17
   

Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you?

 
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 01:52 pm
@izzythepush,
In my (rarely) humble opinion, atheism is not and should not be considered some intellectual badge of honor. Intelligence is not even a phenomena that can be easily defined. The claim that was made above was "free-thinker". That to me implies one who does not default as easily to popular understanding, or one who questions those understandings.
This of course makes no claim regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the thinker.
This chunking of various non-believers is an artificial construct. If you find value in classing RL, Setanta, and myself together try this mental exercise....
Imagine the three of us forced into the same room, then ask us to reach a decision regarding ethics or social policy.
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 01:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
He argues that once any "nation's population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population loses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities."


Now I see why the religious right is so against Obama care !
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:15 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Re: izzythepush (Post 5279223)
In my (rarely) humble opinion, atheism is not and should not be considered some intellectual badge of honor. Intelligence is not even a phenomena that can be easily defined. The claim that was made above was "free-thinker". That to me implies one who does not default as easily to popular understanding, or one who questions those understandings.
This of course makes no claim regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the thinker.
This chunking of various non-believers is an artificial construct. If you find value in classing RL, Setanta, and myself together try this mental exercise....
Imagine the three of us forced into the same room, then ask us to reach a decision regarding ethics or social policy.


It pains me just to contemplate what kind of wine youse would order while trying to reach that decision!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:46 pm
@BillRM,
As i say, you're an idiot. Not all atheists are identical, they're not produced by a cookie cutter. I am not surprised, though, that you don't understand that.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:47 pm
@IRFRANK,
Nothing "got to me." Bill's an idiot, and needs to be reminded of that . . . frequently. Are you so facile that you agree with him characterizing all atheists as having identical points of view?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:48 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Religion is the set of things you accept on faith.


So, what do you accept on faith?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:55 pm
@MattDavis,
You ask "how well does the label serve you ?", but this begs the question of a consistent "self" with respect to that label. Observation usually reveals to those capable of it, that such a "self" is an illusion. My "atheist self" is evoked by circumstances like observing the crowds in Rome applauding an old man in a white frock, or occasional TV glimpses of Islamic clerics sounding off about the appropriateness of dolls for girls but not boys. The label is therefore coextensive with a fleeting realization of the incredible sheep-like nature of much of mankind, but then it passes having served the purpose of reinforcing a socially cynical aspect of what I call "self". But I can equally be moved by individual cases of what I call the "spirituality" of others (other than old men in frocks) whether they attribute it to their religious belief or otherwise. In those instances my atheistic label has no function since the cynical self is at that point not operating.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:57 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
s i say, you're an idiot. Not all atheists are identical,


Who had stated that all atheists are the same but it is my opinion you would need to look long and very hard to find atheists that are worshipers of the "god" science or any other god for that matter.

That the whole meaning of the word atheist as in a person who does not worship fantasies of any kind or of any nature.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 02:57 pm
@Setanta,
In my experience, calling someone "an idiot", is usually an obstacle to teaching.
Perhaps that is the point Frank was trying to make without resorting to insulting you by calling you "meanie".
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:05 pm
@MattDavis,
I
Quote:
n my experience, calling someone "an idiot", is usually an obstacle to teaching.


Somehow I do not think that the gentleman have a lot to teach anyone on the subject of atheism.................

In my 64 years of life and 54 years of being an atheist I had never ran into a science god worshiper atheist.

Such atheists seems to exist only in the fantasies of religion persons who wish to attacked atheists.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:07 pm
@fresco,
Thank you Fresco.
This post is addressed to those of us a little lower on Wittgenstein's ladder.
I do agree that the popular perception of "religion" does not include the more esoteric wisdom traditions. I do hope in this thread to draw some attention to the limits of the "religion" label in terms of it's ability to predict and control (on the societal level).
I won't delve too deeply into the the nature of self on this thread, at least not past group identity (different level).
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:09 pm
@MattDavis,
I am indifferent to what Frank has to say about me, especially given his penchant for insulting people with passive-aggressive sneers. Years of experience of Bill's bullshit convince me that he neither intends to, nor is likely to learn anything here. If i take notice of him at all, it's because he's spreading bullshit which needs to be challenged. He can't even write properly in what one assumes is his native language, and he is completely incapable of acknowledging that he might not know it all. Just now, he is backing down from his original position, but you'll never get him to admit it. He spoke about atheists without qualification, and that means that he was speaking of all atheists. That's precisely why i took on Spade in that other thread. Spade has, for years, spoken of atheists as thought they were some intellectual monolith, all atheists thinking alike. Bill is doing it now. I won't be feeding that particular troll any longer in this thread, though, as he has compromised his own previous position, and probably can't even see it.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:11 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:
If you find value in classing RL, Setanta, and myself together try this mental exercise....
Imagine the three of us forced into the same room, then ask us to reach a decision regarding ethics or social policy.


Are you pitching a sit com? Imagine the above, but with only one chair. Do you think you'll be able to come to a decision on anything that isn't chair related?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:11 pm
@Setanta,
First I should have specified. Frank=IRFrank, in my last comment.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:13 pm
@MattDavis,
IRFrank can be pretty snide himself, as when he said in a thread that I hadn't got it, as usual. Then he got grossly offended when i served him as he had served me. However, it is true that i've had far more sneers from Frank than from IRFrank.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:18 pm
@Setanta,
I am rarely in the position of wanting to defend Frank Apisa. I don't have much experience with BillRM. Just in general, however, I notice a trend of seeing in others what I expect to see. If you assume the worst, you are rarely disappointed. I doubt very highly that IRFrank's comments were intended as snide. I of course have not way of proving his intent... nor do you.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:25 pm
@MattDavis,
When someone who has failed utterly to see the point i am making says that i don't get it, as usual, it doesn't take much penetration to see that it is insulting, and intended as insulting. I more or less had a neutral attitude toward him before that point. Since then, i have either ignored him altogether, or responded civilly enough if i thought he had posted something reasonable, as i did in this thread. I will never again, however, consider him to be affable and fair-minded.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:25 pm
@maxdancona,
I am speaking as an individual, not for a bunch of atheists. You are speaking from the comfy confines of the incrowd or whatever it is.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:33 pm
@Setanta,
Speaking for all atheists or all Christians or all Muslims are self evidence an impossibility however if someone try to label a group as let see for example as idols worshipers or devil worshipers when that group have zero to do with either idols or devil worshiping then saying that is nonsense is more then justify.

An yet in any large enough group there might somewhere be a devil worshiper or a person who made gold idols but that still have nothing at all to do with the group in question.

Atheists are no more science worshipers then Jews are devil worshipers but Setanta is free to come up with studies to prove me wrong.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:36 pm
@Setanta,
That makes me sad... for both of you. You Setanta have a lot of knowledge to offer especially regarding history. IRFrank, in my experience, is fair-minded. We are all fallible (ethically and intellectually) I would hate for you to write each other off due to an apparently slight disagreement.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/07/2020 at 02:48:43