Argument against "lacktheism"

[dybmh]

@hififish ,

Why the sad emoji? The other poster is diverting from the topic and preaching atheism at me. They repeatedly ignore what I have written to do this. They have been repeatedly asked to read my posts and reply to their content. Each time they reject it and assert their autonomy. "I will do what I want." I am not the only one that notices the problem. This website has rules against this sort of behavior.

The repetition is justified and necessary. It's easy to tell they were preaching. Once the topic was made abundantly clear from repetition, and they know they will be reported for shifting topic to atheist preaching, they have nothing left to say to to me. This is good

 

[Revoltingest]

@hififish ,

Why the sad emoji? The other poster is diverting from the topic and preaching atheism at me. They repeatedly ignore what I have written to do this. They have been repeatedly asked to read my posts and reply to their content. Each time they reject it and assert their autonomy. "I will do what I want." I am not the only one that notices the problem. This website has rules against this sort of behavior.

The repetition is justified and necessary. It's easy to tell they were preaching. Once the topic was made abundantly clear from repetition, and they know they will be reported for shifting topic to atheist preaching, they have nothing left to say to to me. This is good

Don't confuse criticism of theism with preaching.
Yes, it's tough to endure an attack on beliefs,
but that's how it goes on RF.

 

[dybmh]

Don't confuse criticism of theism with preaching.

Preaching is when the speaker is not listening to anyone but their own voice. It is a one-directional communication style. If the criticism is nothing more than a one-directional advertisement. It's preaching. And that is precisely what that individual was doing and has a pattern of doing it.

Yes, it's tough to endure an attack on beliefs,

I could care less about the attacks. I welcome them. But some posters cannot participate in a conversation. For those posters, there is no debate, it is just preaching their talking points. A one directional adverstisement of atheism.

It's easy to defeat the atheist talking points. There's never going to be any challenge to it. The atheist requires over-simplifying and ignoring the details in order to make their claims. Adding details always defeats them.

but that's how it goes on RF.

How it goes on RF is, no one admits they were wrong.

 

[PureX]

It is a mistake to suppose that hope is impossible without idle speculation on what cannot be understood (by your own claim that it is a "mystery").

First, it's not "idle" speculation. As people tend to act of what they hope to be the solution to that mystery. So once again, your bias is showing. And second, it doesnt matter how or in what people find hope. What matters to them is that they do. And that they then choose to act on it. Because that's how we grow and change. And theism is by far the most common means of doing that.

But let's talk about what else such speculation can lead to: like 9/11, or the hatred of gay people that led to things like Westboro Baptist Church, or the murder of Matthew Shepard.

When people lack real faith and hope, they fall into an obsession with control. And science does absolutely nothing to help them mitigate that obsession. In fact, science provides them ever more sophisticated and effective methods of enforcing that control. So while you're blsming it all on religion, and ignoring that it's really a lack of faith, there is your beloved science aiding and abetting the bully-boys at every turn. Maybe you should be thinking about that.

Here's an interesting headline from the New York Tribune, May 20, 1918: "Georgia Mob Lynches Negor and His Wife." The mob grew to about 300 men, who were looking for black victims wherever they could find them, and killed at least 13 blacks, one of them a farmworker named Hayes Turner. Next day, his wife, Mary, 8 months pregnaqnt, made what a Georgia newspaper call "unwise remarks...about the execution of her husban." The mob strung her up to a tree by her ankles, doused her with gasoline, adn set her on fire. As she screamed in pain, a member of the mob knifed open her belly, and when her unborn child fell to the ground and gave a cry, men stomped it to death.

This is what humans do when they lack faith in their highest hopes and ideals for humanity. They start trying to force the world to comply with their own selfish and grandiose delusional ideals.

Now, this being Georgia in 1918, what do you bet that nearly every one of those men was in church the following Sunday, basking in the surety that they were loved by the Lord?

They had no faith in God. All they had was their own selfish religion telling them that they are the "lords" of this world.

 

[viole]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Does "we have no clue", count as an alternative?
if not, were my ancestors rational in believing that Thor was the only possible source of lightnings?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First, it's not "idle" speculation. As people tend to act of what they hope to be the solution to that mystery. So once again, your bias is showing. And second, it doesnt matter how or in what people find hope. What matters to them is that they do. And that they then choose to act on it. Because that's how we grow and change. And theism is by far the most common means of doing that.

Only until they turn their tendency to act into dogma. Then everything I said remains true.

When people lack real faith and hope, they fall into an obsession with control. And science does absolutely nothing to help them mitigate that obsession. In fact, science provides them ever more sophisticated and effective methods of enforcing that control. So while you're blsming it all on religion, and ignoring that it's really a lack of faith, there is your beloved science aiding and abetting the bully-boys at every turn. Maybe you should be thinking about that.

