Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Sonam wrote: "http://sonamwriting.blogspot.in/"Greetings Sonam :)
Was this link about the discussion topic?
EDIT: I did happen to notice that you've "posted" this link to every discussion board (20+) that I am currently active in. Bit overdone, neh?
C-Cose wrote: "I'd have to agree with Gary, who describes Atheism as more of a non-label / catch all to indicate being a non-deist rather than something to categorize a whole group of people (paraphrasing). As such, I wouldn't give any more, or less, credence to this site than you would to any other "resource" on the interwebs."
Yeah .... It's a bit confusing ... to me, at any rate.
Many of the things discussed on the site have been voiced on this thread. I mean, several of the key points. Almost verbatim. So, the ideas looked familiar, given my having taken part here. However, ... a big however .... There was this other layer on top of that. It sort of read like the opinions voiced by the atheists here ... but on steroids. Soooo extreme, in my opinion. Therefore, it had me wondering. Does this site truly represent the atheist viewpoint or not? (Given the similarities, despite Gary's argument about non-labels, it would seem to me that there is an atheist viewpoint, even though I'm sure, as with all people, there are differences in opinion.) A lot of what the atheists here talk about was there, mirrored perfectly. But .... It was taken to a whole other level, in my opinion.
I'm glad to hear you had questions about that author's tone. It just seemed so odd. I went into that reading looking for facts. And.... It totally and completely reminded me of the first draft of my thesis (...dealing with harassment in secondary skills ... oh, I was fired up). There were a few places throughout where my emotions came through, and I had "clever" little zings. Yeah.... A lawyer read it and gave me quite a talking to .... I might think I was making smart commentary, but I was being too cute by half. Doing that put my argument in question and at risk. That, of course, led me to wonder why that article would be picked for this site. There were others that were equally questionable in tone, in my opinion. (Some weren't. Some read professionally and as informational pieces.)
Anyway, glad my judgment wasn't off .... Although, it would be interesting to hear from an atheist. Is this outfit a bit off? Or, ...? (I realize not all things ... not all ideas ... will apply to all atheists. But, it does seem that there are enough things in common with what has been discussed here and what I've read about atheism in
The Case for God to wonder.)
Yeah .... It's a bit confusing ... to me, at any rate.
Many of the things discussed on the site have been voiced on this thread. I mean, several of the key points. Almost verbatim. So, the ideas looked familiar, given my having taken part here. However, ... a big however .... There was this other layer on top of that. It sort of read like the opinions voiced by the atheists here ... but on steroids. Soooo extreme, in my opinion. Therefore, it had me wondering. Does this site truly represent the atheist viewpoint or not? (Given the similarities, despite Gary's argument about non-labels, it would seem to me that there is an atheist viewpoint, even though I'm sure, as with all people, there are differences in opinion.) A lot of what the atheists here talk about was there, mirrored perfectly. But .... It was taken to a whole other level, in my opinion.
I'm glad to hear you had questions about that author's tone. It just seemed so odd. I went into that reading looking for facts. And.... It totally and completely reminded me of the first draft of my thesis (...dealing with harassment in secondary skills ... oh, I was fired up). There were a few places throughout where my emotions came through, and I had "clever" little zings. Yeah.... A lawyer read it and gave me quite a talking to .... I might think I was making smart commentary, but I was being too cute by half. Doing that put my argument in question and at risk. That, of course, led me to wonder why that article would be picked for this site. There were others that were equally questionable in tone, in my opinion. (Some weren't. Some read professionally and as informational pieces.)
Anyway, glad my judgment wasn't off .... Although, it would be interesting to hear from an atheist. Is this outfit a bit off? Or, ...? (I realize not all things ... not all ideas ... will apply to all atheists. But, it does seem that there are enough things in common with what has been discussed here and what I've read about atheism in
The Case for God to wonder.)
C-Cose wrote: "The writer of that piece seems to be just a tad self-absorbed and "full" of his knowledge ..."
BTW, while I definitely picked up on this, the part that truly made me sit back was ....
"Inherent Atheists (Type A) are those in whom religious indoctrination never worked very well in the first place. Are these Atheists persons in whom the genetic and neurological underpinnings for social animals have loosened up somehow? Are these persons by nature less gregarious, more reserved, and less subject to emotional contagion? Are these the quintessential introverts?
...
Type-A Atheists must be drawn to us by arguments that they can relate to their own well-being. They must be helped to see that although there is no god, there are lots and lots of devils out there who, if not opposed, will be taking away their freedoms and impacting their pocketbooks and personal comfort. The emotional as well as logical impact of such recruitment must be sufficient to overcome their normal reticence to join groups of any kind. They must come to see joining us as an act of self-defense."
Definitely made me wonder if this was reputable (...or truly a view accepted by many atheists ... not just this article or point ... but the organization and the points in general ... it called everything into question for me).
BTW, while I definitely picked up on this, the part that truly made me sit back was ....
"Inherent Atheists (Type A) are those in whom religious indoctrination never worked very well in the first place. Are these Atheists persons in whom the genetic and neurological underpinnings for social animals have loosened up somehow? Are these persons by nature less gregarious, more reserved, and less subject to emotional contagion? Are these the quintessential introverts?
...
Type-A Atheists must be drawn to us by arguments that they can relate to their own well-being. They must be helped to see that although there is no god, there are lots and lots of devils out there who, if not opposed, will be taking away their freedoms and impacting their pocketbooks and personal comfort. The emotional as well as logical impact of such recruitment must be sufficient to overcome their normal reticence to join groups of any kind. They must come to see joining us as an act of self-defense."
Definitely made me wonder if this was reputable (...or truly a view accepted by many atheists ... not just this article or point ... but the organization and the points in general ... it called everything into question for me).
Shannon wrote: "'Inherent Atheists (Type A) are those in whom religious indoctrination never worked very well in the first place. ...'[website quote]"Definitely made me wonder if this was reputable (...or truly a view accepted by many atheists ... not just this article or point ... but the organization and the points in general ... it called everything into question for me)."
Greetings Shannon :)
(Feel free to chime in here Gary)
SHP* .... this really had / has me going! I despise it when "experts" trot out their pet psychological theory as a descriptor in an argument. The writer could have as easily used "Those with an interrupted Phallic Stage (Freud) ... who crave the inherent power in learning about everything ...". How about using Erickson's 8 Stages of Development ... "In the Latency phase, the atheist overcame inferiority to ....". It reminds me of certain dating sites that use "the latest" in online surveys to find one's perfect match ... FEH!!
*SHP = Sweet heavenly peaches -- an exclamation from a blueberry commercial where "heavenly" refers to the taste ... not a state :) It's my non-cuss equivalent for FFS, ODG, OGG, etc ....
For me, the most basic .... definition .... is someone that is a non-deist ... pure and simple. Philosophically speaking, they might follow the tradition of Rationalism or it's sub-category of Empiricism. At it's most basic level it is, "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". Finding truth through deductive reasoning and the application of Scientific Theory guides the investigation and observation. Sherlock to a more deist Holmes, if you will.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single resource for the "understandings" or (non)fixed conclusions of an Atheist.
Mind you, these are the ramblings of a non-Religious deist .... lol :)
Slept last night and my brain is working better today ....
Another concern regarding that site, which led me to ask about its reputability ...
I read the following article ... http://atheists.org/content/inconsist...
It began,
"glance at the 1998 World Almanac reveals that over 2.5 billion people (46 percent of the world) are either Atheists or non-believers - a stark difference from North America, where only seven percent 1 are Atheists or nonbelievers. The Atheist position is perhaps founded on a principle of truth — a wish to believe only on evidence rather than on faith. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell satirically exclaimed:
I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. 2"
What?! That's what I said. I'd never heard of such a thing. Was it really true that 46% of the world's population was atheist in 1998? (BTW, I used to capitalize the word "atheist" but don't anymore. The atheists here don't. Therefore, I don't out of respect. But, that's just an aside. Lack of capitalization isn't an oversight on my part.)
So, I started Googling. I found sites publishing articles by the man who authored the above. It seems to me that his article was published separate and apart from the AA site.
At any rate, this is what I found on the other sites ...
"A glance at the 1998 World Almanac reveals that over 1.1 billion people (19 percent of the world) are either atheists or nonbelievers; a stark difference with North America, where only 7 percent are atheists or nonbelievers. [1] The atheist position is perhaps founded on a principle of truth--a wish to only believe on evidence rather than on faith. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell satirically exclaimed:
I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.[2]
Okay. Whoa.... I'm guessing, given other data I found on religious stats at the same general time period, that the second set of numbers is more accurate.
At which point, I began to wonder. Did the AA site make a simple mistake when they published this man's article? Or, did they purposely retype his figures, listing the numbers far higher and, frankly, changing his work, shudder, on purpose?
Both options concern me, the latter even more so. I thought, from what I've read and heard, that atheists believe in truth. Evidence.
There I was, reading the AA site for information, to see from a different perspective, and I saw what I believe to be a distortion of the truth.
How does this make sense? Does it make sense to anyone? It causes me to have questions. So, then ... I'm left with a couple of options, including ... this outfit isn't reputable and atheists are leery of it or some atheists might not be that into truth and evidence, might be as willing to bend the truth as some religious leaders. The tone and some of the content, this is an example, make me wonder.
Waiting on information from atheists here because I am truly interested and will figure their insights into my conclusions. I rather need that as I'm not an atheist. Again, I know Gary has talked about the whole non-label thing. I take note of that. But, as I said, so much of the site lines up with the arguments made here. So, clearly, there is a viewpoint that is held by and argued by many atheists, with great consistency. Interested in reputability and whether or not the content of the site fits with the viewpoint of the atheists here ...
Are any atheists willing to share?
