birth, thus giving him the freedom to be critical of his country. And his parents for giving him the genes to be White and Male.

"I have wanted to give Iraq a lesson in democracy—because we’re experienced with it, you know. And, in democracy, after a hundred years, you have to let your slaves go. And, after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And, at the beginning of democracy, is that quite a bit of genocide and ethnic cleansing is quite okay. And that’s what’s going on now." - Kurt Vonnegut 1922-2007

Poor Mr. Vonnegut. Awesome quote.

"I have wanted to give Iraq a lesson in democracy—because we’re experienced with it, you know. And, in democracy, after a hundred years, you have to let your slaves go. And, after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And, at the beginning of democracy, is that quite a bit of genocide and ethnic cleansing is quite okay. And that’s what’s going on now." - Kurt Vonnegut 1922-2007

Hmm.
It's from "I Have a Dream" by Martin Luther King Jr?

Reading sentiments such as that fills me with a tremendous sadness.......for me, it serves only as a reminder of what the great and wise Mark Twain said--


""He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!""
Kind of a harsh and faint comparison. Patriotism does not necessarily mean autonomous thinking. If a county has earned a person's respect, there is no reason to not be patriotic.

As much as I respect Mark Twain he forgot about those that died several decades before his birth, thus giving him the freedom to be critical of his country.

Fortunately for him, those men he hated were willing to risk everything for him.
I highly doubt that he hated those men. I think he most likely respects them a great deal because he was a great idealist and because they fought for the ideals which he held dear. I have a great respect for Mark Twain.

And his parents for giving him the genes to be White and Male.
Respectfully, what at all does that have to do with the discussion?

"I have wanted to give Iraq a lesson in democracy—because we’re experienced with it, you know. And, in democracy, after a hundred years, you have to let your slaves go. And, after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And, at the beginning of democracy, is that quite a bit of genocide and ethnic cleansing is quite okay. And that’s what’s going on now." - Kurt Vonnegut 1922-2007
Cute quote, except that the war on Iraq was NOT genocide, and it was NOT ethnic cleansing. Those words mean something else completely. False dramatics do not sell an argument, and this is coming from someone who vehemently opposes the war.

Mr. Vonnegut does not seem to be referring to the war we are fighting, but rather Iraq's general civil situation.

Mr. Vonnegut does not seem to be referring to the war we are fighting, but rather Iraq's general civil situation.

Yes. I assumed that 500 was posting that as a criticism of the war and a criticism of the US. Correct me if I'm reading into your quote wrong 500, but I assumed that you were implying that the genocide and ethnic cleansing were the fault of the US.

sigh...What I'm posting about Twain and the Vonnegut quote is that you are promoting a popular lie. There was no freedom or democracy in the US. Only rich, white land owners were able to vote and hold office. Everyone else was excluded or imprisoned for their opinions. Those 'who died' did not do so for peoples freedom but for their own elitism.

1. Being an atheist does not preclude one from making this realization. Suggesting such is backwards and offensive.
2. This patriotism has become a way for people to justify their bigotries and crimes...... Christianity worked its way into the patriotism, and helped justify hatred..... Patriots all too often ignore the great mishaps of America 1. No, not necessarily. But this is some of what Napster said:
"Certainly, the love for one's country can do amazing and moving things. It is a great feeling to be a part of something so much greater than yourself."
Also in his post he said that there are other things that can substitute for God and country to give you similar feelings, but he and I both seem to agree that patriotism and religion will give you that feeling that an athiest won't necessarily feel unless it is sought elsewhere.
What's offensive there?

2. Driving has destroyed the lives of many people because some people speed or drive drunk. Should that change the way we perceive driving? Is driving now a bad thing?

To assign a negative connotation to patriotism requires very selective concentration on the actions of those who have perverted it. An effort is required to come to these negative conclusions
Your inventory of bad patriotism suggests to me you've made the effort.

1. But I do respect [materialism]. I respect it more than I respect people's feelings about God, their feelings of patriotism....
2. You do not need to be a patriot or a believer in God to perform heroic acts for one's country.
3. You realize that most of what people say in the name of religion and patriotism is staged,
4. "all the people that died so you could say what you just did," to defend themselves. It's not an argument, it's a cop-out, and it surprises me to see that coming from you.
5. ....believe in patriotism or God. Allegiance to these things does not make one automatically capable of doing so.
1. I don't even know how to respond to this anymore.

2. I didn't say you had to be. I said you had to believe in bigger things.
A non-patriotic athiest does not necessarily have that.
You stated in your post that other things give you that feeling. That's good.

3. It would be more fair if you said some people.

4. I'm careful not to use the phrase because many draftees would often prefer to "sit this one out."
I specifically cited the Revolutionary War in my point about Mark Twain because, in my opinion, those volunteers actually were thinking about real ideals an improvements that would occur as a result of their actions.

