Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (Catholics, beliefs, Adam)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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.

Indeed. What is appalling is the complete mischaracterization of atheism as a knowledge position that "rules out" anything at all, much less their beloved concepts of god. It may be that at least some UU churches don't really welcome unbelievers unless it is some PC-constrained version that the theists in the group can't find ways to manufacture offense over.

I never pushed my experiment far enough to determine the true limits of their "inclusiveness" however because I found they spend a lot of energy on infighting just like any church I've ever been involved in. The particular congregation I was visiting, it could rightly be said that the inmates were running the asylum. It wouldn't matter if they correctly understood what atheism actually is and actually afforded atheists space and respect within their ranks; political infighting and power struggles were rife even without issues of relevance to me being (mis)understood.

[GldnRule]

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.

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.

Right. The sun rising in the East or West is a good analogy.
Either...God exists, or God doesn't exist.
Of course, my irrefutable proof of the objective existence of that which is unequivocally GOD settles that matter.
And, of course, renders Atheism null and void in the process.
So, that takes care of that.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Logic and evidence mandates that you do not believe what has no good evidence for it.

that is YOUR view, and it works for you, and it is based on criteria that you determine. therefore it "makes sense" to you

other people, have different views, with different criteria, different logic, different evidence, which work for us, and make sense to us.

the beauty and richness of this forum is that we have a window into how other people approach something. your criteria work for you. my criteria work for me. we can be fascinated or appalled or amused or shocked or puzzled or baffled at another person's criteria. but there is no one size fits all right for everyone criteria in the realm of religion and spirituality. period. full stop. to insist there is a best way or right way for anyone other than your own self....is dogmatic (as defined=imperious, autocratic, domineering, rigid, inflexible, doctrinaire)

oh here's another aspect of dogmatic behavior: "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true"

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

that is YOUR view, and it works for you, and it is based on criteria that you determine. therefore it "makes sense" to you

other people, have different views, with different criteria, different logic, different evidence, which work for us, and make sense to us.

the beauty and richness of this forum is that we have a window into how other people approach something. your criteria work for you. my criteria work for me. we can be fascinated or appalled or amused or shocked or puzzled or baffled at another person's criteria. but there is no one size fits all right for everyone criteria in the realm of religion and spirituality. period. full stop. to insist there is a best way or right way for anyone other than your own self....is dogmatic (as defined=imperious, autocratic, domineering, rigid, inflexible, doctrinaire)

oh here's another aspect of dogmatic behavior: "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true"


sample sentence in response to post above: "it is dogmatic to demand everyone use your criteria for logic and evidence."

I'm sorry, but the laws of logic and evidence are universal because they have been proven to work in a particular manner. For example, the argument Ad Populum has been demonstrated to be faulty logic and is not acceptable in a logical discussion. One is certainly allowed to use flawed logic and bad evidence, but they must expect to be called on it when they try to convince others using these.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I'm sorry, but the laws of logic and evidence are universal because they have been proven to work in a particular manner. For example, the argument Ad Populum has been demonstrated to be faulty logic and is not acceptable in a logical discussion. One is certainly allowed to use flawed logic and bad evidence, but they must expect to be called on it when they try to convince others using these.

and one is certainly allowed to engage in dogmatic behavior that is imperious, doctrinaire, autocratic, and domineering. and they will be called on it.

it is my view that your logic is flawed, and your evidence is narrow, therefore I have and use other criteria for logic and evidence. the difference between us is I afford you the dignity (thank you mordant for this wonderful phrase) of having your own views and criteria because I know the difference between "this is true for me" and "this is true for everyone." another difference between us is that my view is there is no one size fits all for religion and spirituality.

another difference between us is that I recognize there are laws that apply to the physical world. and there are laws that apply to the world of spirit. to apply one set of laws to the other is not using the right tool for the right job. and will lead a person to incorrect conclusions. that is my view and experience.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

...The difference between us is I afford you the dignity (thank you mordant for this wonderful phrase) ...

I aim to please :-)

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

... of having your own views and criteria because I know the difference between "this is true for me" and "this is true for everyone."

I know it as well, it is really down to who is imposing what on whom (in actuality as opposed to perceptions).

If "your truth" is personal and non-binding on me then I have no issue with you. And I suspect vice versa.

Where we get into trouble sometimes I think is in what we feel is important as foundational or axiomatic.

To me that is logically consistent arguments with some control for confirmation bias leading to views that tend to accurately explain and predict the experiences one has in life cleanly and without having to manufacture too many rationalizations or freight it with too many assumptions. For you it appears to be more personal freedom to explore subjective experiences and ideas that appeal to you or that you find centering. In other words for me it is as clear as possible an understanding of the reality I share with others, even the gnarly aspects; for you it seems to be more about a positive experience of reality that is free of conflict as possible or something more along those lines.

Nothing wrong with how you choose to thread that needle for yourself, and I hope we can manage to talk past each other less -- especially now that I realize via my recent exchanges with bUU the extent to which people sometimes go to define labels and concepts so very differently from what I typically have experienced, and seemingly without concern for the potential for people to talk right past each other.