Another concern regarding that site, which led me to ask about its reputability ...
I read the following article ... http://atheists.org/content/inconsist...
It began,
"glance at the 1998 World Almanac reveals that over 2.5 billion people (46 percent of the world) are either Atheists or non-believers - a stark difference from North America, where only seven percent 1 are Atheists or nonbelievers. The Atheist position is perhaps founded on a principle of truth — a wish to believe only on evidence rather than on faith. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell satirically exclaimed:
I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. 2"
What?! That's what I said. I'd never heard of such a thing. Was it really true that 46% of the world's population was atheist in 1998? (BTW, I used to capitalize the word "atheist" but don't anymore. The atheists here don't. Therefore, I don't out of respect. But, that's just an aside. Lack of capitalization isn't an oversight on my part.)
So, I started Googling. I found sites publishing articles by the man who authored the above. It seems to me that his article was published separate and apart from the AA site.
At any rate, this is what I found on the other sites ...
"A glance at the 1998 World Almanac reveals that over 1.1 billion people (19 percent of the world) are either atheists or nonbelievers; a stark difference with North America, where only 7 percent are atheists or nonbelievers. [1] The atheist position is perhaps founded on a principle of truth--a wish to only believe on evidence rather than on faith. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell satirically exclaimed:
I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.[2]
Okay. Whoa.... I'm guessing, given other data I found on religious stats at the same general time period, that the second set of numbers is more accurate.
At which point, I began to wonder. Did the AA site make a simple mistake when they published this man's article? Or, did they purposely retype his figures, listing the numbers far higher and, frankly, changing his work, shudder, on purpose?
Both options concern me, the latter even more so. I thought, from what I've read and heard, that atheists believe in truth. Evidence.
There I was, reading the AA site for information, to see from a different perspective, and I saw what I believe to be a distortion of the truth.
How does this make sense? Does it make sense to anyone? It causes me to have questions. So, then ... I'm left with a couple of options, including ... this outfit isn't reputable and atheists are leery of it or some atheists might not be that into truth and evidence, might be as willing to bend the truth as some religious leaders. The tone and some of the content, this is an example, make me wonder.
Waiting on information from atheists here because I am truly interested and will figure their insights into my conclusions. I rather need that as I'm not an atheist. Again, I know Gary has talked about the whole non-label thing. I take note of that. But, as I said, so much of the site lines up with the arguments made here. So, clearly, there is a viewpoint that is held by and argued by many atheists, with great consistency. Interested in reputability and whether or not the content of the site fits with the viewpoint of the atheists here ...
Are any atheists willing to share?
C-Cose wrote: "*SHP = Sweet heavenly peaches -- an exclamation from a blueberry commercial where "heavenly" refers to the taste ... not a state :) It's my non-cuss equivalent for FFS, ODG, OGG, etc ...."
Ahahahaha! You stumped me on this. I thought you were making it one of your missions in life to educate me on Internet/texting lingo. I went to Google and found weird stuff ... including stuff on housing. (I went to Google after reading SHP and before reading the rest of your post! I went back, discouraged and in the dark regarding SHP only to find you defined it for me!)
Ahahahaha! You stumped me on this. I thought you were making it one of your missions in life to educate me on Internet/texting lingo. I went to Google and found weird stuff ... including stuff on housing. (I went to Google after reading SHP and before reading the rest of your post! I went back, discouraged and in the dark regarding SHP only to find you defined it for me!)
C-Cose wrote: "Erickson's 8 Stages of Development ..."
Ahhh.... Erickson. Haven't "heard" his name in a bit ....
Yes, I found the definitions somewhat horrifying but was even more disturbed regarding means of conversion. All those devils and such, being used to bring them to "our" side.
Do you see why it read as a joke to me? Potentially.
But, I wasn't sure. Does this person mean what he says? Or, is this some sort of joke? Give me ridiculous and I'll give you ridiculous right back. Again, though, I just don't know.
Ahhh.... Erickson. Haven't "heard" his name in a bit ....
Yes, I found the definitions somewhat horrifying but was even more disturbed regarding means of conversion. All those devils and such, being used to bring them to "our" side.
Do you see why it read as a joke to me? Potentially.
But, I wasn't sure. Does this person mean what he says? Or, is this some sort of joke? Give me ridiculous and I'll give you ridiculous right back. Again, though, I just don't know.
Shannon wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "Erickson's 8 Stages of Development ..."Ahhh.... Erickson. Haven't "heard" his name in a bit ....
Yes, I found the definitions somewhat horrifying but was even more disturbed reg..."
*nodding* .... I think the biggest problem I have with this specific site is two-fold:
1. It's horribly organized (if at all). Some categories like "historical movements", "underlying principles", "famous atheists" would have been nice.
2. A result of this is that the site reads more like a mini-wiki of cobbled together articles and user submissions about a much greater topic.
It's haphazard at best.
Shannon wrote: "The difference being .... I'm not a scientist with a PhD writing an article that is supposed to be professional."Well I strongly doubt that many PhDs have the time to dedicate to such a site, and I wouldn't class any online article and blog as professional unless it was paid for professionally or part of a peer-reviewed and accredited organisation.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding links, I gave you and everyone the site. You can look. No, I'm not going to give you links to every article I read."
The issue is that you made very specific criticisms of articles on that site without linking to them, so how can I be sure that I would be answering the correct criticism of the correct article?
So if you want to discuss a specific article, fine. If you want to discuss a point raised, fine. But if you expect me to discuss or defend an article based on my guess of which articled matched your characterisation then I think it's a waste of both of our time.
Shannon wrote: "Is this what you stand for ... what is written on this site? Maybe someone who knows this organization would care to comment. Or, the atheists who take part here can remain silent. Their choice."
Or you could answer the Christian www.chick.com site without looking at it and defend the nasty stuff it has to say, without me being specific which article I am talking about. Or Christians can choose to remain silent.
Sorry Shannon, your question reads like an attempt to trap 'atheists', rather than discuss points fairly.
And again, it's not what we stand for, it's what we stand against that is important to most 'atheists'. Freedom from religion, not freedom to treat atheism as another religion.
Shannon wrote: "We could say there aren't sides. We could say we want to learn and explore and grow as a group.
Interestingly, I, as a believer, have asked for that and have tried for that, though I'm not always successful. A man, a scientist, I believe, suggested we move toward that several months back. I think C has talked about that with relation to the way the question of this thread was posed. To date, I don't believe I've seen anyone else advocate for this. In fact, some have argued against it.
I'm still willing. But, if no one else is willing, I guess, in my mind, there's really not much point.
"
That depends on 'perception' as you say. You claim to want to learn and explore, but then try to imply that though your willing to do it, others are not. Is this because certain other people still maintain their objections to religion and faith? How can you claim to wish to grow and learn as a group if your basic principle is for one 'side' as you put it to abandon their principles?
I am quite willing to discuss ideas, and to see arguments from both sides. In fact it is fairly intrinsic with me, since I have been on both sides. However, if you are asking people like me to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals, then that is not being willing to "grow as a group", but to try to exclude a certain set of points of view.
Gary wrote: "I am quite willing to discuss ideas, and to see arguments from both sides. In fact it is fairly intrinsic with me, since I have been on both sides. However, if you are asking people like me to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals, then that is not being willing to "grow as a group", but to try to exclude a certain set of points of view. "Greetings Gary :)
I realize this has been a somewhat .... confused discussion between Shannon and yourself, but I would like to offer something to you.
I have been exchanging messages with Shannon over the past few days about our (hers and mine) various reactions to the site that she referenced. Without revealing any confidences, I can say that Shannon has stated to me that she's been somewhat "off her pace" in that some of the posts she has recently made were more strident in tone than she generally is on this forum and she also did far less linking than she has in the past.
From my impression, discussion about this site and her concerns regarding it is certainly something that she wants. (I hope I'm not stepping on your toes Shannon).
In her defense, the site is horribly organized, with no basic structure, and many of the articles reference other articles (off and on the site), which makes linking to specific passages rather ..... onerous.
You also wrote, "And again, it's not what we stand for, it's what we stand against that is important to most 'atheists'. Freedom from religion, not freedom to treat atheism as another religion."
This is the impression that I've gotten from both yourself and other non-deists that I know. Not to say that I understand you--specifically and as a "group"--do not carry any specific beliefs, but, again as I understand, deities / an all powerful outside force / anthropomorphic influences have no place in them.
Perhaps similar to Rationalism as I inferred in an earlier post (#7461)?
I'm not defending Shannon, as I know she is more than capable of formulating and defending her own arguments / opinions. What I am doing is letting you know that she has expressed to me that her posts over the past week or so have not been typical. I don't think they are either based on previous posts of hers that I have viewed and exchanges that she and I have had.
On a more personal note, your and my discussion(s) have ... nudged ... me to re-evaluate how I label my own belief system. I'm still working on it as "Rational Mystic" doesn't have either the panache or truthfulness that I'm looking for ... lol :)
Shannon wrote: "Again, though .... What I'm looking for is whether or not this site provides an accurate view of atheist opinions/standpoints .... Is it a reputable organization/site or is it not? "No.
Simply put.
Reputable atheist site would imply an organisation or distinct set of values or beliefs for all atheists, when that is not the point at all.
It is impossible to look at a website and get the atheist ideals, just as you could not look at a site and get a collection of points of view of any and all theists.
If you want to know what an individual 'atheist' stands for, ask them.
