I believe that’s true, and I don’t think it’s inappropriate to “fight back” against those who specifically do that to you. But has Polycarp done that? Has Siege? No? Then when you paint them with the “deluded” brush, you are dishing something out to them that they’ve never given to anyone else.
And it explains why those of us of faith who have taken pains to not insult those with no faith get touchy too. I was raised to emphatically believe that people of different faith (or no faith) were not deluded or stupid, bad, or intolerant.
I’ve had some lovely IRL discussions about faith with tolerant atheists, agnostics, etc. My desire is to “get along” and not be insulted, or insult anyone else. So when I see atheists spewing out all this “deluded” crap, it doesn’t do anything for me. I don’t treat people like that, and I see no reason why I should be treated that way. I in no way asked for it. A lot of other people of faith on this board didn’t ask for it either. We reserve the right to consider people who insult us to be assholes. Is that not our right? If we make efforts to be tolerant and polite, and what we get in return is condescending insults, do you see why we are justified in regarding those who insult us (without provocation on our part) as assholes?
Well, that’s news to me. Here I thought my intent was to get you to stop using group categorizations, and contemptuous characterizations as rhetoric tools. But, it is already established that you are the reasonable, and logical one, and I am just one of those deluded mouthbreathing Christian bigots, so I suppose I will have to accept that I have been trying to shut you up.
um, well, . . .
Shut up, I guess.
Tris
" It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching." ~ Saint Francis Of Assisi ~
First, to Dob: Gobear is not a dick. He’s a heckuva nice guy, who was acting like a dick for significant parts of this thread, for reasons that finally come clear below.
Except that that is not what any one of the three of us, nor Lord Ashtar as well, and I suspect strongly the other theists who have spoken up in this thread, were saying.
Let me clarify:
Resolved: “The Christian God [or such other God as you choose to nominate] exists.”
Unprovable, using the forms and techniques that are common-consent-acceptable for proof around these premises.
Resolved: “There is no such thing as God, a god, or gods.”
Similarly unprovable.
What we use for referent, what we mean by it, is significant.
If by “God,” we mean “the supernatural being who manifested and assumed gobear into Heaven two days ago,” we have an entity that is flat-out disprovable, since gobear (or someone representing themselves as him) has posted in the interim. IMO, the God of the fundamentalists can be disproven by science, unless He is, as some YECs represent Him as being, a trickster god who plants false evidence. But that’s not the understanding of God that some of the rest of us work with.
Now, if the proposition is:
Resolved: A distinct endemic species of field mouse occurs on Manitoulin Island, ON.
…then we can amass evidence as to what defines a species, whether the population of field mice on Manitoulin is distinct from what occurs on the nearby Michigan and Ontario mainlands, whether that distinctness is sufficient to define a new species, etc.
And we may end up with insufficient evidence to satisfy all debaters that Mus manitoulinensis is indeed a distinct species. In which case we can agree to disagree.
As I said in an earlier post, the (insufficient for formal proof and subjective) evidence available to me is sufficient to satisfy me as to the existence of God. I don’t demand it be of sufficiency to you.
And, save in a particularly snarky mood when struck by a typical fundie or sophomore-atheist post, I don’t demand that anyone else respect the conclusions I believe should be drawn from my inference that the Christian God exists.
I do demand that my fellow Christians act in accord with the teachings of the guy that they accepted as Lord and Savior of their lives. That’s a reasonable demand; if you claim to be an American citizen, then you need to fulfill the minimal obligations associated with that identity (paying income taxes if your income is above the floor, doing jury duty when called and without valid reason to be excused, etc.). I don’t expect that of everybody – Ice Wolf, down there in Ennzedd, is not obliged to do so; the man whose annual income is below the taxation floor is not required to file his 1040; the woman who is the sole person capable of doing such-and-such job on which the public depends is entitled to be excused from jury duty; and so on. But I hold that someone who claims to be a Christian should be doing what Christ commanded.