5. Since absolutely nothing in human nature is "automatic" I never would have suggested that.

But this is some of what Napster said:
I am addressing your post that: "A belief in God also forces one to realize that there are things bigger than themselves." If I wanted to address Nap's points, I would do so more directly.
What's offensive there?
If you, or someone else, suggested that atheists could not realize things bigger than themselves because of lack of theistic belief, I would find it false, and therefore offensive. It is a false accusation that attempts to cast atheists in a bad light. You've not expressed this sentiment directly yet, and I would like it if you didn't.
2. Driving has destroyed the lives of many people because some people speed or drive drunk.
Illegal behavior while* driving has destroyed lives because some people drive drunk or speed. This should change the way we perceive driving because it can be used for malicious purposes or manslaughter, and so we need to regulate driving and educate people on the dangers, which we do.

Driving is transportation that is inherently convienient and even necessary, not an idea that is used to use people for any cause deemed fitting.

Patriotism is an idea; a justification. It causes people deify their nation. That is inherently a bad thing.
To assign a negative connotation to patriotism requires very selective concentration on the actions of those who have perverted it.
I put a negative connotation on patriotism because of what it is, not simply because of what things have been done with it. It is hard to pervert a perversion.

2. I didn't say you had to be. I said you had to believe in bigger things.
You don't even need that. All you need is the opportunity. A draftee might not even like the war he's in, agree with the reasons he's fighting it for, even hate his superiors for putting him in the position, but he could still find himself performing great acts of sacrifice for one's country. The belief is not necessary.

sigh...What I'm posting about Twain and the Vonnegut quote is that you are promoting a popular lie. There was no freedom or democracy in the US. Only rich, white land owners were able to vote and hold office. Everyone else was excluded or imprisoned for their opinions. Those 'who died' did not do so for peoples freedom but for their own elitism.
once again, you're confusing anarchy with liberty in a Republic.

You don't even need that. All you need is the opportunity. A draftee might not even like the war he's in, agree with the reasons he's fighting it for, even hate his superiors for putting him in the position, but he could still find himself performing great acts of sacrifice for one's country. The belief is not necessary.
it's because soldiers don't fight for their flag or commander, they fight for each other.

once again, you're confusing anarchy with liberty in a Republic. ummm..? I have no clue what you mean. Please clarify. How are basic human rights anarchy? I don't deny that basic human rights are repected based on mutaul aid in a state of anarchy but that doesn't seem to be what you meant.

What the founding fathers were fighting for was to get the King of England of THEIR OWN backs, not anybody elses. They were mostly rich land takers/owners. "No taxation without representation" They resented someone over the sea taking a cut. They wanted it for themselves.

....but he could still find himself performing great acts of sacrifice for one's country. The belief is not necessary.But a belief is something is necessary, isn't it?

Unless someone is suicidal or extremely unhappy would he willingly sacrifice his life for nothing?
I once heard a drill sergeant say, in an interview, that once the fighting starts you're fighting for the guy next to you.
Or even if the soldier doesn't believe in the country, the cause or his compatriots, maybe he fights because of his own sense of honor.

But there's got to be a belief in something.

I really don't think there does. Put any man, anywhere, in a wartime situation, and give him enough disincentives not to run, or incentives to fight, and he'll fight, and take greater than normal risks for the men fighting by his side. Belief has nothing to do with it. His will might be weak, low morale might destroy him, but he still fights.

It's a biological thing, it has nothing to do with belief. Our deep primal instincts take over and our beliefs might be what we think we're fighting for, but it's actually because nature took hold of our bodies and made us to do what millions of years of evolution built us to do, wield tools in the name of self-preservation.

1. I am addressing your post that: "A belief in God also forces one to realize that there are things bigger than themselves."
If you, or someone else, suggested that atheists could not realize things bigger than themselves because of lack of theistic belief, I would find it false, and therefore offensive.
2. Illegal behavior while* driving has destroyed lives because some people drive drunk or speed. This should change the way we perceive driving because it can be used for malicious purposes or manslaughter, ....
3. I put a negative connotation on patriotism because of what it is... It is hard to pervert a perversion.1. Prior to you posting that I said this:
"I didn't say you had to be. I said you had to believe in bigger things. A non-patriotic athiest does not necessarily have that."
If someone believes in God, by definition, they believe in something bigger.
Napster and I both acknowledged that the athiest can find something like that.
I didn't suggest "that atheists could not realize things bigger than themselves".
This was all said before your post.

2. Yes, yes it CAN. So we should see driving in a bad light?
How about this - SOME teenagers are class cutting, drug addled, long haired child molesters. Therefore........

If you want to believe a thing is negative because it can be, doesn't that take in the entire world? I think that'd be a tough way to live.

3. "love for or devotion to one's country"
That's a perversion? Sounds pretty neutral to me.

I really don't think there does.
It's a biological thing ..... wield tools in the name of self-preservation.Well, you've been there so I can't argue.
Self-preservation is the fly in the ointment in this case.
But I can't help but think that if that was all there is to it, no one would volunteer for the military during wartime.
And very few would volunteer even during peacetime.