Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[McBell]

This is happening through out, repeatedly. Maybe a few people truly addressed the OP, at least with one or two comments.

ROTFLMAO

YOU are the one most engaged in off topicness in this thread.
YOU are the one with the most character assassination attempts in this thread.

Extremely difficult to take you seriously now.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Mostly ad hominem

It gets tough not to call out bad behavior (kind of like you're doing in the OP actually!). Like when someone doesn't answer a question, and uses the excuse that it is "off topic" even though the question relates directly to the title of the OP, and to many of the ideas presented in the OP. For example, it is overwhelmingly obvious that it bothers you that atheists can be evangelical, and dogmatic and apologetic - I would think discussing a solution to it all would be right up the alley of a thread proposing how awful those things are, and how no one will admit to them. And that's basically what I asked you - what such a "solution" would provide. What does it accomplish? Yet you begged off. I consider this bad form, and I am informing you of such. Again - much the way you might like to inform me that I am being evangelical, or dogmatic, or apologetic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was right on the topic, I understand.
Regards

Thank you for agreeing with me, @paarsurrey! I know you probably don't understand what I mean by that... but that's what you're doing, and it is great. Thanks again!

 

[firedragon]

Religion does indeed derive from religare. (Other derivations are not true.) But the explanation offered by Lacantius is wrong. Religare does not simply mean binding, but re-binding, i.e. a tying together of parts that were once one, then became separated, and must now be bound together anew, i.e. re-binding, not simply a binding. The two parts are the (perfect) Masculine and the (perfect) Feminine parts of the Spirit, which are to be bound together and fused so as to restore the divided Spirit to its Primordial Perfection. So the word religion is not to do with binding people together. (Religion does not bind people together. In truth, religious individuals are made independent of the world (i.e. humanity), not bound to it.)

I did not say that relegere is to mean binding people together. But you made an interesting observation. Re-binding. Please if you dont mind, point me towards an expert who discusses this. Thanks a lot for that.

In a funny way, they are right: it is true that ultimately religion and science don't go together. Religion is submission to God's Will, science is the prying into God's secrets with the aim of exploiting that knowledge -- and that is clearly not God's Will. In other words, God meant for us to enjoy Creation, not analyze, dissect, and exploit it. So there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. Atheists are just on the wrong side of it.

Well, that's an interesting way to think. But how do you say that God did not will people to pry into "Gods secrets" as you said? Who said that?

Yes, this is one of atheists' favorite go-to arguments. And it does seem that many conflicts have their origin in religious disputes. What the modern world does not know, however, is that all these "religious" conflicts were intentionally instigated behind the scenes for reasons that had nothing to do with religion. Religious factions were enlisted by sinister forces operating outside the spotlight. These factions let themselves be tempted to aggression, they accepted armaments, and thus ended up doing Evil's bidding and giving religious skeptics the perfect reason to start arguing against religion. Certainlhy these religious factions are not at all free of blame in this. But the more important point is that the true origin of such apparently religious conflicts lies elsewhere.

Actually, its not true that most of the conflicts seem to have a religious matter in it. It was researched, documented and calculated some time ago that only about 7% of all the wars ever fought in known history were motivated by religious issues. But I agree with you.

 

[firedragon]

It gets tough not to call out bad behavior (kind of like you're doing in the OP actually!). Like when someone doesn't answer a question, and uses the excuse that it is "off topic" even though the question relates directly to the title of the OP, and to many of the ideas presented in the OP. For example, it is overwhelmingly obvious that it bothers you that atheists can be evangelical, and dogmatic and apologetic - I would think discussing a solution to it all would be right up the alley of a thread proposing how awful those things are, and how no one will admit to them. And that's basically what I asked you - what such a "solution" would provide. What does it accomplish? Yet you begged off. I consider this bad form, and I am informing you of such. Again - much the way you might like to inform me that I am being evangelical, or dogmatic, or apologetic.

