Maybe we just need to accept that believers and atheists have different ways of disagreeing...

[Htom Sirveaux]

with conservative religious people.

The believer way generally involves offering up our own religious views as a competing interpretation of religious traditions to off-set the conservative interpretation and encourage reform. The atheist way generally involves rejecting the legitimacy of religion wholesale. These projects frequently step on each other's toes when believers try to defend the legitimacy of religion, and atheists try to undercut liberal religious beliefs.

But maybe it doesn't have to be that way, if each side can remember that the other side is engaging in political strategy, not offering an existential threat. We're both trying to defeat conservative religion and its political overreach. Maybe we can tolerate each other's rhetoric, and embrace a "both-and" approach rather than trying to force each other to adopt our preferred strategy. Then we can see ourselves as a team offering up a one-two punch to conservative religion, each in our own way. Perhaps liberal believers and liberal atheists could find a way out of mutual suspicion and/or antagonism.

If I've mischaracterized anyone in anyway, no offense intended. I welcome correction, as well as your thoughts and suggestions in response.

[AuntPatsy]

1. Many do except that, but until our government realizes this themselves and ceases in allowing

The religious fanatics to run roughshod on every individual brought about by enacting certain laws you will not have the peace you seek though I personally agree with you that I wish it could be that easy....

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. I'm talking about what goes on between liberal believers

and liberal atheists while we're trying to solve the problem of religious fanatics running roughshod over every individual.

[AuntPatsy]

4. That's a hard one, I guess I believe differently then many ,my one huge issue is displaying

What I with all honesty believe to be nothing more than a heavily dosed unrealistic view of outright hypocritical rhetoric disguised so that one could not possibly do anything other than review the meanings to fit ones own agenda, it surely fits each and every so called holy book...

Fact or fiction, I would say a sparingly vast void of facts and nothingness mixed in nicely with a whirlwind of fantastical fiction and heavy phrases designed to confuse one enough they must seek teaching instructors that demand payment

[procon]

3. Where to begin???

There's so many misconceptions about atheists here. Although I have known many, many like minded people in my time, I won't speak for others, but let me say that I have been an atheist since the early 60s. Never once did it ever occur to me to reject "the legitimacy of religion wholesale", or "undercut" anyone else's religious beliefs.

This is one of the most commonly held, and dearly cherished, persecution fallacies religious folks have in their lexicon. It's a not-so-subtle way of letting us wretched atheists know that we are lesser creatures since we don't participate in the dogma at hand. Please don't fash yourself; this is a long shared commonality of Abrahamic religions.

It isn't clear what approach you're advocating, and while I thank you for the offer, but I cannot in good conscience merely "tolerate" some religious rhetoric simply because one side or the other seems more benign and less intolerant than another. These religious purity tests are doomed to fail, and that is precisely why NO one should advocate for any form of religion in politics. I simply ask that people of a religious bent acknowledge those are only your beliefs, not mine... I, of course, will do the same.

[edgineered]

5. Presenting the idea gets little response, little reaction. And for good reason.

To begin with, there is only a small subset of "both-and" strategists. Much of the population of both sets prefer to remain stoic.

These differences are amplified by the nature of the two opposing sides - one side is an organization with established hierarchy, the other is mostly individuals. If the dynamics of cooperation were viewed by others as a weakness, the consequences weigh differently. In the case of individuals failure or compromise is on and from a personal level, where in a group the individuals have greater protection, the failures are viewed as being of or from a given leaders actions, the group member can easily distance him or herself.

To exemplify this I make the following statements. I am an athiest and do not speak for the A&A group here. It is almost certain that what I am saying here is not well received by the A&A group, however no one there can state with any authority that I am not an athiest as I can document it from as far back as the 70s by using the classification page (page 3) of my service record. Clearly this is an individual stance which can be rejected by any and all. OTOH, if I were the pope ...

[Warren Stupidity]

6. By all means reach out to the god-smacked with your liberal religious message.

As far as I can tell, you have been losing that battle for the last 30-40 years. Arguably much longer than that. Despite brief interludes of religious progressivism, the political mode of religiosity here and elsewhere has been reactionary, conservative, rightwing and authoritarian pretty much for as long as one cares to look back.

Meanwhile rejection of religion entirely at least breaks the framework within which you all have been losing the debate. By the way, here on DU pretty much only one faction is telling the other to shut the fuck up. Can you guess which one?

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. Actually, we've done so well that our positions have been adopted by the general secular culture.

according to this historian:

We’ve become so accustomed to the narrative of “mainline decline” that it is difficult to get our minds around a more nuanced version of this story. How do you tell this story?

The ecumenical leaders achieved much more than they and their successors give them credit for. They led millions of American Protestants in directions demanded by the changing circumstances of the times and by their own theological tradition. These ecumenical leaders took a series of risks, asking their constituency to follow them in antiracist, anti-imperialist, feminist and multicultural directions that were understandably resisted by large segments of the white public, especially in the Protestant-intensive southern states.

It is true that the so-called mainstream lost numbers to churches that stood apart from or even opposed these initiatives, and ecumenical leaders simultaneously failed to persuade many of their own progeny that churches remained essential institutions in the advancement of these values.

But the fact remains that the public life of the United States moved farther in the directions advocated in 1960 by the Christian Century than in the directions then advocated by Christianity Today. It might be hyperbolic to say that ecumenists experienced a cultural victory and an organizational defeat, but there is something to that view. Ecumenists yielded much of the symbolic capital of Christianity to evangelicals, which is a significant loss. But ecumenists won much of the U.S. There are trade-offs.

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-06/culture-changers

And data from at least one poll suggests that the real reason liberal churches lost membership was internal birthrate, not anything conservatives are doing to us:

MAINLINE PROTESTANT

As mentioned above the Mainline Protestant group has been holding up much better than I expected in terms of its inflows and outflows. Their inflows and outflows with Evangelicals have been virtually identical. They have gained twice as many from the Catholics (1.6%) as they have lost (0.8%). On the other hand they have had 2.7% move to the None group, and only gained 1.0% from that same group. They have also lost 1.1% to the Other group, but only had 0.4% coming back the other way.

It is clear then that the declines that the Mainline Protestants have experienced over the last 40 years have not largely been because of people switching to other groups. Instead it is because they have gone through a very large generational horizon. I recently read an older study that argued quite convincingly that most of the decline in the Mainline Protestant group could be attributed to the birthrate within that group. What we have seen here in this chart would tend to bear that out. While the worst of their declines may be behind them, like the Evangelicals they have significant work to do.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/michael-bell-looking-at-the-pew-forums-changes-in-religious-affliliation-data

Also, some of the mainline losses have gone to "Other", which may not count as an overall liberal loss.

