Where Do You Put Your Faith?

[Little Dragon]

So if you are one of those Scientism fanatics, then we have met a roadblock, and it's due to strong emotional bias... but not on my end.

Wrong, your vain desire for your God to exist, blinds you. Nevermind.

 

[nPeace]

I guess you don't like that opinion either. So sorry about that, but I'm sure you'll pull through. But it doesn't matter to others that you chose to be offended by being disbelieved. It's not a reason for me to censor that opinion, that you might be offended. Deal with it with dignity. Either rebut it if you think its wrong and you can provide supporting evidence for that position, or just accept that you can't and that I just might be correct.

This other way some of you have for dealing with contradiction - objecting like you did here again rather than rebutting - is foreign to me. I don't know why you can't get past being disbelieved or why it still incites an emotional reaction. Get over it. You and I disagree about everything we have discussed, but only you respond like this, calling in reinforcements for consolation and commiserating with him over how much you disapprove of my posting.

I'm telling you that your emotional responses to having your beliefs challenged are your responsibility, not mine. Not surprisingly, you ignored the content of that post. Until you answer, I'll assume you disagree and consider that my responsibility - that I should be careful not to challenge your beliefs lest your feeling be bruised rather than you modifying your reaction. That's what your silence suggests. If so, maybe you should rethink that.

What we are seeing being played out here is the result of the rise of atheism with a series of best-selling books by the so-called neoatheists making atheism more tenable and socially acceptable, and of a platform that has arisen in my lifetime for people like me to begin presenting counterarguments to the long unchallenged claims of Abrahamism in Western culture.

Believers aren't accustomed to these kinds of answers, which they understand as rebellion, insolence and a mean-spirited attack on what they consider sacred. I understand, but I can't help you without betraying my own values and sacred beliefs, so you'll need to either go on feeling that way or make an attitude adjustment, because this wave is cresting now in the States, having already eroded away the religious stronghold in Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world and getting ready to do the same again for secular Americans who simply don't want these intrusive religions affecting their lives at all.

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

They don't? How many times have I been told that what I want is to go out and live hedonistically without accountability, or that I hate God. Most creationists don't think about such matters beyond attributing the behavior of skeptics to demons or atheistic immorality.

Not even Jimmy Swaggart could beat a sermon like this.
I hope you weren't one that experienced a pastor preaching at you, and so you were affected to the point of it being lodged in your psyche.
This is too much of a perfect match, for that not to be the case.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong, your vain desire for your God to exist, blinds you. Nevermind.

Doesn't sound very agnostic to me. So really, never mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please reread the details in the post you are replying to:

• What they are
• Their state of mind
• What they are thinking

That ^^ doesn't happen by creationists. They don't act like they have magical ESP.

I disagree.

I get constantly accused of being a "scientismist", "possessed by demons", that "I don't want to believe and just want to sin all day" and on and on.

 

[dybmh]

They don't? How many times have I been told...

If you do not listen to what others say, then you will never accurately hear what they are saying to you. Because of this "what you have been told" would be a story fabricated in the mind.

 

[Little Dragon]

Doesn't sound very agnostic to me. So really, never mind.

I don't like your God Jesus deity at all. Disliking the concept of Gods is not the same as being atheist. I think Gods are a filthy disgusting archaic outmoded concept. Yet, I do not know everything. I cannot rule out anything. Given my subjectivity.

 

[Little Dragon]

I disagree.

I get constantly accused of being a "scientismist", "possessed by demons", that "I don't want to believe and just want to sin all day" and on and on.

Only the religious sin. Since a sin is an affront to a deity.

 

[nPeace]

I don't like your God Jesus deity at all. Disliking the concept of Gods is not the same as being atheist. I think Gods are a filthy disgusting archaic outmoded concept. Yet, I do not know everything. I cannot rule out anything. Given my subjectivity.

Ah. Sounds like your strong desire for God not to exist, blinds you. That explains the strong emotionally driven bias.

