Theist's the Hard Truth

[Jollybear]

No, I communicated my point. There was no try.

You made effort in communicating a point. Which means you want others to understand it. That means try. If thats not what it means, why bother making the point at all if you dont want anyone to understand it?

Well, I suppose you're half right, so you get partial credit.

Ok.

Yes, you asked a question, and yes, you got a clear answer.

No, i did not get a clear answer.

I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand. If you are struggling to understand my point, ask questions. Don't accuse me of being unclear.

Which i DID ask a question. Which means YOU WER UNCLEAR to me. Thats not an accusation, thats a fact. You wer unclear to my understanding. Your also arguing with me about this, which shows your trying hard to convince me of something, yet you contradict this by claiming your all about not trying to convince others.

Yes, I have.

No, you havent.

I told you that you are speaking of moral and ethical teachings, not spiritual or religious ones. So your analogy has no relevance to the discussion.

So you can be spiritual and religious and be a immoral or unethical person? Is that what your saying?

Again, that is not a belief. It is a value. Please stop confusing the two.

Its both really. A child beating his little brother believes its ok to do that, so, in practice, he values doing it.

Please explain what else they could possibly be.

Unless you can provide an ulterior motive, no.

I just did. I said

"Also if i may comment, how do you know what others motives are who try to convince others of there religion or spirituality? How do you know if there motive is ego or concern?

So are all the religious and spiritual people who come on here and debate there views all egotistic, or do some have concern?

 

[74x12]

Well there's Dogoda a wind goddess. She is playful, gentle, very kind. It is a most more visceral than with Abrahamic deities. Then there's the fairies. Many have names but I saw several hundred dancing on my lawn. Didn't really know any by name. I came across a burning bush. Maybe the same God which beckoned Moses and told him to remove his sandals. Then there was Jesus. Bright golden light, blinded to everything else. Immediate feeling of peace and a release from sin. I also followed a physical manifestation of God for a number of years. Kind of short and chubby but had a nice smile.

A few personal conversations with God. Very profound and thought altering. Stuff I certainly couldn't have figure out on my own. I met a rainbow serpent, but he was not a nice God. It's his job to hide the truth from man. I think the Abrahamic God was behind him, the serpent was fulfilling the purpose of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. I felt at the time very betrayed by the Abrahamic God. I've forgiven him since though.

I could go on, but there are plenty of Gods to believe in with their own unique experiences.

I believe you probably had real experiences with spiritual entities whether you knew it or not. But, that doesn't mean they are who they claimed to be.

Many spirits claim to be Jesus or God and are not.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You made effort in communicating a point.

Nope. I did communicate a point.

Which i DID ask a question. Which means YOU WER UNCLEAR to me. Thats not an accusation, thats a fact. You wer unclear to my understanding. Your also arguing with me about this, which shows your trying hard to convince me of something, yet you contradict this by claiming your all about not trying to convince others.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I answered your question.

So you can be spiritual and religious and be a immoral or unethical person? Is that what your saying?

That's not what I'm saying, but assuming you are misusing 'you' not to mean me personally, but as a person in general, yes, one can be spiritual and religious and still be unethical.

Its both really. A child beating his little brother believes its ok to do that, so, in practice, he values doing it.

Okay, I'll give you that. But nonetheless, it's a moral belief, not a religious or spiritual one.

So are all the religious and spiritual people who come on here and debate there views all egotistic...

Those who debate with the intent to get others to believe as they do, i.e. proselytize, are doing so as a result of ego, as are the ones claiming theirs is the One True Religion™. Religious intolerance is a product of ego.

or do some have concern?

Concern for what?