[Brettongarcia]

27. Or vice-versa. Was anti-imperialism from Ecumenism ... or Karl Marx & secularism, for example?

Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[Starboard Tack]

166. You claim it with such pride, Warren, maybe it is a "sub-faction" of stupidity.

Meanwhile rejection of religion entirely at least breaks the framework within which you all have been losing the debate. By the way, here on DU pretty much only one faction is telling the other to shut the fuck up. Can you guess which one?

Not all of us atheists are telling believers "to shut the fuck up". At least not the believers that hang out here. They seem like a very decent lot. In fact, they are far more benign than the belligerent "sub-faction" of anti-theists that you hang with.

How would you feel if our liberal believer friends started insulting us and told us to "shut the fuck up"?

[Warren Stupidity]

168. It is such fun having my own personal attendant.

"Not all of us atheists are telling believers "to shut the fuck up". " - as in none of us. There is one side in this forum that routinely has a huge upset over what is being discussed here. You had a .5 chance of guessing which one.

[Starboard Tack]

169. No guesswork needed really. All the hostility comes from your STFU "sub-faction".

I didn't know you had a "personal attendant", I thought he was on a sabbatical.
Did one of those mean and nasty believers tell you to shut up? You send me a link and I'll go spank him right away.

[rug]

171. The lame attempts at mockery are no more than an attempt to shut people up.

It's not working. Maybe it's because the mockery is so weak or maybe it's because it's just stupid.

[cbayer]

8. Individuals have different ways of disagreeing. I don't think there is a definable difference

between believers and atheists or agnostics or SBNR or whatever group you want to name.

Each individual is different. I again will say that we all have much more in common than we do differences and I think it is more fruitful to look for those commonalities then try to draw distinctions.

[trotsky]

10. Please cbayer, for the love of Koresh, start heeding your own words.

Stop blasting with both barrels at the people you proclaim to be "anti-theists" who support the same political goals as you.

Quit contributing to the fights over the words "agnostic" and "atheist" and what they mean. Your preferred way is drawing distinctions. Others who accept the actual meanings of the words realize they are complimentary, a spectrum, and not a way of dividing people into groups. They aren't evil, they aren't demons, so stop treating them like that.

And FFS stop with the ridiculous hyperbole like accusing your fellow DUers of proposing genocide.

"I think it is more fruitful to look for those commonalities then try to draw distinctions."

THEN DO IT.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Looks like you have created your own deity, Trotsky.

One year of pleading and replying to an imaginary being who never once spoke or responded to you. Time to talk to your buddy Warren about the definition of the word "delusional". I can't begin to imagine what Mrs. T thinks about it all. But, as a friend said this morning "Pretty fucking creepy!"

