Anti-theist? Why?

[Storm]

No, I did not say that the seven apply only to members.

Yes you did, and we both know it. We also both know that you deleted the post. However, I quoted it before that dishonest move... would you like a reminder?

You wrote this at 7:58 Pacific Standard time, in what was originally post # 112: "Now, it's evident that the Principles and Purposes truly are regarded as only referring to relations between congregations, since I'm sure not seeing much of them here."

What I said was that the P&P were originally intended to govern relations between congregations and not as guidelines for individual UU's at all.

Nope, sorry.

Marlin Lavanhar of All Souls-Tulsa wrote a lengthy article for Mead-Lombard's journal on the misuses of the P&P and the difficulties caused by printing them in the hymnal, posting them in churches and referring to them as if they're a creed.

Oh, Google IS your friend! All conflict aside, I'd be interested in reading that article.

There is no reasoning with you.

In fact there is. You just have to display some inkling of reason. Now, do you have ANY arguments that could conceivably come from your claimed 30 years' experience, as opposed to the internet?

I formally challenge you to answer my questions regarding both Unitarian Universalism and my own theology. If you can display one shred of actual understanding of the former, I'll apologize. We both know you're grossly ignorant of the latter, though... and if you had one shred of intellectual honesty, YOU'D apologize for your lame attempt to use it against me. All the same, I've posted extensively about it on this very forum, so all it takes is a little effort.

Anyone can claim experience on the internet. Allow me to demonstrate: I'm a 57 year old black male with a Master's Degree in Engineering. Oh, and that PhD in particle physics. I also won the Nobel prize in Mathematics. See how easy?

Of course, since I know nothing about any of those fields, all it takes is a few basic questions from an appropriately skeptical member to reveal my dishonesty. Surely, you can understand. So, either answer my questions, or run away with your tail between your legs.

We truly are done.

Three and counting.

 

[Nobody]

It seems that the extremists and the moderates are of the same group identity, which is of course ridiculous.

It seems reasonable to me. One of many groups that I identify with is labeled 'English' despite the fact that I do not agree with many things, that many others believe who also identify as such.

We all use labels to describe ourselves as a way to show what groups we identify with, it is human nature to seek out those we consider 'similar'. Even though these labels do not necessarily give any indication to what a persons world view is, they are still a large part of how we see ourselves and others, our sense of who we are.

People use race as a label to describe themselves even though when it comes to describing beliefs, it is as meaningless a distinction as their hair colour.

I have never stated that religious people who identify with the same religion believe the same things as each other, that seems perfectly obvious.

What group identity? do you actually believe that all people who are part of a religion or a culture share an absolute group identity with everyone in the same expanded religious/cultural umbrella?

I have no idea what an absolute group identity may be, there are many groups we all identify with varying degrees. Are you really telling me that if someone claims vindication for their beliefs on the basis of how many fellow believers there are, that has nothing to do with group identity? The actual beliefs of others within any specific group does not have as large an impact on group identity as we may like to think. White supremacists seem perfectly happy to think "white is right" or whatever, despite the fact that they are despised by almost all others within the group (race in this case) they most strongly identify with.

Throwing moderates and extremists into the same 'group identity' is uneducated and harmful and there is no surprise that it's being criticised.

I agree that it would have been extremely naive of me to so much as hint at a link between religion in itself and extremism and not expect to be considered an intellectually lazy, ignorant bigot. It doesn't particularly bother me.

What group identity? I have more in common with a Palestinian from Ramallah than I have with many Haredi Jews in Mea Shearim.

I can accept this, but having more things in common is not synonymous with group identity.

In other words you do enforce a generalization as if all people who have affinity to a religion are related to other fringe groups or even individuals of the same general faith.

Not at all, I'm saying that part the problem is that these fringe groups do associate themselves and have a shared 'affinity' (I'd say group identity... yet again) with the 'general faith'.

I think I've said all I can on group identity, feel free to disagree with me on this but I cannot explain my point of view any clearer.

So a Sufi poet enables a wrong interpretation of Jihad, Francis of Assisi becomes a crusader, and Spinoza is somehow promoting ultra orthodox Judaism.

That is simply a misrepresentation of what I have said.

By all means criticize religious issues, we all do. Just don't lecture people that they enable things which are out of their control or that they supposedly share a group mentality with people they probably have nothing to do with.

(bold added for emphasis)

It was not my intention to lecture, I only hoped to state my position and give an explanation of why I hold this view.

We disagree about what is 'out of their control'. As HerDotness brilliantly put it:

When people refuse to excise the portions of their scripture that condone violent behavior or other things such as slavery that are considered wrong today and focus only upon the parts that are useful to them, they're quietly enabling those who justify violence by means of scripture.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is a large part of the problem, the usual excuses are not good enough for me to accept.

I have a good case study for you. Do you think Reza Aslan enables extremism? do you think other scholars who discuss and teach religion are somehow part of a monolithic group mentality which should be a usual suspect?

A 'monolithic group mentality' is irrelevant to what I have written about.

