Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[wareyin]

Influence? Of course. That's part of how culture in general works, though. To be clear, though, I wasn't rejecting what you said entirely with what I said. Rather, it was more pointing out that your argument fails because it focuses too much on how a distinct subset operate and thus overstates their importance.

Which distinct subset? From my first post I have been talking about believers. Not Christians, not Fundamentalist Christians, but believers. So, what distinct subset have I focused on?

With that said, perhaps a central question in play here, given your response to what Dann said there, is "How much do YOU pick and choose what to believe and how?"





If you're associating "choose" with whimsicality, than that's no surprise. However, "choice" is a much more complex concept than that, in practical use. Religion can be reasonably said to stack the deck in their favor, but it cannot truly remove agency from a person, regardless. That your line of argument seeks to deny agency is very much a serious problem with the logic invoked.



Indeed. To repeat, though, you shouldn't have been bringing whimsicality into play at all, unless you consider your beliefs and values to be whimsical choices.

I entered this thread by denying dann's claim that "believers choose what to believe and what to dismiss from various scriptures - be that "detailed instructions" or general nonsense." This claim is what brought whimsicality into it, and it is this whimsicality that I have been arguing against. I am at a loss how you could claim that I am the one bringing whimsicality into play.

 

[dann]

Yet here you are, confusing Christianity with theism.

I have no idea what you're going on about, and I no longer care.
You do know that Christianity is a theistic religion, don't you?!

 

[wareyin]

I have no idea what you're going on about, and I no longer care.
You do know that Christianity is a theistic religion, don't you?!

You do know that there are other theistic religions that are not Christian? Reread the sentence before the one you quoted.

 

[Aridas]

Which distinct subset? From my first post I have been talking about believers. Not Christians, not Fundamentalist Christians, but believers. So, what distinct subset have I focused on?

The ones that are quite deep down the rabbit-hole, so to speak, and give excessive respect to authority. Add to that that not all religions and subsets of religions promote themselves quite like you seem to think and what you've got is very much a limited subset.

I entered this thread by denying dann's claim that "believers choose what to believe and what to dismiss from various scriptures - be that "detailed instructions" or general nonsense." This claim is what brought whimsicality into it, and it is this whimsicality that I have been arguing against. I am at a loss how you could claim that I am the one bringing whimsicality into play.

From where I came into this particular line of back and forth, you were responding to -

No, I'm very familiar with both theists and other believers. What you and T2 don't seem to be familiar with is that believers pick and choose what they want to believe in - just like you do!

Again, do you pick and choose what you want to believe on a whim?

 

[wareyin]

The ones that are quite deep down the rabbit-hole, so to speak, and give excessive respect to authority. Add to that that not all religions and subsets of religions promote themselves quite like you seem to think and what you've got is very much a limited subset.

As I have also discussed Christian denominations that are not quite deep down the rabbit hole, I don't quite see how you think I've not included them as well.

From where I came into this particular line of back and forth, you were responding to -



Again, do you pick and choose what you want to believe on a whim?

Yes that is the line I was responding to. Again, I am the one stating that people do not pick and choose what to believe on a whim, while dann is stating that they do. You seem determined to ascribe his claims to me, whether it is limiting the discussion to fundamentalist Christians while I am talking about believers in general, or dann claiming believers pick and choose while I am claiming that beliefs are not done so on a whim. Why is that so?

 

[kellyb]

From the What We Believe page on that site: "In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself."(highlighting mine)

It certainly appears that they believe in the Resurrection.


edited to add: I didn't scroll down far enough. They definitely believe in the Resurrection: We believe in the triune God: Creator, resurrected Christ, the sole Head of the church, and the Holy Spirit, who guides and brings about the creative and redemptive work of God in the world.

I know some members of that denomination, and they personally don't, so..I dunno. I think they're basically UU but just more "Jesusy".

 

[kellyb]

Again, I am the one stating that people do not pick and choose what to believe on a whim, while dann is stating that they do.

I think you're both wrong, and the reality is that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and when they do, it can be done to various degrees, and it all depends on a lot of factors.

