Theists
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
I'll remember that
Without faith in people, for instance, I would have ceased speaking to my family long ago. Without faith in people, Tigger would have told her family to stop calling a long, long time ago.
Of course, these hideous people who we had faith in for all those years despite the evidence before us are the reason my daughter doesn't starve or freeze.
Sometimes faith pays off.
Richard Dawkins is an excellent example of what happens to a bright mind that cops out.
(I'm quite the curmudgeon this morning. Perhaps I should go smoke a cigarette.)
thanx,
Tiassa
How absolutely correct.
Without faith in people, for instance, I would have ceased speaking to my family long ago. Without faith in people, Tigger would have told her family to stop calling a long, long time ago.
Of course, these hideous people who we had faith in for all those years despite the evidence before us are the reason my daughter doesn't starve or freeze.
Sometimes faith pays off.
Richard Dawkins is an excellent example of what happens to a bright mind that cops out.
(I'm quite the curmudgeon this morning. Perhaps I should go smoke a cigarette.)
thanx,
Tiassa
Re: The problem, then, seems to be
But all too often I run into those who cannot even conceptualize that they have essentially switched off their minds. That there is more out there than any individual can know. No, they have all the answers and will not be swayed by reason or fact or even when faced with the consequences of their own hypocrisy.
No, sorry. At some point I write people off... though I rarely can sustain the divorce and will attempt again and again. Such is my foolishness and hope for people.
I'm not trying to convert the world to atheism. But I do want people to address its points and questions... my points and questions. It's thought and discussion I wish to provoke. A kernel of understanding we might build upon. I don't care about God or anyone's belief in God... I want the ideas... the thoughts. What is good, and why? What is real, and why? God simply is not an answer... or, at least, it is not the whole of the answer.
There is no need to dismiss God... but there is a need to redefine religion. The walls must come down.
Love and Freedom.
~Raithere
I expect people to think and to feel and to attempt to do their best for themselves and each other. When I see that they are not I attempt to do my best for them, to help them, and I am perfectly willing to work within the paradigm that they find most acceptable.
But all too often I run into those who cannot even conceptualize that they have essentially switched off their minds. That there is more out there than any individual can know. No, they have all the answers and will not be swayed by reason or fact or even when faced with the consequences of their own hypocrisy.
The very question I ask about the concept of God.
I concur. I do not write people off the moment the mention God. Most of my family and many of my friends carry typical Christian beliefs. I have no difficulty communicating with them nor do I find any real barrier influencing them or being influenced by them. We all have something to teach and much to learn. But what do you do when God, specifically one concrete conception of God, is the only answer?
How do you deal with a person who believes that nothing you do can ever be correct or good because you do not believe what they do? That nothing you ever think, write, or say can ever be correct because it's not based on their principles and presumptions?
I can work within their paradigm but there are those who will not accept any outside influence; which exemplifies the severity of their conditioning. Look over my posts with whatsup if you do not believe me. I have not been perfect in my dealings with him but I have remained respectful and patient despite his abuse and inane repetitions, his avoidance of any real communication or even debate. How many hours should I spend writing coherent and thoughtful replies only to be besieged with the same 10 minute blathering and abusive response? How many hours should I spend researching Jan's articles of faith only to play a game of let's change the definitions to support the argument?
No, sorry. At some point I write people off... though I rarely can sustain the divorce and will attempt again and again. Such is my foolishness and hope for people.
I'm not trying to convert the world to atheism. But I do want people to address its points and questions... my points and questions. It's thought and discussion I wish to provoke. A kernel of understanding we might build upon. I don't care about God or anyone's belief in God... I want the ideas... the thoughts. What is good, and why? What is real, and why? God simply is not an answer... or, at least, it is not the whole of the answer.
Then you're not listening because many of us being them forth daily in our posts. But there's no instant illumination no brilliant concept that brings you to an epiphany of some atheistic ideal concept. Its work and hard thought that brought me to this vantage and my ideas are no more brilliant than any others. But my thought is freer than those bound by the small conceptions of God or the rules of the Bible. There are no walls. And I think, if you reflect upon it you'll find that your conception of God is just as liberating as my disbelief. When nothing can be said about God then there are no rules... are there? And how has that benefited your level of thought?
There is no need to dismiss God... but there is a need to redefine religion. The walls must come down.
Love and Freedom.
~Raithere
(Insert title here)
What I'm getting at is that if this one person and that one issue are important enough to you, there's always a way to reach them.
If nothing I'm saying works, it's because I'm running into a closed door. Finding the open one is tricky, and when I say things like, "I ran out of words when I was an atheist," this is exactly what I'm talking about. Objectively, and on my integrity, I had no alternative routes than the ones that met objection. Swallowing my pride and preening my feathers for a strut, I managed to find a way to sweet-talk away from God's judgment and condemnation to something much less consequential.