C-Cose wrote: "I took a look at the specific link that you provided and I have to say that I'm less .... far less ... than impressed. The writer of that piece seems to be just a tad self-absorbed and "full" of his knowledge ...He writes, "Toward that noble/Nobel end, I set out to prepare myself. I studied everything that seemed relevant to the task of slaying the dragon of superstition. I studied dead languages in which scriptures had been written, and I studied all the science from astronomy to zoology alphabetically and from particle physics to psychology conceptually...After several years I completed most of my course of study and went out to save the world by converting everyone to Atheism." "
Ok when I read that part (which was at the beginning of the article), I got the impression that he meant for that to sound 'smug' if you will. To demonstrate the actual confusion that a lot of atheists get when they expect to be able to 'convert' theists by rational argument.
As for the "studied" various subjects, yes one can spend lifetimes to study such things and never be finished. One could do the same to the bible. However, you can study enough to counter common theistic arguments in a reasonably short time because most common theistic arguments have easily identifiable flaws and are usually put forward by people equally ill-educated in the subject.
For example consider the "argument from design" fallacies, the "cause and effect" paradox, and the "anthropic principle" to find common theistic arguments that have not only been addressed but sometimes utterly debunked from the times of Ancient Greece.
As for the general tone and the general aims of the writer, well, this person believes that religiosity is very dangerous and a threat to the welfare of people and civilisation, and he advocates a solution that starts with encouraging anyone who is potentially receptive to abandon faith.
In a way it is similar to faiths that believe that to save the world from conflict and 'evil' that they need to spread their religion. However, in my personal opinion the independent evidence is not on the side of increasing religiosity.
However, I would disagree with his conclusion that direct activism would be effective and/or appropriate. Evidence suggests that increased democracy, freedom, equality and education are all factors that lead to a higher percentage of atheists. Therefore, active conversion would potentially lead to an undermining of the freedom and equality parts of that 'equation'. Therefore in my opinion aggressive conversion will be detrimental to the process.
This is why I make myself available to debate those who wish to, and answer questions from a non-theistic point of view as best as I can, but never do I expect to "convert" anyone to atheism, as a conversion is merely the supplanting of one set of dogma for another. In the end it is only the individual that can free their own mind from dogma, so while we can help and encourage, aggressive conversion is counter-productive.
Gary wrote: "Is this because certain other people still maintain their objections to religion and faith? How can you claim to wish to grow and learn as a group if your basic principle is for one 'side' as you put it to abandon their principles?
I am quite willing to discuss ideas, and to see arguments from both sides. In fact it is fairly intrinsic with me, since I have been on both sides. However, if you are asking people like me to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals, then that is not being willing to "grow as a group", but to try to exclude a certain set of points of view. "
Can you tell me where, in what message, I've asked atheists to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals? I can't think of a time when I've done so. I fear I require a specific example in order respond.
I am quite willing to discuss ideas, and to see arguments from both sides. In fact it is fairly intrinsic with me, since I have been on both sides. However, if you are asking people like me to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals, then that is not being willing to "grow as a group", but to try to exclude a certain set of points of view. "
Can you tell me where, in what message, I've asked atheists to abandon their moral principles and intellectual ideals? I can't think of a time when I've done so. I fear I require a specific example in order respond.
Shannon wrote: "Waiting on information from atheists here because I am truly interested and will figure their insights into my conclusions. I rather need that as I'm not an atheist. Again, I know Gary has talked about the whole non-label thing. I take note of that. But, as I said, so much of the site lines up with the arguments made here. So, clearly, there is a viewpoint that is held by and argued by many atheists, with great consistency. Interested in reputability and whether or not the content of the site fits with the viewpoint of the atheists here ... Are any atheists willing to share? "
I suppose that means whether you want to discuss the points raised, or whether you want to find errors, misquotes and mistakes on the site to try to attack the general principle.
If there was an atheist "bible" I would say you would be fine to attack that. However, "American Atheists" do not dictate my opinion, and though their ideas may be similar to my own, it doesn't mean I follow the ideals of all of their contributors or use them as a primary source of evidence.
C-Cose wrote: "(I hope I'm not stepping on your toes Shannon)."
No worries ....
My initial question was whether or not the site was reputable. As I voiced in my initial post. While it contained many of the views voiced by atheists here, it seemed a bit off to me ... regarding tone especially. I thought I asked a simple question.
Instead of getting an answer, like the answer in Gary's last post, I was asked to give examples of my concerns. Then, those concerns were analyzed and commented upon. The whole thing ... what are your concerns followed by said criticism ... was along the lines of ... I wonder if, like most theists, you .... And, ... how can you be emotive when you accuse the scientist in the article of being emotive and criticize him for doing so.
Again, I go back to the fact that ... I wanted to know whether or not the site was reputable ...
What arguments were on the site that are similar to the arguments of atheists on this thread? The idea that atheists need not prove or disprove the existence of gods, religious literature, etc.... Believers need to prove their points ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Ties between religion and war ... the idea that it's so much easier to lead people to war if there is a religious link. Use of "disrespectful" terms and words when discussing "God" and religious beliefs in general. (...though, I don't know if the atheists who do that here do so to "splash water" in faces as the site suggests atheists do). And, the idea that believers want their beliefs to be ... respected, held beyond question, given special consideration ... and the idea that such respect and consideration should not be given.
So, all of those points were argued on the site. They were very familiar to me given my participation on this thread and reading the posts of many atheists here. However, as I said, it seemed that some of the things mentioned were ... I think I said ... like the points of the atheists here but on steroids. The tone seemed off to me. Also, as I mentioned yesterday (and included a link), it seemed that someone's work had been retyped in order to inflate the numbers of atheists in the world in 1998. That was a huge red flag to me. One thing all of the atheists here have in common, I think, is the fact that they stand for the truth ... for evidence. To have a site for an atheist organization publish inaccurate information ...? Well, it gave me cause for concern.
Therefore, I asked .... Was it reputable? Pretty simple. But, yes, it became complicated.
In part because of my worry and lack of sleep. In part due to the fact that Gary didn't answer the question ... he was more interested in knowing my concerns and criticizing me for them. At that point, the original question and the discussion descended into a polarized ... take that ... and that ... no, take that ... exchange ... for which I was only partly responsible. I accept my half of the responsibility for that. I don't accept responsibility for the whole.
Gary, .... If you say that I'd need to ask atheists, personally, about what they stand for, I'll accept that. I know, to a certain extent, what many atheists stand for. Those points have been argued here. Many mirror the points on the site. I can't remember, but .... I almost think I asked if the statements, etc... made on the site I linked express viewpoints you (atheists on this thread) stand for. Pretty sure I asked. Or, maybe I just asked about reputability. People can answer or not.
At first blush, I find myself feeling .... While I take your point, truly, there to seem to be basic points that atheists stand for. Perhaps not all. But, there does seem to me to be a basic viewpoint ... I'm referring to the points noted at the top of this post. I imagine, outside of that, there are many differences.
No worries ....
My initial question was whether or not the site was reputable. As I voiced in my initial post. While it contained many of the views voiced by atheists here, it seemed a bit off to me ... regarding tone especially. I thought I asked a simple question.
Instead of getting an answer, like the answer in Gary's last post, I was asked to give examples of my concerns. Then, those concerns were analyzed and commented upon. The whole thing ... what are your concerns followed by said criticism ... was along the lines of ... I wonder if, like most theists, you .... And, ... how can you be emotive when you accuse the scientist in the article of being emotive and criticize him for doing so.
Again, I go back to the fact that ... I wanted to know whether or not the site was reputable ...
What arguments were on the site that are similar to the arguments of atheists on this thread? The idea that atheists need not prove or disprove the existence of gods, religious literature, etc.... Believers need to prove their points ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Ties between religion and war ... the idea that it's so much easier to lead people to war if there is a religious link. Use of "disrespectful" terms and words when discussing "God" and religious beliefs in general. (...though, I don't know if the atheists who do that here do so to "splash water" in faces as the site suggests atheists do). And, the idea that believers want their beliefs to be ... respected, held beyond question, given special consideration ... and the idea that such respect and consideration should not be given.
So, all of those points were argued on the site. They were very familiar to me given my participation on this thread and reading the posts of many atheists here. However, as I said, it seemed that some of the things mentioned were ... I think I said ... like the points of the atheists here but on steroids. The tone seemed off to me. Also, as I mentioned yesterday (and included a link), it seemed that someone's work had been retyped in order to inflate the numbers of atheists in the world in 1998. That was a huge red flag to me. One thing all of the atheists here have in common, I think, is the fact that they stand for the truth ... for evidence. To have a site for an atheist organization publish inaccurate information ...? Well, it gave me cause for concern.
Therefore, I asked .... Was it reputable? Pretty simple. But, yes, it became complicated.
In part because of my worry and lack of sleep. In part due to the fact that Gary didn't answer the question ... he was more interested in knowing my concerns and criticizing me for them. At that point, the original question and the discussion descended into a polarized ... take that ... and that ... no, take that ... exchange ... for which I was only partly responsible. I accept my half of the responsibility for that. I don't accept responsibility for the whole.
Gary, .... If you say that I'd need to ask atheists, personally, about what they stand for, I'll accept that. I know, to a certain extent, what many atheists stand for. Those points have been argued here. Many mirror the points on the site. I can't remember, but .... I almost think I asked if the statements, etc... made on the site I linked express viewpoints you (atheists on this thread) stand for. Pretty sure I asked. Or, maybe I just asked about reputability. People can answer or not.
At first blush, I find myself feeling .... While I take your point, truly, there to seem to be basic points that atheists stand for. Perhaps not all. But, there does seem to me to be a basic viewpoint ... I'm referring to the points noted at the top of this post. I imagine, outside of that, there are many differences.
C-Cose wrote: " What I am doing is letting you know that she has expressed to me that her posts over the past week or so have not been typical. I don't think they are either based on previous posts of hers that I have viewed and exchanges that she and I have had."I had noticed and do agree. I will bear it in mind for future responses, (until you feel that you're back on form Shannon).