On Reza Aslan, I think he has some interesting ideas about the mindset of extremists and is far better equipped to gain insight into their thought processes than I. In particular how he describes 'cosmic war', to me while it seems as absurd as most theology does I can accept it as a pretty good explanation of what mental contortions extremists may put themselves through to mesh religion with reality. I do not consider it as significant as the points about group identity and the inviolability of scripture however.

Do I think he enables extremism? No more than most people of faith, and I'm certain that like the vast majority he absolutely detests it. But I consider any attempt to strengthen a religion which accepts the idea of absolute certainty as unhelpful at best, and potentially harmful.

 

[Nobody]

Do you see that you accomplish nothing except pushing irrational people deeper into their safety shells of thoughtless devotion to fundamentalist doctrines? I fail to see how you achieve any meaningful goal by allowing yourself to be pulled down to their level. Obviously, reaching these people is not doable at this time. The best you can hope for is that someone more clear minded comes across your communications. If you stick to reason, you will come across as the reasonable one.

So, even if winning is all you care about, sticking to reason is a superior way to win.

I completely agree that it will push those irrational fundamentalist types deeper into their own beliefs, I think it has been demonstrated that reasoning with that type of individual is futile. But I'm not exactly an optimist if you hadn't noticed I do hope I am wrong on that point.
The goal seems to be just to show that any particular belief based on religion, or the people that hold them are no more immune to contempt than any other, political beliefs for example.
I can only speak for myself, but if someone gets in my face by insisting on some absurd political view without anything to back it up (I'm thinking of certain political racist ideologies), I feel fine about treating their belief, and the person, with the contempt I think they deserve. It isn't going to make them change their minds, but that isn't the point.

This difference you seem to see so clearly I truly cannot. Unwarranted credibility is a problem associated with the concept of authority and is not exclusively a religious problem as far as I can see.

It is about authority, and you are correct that it is not only confined to religion. I think the fact that to many believers, their faith is seen to come from a deity, an absolutely flawless, perfect authority, has a very large impact on the certainty that any particular view they may hold which is derived from such a being could not possibly be wrong.

I've been enjoying our exchange. You are an infinitely more qualified herald for the atheist worldview than that bigot you are defending.

I've been enjoying it too. While I am an atheist I don't consider my world view atheistic, if it were proven that any deities existed I would not remain an atheist, but my objections to religion (and to worshipping deities) would still stand.

 

[Prophet]

I completely agree that it will push those irrational fundamentalist types deeper into their own beliefs, I think it has been demonstrated that reasoning with that type of individual is futile. But I'm not exactly an optimist if you hadn't noticed I do hope I am wrong on that point.
The goal seems to be just to show that any particular belief based on religion, or the people that hold them are no more immune to contempt than any other, political beliefs for example.
I can only speak for myself, but if someone gets in my face by insisting on some absurd political view without anything to back it up (I'm thinking of certain political racist ideologies), I feel fine about treating their belief, and the person, with the contempt I think they deserve. It isn't going to make them change their minds, but that isn't the point.

To break it down, if your main concern is to help these people to improve their thinking, using solely reasoning in debate may prove ineffective if you need instant validation or gratification, but may yield actual results later (as I've found in many debates). If your main concern is winning the debate, using solely reasoning will make you stick out as the winner to any bystander whose opinion is worth anything.

When one reverts to insult, to me, it proves that neither of these goals was of primary importance. And I do get it. I don't exactly completely practice what I preach here, but I try to. Partaking of the instant gratification of letting a stupid person know that he is stupid isn't something that I'm innocent of here.

It is about authority, and you are correct that it is not only confined to religion. I think the fact that to many believers, their faith is seen to come from a deity, an absolutely flawless, perfect authority, has a very large impact on the certainty that any particular view they may hold which is derived from such a being could not possibly be wrong.

I had an argument with my brother a few months ago where he was defending a US Navy ad that claimed it as a "global force for good." Kind of a case in point here. People blindly accept claims of all manner of authority.

I've been enjoying it too. While I am an atheist I don't consider my world view atheistic, if it were proven that any deities existed I would not remain an atheist, but my objections to religion (and to worshipping deities) would still stand.

I haven't been to church for years, and their model of worship no longer rings true for me. I worship God by acknowledging His Presence in every sentient creature in the universe, and treating them with the appropriate love and respect.

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[Nobody]

When one reverts to insult, to me, it proves that neither of these goals was of primary importance. And I do get it. I don't exactly completely practice what I preach here, but I try to. Partaking of the instant gratification of letting a stupid person know that he is stupid isn't something that I'm innocent of here.

Thats all there really is to it, while it is an unattractive part of human nature and should be avoided whenever possible, we all do it at times. The thing that really annoys people like me is when religion is exempt from it unlike anything else.

I had an argument with my brother a few months ago where he was defending a US Navy ad that claimed it as a "global force for good." Kind of a case in point here. People blindly accept claims of all manner of authority.

