On theist-secular relations

[Jan Ardena]

If you are trying to argue from "theists come in variation of interest and attainment" that will not work.

I don't feel inspired by any theistic leader, nor by any theistic doctrine that I have known of - and I am familiar with several.

This doesn't answer the question.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Duh.
Of course one could argue that since I have met only a statistically irrelevant number of theists, my experiences with them are irrelevant to (an informed view of) theism as a whole.

What's your point? That I should keep looking until I find a perfect theist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Duh.
Of course one could argue that since I have met only a statistically irrelevant number of theists, my experiences with them are irrelevant to (an informed view of) theism as a whole.

What's your point? That I should keep looking until I find a perfect theist?

I don't know as yet.
What is your reasoning, regarding your accusation of ''theists''?

jan.

 

[wynn]

What is your reasoning, regarding your accusation of ''theists''?

Which accusation in particular do you mean?

 

[James R]

Aren't you normally a defender of theism, wynn? When did you change your mind?

 

[wynn]

Aren't you normally a defender of theism, wynn? When did you change your mind?

I am not a "defender of theism" and I didn't change my mind.
I do oppose simplistic notions of both theism and atheism.
Surely you've noticed that many theists here consider me an atheist; and many atheists consider me a theist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which accusation in particular do you mean?

Methinks you revel too much in this attention.

cheers
jan.

 

[wynn]

Methinks you revel too much in this attention.

You're so stingy.
That's what I don't like about theists.
A theist is supposed to have unlimited wisdom, unlimited goodwill - in the blink of an eye, a theist should be able to overturn that which is wrong into that which is right.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

You're so stingy.

bzzzzz!!!

That's what I don't like about theists.

Okay.

A theist is supposed to have unlimited wisdom, unlimited goodwill - in the blink of an eye, a theist should be able to overturn that which is wrong into that which is right.

How do you work that out?


jan.

 

[C C]

That made me think that we are legally obligated to help theists. So I am legally obligated to help someone who despises me to my core, and who claims to have divine justification for doing so.

But how do theists and atheists recognize that someone belongs to such categories, if/when they are strangers? Do they always wear identifying pendants -- and just what the devil is one of the symbols employed to represent atheism, anyway? As can be judged from the latter, I'm surrounded by theists. If a militant atheist, I'd apparently either be a recluse or perpetually exhausted emotionally from daily, constant despising of those I encounter. So I accordingly marvel at the mental stamina of these militant theists referred to here; the very belief of invigoration via a direct fuel pipeline to whatever Abrahamic or neopagan god would seem to yield a placebo-like effect, if the latter are myth. (OTOH, they may not chance upon atheists as often, and thereby elude such drainings of energy.)

If theists believe that they are so much better than ordinary people, then why don't the theists exclude themselves from secular society altogether?

Where do I find these huge secular communities? I seem to be stuck with theists convening in meetings and legal proceedings, where they only engage in and enforce prescribed secular activities and regulations (at best). Or talk in ritual-like manner of their theism but perhaps behave impiously or "deviant-ly" on the street. I'm not sure "stuck with" is even intended as belittling, since any past experience on my part of being in a throng of atheists has been minimal, and hardly provides a decent comparison memory for judgement[***].

- - - - - - - -

[***] While institutions may be guided by generalized knowledge and distribute the fruit of such to the masses, the individual is sometimes hard-pressed in the routine of life itself to set aside her/his own personal concrete experiences for the abstract objects and idealized formulations tossed from the traditional temples, the ivory towers of intellectualism, and the steel fortresses of research endeavors.

Snakes may be revered and accordingly safe from harm in some older indigenous cultures, but even the most devout "country folk" set aside the sacred hokum for practicality when too many of these "friends" multiply in the area. In similar fashion, non-theists may find themselves setting aside the latest secular version equivalent to "sacred-hokum" when adhering to it becomes impractical. The astonishing possibility thus presents itself that theists, atheists, and apatheists ("you are both boring; or your rivalry is") might all suffer the common, integrating factor of being human underneath.

 

[wynn]

But how do theists and atheists recognize that someone belongs to such categories, if/when they are strangers?

In the case of strangers, one might not, although some theists still wear distinctive clothes or other signs.
Other than that, when we need to provide first aid, we most often help people that we know - family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances.