C-Cose wrote: "On a more personal note, your and my discussion(s) have ... nudged ... me to re-evaluate how I label my own belief system. I'm still working on it as "Rational Mystic" doesn't have either the panache or truthfulness that I'm looking for ... lol :) "
It is somewhat of a paradox. When labelling oneself it sometimes is frustrating when people attribute you with qualities or attitudes which are actually their own assumptions rather than what you recognise the label to mean. Yet at the same time searching for a label can help you understand more about your own opinions and even highlight areas of cognitive dissonance that you were never even aware of.
Gary wrote: "Ok when I read that part (which was at the beginning of the article), I got the impression that he meant for that to sound 'smug' if you will. To demonstrate the actual confusion that a lot of atheists get when they expect to be able to 'convert' theists by rational argument."Greetings Gary :)
I agree that this section certainly has the appearance of "smugness". Whether he's trying to convey some sort of comparison to how he feels about deists tendency to the same, or not, I can't say. I just read the words as he wrote them and they struck me as being rather .... self-involved.
For instance, I studied physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and mathematics in school--I actually excelled at mathematics and continue to have a fascination for many of its applications. I have also studied comparative religions and have familiarized (as in read several times) the major books of various faiths: the KJ Bible, other ammended Bibles, the Koran, Baghavad Gita, Ramayanas and several other. I have a different (possibly more) understanding of these books than the average Joe.
But, I would never state that I've "completed my course of study" or imply that I have sufficient knowledge to discount the contributions of either Science or Religion as a whole. That's just narcissistic behaviour, imo.
You continued with, "However, I would disagree with his conclusion that direct activism would be effective and/or appropriate. Evidence suggests that increased democracy, freedom, equality and education are all factors that lead to a higher percentage of atheists. Therefore, active conversion would potentially lead to an undermining of the freedom and equality parts of that 'equation'. Therefore in my opinion aggressive conversion will be detrimental to the process."
I agree. While many religions do strike a path of forced conversion, I don't think that adopting a similar tactic would be useful in progressing understanding of non-deists. Fighting fire with fire, if you will, in this case is more likely to lead to a larger fire. Increased democracy, critical thinking, and questioning as to what works for the individual is the best route ... again imo.
I'm glad that your available to answer direct questions regarding your truths (my word) and experience. It's certainly helped me to overcome previous preconceptions that I've held regarding non-deists.
Gary wrote: "If there was an atheist "bible" I would say you would be fine to attack that. However, "American Atheists" do not dictate my opinion, and though their ideas may be similar to my own, it doesn't mean I follow the ideals of all of their contributors or use them as a primary source of evidence. "
My point is not to "attack" an "atheist bible" ....
Thank you for answering the question.
My point is not to "attack" an "atheist bible" ....
Thank you for answering the question.
Grrr... Gary Smash! Proxy server ate two big replies! Try once more! Grrr... Gary just anthropomorphised inanimate object! Gary smash!
gary say "ow"!
...ahem...
C-Cose wrote: "I agree that this section certainly has the appearance of "smugness". Whether he's trying to convey some sort of comparison to how he feels about deists tendency to the same, or not, I can't say. I just read the words as he wrote them and they struck me as being rather .... self-involved."
I don't think it was an attempt to parallel how deists do the same, but more of an ironic statement on the naive fervour "born again" atheists often feel. Usually someone who has freed themselves from the binds of faith immediately feels a need to help others do the same, not through malice but from a genuine desire to help individuals, and to defend society from what is suddenly seen as a terrible threat. So in their naivety they arm themselves with more than enough information to counter all of the standard theistic arguments and talking points and go out to rationally convince others as they were convinced. Only then they find that rationality and evidence are not enough to counter faith by it's very nature.
So in context I thought that part was deliberately conveying the naivety of the "born again" atheist. I realise that there are parallels to the experience of a "born again" theist, but the theist has the advantage of not expecting rationality to be universally accepted.
C-Cose wrote: "But, I would never state that I've "completed my course of study""
While I agree that claiming to have completed a course of study is either so vague (i.e. how long was the course) or so arrogant (there is always more to learn) that the statement is incredibly subjective, I think that was in context part of the "naivety" of the idea that the author had armed himself with everything he required. To be fair to him, it is relatively easy to study enough science, mythology, scripture and language to counter the standard claims of the "average Joe" theist. However, all evidence suggests that one could have perfect Encyclopaedic knowledge of all of those subjects and it would still not be enough as before you can convince someone rationally, they need to place rationality above faith, something religion obviously is against.
With sufficient faith it is easy for a person to maintain cognitive dissonance between conflicting concepts and to interpret evidence using confirmation bias to reinforce the pre-conceived position. This is of course backed up with the ultimate fall back positions of "that's not a conflict, that's a mystery to us but not to [insert ultimate force here]" and of course "that rationality makes sense, but I still believe".
C-Cose wrote: "imply that I have sufficient knowledge to discount the contributions of either Science or Religion as a whole. That's just narcissistic behaviour, imo."
I would have to disagree here, but perhaps only on a technicality, but an extremely important one. You say it would be narcissistic to dismiss the contributions of science or religion as a whole, but that is not what we are really doing. We are actually discussing the 'net' contributions and whether those contributions are unique to the entity named.
For example, I am sure that you would agree that we have sufficient evidence to dismiss the contributions of discriminatory ideologies? Even these ideologies have their 'good' points. Racist ideologies have certainly been advantageous to some, as has misogynistic ideologies led to advantages for males, and all these ideologies have the benefit that they tend to unite a majority using a feared minority as a rallying cry. Just as the Republican party have tried to do with gay marriage to wrest support away from the Democrats (I hear rumours they were disappointed that this did not sway the normally religiously conservative black voting block away from the current president).
However, I think we would not need Encyclopaedic knowledge of the pros and cons of these discriminatory practices to be able to judge that overall they are a negative effect on their societies.
It is with no sense of narcissism that I hold the opinion that religion costs us more than it returns, while science has ample evidence from the mere numbers of our population and our increased longevity, that it does indeed contribute far more than the occasional abuse of technology or accidents involving technology takes away.
This is not based on personal feeling, but from a dispassionate analysis of the available evidence and bearing in mind that religion is not one unified entity but a series of ideologies that only share one characteristic, that they require belief to maintain and that belief is often used to oppose actual evidence.
C-Cose wrote: "I agree. While many religions do strike a path of forced conversion, I don't think that adopting a similar tactic would be useful in progressing understanding of non-deists. Fighting fire with fire, if you will, in this case is more likely to lead to a larger fire."
Indeed, also the paradox itself would be that a forced conversion would replace the dogma of religion with a dogma of "atheism" which then would not deserve the actual label.
I am reminded of Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
Brian: "You are all individuals."
Crowd: "YES WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" ("I'm not" says one and gets shushed)
Brian: "You all have to think for yourselves."
Crowd: "YES WE ALL HAVE TO THINK FOR OURSELVES! ... ... TELL US MORE MASTER!"
C-Cose wrote: "Increased democracy, critical thinking, and questioning as to what works for the individual is the best route ... again imo."
I agree, yet it is a long and hard route, and a bitter one to have to take when you see almost every day the abuses and excesses of religion. Also the forces of theism are already aggressive (sometimes violently so), relentless, better organised (that is the problem with atheism as a collection of individuals), better funded, and moreover enjoying the culture niche that religion has carved out for itself. This cultural niche means it enjoys a protected status where not only is it protected from criticism by common consensus but it can also use that immunity to strike with its own criticism with far less regard for its targets.
I sometimes imagine a world were instead of a preacher yelling at me calling me a sinner and intrinsically evil unless I accept Jesus or submit to Allah, you had an atheist yelling that you are stupid if you believe in a god. (Note that I am not saying that myself, just imagining another 'atheist' practising free speech.) I can imagine the outcry and shock and yet I think it is a lot more offensive to call somebody evil than it is to call them dumb.
C-Cose wrote: "I'm glad that your available to answer direct questions regarding your truths (my word) and experience. It's certainly helped me to overcome previous preconceptions that I've held regarding non-deists. "
Well I hope that means in a good way :-)
Gary wrote: "I sometimes imagine a world were instead of a preacher yelling at me calling me a sinner and intrinsically evil unless I accept Jesus or submit to Allah, you had an atheist yelling that you are stupid if you believe in a god. (Note that I am not saying that myself, just imagining another 'atheist' practising free speech.) I can imagine the outcry and shock and yet I think it is a lot more offensive to call somebody evil than it is to call them dumb."
Conversely, I imagine a day when people treat others with respect. No name calling or yelling necessary.
Conversely, I imagine a day when people treat others with respect. No name calling or yelling necessary.
Gary wrote: "Grrr... Gary Smash! Proxy server ate two big replies! Try once more! Grrr... Gary just anthropomorphised inanimate object! Gary smash!
gary say "ow"!
...ahem..."
Greetings Gary :)
I have to wonder whether the occasional expletive calling on a higher power escaped your lips during your internet troubles ... lol ;)
I agree with much of what you say in your response, but I just wanted to clarify a statement that I had made and your response to it ...
C-Cose wrote: "imply that I have sufficient knowledge to discount the contributions of either Science or Religion as a whole. That's just narcissistic behaviour, imo."
You responsed, "I would have to disagree here, but perhaps only on a technicality, but an extremely important one. You say it would be narcissistic to dismiss the contributions of science or religion as a whole, but that is not what we are really doing. We are actually discussing the 'net' contributions and whether those contributions are unique to the entity named.
I wasn't speaking to our discussion, "our" as in non-deists contributions, or "our" as in the larger discussion(s) of deists and non-deists. I was speaking specifically to the article that we've reviewed and it's author. By comparing a possible similar course of action in myself to what he claims was his own preparation and knowledge, I was stating that it would be narcissistic of me ... therefore of him ... to make those claims.