 

[charlie sc]

atheists to one degree or another associate or live in atheist societies.For example: Zen communities are atheist societies,

There seems to be a misconception here. Defining Zen Buddhism as an atheist society is not entirely correct or clear. This would be like saying any ideology or institution that does not have a negative claim about god(s) is an atheist society/group/community whatever. Therefore, a bowling community or sports community is considered an atheist society. It makes no sense. Now I don't know much about Zen Buddhism but it appears that some people think you can be both a Zen Buddhist and, say, a Christian Christian and Zen, you ask?. However, it's impossible to an atheist and a Christian/Muslim,etc. I'm sure that the majority of Zen Buddhists are atheists, but that does not mean it's an atheist group/society, etc, unless you're being vaguely descriptive, not prescriptive. Though you appear to explain it like they are necessarily atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

There seems to be a misconception here. Defining Zen Buddhism as an atheist society is not entirely correct or clear. This would be like saying any ideology or institution that does not have a negative claim about god(s) is an atheist society/group/community whatever. Therefore, a bowling community or sports community is considered an atheist society. It makes no sense. Now I don't know much about Zen Buddhism but it appears that some people think you can be both a Zen Buddhist and, say, a Christian Christian and Zen, you ask?. However, it's impossible to an atheist and a Christian/Muslim,etc. I'm sure that the majority of Zen Buddhists are atheists, but that does not mean it's an atheist group/society, etc, unless you're being vaguely descriptive, not prescriptive. Though you appear to explain it like they are necessarily atheists.

Slight typo. It should be 'some' if not many Zen communities are atheist societies. There are of course many Jews, Christians and Muslims that practice Zen disciplines, but they are nonetheless Christians, Muslims and Jews. Also many Jews are atheists or strong agnostics and emphasize naturalist views like Einstein.

 

[charlie sc]

Slight typo. It should be some Zen communities are atheist societies. There are of course many Jews and Muslims that practice Zen disciplines, but they are nonetheless Christians and Jews. Also many Jews are atheists or strong agnostics and emphasize natrualist views like Einstein.

I'm not entirely sure. I understand there are tenants in Zen Buddhism that contradict/conflict with many religious ideologies, but I don't think Zen Buddhism makes a claim about god(s). In the link I gave, the author says, "Zen is not about doctrine or beliefs. It’s not about worship or devotion. Zen is not theistic, but it isn’t atheistic either, or even agnostic. Zen simply doesn’t address the subject of God."
Therefore, a Zen Buddhist could still be a Buddhist and still believe in some deity that does not conflict with their Buddhist belief. However, If all you're saying is that it's probably true that most Zen Buddhists are atheists, then I can agree with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not entirely sure. I understand there are tenants in Zen Buddhism that contradict with many religious ideologies, but I don't think Zen Buddhism makes a claim about god(s). In the link I gave, the author says, "Zen is not about doctrine or beliefs. It’s not about worship or devotion. Zen is not theistic, but it isn’t atheistic either, or even agnostic. Zen simply doesn’t address the subject of God."
Therefore, a Zen Buddhist could still be a Buddhist and still believe in some deity that does not conflict with their Buddhist belief. However, If all you're saying is that it's probably true that most Zen Buddhists are atheists, then I can agree with that.

Disagree on how you describe Zen Buddhism. The reason I did not say all, is because there is a diversity of beliefs in Zen, I was affiliated with Japanese Zen communities for many years while practicing Aikido, Iado, and Kendo, and indeed yes there are Zen believers who are most definitely atheists or strongly agnostic, and many indifferent to the existence of God(s)..

In older traditional Zen in Japan it is blended with Shinto many believed in Kami or spirits including animistic spirits as attributes of nature.

 

[charlie sc]

Disagree on how you describe Zen Buddhism. The reason I did not say all, is because there is a diversity of beliefs in Zen, I was affiliated with Japanese Zen communities for many years while practicing Aikido, Iado, and Kendo, and indeed yes there are Zen believers who are most definitely atheists or strongly agnostic, and many indifferent to the existence of God(s)..

In older traditional Zen in Japan it is blended with Shinto many believed in Kami or spirits including animistic spirits as attributes of nature.

I don't disagree, but I think talking about an atheist group such as Zen Buddhism is a meaningless statement unless you're trying to get data on demography and related questions. Zen Buddhism is prima facie an atheist group descriptively, but not prescriptively. Conversely, Christianity is a theist group prescriptively and descriptively. I just thought I'd explain this distinction. Btw, I too love Japanese culture

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't disagree, but I think talking about an atheist group such as Zen Buddhism is a meaningless statement unless you're trying to get data on demography and related questions. Zen Buddhism is prima facie an atheist group descriptively, but not prescriptively. Conversely, Christianity is a theist group prescriptively and descriptively. I just thought I'd explain this distinction. Btw, I too love Japanese culture

I disagree with your splitting frog hairs over what is prescriptive or descriptively.

