GB-GIL
Take a look at the topic, GIL ... don't be so obsessed.
Of course, if I don't know when one atheist stops, what should be said about atheists? I mean, if "thesists" are so hypocritical, perhaps you could explain to me the core hypocrisy of a Hindu compared to the core hypocrisy of a Jew compared to the core hypocrisy of a revivalist shamanist. I would love to see how those hypocrisies work together. But the best most atheists can do is to lump all religious groups together as one, even those they don't know about, and say "theists _____" (fill in the blank: are drunk, stupid, idiotic, obsessed, named Tiassa, ad nauseam.
I have no doubt that there is intelligence among atheists. Such a question really has no place on the table. However, I do wish that more atheists would show that intelligence. Remember when arguing against narrow theism such as we might find in vulgar Christianity and fundamentalist Islam that as long as you argue the point at the level of any given individual, you're arguing against a paradigm that is specifically constructed to hold together according to that individual's needs. Meeting such a religion head-on will only freeze and polarize the issues, and debate or argument do not change much.
Rather, one must bear in mind that humans are imperfect, and therefore no theology created by a human is perfect. With vulgar Christianity, as noted, the Bible is a straight debunking, so it seems very easy to go for the jugular. But because the Bible is so straightforward in its errors, an atheist can honestly inquire about those gaps that present themselves to his or her intelligence.
And at that point, it comes down to why people are arguing. For the rush? Sure, meet them head on. In that case, there's no progress to be had and what can be said of what atheism brings a person except that obsession? However, in learning about and understanding that vulgar Christianity, one can usually present conditions within the paradigm that lead to change. The paradigm should be exploited, not opposed. Telling a Christian they're stupid only reinforces their belief in their propriety. Asking, "Well, if the Bible says this, could it mean this?" And then you can go on to lay out the argument from the Bible, from Christian epistemology, and from modern faith among other factors.
Like Notme2000's generalization about logic (noted for example): The problem with Christian logic is best encapsulated with the Catholics. If you go to NewAdvent or other such repository of Catholic history, philosophy, and dogma, it becomes quickly apparent that the Catholics are among the most logical people on earth, save two a priori assumptions: that God exists and that the Bible is accurate and true in its descriptions of God.
Now, the second comes from the first, but the second reinforces the first.
What's funny is that the only reason I'm a theist is that buried in there is a definition of God that I can accept. I find it ironic that the concept didn't catch on with the Catholics, and that's one reason why I've never become a Catholic. That's all it is. Personal integrity does not allow me to deny that definition: God is that which is greater than our conception. At such a level, you approach a mystical notion that "God is". Being, form, persona ... these are all mere speculations. It's the reason why I have no religion. The concept of God is largely irrelevant to me except that it affects other people. Technically, they're entitled to it the same as we're entitled to voice our opinions. And when they voice their opinions in a forum like this, we have an opportunity to understand how that opinion forms and holds together.
And that seems a more pleasant, more effective, more respectable approach than the kind of condemnation I've been protesting throughout this topic.
Think of it this way:
• When I was about 7, I read a children's book called My Mother the Mayor Maybe, which was my first exposure to the politics of Democrats and Republicans (I liked Carter in the 1980 election not specifically because he was a Democrat, but, as a child, he seemed intensely more personable and kind than Ronald Reagan). My father tried to teach my brother and I about Democrats and Republicans, and did so with the intent of making Republicans sound better. Unfortunately, he put it in the wrong terms for my young conscience; his basic division helped turn me into a Democrat. On the flip-side, my brother decided he was a Republican. As such he felt justified when Reagan was elected and it wouldn't be until 12 years later, in adulthood, that he would see that he was just agreeing with a position. The more he learned from sources he trusted about the American history and politics, the more obvious it was that he was merely riding the Republican ticket in order to "ride a winner". By the end of the Republican revolution, it had set in on him that he had grasped one concept, gotten lucky (via Reagan's election) and held on to "being right" without ever looking closely at what he was supporting. In the end, he got 12 years of being "right" about something that it turns out he doesn't believe in, and much conflict entered his life toward the end of that when people realized he had just shut off those beliefs one day and didn't bother to tell us. I can still remember sitting at dinner and hearing him calmly explaining his position on something--utterly in contradiction of what he had said for years; I can still remember him saying, "No, I never thought that. Why do you think I did?" Well, dude, because you said it for twelve years. Because you condemned people for disagreeing with you. And the whole time you weren't paying attention to the what you were endorsing.
