*smiles* Once you can formulate questions that relate directly to what I said and that are relevant to our discussion and ask them in a respectful tone, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Until then, we are done here.
Happy Easter!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theist's the Hard Truth
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
*smiles* Once you can formulate questions that relate directly to what I said and that are relevant to our discussion and ask them in a respectful tone, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Until then, we are done here.
Happy Easter!
Jollybear
Hey
*smiles* Once you can formulate questions that relate directly to what I said and that are relevant to our discussion and ask them in a respectful tone, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Until then, we are done here.
Happy Easter!
Ok, let me press the reset button.
Why is a person that tries to convince others that there religion is the way, why is that persons motive always ego, but someone that seeks to convince othets there ethics are right, that person is not motivated by ego?
Also, why is religion and ethics different?
Augustus
…
Directly addressing how you are misrepresenting me using a verbatim quote of what I actually said is 'not related to the discussion' and 'failing to respond'?
If you answer the question then you will see why the premise of your entire argument is fallacious.
No, you made an obviously false statement which you still cling to despite me citing the evidence that shows you to be wrong. Again:
Do you still insist that this is an accurate representation of what I actually said?
Again, the post you deemed 'irrelevant' points out that you need to learn to interpret things in the context they are said. Just because there are numerous ways one could interpret 'freethinker', doesn't mean they all apply equally to a specific use of the term in a specific context.
In context:
a) The comment was followed by
indicating that it was a somewhat light-hearted reply, not to be taken too seriously.b) The context was about the kind of people who join atheist groups like The Atheist Alliance. Do you understand the implications that this has for how you should interpret which self-identified 'freethinkers' were the referent in question?
Can't say I've seen any evidence for this in our discussions
I never claimed that convincing others of ethical standards is not a product of ego. Most, if not all, of what a human does is ego driven.
The difference between a convincing someone that one's religious principles are correct and convincing someone someone's ethical principles are correct is that the latter is measurable and observable in relative reality and the former is not.
Consequences resulting from choices based on ethical standards, let's say for example, bullying, are measurable and observable, as there is evidence that bullying results in measurable emotional and psychological damage. We have the person who was bullied right here in relative reality to test and observe.
Consequences resulting from religious standards, for example, spending an eternity in Hell for not repenting for one's sins, are not measurable nor observable. There is no evidence of Hell, let alone that anyone goes there. There is no one that we can speak with who has even observed Hell or can count the number of souls that have gone there or how long they stay.
Jollybear
Hey
Ok, now we getting somewhere. So, correct me if im wrong. Your saying a religious person seeking to convince others there religion is right, thats ego, but ALSO a non religious person trying to convince others there ethics are right, THAT is ALSO ego driven?
How do you know that this is ALSO ego driven?
Mayby define ego. Mayby we should have done that from the gecco.
Ok, good, you pointed out the difference. However, you still dont KNOW if a religious person is driven by ego or driven by genuine concern.
Also, evidence for hell is debatable. But, ill leave that alone, ill stick just with this ego/concern motive issue for now.
Given that definition, yes, both are driven by ego. But there are varying degrees. Convincing someone of something solely for the purpose of being right is pure ego, while convincing someone of something in the interest of preventing harm is driven by ego to a point, but to a lesser degree.
Not related to the discussion and incoherent.
Cited you specifically and accurately
Again, the post you deemed 'irrelevant' points out that you need to learn to interpret things in the context they are said. Just because there are numerous ways one could interpret 'freethinker', doesn't mean they all apply equally to a specific use of the term in a specific context.
In context:
a) The comment was followed by
I cited your post accurately, and a post stereotyping 'free thinkers will NOT be taken lightly.
This is the first time you cite Atheist Alliance, and nonetheless you would be stereotyping those that associate with the Atheist Alliance.
Augustus
…
Just to be absolutely certain, you are claiming that "The kind of people who belong to atheist societies" is not "selective of certain atheists" i.e. you are claiming that it actually means atheists in general (which also includes me).