Engage with the OP if you can.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thank you for agreeing with me, @paarsurrey! I know you probably don't understand what I mean by that... but that's what you're doing, and it is great. Thanks again!

Thanks the wise man.
?
Regards

 

[firedragon]

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I only wanted to contribute a clarification of the true etymology of the word religion. I will remove the offending part of the post.

Bro. I am really interested in reading up on the re-binding thing you explained. honestly I have not heard of that angle. Please give me some info where to read up on it. I really appreciate your post and look forward to hearing from you.

You wrote a very good post about Marcion and his Gospel a while ago. Shall we talk about it? Or is it not allowed in this thread?

Marcion? Roguish, that type of discussion is very much interesting to me. Ill tell you what. I will try and find that post and tag you there, and we can discuss in that thread. What you say?

 

[ChristineM]

I wonder if some people have actually read the OP???

Oh wait a moment, one of the guys morning because they claimed people were straying from the OP is straying from the OP. Now whats that word again?

 

[firedragon]

Okay. (The word okay derives from Old Norse ágæt, which is pronounced ow-kite. This derivation appears to be missing from the Wicked Pedia.)

Hey. You are an encyclopaedia. I never knew this.

 

[firedragon]

I wonder if some people have actually read the OP???

Oh wait a moment, one of the guys morning because they claimed people were straying from the OP is straying from the OP. Now whats that word again?

Try again Christine. Keep trying your best for ad hominem. Avoid the topic completely. Super show. I will look forward to more of your attempts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Engage with the OP if you can.

Sure thing. Let's go with a point by point analysis, starting with the thread title:

Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

If I had to guess, I would think it is because they don't feel they are being those things. Perhaps they are through some people's eyes. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion as to the intent of some people in this very thread.

I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.

Yes, it would be pig-headed to refuse to accept factual information on meaning and structure from a source familiar with the language, as you stated it. The atheists in question should probably have stuck more to the idea of getting you to provide evidence that the texts are even consequential to begin with, and not got mired down in meanings and interpretations - which most must necessarily rely on another source to "get right" for them in the first place (via translation), making them a very poor subject of debate from their angle.

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

The atheist had "Faith" in a "missionary" website? As in, an atheist "missionary" site? As in - a site dedicated to atheism that you are facetiously applying the term "missionary" to? It sounds like there should have been more fact-checking done in the anecdote you are relaying here, for sure. And yes, people tend to cite sources without really having all their ducks in a row to make sure that the source had their ducks in a row, etc. I agree. It is interesting, however, that you chose the words "blind faith" to describe someone referencing an unreliable source. This, taken with the "missionary atheist site" comment, and one might think you were simply trying to goad another on in this "general discussion."

Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".

Concerning the last sentence - in order for a refusal to accept an accusation to be "highly dogmatic," you would need to demonstrate that atheists, as a whole or group, have among their principles the idea that they are to always refute accusations. There would need to be that "dogma" first, in other words, for a particular refutation of accusation to be considered "dogmatic." Which is a strange notion.

And otherwise, the United Nations' isn't the only one with a definition for the word "religion." So perhaps this is part of the problem? I have no problem admitting that I fall under the definition of a word because my description using that word ends up being factual according to the definition. No problem at all. Like being called an "ape." By definition, I am that - completely fine. What I might have a problem with is people co-opting a word they think might have negative connotations for a particular group and then screwing with definitions, or casting around looking for alternative definitions to make sure that members of that group fall within the definition. Something just doesn't sit right with me about that.

Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same" . Nope. Try to analyse it rather than making a dogmatic faith statement. After all, atheists are supposed to be analytical and scientific as most would claim.

The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts....Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".

