Before this thread takes flight, I want to just say that I am over my anti-atheist crusade. I figured out what it was I wanted to figure out, which was exactly what it was about atheism that bugged me. So I’ve figured it out, I can put it much more succinctly now, and I’m ready to move on. So I won’t be starting any more threads about atheism, at least for the time being.
However, I think that as this thread shows, that SOME atheists are very hostile to anyone finds God. That they treat atheism very religiously and get very angry at the unfaithful for threatening their worldview by renouncing it.
I’ll continue to point it out when I think they are getting a little bit too zealous in their beliefs, but I’m not gonna keep on about it anymore.
I even got to liking some of the atheists I argued with, Voyager, Miller, SentientMeat, and even cuddly wuddly uber-paranoid Der Trihs.
Alternatively, people who want to express new ideas might want to consider not using words that are already well-defined and simply slapping new meanings on them, then getting offended because people who encounter the words are confused because they are used in some incomprehensible way.
I doubt that the majority of respondents to Aeschines thread “shut down” because of the word “Christ.” I suspect far more reacted because he posted an emotional personal expression with no context linked to a situation (described in a foreign language) that did not evoke the same emotional response from all his audience.
If one chooses to speak only in a solipsistic idiolect, then one should keep one’s ramblings to oneself. If the purpose of language is to communicate, (or to woo women), then it is the fault of the author who chooses to use idiolect, free of context, when communication fails.
As to your beef with (some) atheists, they are responding to people who tell them to believe in specific things and the fact that you can come up with an alternative idea or thing and slap the same label on it does not mean that they are lacking. Their response is to the world as they have encountered it. Der Trihs* may not be reacting against your particular view of the world, but he is clearly reacting against a widely held set of beliefs. His open hostility is not arbitrary, regardless whether you believe that his reaction is justified.
Regarding Der Trihs:You will also refrain from calling anyone an idiot in this Forum in the future.
Agreed, but the relevance to my comment escapes me. By the way, I’ve told you before I don’t call myself an atheist (for very much the reasons you object to the term).
I didn’t know it was a bad thing. Why don’t you try it?
I don’t believe I am presenting a “NEW” idea, and that is the crux of the issue. Defining God rigidly is something that every mystic tradition I have ever studied anything about warns against. So my problem with those particular atheists is that when they deny God, they are denying a rigid definition, and assuming that people hold to that, by calling anyone who has a religious experience “delusional”.
That’s a fair assessment.
I post on the straightdope because I want to be understood by multiple groups, I want to learn how to tailor my arguments to better explain to intellectuals and materialists what I am talking about. There is a common assumption that because the type of person on this message board has trouble understanding me, that all people have trouble understanding me. This is simply not the case. I am attempting to bridge the gap between two dynamic polarities in modern thought. This is not an easy task.
Well, I do believe that he has something in his past that brings him to his belief system, but from what I have experienced while dealing with him, it is more of the emotional variety than born of reason. He is actually a rare bird in that he is on the opposite side of the gap from those that normally react the way that he does. His posts come across more like the newly religious, than they do as the atheist quasi-rationalist.
Now I have considered making up terms, and giving them my own definitions in order to present new ideas, and I don’t necessarily know how I feel about that. Scientists of course do it all the time, but I am not sure if it wouldn’t just confuse the issue even more. Basically, there is a sort of perjorative context that is applied by atheists to any people they believe to be on the other side of the coin. They love to claim it as ‘delusion’.
I find it considerably odd however, when atheist exhibit a similar behavior to what I have been throwing at them, very few people call them on it. Why is it that it is more acceptable on this board for an atheist to claim that someone who has had a religious experience is delusional or hallucinating, than it is for me to say that atheism is a semantic mistake?