I do not make that claim of people generally – I think that a world of people who loved their neighbor as themselves, and behaved like the “sheep” rather than the “goats” in that parable, would be a nice place to live. But they (people in general) never made a commitment to do so; the Christians did.
My objection to your language was not in your maintaining your stance that there is no (read insufficient) evidence to convince you of God – it was in making a claim about “reason” to suggest that we who do hold such beliefs are failing to employ it.
Like the mammalogists with the new mouse species, we are interpreting information differently and coming to different conclusions.
You’re more than welcome to say, “I don’t think there’s evidence to prove God’s existence to all and sundry on an objective plane.” Neither do I. My evidence is subjective – either personal experience, or my own subjective weighing of the validity of evidence based in tradition. You came to the opposite conclusion, for reasons I can respect.
But I’m employing my best abilities to reason based on insufficient evidence to convince everybody either way, and so are you. That we’ve arrived at different conclusions is, well, reasonable.
Needless to say, I stand by you in combatting the efforts of some to enforce their religious opinions on others by force of law – not one word in this thread has ever suggested to me for a minute that I should do otherwise.
And I deeply regret that defending my own beliefs and my ability to reason concerning them ever gave you a sense that I was trying to shut you up.
What I was saying, pure and simple, was that your stance in calling our views unreasonable was as much intolerance as the fundies’ stance in calling yours purblind refusal to accept what they consider proof.
You’re being reasonable in arriving at the conclusions you did. So am I, in arriving at opposite conclusions. Because we’re both working with subjective and insufficient evidence, and weighing it according to our own views.
Again, if my presentation is over the top for the Pit, or even G.D., then I’ll eat my hat. I got fed up in a very pit-worthy manner when someone repeatedly ignored practically everything I had written for the last five or six posts, and I had to reiterate ad absurdam. I get similar crap for overlooking one post, and I’m sure I’m not alone. What is this, “do not taunt happy God ball”?
I’ve repeatedly used words like “some” and “many” to describe theists who I find particularly egregious in their behavior. If it’s not explicit enough using these qualifiers, then of course I don’t view all theists as a major world problem or something. Having said that, I cannot avoid suggesint all theists harbor under a delusion, because I consider faith in God delusory (for the bajillionth time). I can’t help it if that’s a broad stroke; is it too broad a stroke to say cats have tails?
What judgement am I passing? That the faithful are, in my oppinion, deluded? For me, that’s so obvious it’s more of an observation than a judgement. I’m calling it like I see it, and if people see it differently, I can’t help that. I think I and others who share this oppinion have made offered up some pretty good examples of things that inform this position, and some of them apply quite broadly to the mainstream faithful (e.g. they believe in God without verifiable evidence, and even believe some portion of what is recorded in scripture, even if strong observational evidence casts the content of said scripture in serious doubt.) What have I said that’s so outrageous?
I don’t think my words have been hostile. They’ve been candid, they’ve been direct, they’ve been stated with reasonable care, and they’ve been supported with examples. I think this is how one characterizes normal debating tactics.
Who is trying to disabuse anyone of any notion except that holding the position that religious faith is delusory is a tenable one. I certainly don’t expect the faithful to be swayed by my oppinion, or am I trying to get them to stop believing. I’m merely pointing out that their position is baseless from an evidential standpoint, and they can’t really expect me to think or behave otherwise in the course of a debate about said beliefs. If they find this unsatisfacory, why not come up with some evidence that supports their position? How is demanding the debator not question their belief out of respect conducive to debate? If if the OP wasn’t looking for a debate, why’d they open the can o’ worms in the first place?
Hopefully I’ve been reasonably clear, by now. I’m not sure what more I could say, quite frankly.
I’d like to address this argument, even though it’s way back in the thread, because I don’t think it’s been addressed adequately.
When I see a building, I assume that someone built it, for several reasons:
When I was a kid, my parents explained to me how buildings were built.
As I grew up, I saw buildings being built by people.
Everything I’ve seen on the topic of “how buildings are formed” has been consistent, pointing toward the necessity of human agency behind the construction of buildings.