Another very obvious and very pathetic lie. Again, if you had answered the question you deemed irrelevant and incoherent, you would understand why.
This, verbatim, is the post I was replying to "Does the Atheist Alliance believe because someone told them to? If you see two of them saying the same thing you just need to establish a rule and check it against the crowd of them."
Now, I know you have had serious problems with both intellectual honesty and understanding meaning in context, but try really hard this time.
An atheist makes a somewhat light-hearted reply to a post about The Atheist Alliance and uses the phrase: "The kind of people who belong to atheist societies". This means:
a) All atheists, or at least atheists in general
b) Certain atheists, specifically those that join atheist groups such as The Atheist Alliance.
I was actually mocking their pretences at being highly rational, independent thinkers because "New Atheist" types commonly share many of the same irrational beliefs.
These tend to involve uncritically swallowing anything that paints religion in a negative light. If you want a number of examples of what kinds of things these are then you can look here: History for Atheists (the site is actually written by an atheist, although you no doubt will decide he's really an undercover Christian and thus biased).
The believers in any one belief system nor affiliation including the atheists affiliated with Atheist Alliance International CANNOT be stereotyped as you are doing.
Nonetheless there is far far more conformity among fundamentalist Christians, Christian secret societies, and Muslims than atheists, because they make absolute doctrinal beliefs and in secret societies. they make many pledges of specific beliefs.
Name calling get you nowhere.
Neither can be stereotyped as you are doing.
Again . . . The believers in in any one belief system nor affiliation including the atheists affiliated with Atheist Alliance International CANNOT be stereotyped as you are doing.
Back peddling big time! Name calling, silly pictures, and pathetic verbage will get you nowhere. Your statement cited just reinforced your stereotyping in your original post.
Honestly for along time I have not believed you are an atheist.
Last edited:
Jollybear
Hey
Given that definition, yes, both are driven by ego. But there are varying degrees. Convincing someone of something solely for the purpose of being right is pure ego, while convincing someone of something in the interest of preventing harm is driven by ego to a point, but to a lesser degree.
Ok, the lizard picture and the definition of google on ego, is suffice. And i agree with your degrees of ego point.
Now, lets get back to the kicker.
Can a religious person who seeks to convince another his religion is true, is that persons ego ALWAYS pure ego, or can they have a lessor ego, depending on the person?
Also, seperate question: is it your view that individuals should abolish the ego within themselves?
It is my understanding that one person stating that their religion is the One True Religion™ and attempting to convince another that their worldview is wrong or less correct is doing so purely to satiate their own ego. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, that will remain my position.
I'm not sure that in relative reality that the ego can be completely abolished, but one can certainly, through regular practice, learn to manage it and gain complete control over it.
Jollybear
Hey
Yes, i can demonstrate otherwise.
Suppose you take a doctor. He diagnoses a patient with cancer. The patient sticks his head in the sand and refuses to believe it. The doctor tries to convince him he got cancer. The doctor does this with "lessor" and not "pure" ego. Because the docs motive is "concern" for the patient. The patient wont get well if he does not first believe he has cancer. Why? Because no path of correction will be taken to get rid of that which he dont believe is there.
Oj, now, take a pastor or priest, they preach about hell. They say people need to repent of there sins. Some people refuse to believe it. So, no path of correction is taken. The priest or pastor seeks to convince the people they have this problem and if no action is taken, hell will overtake them. The pastor or priest does all this out of CONCERN, not pure ego.
You see? So, by you saying they do this out of pure ego, are you then not sitting in judgement of there motives?
Hypothetically, IF it could be abolished, SHOULD IT be?
How do you make the ego smaller? Whats that practice?
The doctor does it because he knows based on evidence that the patient won't "get well" and will likely die if he doesn't convince the patient that he has cancer and that he has to get it treated. Again, measurable and observable based on previous documented and observed cases.