The definition of the word “Religion” I use has more to do with a candor of observance than a belief in a deity. If something is religious, then the devotion one applies to it is greater than the devotion they apply to other aspects of their daily lives. I do not think that it is me that is defining religion inaccurately or in a new way however. I think there is a way that the word religion has been colloquialized by crusading atheists into the perjorative form that it has today. It is the attitude that allows Nazism and Communism to be labelled as religions but not atheism. However, there are quite a few atheists here who take their atheism VERY seriously, and apply a similar devotion to it that a Christian applies to their observance. It is very easy to point out Buddhism as a counter-example as to why worship of a deity is unecessary to be qualified as a religion. So a lot of the atheistic arguments rely upon using religion as a perjorative term, and would fall apart if one classified atheism as a religion, even though I think it is fair to qualify it as one.
If there were more respect given from the atheist side of the coin, I would probably be more respectful, but there usually isn’t, even people who stay pretty civil like SentientMeat carry an undertone of derision when discussing such matters. I personally do not self-identify with any creed because I do not wish to be locked into any of those categories. It makes it difficult for people to understand because they have nothing by which to easily cross-reference my belief system, but it works out in the end because I am capable of tossing out baggage that I don’t wish to carry.
The way I approach the term “God” is very Judaic actually in that I don’t try to give it a limited definition. One must have a relationship with God in order to understand God, and I think it is the height of both ignorance and arrogance for people to tell me that my relationship is a ‘delusion’ or a ‘hallucination’ and I don’t feel any particular need to show humility in the face of such idiocy. Their ignorance is not evidence of my insanity.
So the reason I don’t choose different terms to address what I am saying is simply because I think that this argument is too often framed by atheist doublespeak, and I am not letting them coopt the terms and apply their own self-serving definitions to these words. In much the same way that I think that American secularism is by its nature of having conflict with religions therefore limits the ability of people to practice their own religion, and should not be held up as the pluralistic ideal that people like to believe that it is.
Too many of the atheist arguments rely on semantic paradoxes that exist only because of the way English is constructed, and I am tired of being locked into limiting metaphors by someone who is so obstinant as to just outright deny my metaphor rather than trying to undersand it.
Thus far my tactic of reflecting the same derision i am receiving back, has seemed to actually open up some real dialogue about the issue.
Because the atheists are saying the other side is wrong; you’re playing word games to pretend we don’t exist.
What planet have you been living on ? Religion is venerated by the majority; atheists are considered evil.
Communism is not atheism; it’s an ideology that happens to contain atheism as a component. Nazism was quite Christian, down to hating Jews and wearing “God is with us” ( I think that’s the translation ) on their belt buckles. Naizism had plenty of support from the Christians; they like to pretend otherwise because the Nazis lost.
It’s hard to respect utter nonsense, and I’m a bad liar.
“Arrogance” is claiming that only those who agree with you can understand you; it sounds more like a way of silencing skeptics. Believing things that have no basis in reality isn’t all that sane, no matter what you like to think.
“American secularism” is practically an oxymoron. America is rabidly religious.
Being confusing is not the same as being profound.
I get the impression that if he had spoke of his great repentence and how his life was filled with sin before his conversion then you may have been convinced that it was real. No offense intended but this seems like more," it doesn’t fit with my concept so it must be bogus"
What it seems like to me was that he had been true to himself before in his atheism and when his experiences and thoughts changed then he accepted that as part of his comittment to the truth and personal honesty. I can respect that and see no need for him to repent of being honest with himself. Years ago I was a young priest in a Christian denomination. At that time I was being true to myself and the beliefs I held and was serene and content wuth that path. Time and circumstance changed things and I had to let that go also in the name of being true to myself. I count myself as a believer but not longer a Christian although I revere Christ and his teachings. I have Christian friends who think I am lost and pray I’ll find my way back to the Lord. IMHO I am more “found” than ever and could never go back to where I was without betraying what I hold to be true.
I don’t feel the need to repent from the process of growth. Perhaps Myers felt the same way.
I would also add that your version of Christianity as popular as it may be is not the only one, and others may repentence in a different way. If your behavior changes for the better then you must have repented from something yes?
Two points here. The word I used was “unconvincing”, rather than “bogus”. I don’t doubt Mr Wright’s sincerity, I just don’t feel that reading his account of his experiences is likely to change anyone else’s mind on the issue. I may be wrong, of course.