I am confident that if I doubted the human hand behind a given building, I could go forth and corroborate the human agency. For most modern buildings, I could find out the names of the people who built it, their hair color, and their favorite brands of beer if I so desired.
Buildings are pretty much defined by human agency: there are things that look vaguely buildinglike (hills, termite mounds, old redwoods) but that have distinguishing features that let me know they were not built by humans. This contrast between human-built phenomena and non-human-built phenomena helps me recognize a “building.”
Therefore, if I see something that looks sufficiently like other buildings I’ve seen, I’ll assume that humans built it.
When I see a universe, I do not assume that a God built it, for several reasons:
Although my parents told me when I was young that a God built the universe,
As I grew up, I never saw a universe being built by a God.
Nothing I’ve seen on the topic of “how universes are formed” has pointed me towards the necessity of divine agency behind the construction of universes.
I am not at all confident that I can go forth and corroborate the divine agency behind this universe, much less find out the divinity’s hair color, name, and favorite brand of beer (or other specific details).
There’s nothing for me to compare this universe to: I can’t say, “see, here’s what a God-built universe looks like, and those universes over there, they’re not God-built.”
In other words, I think this analogy–and similar “watchmaker” analogies–fails on several fundamental levels. My reasons for believing a human created a building in no way help me decide that a God created this universe.
In my post I’m not arguing for any gods at all, I’m pointing out that your counterargument requires a presumption of axioms that are not universal; that are, in my opinion, strongly founded in a belief that the god-structure posited by the Abrahamics is the only god-structure positable or that anyone in the discussion adheres to.
Why presume that myths are intended to be factual information in the first place? They’re intended as illustrations of truths. Truths are not the same thing as facts – remember Niels Bohr’s comment on truths: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
If you want factual information, go to science; that’s the appropriate tool for that sort of thing, as it tries to remove the things introduced by human-brain-as-filter. Religion is a tool for dealing with questions of meaning, which explicitly requires human brains involved. (Things don’t have meaning in a vacuum; they just are. Meaning is a thing ascribed.)
It’s common in some discussions of Christianity to use marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between humans and the divine. My father is in the habit of using religions’ description of the ideal relationship between humans and the divine as a metaphor for how to structure a marriage within that context. I think this is an awfully neat way of looking at the question.
Myths serve to both express and define the way we think; that’s what they’re for. They’re a mode for expressing great truths and for presenting those truths in a way that the meaning is available as a shorthand.
(If you’re reading any of the relationship-related threads currently going in the Pit, you might try as an experiment looking at the social patterns as the results of competing mythologies – what it means for a woman to ask a man out, what it means to accept or reject a date, and so on. The basic presumptions encapsulated in the different mythologies are occasionally quite funky when teased out of the conflicts, and I think it’s easier to make sense of what’s going on in the dueling mythology context.)
Again with the presumptions of universalism and monotheism.
As far as I can tell, the gods of the Aztecs liked human sacrifices (which is one of the reasons I was a little perturbed to encounter the Aztec recon’s website); why would they tell people to stop doing what they wanted?
And there’s another place it’s interesting to look at the question from a position of cosmogenesis: what does the expulsion from Eden mean? I’ve seen it treated – all by people for whom it’s their myth – as ‘why we work and why childbirth is painful’, ‘source of a permanent taint on humans’, ‘source of a permanent taint on humans now redeemed by Christ’, and ‘part of the growth process from protected children to adults worthy of time with God’. It’s the story that these people tell to illustrate this notion; there’s no way to “kick away the prop” of the truth.
By “no preconceptions”, do you mean discarding my own extant personal beliefs, including those portions that are based on similar observations? It strikes me as a rather odd question to ask someone who has never in her life been a monotheist. . . .
BTW, faithfool, thanks for the acknowledgement. I’ve appreciated your comments, even though I haven’t replied directly to them. (I try to avoid posting metoos, especially in contentious threads.)