In the same vein: Atheists, generally, are correct. Except it seems that they don't know it.
What does that mean? Atheists, by picking the seemingly logical option in the face of narrow religion, are generally correct. However, atheists tend to merely hold their line, confident that their logic is enough. Even oppositional atheists tend to do this. However, just as when my brother should have known what he was advocating, so, too, do I feel about an atheist. It's well enough to know that 2+2=4, but if you know that by rote and have no arithmetic skills, what possible good can it do you? Learning the 2+2 of religion means learning a little more about religions. Is it enough that an atheist should be correct without knowing why?
When an atheist figures out why they are correct, their atheism usually takes a step down, their pride usually two steps. It's not that they come to believe in anything, but suddenly the processes of what they oppose become clear, and it really can become an issue of compassion.
Whether atheists see religion as a mental illness, as a social menace, or as a personal stumbling block, merely deriding people of faith is, in effect, the same as telling a cokehead how big a piece of shite he has become while piling more dust on the table for him.
It might be time for another topic in which atheists declare what religion is. One of the things I hope to discuss soon with Notme2000 is why this topic exists at all. It doesn't seem that he wants to erase religion. It doesn't seem he wants to undermine faith. It doesn't seem he wants to spread some social salvation through the elimination of religion. So I'm left wondering why the topic exists at all. It seems we're moving that direction, though, so it's best to take it as it comes.
Just one piece of advice, though, GIL: When generalizing to make a point (iMac users, named TIassa, &c.) it is best if you maintain a certain degree of consistency. My observations of atheists, while not uniformly applicable to atheists, find far better statistical correlation than your generalisms in response. I don't mind the tit-for-tat, but I do wish you would employ one of the many real and legitimate aspects available than simply reducing it further to a blast against me.
Is it theists or is it the Tiassa? Seriously.
You could have asked why theists tend to become so aggressive when challenged. Of course, that one is easily answered, so I understand why you didn't. You could have asked why most theists lack much of the same human sympathy I find absent in atheists. That would have been a tougher answer, but it would have been a more responsible and, by proxy of what I interpret your point to be, more effective approach from the atheistic corner.
Somewhere in Foucault's Pendulum (by Umberto Eco), Pow and Belbo have a conversation about the difference between idiots and morons. I forget the exact distinctions to each one, but the point being that most, if not all humans are one or the other. The difference had to do with doing or believing the right things for the wrong reasons versus doing or believing the wrong things for the right reasons.
Reaching the "correct" conclusion is a mere accident if one does not understand the factors of that conclusion. My brother chose to be a Republican out of opposition. For 12 years he did not pay attention to what he meant. One day he woke up and found that much of his world had betrayed him, so to speak. I doubt the same sense of betrayal will come from atheism, but I do hope for better evidence that atheists understand the slightest portion of the subjects they undertake.
Does atheism in any way lead to knowledge? Or is it just a bandwagon?
thanx,
Tiassa
.
Well, think of it this way, GB-GIL: I know atheists are individuals. You know they are individuals. But damn, do they act like robots. One person makes an offensive generalization about a group of people and suddenly there are two more atheists there trying to rip open the wound. I tend to think atheists are like religious people in the sense that they are individuals when alone but prefer to think in a commonly-identified group when more than one is present. This whole thing probably wouldn't have gone so far without a couple of atheists stepping in and making what was a rather silly personal conflict between Notme2000 and myself into a nicely-generalized mess. I do know when one atheists stops and the next starts, but when the atheists put so little effort into it, what am I supposed to do?