His article has, again my perception, a tone of the very fervor and desire to "convert" deists that he so despises in those same deists.
I couldn't imagine having the same level of discussion with him as I'm having with you, or anyone else, in this forum.
You also wrote, "I sometimes imagine a world were instead of a preacher yelling at me calling me a sinner and intrinsically evil unless I accept Jesus or submit to Allah, you had an atheist yelling that you are stupid if you believe in a god. (Note that I am not saying that myself, just imagining another 'atheist' practising free speech.) I can imagine the outcry and shock and yet I think it is a lot more offensive to call somebody evil than it is to call them dumb."
I have two very easy solutions to the sidewalk / front door extremists that cross my path ... they are weather dependent: 1) I lift my shirt and show them my full back tattoo that some misinterpret as dark, forbidding and damning .... or 2) I invite them over to my place for sharing of another kind ;) Both work equally as well .... sadly, when I wasn't married there were no takers for option 2 ... lol.
And, yes, you have help me in a positive way. Now go put a bandage on the boo-boo that you got from anthropomorphising the inanimate object :D
Shannon wrote:Conversely, I imagine a day when people treat others with respect. No name calling or yelling necessary"I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief.
So your imagined day Shannon is a long way off :)
I would live in the world where the science understands religion.
cHriS wrote: "I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief.So your imagined day Shannon is a long way off :) "
Just as you've just shown no respect for a group of people...
Hypocrisy 101
Gary wrote: Just as you've just shown no resp..."
......... and that group is ?
Regarding Message 7481 and 7482 ....
Two quotes came to mind.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
― Margaret Mead
I thought about Mead's words, similar to Gandhi's about being the change you want to see, and thought about this thread. Many things have been discussed over the last year (...likely for longer than that). The tone of the thread, the point of the thread, the polarization that exists here, the idea of finding common ground and understandings when possible .... All of those topics have been discussed by different people at different times.
I wonder ....
Would the world be a better place if there weren't an "us vs. them" mentality? How would people answer that question? I'd say the world would be a better place. How would others answer?
Personally, I wouldn't try to achieve that by "making" everyone the same or seeing to it that everyone is in lockstep. I imagine the true challenge is to find balance in a world of differences. There are differences. We'd be delusional to say otherwise. But, the key would be not to brand people based on those differences. Not to adopt the mentality of us vs. them, which, frankly, cripples our ability to work together and learn from one another.
If we decided we wanted to live in that type of world, would it not be amazing if we tried to create that world here? The question, of course, would be whether or not that's the type of world we want to live in. What do people think?
This line of thinking led me to the following ...
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy
If we're the type of people who want to change the world or the discourse here, what are we willing to do in order to change ourselves first?
Curious as to what others might think? Separate and apart from science and religion, given the fact that we live in a world of both and likely always will, what world do we really want to imagine and create and what are we willing to do (...or not do) in order to see it to fruition?
Two quotes came to mind.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
― Margaret Mead
I thought about Mead's words, similar to Gandhi's about being the change you want to see, and thought about this thread. Many things have been discussed over the last year (...likely for longer than that). The tone of the thread, the point of the thread, the polarization that exists here, the idea of finding common ground and understandings when possible .... All of those topics have been discussed by different people at different times.
I wonder ....
Would the world be a better place if there weren't an "us vs. them" mentality? How would people answer that question? I'd say the world would be a better place. How would others answer?
Personally, I wouldn't try to achieve that by "making" everyone the same or seeing to it that everyone is in lockstep. I imagine the true challenge is to find balance in a world of differences. There are differences. We'd be delusional to say otherwise. But, the key would be not to brand people based on those differences. Not to adopt the mentality of us vs. them, which, frankly, cripples our ability to work together and learn from one another.
If we decided we wanted to live in that type of world, would it not be amazing if we tried to create that world here? The question, of course, would be whether or not that's the type of world we want to live in. What do people think?
This line of thinking led me to the following ...
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy
If we're the type of people who want to change the world or the discourse here, what are we willing to do in order to change ourselves first?
Curious as to what others might think? Separate and apart from science and religion, given the fact that we live in a world of both and likely always will, what world do we really want to imagine and create and what are we willing to do (...or not do) in order to see it to fruition?
Shannon wrote: Would the world be a better place if there weren't an "us vs. them" mentality? How would people answer that question? I'd say the world would be a better place. How would others answer? "Being an hypothetical question, the hypothetical answer is; of course the world would be a better place.
But we will always have an "us vs. them" society.
In a reply I gave in #7479 I said; "I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief".
If I am wrong then I would like to hear atheists say how much they do respect religion and belief of God.
If we can't get rid of the "us vs. them" here, what chance has the world got.
wiki:Respect gives a positive feeling of esteem or deference for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem. Respect can be a specific feeling of regard for the actual qualities of the one respected....
Shannon wrote:Curious as to what others might think? Separate and apart from science and religion, given the fact that we live in a world of both and likely always will, what world do we really want to imagine and create and what are we willing to do (...or not do) in order to see it to fruition?
As humans we get what we deserve, we reap what we sow. The world is over populated and the them and us society will widen, but as long as we are one of the 'us' we will be ok.
The world I would like is one we can't yet imagine, but even if we could it will not transpire in our life time. As humans we spend most of our time looking back into history, trying to absolve the sins of our fathers, rather than look forward.
cHriS wrote: "In a reply I gave in #7479 I said; "I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief".
If I am wrong then I would like to hear atheists say how much they do respect religion and belief of God.
If we can't get rid of the "us vs. them" here, what chance has the world got."
Oh.... I don't know ....
Would atheists have to say they respect religion and belief in "God" in order to move past an us vs. them mentality? In my mind, they would not have to do so.
I think we'd begin to move forward and past this mentality by, for example ....
Acknowledging the right of people to think their own thoughts and have their own opinions. Believer or atheist. Oh, .... Look at that for a second. The difference between those two sentences.
The right of people ...
Believer or atheist ...
I'd like to build upon the former.
Granted, those are my thoughts ... my wishes ... what I'd like to imagine and work toward. Do others?
No, I truly don't think atheists would have to turn their backs on the things they hold to be true and important in order to do this. I think asking an atheist to say s/he respects religion and a belief in "God" would be anathema to them. Further, I don't think it would be required ... nor would I ask it of them ... I wouldn't desire that. For me, it would go against the idea of the rights of others.
What could atheists do to move past this mentality? Accept right of others to think as they will and have their own opinions. Accept their right to do so without ridicule. Questioning? Fine. Ridicule? That leads to us vs. them, so ... no. Respect given to the idea that individuals are individuals. Not all believers are the same. Not all faiths are the same. Honor that, the idea that people are individuals. I don't think it would be necessary to honor what the person believes ... which "God" or which tenants. Again, no. Honoring and respecting the fact that people aren't necessarily the labels we want to attach to them. Treating people based on the label we've assigned to them promotes the us vs. them mentality.
I don't think this mentality has served us well, as humans, historically. I question whether or not it has served us well on this thread.
If I am wrong then I would like to hear atheists say how much they do respect religion and belief of God.
If we can't get rid of the "us vs. them" here, what chance has the world got."
Oh.... I don't know ....
Would atheists have to say they respect religion and belief in "God" in order to move past an us vs. them mentality? In my mind, they would not have to do so.
I think we'd begin to move forward and past this mentality by, for example ....
Acknowledging the right of people to think their own thoughts and have their own opinions. Believer or atheist. Oh, .... Look at that for a second. The difference between those two sentences.
The right of people ...
Believer or atheist ...
I'd like to build upon the former.
Granted, those are my thoughts ... my wishes ... what I'd like to imagine and work toward. Do others?
No, I truly don't think atheists would have to turn their backs on the things they hold to be true and important in order to do this. I think asking an atheist to say s/he respects religion and a belief in "God" would be anathema to them. Further, I don't think it would be required ... nor would I ask it of them ... I wouldn't desire that. For me, it would go against the idea of the rights of others.
What could atheists do to move past this mentality? Accept right of others to think as they will and have their own opinions. Accept their right to do so without ridicule. Questioning? Fine. Ridicule? That leads to us vs. them, so ... no. Respect given to the idea that individuals are individuals. Not all believers are the same. Not all faiths are the same. Honor that, the idea that people are individuals. I don't think it would be necessary to honor what the person believes ... which "God" or which tenants. Again, no. Honoring and respecting the fact that people aren't necessarily the labels we want to attach to them. Treating people based on the label we've assigned to them promotes the us vs. them mentality.
I don't think this mentality has served us well, as humans, historically. I question whether or not it has served us well on this thread.
cHriS wrote: "As humans we get what we deserve, we reap what we sow."
Phrased from a Christian perspective.
I imagine some Hindus would discuss karma.
I imagine some Native Americans would mention the wheel of life and finding balance.
I don't know what an atheist would say.
My thought ....
Wouldn't this be a reason to work for something better?
Is this truly about ... do our lives really come down to ... the fact that we've overpopulated the world and need to be part of the "us" in order to survive? (Personally, I'd say that mentality led to things like overpopulation.)
Yes, we can continue ... same old ... same old. Or, we could work toward something different. In my mind, we do have a choice.
Phrased from a Christian perspective.
I imagine some Hindus would discuss karma.
I imagine some Native Americans would mention the wheel of life and finding balance.
I don't know what an atheist would say.
My thought ....
Wouldn't this be a reason to work for something better?
Is this truly about ... do our lives really come down to ... the fact that we've overpopulated the world and need to be part of the "us" in order to survive? (Personally, I'd say that mentality led to things like overpopulation.)