Of course we aren't going to convince each other to change our views but it's my hope we might arrive at a better understanding of them just the same.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

and one is certainly allowed to engage in dogmatic behavior that is imperious, doctrinaire, autocratic, and domineering. and they will be called on it.

it is my view that your logic is flawed, and your evidence is narrow, therefore I have and use other criteria for logic and evidence. the difference between us is I afford you the dignity (thank you mordant for this wonderful phrase) of having your own views and criteria because I know the difference between "this is true for me" and "this is true for everyone." another difference between us is that my view is there is no one size fits all for religion and spirituality.

another difference between us is that I recognize there are laws that apply to the physical world. and there are laws that apply to the world of spirit. to apply one set of laws to the other is not using the right tool for the right job.

So long as you don't feel that you want to engage in a logical discussion and that logic isn't important to you, you are indeed allowed the flexibility of expressing your thoughts in whatever manor you choose, but when you desire to convince others that your views on whatever subject are the most logical then these rules of logic and evidence are imposed on you, not by your audience but by definition.

Since "the world of spirit" cannot be demonstrated or defined, we can only address matters in the only laws which can be, what you call the "laws that apply to the physical world", or "reality" as it is more commonly known.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

No you would not get 1000 substantively different answers.

I guess we don't agree about that. That's okay. We don't have to see eye to eye on it.

Originally Posted by mordant

people are going to experience confusion and you are going to talk right past them.

Except that that's the opposite of what's happening in that scenario. They may have a different understanding of how one gets to the state, but I'm communicating the state, which is all that matters for that conversation. Remember: A Catholic doesn't get to tell a Muslim what God is. A Presbyterian doesn't get to tell a Hindu what the after life is. When a discussion crosses faiths, it is absolutely essential that each person gets to say for themselves what is what within their religion; the comprehensive nature of God; how to practice reverence; etc. If you choose to opt out of being regarded as good, because you refuse to communicate the aspects of goodness in the manner your listener is wired to understand such things, that's your choice. 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 mordant

As a practical matter I'm not very motivated by what people think about me

No even your loved ones? Well, that's a shame.

I can see how that would be a concern to most Americans who regard someone's character as being shaped by how much they concern they have about the regard of loved ones and their legacy. It must make it much more difficult to assure you're afforded the respect you deserve.

Originally Posted by mordant

Which is saying in different words and with a different emphasis, just what I said above.

Yet, clearly, from the disparities we've both highlighted, those differences matter. So instead of trying to sweep them under the rug, you should recognize them as more significant to this discussion as anything else, since they are the crux of the matter.

Originally Posted by mordant

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.

A matter which you clearly think you can control, at least with respect to how you are regarded. That's simply not the case, and the links I provided above show just how ineffective atheists have been at controlling what others think about them.

Originally Posted by mordant

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

I understood your statements just fine. As I said, your words effectively ratify everything I've said, even though you will invariably disagree.

Originally Posted by mordant

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.

What does that even mean "work with it for me"? This isn't about how you "feel inside". This is about how well others understand the reality of your character. And hey - if you want to say that it is mostly their "fault", that's fine with me, because it doesn't matter. What matters is the bottom-line effect, again, the links I posted earlier make it clear how poorly atheists score.

Originally Posted by mordant

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.

Yet, introverts often realize how their introverted nature puts them at a disadvantage, and prompts them to take certain steps to mitigate the disadvantages they suffer.

Originally Posted by mordant

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.

Because you're refusing to acknowledge that you're trying to communicate something about the effect of regard on character, rather than trying to communicate dogmatically-defined literal definitions. I am not surprised, since that would require you to acknowledge my perspective and grant that yours is wrong. I don't expect that, but it is the crux of the issue. As long as you doggedly (derivation of dogmatic, I'm sure) refuse to value the heart-felt meaning of things, you'll continue to communicate in an overly-intellectual manner, and as a result being misunderstood - not your words misunderstood, but the real implications misunderstood.

Originally Posted by mordant

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.

A reasonable person would understand the real implications of what I say far more readily than they'd understand the real implications of what you say. Even though you will refuse to admit that.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

and one is certainly allowed to engage in dogmatic behavior that is imperious, doctrinaire, autocratic, and domineering. and they will be called on it.

And that's borne out by the abject self-ratifying nonsense that several fundamentalist atheists have stooped to as this discussion has continued. One has to wonder what it is about atheism that prompts people to think that discussions about the human conditions are cat fights to be won at all costs, including the refusal to allow one's self to see anything other than one's own personal view of the world, instead of seeing discussions as opportunities to understand other people better. This kind of behavior makes much clearer why atheists are generally so negatively regarded in society.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

A reasonable person would understand the real implications of what I say far more readily than they'd understand the real implications of what you say.

As a writer and sometime editor I value the fact that words have meaning to a particular audience and I try to use those words in a way that doesn't interfere with them taking my actual meaning.

I concede that you have a broader perspective and more experience with interfaith / ecumenical discourse than I (other than possibly the special case of the evangelical milieu from which I come vs my current unbelief), and, as a result, it may be that you legitimately assume meta-meanings for things that in my experience most people have far more specific notions about, such that in your world these are commonly understood. I can guarantee you however that in most debates I become involved in here, using your meanings would result in bafflement and when I use mine it does certainly appear that people understand what I mean well enough to have an actual discussion.

That said ... I nevertheless make the effort to understand your point of view because I have long been curious about how, in practice, people hold to religious faith loosely without anchoring it to some form of holy writ, creed or orthodoxy and I think I am starting to get a sense of where your first principles come from. It is far more abstract and symbolic than most people in my experience can relate to, but it is starting to make a kind of sense.