 

[Little Dragon]

Ah. Sounds like your strong desire for God not to exist, blinds you. That explains the strong emotionally driven bias.

My negative emotional bias, also stems from my outrage. My response to the actions of Christians acting in the name of their God. The genocide, the persecution, the ethnic cleansing, the misogyny, the lies, the anti intellectualism, the controlling behaviour and I could go on for some time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not even Jimmy Swaggart could beat a sermon like this. I hope you weren't one that experienced a pastor preaching at you, and so you were affected to the point of it being lodged in your psyche. This is too much of a perfect match, for that not to be the case.

You can't do it, can you? You simply cannot redirect your attention to ideas you disagree from behavior you disapprove of.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

And no, your attempts to connect me with your tradition don't offend me. I understand what motivates them. You're hurt and you want to hurt back.

I'm told repeatedly that my atheism is a religion, that reason is my god, reasoned discourse is preaching, and my worldview is faith-based by people with faith-based god beliefs and religions as you're doing here again, but I understand that as well. Believers really, really, REALLY resent the attitude of skeptics, take it personally, and want to strike back, but they are hamstrung by their belief that they are commanded to love enemies and that their god is watching them, so they resort to a type of passive aggression and add a smiley face in an attempt to gaslight their god ("I was just joking, Lord").

I believe it's Lee Strobel that likes to say that he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, a pithy saying (oddly) intended to offend atheists and amuse believers by claiming reason for himself and faith for his critics.

I see Strobel's comment as one from somebody who is offended by atheists and who is trying to hurt them as he's been hurt by their implied claims that they are too committed to critical thought to be theists, or else is pandering to others who fit that description. You might enjoy his books if you're not familiar with them.

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

 

[nPeace]

My negative emotional bias, also stems from my outrage. My response to the actions of Christians acting in the name of their God. The genocide, the persecution, the ethnic cleansing, the misogyny, the lies, the anti intellectualism, the controlling behaviour and I could go on for some time.

I see. The truth will set you free.

 

[nPeace]

You can't do it, can you? You simply cannot redirect your attention to ideas you disagree from behavior you disapprove of.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

And no, your attempts to connect me with your tradition don't offend me. I understand what motivates them. You're hurt and you want to hurt back.

I'm told repeatedly that my atheism is a religion, that reason is my god, reasoned discourse is preaching, and my worldview is faith-based by people with faith-based god beliefs and religions as you're doing here again, but I understand that as well. Believers really, really, REALLY resent the attitude of skeptics, take it personally, and want to strike back, but they are hamstrung by their belief that they are commanded to love enemies and that their god is watching them, so they resort to a type of passive aggression and add a smiley face in an attempt to gaslight their god ("I was just joking, Lord").

I believe it's Lee Strobel that likes to say that he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, a pithy saying (oddly) intended to offend atheists and amuse believers by claiming reason for himself and faith for his critics.

I see Strobel's comment as one from somebody who is offended by atheists and who is trying to hurt them as he's been hurt by their implied claims that they are too committed to critical thought to be theists, or else is pandering to others who fit that description. You might enjoy his books if you're not familiar with them.

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

So, as @dybmh was telling you, you are all emotional over what you heard. So, every person you talk to, who hold some faith tells you those things. It's like you play back everything, only with the person you are talking to, in the recording, and instead of listening to the person, you are listening to the recording.
It all makes sense now.

 

[dybmh]

So, as @dybmh was telling you, you are all emotional over what you heard. So, every person you talk to, who hold some faith tells you those things. It's like you play back everything, only with the person you are talking to, in the recording, and instead of listening to the person, you are listening to the recording.
It all makes sense now.