If you can't go through, go over or under or around and look for a back door. And a side door. And a trap door. Hell, even a mouse hole will work. An open seam, a draft under a locked door. Ride the bloody wind through the keyhole if you have to, but if it's important enough to engage at all, it should, I would think, be important enough to engage effectively.
? There is, of course, another common scenario (more common in my experience)
This wasn't a whole big issue for me to take, but it becomes relevant here: Whatsup is not typical of anything. Do you watch South Park, ever? I think of when Chef says to the boys, "There is a difference between gay people and Mr. Garrison." I stress to you that Whatsup is not typical.
Believe me, I know of many like those with whom I have fought here at Sciforums. If nothing else, just pin them down and force them to admit that they're the only moron in the Universe who believes what they're saying. That's easier to do if you're patient. If you're patient, they don't necessarily see it coming.
And always remember: no matter how idiotic you think a person to be, they will always surprise you. Take that as you may. I'm surprised both by people's acuity and their lack thereof. I'm surprised sometimes both by people's integrity and their lack thereof.
It all depends on how important that person and issue are to you, and what you're willing to put into it.
I could cite Matthew and tell a Bible-thumper about forgiveness and loving thine enemy. And the thumper could quote Luke or some-such about crushing the enemy. If I can show the thumper how to defeat the enemy with compassion, then should not the thumper show me how forgiveness and loving thine enemy comes in the form of murder or persecution?
Every one of us as a nerve that can be tweaked. If you chase a symptom down to its fundamental device, you can usually play "Jingle Bells" on it.
Seemed quite fair, didn't it, when it was the atheists treating others that way?
- There's what? A possibility that my fellows' conduct is chasing off people who might otherwise be like-minded? Quick ... um ... What about fundamentalists? I don't like fundamentalists!
Really, that's kind of what it looks like: deflection.
But ... well, I'll get to it in a minute.
But in a moment, I'll get to it. It's what keeps hitching me up here in this post.
I might say the same of the atheists. Our atheists, by and large, when frustrated, sound no better than their boneheaded theistic-fanatic counterparts. Jesus! Bullshit! Jesus! Fuck off! Jesus! Get bent!
Weird, I just had a flash of an old music video: two children, face to face, yelling at each other, in Stevie Ray Vaughan's "Couldn't Stand the Weather".
So if atheism brings illumination and advancement, I'd love to actually see it in action. It's part of what I failed to find for myself, and one of the reasons letting go of atheism wasn't as sharp a blow as it could have been.
The thing that has been bugging me
It occurred to me today over a cigarette in the sunshine. I was reading Frazer's The Golden Bough. TGB is a classic, early-20th century survey of a peculiar and savage custom in Aricia, in Italy. I'm reading a later edition, by Frazer himself, which is compressed to 800 pages plus index from its original twelve volumes. The text contains such droll passages as:
Now, imagine that you're at a college, or in a tavern, or some such, and you might have a lively debate taking place between people about what this or that new evidence or different perspective implies toward something like TGB, which holds strong sociological and anthropological significance. Hell, the debate could rage all day and get nowhere. But from twelve volumes down to a couple of sentences, I can just see the atheist in the corner, piping up: "There are no gods, ye gits. Shut up!"
Certes, I'm not enough of a scholar to be leading discussions on the whole of TGB, but I do see such dismissals inserted into discussions in such a manner as to suggest that the given atheist who goes off about God when it is other issues related to God is merely pandering for attention.
Think about it: an atheistic response to twelve volumes in two sentences.
We might agree that such a response misses the point.
Might.
Because that missing of the point is largely my point at present.
If someone is examining abortion according to God's law, try to put it into terms they understand instead of saying, "There is no God!"
How does rendering people useless and writing them off benefit anyone's level of thought?
And, yes, I'm in a bit of a mood tonight. I know, I know. The thing is that I hear you. But you're one of the leaders of the movement toward dignity among our atheists. Perhaps you can explain to other atheists when they're looking as bratty as a fundamentalist in a gay bar.
I shall seek harmony, or at least better sleep.
thanx,
Tiassa
Fair enough.
To a degree. Beyond that, I'll have to take your word for it: No thought necessary.
Tweak it. One of the reasons I sold my atheism is because exploiting the God-paradigm allowed me to offer what benefits I could. I merely piled on slick rhetoric until I spun the God-aspect into what I wanted it to indicate. I hate to say it, but ... duh--it was that easy to do on one hand. Actually, it wasn't, so call it sarcasm. But aren't we always harping on the flexibility of religious paradigms? Why not put it to use toward someone's benefit? And then from there, why not use that ability to direct the God-aspect into one of little or no consequence? Escaping judgmental redemptionist religion was a massive advance for me, and though I hopped off the Christian bandwagon ages ago, the transition turned out to take a while, and may still be ongoing.
