Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (churches, Muslim, Catholic)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bUU

It is a shame that you're working so hard to deflect attention away from comments you don't like

Yea funny that I might direct attention away from comments I NEVER MADE. Because that is what is happening here. You have pretended to correct me on things I never actually said, and you are choosing, for whatever reason, not to have the honesty to acknowledge that. And I will keep distancing myself from comments I never made as long as you don't have a legitimate response. I'll simply restate that I never said them, until you take accountability and respond to it with integrity:

Originally Posted by bUU

There are other types of theism than what you outlined.

A fact I acknowledge more than once already, despite your pretense to the contrary. I'll simply restate that I never said otherwise, until you take accountability and respond to it with integrity,

Originally Posted by bUU

I presented counter-examples

No you presented OTHER examples. None of which were counter to the examples I presented. Examples I presented while, despite your pretense to the contrary, I never indicated I thought were a complete list. I simply never said what you pretended to correct me on. I'll simply restate that I never said otherwise, until you take accountability and respond to it with integrity.

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

Except no such benefits are being presented. And as I said before when people DO try to present benefits they present things that religion is not benefiting, but religion has merely successfully become associated with. The examples I give are morality and charity, but there are more.

Originally Posted by bUU

You aren't engaging the discussion with integrity. I am.

Except I am, it is you who are not, by pretending I said things I never did and then doggedly refusing to correct yourself when you are corrected on it. But I will continue to correct you on it until you take accountability and respond to it with integrity. 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 acknowledging your misrepresentations. But that is you, not me.

[bUU]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

So no retraction of your misrepresentations and no integrity then. Oh well. Well my posts are there for anyone else to reply to if they want. I have made several on topic points which could be addressed if anyone feels the need.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

your misrepresentations and no integrity

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

No you would not get 1000 substantively different answers.

The fear and loathing of mortality is in my view a primary human driver, and historically, quite likely THE driver. I do not buy that most, or even many, religious people hold their views of the term "after life" that loosely. They generally want immortality (whether literal or symbolic) and thus are heavily invested in their own after life concept and its relation to achieving the goals of their immortality projects. They are not, in the main, sanguine about it ... and you are not exception.

So all I am recognizing is that the general concept of "after life" is generally understood by theists and atheists alike as some form of meaningful extension of the actual independent conscious existence of the individual. And if you're going to start using the same term to describe merely having an impact on the living after death, people are going to experience confusion and you are going to talk right past them.

The fondness that a handful of people will temporarily and intermittently feel about me after my passing has nothing to do with my continued existence after death and so it requires a different term in my view because appropriating an existing one and using it in a VERY different conceptual sense is going to make your job all the harder.

That said, of course, if that's the way you want to approach it, knock yourself out. It's none of my business. I just wouldn't advise it.

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

As a practical matter I'm not very motivated by what people think about me as I find it rather random, fickle and feckless. I can behave exactly the same way on two different occasions with the same person and get polar opposite reactions to it, depending on what is going on between the other person's ears at the time, what they are paying attention to, and their perceptions having the potential to be different despite my actions being the same. Yes, lovingkindness, loyalty and devotion and all the rest tends to result in better responses from others overall, but like all other connections between efforts / intents and outcomes, the connection is flaky at best. Given this, what people will think of me when I'm no longer even around to influence it, is even less of a motivational goal. Mostly what will happen is they will forget me anyway. When she was alive my late previous wife was in my thoughts constantly. Now she is in them occasionally and certainly not daily because my limited focus is occupied elsewhere with new relationships and connections, and I have grown and changed and the memory has not.

So yes the desire to be "remembered fondly" is a form of symbolic immortality that we tend to seek, just like any number of fool's errands we pursue in life only to realize it's a largely overdetermined effort and an excessive expending of limited energy.

For me the simple knowledge that I have done the best with the light I have at all times is the only source of real comfort -- not the judgments of others concerning "my best".

Originally Posted by bUU

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

Which is saying in different words and with a different emphasis, just what I said above. However ... when communicating I am always aware of my audience and their perceptions and prejudices as it is practical for me to be. On the one hand I can't care excessively what they think ... on the other if I can avoid them conflating my meaning of a term with their meaning of a term by using a different term for what is after all a rather different concept, I will. Of course, again ... whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

God as generally conceived is generally regarded as good / holy. I have never suggested otherwise. Definitions of "goodness" and the implications of it (whether it implies for example gentle entreaty and approachableness or demands righteous judgment and scourging) is another matter.

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

Nice of you to declare yourself the victor by choosing to deliberately misunderstand my statements.

Recognizing that I tend to be more intellectual and less "heart felt" is not the same as thinking there's something wrong with it for me. Just as recognizing that I'm an introvert does not suggest that I ought to get busy becoming an extrovert because there's something inherently wrong with introversion. Or just as recognizing that I'm far better a computer programmer than an organist should prompt me to leave my profession and become an artist, rather then let go of my attempts at artistry which existed mainly because, decades ago, my parents decided it was / should be part of my identiy. It is simply a different way of being.

Originally Posted by bUU

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.

Just so. Which is precisely why I don't advocate for example using "after life" to label something that has nothing to do with literal immortality. Far too many people make that connection strongly and will completely misunderstand you.