 

[Jollybear]

Nope. I did communicate a point.

Lol, wer talking past eachother here.

You tried to communicate a point and therefore you did. You cant get to the "did" before the "try" first.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

Yes you are. Right now your trying to convince me that your not trying to convince me.

I answered your question.

No, you didnt answer it, you answered something else. But your trying to convince me that you did answer it, so does that make you egotistic since your trying to convince me that you answered my question?

That's not what I'm saying, but assuming you are misusing 'you' not to mean me personally, but as a person in general, yes, one can be spiritual and religious and still be unethical.

Give example of religion and spirituality being unethical?

Also, answer my question on why you believe in convincing others of ethical issues but not spiritual issues?

Also, again, why is a person egotistical if they try to convince someone of his spiritual views, but someone trying to convince another of his ethical views is not egotistical?

Okay, I'll give you that. But nonetheless, it's a moral belief, not a religious or spiritual one.

Ok, why does it matter if its a moral, vs religious or spiritual belief, why does that matter?

Those who debate with the intent to get others to believe as they do, i.e. proselytize, are doing so as a result of ego,

So your standing in judgement of those religious people and are assuming to know that there motive is ego.

as are the ones claiming theirs is the One True Religion™. Religious intolerance is a product of ego.

Do you tolerate the religiously intolerant?

Concern for what?

Ok, case in point. Some religious people believe in a hell and if you dont repent (e.g. ethical issue) and believe in Gods gift of his Son, you wont make it to heaven. So they try to convince others of this. You say they do this because of ego. Again, how do you know they dont do it out of genuine concern for those who dont believe as they do?

 

[charlie sc]

I disagree with your splitting frog hairs over what is prescriptive or descriptively.

Ok, fair enough. You seemed to agree with me that not all Zen Buddhists are atheists. Therefore, some are actually theists in some manner. Can you say the same about, say, Christians or another theistic belief? Can you be a Christian and an atheist?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, fair enough. You seemed to agree with me that not all Zen Buddhists are atheists. Therefore, some are actually theists in some manner.

Likely not Theists in the traditional sense of how theism is defined.

Can you say the same about, say, Christians or another theistic belief? Can you be a Christian and an atheist?

In my close association with Unitarian Universalists there were believers that that considered Jesus in humanist terms and were atheist to strong agnostic, and in Deist or pantheistic Jeffersonian terms.

 

[charlie sc]

ikely not Theists in the traditional sense of how theism is defined.

I'll take that as a yes. There are some Zen Buddhists that are theists.

In my close association with Unitarian Universalists there were believers that that considered Jesus in humanist terms and were atheist to strong agnostic, and in Deist or pantheistic Jeffersonian terms.

I had no idea a group like this existed, but you didn't answer my question. This is neither an atheist group nor a theist group. The Unitarian Universalists don't make any claims about god(s). Therefore, it's not a theistic belief system or ideology.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll take that as a yes. There are some Zen Buddhists that are theists.

Possible, but not likely many.

I had no idea a group like this existed, but you didn't answer my question. This is neither an atheist group nor a theist group. The Unitarian Universalists don't make any claims about god(s). Therefore, it's not a theistic belief system or ideology.

Well, sort of true, but the predominant doctrine of UU is the Humanist Manifesto, and the present UU church does not have any specific teachings that could be construed as Theistic. Among the basic teachings is diversity, where in terms of God, pretty much everything goes in terms of individual beliefs.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Lol, wer talking past eachother here.

You tried to communicate a point and therefore you did. You cant get to the "did" before the "try" first.



Yes you are. Right now your trying to convince me that your not trying to convince me.



No, you didnt answer it, you answered something else. But your trying to convince me that you did answer it, so does that make you egotistic since your trying to convince me that you answered my question?



Give example of religion and spirituality being unethical?

Also, answer my question on why you believe in convincing others of ethical issues but not spiritual issues?