Do they always wear identifying pendants -- and just what the devil is one of the symbols employed to represent atheism, anyway? As can be judged from the latter, I'm surrounded by theists. If a militant atheist, I'd apparently either be a recluse or perpetually exhausted emotionally from daily, constant despising of those I encounter. So I accordingly marvel at the mental stamina of these militant theists referred to here; the very belief of invigoration via a direct fuel pipeline to whatever Abrahamic or neopagan god would seem to yield a placebo-like effect, if the latter are myth. (OTOH, they may not chance upon atheists as often, and thereby elude such drainings of energy.)

Ha ha.

Where do I find these huge secular communities?

According to some theists, 99.9% of the world's population are the lowest of mankind, gross atheists.

[***] While institutions may be guided by generalized knowledge and distribute the fruit of such to the masses, the individual is sometimes hard-pressed in the routine of life itself to set aside her/his own personal concrete experiences for the abstract objects and idealized formulations tossed from the traditional temples, the ivory towers of intellectualism, and the steel fortresses of research endeavors.

Snakes may be revered and accordingly safe from harm in some older indigenous cultures, but even the most devout "country folk" set aside the sacred hokum for practicality when too many of these "friends" multiply in the area. In similar fashion, non-theists may find themselves setting aside the latest secular version equivalent to "sacred-hokum" when adhering to it becomes impractical. The astonishing possibility thus presents itself that theists, atheists, and apatheists ("you are both boring; or your rivalry is") might all suffer the common, integrating factor of being human underneath.

My experience with theists has been, in an overwhelming majority of encounters, that they have believed themselves to be better than I, and showed that in action.

Not to make too much of painful childhood and youth experiences, nor of exclusivistic, elitist theistic doctrines - but there is an intense sense of alienation that comes with them, and it doesn't let itself be simply brushed aside.

I don't like the way I feel about theists, but at the same time, I don't see a way to change that.
It seems to me that the only way to see theists as fellow humans, is to become a strong atheist myself.

 

[wynn]

How do you work that out?

If you believe yourself to be so capable as to be able to discern what the Absolute Truth is, then nothing can be a problem for you.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Theists are the ones coming forward with the direct or implicit claim that they are so capable, so advanced, that they can, on their own, discern the Absolute Truth.


Theists are the ones coming forward with the direct or implicit claim that they are so capable, so advanced, that they can, on their own, know God.

No, theists deify themselves already. Non-theists just point this out.

was gonna rant a bit..but..
your own words prove my point..

A theist is supposed to have unlimited wisdom, unlimited goodwill - in the blink of an eye, a theist should be able to overturn that which is wrong into that which is right.

you have set your standard for theist that as humans they can never meet and as such you hold them in contempt..

see how it is?
you set the bar so high that no-one can ever achieve it, then you get upset at theist because they can't meet the bar you have defined..

its like someone getting angry and contemptuous at you because you can't fly..

Spin this whatever way you like: the moment you directly or indirectly declare to know God, is the moment you will be considered to have absolute abilities and that thus it is just to expect nothing less than perfection from you.

again you are arguing with your own definitions..
you define a person who says that they knows God as 'absolute', yet if you were to scrutinize them(as has been done here on sciforums) they would admit that it is a personal knowledge and not empirical,not absolute..

i think you are struggling with what you think others think, not actually what others think.

 

[kx000]

You're so stingy.
That's what I don't like about theists.
A theist is supposed to have unlimited wisdom, unlimited goodwill - in the blink of an eye, a theist should be able to overturn that which is wrong into that which is right.

Maybe they do...

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you believe yourself to be so capable as to be able to discern what the Absolute Truth is, then nothing can be a problem for you.

If in Antartica, one goes out without the proper clothing, one WILL freeze ones bollocks off. I've worked that out without actually going there. A mixture of common-sense, science, and experience.

Figure out the connection, you've got a brain.


jan.

 

[wynn]

If in Antartica, one goes out without the proper clothing, one WILL freeze ones bollocks off. I've worked that out without actually going there. A mixture of common-sense, science, and experience.

So you've also figured out what the Absolute Truth is, all on your own, without ever actually experiencing it?

 

[wynn]

you have set your standard for theist that as humans they can never meet

No. Theists are setting it that high themselves.

and as such you hold them in contempt..

No. I have mostly mixed feelings about theists.

its like someone getting angry and contemptuous at you because you can't fly..

No. It's not. You are simply letting theists off the hook.

again you are arguing with your own definitions..
you define a person who says that they knows God as 'absolute', yet if you were to scrutinize them(as has been done here on sciforums) they would admit that it is a personal knowledge and not empirical,not absolute..

As has been seen a few times at the forums, some very staunch theists eventually admitted to be "seekers" or "in-effect-agnostics."

i think you are struggling with what you think others think, not actually what others think.

