Atheism

Very nice explanation, Art.

Happier than I prolly deserve to be, thanks fer asking. And good deal on the provisional employment - sounds like you well know what Lash needs in the short and long term.

As far as the other - I definitely understand how trying not to offend could stifle communication, and I really don't want that. I've been told I have a very good BS meter, and I want to keep it. Not being able to speak my mind or allow others to speak theirs would dull my BS meter. On the other hand, I think there is a place for a concept like civility in passionate debate.

If it comes down to straight out stifling someone's ability to clearly state their views, something's got to give. I occasionally risked a lot during my time in the Army, simply to speak my mind in my own terms. So I feel ya on that point.

On that other hand, it's probably harder, more often than not, to couch one's observations in a civil way, than to just say it exactly how you want. It requires more thought and effort. That's not a reason not to still try, though.

In complete agreement about trying.

Very nicely put, Snood. Hat's off to 'ya.

Snood - thank you for all that you did and do to maintain my freedom to speak my mind on my terms - while we're at it. Celebrating you and dys and the many men and women here who stood in the gap for me and my children on Veteran's Day. Regardless of why or where you went - you went.

Failures Art said:



Yes, I agree it’s hard for those discussions to be calm. But then it becomes a matter of - whether being calm is even important? What does it matter if we remain calm and (for example)allow everyone to leave with their dignity, or to attempt to prove by any means we deem necessary that one is correct and the other isn’t.

You see FA, I think one’s motives cannot be removed from the equation of what needs to be considered.



Yes, no doubt. Not just tied – I think it’s woven deeply.



Yes, I understand it’s challenging. And I think that challenging is a very good term for it. It would be easier – less challenging, if you will, if there was never any question of worrying about anyone’s dang sensibilities in these type discussions. Would that make it better, or just easier?



Again – motives. How often is the tenor of the discussion about “theistic possibilities”? I’ve found that they often devolve too quickly into gratuitous attacks and return attacks.



If (say) a Christian believes a particular way and not another, why would any “honest theological discussion” necessarily include someone’s sense of “factual elevation”? I think the key again is individual motivation for engaging in the discussion. Is someone invested in dismantling, by logic, another’s beliefs? Is someone invested in elevating his beliefs above others’ in the discussion? Is it a mutual search for truth or an entrenched battle by its nature?



My beliefs are vulnerable in any discussion about things related to god (or gods, or no gods).
The question is, why would (say) a Christian want to enter into a discussion whose intent was to expose and capitalize on those vulnerabilities, and not simply “honest discussion”? The term “cloak of entitlement” feels hostile to me. Do you feel any hostility when you write it?

Lash, thank you.

Can you all stop this christian niceness/atheist reasonableness to each other? It's going to make me puke!

Nietzsche said something like (my memory ain't all that good) witches and the judges of witches have the most vested in the guilt of witchery, even though the guilt was non-existent.

Practice a way to tell someone their breath stinks without hurting their feelings. You can pick the nicest words and use the sweetest tone...you can use slippery rhetorical maneuvers designed to juke and fade. You can love the person you're talking to, and truly not want to make them feel bad...

But as soon as they figure out what you're saying - their feelings are going to be hurt.

I think it's subject matter more so than tone or style of delivery that makes this practically impossible. Anyway, will read more and talk less for a while.

Civility on the atheism thread? When did this start?

By your very good illustration I can more easily see where the subject matter could very easily be the (by far) main factor in whether feelings get hurt. (I actually struggled for days with how to tell an employee of the pharmacy I was in charge of that he had offensive B.O. - and I didn't even like this guy! )
In the kinds of discussions on these threads though, I think it is a mixture of subject matter and personal incentive.

It was me, I really need all the positive/warm fuzzies I can get, whether I merit them or not.

hahaha...hilarious! (snood sings jingle quietly each time he passes Bob B.O. "Buy Mennen!")

I'm always the one to notice the spinich smack dab between the front teeth, but being the kind of guy I am, I never say a word.

I do not feel it to be hostile. I'm sorry if it reads that way to you. Do you know to what I refer by this term? I tried to illustrate it in regards to other beliefs.

If you as a Christian are willing to enter in a conversation on the idea and possibility of divinity with the understanding that your personal beliefs carry with them no greater credibility than the belief in Zeus, Odin, or Shiva, then you are truly allowing yourself to be vulnerable. You don't need to defend you ability to do so, but I sincerely hope that self exploration on this specifically is something you challenge yourself with.