And. The recording reinforces itself. I think that is the most important part of the analogy of a "feeback-loop" or an "echo-chamber". The inner-narrative is highly rewarding. It's not the individual's "fault" that it is rewarding. Once a person becomes accustomed to that reward, it's like a drug addiction. Remove the reward, and the person stops feeling good, stops feeling like themself. Literally. They don't feel normal without it. Their self identity is compromised. It just so happens that in this case, the reward, the drug is literally manufactured chemically in the mind. That means a person is literally able to feed their addiction by coming to internet forums and... doing what they do. They are their own drug manufacturer and dealer and consumer.

In the extreme case, there is probably a previous addiction to the drug I'm speaking of in their career path. Leaving that path, posting on an internet forum in a specific manner is able to produce that drug reliably. And that is how an addict works. They know the recipe which produces the feeling they crave. So they just keep doing it, and they don't really care about what's happening outside their own mind.

I also have observed in the extreme case, elements of their life which are perhaps painful, and the "feedback-loop" is a balm for those painful memories. It helps bring closure and confidence that their own choices were always and forever perfect. Considering the converse, again, undermines their drug of choice. And so the cycle feeds on itself and propogates itself in multiple ways.

 

[Little Dragon]

I see. The truth will set you free.

It is the people, enslaved by religious dogma and doctrine, or " Total ****ing lies used to extort and control" as I call them, that need to be set free.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree.

I get constantly accused of being a "scientismist", "possessed by demons", that "I don't want to believe and just want to sin all day" and on and on.

Constantly? ~eye-rolls~ Who? Where? When? And scientismist should be no more of an insult than apologist. You do have faith in science do you not? Unless you are one to stand up for those of us who are constantly accused of being apologists, these are crocodile tears.

But, let's focus on whether or not this is delusional.

Who? Where? and When? are these accussations *actually* occcuring? Constantly is obviously false.

 

[Little Dragon]

REALLY resent the attitude of skeptics, take it personally, and want to strike back, but they are hamstrung by their belief that they are commanded to love enemies and that their god is watching them, so they resort to a type of passive aggression and add a smiley face in an attempt to gaslight their god ("I was just joking, Lord").

This is a good observation. One I've noticed too. The passive aggression. Its so infantile.

People should speak with more honesty, I do not have to pretend to love people though. I simply don't love everyone. Nor could I. I love maybe 6 or 7 people on this planet, plus some non human people. That's it.

 

[dybmh]

This is a good observation. One I've noticed too. The passive aggression. Its so infantile.

Nah. That's not happening. What was typed in the post you replied to is just a rationalization that is rewarding and permits pointing to someone else and looking down on them for the purpose of lifting oneself up above them.

Do you consider yourself immune to deluding yourself? Do you consider anyone immune to ddeluding themself?

 

[dybmh]

@Little Dragon ,

What's funny? Are you laughing AT nPeace?



I'm asking because of the recent accusation that others are being passive-aggressive.

 

[dybmh]

If people accuse me of having faith only in the testable and falsifiable, then that's taken as a compliment,

Exactly! So why would a rational individual complain about someone projecting a false narrrative about them if it's perfectly true and accurate and should not be considered an insult?

Answer: because they are imagining themself as a victim and/or want to portray a specific group as a villian. Or secret option #3, they are greatly rewarded by a delusion of the villian.

Personalities who excessively value science and knowledge are deeply rewarded by having explanations for why something has happened or is happening. They want answers. And often, they want someone or something to blame. Once a person has produced a villian in their mind, this is greatly rewarding for them. I coould go on and on abouut how this delusion is produced and propogatees itself. Then there's the "activist" personality type which takes this delusion to another level and starts campaigning about this manufactured villian. Not only is the delusion personally rewarding because it satisfies the burning question of "why", but now there is another reward that the individual has manufactured a purpose for themself.

Like I wrote before, the delusion feeds on itself, propogates itself, from multiple avenues. And that is why it resists moderation andd common sense.

 

[dybmh]

I found the comment amusing, analyze away, don't dig too deep though. You might get burnt by the molten lava...

It's being reported. Laughing at someone's post is against the rules if it was not a joke.