 

[Aridas]

As I have also discussed Christian denominations that are not quite deep down the rabbit hole, I don't quite see how you think I've not included them as well.

When the behavior that you've described only reasonably can be said to "accurately" describe the subset that I just mentioned and quickly becomes less and less accurate as one gets further from that group? What I spoke of was not particularly about the denominations in the first place. Of course, I also was including reference to other religions entirely, like, say, Wicca, which largely doesn't follow the concepts that you cited.

Yes that is the line I was responding to. Again, I am the one stating that people do not pick and choose what to believe on a whim, while dann is stating that they do.

It sure doesn't look that way to me. Rather it looked like dann never intended his usage to be referring to whimsy. You're the one who looked like you were just assuming that he was, contrary to the context.

You seem determined to ascribe his claims to me, whether it is limiting the discussion to fundamentalist Christians while I am talking about believers in general, or dann claiming believers pick and choose while I am claiming that beliefs are not done so on a whim. Why is that so?

No. I'm not ascribing his claims to you. I'm applying your claims to you. Furthermore, I'm saying that your claims just don't work as well as you think they do when applied in the general fashion that you've tried to apply them. Incidentally, I would go so far as to say that your claims wouldn't only be reasonably descriptive of fundamentalist Christianity, regardless. It's just that they're a poor descriptor when it comes talking about to believers and theists in general because there would need to be so many huge exceptions made if accuracy was actually being sought.

 

[Aridas]

I think you're both wrong, and the reality is that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and when they do, it can be done to various degrees, and it all depends on a lot of factors.

Ehh. Choice is a far more complex topic than its frequently given credit for, I think. With that said, I like my description from before about what's actually going on much better. Namely, that religion can be reasonably said to stack the deck in their favor, but it cannot truly remove agency from a person, regardless. I don't reject whim from the coming into play entirely, of course, but I'd call what you described as whimsical to be more along the lines of groping about in the dark and trying to find something that you could really hold onto.

 

[sackett]

Am I now in tbd's gleeful hands? Gosh, this must be how clogger felt.

 

[kellyb]

Ehh. Choice is a far more complex topic than its frequently given credit for, I think. With that said, I like my description from before about what's actually going on much better. Namely, that religion can be reasonably said to stack the deck in their favor, but it cannot truly remove agency from a person, regardless. I don't reject whim from the coming into play entirely, of course, but I'd call what you described as whimsical to be more along the lines of groping about in the dark and trying to find something that you could really hold onto.

"Whimsical" is an inaccurate word, I agree.

I think sometimes the religion can overwhelmingly stack the deck. If people have no access to facts besides the ones coming from the church/religion, their agency in what they believe is inherently limited. Like, there are hard, firm, insurmountable limits imposed by ignorance.

All you have in that case is stuff like a gut feeling that something "isn't right" because it makes no rational sense, and your intuition won't shut up, your inner sense of morality is being abused by the belief, and you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, etc.

 

[Aridas]

"Whimsical" is an inaccurate word, I agree.

I think sometimes the religion can overwhelmingly stack the deck. If people have no access to facts besides the ones coming from the church/religion, their agency in what they believe is inherently limited. Like, there are hard, firm, insurmountable limits imposed by ignorance.

It certainly can.

All you have in that case is stuff like a gut feeling that something "isn't right" because it makes no rational sense, and your intuition won't shut up, your inner sense of morality is being abused by the belief, and you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, etc.

That's enough for people to cast about seeking something better, honestly. In fact, I would dare to say that quite a few denominations were started by people acting on exactly those feelings of "something isn't right," to use Christianity for convenience.

 

[wareyin]

When the behavior that you've described only reasonably can be said to "accurately" describe the subset that I just mentioned and quickly becomes less and less accurate as one gets further from that group? What I spoke of was not particularly about the denominations in the first place. Of course, I also was including reference to other religions entirely, like, say, Wicca, which largely doesn't follow the concepts that you cited.