The priest does it because he believes based on blind faith that the unrepentant person will be overtaken by Hell. He has no evidence. It cannot be observed that Hell exists and he has no documented or observed previous cases of others having been overtaken by it.
Considering both scenarios, which consequence of disbelief has a greater degree of certainty? Do you not agree that it is more egocentric to suggest your are right and another is wrong based on no evidence whatsoever?
No.
For me it's mindfulness through meditation and awareness.
Augustus
…
You can make generalisations about any group, why do you think market research exists for example? Why do professional communications campaigns carry out target public analysis? This doesn't assume all people in the group are identical, it identifies traits that are common within that group.
If a generalisation allows you to predict certain traits/tendencies that are common in a particular group, then it can be said to have value.
Do you believe:
a) it is often possible to make generalisations about groups
b) It is not possible to make generalisations about groups
That might have been relevant if I was talking about all atheists, but seeing as I wasn't it's not remotely relevant.
Seeing as rational argument get's me nowhere either...
Again, your reading comprehension seems to be somewhat lacking, the following is not 'stereotyping', it is asking you a simple question about the meaning of a specific phrase. You seem unable to answer though.
Would you care to answer this time?
An atheist makes a somewhat light-hearted reply to a post about The Atheist Alliance and uses the phrase: "The kind of people who belong to atheist societies". This means:
a) All atheists, or at least atheists in general
b) Certain atheists, specifically those that join atheist groups such as The Atheist Alliance.
Yet I can predict many things about them that will turn out to be true
"You said X!"
No, you are misrepresenting me, here is what I actually said quoted verbatim.
"You are backpeddaling big time! I have won!"
Which is somewhat pathetic, yet highly predictable.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
What sort of things do they believe in?
I do not believe you can make generalizations as you are doing outside the specific criteria of affiliation to that organization. Your generalizations go beyond this to the point of stereotyping such things as a negative view of freethinkers.
Only to the extent of the specific identity of the belief of that organization.
Not beyond the specific nature of the belief or orientation of the organization or belief. The only generalization you could make concerning those that affiliate with the Atheist Alliance is that they are atheists in their belief.
You made the stereotyping statements clear and specific.
Does not make any difference, your statements stereotyped atheists, whether you consider all atheists that somehow affiliate with the Atheists Alliance or any other atheist society.
Yet I can predict many things about them that will turn out to be true
I do not accept crystal ball testimony.
Yes as in other threads you are highly predictable. You take theist positions in a number of threads, and I caught you making a very theist belief statement in a previous thread.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
They generally profess to base their beliefs on reason, yet generally uncritically swallow anything that paints religion in a bad light.
If we assume they base their views on reason and scholarly evidence, then we should assume a rough alignment with secular scholarship in the relevant fields. On the following, though, we see a great misalignment:
1) Belief in the conflict thesis
2) Vastly overstating the number of deaths caused by religion
3) Belief in the 'Dark Ages'
4) Vastly overstating the role of the (secular) Enlightenment in the development of rights, science, etc
5) "Religion was invented to control the masses" type arguments
6) Adopting the most negative interpretations of religious origins (Easter is just an appropriation of the festival of Eostre, etc)
7) Adherence to Jesus mythicism (less common than the others, but disproportionate)
There are other things, but these are more complex so I'll leave them out.
(As a note: I'm an atheist, and I used to believe all of these things until I actually engaged with scholarly literature rather than 'New Atheist' type preaching to the choir.)
A very very theist negative response condemning atheist belief systems.
Augustus
…
Why do you think that businesses, political parties, governments, etc. spend millions of dollars on research to generalise about groups?
Do you believe they are wasting their money?
I believe they are keying in on specific 'behavior and buying habits by most of the members of each group.
In terms of commercial interests it appears to work. If I was selling holy water and crosses I would market to Christians.
. . . but your stereotyping generalizations go beyond this. The claim of being a free thinker crosses many belief boundaries, and as far as I am concerned is unfortunately a universal ego trip. You go over the top presenting a negative view of atheists.
Last edited: