Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (soul, believer, belief)

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Gnostic Christianity. It is a religion.

There exist in the universe this strange device referred to as "google" that can be used to answer these questions in ten seconds.

Honestly, stick to the topic at hand (do reddit style atheist do more harm than good for the secular movement?) For your own sake.

It is also just a label composed of two words (the real/ancient Gnostic Christians were an ancient group of various denominations that ceased to exist in leadership progression after successful religio-government persecutions). A clarification on your part would be indeed be necessary, I believe. The two posters figured that since you seemed to say you supported what is "secular" and in regards to your religion you stated you were "not that great at it"... that therefore you were some vague liberal Christian rather than of a particularly cemented "fundamentals" denomination. People in self-aggrandizing "we are this and this specifically" denominations don't usually rail against themselves unless the denomination is designed to urge them to do such in order to have the members seem more "down to earth" (yet less happy) and thus attract more possible participants among a "down to earth" zeitgeist in their communities of reach.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

in other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it? it's OK to use sarcasm, and insults on others, but not for others to use them on you?

I think he meant "appropriate" as in "it follows logically" not as in "it conforms to my aesthetics."

But you are right, everyone seems very sensitive to words and pictures these days. Islamization of our Western Enlightenment culture?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MartinEden99

That's because we are quite sure that we have the best arguments on the topic of religion. ....running off to do research to prove the atheist wrong is precisely how a critically thinking person behaves.

no that's how an arrogant domineering person behaves. your beliefs are right for you. my beliefs are right for me. to call someone wrong and insist your beliefs are best for them is utterly arrogant and dogmatic. whether it is someone at my front door handing out tracts, or someone in this forum making claims that if someone has God in their life, then they are not using their brain. That is dogmatic behavior: arrogant, imperious, rigid dictatorial, inflexible. No room whatsoever for others to have very different beliefs; no tolerance, no acknowledgment or acceptance that others do religion very differently than you.

this is where we differ. what you focus on entirely is beliefs and having "the best arguments" and proof and evidence.

that is of no interest to me whatsoever. behavior is what matters to me, how someone conducts themself, lives their beliefs, puts them into action. our behavior is a walking advertisement for our beliefs. how a person carries themself in this forum is what impresses me, not their beliefs. i have my favorite posters on the religion forum and they are all across the religious spectrum: Mrs. Mathlete; arleigh; urkoz; Pleroo; L8Gr8; june; and others. They contribute posts of substance, depth, personal experience, without insulting others (or when they do they own it and apologize), even when they are expressing disagreement.

when people engage in offensive behaviors of name calling, sarcasm, insults, ridicule, condescension then immediately whatever message they are trying to get across has nothing to recommend it.

you boast about "having the best arguments" and "proving someone wrong" when in reality all you can determine is what is right for you. period. full stop. not what is right for anyone else. i don't ever have to justify, defend, or rationalize how i live my life or what I believe to anyone.

i am much more impressed with or repelled by behavior. not beliefs....behavior. i don't try to convince or prove anything to anyone else. i know whats right for me in religion, but certainly not whats right for anyone else, that's their business.

see? it's not the beliefs that are the problem, it's the dogmatic offensive behavior. can you see the distinction? and can you see how someone's behavior can immediately cause their message to be utterly rejected? not because of what they believe, but because of how they behave.

[again the "you" here is not directed at Martin alone, but is speaking to the people who engage in the behavior described]

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bUU

It was indeed replying to what you actually said, and explaining what was erroneous about it.

Except no you were not because I said neither of the things you attempted to correct me on. But do keep trying, you will get there.

Originally Posted by bUU

Because you were replying to me, so therefore it is reasonable to expect that you were addressing your comment to me.

I was, but the comment addressed to you did not say the thing you pretended to correct me on. Again.

Originally Posted by bUU

I pointed out that your comment, yet again, was trying to say something about all theists based on attributes of some

And I pointed out that my comment did not actually do that. But keep pretending it does if it gives you something you can reply to. Do not let the facts of what I said get in the way of you ranting at something in your head.

Originally Posted by bUU

You can dodge all you want

Thanks for your permission here, but I do not require it. Especially given the dodging is being done by you, and not at all by me.