So, here again, an atheist's actions might actually fall under some definition, or some root word's definition of something pertaining to "religious." Just denying it altogether would be stubbornness, yes. But here again, I would like some thought put into the reasons why the word "religious" is being used, or attempting to be used, or why all the athletics put into tracing root words and etymologies to attempt to push atheists under the umbrella meaning of the term? What does this accomplish? If they are specifically calling you "bad" or informing you that you are misbehaving because you are being "religious" then that is one thing, because yes, if you can show them that they are being "religious" in some way, then they are in contradiction with themselves. But again the idea I'd like to raise is that it should be pretty obvious that their behavior can be classified as "religious" in that particular instance" without needing to trace root words, etymologies, or cite the specific definition that the United Nations uses for some word. That sort of response seems crafty and disingenuous to me.

One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook. Also they take their information predominantly from apologetic websites. Evangelical websites.

While religion and science don't need to be at odds, a lot of the problem you're describing has come about because religious adherents have tried to make some of the following types of claims:

1. Items of activity or stories, the details of which are in direct violation of observed reality as documented via scientific method
2. Claims made by religious people (or religions) that their sacred texts (or the writers) somehow "knew the science" before it was discovered through actual observation, and point to crude mishmashes of ideas and writings from their texts that only vaguely resemble the reality being discussed
3. Claims made by religious people that scientific study, recording and documentation of reality are incorrect, and in its place is offered unevidenced dribble.

In other words, religion kind of made its own bed on this one. Had items found to be in correlation with reality just been accepted by religious adherents (instead of denied in preference to adhering to dogma), then certain religions wouldn't have gotten a reputation for being at odds with science.

Whatever is written in the books, if it is scientifically accurate, that's fine! What it necessarily means is that the people who wrote it used what we now call "scientific methods" (without having or knowing what those were) and documented some parts of reality accurately. That doesn't mean that we can't revisit those items and update our knowledge even further now that we have better instrumentation and understanding, etc. And religion shouldn't be opposed to that either if it is so "aligned with science." Facts being what they are, this is not how a lot of scientific evidence is received however, hence the reasons you will get a lot of people still believing that religion and science are at odds.

The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".

Hopefully not just the United Nations definition? But you are right - refusal to analyze the meaning of a word, and then denying that you fall under the definition is not great behavior. You're calling it "religious" and "faith" for very specific reasons - which I hope you will realize. but unfortunately, that also works against you. Because you call yourself "Religious" and also say that you have "faith," do you not? And if those items are so flimsy, and to be associated with bad behavior that has atheists ignoring facts, being dogmatically adamant in the face of evidence against them, etc. then what? You're associating YOURSELF with those items as well to call them "religious". It's just not good all the way around at that point.

Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.

There is no basis to stand on in making a claim like that about violence in the world, true.

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".

Strictly speaking, thimbles and planks are two very different things. Why not both sides call out the items they see in either eye? That's what I advocate for, and will all day every day.

 

[lukethethird]

Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

Even if true, why should they?

 

[ChristineM]

Try again Christine. Keep trying your best for ad hominem. Avoid the topic completely. Super show. I will look forward to more of your attempts.

The facts are plain to see.

Post #166

Engage with the OP if you can.

Followed by The hypocrisy of post #169.

Maybe you should review the meaning of ad hominem...

An argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.​

The position is you made statements and then contradicted your own instructions.

 

[Wrangler]

I would like to ask what you believe would be accomplished if atheists were to accept or admit to this?

For one, they'd get off their high horse and realize they are in the same metaphysical boat as anyone else - no matter how they strip their vocabulary of religious type terms.

 

[lukethethird]

For one, they'd get off their high horse and realize they are in the same metaphysical boat as anyone else - no matter how they strip their vocabulary of religious type terms.

Atheists are on a high horse?

 

[firedragon]

Yes, it would be pig-headed to refuse to accept factual information on meaning and structure from a source familiar with the language, as you stated it. The atheists in question should probably have stuck more to the idea of getting you to provide evidence that the texts are even consequential to begin with, and not got mired down in meanings and interpretations - which most must necessarily rely on another source to "get right" for them in the first place (via translation), making them a very poor subject of debate from their angle.