This is a wholly inaccurate statement, GIL, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for it. Most atheists argue over the petty, tiny gods that they learn from the least educated, most superstitious theists. I would like to see a broader knowledge base among atheists. In other words, I find an almost tragic paradox here, that atheists are more directly affected by gods than the theists are. Shake it off, that's all.
Take a look at the topic, GIL ... don't be so obsessed.
Of course, if I don't know when one atheist stops, what should be said about atheists? I mean, if "thesists" are so hypocritical, perhaps you could explain to me the core hypocrisy of a Hindu compared to the core hypocrisy of a Jew compared to the core hypocrisy of a revivalist shamanist. I would love to see how those hypocrisies work together. But the best most atheists can do is to lump all religious groups together as one, even those they don't know about, and say "theists _____" (fill in the blank: are drunk, stupid, idiotic, obsessed, named Tiassa, ad nauseam.
I have no doubt that there is intelligence among atheists. Such a question really has no place on the table. However, I do wish that more atheists would show that intelligence. Remember when arguing against narrow theism such as we might find in vulgar Christianity and fundamentalist Islam that as long as you argue the point at the level of any given individual, you're arguing against a paradigm that is specifically constructed to hold together according to that individual's needs. Meeting such a religion head-on will only freeze and polarize the issues, and debate or argument do not change much.
Rather, one must bear in mind that humans are imperfect, and therefore no theology created by a human is perfect. With vulgar Christianity, as noted, the Bible is a straight debunking, so it seems very easy to go for the jugular. But because the Bible is so straightforward in its errors, an atheist can honestly inquire about those gaps that present themselves to his or her intelligence.
And at that point, it comes down to why people are arguing. For the rush? Sure, meet them head on. In that case, there's no progress to be had and what can be said of what atheism brings a person except that obsession? However, in learning about and understanding that vulgar Christianity, one can usually present conditions within the paradigm that lead to change. The paradigm should be exploited, not opposed. Telling a Christian they're stupid only reinforces their belief in their propriety. Asking, "Well, if the Bible says this, could it mean this?" And then you can go on to lay out the argument from the Bible, from Christian epistemology, and from modern faith among other factors.
Like Notme2000's generalization about logic (noted for example): The problem with Christian logic is best encapsulated with the Catholics. If you go to NewAdvent or other such repository of Catholic history, philosophy, and dogma, it becomes quickly apparent that the Catholics are among the most logical people on earth, save two a priori assumptions: that God exists and that the Bible is accurate and true in its descriptions of God.
Now, the second comes from the first, but the second reinforces the first.
What's funny is that the only reason I'm a theist is that buried in there is a definition of God that I can accept. I find it ironic that the concept didn't catch on with the Catholics, and that's one reason why I've never become a Catholic. That's all it is. Personal integrity does not allow me to deny that definition: God is that which is greater than our conception. At such a level, you approach a mystical notion that "God is". Being, form, persona ... these are all mere speculations. It's the reason why I have no religion. The concept of God is largely irrelevant to me except that it affects other people. Technically, they're entitled to it the same as we're entitled to voice our opinions. And when they voice their opinions in a forum like this, we have an opportunity to understand how that opinion forms and holds together.
And that seems a more pleasant, more effective, more respectable approach than the kind of condemnation I've been protesting throughout this topic.