This is what humans do when they lack faith in their highest hopes and ideals for humanity. They start trying to force the world to comply with their own selfish and grandiose delusional ideals

They had no faith in God. All they had was their own selfish religion telling them that they are the "lords" of this world.

I'll file the rest under "No true Scotsman."

 

[Revoltingest]

Preaching is when the speaker is not listening to anyone but their own voice.

Not per RF rules.

It is a one-directional communication style. If the criticism is nothing more than a one-directional advertisement. It's preaching. And that is precisely what that individual was doing and has a pattern of doing it.

While not preaching, it's annoying, tedious, & frustrating.
But staff won't punish us for what constitutes 93.8% of
what's called "debate" here.
Why do you think I'm RF's biggest jerk?
It's a reaction to RF's lesser jerks.

 

[dybmh]

Not per RF rules.

I will let the staff interpret the rules.

While not preaching, it's annoying, tedious, & frustrating.
But staff won't punish us for what constitutes 93.8% of
what's called "debate" here.

It is defintitely preaching when an atheist repeatedly replies "but your religion is false" or "atheism is better" regardless of the topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will let the staff interpret the rules.

Not to unduly burden staff, but I recommend
starting a thread in Site Feedback to discuss
this matter. They'd clarify things better than I can.
(They make & enforce the rules. I just endure them.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I will let the staff interpret the rules.



It is defintitely preaching when an atheist repeatedly replies "but your religion is false" or "atheism is better" regardless of the topic.

Let's look at the specific rule....

-------------------------------------------------
8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.
-------------------------------------------------

In the context of a debate forum, there is much leeway
for criticizing or advocating for a religious view (as I've
observed things here). This very thread is an argument
against atheism, yet it continues, & has many posts.
So arguments against religions are integral to it.

You & I can tell each other that our beliefs & non-beliefs
are booOOOooOOOoooogus. But ideally, we'd give
our reasons, & enjoy the discussion.
BTW, I've found you quite civil & tolerant.
You just need to work on not letting us annoy you too much.

 

[Audie]

Preaching is when the speaker is not listening to anyone but their own voice. It is a one-directional communication style. If the criticism is nothing more than a one-directional advertisement. It's preaching. And that is precisely what that individual was doing and has a pattern of doing it.



I could care less about the attacks. I welcome them. But some posters cannot participate in a conversation. For those posters, there is no debate, it is just preaching their talking points. A one directional adverstisement of atheism.

It's easy to defeat the atheist talking points. There's never going to be any challenge to it. The atheist requires over-simplifying and ignoring the details in order to make their claims. Adding details always defeats them.



How it goes on RF is, no one admits they were wrong.

No creationist ever does. Nobody whose
concepts are based on faith will.

Dont try to tar everyone with your own brush.

Those of us who don't do "faith" not only
can accept that we are wrong, we welcome
learning.
Evidence is the basis for what we believe,
not self indulgence. ( act / believe based on
how you feel)

What will you do if your complaint about " preaching"
is found to be without merit?
Believe it's preaching anyway, or admit you were wrong?

 

[PureX]

Let's look at the specific rule....

-------------------------------------------------
8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.
-------------------------------------------------

In the context of a debate forum, there is much leeway
for criticizing or advocating for a religious view (as I've
observed things here). This very thread is an argument
against atheism, yet it exists, & has many posts.
So arguments against religions are integral to it.

You & I can tell each other that our beliefs & non-beliefs
are booOOOooOOOoooogus. But ideally, we'd give
our reasons, & enjoy the discussion.

Also, keep in mind that at any time one can simply ASK if someone is stating their belief as their belief, or stating it as a fact that they expect everyone else to then believe. It's easy to assume someone is preaching when they are simply posting their own beliefs worded in a way that expresses their own sense of surety.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, keep in mind that at any time one can simply ASK if someone is stating their belief as their belief, or stating it as a fact that they expect everyone else to then believe. It's easy to assume someone is preaching when they are simply posting their own beliefs worded in a way that expresses their own sense of surety.

Remember that when you post.
(Just my opinion.)

 

[Ella S.]

As a strong atheist who claims that there is no God, I don't believe that there isn't a God "because" there really isn't one. Likewise, I don't think most theists believe that there is a God "because" there really is one. The conclusion is that there really is or isn't one, but that's not the reason for believing that.

We come to those conclusions, if we're rational, through logical argumentation founded on strong evidence. Depending on the information we have, we will come to different conclusions even if we're both perfectly rational.

I tend to think, for a variety of reasons, that theists generally have good reasons for believing in God, even if I disagree with their conclusions. I don't know what those reasons are until I have that conversation with them. It's possible that their reasons for believing in God are superior to my reasons for believing that God does not exist.

I can accurately identify why some people believe in God, such as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from fine tuning, and so on. The theists themselves will tell me that these are the reasons they believe. I don't need to construct a Straw Man of what their "actual reasons" for believing are in order to disagree with them.