Reply Please cbayer, for the love of Koresh, start heeding your own words. trotsky Thursday Religion
Reply Once again cbayer, there's a huge flaw in your logic. trotsky Wednesday Religion
Reply okasha's lack of civility was one of the major reasons she isn't a host of this group today. trotsky Tuesday Religion
Reply What straw man are you attacking now, cbayer? trotsky Aug 29 Religion
Reply Really, cbayer? trotsky Aug 29 Religion
Reply When cbayer declares something can be discussed, then it can be discussed. trotsky Aug 29 Religion
Reply Go back to what cbayer said. It's a direct negation of her claim. trotsky Aug 22 Religion
Reply Seems like a cheap shot, cbayer. trotsky Aug 22 Religion
Reply Well, cbayer's answer to that seems to be that... trotsky Aug 20 Religion
Reply "Sorry that you are not." trotsky Aug 20 Religion
Reply The point is, cbayer, those quotes exist. trotsky Aug 20 Religion
Reply No one knows who alerted on you. trotsky Aug 20 Religion
Reply Similar question to you, cbayer. trotsky Aug 19 Religion
Reply Let's start by agreeing that accusing others of supporting or proposing genocide is unacceptable. trotsky Aug 15 Religion
Reply Ask cbayer - she's the decider. n/t trotsky Aug 14 Religion
Reply No, cbayer, none of us evil atheists are aware of that. trotsky Aug 12 Religion
Reply "So while we clearly have a whiner"??? trotsky Aug 12 Religion
Reply The real problem is why religion is powerful enough to be used as a weapon, cbayer. trotsky Jul 31 Religion
Reply FFS, cbayer!!! trotsky Jul 30 Religion
Reply The reason why this is such an important concept, cbayer, as many people keep trying to point out... trotsky Jul 30 Religion
Reply The fuss is about the hatred and stigma attached to the word "atheist," cbayer. trotsky Jul 30 Religion
Reply Well, thanks for the flamebait, cbayer. trotsky Jul 30 Religion
Reply cbayer, this is really dishonest. trotsky Jul 28 Religion
Reply And if it can be examined, then it ceases to be supernatural... trotsky Jul 27 Religion
Reply Make sure to keep labeling those you don't like as "the other," cbayer. trotsky Jul 24 Religion
Reply Right. We should probably assume he's an atheist until proven otherwise. trotsky Jul 23 Religion
Reply "Does someone need a nap?" trotsky Jul 22 Religion
Reply Actually, cbayer, you yourself made the argument that an act of mutilation... trotsky Jul 21 Religion
Reply Just as we Democrats also try to convert. trotsky Jul 21 Religion
Reply Oh yes, extremism is extremism, cbayer. trotsky Jul 18 Religion
Reply "psychotic person who had a religious delusion and must, therefore, represent all of religion" trotsky Jul 14 Religion
Reply It's also clear what he meant about being an atheist. trotsky Jul 11 Religion
Reply "They do leave that little crack in the door, though." trotsky Jul 7 Religion
Reply "I know that it pisses some people off, but that doesn't invalidate it." trotsky Jul 2 Religion
Reply Your "both sides are the same" shtick has worn so thin, cbayer, it's like wet tissue paper. trotsky Jul 2 Religion
Reply Why do you persist with that horrible straw man, cbayer? trotsky Jun 27 Religion
Reply Considering how many people you've played it on, cbayer, trotsky Jun 25 Religion
Reply Exactly. trotsky Jun 23 Religion
Reply But cbayer, why the need to praise and single out belief or even non-belief when it comes to... trotsky Jun 19 Religion
Reply Sure context counts. trotsky Jun 18 Religion
Reply What exactly do you want, cbayer? trotsky Jun 17 Religion
Reply cbayer, you do realize that contentious discussions can be held in this group... trotsky Jun 17 Religion
Reply If stamp collectors made a point of having buildings erected specifically to congregate... trotsky Jun 13 Religion
Reply "will not be forgiven" - What do you suppose that means for us atheists, cbayer? n/t trotsky Jun 11 Religion
Reply cbayer, YOU are the one so intent on creating teams. trotsky Jun 11 Religion
Reply cbayer, if you haven't noticed, this is the Religion group. trotsky Jun 11 Religion
Reply Try not to take it personally. trotsky Jun 2014 Religion
Reply Yeah, for someone who spends an awfully lot of time chiding others... trotsky Jun 2014 Religion
Reply The thing is, cbayer, it's not binary like you seem to think it is. trotsky Jun 2014 Religion
Reply To say you've never seen that is a little hard to believe, cbayer. trotsky Jun 2014 Religion
Reply It is very nice to see some even-handedness from you, cbayer. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply Hmm trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply You are correct, cbayer. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply I don't think misrepresenting a group of people like you do helps at all, trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply No, cbayer, you don't. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply People like that really do exist, cbayer. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply Flinging rude, false accusations does indeed touch a nerve in most people, cbayer. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply "not about religion at all" trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply Why can't it be both? trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply I dunno man, I have done a few quick searches on there... trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply And by continually making comments like that, trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply It's a completely stupid comparison, cbayer. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply cbayer, you routinely chastise others for making things into competitions... trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply As is your "belief" that religion does more good than harm. trotsky May 2014 Religion
Reply Put your own house in order before you start lecturing others, cbayer. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply "I've also had times when I wished I was more mediocre" trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply Looks like that post went over your head. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply Er, did you? trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply I think it's a silly request. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply "Young-earth creationism, a tiny fringe movement within Christianity" trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply Wow, that's a lot of malarkey to concentrate in one post. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply You are the one who brought up the topic of "hatred" of cbayer and her father. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply It would be beneficial to tell the entire story concerning cbayer's father... trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply Quite honestly, it's to be expected. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply No, it's about the inconsistency. trotsky Apr 2014 Religion
Reply Of course some might say that poring over someone's recent posting history... trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply You have posted your opinion. Thanks. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Yup, I'm with you. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply That's rather judgmental of you, cbayer. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Should be very interesting to see some of the responses here. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Well yeah, he kinda did. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Actually, cbayer... trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Many secular groups have been doing the same thing. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Honestly, cbayer, that is a big load of malarkey. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply The most important takeaway, cbayer, is what we should do when they conflict. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply I am disappointed that you continue to hurl outrageous charges like that at others, cbayer. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply I hope one day you feel comfortable joining us, cbayer. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Congratulations. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply You're not an atheist, because you've said that label doesn't apply to you. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply The museum's mission statement: trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply The thing is, cbayer, few of them even understand it's bigotry. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Consistency has never been her strong suit. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Oh, of course, that's EXACTLY what others are saying. trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Well cbayer is obviously a fan, AND she's a fan of anyone who sticks it to the... trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Score one for cbayer and her team! trotsky Mar 2014 Religion
Reply Because they are doing it according to their religious beliefs. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Time to bring this out again. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Okey doke. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply I would note that from the excerpt it does not appear the senators are actually backtracking at all. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Nice insults, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply When people like cbayer put forth their agenda, it is important to note that... trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Well, I guess the important thing is that you get to scold MD... trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply You can't force your definitions on anyone, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Hitchens did not have that inability, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Every Christian takes at least part of the bible literally, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Welcome to the atheist community, cbayer. n/t trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply So cbayer, what do you think would be a good compromise in this situation? trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply How do you define knowledge, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply There was no distortion of what you said, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Didn't think you meant me. Was wondering if anyone had called for it at all. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply You do realize, cbayer, that religious bigots don't believe they are engaging in... trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Perhaps your quest is just as doomed, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Yet you kicked off the aggression and accusatory words. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Some incredible generalization and broad-brushing there, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Try the very low end of that range, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply That is indeed a strange result for an atheist, cbayer. n/t trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply There you go again. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply But that is not what cbayer is saying. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply Why do you perpetuate and reinforce such tired stereotypes, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply How closed is your mind to Republican ideas, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply I appreciate you posting nice things about atheism, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply That's actually a quite common sentiment. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply One thing we definitely don't see is these folks going "further into their caves." trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply I guess I really don't understand your selective hypocrisy on this, cbayer. trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply And you know what, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 Religion
Reply OK, you realize that's not the same as what was said in the OP or claimed by cbayer, right? n/t trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Perhaps you would be willing to provide more details? trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply No, apparently this crusade means far more to you, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply But you're the one telling others that your definitions can't be challenged, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply "Atheism indicates a disbelief or denial." trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Please stop trying to tell me, an atheist, what I think. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Ah, you mean like you use the label "anti-theist" to marginalize others and suit your agenda! trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply You don't get to define atheism, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Why do you get to laugh at someone else's beliefs, cbayer? n/t trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply There are literally millions of Americans, cbayer... trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Nope, I guess a full one third of the US population is mentally ill. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Your own husband called it "religious nuttery," cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply This is why, cbayer, when you make your comments about "teams" and "points"... trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Very true, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Yeah, I don't get the points thing either. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Their reasons were good, but their actions were illegal. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply What is your obsession with "points," cbayer? trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Think about that one a little bit more, okasha. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Just because you have your own interpretation doesn't make everyone else wrong, cbayer. n/t trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply That would be a call out, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Thanks for that. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply LMFAO! trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply OK, I see now that you don't even care about what was posted right in front of you. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply There you are wrong, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply The only way you can maintain that is if you have the ability to read minds. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply I've thought some more, and your analogy can even be kicked up a notch or two. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply But cbayer, you've already raised the bar higher than that. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply If you were content with leaving things at that, there wouldn't be a problem. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply There are also other behaviors that have been common throughout human history. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Because, YET AGAIN, I will point out to you, cbayer... trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Not my fault you've gone past a 180, past a 360, trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply But you don't know that for sure. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Are you sure about that? trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply But who are you to question their religious beliefs, cbayer? trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply ONCE AGAIN, cbayer... trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply I know this comes as a shock to you, cbayer, but sometimes... trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Yep, name-calling really helps discussion, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Luke Coppen, the author of the piece, is the editor of the Catholic Herald. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply You are absolutely correct, cbayer. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply Please, cbayer, stop with the stupid "scoring points" nonsense. trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply LOL trotsky Jan 2014 Religion
Reply That a god is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the very existence of the universe... trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply I think a very good place to start, cbayer, trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply So, cbayer, in your wonderful, open, tolerant world... trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply That is a very interesting claim, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Pathetic, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Hooray for your crusade against those you deem "anti-theist," cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply FFS, no one has claimed you aren't permitted do any of those things, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply People who are anti-choice aren't welcome on DU. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Yeah, and comparing your behavior in both threads clearly indicates that YOU trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Kinda like you do with "New Atheists," huh cbayer? trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Amazing. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Once again trotting out that weak sauce? trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply You didn't address a single thing A_o_R said, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply There is a huge, giant, gaping hole in the logic you're trying to use to bash atheists, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Because that's an underhanded trick designed to circumvent the Constitution. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Opportunities are then being squandered by the other groups mentioned as well, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Words mean things, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply So basically you admit he lied, trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Well, cbayer thinks it's a fantastic article. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Just checking in. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Here's something for you to do, cbayer. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply What's your opinion, cbayer? trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Once again, as has been pointed out to you, trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Way to score one for your team, cbayer! trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply Is accusing someone of advocating genocide a civil or uncivil action, cbayer? trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply FFS cbayer, tone down the rhetoric. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply I think you missed the point entirely. trotsky Dec 2013 Religion
Reply I don't know how it sits with MoL but it's hilarious to me. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply You know, it's this kind of parting shot: trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply Great, thanks for your opinion. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply Ah, but no one said anything about *making* Christianity extinct. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply What cbayer believes or doesn't believe... trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply You've said as much about atheists. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply What's there to understand, cbayer? trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply LOL trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply Oh, I'm pretty sure there are some who would beg to differ. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply My Koresh, it is just jaw-dropping how little you've thought this through, cbayer. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply No wonder you liked this. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply I am glad you hate straw men, cbayer. trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply If the church claims to have revealed truth about god(s)... trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply My post #25 is a reply to #11, which was written by cbayer. n/t trotsky Nov 2013 Religion
Reply LOL trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply cbayer can criticize and mock whatever beliefs she wants. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply Again, you seem to be shifting the argument. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply To anyone without a belief in god, they are equally ridiculous. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply I'm calling bullshit. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply What's disappointing is that this is the same message many of us have been saying here... trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply Battling with the religious right is indeed what needs to be done! trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply Could you explain, please, when exactly it's OK to mock someone's religious beliefs? trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply Your perspective, that all faiths and religions are equal and valid... trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply What kind of extremists are responsible for the violent events, cbayer? trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply LMAO trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply You are completely and utterly wrong, cbayer. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply Wow. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply This stuff is so tiresome. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply And yet if it were just about money, they'd carry every holiday. trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply When was the last time you posted a positive story about Richard Dawkins, cbayer? trotsky Oct 2013 Religion
Reply For someone you despise and wish "would go the way of the dinosaurs..." trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply "As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others or damages them in other ways" trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply But it's not just that first sentence, cbayer. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Well, you can't prove he's wrong. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply You know, the rest of what you said was just so offensive I didn't even notice this part: trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply What exactly would satisfy you, cbayer? trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Wow, to end up blaming the victim here is really pathetic. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply You think creationists are "a bunch of dumbasses," cbayer. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply I'm glad to see this evolution in your position, cbayer. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply cbayer, to be quite honest, the #1 offender I see in this group... trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply And yet what miniscule effort have you even attempted to explain yourself? trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply So you disagree with cbayer. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Knock it off. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply I cringe every time I see right-wing memes repeated on DU. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Or perhaps they realize that posting praise on an anonymous message board that few, if any... trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Good job on the ad hom, cbayer. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Pretty easy to Google it. trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Have you ever looked at the history of Christianity, cbayer? trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Why aren't they simply criticized for reaching out, as atheists are? trotsky Sep 2013 Religion
Reply Muslim countries ALSO prohibit "others" from wearing what they want, you know. trotsky Aug 2013 Religion
Reply Keep it up, cbayer. trotsky Aug 2013 Religion
Reply I must have missed the announcement. trotsky Aug 2013 Religion
Reply Faith is faith?? trotsky Aug 2013 Religion
Reply It's creepy, in a way... trotsky Aug 2013 Religion
Reply He called a particular subset of believers "suckers." trotsky Aug 2013 Religion