Everybody's got a price. Every wall has a gate. If you're a mafioso, do you have locks in your house? Locks are useless around professional thieves insofar as they protect your stuff, but they are a useful way of saying, "Keep out," or, "Private."
Star Trek philosophy, from "Wrath of Khan": Spock noted that the Reliant was operating two-dimensionally; that is, all her attack patterns were on a single plane. Forward? Back? Left? Right? "Take us up," says Captain Kirk, and the tactical perspective changes mightily.
What I'm getting at is that if this one person and that one issue are important enough to you, there's always a way to reach them.
If nothing I'm saying works, it's because I'm running into a closed door. Finding the open one is tricky, and when I say things like, "I ran out of words when I was an atheist," this is exactly what I'm talking about. Objectively, and on my integrity, I had no alternative routes than the ones that met objection. Swallowing my pride and preening my feathers for a strut, I managed to find a way to sweet-talk away from God's judgment and condemnation to something much less consequential.
If you can't go through, go over or under or around and look for a back door. And a side door. And a trap door. Hell, even a mouse hole will work. An open seam, a draft under a locked door. Ride the bloody wind through the keyhole if you have to, but if it's important enough to engage at all, it should, I would think, be important enough to engage effectively.
Con 'em. Fuck it, and con 'em. At that point, they're generally so messed up they won't see you creeping around back. Life presents its opportunities, and we must seize upon them if we're to have any real hope of being effective.
Fair enough, but it's not quite that.
? There is, of course, another common scenario (more common in my experience)
This wasn't a whole big issue for me to take, but it becomes relevant here: Whatsup is not typical of anything. Do you watch South Park, ever? I think of when Chef says to the boys, "There is a difference between gay people and Mr. Garrison." I stress to you that Whatsup is not typical.
Believe me, I know of many like those with whom I have fought here at Sciforums. If nothing else, just pin them down and force them to admit that they're the only moron in the Universe who believes what they're saying. That's easier to do if you're patient. If you're patient, they don't necessarily see it coming.
And always remember: no matter how idiotic you think a person to be, they will always surprise you. Take that as you may. I'm surprised both by people's acuity and their lack thereof. I'm surprised sometimes both by people's integrity and their lack thereof.
It all depends on how important that person and issue are to you, and what you're willing to put into it.
I could cite Matthew and tell a Bible-thumper about forgiveness and loving thine enemy. And the thumper could quote Luke or some-such about crushing the enemy. If I can show the thumper how to defeat the enemy with compassion, then should not the thumper show me how forgiveness and loving thine enemy comes in the form of murder or persecution?
Every one of us as a nerve that can be tweaked. If you chase a symptom down to its fundamental device, you can usually play "Jingle Bells" on it.
I'm not sure dignity would allow me to respond to you on that specific issue. Didn't I lament that same question over the spring and summer? How much evidence should I show while others ignore the evidence, offer ridicule, and then demand evidence they claim not to have seen? How many times should I go through that? It seemed fair enough when it was atheists denying their own words and demanding supporting evidence after ignoring exactly what it was they were asking for, didn't it?
Don't, then. Look for the apparent holes, and make Jan do all the research in order to adequately fill them in. On the other hand, nobody ever did answer me about how many hours I should spend researching topics just to have that work ignored, an immature twittery or two popped off, and then a new demand for that very evidence being ignored?
Seemed quite fair, didn't it, when it was the atheists treating others that way?
I should have written off a good number of people here by that standard.
And that's one of the reasons I learned to not write people off. I just learned how to cut out the unnecessary two steps backward.
Tell me about it. I've learned that it's apparently an insult to presume people intelligent. Imagine that ....
Well ....
Well, in this topic it seemed like a deflection:
- There's what? A possibility that my fellows' conduct is chasing off people who might otherwise be like-minded? Quick ... um ... What about fundamentalists? I don't like fundamentalists!
Really, that's kind of what it looks like: deflection.
But ... well, I'll get to it in a minute.
After tossing out the kernels you'd prefer not to deal with?
Well ... if you stopped worrying about the people of your example and started worrying a little more about the people of mine, you might get a little more of what you seek.
But in a moment, I'll get to it. It's what keeps hitching me up here in this post.
Correction, perhaps? Then I'm not hearing what you want me to hear?
But in the past, I have criticized Christians for settling for merely being "as good as" the infidels. That is, when you point out an error of Christian conduct and doctrine, you get a response that has something to do with the evil of other people. Apparently, to be as good or bad as those people is just dandy for those Christians.
I might say the same of the atheists. Our atheists, by and large, when frustrated, sound no better than their boneheaded theistic-fanatic counterparts. Jesus! Bullshit! Jesus! Fuck off! Jesus! Get bent!
Weird, I just had a flash of an old music video: two children, face to face, yelling at each other, in Stevie Ray Vaughan's "Couldn't Stand the Weather".