Yes, we can continue ... same old ... same old. Or, we could work toward something different. In my mind, we do have a choice.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "In a reply I gave in #7479 I said; "I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief".If I am wrong then I would like to hear atheists ..."
As an atheist, I can respect the people (most of the time), I just don't respect belief in the divine. This belief is a waste of time IMO, time that could be used trying to better our world instead of keeping it in the Dark Ages.
Drew wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "In a reply I gave in #7479 I said; "I'm not sure that an atheist can show respect for a religion or for a persons religious belief".
If I am wrong then I would like t..."
Just to be clear, Drew .... cHriS is talking about atheists giving respect to religion and "God" .... I'm not arguing that. I never would.
I would also argue that continuing an us vs. them mentality perpetuates a figurative dark age.
If I am wrong then I would like t..."
Just to be clear, Drew .... cHriS is talking about atheists giving respect to religion and "God" .... I'm not arguing that. I never would.
I would also argue that continuing an us vs. them mentality perpetuates a figurative dark age.
Shannon wrote: "Curious as to what others might think? Separate and apart from science and religion, given the fact that we live in a world of both and likely always will, what world do we really want to imagine and create and what are we willing to do (...or not do) in order to see it to fruition?"Greetings Shannon :)
Firstly, I've added those quotes to my GR page :)
Now .... do I want to see this world of mutual respect, following one's own path (assuming it's not criminal) without ridicule or fear of reprisal, tolerance and acceptance of others' ideals? Absolutely!!!
Do I think we can? Absolutely again!!!! Why?
Because that is the kind of life that I strive towards each and every day ... some days I'm successful, others ... not so much. However, success or not, I remind myself each and every day that my ideals, thoughts, opinions, and actions are my own. Therefore, they are my responsibility and mine alone. The corollary of that is that I am not responsible for those same traits in other, nor am I responsible for how they react to me and my traits.
In practice, this means that I nurture respect--as it needs to be fed and cared for--for opinions, beliefs, and motivations that are not my own. However, this doesn't mean that I necessarily respect all actions done in the name of those beliefs, etc. I abhor the violence that humans do to each other, but I can generally understand the underlying beliefs and how they may have been misinterpreted and led to those actions. I also maintain, in that judgement that I make, that misinterpreting words on a page do not justify horrid behaviour.
Note: I haven't included actions as a result of mental illness in this as they stem from a completely different world view from the perspective of the person suffering that illness: i.e. schizophrenia, sociopathy, mental retardation (as clinically defined).
As much as I despise the word, tolerance of differing thoughts is woefully lacking. I don't like the word, btw, because it tends to imply, to me, a hierarchy of "acceptable" thoughts and behaviours. But I also accept that it is, hopefully, a step towards acceptance.
I don't embrace, or accept as my own, the thoughts of various Religions or those of non-deists, but I do accept them as valid for those that own them. If I didn't, I'd have to move to a secluded cabin in the woods and live my life wrapped in my own "security of thought" .... not a prospect that I embrace.
Anyone witnessing my posts here will likely agree that Gary and I started as rather ... combative. Over time, I have learned to see non-deists differently as a result of his and my exchanges. You and I have similar understandings of spiritual things and have exchanged many experiences here and elsewhere. You and Gary have also exchanged understandings and have agreed or disagreed on various points.
I can't speak for you or Gary, but I can say that I respect each of your right to hold the thoughts that you do and respect those thoughts as being valid for each of you. I would welcome either of you into my "world".
I think that's how it starts. Each of us decides to act on an understanding of mutual respect and tolerance for those in our own personal "worlds" ... which hopefully get bigger and bigger.
There will likely always be extremists that prefer the "us v. them" mentality, but they do not have to effect how we live our own lives. I hope for a day when the "Us v. Them" are woefully outnumbered by those of us that do not see the world in that way.
But then I'm a "Rational Mystic" looking for a more appropriate description of myself ... lol ;)
C-Cose wrote: "I think that's how it starts. Each of us decides to act on an understanding of mutual respect and tolerance for those in our own personal "worlds" ... which hopefully get bigger and bigger.
There will likely always be extremists that prefer the "us v. them" mentality, but they do not have to effect how we live our own lives. I hope for a day when the "Us v. Them" are woefully outnumbered by those of us that do not see the world in that way.
"
Agreed....
Interesting ideas regarding intolerance, as a word. I hadn't thought of it that way but see that you definitely have a point!
There will likely always be extremists that prefer the "us v. them" mentality, but they do not have to effect how we live our own lives. I hope for a day when the "Us v. Them" are woefully outnumbered by those of us that do not see the world in that way.
"
Agreed....
Interesting ideas regarding intolerance, as a word. I hadn't thought of it that way but see that you definitely have a point!
Shannon wrote:Oh.... I don't know ....Would atheists have to say they respect religion and belief in "God" in order to move past an us vs. them mentality? In my mind, they would not have to do so.
I think we'd begin to move forward and past this mentality by, for example ....
I admire your sentiment and I would like to see a similar world to the one I think you are seeing. But this is magic wand land, and not reality.
First I think you must define by examples, what you by ‘us vs. them mentality’. Two groups of people with conflicting views can be thought of as ‘us and them’. Also there is really no ‘them’, because they will see themselves as ‘us’ and you will be their ‘them’.
Acknowledging the right of people to think their own thoughts and have their own opinions. Believer or atheist. Oh, .... Look at that for a second. The difference between those two sentences
I already acknowledged that people have a right to think their own thoughts and opinions and I also said a few pages back that, that includes ‘hate’. If we tell someone that they are wrong to have that feeling, then we are creating a ‘them and us’. But Acknowledging the right of people to think their own thoughts, does not exclude the ‘them and us’ concept if the thoughts we think are expressed to someone with the opposite view point.
Questioning? Fine. Ridicule?
You end both words with a ? Is that because you think questioning in some circumstances could be wrong and in the right circumstances ridicule could be Ok?
cHriS wrote: "Questioning? Fine. Ridicule?
You end both words with a ? Is that because you think questioning in some circumstances could be wrong and in the right circumstances ridicule could be Ok? "
I don't follow ... both words end with a. ??
I think questioning is always fine. I don't think ridicule is fine.
You end both words with a ? Is that because you think questioning in some circumstances could be wrong and in the right circumstances ridicule could be Ok? "
I don't follow ... both words end with a. ??
I think questioning is always fine. I don't think ridicule is fine.
cHriS wrote: "I admire your sentiment and I would like to see a similar world to the one I think you are seeing. But this is magic ward land, not reality.
First I think you must define by examples, what you by ‘us vs. them mentality’. Two groups of people with conflicting views can be thought of as ‘us and them’. Also there is really no ‘them’, because they will see themselves as ‘us’ and you will be their ‘them’. "
Regarding the first bit, yes, I know it's not a reality. I think it would be lovely if I worked toward that reality ... if we worked toward that reality.
Regarding an us vs. them mentality .... That's when people take sides. That's when people believe their side is right and, even more to the point, superior. That's when people refuse to see people for who they are and only see them as one side or another.
Regarding the last bit, I'll have to think on it ....
First I think you must define by examples, what you by ‘us vs. them mentality’. Two groups of people with conflicting views can be thought of as ‘us and them’. Also there is really no ‘them’, because they will see themselves as ‘us’ and you will be their ‘them’. "
Regarding the first bit, yes, I know it's not a reality. I think it would be lovely if I worked toward that reality ... if we worked toward that reality.
Regarding an us vs. them mentality .... That's when people take sides. That's when people believe their side is right and, even more to the point, superior. That's when people refuse to see people for who they are and only see them as one side or another.
Regarding the last bit, I'll have to think on it ....
Shannon wrote: Just to be clear, Drew .... cHriS is talking about atheists giving respect to religion and "God" .... I'm not arguing that. I never would."No, not about atheists giving respect to religion and "God". Giving respect to the persons 'belief'.
I can respect the view of an athiest who does 'not' believe in a god. But they would not be able to respect my belief that there is a god.
Yes, we can continue ... same old ... same old. Or, we could work toward something different. In my mind, we do have a choice.
But again we need to know what the 'something different' is that we could work towards. Every government leader, at election time, is offering something different in exchange for our vote, but it is the same old same old.
What is your blueprint for the 'something different'?
cHriS wrote: "But again we need to know what the 'something different' is that we could work towards. Every government leader, at election time, is offering something different in exchange for our vote, but it is the same old same old.
What is your blueprint for the 'something different'? "
Would we need to know? Do you mean generally or all of the details? Could we have a general idea and work toward that together?
Regarding my "blueprint" ....
Well, first, I've already shared my thoughts. Second, it wouldn't be about my blueprint. In my mind, it would be something that would be developed by the whole. I mean, honestly, that's part of the point. Finally, these are just my thoughts and feelings. I threw them out there, but, to date, the only people who have responded are you and C-Cose. We could talk until we're blue in the face about our ideas, but .... Perhaps the atheists or some of the atheists are perfectly comfortable with having sides and viewing things as us vs. them. Perhaps you are. I honestly don't know ... as they've not shared their thoughts, and I'm not positive where you're coming from. Well, that's not true. Drew shared that he'd respect people but not their belief in God. I'm not sure, though, if that truly responds to what I'm talking about. Maybe it does. I don't know.
So, for once, cHriS, I'm not going to answer a question. It's not because I don't want to answer or have hidden motives. It's that it wouldn't just be about me and my thoughts and my feelings and what I'd like to see. It would be about everyone. That's the whole point. However, to date, it seems there might be a lack of interest.
What is your blueprint for the 'something different'? "
Would we need to know? Do you mean generally or all of the details? Could we have a general idea and work toward that together?
Regarding my "blueprint" ....