Think of it this way:
• When I was about 7, I read a children's book called My Mother the Mayor Maybe, which was my first exposure to the politics of Democrats and Republicans (I liked Carter in the 1980 election not specifically because he was a Democrat, but, as a child, he seemed intensely more personable and kind than Ronald Reagan). My father tried to teach my brother and I about Democrats and Republicans, and did so with the intent of making Republicans sound better. Unfortunately, he put it in the wrong terms for my young conscience; his basic division helped turn me into a Democrat. On the flip-side, my brother decided he was a Republican. As such he felt justified when Reagan was elected and it wouldn't be until 12 years later, in adulthood, that he would see that he was just agreeing with a position. The more he learned from sources he trusted about the American history and politics, the more obvious it was that he was merely riding the Republican ticket in order to "ride a winner". By the end of the Republican revolution, it had set in on him that he had grasped one concept, gotten lucky (via Reagan's election) and held on to "being right" without ever looking closely at what he was supporting. In the end, he got 12 years of being "right" about something that it turns out he doesn't believe in, and much conflict entered his life toward the end of that when people realized he had just shut off those beliefs one day and didn't bother to tell us. I can still remember sitting at dinner and hearing him calmly explaining his position on something--utterly in contradiction of what he had said for years; I can still remember him saying, "No, I never thought that. Why do you think I did?" Well, dude, because you said it for twelve years. Because you condemned people for disagreeing with you. And the whole time you weren't paying attention to the what you were endorsing.
In the same vein: Atheists, generally, are correct. Except it seems that they don't know it.
What does that mean? Atheists, by picking the seemingly logical option in the face of narrow religion, are generally correct. However, atheists tend to merely hold their line, confident that their logic is enough. Even oppositional atheists tend to do this. However, just as when my brother should have known what he was advocating, so, too, do I feel about an atheist. It's well enough to know that 2+2=4, but if you know that by rote and have no arithmetic skills, what possible good can it do you? Learning the 2+2 of religion means learning a little more about religions. Is it enough that an atheist should be correct without knowing why?
When an atheist figures out why they are correct, their atheism usually takes a step down, their pride usually two steps. It's not that they come to believe in anything, but suddenly the processes of what they oppose become clear, and it really can become an issue of compassion.
Whether atheists see religion as a mental illness, as a social menace, or as a personal stumbling block, merely deriding people of faith is, in effect, the same as telling a cokehead how big a piece of shite he has become while piling more dust on the table for him.
It might be time for another topic in which atheists declare what religion is. One of the things I hope to discuss soon with Notme2000 is why this topic exists at all. It doesn't seem that he wants to erase religion. It doesn't seem he wants to undermine faith. It doesn't seem he wants to spread some social salvation through the elimination of religion. So I'm left wondering why the topic exists at all. It seems we're moving that direction, though, so it's best to take it as it comes.
Just one piece of advice, though, GIL: When generalizing to make a point (iMac users, named TIassa, &c.) it is best if you maintain a certain degree of consistency. My observations of atheists, while not uniformly applicable to atheists, find far better statistical correlation than your generalisms in response. I don't mind the tit-for-tat, but I do wish you would employ one of the many real and legitimate aspects available than simply reducing it further to a blast against me.
Is it theists or is it the Tiassa? Seriously.
You could have asked why theists tend to become so aggressive when challenged. Of course, that one is easily answered, so I understand why you didn't. You could have asked why most theists lack much of the same human sympathy I find absent in atheists. That would have been a tougher answer, but it would have been a more responsible and, by proxy of what I interpret your point to be, more effective approach from the atheistic corner.
Somewhere in Foucault's Pendulum (by Umberto Eco), Pow and Belbo have a conversation about the difference between idiots and morons. I forget the exact distinctions to each one, but the point being that most, if not all humans are one or the other. The difference had to do with doing or believing the right things for the wrong reasons versus doing or believing the wrong things for the right reasons.
Reaching the "correct" conclusion is a mere accident if one does not understand the factors of that conclusion. My brother chose to be a Republican out of opposition. For 12 years he did not pay attention to what he meant. One day he woke up and found that much of his world had betrayed him, so to speak. I doubt the same sense of betrayal will come from atheism, but I do hope for better evidence that atheists understand the slightest portion of the subjects they undertake.
Does atheism in any way lead to knowledge? Or is it just a bandwagon?
thanx,
Tiassa
.