Good example, I still think religion makes the acceptance of authority easier though.

I haven't been to church for years, and their model of worship no longer rings true for me. I worship God by acknowledging His Presence in every sentient creature in the universe, and treating them with the appropriate love and respect.

While I can appreciate the sentiment I have never really been able to understand when people mention God as something real (I do try, and I'm not trying to be offensive at all, I just don't get it).

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Oh no not a Matthew quote, it is a very nice quote but I must give you one in return now.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That is the specific part of the book that has always bothered me. While I like the general sentiment of "be nice to people" that comes across in that book I don't subscribe to the view of "turning the other cheek" or "loving your enemies". I don't know if you do but I apologize for assuming so since you seem to try to be nice.
If someone is out to destroy you I don't see how it is a good thing to be nice to them, or just to passively take it? And is this part of the reason people are usually against "sinking to their level"? Turning the other cheek may be useful in a few situations, but I tend to think it is ultimately self destructive.

 

[Prophet]

Thats all there really is to it, while it is an unattractive part of human nature and should be avoided whenever possible, we all do it at times. The thing that really annoys people like me is when religion is exempt from it unlike anything else.

Seeking to selfishly harm others may usually result in harm to others, but it ALWAYS results in harm to yourself. It rots your empathy from the inside. You may cause them hurt feelings or broken bones, but the worst is left for you because everytime you act, speak, or think with selfish motives you give up piece after piece of your sanity, by driving honest assessment of your own evil deep into a pit guarded by your own guilt. Psychology calls this part of the mind we bury when we deny morality the subconscious. Psychology calls the false self which pens off the subconscious from being awakened the ego.

Good example, I still think religion makes the acceptance of authority easier though.

I've used bulletproof reasoning here and you still want to have your antitheist belief without any real rational response to my objections. Frankly, you complaining about religious folks denying reason given this seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

While I can appreciate the sentiment I have never really been able to understand when people mention God as something real (I do try, and I'm not trying to be offensive at all, I just don't get it).

I understand and I will make efforts to take other routes of debate than speaking of God.

Oh no not a Matthew quote, it is a very nice quote but I must give you one in return now.

That is the specific part of the book that has always bothered me. While I like the general sentiment of "be nice to people" that comes across in that book I don't subscribe to the view of "turning the other cheek" or "loving your enemies". I don't know if you do but I apologize for assuming so since you seem to try to be nice.
If someone is out to destroy you I don't see how it is a good thing to be nice to them, or just to passively take it? And is this part of the reason people are usually against "sinking to their level"? Turning the other cheek may be useful in a few situations, but I tend to think it is ultimately self destructive.

I posted some commentary on this just a day or so ago:

...I wish to investigate two models of love. The first model of love is attached love. In this model, when I perform "acts of love" I am making myself appear to be selfless, while in actuality, my act was not performed selflessly, because it was given with attached selfish motives. It was not love. It was a mere acting job. It was a trade made to strengthen my lover's feelings towards me. Should my acts not be repaid appropriately, I will feel cheated. If this state continues, my love will prove itself to actually be conditional infatuation, when I discontinue my affections.

Thankfully, there is a second model of love. This is where you unattach from every act and truly give from the place that is most important. When I perform acts of love in this state, they are done selflessly with no thought of personal gain. This is why Jesus said that when we give, be careful to not do it to be seen by others because that makes you a mere actor (or hypocrite as the Christ was known to say). True love is the recognition that all are part of me, and it is only from the detached state that I can see this. From this state, it is truly better to give than to receive. Love does not extend to just friends, but enemies as well. Jesus told us to love our enemies, not to give us an impossible, impractical task, but to tell us what love is.

You would say going the extra mile, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemies is self destructive. I say dividing your mind against itself is exactly what you accomplish by refusing to live in these ways. I do not deny that living in the selfish mold of the world is the safest way to live if my concern is living as long a life as possble. My counter: I may lose my life, but you will lose your sanity. If I am right, who is actually being self destructive here? To answer this question I've posed knowledgeably, you must know the answer to the essential existential question: Who am I?

 

[Nobody]

Seeking to selfishly harm others may usually result in harm to others, but it ALWAYS results in harm to yourself. It rots your empathy from the inside. You may cause them hurt feelings or broken bones, but the worst is left for you because everytime you act, speak, or think with selfish motives you give up piece after piece of your sanity, by driving honest assessment of your own evil deep into a pit guarded by your own guilt. Psychology calls this part of the mind we bury when we deny morality the subconscious. Psychology calls the false self which pens off the subconscious from being awakened the ego.

If I think that I have harmed someone, of course it makes me feel at least a little bad no matter how much I may think it was justified to do so. Ultimately I think it is impossible to go through life without harming anyone as sometimes it is necessary, the best we can do is to consider how our words and actions effect others and make decisions which we can live with.