[rug]

172. Geez, talk about obsession and a personal attendant.

I think he said cbayer more than he said Dawkins.

[Starboard Tack]

179. Certainly makes one ponder the meaning of delusional and obsessive.

Makes Stupidity and Skepticism look lightweight in comparison.

[Goblinmonger]

187. He didn't say cbayer

more than you say atheist. Or perhaps even Dawkins.

[rug]

188. Which establishes what exactly?

I'll tell you this: Dawkins is a public figure and atheism is a public topic.

This perennial hounding of a DUer by Trotsky is way beyond the pale.

Now, is there anything more you want to say on the subject that is not a transparent attempt to derail? Let's go, Goblinmoger, I'm all ears.

[Goblinmonger]

189. I thought we were talking about what people were obsessed with.

I didn't realize it was just talking about trotsky and/or those that don't like cbayer.

Why didn't you make the "derail" comment to Starboard when he made his comments that had nothing to do with the OP? Oh, right, I forgot.

Carry on, then, I guess.

[rug]

190. There is no "we".

I was talking specifically about trotsky and his hounding, pointlessly and disruptively, another member.

Read that again. Slowly.

It's also not about the meta/shit of "those that don't like cbayer."

And I don't derail anyone who is humiliating someone who attacks his family.

If you want to spew meta, there's a group you host that spends half its time on it.

In the meantime, your coyness is wearing thin.

[Goblinmonger]

196. And trotsky has stated he has you and Starboard on ignore

yet you continue to respond to him and talk about him.

Pot, kettle. Plank in your own eye. Pick your zippy phrase.