Secondly, the repentence point was more directed to his claim to have adopted the Christian faith, rather than any other non-atheistic position. I can’t speak for everyone who describes themselves as Christian, but I don’t know of any Christian church that doesn’t regard repentence as essential.
I’m not saying “He’s not a real Christian because he hasn’t repented.” I would say, though, that if he wants to continue to grow in the Christian faith, he would be well advised to look into himself and see what’s there that he needs to repent of - and I can assure him, and everyone else, that there is something there.
I would also not personally categorize a belief in God without a corresponding belief in the need for us to ask forgiveness of Him for our sins as Christian. But I accept that my categorization is entirely irrelevant to what Mr Wright describes himself as.
Of course - I would be the last to claim that spiritual growth and satisfaction can only be found within the Christian faith. However, someone who finds themselves unable to accept the basic tenents of it shouldn’t really, in my opinion, continue to describe themselves as a Christian - you yourself don’t, after all.
No. This is our old friend Affirming The Consequent again. If you repent, your behaviour should change for the better. However, this does not imply that if your behaviour changes for the better, you have repented.
For example, consider someone who stops cheating on his wife because his lover moves away. His behaviour has changed for the better, but not because of any repentance, just because he no longer has the opportunity to indulge in that particular vice.
I dont think we can say that this mans “Visions” were hallucinations for sure, you would only say that with assurance if your already assuming that the supernatural is possible. I think that he is using ockmans razor in a correct way, since if you allow for the supernatural it becomes the easiest and simplest explanation.
I would disagree with this. Supernaturalism is something that doesnt necesarily need evidence, could it be possible that all hallucinations are actually supernatural, yes, therefore maybe the supernatural aspect should be the thing that is left and the hallucination be cut away. (Im not saying that this should be done but just that in some cases the razor doesnt apply, and all possible explanations should be left open.)
It’s Occam’s Razor again; assuming an objective world exists is simpler than assuming the world is an infinite, perfectly consistent hallucination. It’s also practical; believing the world to be an illusion is pretty pointless.
who says the world has a point. Im not argueing that what Im saying is true just that it shouldnt be so easily cast asside.
I think that even with occam’s Razor we cannot say that our senses actually perceive the world as it exists. Furthermore this mans hallucination as you put it could be reality, it could of been a vision and no amount of cutting with Occams Razor will get rid of that possibility.
As many foundation philosophers thought there is a foundation of knowledge that only you can know, for instance my foot hurts, I know that my foot hurts basically because it hurts, and it would be illogical for you to say no it doesnt your foot doesnt hurt. I would say this a similair situation, this man believes he had a vision and maybe he is the only one that can actually know if its a vision, obviously we shouldnt take his word for it, but to denie it as a possiblity is quite a strong position i am not willing to take.
I didn’t. I simply pointed ( hah ) out that solipism is a dead end.
Without any evidence for it, your solipsism arguement should be cast aside. First, if it’s true, you aren’t real, so I might as well ignore your opinion anyway. Second, as I said it’s a dead end.
Religious visions have thousands of years of history of being utterly wrong. Without hard evidence, there is simply no reason to take it seriously; the mere fact that religion is involved makes his experience less likely to be true.
He claimed it was a vision of objective truth, not subjective experience. Not the same thing at all.
Solipism is a dead end, but that doesnt neccesarily make it wrong.
Its completely possible that Im not real, which means its shouldnt be cast aside, you need to show how I might be real.
True but who is to say that objectivity doesnt exist. (It might sound like Im contradicting myself but the truth is I dont know, which is what Im trying to get across) It is impossible to know any of this without truth, but its not subjective that my foot hurts, its objective, and foundational knowledge, even if im the only one that knows, this mans vision could of been really a vision sometype of supernatural comunique and hed be the only one that would know that thats what it was, Im trying to think of the word that this type of knowledge is called but I cant think of what it is. That could still be objective knowledge, he could of objectively seen this vision and it could be objectively a vision only if hes the only one that could know it.