I've used bulletproof reasoning here and you still want to have your belief without any real rational response to my objections. Frankly, you complaining about religious folks denying reason given this seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think that is harsh, maybe I missed the point you tried to make. I thought the point you made was about the blind acceptance of authority not being an exclusively religious issue? If so I do not disagree.
The only distinction that I make between non-religious and religious kinds of authoritarian ideologies, and one that I think is significant is that while one is accepted as the (fallible and limited) product of human minds, the other is seen, by those who believe, as the product of God, a perfect (infallible and limitless) source.

Take the Catholic church for example, this is an extract from the online Catholic encyclopedia. Link

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

Now to someone who accepts this as true, that the Pope is the "the Vicar of Christ upon earth". They must naturally give more credibility to this authority because of its 'divine' status, than they would to any other.
Basically, for someone who believes in God, what has more inherent value: the will of God, or the will of Man?

You would say going the extra mile, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemies is self destructive. I say dividing your mind against itself is exactly what you accomplish by refusing to live in these ways. I do not deny that living in the selfish mold of the world is the safest way to live if my concern is living as long a life as possible. My counter: I may lose my life, but you will lose your sanity. If I am right, who is actually being self destructive here? To answer this question I've posed knowledgeably, you must know the answer to the essential existential question: Who am I?

I think this is quite close to the core of how differently we see things, since I have no belief in any gods or afterlife I do consider our lives to be the most important thing we have. My main concern isn't to live as long a life as possible, but to live what I consider the best life I can, basic survival is a requirement for this. As for 'dividing your mind' I don't think it is a particularly good thing to attempt to see the emotions and instincts that are considered destructive as apart from human nature, I think trying to acknowledge and understand them as a part of what makes us human, and to use them in positive ways is much more useful.

The only way I can answer your question honestly is to say that if you are right about the existence of God and his sentiment of loving your enemies, then yes, my attitude would be self destructive.

 

[Prophet]

Hi Nobody:

I think that is harsh, maybe I missed the point you tried to make. I thought the point you made was about the blind acceptance of authority not being an exclusively religious issue? If so I do not disagree.
The only distinction that I make between non-religious and religious kinds of authoritarian ideologies, and one that I think is significant is that while one is accepted as the (fallible and limited) product of human minds, the other is seen, by those who believe, as the product of God, a perfect (infallible and limitless) source.

The problem you continuously blame on religion is actually a different problem which I've demonstrated in a few ways. When I've demonstrated it, you acknowledge it and then proceed as if I had never said it, countering with "I think" statements that ignore every point I make. You say you now acknowledge my point, but you did only in word. Your response reduces pretty plainly to "Yeah, you got your logic, but I'm going to find a way to continue holding my unjustified prejudice." You are crippled from debating rationally about this belief because you are attached to it.

It is the problem that the power of authority is rooted in the ignorance of the ruled, and because of this, said authority will proliferate ignorance to further their selfish aims. Someday, when ignorance of the Truth is wiped off the face of the earth, authority will disappear. You should be more conscious of your biases when forming your beliefs.

I think this is quite close to the core of how differently we see things, since I have no belief in any gods or afterlife I do consider our lives to be the most important thing we have. My main concern isn't to live as long a life as possible, but to live what I consider the best life I can, basic survival is a requirement for this. As for 'dividing your mind' I don't think it is a particularly good thing to attempt to see the emotions and instincts that are considered destructive as apart from human nature, I think trying to acknowledge and understand them as a part of what makes us human, and to use them in positive ways is much more useful.

The only way I can answer your question honestly is to say that if you are right about the existence of God and his sentiment of loving your enemies, then yes, my attitude would be self destructive.

I missed the part that you're responding to where I was talking about God. I was actually talking about the nature of love, and whether it is truly love when it is performed selfishly.

So, rather, if I am right about the the nature of love having to be selfless, then yes, your attitude would be self destructive.

One more thing: You are talking about me saying "dividing your mind" as if I'm just making this crap up and I'm not to be taken seriously. I am talking about what actual minds must do to continue to operate in this universe. When a being partakes in evil for the first time, a divide is actually caused in their mind when they suppress part of it to hide their awful motives from themselves. This divide is the cause of the conscious-subconscious mind. I am talking actual mind concepts and I'm not just labeling things good emotions or bad feelings as you seemed to imply.

 

[Nobody]

The problem you continuously blame on religion is actually a different problem which I've demonstrated in a few ways. When I've demonstrated it, you acknowledge it and then proceed as if I had never said it, countering with "I think" statements that ignore every point I make. You say you now acknowledge my point, but you did only in word. Your response reduces pretty plainly to "Yeah, you got your logic, but I'm going to find a way to continue holding my unjustified prejudice." You are crippled from debating rationally about this belief because you are attached to it.

So I have biases, who doesn't? I at least try to acknowledge my bias and present my opinion on the significance of certain points as what it is, opinion. I will try to refrain from doing so again.
Please, rather than saying I am unjustifiably prejudiced, by all means tell me how my reasoning behind the link between an authority inspired by God, and the added weight this divine status gives it to believers is flawed. Or even tell me that it's significance isn't as great as I think.
What points did I ignore? It isn't an exclusive problem of religion, I was wrong to imply otherwise. You were absolutely correct to point out that it comes down to the blind acceptance of authority.
You ignored the point I made about the difference between divine/non-divine authority. Is it not the case that when an authority claims a link to God (like the Pope example in my previous post), those that believe give more credibility, reverence and respect to such an authority than they would to a merely man made one?