If one includes the various "just going through the motions" groups such as the Church of England people discussed earlier, you would have a point. I personally think including people who are functionally non-believers in the group "believers" is stretching things to far. I tend to view Wiccans as non-believers, more people claiming to practice because they think it sounds cool. I could be wrong, I don't know any practitioners.

It sure doesn't look that way to me. Rather it looked like dann never intended his usage to be referring to whimsy. You're the one who looked like you were just assuming that he was, contrary to the context.

There is some usage of the term "pick and choose" which does not indicate whimsy? That implies deep, years long thought and effort? This is a new usage to me. Is this actually what that term means to you?

No. I'm not ascribing his claims to you. I'm applying your claims to you. Furthermore, I'm saying that your claims just don't work as well as you think they do when applied in the general fashion that you've tried to apply them. Incidentally, I would go so far as to say that your claims wouldn't only be reasonably descriptive of fundamentalist Christianity, regardless. It's just that they're a poor descriptor when it comes talking about to believers and theists in general because there would need to be so many huge exceptions made if accuracy was actually being sought.

I fail to see how pressing me to defend dann's claim is applying my claim to me. As I do not agree that whimsically picking and choosing one's religious beliefs is an accurate description of believers, I am not going to tell you that I choose what to believe on a whim.
I also can't parse the highlighted sentence. What are you trying to say there?

 

[Thor 2]

No, I don't believe. I know that you won't find any place in the Quran demanding that people fly planes into buildings.

Oh, so we have a Quran scholar in our midst now. I hesitate to question your superior knowledge, however I have seen many excerpts from said writings that encourage violence. Nothing specific like "You shall fly planes into buildings", but given the largest flying object Mohamed knew of, was the winged horse he used to commute I guess that's understandable.

According to Quran scripture, dying in the cause was not a bad thing also:

Yes, and Christianity celebrates martyrs, too. And so do countries: dying in the service of your nation, with or without combat. And other causes.

Christianity and countries celebrate martyrs too do they? Is this something you thought I needed schooling in?

Was that your point?!

OK have a look at the above. It might just give you a hint as to what my point is.

 

[kellyb]

There is some usage of the term "pick and choose" which does not indicate whimsy? That implies deep, years long thought and effort? This is a new usage to me. Is this actually what that term means to you?

Over months and years you reflect on something like "god is omni-benevolent, and hell is also real, and everyone who is not Christian goes to Hell" and you quietly adjust that impossible nonsense of a belief out of your worldview - out of your own, personal version of Christianity.

Or you read Paul's words about "women should not speak in church, wives submit to your husbands, etc" and you decide Paul might not have been a real apostle anyway, or he was just making something up there.

 

[arthwollipot]

Few points, first, the latest posts have been nothing but attacks on me.

This whole thread has been nothing but an attack on atheists. And you wonder why we fight back?

 

[arthwollipot]

Knock knock knock!

Say this thread is about atheist human rights abuses.

While I am sure that you atheists are aching about it, let’s pull ourselves together.

If you'd made a thread about human rights abuses, we wouldn't have had anything to disagree with. But you didn't do that. You made it about atheist human rights abuses - an attack on atheists and atheism right out of the gate.

YOU chose to make the thread about atheists. We didn't do that. YOU did.

 

[arthwollipot]

The religious fanaticism common and standard in America with purity balls and kids disallowed from being able to read "secular" books/magazines and watch "secular" movies, Jesus Camp, a Creation Museum, megachurches with millionaire pastors in every city, ect and so on is unique in the Western World (although supposedly megachurches are becoming a thing in Oz now.)

American-style religion is being exported to other countries by the medium of America's domination of English-speaking media.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not surprised that people missed that given how much time has been devoted to off topic nonsense.

And again. YOU were the one who made the thread about atheism. YOU were that person. If you wanted to make a thread about human rights abuses, you could have done that. Instead, you chose to make it about atheism.

Why did you do that?

 

[arthwollipot]

It would appear that you are one of those people advocating that the Chinese human rights abuses are a good thing. Plenty of atheists have in this thread.

Chinese human rights abuses, a good thing! Atheism in action, catch it!

Liar.