Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^Well, mordant, if you don't like our acceptance tripe, which of course includes atheism, doesn't that put you firmly in the intolerance camp right next to your fundy friends?
No, particularly as some (including you as far as I know) define acceptance as essentially "live and let live" as I mentioned in my post. You aren't trying to change me or make your beliefs binding upon me. Many liberals theists are like that, and I'm perfectly fine with it. Furthermore, when one of us says something that the other disagrees with, we can handle it and don't go off on some thin-skinned rant about how intolerant or persecutory or hateful it is that we have different opinions or rush to put some derogatory label on it. In that sense I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
What I don't agree with is that people are entitled to take their personal opinions and themselves seriously, to hold their nose while being "tolerant" or "respectful", or otherwise directly or indirectly tout their personal rightness and the implicit belief that those who disagree are "less than". Or to project such notions in themselves upon me. And I have had that happen here. Since for you the shoe doesn't fit, you needn't wear it.
To me, your beliefs are valid for you and they're valid in the sense that you're entitled to have them and I'm obliged not to denigrate you for it and in fact am morally obligated to defend your right to your beliefs (though not the beliefs themselves).
In short ... if you can handle my not believing in what you do ... if acceptance doesn't include some form of endorsement or unearned respect for the idea itself ... you and I are good. In fact, what I think about your beliefs is hardly relevant because what's front and center is our common humanity and our respective beliefs are constrained appropriately in between our own ears, trotted out for consideration only by mutual consent in appropriate circumstances such as this forum.
No, particularly as some (including you as far as I know) define acceptance as essentially "live and let live" as I mentioned in my post. You aren't trying to change me or make your beliefs binding upon me. Many liberals theists are like that, and I'm perfectly fine with it. Furthermore, when one of us says something that the other disagrees with, we can handle it and don't go off on some thin-skinned rant about how intolerant or persecutory or hateful it is that we have different opinions or rush to put some derogatory label on it. In that sense I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
What I don't agree with is that people are entitled to take their personal opinions and themselves seriously, to hold their nose while being "tolerant" or "respectful", or otherwise directly or indirectly tout their personal rightness and the implicit belief that those who disagree are "less than". Or to project such notions in themselves upon me. And I have had that happen here. Since for you the shoe doesn't fit, you needn't wear it.
To me, your beliefs are valid for you and they're valid in the sense that you're entitled to have them and I'm obliged not to denigrate you for it and in fact am morally obligated to defend your right to your beliefs (though not the beliefs themselves).
In short ... if you can handle my not believing in what you do ... if acceptance doesn't include some form of endorsement or unearned respect for the idea itself ... you and I are good. In fact, what I think about your beliefs is hardly relevant because what's front and center is our common humanity and our respective beliefs are constrained appropriately in between our own ears, trotted out for consideration only by mutual consent in appropriate circumstances such as this forum.
Indeed. I have described myself as a 'Militant' atheist. I know what I mean by that, even if some others don't, and I agree with Mordant. And with Raffs, too, though I think we should be quite clear about whom and what we are fighting on the religion front, and why. I will defend to the death even Jeff's right to hold his opinions about Gays, but I will oppose any claim of his to a right to impose them on Gays.
...I am opposed not to religion as such, but to its whiny demands of unearned respect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
...go off on some thin-skinned rant about how intolerant or persecutory or hateful it is that we have different opinions or rush to put some derogatory label on it. In that sense I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
To me, your beliefs are valid for you and they're valid in the sense that you're entitled to have them and I'm obliged not to denigrate you for it and in fact am morally obligated to defend your right to your beliefs (though not the beliefs themselves).
the opinions are not the problem (and never have been)
the beliefs are not the problem (and never have been)
the problem is the derisive language, the sarcasm, the mocking, the belittling, the insults, the condescension
those behaviors ARE denigrating, and demonstrate an inability to engage in healthy respectful communication
it's the behavior, not the beliefs, that is the problem
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-27-2016 at 12:34 PM..