[rug]

197. I frankly don't give a shit what he's said.

I was not responding to him at all.

Although I will if necessary.

Speaking of pots, I see you continued snarking her long after you knew she had you on ignore.

You should both grow up.

[Goblinmonger]

199. "Speaking of pots, I see you continued snarking her long after you knew she had you on ignore. "

I never condemned anyone for doing that. You and ST pretty much did.

[trotsky]

9. Well, let's see.

What do you think about the Age of Enlightenment, the change it represented, and the results it gave humanity?

And if you decide to commit yourself to the goal of establishing the "legitimacy of religion," why isn't everyone else's religion as legitimate as yours?

[Htom Sirveaux]

89. Can you make your first question more specific?

What understanding of the Age of Enlightenment am I being asked to give commentary on?
-
With regard to the second question, what do you mean by "everyone else's religion"? I certainly regard other religious traditions as equally legitimate to mine. But within each tradition, some interpretations are certainly better than others.

[rug]

173. Looks like he can't.

[trotsky]

183. Sure.

1. Did the Age of Enlightenment represent more of a break from religious thinking, or a more intense embrace of it?
2. Did the results of the AoE, such as the new government systems that came from the thinkers of the time, or the notions of rights, have a net benefit or harm to humans?

"But within each tradition, some interpretations are certainly better than others."

Why are you qualified to state this? Their religious beliefs are just as valid as yours. Neither one of you can prove that you are accurately following your god's will.

[Htom Sirveaux]

193. Hmmm, even with the added specifics (which I do appreciate, by the way)

I don't feel well versed enough in the nuances of the Age of Enlightenment to render a sufficiently well-formed opinion on its religious nature, at least until I learn more about it. I do approve of individual rights and the separation of church and state, if that helps.
-
I judge interpretations by their coherence and their consequences, but given your preference for moral subjectivism, I doubt that will satisfy you.

[trotsky]

194. I'm afraid what you don't understand...

is that your view of the "coherence and consequences" of someone else's beliefs is dependent upon your beliefs to start.

Let me return to my example - the anti-choice fundie whose religious beliefs include the belief that a human life begins at conception. To them, abortion is murder, plain and simple. They therefore will judge a pro-choice Christian's beliefs to be incoherent and destructive.

You do not possess the ability to judge other's religious beliefs as long as you're judging them based on yours.

[Htom Sirveaux]

200. I've been reflecting on your repeated raising of the issue of subjectivity

and I've realized that it's a red herring. Let's concede for the sake of argument that you're right, that all I've got is subjective opinion. That label has no practical effect unless it's attended by the moral claim that subjective opinion shouldn't be given authority over others. But that moral claim is itself a subjective opinion, and so contradicts its own enforcement. It would be an act of hypocrisy to claim authority for a subjective opinion that subjective opinions should not be given authority.

And just for the record, I've had the abortion argument with anti-choicers, and I've counter their claims with my own observations that they lead to enslavement of the woman to her fetus, and in a contest between an adult whose rights have attached, and a fetus whose status is controversial at best, the rights of the adult should control until the continued life of the fetus can be respected without infringing on the rights of the adult. That happens at viability.

[trotsky]

206. You can have that argument all you want.

But if the anti-choicer comes back to "This is what I believe, because God said so," you've got nothing. In fact, as a believer in a revealed religion, you MUST allow for the possibility of your god speaking to someone, and giving them new information that you don't have access to. That's how your religion started.

The red herring here is your attempt at critiquing my example by saying it's just "an issue of subjectivity." It's not. It's an example of two people - the anti-choicer and yourself - who BOTH think they have a claim to absolute morality. And when the former says their objectivity comes from what god has decreed, and does not accept any of your arguments otherwise, you're sunk.

(P.S. Drawing a line at "viability" is also problematic. Technology keeps pushing that timeframe back farther and farther. What would happen if we invent an artificial womb, and can transplant a day-old embryo into it, and bring the fetus to term?)

[Htom Sirveaux]

209. Ok, let's replay the scene with your argument:

Anti-choicer: God told me abortion is murder
You: You have no evidence of that.
Anti-choicer: Of course I do, I experienced God telling me that.
You: Well, that's not objective
Anti-choicer: So what?
You: So you can't base your political conclusions or policies off of subjective experience.
Anti-choicer; Who says, you? What authority do you have, compared to God?
You: ?
-
My point in playing this out is that you're applying a double standard. Your approach would fair no better than you claim mine would with someone who is convinced that God spoke to him, so it really doesn't mean that much when you claim that mine doesn't work for that reason.

(And under your scenario, I don't see a problem with keeping the line at viability. Even if viability were at a day, if an embryo could be removed and brought to term outside the womb, that would relieve the burden on the woman's body, thus preserving her right not to be pregnant if she does not want to be. Isn't that the whole issue?)

[trotsky]

212. That's inaccurate.

Here's how it should go:

Anti-choicer: God told me abortion is murder
Me: Everyone knows that divine revelation is nonsense.
THE END

Now if we had a majority of people who accepted that viewpoint, then his argument that "God told me abortion is murder" would seem as silly as "When I cast chicken bones, they said that abortion is wrong."

But we can't do that, because believers like you think that god can speak to people. So we can't dismiss his position out of hand.

[Htom Sirveaux]

215. Guess you'll just have to speak for yourself instead of everyone. nt

[trotsky]

216. Thank you for acknowledging my point is valid. n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

218. Hey, we all have dreams.

Your dream of a world where you can pretend to objectivity on the basis of commanding majority agreement is as valid as anyone else's.

[trotsky]

219. Would claiming a opinion based on the position of chicken bones be accepted today?

How about claiming god spoke to you?

What's the difference between those two claims, Htom?

[LiberalAndProud]

198. Every time I decide to leave this thread alone, a new idea is introduced.

That's a good thing.

What do you think is coherent about your interpretation that, for example, the Quiverfull movement lacks? As for moral subjectivism, I can't see that having a religious point of view nullifies the subjective nature of value judgments. Can you elaborate?

[Htom Sirveaux]

203. It's not necessarily having a religious point of view that nullifies subjectivism.

It's that if morality is what each individual says it is, then as soon as someone says that morality is objective, that can't be rejected without denying the premise of moral subjectivism. Not only that, under moral subjectivism, contradictory moral positions have equal validity, which means that "slavery is moral" has equal weight with "slavery is immoral" and all moral judgment goes out the window. Including the moral judgment that it's wrong to enforce your subjective religious opinions on others.
-
Liberal religion has superior coherency to, for example, Biblical inerrancy, because Biblical inerrantists interpret the Bible also, but deny that they are doing so. They fail to give each scripture equal weight because that's impossible as the Bible features a variety of inconsistent opinions, but that's what their method requires them to do. So if the Quiverfuls are Biblical inerrantists, they have less coherence than liberals do for that reason.