Like I asked in my previous post, what has more inherent value to someone who believes in God, the will of God or the will of Man?

It is the problem that the power of authority is rooted in the ignorance of the ruled, and because of this, said authority will proliferate ignorance to further their selfish aims. Someday, when ignorance of the Truth is wiped off the face of the earth, authority will disappear. You should be more conscious of your biases when forming your beliefs.

(Bold added for emphasis)
Wait what? I don't even know how to respond to that....

I missed the part that you're responding to where I was talking about God. I was actually talking about the nature of love, and whether it is truly love when it is performed selfishly.

So, rather, if I am right about the the nature of love having to be selfless, then yes, your attitude would be self destructive.

Actually if the true nature of love is having to be truly selfless (loving your enemies comes under this yes?), would it not lose all value? If we all unconditionally love everyone, what is so special about love?

One more thing: You are talking about me saying "dividing your mind" as if I'm just making this crap up and I'm not to be taken seriously. I am talking about what actual minds must do to continue to operate in this universe.

I have just reread my last post and yes, I can see how it came across. I sincerely apologize for that was not my intent at all.
I was attempting to refer to our ability to emotionally distance ourselves from things we may not like about ourselves although after reading your response this does not seem to be what you are getting at?

When a being partakes in evil for the first time, a divide is actually caused in their mind when they suppress part of it to hide their awful motives from themselves. This divide is the cause of the conscious-subconscious mind. I am talking actual mind concepts and I'm not just labeling things good emotions or bad feelings as you seemed to imply.

So the first time someone 'partakes in evil', that creates the subconscious mind? If someone managed to avoid all 'evil' they would not have a subconscious? I admit my ignorance, this is a completely new concept for me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have said? Could you give me any references?

 

[Prophet]

So I have biases, who doesn't? I at least try to acknowledge my bias and present my opinion on the significance of certain points as what it is, opinion. I will try to refrain from doing so again.
Please, rather than saying I am unjustifiably prejudiced, by all means tell me how my reasoning behind the link between an authority inspired by God, and the added weight this divine status gives it to believers is flawed. Or even tell me that it's significance isn't as great as I think.
What points did I ignore? It isn't an exclusive problem of religion, I was wrong to imply otherwise. You were absolutely correct to point out that it comes down to the blind acceptance of authority.
You ignored the point I made about the difference between divine/non-divine authority. Is it not the case that when an authority claims a link to God (like the Pope example in my previous post), those that believe give more credibility, reverence and respect to such an authority than they would to a merely man made one?

Like I asked in my previous post, what has more inherent value to someone who believes in God, the will of God or the will of Man?

Your leading question is highly irrelevant. You want to believe Richard Dawkins isn't a bigot despite the evidence that flows freely from his lips. You want to believe that religion should be blamed for the problem of ignorance despite my cogent arguments to the contrary. I've demonstrated both to be rationally wrong explanations for what you are observing at work in the world.

You must really think you have me by the tail to repeat this question. Religious authority, like all other authority since the beginning of time, is rooted in the ignorance of those who recognize this authority. Your biases say the problem is religion when the problem you see is actually ignorance. You are trying to characterize religious ignorance as more powerful variety than others. You are attempting to make your argument by quantifying a quality by giving weight based upon your biases--I'm pretty sure this whole line of thinking breaks some pretty important logic rules on a few different levels. I will add that it is only ignorant people who blindly accept the claims made by religious deceivers.

For the record, I wouldn't dream of asking you to blindly accept my claims. I ask you to understand my claims and rationally investigate them for yourself. I think I put pretty bold claims out there about the workings of the mind, the true nature of love, and the source of morality. When's someone here going to prove me wrong?

Actually if the true nature of love is having to be truly selfless (loving your enemies comes under this yes?), would it not lose all value? If we all unconditionally love everyone, what is so special about love?

Yes, loving your enemies does come under this. Your characterization of love as a zero sum game where you win by getting more value than you give is pretty dire. Is that the selfish ideal you would want to live and die for?

Learning to love your enemies can't be done by mere effort. First, one must experientially understand what love is. All due respect, your concept of love doesn't really go beyond the observation level. This is true of everyone I've ever met so don't feel bad. I offer true understanding.

I have just reread my last post and yes, I can see how it came across. I sincerely apologize for that was not my intent at all.
I was attempting to refer to our ability to emotionally distance ourselves from things we may not like about ourselves although after reading your response this does not seem to be what you are getting at?