True. A lot of times, these so called passages and whatever their words are will not even be given a chance but just dismissed dogmatically. Its something I see quite often. What should be done is to demand evidence like you said. This is an Internet forum, so no one's credentials matter. No one knows who the other person is. So it is only fair that one has the right to ask for evidence. When someone says something about a particular language and a sentence in it, one could ask for evidence. Lexicon references etc. Thats the approach. Not quote some other evangelical website or cut and paste from one. Maybe you are not in the receiving end of this kind of thing.

The atheist had "Faith" in a "missionary" website? As in, an atheist "missionary" site? As in - a site dedicated to atheism that you are facetiously applying the term "missionary" to? It sounds like there should have been more fact-checking done in the anecdote you are relaying here, for sure. And yes, people tend to cite sources without really having all their ducks in a row to make sure that the source had their ducks in a row, etc. I agree. It is interesting, however, that you chose the words "blind faith" to describe someone referencing an unreliable source. This, taken with the "missionary atheist site" comment, and one might think you were simply trying to goad another on in this "general discussion."

e.g. There is a discussion on Buddhist scripture. The atheist uses an anti buddhism type of missionary website to refute the other guys claims. No analysis done, but blind faith in a missionary website. This is only an example.

Concerning the last sentence - in order for a refusal to accept an accusation to be "highly dogmatic," you would need to demonstrate that atheists, as a whole or group, have among their principles the idea that they are to always refute accusations. There would need to be that "dogma" first, in other words, for a particular refutation of accusation to be considered "dogmatic." Which is a strange notion.

And otherwise, the United Nations' isn't the only one with a definition for the word "religion." So perhaps this is part of the problem? I have no problem admitting that I fall under the definition of a word because my description using that word ends up being factual according to the definition. No problem at all. Like being called an "ape." By definition, I am that - completely fine. What I might have a problem with is people co-opting a word they think might have negative connotations for a particular group and then screwing with definitions, or casting around looking for alternative definitions to make sure that members of that group fall within the definition. Something just doesn't sit right with me about that.

Err. I never said that the UN is the only one. I have provided a lot more information than that. Anyway, you have not analysed the statements I made here. You have assumed that a trick was played. No.

While religion and science don't need to be at odds, a lot of the problem you'
re describing has come about because religious adherents have tried to make some of the following types of claims:

1. Items of activity or stories, the details of which are in direct violation of observed reality as documented via scientific method
2. Claims made by religious people (or religions) that their sacred texts (or the writers) somehow "knew the science" before it was discovered through actual observation, and point to crude mishmashes of ideas and writings from their texts that only vaguely resemble the reality being discussed
3. Claims made by religious people that scientific study, recording and documentation of reality are incorrect, and in its place is offered unevidenced dribble.

In other words, religion kind of made its own bed on this one. Had items found to be in correlation with reality just been accepted by religious adherents (instead of denied in preference to adhering to dogma), then certain religions wouldn't have gotten a reputation for being at odds with science.

Whatever is written in the books, if it is scientifically accurate, that's fine! What it necessarily means is that the people who wrote it used what we now call "scientific method" (without having or knowing what those were) and documented some parts of reality accurately. That doesn't mean that we can't revisit those items and update our knowledge even further now that we have better instrumentation and understanding, etc. And religion shouldn't be opposed to that either if it is so "aligned with science." Facts being what they are, this is not how a lot of scientific evidence is received however, hence the reasons you will get a lot of people still believing that religion and science are at odds.