Well, first, I've already shared my thoughts. Second, it wouldn't be about my blueprint. In my mind, it would be something that would be developed by the whole. I mean, honestly, that's part of the point. Finally, these are just my thoughts and feelings. I threw them out there, but, to date, the only people who have responded are you and C-Cose. We could talk until we're blue in the face about our ideas, but .... Perhaps the atheists or some of the atheists are perfectly comfortable with having sides and viewing things as us vs. them. Perhaps you are. I honestly don't know ... as they've not shared their thoughts, and I'm not positive where you're coming from. Well, that's not true. Drew shared that he'd respect people but not their belief in God. I'm not sure, though, if that truly responds to what I'm talking about. Maybe it does. I don't know.
So, for once, cHriS, I'm not going to answer a question. It's not because I don't want to answer or have hidden motives. It's that it wouldn't just be about me and my thoughts and my feelings and what I'd like to see. It would be about everyone. That's the whole point. However, to date, it seems there might be a lack of interest.
cHriS wrote: "I can respect the view of an athiest who does 'not' believe in a god. But they would not be able to respect my belief that there is a god."Do you know what the term "cognitive dissonance" is?
First you claim that you can respect atheists lack of belief, then you claim that atheists are incapable of returning that respect. Since the only defining factor of the group "atheists" that you label is that they have that lack of belief, your statement says that this opinion means that they are incapable of giving respect, which is disrespecting that opinion.
So your own statement proves itself wrong.
You also show no regard to the many atheists who do show respect to other people having their own beliefs, either labelling them as disrespectful, or liars.
For example I have friends from many different religions, but I respect their decision to belief and only discuss with them belief if they choose to discuss it with me, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Pagan.
Also, once again you lump together "atheists" as a group and then attack them, rather than attacking the ideology of atheism. There are many atheists who have varying degrees of respect for religious beliefs, from the agnostic or disinterested atheist who doesn't really think about religion at all, to the "militant" atheist who may even believe in the ideology of atheism (which in my mind is an oxymoron.)
In my opinion there are a lot of ideas that do not deserve respect, be they racist, sexist, murderous, etc. yet it's people who deserve respect, not ideas.
Gary wrote: "Also, once again you lump together "atheists" as a group and then attack them, rather than attacking the ideology of atheism. There are many atheists who have varying degrees of respect for religious beliefs, from the agnostic or disinterested atheist who doesn't really think about religion at all, to the "militant" atheist who may even believe in the ideology of atheism (which in my mind is an oxymoron.)"
Do you think it is as unwise to lump "deists" in one group?
Personally, I think many human beings generalize and overgeneralize and label others. It seems to be rather a common theme for humans in general.
In my research on atheism, after the go round regarding the American Atheist site, I found a site for an atheist group out of LA. They didn't really including information on their group's beliefs or tenants. I think you needed to be a member. They did discuss something you recently brought up, Gary. I actually don't remember it being mentioned until the last week or so. The many different people within atheism. I'd not thought about that before and learned something from that discussion and reading.
Again, do you think "deists" shouldn't be lumped together and treated as one?
Do you think it is as unwise to lump "deists" in one group?
Personally, I think many human beings generalize and overgeneralize and label others. It seems to be rather a common theme for humans in general.
In my research on atheism, after the go round regarding the American Atheist site, I found a site for an atheist group out of LA. They didn't really including information on their group's beliefs or tenants. I think you needed to be a member. They did discuss something you recently brought up, Gary. I actually don't remember it being mentioned until the last week or so. The many different people within atheism. I'd not thought about that before and learned something from that discussion and reading.
Again, do you think "deists" shouldn't be lumped together and treated as one?
Shannon wrote: "Perhaps the atheists or some of the atheists are perfectly comfortable with having sides and viewing things as us vs. them. Perhaps you are. I honestly don't know ... as they've not shared their thoughts, and I'm not positive where you're coming from."Well the response I would make is that us versus them is rarely a constructive viewpoint, however it is rather difficult to build towards a consensus when there is no common ground that people can actually build from.
Again the problem that seems to be the big barrier is faith itself. It's recursive nature means that ultimately a lot of discussion is doomed to failure as the 'faithful' have the ultimate trump card to play i.e. "this is what I believe" and this then calcifies the discussion into what one person believes and what the other person believes or doesn't believe.
Take a discussion about a sports team. One side may say (x) deserves to win the championship because (reason 1), while the other side (y) may contest that reason with (reason 2). In the end the matter is decided by the championship taking place.
Now you get die hard fans of team (x) and team (y) and each person may cite reasons why their team is the best, often increasingly spurious ones, but in the end you know that there is probably no reason, no team change, no manager change and in the end no championship result will convince a fan of (x) to become a fan of (y) or vice versa (except in rare cases).
Now bring along somebody is not a fan of this sport at all. The sport is uninteresting to them, or seems trivial. Yet to the fans they all become lumped together as side (z), because "everyone needs to pick a team". Side (z) become more reviled than any other "side" because the fans cannot comprehend someone not being devoted to sports. Both the (x) and (y) fans unite to mock the non-fans when they are not mocking each other, when in fact all the non-fans want is not to be part of this sport in the first place.
If you look back at the positions of people who have subsequently complained loudly that their ideas were picked apart and countered, what did they expect from the start. They stated their opinion, they stated their reasons for that opinion, then what? Are people meant to not comment on an opinion they did not agree with, or not point out flaws in reasoning or evidence? If so that isn't a discussion but preaching.
Shannon wrote: Well, that's not true. Drew shared that he'd respect people but not their belief in God. I'm not sure, though, if that truly responds to what I'm talking about. Maybe it does. I don't know."
It depends what you mean by "respecting someone's beliefs". It is often used in reproachful terms against atheists or (less often) against people of one faith who belittle another. Yet holding many beliefs means that you automatically do not respect others. A devout Christian or Jew cannot (by the first commandment) respect the belief in other gods. A Muslim cannot truly respect the beliefs of kafir as their belief says that kafir are immoral because they do not submit to God. etc.
In that manner no belief can really respect another fundamentally different one, because it is a belief.
Because of that I would posit that the only position that truly respects all beliefs is not to hold beliefs at all, because then you examine all beliefs based on the reason for holding that belief and on the fruits of that belief all related to some form of consensual measurement that can be mutually agreed on.
Going back to the threads initial question (which I am contractually obliged to do) this means that to decide on which would be preferable, a world without religion or without science, we need to agree on a mutual consensus on what the words religion and science mean, and a consensus on what would constitute a better world for people.
Shannon wrote: "Do you think it is as unwise to lump "deists" in one group? "Indeed I do. Though occasionally I do make generalisations, I am usually talking about a group of people who have an agreed belief or tenet. I also try to avoid generic statements like "group (x) is incapable of this, or always does that" but will make comparisons that say group (x) tends to .... or a lot or a majority seem to act this way.
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I think many human beings generalize and overgeneralize and label others. It seems to be rather a common theme for humans in general. "
Humans label and classify so that they can understand. This is natural and in my opinion impossible to achieve comprehension without doing this to some level. The problem I find is not over-generalisation or labelling, but forgetting that the label is not actually a real thing in itself, but a model or generalisation that aids understanding.
Levity time (skip if you know it). A farmer goes to a physicist because his farm is going to fail if he cannot increase the size of his chickens and their yield in eggs. The farmer begs the physicist, as the smartest woman he knows, for her help, offering $1,000 if the physicist thinks of a solution. As a true friend the physicist works for weeks on the problem and finally says she has an answer, to which the farmer - trusting her implicitly - immediately offers to pay her the $1,000. To which she replies "I cannot in good conscience except the money, as my solution only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum."
Shannon wrote: "In my research on atheism, after the go round regarding the American Atheist site, I found a site for an atheist group out of LA. They didn't really including information on their group's beliefs or tenants. I think you needed to be a member."
This is kind of my point. Why would a group that does not have beliefs and tenets (pretty much by definition) then display them? One could have a list of the things that they don't believe, or tenets they require members not to have, but that is either a really general or really long list.
Most atheist groups exist solely because of the existence of, and heavy lobbying of, religious groups.
Shannon wrote: "They did discuss something you recently brought up, Gary. I actually don't remember it being mentioned until the last week or so. The many different people within atheism. I'd not thought about that before and learned something from that discussion and reading."
Aye it's what I referenced earlier. Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? If you draw one with a set representing people who believe in god, a containing one representing those that believe in one or more gods, then an overlapping set for mystic beliefs and a set for anamists etc. Then everything else outside of that circle would count as atheism of some kind.
Shannon wrote: "Again, do you think "deists" shouldn't be lumped together and treated as one?"
Well according to the definition of deist that I understand, this refers to those who believe in a creator/deity but not the version proposed by any specific religion. So I can certainly lump them together when addressing specific subjects, but not others.
For example if I critique the idea of a conscious creation of the universe then deists (and indeed theists) are pretty much all of one mind in that discussion based on their proclaimed belief. However saying that all of them are against homosexuality due to the bible would not be correct.
Whereas critiquing atheists based on a discussion of theism is somewhat disingenuous as said atheist may indeed have rejected said belief, or they may know many similar beliefs and find themselves unable to honestly follow any of them without clear evidence of which one is correct, or the atheist may believe that to know the answer would be to become as god and therefore the answer will never be truly known by us, or the atheist may never have been introduced to or developed the concept of gods beyond the intrinsic anthropomorphising that any child does.
So yes lumping people together under a label is risky if you forget that the label is just a convenient model, not a real thing. However, without labels and categories how can people recognise patterns and make predictions?
Gary wrote: "Going back to the threads initial question (which I am contractually obliged to do) this means that to decide on which would be preferable, a world without religion or without science, we need to agree on a mutual consensus on what the words religion and science mean, and a consensus on what would constitute a better world for people. "Greetings Gary :)
There was a contract ?!?!?!? Could you please have your people send a copy over to my people so that they--my people--and I can review it before I submit my preferred definitions for religion, science, and the better world for both? ;)
Many thanks ... lol.