I will add that the ego is what causes us to emotionally distance ourselves from the things about us we aren't comfortable with, and it does this with fear (or guilt which is fear in disguise). I was molested from birth until I was about 8 or so. While I was a child, I molested other children, including my brothers. I repressed memory of this violation to my childhood. I never actually lost the memory of that, but guilt surrounding the awful things I had become as a result caused me to block it out until about a year ago.

I've seen how the mind copes with life in a world at war from both sides.

So the first time someone 'partakes in evil', that creates the subconscious mind? If someone managed to avoid all 'evil' they would not have a subconscious? I admit my ignorance, this is a completely new concept for me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have said? Could you give me any references?

Yes, you are correctly understanding me. I'm afraid the only good references I could give you are ones you are already biased against, and the references you are probably actually talking about have only studied the mind in its divided conscious-subconscious state. I am claiming to have a greater understanding of the workings of the mind than the state of psychology today.

 

[HerDotness]

And this statement as well as much of the rest of that posting seems to be saying that Nobody hasn't bothered to think about religion or at the very least to think about it carefully enough, because if s/he had, s/he would of course agree that you're right and would adopt your beliefs or something very like them.

For the record, I wouldn't dream of asking you to blindly accept my claims. I ask you to understand my claims and rationally investigate them for yourself. I think I put pretty bold claims out there about the workings of the mind, the true nature of love, and the source of morality.

Does "understand" really mean "agree with"? I wonder based on your overall tone, especially when you go on to say "the true nature of love."

When's someone here going to prove me wrong?

Not me, because it's evident that you perceive religious belief differently than I do and Nobody does. It's not as simple as "I'm right, and you're wrong, so you two should study up and learn why I'm right." That it is that simple seems to be your every implication.

You call bigots, it seems, those who think or believe dramatically differently from yourself.

 

[Prophet]

And this statement as well as much of the rest of that posting seems to be saying that Nobody hasn't bothered to think about religion or at the very least to think about it carefully enough, because if s/he had, s/he would of course agree that you're right and would adopt your beliefs or something very like them.



Does "understand" really mean "agree with"? I wonder based on your overall tone, especially when you go on to say "the true nature of love."



Not me, because it's evident that you perceive religious belief differently than I do and Nobody does. It's not as simple as "I'm right, and you're wrong, so you two should study up and learn why I'm right." That it is that simple seems to be your every implication.

You call bigots, it seems, those who think or believe dramatically differently from yourself.

It is apparent that you couldn't be bothered to read or understand the entire exchange between Nobody and me. This is fine, but don't expect a response for this when I could answer every facet of this by quoting things I've already taken the time to say already.

Your characterization of my definition of bigot, for example, was written purposefully badly to construct a straw man. I've been watching your exchanges with others, and I bet you get accused of attacking straw man arguments pretty frequently.

 

[HerDotness]

It is apparent that you couldn't be bothered to read or understand the entire exchange between Nobody and me.

And you would be wrong...very wrong. I read the entire exchange, thought about it carefully to be as certain as possible that I wasn't misunderstanding you.

So, explain how I've misunderstood you or misrepresented your actual position instead of saying "I could answer every facet of this by quoting things I've already taken the time to say... This is fine, but don't expect a response for this when I could answer every facet of this by quoting things I've already taken the time to say already." Either you'll explain how I've misunderstood or misrepresented you, or I think it's safe to conclude that you're simply attempting to dismiss my disagreeing with you.

Your characterization of my definition of bigot, for example, was written purposefully badly to construct a straw man.

No, it was not "written purposefully badly to construct a straw man." You may wish to think that I write badly and that the statement was a deliberate straw man. Your opinion.

Edit to correct: I was mistaken and withdraw my earlier statement about Prophet calling people bigots cavalierly. I recalled erroneously what Prophet said and apologize.

I've been watching your exchanges with others, and I bet you get accused of attacking straw man arguments pretty frequently.

No, I don't. I don't recall ever having been accused of that here, so unless you can produce evidence that I have been more than once and often enough that any reasonable person would consider it frequent, you are stating an untruth as if it's a fact.

 

[HerDotness]

Here is how you said you define "bigot," Prophet: (from the Wiki)

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot," a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.[bolding added]

I continue to fail to see how Richard Dawkins doesn't fit into this category of person perfectly.

Dawkins is courteous and personable toward believers from what I've seen of him during debates with religious believers. He doesn't speak in a hostile manner or a tone suggestive of disdain for anyone silly enough to believe that junk. Nor does he show animosity toward people who are religious. He does, however, make it quite clear that he thinks religious belief ridiculous and nonsensical.

So, no, I don't think it either accurate or just to say he is a perfect bigot. You, of course, may view him differently, but I think you're being more than somewhat judgemental and harsh in doing so.

 

[Nobody]

Your leading question is highly irrelevant. You want to believe Richard Dawkins isn't a bigot despite the evidence that flows freely from his lips. You want to believe that religion should be blamed for the problem of ignorance despite my cogent arguments to the contrary.