Also, again, why is a person egotistical if they try to convince someone of his spiritual views, but someone trying to convince another of his ethical views is not egotistical?



Ok, why does it matter if its a moral, vs religious or spiritual belief, why does that matter?



So your standing in judgement of those religious people and are assuming to know that there motive is ego.



Do you tolerate the religiously intolerant?



Ok, case in point. Some religious people believe in a hell and if you dont repent (e.g. ethical issue) and believe in Gods gift of his Son, you wont make it to heaven. So they try to convince others of this. You say they do this because of ego. Again, how do you know they dont do it out of genuine concern for those who dont believe as they do?

We can continue when you decide to stop with the straw men and stop moving the goalposts. Until then, I have no interest in continuing this discourse.

 

[Jollybear]

We can continue when you decide to stop with the straw men and stop moving the goalposts. Until then, I have no interest in continuing this discourse.

Point out the strawman snd why it is, and you never answered my other questions.

Questions are questions, not strawmen.

Also, im not moving a goel post, im right on point with what i want to find out from you.

Learn what a real strawman is.

Also, when someone uses a strawman on me, i SHOW THEM how its a strawman.

Can you do the same?

 

[Augustus]

Context of 'dependent' is not the issue. Believers in any belief system may be consider 'dependent' on whatever. Your posts addressed atheist in stereotyping, and not acknowledging the diversity among atheists.

Can you genuinely not understand basic English or do you just choose to deliberately misrepresent other people's posts because you don't want to admit you made a basic error in comprehension?

If you were teaching a small child to read, what advice would you give them in the following situation if they were unsure as to meaning?

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.

The reality is that people who 'describe themselves as 'freethinkers' may be from many diverse religious beliefs.

You still don't seem to grasp the concept of meaning being context dependent. If you did then you wouldn't continue with such silly attempts at pedantic quibbling.

See if you can work this one out yourself, if not I can explain it to you. Best you try yourself first though as otherwise you will never learn

Quick Q, which of the following do you believe is a) the most intellectually honest and b) closest to what you are doing in this thread (be honest):

Good faith discussion: Look at posts in context and attempt to identify what the poster meant, giving them the benefit of the doubt. If unsure, ask and accept their explanation. Respond to their intended meaning aiming to present it as accurately as possible.

Bad faith discussion: Ignore context of posts. Think of all the ways you could twist their words to mean something completely different. Reply to the misrepresentation and insist that your misrepresentation is actually what the poster meant, even when it is perfectly obvious that it isn't.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Point out the strawman snd why it is, and you never answered my other questions.

Questions are questions, not strawmen.

Also, im not moving a goel post, im right on point with what i want to find out from you.

Learn what a real strawman is.

Also, when someone uses a strawman on me, i SHOW THEM how its a strawman.

Can you do the same?

Absolutely. Here you go...

No, you didnt answer it, you answered something else. But your trying to convince me that you did answer it, so does that make you egotistic since your trying to convince me that you answered my question?

Goal posts moved.

Read post #20: Theist's the Hard Truth. My statement was about my not having interest in convincing another of religious or spiritual matter and asking a question about why would want. You have moved the goal post so far that you're asking me if I'm being egotistical in convincing you that I answered your question.

Give example of religion and spirituality being unethical?

Straw man. I never said religion or spirituality was unethical. Why would you ask for an example?

Also, answer my question on why you believe in convincing others of ethical issues but not spiritual issues?

Straw man. First, you never asked the question. Second, I never said anything about believing in convincing others of anything.

Also, again, why is a person egotistical if they try to convince someone of his spiritual views, but someone trying to convince another of his ethical views is not egotistical?

Straw man. I stated your example was one of moral or ethical scenario and not a religious or spiritual one. You imply here that I made an argument that convincing another of spiritual views was egotistical and that convincing another of ethical views is not. I never said or even implied that.

So your standing in judgement of those religious people and are assuming to know that there motive is ego.

I'd love to point out the logical fallacy here, but I don't even know who "those religious people" even are.


You might have peppered a couple of legitimate questions in your last post, but at this point, you have committed so many logical fallacies in your argument, I can't help to think at this point that answering would be a waste of my time, since on every one I've answered so far you've make false assumptions or claimed I didn't answer because it's not the answer you wanted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you genuinely not understand basic English or do you just choose to deliberately misrepresent other people's posts because you don't want to admit you made a basic error in comprehension?