You are right. People have claimed many things that may even be called silly. Only a few weeks ago one guy was claiming to have read practically every piece of document one could find on theology. He claimed he studied Akkadian stuff, the whole Bible, all the Hindu scripture, all the Buddhist scripture, all the Jewish tafsirs and all other books, etc etc etc. Also he claimed he read them all in their original languages. This is a miracle. Only when you try and study the Bible lets say as an example you would know how much it takes so to make this kind of claim you have to be a divine miracle worker. Especially since this guy displayed absolutely zero knowledge in one of the languages. So I understand that when one makes a claim like this, you would find it silly. But none of this means that Religion and science are opposites. Thats absurd in my opinion. And none of this means a so called "religious person" necessarily has to be dumb in science. If you dont claim that, you dont belong in this category of people. But those who do, and many do, are blind.

Hopefully not just the United Nations definition? But you are right - refusal to analyze the meaning of a word, and then denying that you fall under the definition is not great behavior. You're calling it "religious" and "faith" for very specific reasons - which I hope you will realize. but unfortunately, that also works against you. Because you call yourself "Religious" and also say that you have "faith," do you not? And if those items are so flimsy, and to be associated with bad behavior that has you ignoring facts, etc. then what? It's just not good all the way around at that point.

So you think that a TU Quoque fallacy would be fine in this discussion?

Anyway, you did not understand this point. Maybe I can make it clearer. This blind faith that I speak of in the Atheists who do this error is a dogmatic refusal to ponder or look. Do you understand?

If you wish, open a thread to discuss what ever topic you wish to in the field of theology, science, linguistics or any other relevant subject to this forum, and see if I have the same blind faith and refuse to entertain your logic or explanation. Dont make assumptions.

Strictly speaking, thimbles and planks are two very different things. Why not both sides call out the items they see in either eye? That's what I advocate for, and will all day every day.

Thats a very good statement, and I cannot disagree with that.

Nevertheless, I really appreciate you taking time to respond to the OP. That was a great post, and a very objective one at that.

For that, I give you your due respect.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

The facts are plain to see.

Post #166



Followed by The hypocrisy of post #169.

Maybe you should review the meaning of ad hominem...

An argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.​

The position is you made statements and then contradicted your own instructions.

Keep trying. ITs entertaining really.

 

[ChristineM]

Keep trying. ITs entertaining really.

I am not trying but simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies. Anyone can, and looking at the posts, seen them, i am surprised that you haven't

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Err. I never said that the UN is the only one. I have provided a lot more information than that. Anyway, you have not analysed the statements I made here. You have assumed that a trick was played. No.

But you only cited the UN one when wanting to state that atheists fell under "someone's" definition of religious. That's what I was getting at. If there are plenty of others that see atheists fitting the bill so very obviously, I wouldn't mind seeing the list.

So you think that a TU Quoque fallacy would be fine in this discussion?

Darn, you read and responded before the edit I made to make this point clearer. It was, quite honestly, my favorite point in my entire reply. I did not mean to say that YOU, in particular were "ignoring facts." It was a colloquial "you" meant to refer to the atheist. I saw how it might be misinterpreted and I edited it after the fact, but you were already replying to the original. See here:

You're calling it "religious" and "faith" for very specific reasons - which I hope you will realize. but unfortunately, that also works against you. Because you call yourself "Religious" and also say that you have "faith," do you not? And if those items are so flimsy, and to be associated with bad behavior that has atheists ignoring facts, being dogmatically adamant in the face of evidence against them, etc. then what? You're associating YOURSELF with those items as well to call them "religious". It's just not good all the way around at that point.

Ultimately pointing out that if you want to call atheists bad behaviors "religious" and then also continue to apply the term "religious" to yourself, then there are obvious inferences that might be made from something like that. After all, you are the one wanting to apply terms to people and behaviors in the OP due to what ends up being no more than their technical espousal to particular parts of particular definitions/meanings. If one were to call a particularly uncouth dogmatic adherence to things "religious" for example, and then call themselves "religious" on top of that, then questions should rightly be raised.

 

[firedragon]

I am not trying but simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies. Anyone can, and looking at the posts, seen them, i am surprised that you haven't

Try and address the OP.