Gary wrote: "Levity time (skip if you know it). A farmer goes to a physicist because his farm is going to fail if he cannot increase the size of his chickens and their yield in eggs. The farmer begs the physicist, as the smartest woman he knows, for her help, offering $1,000 if the physicist thinks of a solution. As a true friend the physicist works for weeks on the problem and finally says she has an answer, to which the farmer - trusting her implicitly - immediately offers to pay her the $1,000. To which she replies "I cannot in good conscience except the money, as my solution only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum.""SHP Gary!!!!
That was so delightfully unexpected :) I really needed the laugh you just gave me!!!!!
Gary wrote: Do you know what the term "cognitive dissonance" is?I had to refresh my memory by looking on wiki, but I needn’t have bothered since it does not apply in this case.
You say First you claim that you can respect atheists lack of belief, , well that is not what I said.
I said “I can respect the view of an atheist who does 'not' believe in a god”. There is no lack of belief. I am not suggestion that somehow there should be a belief and that it is lacking. So your “cognitive dissonance" suggestion is misplaced.
Since the only defining factor of the group "atheists" that you label is that they have that lack of belief, your statement says that this opinion means that they are incapable of giving respect, which is disrespecting that opinion..
Again you saying ”lack of belief” is miss-quoting me.
You also show no regard to the many atheists who do show respect to other people having their own beliefs, either labelling them as disrespectful, or liars.
Shannon asked you about ‘deists’ and you said….
Though occasionally I do make generalisations, I am usually talking about a group of people who have an agreed belief or tenet
So why should we not assume that your are also being disrespectful and a liar rather than just making generalisations?
For example I have friends from many different religions, but I respect their decision to belief and only discuss with them belief if they choose to discuss it with me, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Pagan..
I am not sure what point you are making here.
Also, once again you lump together "atheists" as a group and then attack them, rather than attacking the ideology of atheism.
………….. which is what you constantly do when you single out a particular religion.
Gary wrote: "However, without labels and categories how can people recognise patterns and make predictions? "
One could get to know the people involved. One could, instead of predicting, listen to people and ask them for their thoughts.
In my experience, predictions sometimes lead to misconceptions. I've done it occasionally, and it's been done to me on multiple occasions. Predictions sometimes ... perhaps often times ... leads people to jump to conclusions. When we jump to conclusions, we're not dealing with facts. And, ... At that point, it's not a convenient model.
**Added**
Regarding lumping all "deists" together, ....
You stated,
"Well according to the definition of deist that I understand, this refers to those who believe in a creator/deity but not the version proposed by any specific religion. So I can certainly lump them together when addressing specific subjects, but not others."
If we were to look an actual statement made on this thread vs. a hypothetical situation, do you it was appropriate to lump me, for example, in with deists the last time you did?
When I mentioned I'd looked at a certain website, gave the site, and asked if it was a reputable site given the fact that I had certain concerns, you asked me for my concerns, then you talked about what most deists would find concerning.
Do you think this could be risky? Were you predicting my concerns? If so, do you think that led you to misunderstand my statements or led you to argue from a defensive position, which often (for me, at least) makes it difficult to process with true clarity?
This isn't about tit for tat, Gary. Truly. I would like to talk about truths.
I know I've made mistakes, on several occasions. I've owned them, publicly. Do you think it might have been a mistake for you to go into that conversation with preconceived notions ... about what a deist would find concerning?
If it would be inappropriate to lump all non-believers in one group and make assumptions about them, isn't it just as inappropriate to lump all deists together, especially given the wide array of beliefs that exist? And, in the above instance, the specific subject hadn't been identified.
When I mentioned the fact that I thought we could learn from one another and grow together, I didn't mean that the atheists here would have to turn their back on what they stand for, individually or collectively. Start praying, etc....
I was talking about something like this instance. This would be something that all of us could learn. Or, it's something that the two of us could learn. I've said I didn't realize how many different non-believers exist. That's new knowledge for me. Sure, I could read information on the sites of atheist organizations, but .... It won't give me a full picture. It will likely give me patterns. But, it would be limited to that. So, I've learned something. If I act accordingly, I'll have grown. Can you learn something from this? Can you grow? In a way that has nothing to do with religion or science ... that would not violate what you stand for?
Could we have this discussion, science vs. religion, share ideas, and question one another without, for example, telling people they're ... fill in the blank ... and without jumping to conclusions and knowing we might not know everything there is to know about something (note the fact that I've learned there are several different groups among non-believers) and be open to acquiring new knowledge ... not knew beliefs but knew knowledge? We could do that, learn and grown, change mentalities and still fulfill the "contract" and discuss this topic. Or, am I wrong?
One could get to know the people involved. One could, instead of predicting, listen to people and ask them for their thoughts.
In my experience, predictions sometimes lead to misconceptions. I've done it occasionally, and it's been done to me on multiple occasions. Predictions sometimes ... perhaps often times ... leads people to jump to conclusions. When we jump to conclusions, we're not dealing with facts. And, ... At that point, it's not a convenient model.
**Added**
Regarding lumping all "deists" together, ....
You stated,
"Well according to the definition of deist that I understand, this refers to those who believe in a creator/deity but not the version proposed by any specific religion. So I can certainly lump them together when addressing specific subjects, but not others."
If we were to look an actual statement made on this thread vs. a hypothetical situation, do you it was appropriate to lump me, for example, in with deists the last time you did?
When I mentioned I'd looked at a certain website, gave the site, and asked if it was a reputable site given the fact that I had certain concerns, you asked me for my concerns, then you talked about what most deists would find concerning.
Do you think this could be risky? Were you predicting my concerns? If so, do you think that led you to misunderstand my statements or led you to argue from a defensive position, which often (for me, at least) makes it difficult to process with true clarity?
This isn't about tit for tat, Gary. Truly. I would like to talk about truths.
I know I've made mistakes, on several occasions. I've owned them, publicly. Do you think it might have been a mistake for you to go into that conversation with preconceived notions ... about what a deist would find concerning?
If it would be inappropriate to lump all non-believers in one group and make assumptions about them, isn't it just as inappropriate to lump all deists together, especially given the wide array of beliefs that exist? And, in the above instance, the specific subject hadn't been identified.
When I mentioned the fact that I thought we could learn from one another and grow together, I didn't mean that the atheists here would have to turn their back on what they stand for, individually or collectively. Start praying, etc....
I was talking about something like this instance. This would be something that all of us could learn. Or, it's something that the two of us could learn. I've said I didn't realize how many different non-believers exist. That's new knowledge for me. Sure, I could read information on the sites of atheist organizations, but .... It won't give me a full picture. It will likely give me patterns. But, it would be limited to that. So, I've learned something. If I act accordingly, I'll have grown. Can you learn something from this? Can you grow? In a way that has nothing to do with religion or science ... that would not violate what you stand for?
Could we have this discussion, science vs. religion, share ideas, and question one another without, for example, telling people they're ... fill in the blank ... and without jumping to conclusions and knowing we might not know everything there is to know about something (note the fact that I've learned there are several different groups among non-believers) and be open to acquiring new knowledge ... not knew beliefs but knew knowledge? We could do that, learn and grown, change mentalities and still fulfill the "contract" and discuss this topic. Or, am I wrong?
Gary wrote: "If you look back at the positions of people who have subsequently complained loudly that their ideas were picked apart and countered, what did they expect from the start. They stated their opinion, they stated their reasons for that opinion, then what? Are people meant to not comment on an opinion they did not agree with, or not point out flaws in reasoning or evidence? If so that isn't a discussion but preaching."
Do you include me in the above?
This doesn't accurately represent the concerns I've voiced in the past. Please clarify.
Do you include me in the above?
This doesn't accurately represent the concerns I've voiced in the past. Please clarify.
Gary wrote: "However, without labels and categories how can people recognise patterns and make predictions? "
I was just washing the dishes and a thought came to me.
This works in science. It's part of science, yes?
I'm not sure one can apply the same to people.
It's one thing to study, what, genetics ... a certain genetic marker. Scientists can identify it, label it, and make predictions regarding how the marker might ... I'm not the science person ... based on past knowledge and patterns.
I think it's somewhat dangerous to apply the same logic to humans.
I was just washing the dishes and a thought came to me.
This works in science. It's part of science, yes?
I'm not sure one can apply the same to people.
It's one thing to study, what, genetics ... a certain genetic marker. Scientists can identify it, label it, and make predictions regarding how the marker might ... I'm not the science person ... based on past knowledge and patterns.
I think it's somewhat dangerous to apply the same logic to humans.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Greetings Shannon :)
I took a look at the specific link that you provided and I have to say that I'm less .... far less ... than impressed. The writer of that piece seems to be just a tad self-absorbed and "full" of his knowledge ...
He writes, "Toward that noble/Nobel end, I set out to prepare myself. I studied everything that seemed relevant to the task of slaying the dragon of superstition. I studied dead languages in which scriptures had been written, and I studied all the science from astronomy to zoology alphabetically and from particle physics to psychology conceptually...After several years I completed most of my course of study and went out to save the world by converting everyone to Atheism."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most educated persons spend a lifetime studying any of these topics: "dead" languages, astronomy, physics and psychology. I think it's remarkable that he's covered the basics--which seems to be all he needs--to be able to "[convert] everyone to Atheism".
I'd have to agree with Gary, who describes Atheism as more of a non-label / catch all to indicate being a non-deist rather than something to categorize a whole group of people (paraphrasing). As such, I wouldn't give any more, or less, credence to this site than you would to any other "resource" on the interwebs. Trucks of salt are available at Costco I believe ;)