Originally Posted by bUU

but I will instead engage you in discussion with integrity.

Great, that would be a welcome change. Go for it.

Originally Posted by bUU

You should do so, as well.

I have.

Originally Posted by bUU

Again, I did.

Again, no you didn't.

Originally Posted by bUU

I put forward counter arguments to the categorical statements you made

No you did not. I gave two EXAMPLES of theist thought and explained what the problem was. Rather than reply to that however you have pretended that I claimed all theists thing that way, which I never did anywhere. So if you want to find the flawed thinking, I suggest you start with the mirror.

Originally Posted by bUU

If we're being honest, then we would have to say that I have. You may not want to acknowledge my comments as such, because you feel you would have no legitimate response, but that doesn't obviate the fact that I've responded directly to your attempts to refute what I've written.

But you have not done so anywhere. Saying you have does not magically mean you have. The fact remains you have consistently pretended I said things I never said. And replied to those things instead of what I actually said. You continue on with such nonsensical discussing the discussion as a means of trying to deflect attention away from comments you don't like but for which you have no legitimate response. I have already dignified more of them with responses than is justified.

Originally Posted by bUU

For those who have no antipathy for organized religion that they need to shake off, and are interested in coming to understand the benefits thereof

Given you have not demonstrated any benefit of organized religion there is nothing TO shake off. Certainly no one else has demonstrated such to me either in all my time here, so do not feel yourself singled out for that comment. I have yet to see any benefits to such religion, and the attempts people have made to show some in the past have generally been things religion has associated itself with successfully, but does not actually directly do itself. Morality and charity being two common examples.

But in all the things such people attempt to credit religion for, it seems not only is religion entirely superfluous to requirements for them, but the cost and detriments of religion in those spheres far outweighs and perceived benefits.

If however you want to try demonstrating some benefits of organized religion, then I am all ears.

Originally Posted by bUU

The Judeo-Christians never knew, in the way you understand the word "know", what the after life would be.

Which is less relevant to me than the fact they can not even offer the first SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to even lend a modicum of credibility to the claim there even IS an after life. Trying to imagine what it would be, or what it would be like, is getting ahead of themseves therefore. No one, least of all you, seems capable of even showing there is likely to be such a thing, yet many people want to line up and tell us it's characteristic. Comedy. Pure comedy.

Originally Posted by bUU

How deeply one cares about the after life matters, as does the truth of it.

Yes because beliefs matter. I agree. And the sad fact is that many people who think there is an after life, when there is NO reason at this time to suggest there is, often do so to the detriment of the quality of the only life we know they do have. From missing out on things in this life..... to parents who watch their own children die of painful but easily treatable medical conditions because they imagine the dictator in their chosen after life is personally offended by medical intervention. It would be comedy too, if it was not so horrifically tragic.

Originally Posted by bUU

With regard to the truth of it, the Judeo-Christians' corrupted understanding of the after life is damaging to society

Subscription to unsubstantiated nonsense is damaging to society. And the concepts there is an after life, or there is a god, are example of unsubstantiated claims.

Originally Posted by bUU

I know you don't agree, and will vigorous refuse to acknowledge it

Yea, I do tend to refuse to accept unsubstantiated claims. With quite a lot of rigor. I heartily recommend it in fact.

Originally Posted by bUU

but deeply caring (exhibiting reverence) about your impact on the world (that which will feed your after life) is better for all concerned

Any evidence that there is an after life please? Any evidence that actions here affect my after live please?

Actually I find having no concept of an after life causes me to have MORe concern for my impact on this world, not less. And I have met theists for which the exact opposite is true. For example climate change and the environment. I have met theists who have NO interest in these things, because they believe the end of days is not that far off, so investing any time, money or concern in protecting our planet is pure wastage. Another great effect of this unsubstantiated nonsense we call religion, and which you claim there is benefits of.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

made by atheists who engage in name calling, insults, mocking, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension is the clear demonstration that they lack the basic skills for effective communication.

And yet the only one refusing to communicate is you. Every time you are asked to substantiate your claims or positions you either pretend someone is being offensive and then run away, or you pretend you could not be bothered to answer them and then run away.