And you also will not be able to help it if they deem you an asshole for saying that. This is the price you pay for “calling it like you see it” in such a blunt manner. People will be insulted, and they will consider you an asshole for calling them “deluded.” You have every right to “call it as you see it,” and we (who you are calling “deluded”) have every right to consider you an asshole for calling us that. See how that works?
And even with all that, you’re still going to offend some people, and they’re still going to think you are an asshole. If you have no problem with that, I have no problem either. You call us deluded, we think you are an asshole. We’re all on the same page.
You can question our belief without being an asshole about it. If you choose to be insulting, you will be considered an asshole. This in no way is meant to squelch you from expressing yourself (I think I can speak for many here when I say that), but you cannot expect us to not be offended (and to think that you are being deliberately insulting) when you call us “deluded.”
I will wade back in trepidatiously (and hope to not offend anyone – for that’s very important to me despite it being or not to anyone else) because you were kind enough to answer me. Thank you.
I’m sorry if I failed to make it understood that, generally, everyone was discussing behavior on and off the board. I know some are stressing specifically, but I fell many were doing so broadly. And I do understand about getting “fed up” that it seems one is being ignored. Been there just recently, done that even more. However, I have no idea if you’re talking about me giving you “crap for overlooking one post,” so you’ll have to clarify. If you wish. If you were, my reasons for re-stating it (again) was for the same ones you got “fed up” over. If I’d only put it up once, I can understand it being passed over. Even possibly twice, because this is one huge-ass thread. But the last one, which was really short for me (and the excuse I kept telling myself was that no one commented because I write too damn much – see evidence now :D), was the proverbial straw. To have one particular sentence pulled out of a whole group, addressed and the rest left floundering in the wind after repeated requests for someone, anyone, to give them a shot at answering.
Ya know, Bueller. Bueller??
I also have no clue about the “do not taunt happy God ball” quote means. Especially since I’m attempting to argue for both sides. I, again, am an agnostic deist, so if my ideas are correct, there might be a God but there’s no way of knowing and he isn’t butting in. It’s all random in my world. Then the only thing I was asking for was (here comes that word again) respect. Apparently, we view it as different concepts and I have no problem politely saying that we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Then you have no problem with someone suggesting that all atheist are arrogant, blathering assholes, right? Because some are. With that being their repeated assertion, directly to you when you are being anything but, you’re completely at peace with that. If so, I commend you sir. That’s an admirable trait to be able to disregard totally the opinions of those we don’t respect and only pay heed to people we do. As to you saying that you “consider faith in God delusory,” I got it. Loud and clear. Even the first time you said it. I’d also venture a guess that even the severely mentally-challenged and slow among us are up to speed by now. Therefore on that point, you’ve done good.
About the broad brush stroke, um, just to use your example (specifically, because that’s more fun), all cats do NOT have tails. As a matter of fact, (head’s up, anecdotal evidence on the way) my mother has three. That’s just one family mind you. But again, if you have no issues with someone applying the same standard to you, then I so knock yourself out. Part of it is certainly about not using a double standard, so you could be on target there if it’s all the same to you.
Well, your observation is an opinion that others would opine is a judgment. YMMV, obviously. And people can help how they call it. Like on a message board, there’s plenty of time before you click ‘submit’ to do lots of things. Read the paper, go potty, cook soup, play with one of those cats, spell check -or- decide there’s a more tactful way to say something that *may help some wayward soul stop being so damn “delusional.” However, if your goal isn’t to teach or help, but simply state your “observation,” then once again, no worries mate. Seeing as you’d approve of the same treatment from others.
Not to trot out a completely comparable comparison that no one here has a way of knowing about (but doing it anyway), my mother claims to be candid, direct and the most honest person you’ll ever meet. For the people that know her though, who participate in civil discourse without the desire of intentionally insulting someone or hurting their feelings, don’t want to make them SEE that their logic is inherently inferior or disdain everyone for not siding with them. My mother sees her qualities and character as virtues.