If you were teaching a small child to read, what advice would you give them in the following situation if they were unsure as to meaning?

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.



You still don't seem to grasp the concept of meaning being context dependent. If you did then you wouldn't continue with such silly attempts at pedantic quibbling.

See if you can work this one out yourself, if not I can explain it to you. Best you try yourself first though as otherwise you will never learn

Quick Q, which of the following do you believe is a) the most intellectually honest and b) closest to what you are doing in this thread (be honest):

Good faith discussion: Look at posts in context and attempt to identify what the poster meant, giving them the benefit of the doubt. If unsure, ask and accept their explanation. Respond to their intended meaning aiming to present it as accurately as possible.

Bad faith discussion: Ignore context of posts. Think of all the ways you could twist their words to mean something completely different. Reply to the misrepresentation and insist that your misrepresentation is actually what the poster meant, even when it is perfectly obvious that it isn't.

Nothing above is related to the discussion at hand. You have basically failed to respond. I gave specific citations to your unfortunate stereotyping of atheists.

You definitely need to explain your view concerning atheists and 'free thinkers' better without stereotyping beliefs. I am an advocate of 'free thinking,' but defining free thinkers is problematic.

 

[Jollybear]

Absolutely. Here you go...

Goal posts moved.

Read post #20: Theist's the Hard Truth. My statement was about my not having interest in convincing another of religious or spiritual matter and asking a question about why would want. You have moved the goal post so far that you're asking me if I'm being egotistical in convincing you that I answered your question.

I think your confusing your own self here even more. You really dont see it do you? Its so obvious to me that its like an eye sore.

Straw man. I never said religion or spirituality was unethical. Why would you ask for an example?

"yes, one can be spiritual and religious and still be unethical." < did you not say this? Yes or no?

Let me rephrase the question. Perhaps your misunderstanding my questiin. Which, that CAN happen.

Give me an example where a person is religious or spiritual, but they are unethical?

Also, if you say religion/spirituality is a seperate issue from ethics, how so?

Straw man. First, you never asked the question. Second, I never said anything about believing in convincing others of anything.

You dont HAVE to say you believe in convincing others of anything. The fact your arguing with me PROVES via your action that you are trying to convince me of things.

Straw man. I stated your example was one of moral or ethical scenario and not a religious or spiritual one. You imply here that I made an argument that convincing another of spiritual views was egotistical and that convincing another of ethical views is not. I never said or even implied that.

Thats false, you DID say trying to convince others of religion is egotistical. Right here >

"Those who debate with the intent to get others to believe as they do, i.e. proselytize, are doing so as a result of ego,"

And

"as are the ones claiming theirs is the One True Religion™. Religious intolerance is a product of ego."

And

"I have no interest in convincing someone else of anything as it pertains to religious and/or spiritual matters. For what reason would one want to aside from satiating one's own ego?"

So my questiin still stands. Why is trying to convince others of there religion ALWAYS ego, but someone trying to convince others of there ethics is not ego?

I'd love to point out the logical fallacy here, but I don't even know who "those religious people" even are.

You dont have to know them. They exist. Theres many of them. Theres some on here. You should atleast be aware of them. Your a staff member. And im sure your aware of christians who believe in hell and say you gotta believe in Jesus or else youl burn. If your not aware of those, then your living under a rock. Or a hermit on steriods sorta speak.

You might have peppered a couple of legitimate questions in your last post, but at this point, you have committed so many logical fallacies in your argument, I can't help to think at this point that answering would be a waste of my time, since on every one I've answered so far you've make false assumptions or claimed I didn't answer because it's not the answer you wanted.

No, its the other way around. It looks like your wasting my time because your beating around the bush by simply refusing to answer honest, intelligent and very logically sound questions.

Also if you concede some of my wuestions are legitimate and yet refuse to answer, what light does that put you in being a member of a religious debate forum and a staff member on top of it?

In otherwords, get to it already. Answer the questions and HURRY IT UP, your burning out my patience!