So all the while you are lamenting that people lack communication skills, the only one actually demonstrating such a lack is you.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Every time you are asked to substantiate your claims or positions you either pretend someone is being offensive and then run away, or you pretend you could not be bothered to answer them and then run away. So all the while you are lamenting that people lack communication skills, the only one actually demonstrating such a lack is you.

see post 93

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I did, it does not affect my reply at all. Another reply you have not bothered to actually reply to.

[MartinEden99]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

..........
this is where we differ. what you focus on entirely is beliefs and having "the best arguments" and proof and evidence.

that is of no interest to me whatsoever. behavior is what matters............

Trimming as this is a key distinction and it goes to why do we engage on forums like this.

You are correct that in the narrow part of my life that is irreligion....I am focused on what the arguments are for and against various god-beliefs, and the proof and evidence behind those arguments. Because that's how you find the data you need to make informed decisions about anything in life.

Your second line above speaks to what I mentioned earlier. You are not concerned with whether the god you've heard about actually exists, and whether the books written about said god are factual and ought to be trusted as such.

In every day life....we probably engage people in similar ways. I am generally known as polite, courteous, and thoughtful to those around me. Or at least that's what they tell me.

But on a forum about religious concepts, you and I differ because you and I are not looking for the same things. I am looking for reasons to give credibility to (what I perceive to be) longstanding mythology being advocated as counter-argument to science, reasons why most religious people tend to stick together in (what I perceive as) social cults and want to advocate their morality for everybody else, and why anybody would actually believe in (what I perceive to be) mythology. I'm not convinced there is any validity to religious beliefs beyond the scope of self-affirming benefits which can be derived in secular ways without engaging in (what I perceive to be ) self-delusion.

So naturally if you are not here for similar reasons as somebody like me, or even the polar opposite reasons (such as why would anybody be an atheist).....and you're not interested in whether your beliefs about gods are actually justified true beliefs.....then you're not likely to find much value in engaging with most atheists. Because that is what is more important to a typical atheist, as it pertains to the narrow subject of religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

So once again any discussion is reduced to 'You are (or said) this or that '...no I didn't.. you did'. And trying to sell the claims of religion or at least the purported benefits.

Waste of time, on both counts. As De Botton argued, take the benefits, you don't need to take the faith -claims with them.

Bottom line: no case has been made for internet atheists harming secularism (quite apart from it looking like the thread was started by those who had no time for secularism anyway, but who were only interested in shutting us up) and the way it looks is that we are not harming secularism even if we are not driving up the number of Nones.

I am supporter of feminism. In the early days, there was a lot of nonsense like showing how women were equal to men by suggesting dressing up like them and liberating women by suggesting forbidding them to look like women. There was a LOT of man -bashing, too. But all through that I supported equality and liberation because it was plainly right. Now it has settled down into women being proud of what they are, not bitter and envious of what they are not. Point is that some of the stuff could have harmed the cause but that didn't matter.The cause was right.

Same with the Black liberation and Gay rights. The atheism -push is right, even if it did put some people off secularism. Which I doubt. And frankly the opposition here haven't taken any high moral ground (let alone intellectual) by the way they came across in posting.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

I think that if you asked a thousand religious persons to define "afterlife" that is the definition that 990 of them will give you.

If you asked a thousand religious persons to define "afterlife" you'd get a thousand different answers, and they would break down on religio-political boundaries. So while religious folks mostly acknowledge the existence of the after life there is no single definition of it that prevails, just like there is no single definition of God that is shared by the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

The reality is that the after life is a religious context - an aspect that serves a specific purpose in goodness itself. Many theists are driven to goodness with regard to that aspect by fear of a threat. Theists who believe in the after life I outlined are driven to goodness by the importance of being remembered fondly by friends, family members, etc. Fundamentalist Christians argue that that's not a strong-enough motivation to goodness. They're wrong. Yet you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater by going into your head and detaching it from your heart (see below) with regard this driver of goodness.

Originally Posted by mordant

And if you ask them to define the appeal and impact of that definition on them personally it is that they get a "get out of death free pass" from it.

For which the negative impact on society is something about which you and I both agree.

Originally Posted by mordant

If this is, as you label it, an "erroneous, supernatural belief" then it is invalid and the "accurate, naturalistic belief" that would logically replace it would logically have some different term to describe it

False. That is what you want. That is not what is logical. It is a reflection of your dogmatic atheist perspective, because it serves your preferred narrative. Expecting me to abide your claim that it is "logic" is the exact same behavior that you complain about when practiced by fundamentalist Christians, even though you refuse to admit that.

Originally Posted by mordant

Maybe you don't like how the use of English has evolved in this regard and you want to "take back" this word's meaning for historical reasons

Precisely the opposite. Unlike you, I recognize I have no power over what people think about certain words, so all I can do is communicate using the words that communicate the thoughts and feelings that I'm trying to communicate. If the only way to tell people that my sandals are cerulean is with the word turquoise, then guess what, I have no choice but to use the word turquoise. And guess what, same with you.

So it appears that this comment you've posted is a bit of projection: You don't like how the use of English has evolved in this regard. And I don't blame you for that, given how much dogmatic atheism results in sub-optimal response.

Originally Posted by mordant

Thank you for respecting the dignity of making my own choices. We can agree that throwing off the shackles others would forge for us is a Good Thing, it is simply a question of strategy.

I devote my energy to matters of morality, itself, rather than wasting energy trying to get society to think different things about specific words.

Originally Posted by mordant

You would seem to prefer to take on the extra freight of re-re-defining concepts

You, unsurprisingly, have it backwards. I'm not redefining anything. I'm working with the words as they are operationally understood in society. God is goodness, even if you cannot bring yourself to accept that.

Originally Posted by mordant

rather than simply debunking them

"Simply"? How's that working out for you?

How Americans Feel About Religious Groups | Pew Research Center

I give your efforts an 'F'.

Originally Posted by mordant

I don't see any value for myself but absolutely can understand the value others might find in it. I am in some ways too heady for my own good. But I am what I am. I cannot pretend to be otherwise.

And this distinguishes you from some of the other posters. You recognize that you latch onto the intellectual too much for your own good. In these words, you have effectively ratified everything I've said (even though you will invariably disagree). And that is the source of your confusion with regard to my responses to your comments: The fact that you don't see that these words you've posted here actually do, completely, ratify my perspective. So I appreciate when you say these words, and you think we have an agreement in principle. And so do I. And then you go back to attacking the words that are not "too heady" (but rather are more "heart-felt" - these are the precise words we use in our worship team meetings).

Originally Posted by mordant

This is actually a point of view I have evolved away from. Mainly because society seems hell-bent on being deliberately obtuse about a range of things, and I am tired of walking on eggshells so as not to offend their tender sensibilities.

Giving into exhaustion is not evolution. Devolution, perhaps.

Originally Posted by mordant

How they handle information that makes them uncomfortable is on them, not me.

How's that working out for you?

How Americans Feel About Religious Groups | Pew Research Center

Originally Posted by mordant

What's on me is to communicate clearly.

The problem is that you mean "clearly in my own, too heady, mind." And of course you're wrong: What is on you -- what is on any person trying to communicate -- is the obligation to work to communicate as clearly as possible in the minds of the people with whom you're trying to communicate.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except no you were not because I said neither of the things you attempted to correct me on.

It is a shame that you're working so hard to deflect attention away from comments you don't like because you don't have a legitimate response. I'll simply restate the on-topic point, until you take accountability and respond to it with integrity:

There are other types of theism than what you outlined. I presented counter-examples to the categorical thinking your statements expressed. I have presented benefits from organized religion, which you have doggedly refuse to acknowledge me even expressing, again seemingly as a bulwark against the categorical thinking that is your preferred narrative.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Saying you have does not magically mean you have.

Saying I have not does not magically mean I have not. You aren't engaging the discussion with integrity. I am. That's all there is to say. I'm sure you'll spew another set of vacantly nonsensical comments about the comments, as a means of deflecting attention away from the discussion itself. All you seem to have left to contribute to the discussion is puerile and rude disrespect and obtuse refusal to acknowledge that you've been given the answers to the questions you're asking. It's a shame.