[Brettongarcia]

205. Sirveaux: 1) doesn't your liberal position assume subjectivism; i.e. in interpretations?

2) Traditionally in fact, subjectivism was the core principle in liberalism.

The founding belief of liberalism was that no one can really know what reality is like; it is always just "our subjective perception or idea of reality"; not reality "itself."

[LiberalAndProud]

11. My first thought was not charitable, but I will transcribe it here nonetheless.

My first thought was, "It's not my fault you all use the same book."

When you start arguing interpretation, I wonder how the liberal thinker believes he will win the argument. This isn't directed specifically at you, Htom. My brother and I often engage in this same disagreement. He believes conservative religious people are more likely to be swayed by explaining a more liberal interpretation of the same text. I am skeptical of that approach, but wish you both the best of luck. However, at least when they say to me, "You're not a true Christian," I take no argument.

[trotsky]

13. Actually, it's a pretty good question to direct specifically at Htom.

On previous threads he has claimed that he can change another person's morality by simply appealing to the objective moral standard that he has discovered, as well as being able to convince someone that divine revelation is only valid for confirming liberal political goals.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. trotsky, I love ya man.

But I don't think Htom said what you think he said. He said it doesn't take divine revelation to be able to see blatantly obvious things. I agree.
As for the objective moral standard, I missed that thread.

[trotsky]

15. I would love for you to explain what he meant, then.

Can you do that for me? The subthread starts here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218150784#post66

And I may not have been clear - I don't believe that Htom claimed that only divine revelation could tell us these things, but rather that anyone who used it any other way was just wrong. Please let me know if that doesn't match up with the exchange in that subthread.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. I really don't want to explain special revelation.

I do believe that some other people believe they have had a special revelation experiences. Sometimes that can end badly. I'll bet you can think of some instances where that was so.

As special revelations go, Htom's are rather benign and kind of nice to think about. So there is that.

Also, those people who do use special revelation in the way you're talking about are wrong. So we three agree on that as well.

So there. How did I do?

[trotsky]

17. I absolutely agree that Htom's view of it is benign.

However, the topic of the subthread was on how to prevent things like patriarchy through religion. I asked then, how we counter the notion of divine revelation. If someone steps up and says, "God told me women should be subservient," how do we counter that?

Sure we agree it's wrong. I believe it's because there is no such thing as divine revelation - at all. Htom thinks there is, just about the stuff that he supports. Htom accepts that divine revelation is a method of acquiring knowledge. If so, how can we tell who has actually acquired real knowledge and who is either mistaken or lying?

[LiberalAndProud]

18. How do we counter the religious notion that women should be subservient?

Tell them it's just a cultural anomaly and to not take it seriously, I guess. I tend to think it's less difficult to counter a personal divine revelation than the stuff that they actually wrote down.

As for Htom's belief in personal divine revelation, I must let him speak to that, as I share your disregard. Both my brother and my father claim to have had divine revelations which do, in fact, serve as proof for them of God's existence. Maybe I'm just jealous.

[trotsky]

19. Not exactly, I mean specifically counter that religious notion...

when it is presented as something acquired through divine revelation.

Because it seems to me to be a problem inherent in accepting divine revelation at all. Once you open that Pandora's box, anything can come out of it. I know of no mechanism by which we can tell whether someone TRULY received information from god, or if they are mistaken/lying. That's the biggest problem I see. The only way to solve it is to dismiss the notion entirely, as you and I do.

[LiberalAndProud]

20. Measuring.

You can't, you know. Except by fruit, if we were to be perfectly honest.

Some people believe wrong things. If you start from that axiom, where does that take you? I know the answer to that question. for me. Is that revelation? maybe. Is that divine? I wouldn't say so.

[trotsky]

21. Yeah but our judgment of the "fruit" is highly subjective.

As I've mentioned in this group many times, let's look at it from the perspective of a rabid anti-choicer. Someone who thinks a fertilized embryo is a full human being, and therefore that abortion is murder.

With those religious beliefs - based on divine revelation! - they're going to judge the "fruit" of alternate theologies (those which allow women reproductive choice) to be pretty rotten. It's the murder of another human being, to them. That would mean they would be fully justified in rejecting those other claims.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. I think we're looking for grapes and figs.

Not thorns or thistles. Does that help?

[trotsky]

24. You have to look for those too or you'll step on them. n/t

[Brettongarcia]

25. Or say, not just short-term but also long term survival; fruitfulness for mankind overall, long term

As in many of the now-prevailing Pragmatic naturalist moral theories, the important thing is the long-term survival and flourishing of mankind.

There abortion might look bad to some, short term (even there, not all); but better, if it helps prevent an overpopulation that destroys the environment and the future of mankind.

[LiberalAndProud]

90. It occurs to me

that the Quiverfull movement would like your phrase "long-term survival and flourishing of mankind." It's their vision of flourishing that I find really, truly scary.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. The traditional answer was: kill the false prophets.

See Maimonides. The idea was that if the penalty for lying about divine revelation was stoning to death, the risk posed by false prophets would be low. A better idea would be to chuck the fucking ridiculous idea of divine revelation.

[Brettongarcia]

28. Or if you're a religious liberal: tell them God told you that fundamenalism is wrong?

[trotsky]

29. Option B appears to be off the table for most liberal/moderate believers.

However, a way to counter the power of divine revelation when others claim it (apart from basically "because I say they're wrong&quot has yet to be presented.

[Brettongarcia]

31. I do that in my writings: the Bible itself warned about bad things in "all" holy men

"All" those who claimed to hear from God. When "the LORD himself has not spoken," etc..

[trotsky]

35. Well, as we all know, if you find a part of the bible you don't like...

just say it's allegorical. Or not intended for people today. Or you don't have to follow that because you don't like the other person. Or whatever. You know, the same thing some believers do when you point out the parts about not being a dick to your fellow human beings.

[Brettongarcia]

37. Yeah. But we've got 12 volumes of counter-responses. To each and every common Christian response

Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

See especially our bibliography; on dozens of counter-responses to apologetics that were designed to explain, excuse, the lack of huge physical miracles.