What I want to believe is irrelevant, I don't expect the universe to work how I would like it to. You are right that I don't want to believe Dawkins is a bigot, but if he said something bigoted I would accept that he is. I didn't want to believe that Morrissey is a pretentious moron, I like his music, but his comments have proved me wrong.
On wanting to blame religion you are completely wrong, one of the most decent people I have ever known is a Christian, the idea that her attitude of indifference towards the appalling parts of the Bible could actually be part of a huge problem is not one I like, I do not want to believe this, unfortunately I have no choice but to do so with what I know.

I've demonstrated both to be rationally wrong explanations for what you are observing at work in the world.

You must really think you have me by the tail to repeat this question. Religious authority, like all other authority since the beginning of time, is rooted in the ignorance of those who recognize this authority. Your biases say the problem is religion when the problem you see is actually ignorance. You are trying to characterize religious ignorance as more powerful variety than others. You are attempting to make your argument by quantifying a quality by giving weight based upon your biases--I'm pretty sure this whole line of thinking breaks some pretty important logic rules on a few different levels. I will add that it is only ignorant people who blindly accept the claims made by religious deceivers.

You haven't demonstrated rationally that I am wrong, you have made some fairly relevant points, but none have actually countered what I have said. You clearly do not see a difference between divine/non-divine forms of authority as I do. That's fine, I don't expect you to agree or even acknowledge this.

Yes, loving your enemies does come under this. Your characterization of love as a zero sum game where you win by getting more value than you give is pretty dire. Is that the selfish ideal you would want to live and die for?

Learning to love your enemies can't be done by mere effort. First, one must experientially understand what love is. All due respect, your concept of love doesn't really go beyond the observation level. This is true of everyone I've ever met so don't feel bad. I offer true understanding.

I'm not saying love is about winning, to reduce it to a kind of game would be dire. To me, part of what makes real love so special is it's scarcity. If we unconditionally love everyone, love would lose a lot of its substance.

Yes, you are correctly understanding me. I'm afraid the only good references I could give you are ones you are already biased against, and the references you are probably actually talking about have only studied the mind in its divided conscious-subconscious state. I am claiming to have a greater understanding of the workings of the mind than the state of psychology today.

Ah, if your references are of a religious nature you are correct that I would be biased against them. I would still like to know more though since it is not a concept I am familiar with. Learning about a new perspective is always interesting, and often helpful. It's a bit off topic so feel free to send me any info about this, it would be appreciated.

Dawkins is courteous and personable toward believers from what I've seen of him during debates with religious believers. He doesn't speak in a hostile manner or a tone suggestive of disdain for anyone silly enough to believe that junk. Nor does he show animosity toward people who are religious. He does, however, make it quite clear that he thinks religious belief ridiculous and nonsensical.

This is my opinion of him too, his documentary "The Root of All Evil" comes to mind. I was impressed with the almost inhuman patience and restraint he showed with many of those he interviewed. Particularly Ted Haggard, so smug and condescending, just watching that almost induced vomiting. In Dawkins place, I doubt I could have been so pleasant even if I had the inclination.

 

[George-ananda]

Nobody, I just got done reading your initial post and I'm thinking you're not anti-theist you're anti-extremist. I agree with your anti-extremist position.

 

[Nobody]

Nobody, I just got done reading your initial post and I'm thinking you're not anti-theist you're anti-extremist. I agree with your anti-extremist position.

I did limit myself to my single main anti-theistic argument in my OP in an (admittedly poor ) attempt to keep it brief. If the problem of extremism wasn't around I admit that I would be less inclined to go after religion/gods.

Another big reason for me to label myself 'anti-theist' is my moral objection to worshiping deities. If there are god(s), whether they are all powerful or not, looking at the state of the world makes me think they do not deserve to be worshiped. Using our minds, as limited as they are to improve the world in whatever way we may choose seems far better to me than being even further limited by an interpretation of the claimed will of a deity.

Not to forget all the crazy stuff that religion has gotten away with throughout history by claiming to represent a divine power. Like the objection to vaccination, as it was/is seen by some as interfering with God's plan. Even if that could be demonstrated to actually be God's plan, why would you not want to interfere?

I've recently realized how the term 'anti-theist' is seen to mean very different things to people, for me it is a label which only describes a moral objection to religion and the idea of gods themselves, independent of whether they actually exist or not.

 

[George-ananda]

If there are god(s), whether they are all powerful or not, looking at the state of the world makes me think they do not deserve to be worshiped.

This is the old Problem of Evil debate. I think our extremely limited perspective of a creation that stretches from the big-bang to whatever end emcompassing unknown physical and spiritual dimensions makes it impossible to critique the creator. The 'state of the world' as you put it, may be the best accelerant possible for change and growth but we can't see that from our tiny perspective where we believe only this one life is real and important.

Using our minds, as limited as they are to improve the world in whatever way we may choose seems far better to me than being even further limited by an interpretation of the claimed will of a deity.

Anyone who wouldn't want to use our minds to improve the world for some religious reason should be criticized as an EXTREMIST.