Indeed. I have described myself as a 'Militant' atheist. I know what I mean by that, even if some others don't, and I agree with Mordant. And with Raffs, too, though I think we should be quite clear about whom and what we are fighting on the religion front, and why. I will defend to the death even Jeff's right to hold his opinions about Gays, but I will oppose any claim of his to a right to impose them on Gays.
the opinions are not the problem (and never have been)
the beliefs are not the problem (and never have been)
the problem is the derisive language, the sarcasm, the mocking, the belittling, the insults, the condescension
those show disrespect and an inability to engage in healthy respectful communication without denigrating
it's the behavior, not the beliefs, that is the problem
Perhaps, but the problem is not the argument. It gets heated on both sides, and i would certainly urge my atheist fellows to not get riled when they get dumped on, as it only provides them with an extra weapon. This is something we shall have to learn. It doesn't make us less effective; indeed, I think it makes us more so.
No, they are not supernatural claims.Everything that exists is a manifestation of the unified field that Einstein revealed but was unable to measure that produces the equivalent manifestations we call energy/mass/momentum. Our consciousnesses are manifestations of that field and there is plenty of evidence of their existence. Since there is more than one of us producing consciousness then there is by logic a collective consciousness within reality. The unified field exists and I choose to name it God because it produces consciousness. NONE of that is supernatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what unifies an ant colony? What "unifies" a CD (compact disk) to be a compact disk? "empty space" is something, that's true, but what you call a "unified field" is better described as a set of interacting fields causing an illusion of "unified", like a "football game" is a set of events,interacting, that we call "one event". The unified field we call a "football game".
I am not sure why you do not see that.
My experience of the oneness that EVERYTHING is comprised of is what prevents me from staying trapped in your "separateness" views.
My experience of the oneness that EVERYTHING is comprised of is what prevents me from staying trapped in your "separateness" views.
the two fields I was pointing too are the "logical field" and the "emotional field" and the excitations in those fields. what is the root cause of the excitation and how do these fields interact gives me a look into how that brain state is functioning. You need your experience to be real, I don't fully understand why. lol, that just may be a good thing for you.
You are worried about "separateness view". There is no "separation". But the "Q", is what you pointed too. What "YOU" experience as "oneness" is an illusion. I don't mean in any way that any part of the universe is "separated", but your "unified couscous field" is an illusion. Remember now, I don't mean "delusions", from your angle, perspective, world view, or whatever you want to call it, it is there, It's just not what you think it is.
Indeed. I have described myself as a 'Militant' atheist. I know what I mean by that, even if some others don't, and I agree with Mordant. And with Raffs, too, though I think we should be quite clear about whom and what we are fighting on the religion front, and why. I will defend to the death even Jeff's right to hold his opinions about Gays, but I will oppose any claim of his to a right to impose them on Gays.
you know what you want it to mean. I would stop gays from imposing their claim as quickly as I would jeff. I wonder if you would help jump jeff with the gays (no punn intented) just because he is religous? you know ... go team kinda stuff?
the opinions are not the problem (and never have been)
the beliefs are not the problem (and never have been)
the problem is the derisive language, the sarcasm, the mocking, the belittling, the insults, the condescension
those behaviors ARE denigrating, and demonstrate an inability to engage in healthy respectful communication
it's the behavior, not the beliefs, that is the problem
Very well stated. One can believe in the fsm for all I care. They can even try to pour the marinara or Alfredo sauce on me.
I'll state, why do I care? In essence, I don't. It's a reflection of that individual. My reaction is a reflection of me.
I've found it is pretty useless to debate metaphysical beliefs. One can have an open conversation between those who believe, those who don't believe, or those who do and don't believe. Too often it denigrates into 'proof': there is only proof on the inside. The rest is transient.
If one wants to contend laws, or state sponsored education, from a religious perspective, that is an inappropriate forum because human legalities were set up here to nix that.
If one wants to contend religious laws in a persons home or house of worship, that's just tacky or bad manners.
Besides, I don't find the physical laws of nature, the legal laws of man, or the laws of historical understanding as 'God's Laws' as mutually exclusive. They may come into conflict, but I always defer to the above. I know where my faith stops, human legal wise.
But I'm also very 'human' based on most of the hot button topics so maybe I'm the weird outlier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you know ... go team kinda stuff?