So if atheism brings illumination and advancement, I'd love to actually see it in action. It's part of what I failed to find for myself, and one of the reasons letting go of atheism wasn't as sharp a blow as it could have been.
So why keep building them?
I shan't argue that directly, but I'm curious where belief and conduct intersect?
It has moved my focus farther from the shadows and closer to the target.
Hear, hear!
Always.
The thing that has been bugging me
It occurred to me today over a cigarette in the sunshine. I was reading Frazer's The Golden Bough. TGB is a classic, early-20th century survey of a peculiar and savage custom in Aricia, in Italy. I'm reading a later edition, by Frazer himself, which is compressed to 800 pages plus index from its original twelve volumes. The text contains such droll passages as:
We have learned much about cultures since then, but much of TGB remains intact.
Now, imagine that you're at a college, or in a tavern, or some such, and you might have a lively debate taking place between people about what this or that new evidence or different perspective implies toward something like TGB, which holds strong sociological and anthropological significance. Hell, the debate could rage all day and get nowhere. But from twelve volumes down to a couple of sentences, I can just see the atheist in the corner, piping up: "There are no gods, ye gits. Shut up!"
Certes, I'm not enough of a scholar to be leading discussions on the whole of TGB, but I do see such dismissals inserted into discussions in such a manner as to suggest that the given atheist who goes off about God when it is other issues related to God is merely pandering for attention.
Think about it: an atheistic response to twelve volumes in two sentences.
We might agree that such a response misses the point.
Might.
Because that missing of the point is largely my point at present.
If someone is examining abortion according to God's law, try to put it into terms they understand instead of saying, "There is no God!"
How does rendering people useless and writing them off benefit anyone's level of thought?
And, yes, I'm in a bit of a mood tonight. I know, I know. The thing is that I hear you. But you're one of the leaders of the movement toward dignity among our atheists. Perhaps you can explain to other atheists when they're looking as bratty as a fundamentalist in a gay bar.
I shall seek harmony, or at least better sleep.
thanx,
Tiassa
Re: (Insert title here)
More and more I've come to interpret religious doctrine and statements about God the way some people interpret dreams; where all the characters are facets of the dreamer. There's much more in that idea, I think. Perhaps I'll eventually take the time to cultivate it.
Good luck.
~Raithere
I try, believe me I try. And I suppose much of this is just me blowing off steam to someone whom I know will understand where it is I'm coming from. But half the time I feel like I'm Annie Sullivan trying to communicate with a room full of Helen Kellers.
If it were only one person... if only. I mean seriously when W gets up on the podium and starts talking about the "Axis of Evil" I just cringe... or when I watch the war protester dragging her 5 year old through the bitter cold, sign in her little mittened hand. Seriously, can I volunteer to be abducted by aliens or something?
I find that I don't generally have the problem you ran into... but then it doesn't seem like my transition was as severe as yours. There is much that I have chosen to retain from what I learned in my religious studies.
Yes I suppose that it must work that way. Still I feel like taking some by the shoulders and shaking them, screaming, "Just listen!"
Every episode. And while I agree with that concerning his particular snapshot of reality I find that he is actually not that unusual in his desperate clinging to his beliefs; more so than perhaps is typical but not unusual.
Agreed.
I agree, completely... and hope I have in some small way helped to diminish that. I mean, fine, I agree that there is a skew to most religious philosophy that I'd rather be rid of but to toss the whole thing out without inspection is like tossing out everything Twain wrote because there are a few words in there that you don't like. One thing that atheists and agnostics should be able to do is move beyond the problem of God and see it for the social bias we believe that it is. When I read Twain I can understand that, in truth, he was actually very progressive despite how it may sound to us today.
I try not to throw anything out without at least tasting it.
I worry about both. And try to moderate some of that response from "my" side. Point being, in your example, the existence of God really has nothing to do with it.
More and more I've come to interpret religious doctrine and statements about God the way some people interpret dreams; where all the characters are facets of the dreamer. There's much more in that idea, I think. Perhaps I'll eventually take the time to cultivate it.
I'll work on it.
I concur... but patience is difficult to teach. Of course some are so wedded to the knee-jerk response that they only pipe up when someone says something outrageous. One wonders about those who have nothing to say unless it is in response to someone else.
I find atheism to be more of a point of arrival... it's not the destination but the journey that brings illumination and advancement. You already traveled that path, and beyond... as have I. And not everyone travels the same route. Some flew... I walked... and I recommend the journey.
As to that, I'm against making atheism a cause.
Definetly.
And I suppose I did... but I do like to occasionally point out that this is not one sided. Occasionally, I point that out to the atheists too.
Deal. I'll work on the atheists... you work on the theists.
Good luck.It's only after knowing imbalance that you can find balance.
~Raithere