Then look at our extended arguments, two whole volumes, against the common notion that religion cannot be disproved by problems with physical promises - because they are just metaphors for "spiritual" things.

(Woodbridge Goodman's writings on the Science of God: specifically the bibliography on "Miracles," and the volumes on "Over-Spirituality." Etc..

[phil89]

66. Are these peer reviewed or

Based on any objective standards? I can't find them online.

[Brettongarcia]

70. These are unpublished rough drafts. But based on the finding that even the Bible supports Science.

Our arguments against Religion, and its many excuse-sermons, its attempts to excuse the failure of its promises of miracles and so forth, are 1)mostly Bible-based. We base our arguments against much of religion, promises of miracles, because these are the only kind of arguments that Christians listen to. Christians often only honor and listen to the Bible. And nothing else.

But? Our arguments are also 2) rational, and 3) occasionally use a simple kind of Science.

It's necessary to frame arguments that Christians might feel compelled to consider. And the only way to do that is to advance mostly Bible-based, quote-based arguments. In order to show that the one source most Christians honor - the Bible itself - attacks physical miracles for example, we use dozens of quotes from the Bible itself. But these show religion attacking itself; the Bible attacks the common arguments (known as "apologetics&quot that seek to excuse the lack of them, for example. http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/gods-science-5-4-no-miracles-and-no-sermons-excuse-that/

But then, after Bible-based arguments addressed to believers? Then we offer for science-based folks, a very, very simple schematic of very simple, early experiments that tended to disprove say, miracles. (See the account of Pat Robertson promises a miracle, say?).

Again, these writings frame arguments against Christianity, PRIMARILY by using biblical quotes: since that is the only kind of argument most believers listen to. But for those who are interested in science-based arguments? There are lots of those elsewhere. And we at least also outline 1) a biblical justification for science, in these dozen or so rough-draft volumes.

Then too? 2) The major point of our series is to show that the Bible itself advocated Science. While 3) we quickly sketch a few casual proto-scientific situations that would question, say, physical miracles.

Then to be sure? 3) We leave it to the larger community of science and reason, to speak next, outside our present writings.

Still we extend proto-scientific arguments for materialism, and against spirituality, say. Showing that religion MUST, even according to its own biblical texts, submit itself to matter-based, scientific verification. Or disconfirmation.

It seems simple enough in any case, to disprove the promise of "all" the giant physical miracles we "ask" for. Just ask for one "now"; then observe that it doesn't show up. Science can then easily confirm your initial impression. Indeed it is so easy to do, that science hasn't bothered to do this for the last hundred years or so. Though you can go into early experiments on the "supernatural," and "magic." Some of which bothered to continue as late as 1930 or so. Though mostly this issue was regarded as firmly decided, a hundred years ago. Firmly enough that further experiments were not thought to be needed.

But if you find someone willing? It would be easy enough to set up such experiements. as noted here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

92. Where have I claimed that?

I'm happy to address it if I've actually said it, but right now that doesn't sound like a fair characterization of what we were discussing. Your contention has been that I have no way of resisting ("countering" was the specific term you used) conservative moral claims and special revelation, if religion is allowed into the conversation at all. I've been replying with arguments to demonstrate how I would resist. What you've said above makes it sound like I"m claiming that I can change someone's mind with a simple wave of my magic argument, which is not how persuasion works in any context involving strongly held positions. That goes above and beyond "countering," in my view.

[trotsky]

182. In your patriarchal religion thread.

You've claimed to present arguments that neuter the ability of another believer to claim special revelation. I don't see any in that thread. Not in your OP, nor in any of your responses to me in which you only presented your opinion, like this:

"Special revelations are for things like: even though it looks like the 1%ers are in charge now and ever will be, ultimately the poor and oppressed will triumph. Something that isn't obvious from history."

Let's go back to my example. A guy says that god told him women should be subservient to men. Does that quote of yours above counter his belief in any way, shape, or form?

[Htom Sirveaux]

191. How do you determine whether I've succeeded in "countering" or "neutering"?

Up until now, you've just been declaring that I haven't succeeded, but I haven't seen any kind of measure by which you make that determination.

[okasha]

192. Well, if you've "neutered" it,

there should be some anatomical detritus.

Freudianly slip-slidin' awa-ay....

[trotsky]

195. Shall we put it to the test?

Next time WBC is picketing in your area, how about you go down and explain to them why they're wrong. Then we'll know if you can effectively counter someone else's belief about what god has said to them.

[Htom Sirveaux]

201. I'd love to.

But that's not a good test any more than a failure to argue a creationist into evolution says anything about the status of arguments for evolution.

[trotsky]

207. Why isn't it a good test?

You've said that you can counter claims of divine revelation. Now when asked to prove it, you admit your methods won't work.

[Htom Sirveaux]

210. I don't accept your understanding of "counter"

You think I'm required to convince someone just by arguing, and I've already told you that persuasion rarely works that way for many topics.

You wouldn't think your arguments for evolution were a failure if they failed to convince Ken Ham, so asking me to do the equivalent is an unfair test. It's a double standard.

[trotsky]

213. You're the one who said you had arguments against it, that you could effectively oppose it.

You've failed to demonstrate that, and now you are backing off.

[Htom Sirveaux]

214. I can't back off a definition of "counter" I never agreed to. nt

[trotsky]

217. Funny how you didn't oppose it til you realized the corner you were in.

Take care.

[Htom Sirveaux]

90. Personal encounters are what end up making the real difference.

The arguments are necessary but not sufficient. Reactionary religion relies on high boundaries and uncharitable understandings of those who live outside said boundaries. Genuine friendships and warm family relationships between liberals and conservatives break down those boundaries and have the potential to spark reconsideration.

[LiberalAndProud]

93. Those high boundaries you mentioned can sever those warm relationships.

True story.

In he end, Htom, you and I offer equally sacrilegious notions in the mind of our imaginary reactionary friend. Satan quoted scripture, after all. I do wish you luck. Truly.

[Htom Sirveaux]

94. Yes, that is true, and it's a horrible tragedy

when that happens. I'm not sure anything can be done in those cases beyond caring for those emotionally injured by severed bonds, along with waiting and hoping for an unforeseen event to alter the scenario.

I deeply appreciate your warm wishes, and I offer you mine in return in your own struggle with reactionary religion and it's political agendas.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Here's where I am unable to follow your proposition.

We have people, here, on DU, posting about what a breath of fresh air the new Pope is, because he's made a couple noises and nice gestures, while ignoring all the horrible, misogynistic and homophobic things he is on the record as having said.