You ask good questions on better versus easier, and I can't help but feel that this is coincidentally the same theme explored in discussing the belief in a god or gods. I don't expect that the expressed belief in a god to be of the same temper as a discussion on whether to wear a hat. Since we agree about the integral nature of the belief as it relates to believer's evaluation of self value, it seems only natural that emotions are easily stirred by any disturbance. Many religious individuals here (and in other conversations I've been a part of) feel that they are "under attack" and perhaps this is where such ideas of "militant atheism" comes from.

I've been met with great indignity for simply not believing. My skepticism alone has been enough to invoke disgust. That's how sensitive people can be about their faith, and for this reason we see lots of very disturbing things. Last year, I was told by a coworker that I was a "closet atheist." I was confused. I had not represented myself as a person of faith, and yet the implication was that I had falsified myself by not broadcasting it for her convenience. I guess now I was to be treated differently? More confusing was that now she wanted to talk to me about it rather frequently. The first words out of her mouth were of frustration. I didn't even need to say anything to frustrate her. The simple knowledge that I did not accept the same beliefs was enough to create frustration.

If people are so sensitive at this level of interaction, most conversations are going to draw upon much greater emotions. It's hard for me to say "I don't believe in any gods" to believers because often it feels as if such a statement is received as "I don't believe you have any value."

A
R
T

Well civility from Snood and Trep - not wholly (or is that holy?) unexpected. I tend to think those with low self-esteem on both sides of the belief gulf get upset easily on this subject matter.

I don't much look to get into a discussion with believers on this matter because in effect you ask them to resolve questions you've already pondered long and hard and either decided in the negative or held off judgement on lack of evidence - and holding off judgement because of a lack of evidence (for example the unknowable 'will of God') is not your usual religious standpoint.

Many devoutly religious have expressed 'doubt' in certain situations, but the resolution of that doubt is either a surrendering to, and reaffirmation of, faith or a move to atheism, agnosticism, or a more personal interpretation of theism outside the general frameworks offered by organised religions.

Just found soemthing in my internet travels.....
Religion is like a penis
It is fine to have one
It is fine to be proud of it
But please dont whip it out in public and start waving it around in peoples faces,
and ESPECIALLY dont try to ram it down people's throats.

I can't say that this isn't true - that it hasn't indeed been your experience that has led you to believe that you saying 'I don't believe in any gods' is received by believers as you saying, 'I don't believe you have any value'- but that has never been my experience of the believers that I know.

And in terms of this 'cloak of entitlement' that you posit believers wear and the fact that their self-worth is tied up intricately and inexorably with their belief - what do you think that says about believers in general?

I'm not challenging or arguing- I'm asking.

Because I'd never thought of it in that way before. I've always thought of my belief as something that was a part of me, but not of necessity to fill any void.

In other words, it'd be like if I'd been born with blue eyes (say, a non-believer) instead of hazel eyes (believer). I'd still have eyes and I'd still be able to see - I'd just be different.

The way you state it here seems to impart a characteristic of insecurity or incompleteness on the part of the believer- as if their belief is a necessary remedy to take the place of something that is missing- instead of simply being an addition - a life or philosophical choice that adds something that the believer sees to be of value.

And if you do believe that a person who embraces a spiritual belief does so because he is insecure or incomplete or nothing without it, I can see why people you speak to about it get defensive.

And I'm not talking about these fundamentalist Christians who compare themselves to lowly and sinning worms and who don their spirituality like a mantle and wield it as a weapon.
I know those people exist, but I think they have other issues, yes, that could be described and/or diagnosed as personality disorders.
They're in a class of their own.

I think it says that believers are looking for a way to stand out amongst each other. Some Christians get offended by the term "mythology." Why?

Imagine for a second a room filled with one person for every god ever proposed. This kind of mental scenario is very threatening for some. The idea that your god must be respected and treated on the same level as other gods creates great anxiety. The belief in a god is built on the institution of faith so the idea that others could be apart of the same institution and belief in a different god robs a person of their special status.

I don't know about religion as being necessary to fill any void. I'm sure some people gravitate towards it for this reason. I can't speak to the effectiveness of religion to fill a void compared to other things.

Beliefs in gods are very interesting to me, but no matter how they differ one thing remains. We only believe in the supernatural beings that promise us things, and typically the ones the promise us the grandest of things. There are no people meeting up to defend the belief in a supernatural being whose only concern lies with a non-humans. There is no one rushing in defense for a supernatural being without any powers.

Unicorns can't afford a lobbyist for the congress of our minds.

A
R
T