Now, I’m not saying you’re doing the exact same thing. I will say that when I’ve failed to see when others call me on bad attitudes, I don’t always realize just how awful I was until later. Sometimes much, occasionally quickly. No matter what, the onus is on me to be concise and (that word one more time) respectful and helpful. Of course, that’s my intent. I can’t speak for others. I also have witnessed plenty of reasonable debates. I loathe Bush, but he didn’t delve into disrespectfulness because he was on the opposite side of the fence from Kerry. You might contend that it was a political thing and you may indeed be correct. Although the same things can be said about participants in high school debate or what the kindergarten teacher expects from her class. Just sayin,’ is all.
Ya know, I once read a rant on this board, perhaps from a participant in this thread, that lamented proselytizers need to evangelize them. I mean, hasn’t pretty much EVERYONE in America heard the story of the gospels? Basically grasp God and what S/He is all about? So, what is the dealio? Why? If you “certainly don’t expect the faithful to be swayed by my oppinion, or am I trying to get them to stop believing. I’m merely pointing out that their position is baseless from an evidential standpoint, and they can’t really expect me to think or behave otherwise in the course of a debate about said beliefs.” then why say anything at all? You don’t think they know that you feel this way? I’ve never met a Christian, and definitely not a fundamentalist when I was one, who didn’t understand that this is exactly what the situation was. That’s why my one caveat was that it is an exception to the rule if they are trying to bring others harm. In my humble, in any way. Legislation, propagating hate, preventing equality, whatever. But I’m at a loss for the purpose of assailing them with what you think if there not interested and aren’t hurting you, yours or anyone else.
“If they find this unsatisfacory, why not come up with some evidence that supports their position?” Hmmm. I don’t see why it would be necessary to qualify something they view as an opinion in the first place. If they fall under the description I’ve outlined in the paragraph above, then go for it and let the pieces fall where they may. If they say they want a debate, then give them that. But I would assume that devolving into name calling is something left behind on the playground. If not, I wouldn’t engage in it purely because I hold myself to a higher standard and whether they go there or not is irrelevant to what I should do.
So, repeated for emphasis… if that’s your bag on the “give as good as ya got” motto, wear that puppy out. If you care what you deliver in an effort to be heard, please give some thought to how you come across. You may do that (or have already) and decide(d) you like your approach just fine. On the other hand, when I express my view point, it’s usually always to try to help out, if I can. Posts regarding Johnny Depp withstanding. Then the only person I wanna help out is me.
I do feel that was much better, if you were aiming for that, and very clear. Plus, I’m right with you on this; “I’m not sure what more I could say, quite frankly.” and I’d like to keep my dog in this race, I’m just not sure I can without succumbing to apoplexy.
Again, thank you for taking the time and care you’ve shown with my questions. I greatly appreciate it. And because of the folks who do attempt to be reasonable allow me to hear their arguments rather than get lose in any vitriol, I will keep on contemplating more about atheism. Because my main desire it to once be comfortable about my mores. These types of conversations will help.
Don’t knock my time-share belief system. It has served me…uh, well, it hasn’t served me much either way but it’s mine and I’m loathe to throw it away. I’d recommend it to others except we all know how there are no evangelical agnostics.
Ahh. See, this is interesting; because unless I’m mistaken, I can say something like this…
“I’m dissatisfied with the theist position, because it seems to me they believe in things without any independently verifiable evidence, as well as, in many instances, believe despite considerable evidential refutation.”
…and not be called an “asshole”. Maybe I’m wrong, but that appears to be what folks are getting at. This is less “brusque”.
Here’s the thing: I just said I think they’re deluded, only with verbosity. I’m no more or less an asshole, in either case, just less concise. You seem to be saying I can’t criticize the nature of religious belief, or if I do, I must sugar-coat my language to make it seem like I’m really not.
“The faithful are delusory, because they believe in something without any verifiable proof, and despite contrary evidence.”
I just made a description that is consistent with the definition of delusion (check out the first post in the thread where I cited a definition right out of the dictionary), and happens to apply to those with religious faith.