Not to forget all the crazy stuff that religion has gotten away with throughout history by claiming to represent a divine power. Like the objection to vaccination, as it was/is seen by some as interfering with God's plan. Even if that could be demonstrated to actually be God's plan, why would you not want to interfere?

Again, the objection to vaccinations would be from the EXTREMISTS. There are many intelligent theists too.

I've recently realized how the term 'anti-theist' is seen to mean very different things to people, for me it is a label which only describes a moral objection to religion and the idea of gods themselves, independent of whether they actually exist or not.

I think you should consider taking the 'atheist who is an anti-extremist' label and not the anti-theist label.

 

[Prophet]

What I want to believe is irrelevant, I don't expect the universe to work how I would like it to. You are right that I don't want to believe Dawkins is a bigot, but if he said something bigoted I would accept that he is. I didn't want to believe that Morrissey is a pretentious moron, I like his music, but his comments have proved me wrong.
On wanting to blame religion you are completely wrong, one of the most decent people I have ever known is a Christian, the idea that her attitude of indifference towards the appalling parts of the Bible could actually be part of a huge problem is not one I like, I do not want to believe this, unfortunately I have no choice but to do so with what I know.

If a white leader encourages all of his followers to criticize and ridicule blacks, he is a racist bigot. Same if the positions were switched.

If a straight leader encourages all of his followers to criticize and ridicule gays, he is a anti-homosexual bigot. If the positions are reversed, the bigotry still exists.

If an atheist leader encourages all of his followers to criticize and ridicule theists, he is an anti-theistic bigot.

I honestly don't understand how you can possibly extend an exoneration to the charge of bigotry beyond you using a hidden rationale. I REALLY don't understand, and it is not from a lack of trying, but rather your failure to put out a consistent worldview. Maybe to you, bigotry that is in retalliation doesn't count. Or maybe bigotry that is performed by the minority doesn't count. Or maybe bigotry that is performed in service of a cause you personally believe in doesn't count. There are probably more possible rationales I can't think of right now, but know that I disagree with all of these possible hidden stances and I believe I have solid rational grounds to do so and have presented these grounds in as understandable and reasonable manner as my writing skill allows and will continue to do so.

Bigotry is the belief that morality doesn't apply to beings who are different from me in a way I regard as significant. It is pure ignorance, whether it is performed first or in retalliation, whether inflicted upon the minority or the majority.

Update: Upon some re-reading of the debate and contemplation, I figured out what your (and likely Richard Dawkins') hidden position is. You come into this debate as a strong atheist meaning that you believe there is no God. This is pretty significant as you have a positive belief in something that cannot be proven. Proving the non-existence of God is impossible, and this impossibility is easily demonstrable by reason alone. The "weak" atheist (its just the accepted wording I've heard, I think it's a much stronger and more reasonable position) only claims to not know of any gods and refuses to go the further step of saying there are no gods.

So, because you believe there are no gods, when you attack theists, you are circularly reasoning that you are attacking ignorance on the unjustified assumption that you must be right about the non-existence of God, a belief that CANNOT be proven.

Let's go through the fundamentalist extremist checklist here. Relentless belief in something completely not provable? Check on fundamentalism. Willingness to treat with hostility those who go against your unprovable belief? Check on extremist. 2 for 2. Anti-theism is a fundamentalist extremist worldview. You have unknowingly justified adopting an extremist worldview to battle against extremism.

You haven't demonstrated rationally that I am wrong, you have made some fairly relevant points, but none have actually countered what I have said. You clearly do not see a difference between divine/non-divine forms of authority as I do. That's fine, I don't expect you to agree or even acknowledge this.

Claims of divine authority are only believed by the ignorant. Again, not a problem of religion, but one of ignorance. It's the problem of someone being stupid enough to believe everything said without caring to confirm or understand it. If religion disappears, won't these ignoramuses still exist waiting to get duped by another kind of power monger?

I'm not saying love is about winning, to reduce it to a kind of game would be dire. To me, part of what makes real love so special is it's scarcity. If we unconditionally love everyone, love would lose a lot of its substance.

The reaction of tears to the joy of love is the sorrow of all of the moments of life that were wasted and should have been like the present one. Love is rare, I do admit. I have faith that someday it won't be. I see a destiny for this planet where these rare moments of intimate connection with other beings are extended into entire lifetimes. When you see the Truth about your Self, you will realize that all beings are your Brothers and Sisters and you are all Children of the One.

Ah, if your references are of a religious nature you are correct that I would be biased against them. I would still like to know more though since it is not a concept I am familiar with. Learning about a new perspective is always interesting, and often helpful. It's a bit off topic so feel free to send me any info about this, it would be appreciated.

I'd recommend the Bhagavhad Gita, a Hindu Scripture book, but material about this model of the mind is in every religion that descended from a prophet of God. You may find The Perrenial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley a good read as well. This model exists in the Bible, and though I most closely identify with Christianity, I recommended the Gita because a lot of the Bible has been rewritten to serve the purposes of authority, the Roman empire and its church most notably. The truth content of the Bible can seem diluted.