No. I do make a point of having high expectations of those who claim to know God.
At this point, I think it would atheistic of me to reduce those expectations.

I swear, next time some preacher approaches me in the street, I will demand them to lift up a building on their left little finger.
They want me to believe in God? They want me to believe they are better than me? Okay, then they have to earn that credibility.

 

[NMSquirrel]

No. Theists are setting it that high themselves.

again..using your own words;

No. I do make a point of having high expectations of those who claim to know God.

No. I have mostly mixed feelings about theists.

fair enough..

No. It's not. You are simply letting theists off the hook.

i am just trying to show that theist are human too, and as such are just as capable of screwing up as anybody..

No. I do make a point of having high expectations of those who claim to know God.
At this point, I think it would atheistic of me to reduce those expectations.

it is neither theistic or atheistic..it is called learning..
challenge your own preconceived notions as to who/what a theist is..

I swear, next time some preacher approaches me in the street, I will demand them to lift up a building on their left little finger.
They want me to believe in God? They want me to believe they are better than me? Okay, then they have to earn that credibility.

setting the theist/atheist comparison aside for a moment..
when someone else comes along and suggests they are better than you, how do you react? do you react different if they are atheist?
don't atheist have to earn that credibility with you also?

but i digress..
I am not arguing that all theist are humble and do not pretend that they are better than everyone else, i am arguing that theist are human and as such are just as screwed up as the rest of us..

the only difference between a theist acting like they are better than you and a rich person acting like they are better than you, is ones own attitudes/preconceived notions towards them,

 

[wynn]

i am just trying to show that theist are human too, and as such are just as capable of screwing up as anybody..

Really?
Really?

Theists are human? Theists usually claim they know who God is and which religion is the right one and a number of related claims. Those claims are such that they would require omniscience and omnipotence in order to be made justly.
So theists are actually claiming they have superhuman qualifications.
And that seriously detracts from their humanness.

it is neither theistic or atheistic..it is called learning..
challenge your own preconceived notions as to who/what a theist is..

Okay.

setting the theist/atheist comparison aside for a moment..
when someone else comes along and suggests they are better than you, how do you react?

It depends on what they claim or imply the grounds for their (supposed) superiority are.

do you react different if they are atheist?
don't atheist have to earn that credibility with you also?

Sure. The moment someone claims that "God is a myth," I point out that they are presuming themselves to be omniscient and omnipotent.

but i digress..
I am not arguing that all theist are humble and do not pretend that they are better than everyone else, i am arguing that theist are human and as such are just as screwed up as the rest of us..

I've never met such theists, and it's not clear how they could even exist.

One cannot claim that one knows God, and then claim one is a fallible human, and then still think one is being consistent.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Theists are human? Theists usually claim they know who God is and which religion is the right one and a number of related claims. Those claims are such that they would require omniscience and omnipotence in order to be made justly.

here is where i separate the definition of 'know'

know

1.
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2.
to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3.
to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4.
be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5.
to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

in the scientific aspect it is 'to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty'
which there is wiggle room in this definition with the use of the term 'perceive'

but the sense that most theist use it is 'be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report'
(although i would let you argue that most theist miss-use the term in the first sense)

so in this sense no omniscience and omnipotence is needed..
one must just study God to be familiar with him, to 'know' him is to have ones own experiences confirm what is learned of him.

So theists are actually claiming they have superhuman qualifications.
And that seriously detracts from their humanness.

again this is where your definitions are conflicting with what is true..
you are claiming they must have superhuman qualifications, and since you know there is no such thing as superhumans you disqualify every theist..

Okay.

hehe..after i wrote that i thought that you are already doing that..

Sure. The moment someone claims that "God is a myth," I point out that they are presuming themselves to be omniscient and omnipotent.

fair enough..
(my own personal philosophy says that in order for something to be true it must apply equally to both sides of the argument)

One cannot claim that one knows God, and then claim one is a fallible human, and then still think one is being consistent.

'know' when applied to a person/personage is not the same as 'know' as applied to the physical world,
I can 'know' a person and someone else can 'know' someone differently, this does not mean that either is wrong,(doesn't necessarily mean that either is right also..)

where as in the physical world (using this term in the scientific aspect) knowledge is empirical,IE water boils at X temperature, electrons have X mass, etc..

so a person can claim to 'know' God and still be fallible..there is no omniscience and omnipotence needed/required, also with this 'know' there is no 'one correct' religion..