I'm not even a "lacktheist" and I have no problem accepting that people believe in God for the reasons they say they believe in God. So why would an agnostic atheist, who has no positive claims that they need to support either way, have a hard time with that?

What even is "indoctrination," anyway? Don't most people teach their kids what they honestly believe? Aren't most religious leaders believers themselves? It's just a way to say that you think they've been taught to believe in something that you think is false, but couldn't we all be wrong about what we think we know? What use is the pejorative, then?

I think agnostic atheists are aware of some of the reasons that theists have for believing in God but are simply not convinced by those reasons. I think they're also often not convinced by my reasons for believing there isn't a God. There's no real contradiction there.

Some might turn that into the positive claim that all reasons they have been presented with for believing there is or isn't a God are insufficient for belief, but that still doesn't mean they have to invent new reasons to explain why other people believe differently.

 

[PureX]

Remember that when you post.
(Just my opinion.)

I'm not an advocate of any belief, but there are a lot of "true believers" around here that just can't grasp how that could be so. And they often think I'm preaching belief in God when I'm not. And they never ask because they just assume everyone else is promoting and defending a belief because they are.

 

[dybmh]

Let's look at the specific rule....

I will let the staff interpret the rules. It has been repeatedly stated by them, if we see a rule violation they would like us to report it.

You just need to work on not letting us annoy you too much.

If a person is preaching AT me. I will report it. I think the easiest way to identify this is if it is a one-way form of communication that is advertising their point of view.

Perhaps this is a better example of spam, which is also against the rules. Unsolicited advertising. Often repetitive. A disruption, interruption, to the flow of the discussion/debate.

Regardless. I consider it preaching. I will report it. The staff know what to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will let the staff interpret the rules. It has been repeatedly stated by them, if we see a rule violation they would like us to report it.



If a person is preaching AT me. I will report it. I think the easiest way to identify this is if it is a one-way form of communication that is advertising their point of view.

Perhaps this is a better example of spam, which is also against the rules. Unsolicited advertising. Often repetitive. A disruption, interruption, to the flow of the discussion/debate.

Regardless. I consider it preaching. I will report it. The staff know what to do.

I recommend you discuss it with staff.
Site Feedback is appropriate.

 

[dybmh]

I recommend you discuss it with staff.

Nah. I'll just report it.

Site Feedback is appropriate.

Over-kill.

 

[MikeF]

QUOTE="dybmh, post: 8320691, member: 65725"]
And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer; go up before me to the high place; for you shall eat with me today, and tomorrow I will let you go, and will tell you all that is in your heart.
That's an objective standard.
[/QUOTE]

I would like to address this notion that the above quoted passage demonstrates an objective standard. Specifically, you seem to be saying that the concept of telling one all that is in their heart is an objective event or process.

I suppose my first criticism would be that such language is purely figurative and not literal. What objective criteria define the concept of what is in one's heart? Does it refer to loving others? Does it refer to personal goals?

I would also wonder to what detail such a reading of another's heart is sufficient to meet the goal of being objective. Is it sufficient to simply declare the other wishes to be famous some day, or must the reader of hearts be very specific about the way one wishes to be famous and explain why?

I do not equate "expressions of the heart" with all the contents of one's brain. In either case, the next hurdle would be how to objectively verify what might be claimed. It would certainly have to exclude relying on one claimed reading of only one individual. As an aside, I quickly read through the referenced OT section and did not see where Saul actually had his "heart" read.

Finally, even if "reading of hearts" was somehow objectively possible, we need a way of verifying or confirming a claimed instance which I see as impossible outside of a controlled environment under scientific standards, and maybe not even then.

To sun up, I don't find your example to qualify as an example of an objective standard.

 

[Alien826]

About preaching (and deliberately not addressed to any one poster).

I consider the rule about preaching to be much to broad, in that just about any statement of belief can be interpreted as preaching if it does not have "in my opinion" attached to it. There's an old saying "of course I think my beliefs are correct, if I didn't I would change them". It's interesting to note that moderators do not in general enforce the rule in a strict fashion. Maybe they realize that would stifle many of the most interesting and entertaining discussions we have here. (Or maybe not, I'm trying not to challenge our moderation in any way).

Remember that guy who came on determined to sell us all on the idea that the Earth is flat? Undisguised preaching from beginning to end. But wasn't it fun? And even educational, as we learned a lot about what goes on in the minds of "flat earthers". Do we really want a forum where everyone has to tip toe around the rules all the time? Booooring!

Yes, some posters here can be offensive (which I dislike a lot more than preaching). But even then, I think moderation should be limited. Frankly I find this forum to be a paragon of balance as far as these things go. Enough moderation to keep the worst excesses in check, but not enough to spoil the fun. Let's not spoil it by trying to invoke moderation to "punish" those we don't like. Please! I don't want to have to find another site!