But I do thank you for teaching me something here. I do have a better understanding of how liberal theists work with religious concepts. Frankly given my background I have had trouble understanding it and one of the reasons is I did not understand is the remarkable extent to which completely different significance is placed on the exact same words / phrases / labels. I am sure this practice is not limited to "after life" and it causes quite a bit to fall in place for me. Now when I encounter what looks like word salad from you I will see that I'd have to map what you're saying to what you actually mean rather than what a reasonable person would likely understand you to mean.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

So no retraction of your misrepresentations and no integrity then. Oh well. Well my posts are there for anyone else to reply to if they want. I have made several on topic points which could be addressed if anyone feels the need.

Thanks. If Buu's remark had been to my posts, I would observe that 'agree to differ' is a cunning Theist way of scraping a draw when actually they have been beaten flat.

I already noted a cunning attempt to draw a line which would avoid having to admit he'd been shown up. Doesn't it bring to mind a myriad of other theist posters?
P.s It just came to mind that 'reasonable compromize' is another ploy used, though in fact it is a common fallacy of human thought.

If the argument is about whether the sun rises in the east or the west, we cannot agree to differ, nor to compromize. One is right and the other wrong and that is not dogma but going with the best evidence. The sweet reasonables and accommodationalists fail to understand that they are preaching a fallacy.

Agnosticism is not rationally preaching a half -belief in a god or afterlife. Logic and evidence mandates that you do not believe what has no good evidence for it. The sweet reasonable are either not thinking logically or they are using it as an agenda to get as much as possible of their unvalidated claims accepted as probable, without producing any good evidence for it.

Under the circumstances I think we are not so much instransigent, arrogant and obnoxious, but incredibly conciliarory and forbearing.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by mordant

..

Nice of you to declare yourself the victor by choosing to deliberately misunderstand my statements.

...

.

Sorry to cut your post (required reading) but that sums it up. The theist side exibits a vey common trait of craftiness, dishonesty and projection, as especially in being damn' offensive and taking offence and playing the persecuted martyr card themselves.

I'm doing a post on 'Faith' - the mechanism. But it's turning into a thesis.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Thanks. If Buu's remark had been to my posts, I would observe that 'agree to differ' is a cunning Theist way of scraping a draw when actually they have been beaten flat.

It has been instructive, as I said, on many fronts. That bUU is a member of the clergy suggests that what he is describing, while it no doubt puts his own unique spin on things, probably reflects UU views and thinking and it does genuinely reduce my bafflement at some of the disjoint things that UU people have said to me, seemingly talking out both side of their mouth. I can see that they have mapped traditional religious concepts to completely different ones without feeling the need to explain what they are doing ... why they do that rather than just discuss these different concepts and connections between concepts for what they are, is beyond me, but it is probably an artifact that they came out of Christianity and have a strong need to ... how shall I put it ... remake it in their own image?? Something like that.

It also is reminiscent of the seeming arrogance of many in academia and that also makes sense on the same level ... they prefer to evince a rarified higher understanding of concepts and probably enjoy to an extent baffling the Little People with their erudition. That vibe is one of the reasons I have left the local UU folks to their nice comfortable little clubby existence. I would not fit in with that.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MartinEden99

Because that's how you find the data you need to make informed decisions about anything in life.

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.

...and want to advocate their morality for everybody else...

that is how YOU find data to make decisions in YOUR life
and other people use other criteria. the difference in how we present here is that i don't insist "my way is best" and you do. the difference is i don't insult and look down others for their religious life or lack of it and you do. that is what makes it dogmatic behavior.

and the very dogmatic behavior i find repulsive "advocate their morality for everybody else" as you state above in your post, is precisely what atheists are doing when they try to "prove" other beliefs as "wrong and stupid."

religion would not be the huge part of my life that it is unless i trusted it and found it to be nourishing on every level of my being: body, mind, heart, and soul. the people i learn from (in my religion) are wise and smart and kind and giants not only of mind, but of heart and soul as well. i trust them because they have something of value and substance to offer in how i live my life and becoming a better person.

you are focused on whether something exists (soul, God, etc) whereas for me that is something rudimentary and obvious. i have long since proven it to myself. i don't seek to prove it to you because that is not my place, each person has their own path to being in relationship with the Divine and their own soul. that is my view. The analogy that comes to mind is this: the person who is doing calculus is not going to find much common ground with people who can't count to ten or claim numbers are dumb and useless. when a person knows the basics, then the more advanced fun stuff is possible. on and on. unending levels of fun and learning and expansion. that's my view. thanks for sharing yours Martin.

the brain is good, the brain is great, however the soul takes us farther.

[TRANSPONDER]

By Random Factors, that would explain a few things. When you mentioned 'Clergy' I was about to explode at the dishonesty of pretending to remonstrate with us about harming secularism. But as a UU minister, It makes sense.

I was once appalled at an article by a UU minister attacking atheism for ruling out some kind of god or afterlife. I was horrified to think of what is supposed to be a church for convalescing believers has atheism -bashing preachers in the pulpit. Criticism is fine, but they should at least know what they talking about.