And I do not. In my very first post I explicitly said I admired and respected those theists who admit the possibility of being wrong. And Poly’s very eloquent statement (which is not news to me) is exactly what I was thinking about. Poly does mind his own business in this respect. I don’t recall ever seeing him advocate limiting anyone’s freedom due to his beliefs. I doubt very much he ever has.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think he is wrong, but I thought that before I was an atheist, having grown up Jewish. I can’t imagine subscribing to a belief system the mainstream of which demonizes me, but I don’t understand Log Cabin Republicans either.
But still, belief in god is a belief in an absolute. If communications from this god are immoral by our modern ethics, you’ve got a real problem. You can either deny the communication, which forces you to determine which communicates are authentic, deny what you are, or reject god outright. I think most moral and ethical Christians choose the first route, which in a sense has them put their moral code above god’s. I think this is the only ethical thing to do myself, and I’ve said before that I find Poly more moral than the God of the Bible.
I trust that highlighting this dilemma is not insulting. To repeat, I respect all of you who reject dogmatism for morality. I think you’re living a contradiction, but you’ve resolved it in the ethical way.
Oh, I think I’ve made it very clear that you can use blunt and insulting language about religious belief, and religious people. You cannot however, expect to do so and not be considered an asshole. In other words, you cannot have it all your way. You need to make a choice: be considered an asshole and say whatever you want, or temper what you say (while still trying to convey some honesty) and not be considered an asshole. You don’t get both.
Another way of looking at it: You can tell the overweight woman wearing the tight pink polyester suit that she looks like a “fat hideous cow.” You can do that, since you believe she looks like a fat hideous cow. And she will be insulted and she will think you are an asshole, as will many other people. Every time, they’ll think you’re an asshole. So you make a choice. You can restrain yourself and not call her a “fat hideous cow,” and instead tell her that the outfit “does not flatter” her. Or some other carefully phrased comment. What you cannot do, however, is say whatever you feel like, in whatever (insulting) language you wish, and not risk facing a negative reaction. It doesn’t work that way in any other aspect of life, and it doesn’t work that way here, either. To expect otherwise, is, to be brutally frank, deluded.
Ya know what Loopy, I concede. Since the only thing I’ve been trying to add here is an across-the-board dose of respect, sprinkled with understanding (I’m think compassion or empathy would be shooting for too much), I really am going to pull out. Because my main goal cannot be met. I’m not helping anyone. Even my apology made not a ripple. And that was with me taking it a step further and trying to further assume the error was even more on my part than it typically is.
I’ve tried really trying to be thoughtful and temper my posts with a desire to learn more than just my view point. I’ve gathered much to think about and, as I mentioned the folks who no longer have my email address, I no longer have any desire to beat a dead horse over an issue that small children can grasp. If you truly can’t see what we’re saying, then no amount of explaining it to you will matter. I hope you’re never on the receiving end though, of someone in turn doing this to you (or one of your loved ones – like my soon-to-be ex-husband is overweight and I wouldn’t mind someone stating the obvious, despite it being redundant – however, anyone call him ‘fat’ is going to have one helluva fight on their hands, regardless of whether they were just being “honest” or not). Perhaps then you’ll get it. Unfortunately, I’m not going to put my faith in it.
Hope you all have a great day. If anyone else wishes to respond to anything I’ve written (which I find highly unlikely), please know that I will read it and if necessary, take it to email. Before I do lots of damage between the brick wall and my cranium.
But I gotta admit this was a first for me in my 36 years, that there are people out there who argue against civility. :eek: Just goes to show that you do learn something new everyday.
And thank you much Lilairen, I certainly like, admire and enjoy the company I find myself in. Glad to be a part.
Hmmm. It often doesn’t occur to me that using a perfectly accurate term in an honest manner is roughly the equivalent of acts of blatant cruelty. How silly.
Thing is, I once reluctantly told an increasingly tubby ex. that a pair of jeans didn’t flatter her figure. Unfortunately, she knew exactly what I meant. No sex for loopy that night. Some folks just don’t want an honest critique, even when they ask for it, it seems. Perhaps I am delusory myself to expect better of the faithful in a candid debate. Is that what you’re saying?