These are people we can assume are politically left-leaning.

When some of us point out what a vile pile of baggage the man brings along with him, there is a fight, every time, as people defend him.

So this isn't all of us liberals, atheists and believers alike, facing an enemy shoulder to shoulder together against conservatives. Conservatives aren't even allowed to post here. (Discussionist is a different matter)

"In 2010, as Argentina debated a marriage equality bill, Bergoglio called on Catholics to oppose the move, calling it the devil's handiwork.

“Let's not be naïve, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” Bergoglio wrote in a letter calling on followers to join a protest rally in Buenos Aires.

“We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a move by the Father of Lies which aims to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Bergoglio went on to say that gay adoption is discriminatory to children: “At stake are the lives of many children who'll be discriminated against in being deprived of the human growth that God wanted to be given through a father and a mother.”"

That man actively campaigned in Argentina to block and prevent the passage of same-sex-marriage. I do not share political ground with him, or with people who would defend him. Or the 1.3 billion or so catholics that look to him for spiritual guidance. Nor the rest of the Christian non-catholics that make noises about how much they like him even though they aren't catholic.

As long as there are people on this site, here on DU, that will reflexively defend people like the Pope, then there will be "mutual suspicion and/or antagonism.", as one singular issue/data point. There are certainly more, but that illustrates the mechanism.

[Lordquinton]

22. The problem is that both liberal and conservatives pull from the same book

And both sides have plenty of passages to back them up, and it could easily be said that both sides are correct, so how can you reconcile that?

[Htom Sirveaux]

96. Reconcile that with what? nt

[Brettongarcia]

30. Sirveaux semantically "frames" the situation, to obscure the problem of liberal "enablers"

The difference between Liberal Christians and Atheists is here being smoothed over by Sirveaux. In his attempt to focus on one major in-common problem: Fundies. But?

This framing obscures the problem that 1) even Liberal Christianity itself has problems within it.

And 2) the possibility that sidling up to Fundies, will in the end seem to give them more support, than correction; and it will just "enable" them. Strengthening their belief in "God" and revelation after all, lends support to them, more than criticism.

Maybe it is better therefore, to continue to attack the whole notion say, of Divine Revelation. And the most fundamental concepts. Which in part are shared by Liberal Christians.

Would this be a temporary truce between Liberal Christians and Atheists? Or would it become a sly separate deal, designed to separate, cut out some Atheists? Some might support that. But it looks a little too sly by half. "Divide and Conquer."

Like most of Sirveaux's work, this post betrays the classic sly semantic and framing tricks, of the classic liberal apologist. Play sophistical word games, until the unpalatable and irreconcilable looks good. "It's all just a metaphor." To at least some people.

Still, a temporary truce?

[cbayer]

32. "the classic sly semantic and framing tricks, of the classic liberal apologist."

I am sure you realize this is a site for liberals.

[Brettongarcia]

33. "Apologists" though, are liberal RELIGIOUS folks

Which is a different subset of Liberalism from ATHEIST liberals.

Related to this by the way? Beyond liberalism is another group: out-and-out Leftists. Who don't believe in God at all. And who often criticize even Liberalism.

There are critiques of middle class Liberalism, both from 1) the Right, but also from 2) the Left. Some atheists are in the second group.

[cbayer]

34. Oh, it's only religious liberals that you have an issue with,

not all liberals. Glad you cleared that up.

[Brettongarcia]

36. What would be wrong with that?

[cbayer]

39. It's a prejudice. It would be the same if you had an issue with liberal atheists

and applied all kinds of things to them as if they were some monolithic entity.

[Brettongarcia]

40. It's not a "prejudice," if science has proven all religion false, a "delusion" (Freud)

[cbayer]

41. Science has not proven all religion false, a "delusion"

It's a prejudice.

[Brettongarcia]

42. Pray for "all" the miracles Jesus did, and "greater things than these." Then observe the results.

John 14.13 ff.

[cbayer]

43. Huh? Are you claiming that this is scientific evidence that all religion is false?

[Brettongarcia]

44. Nah. But a MAJOR part of it, first of all: 1) promises of physical miracles on demand

The above of course, is a very, very informal proto-scientific proof. It's something any kid could do at home though.

Then? It's a VERY simple matter to formalize this with full scientific method in a situation with controlled variables. Set up a few hundred Christians who believe in physical miracles on demand, as per John 14.13. Then have them "ask" for a giant physical miracle, like walking on water, "now." Then closely observe the results.

After showing huge problems with 1) religious promises of physical miracles on demand? Then we move on to another major element of religion: 2) religious belief in "spirit&quot s) and spirituality.

[cbayer]

46. This isn't even informal scientific proof. It bears no resemblance to science whatsoever.

Get back to me when you have applied scientific method with controlled variables and can offer some proof that religion is false.

In the meantime, it's a prejudice.

[Brettongarcia]

47. Does cbayer seriously believe that science validates promises of physical miracles on demand?

Actually, such studies were carried out long, long ago, in the pre-Internet era. With regard in part to related "magic" tricks, but also religion. Ask the magician to make a rabbit appear in a top hat; or a Christian to make real actual bread appear out of thin air. Or in more recent Psychology: examine those who claim to read minds by way of spirits, and so forth. Or: look for evidence of "sprits."

This was done quite some time ago.

Though perhaps public re-creations, and modern refinements of their method today, would be useful.

[cbayer]

48. No, cbayer seriously believes that there is no scientific proof that religion is false.

cbayer also thinks that those that hold such a position are prejudiced and don't have a leg to stand on.

[rug]

49. O, no! You've caught it! You're talikng in the third person!

[cbayer]

51. It's a virus, I tell you.

[okasha]

77. But there's hope!

She's not referring to herself in the plural, yet. Prompt treatment should be effective.

[rug]

95. The first person plural is a whole other virus.

[okasha]

127. I fear you're right.

It's an almost inevitable secondary infection.

But cbayer's strong constitution should be able to resist it.

[Brettongarcia]

50. So 1) disproof of physical miracles on demand, would not be a first leg in disproving religion?

And then say 2) beginning to confirm these preliminary suggestions of problems, using Freud. Who said "all religion is a delusion." That also would be useless?

Since Freud was say, entirely a fraud? Says cbayer, host of Democratic Underground's "Mental Health Information" group? Surely you do not say that?

Host: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=128614).

[cbayer]

52. It may or may not be a "first leg" but it doesn't offer proof.

You made a definitive statement about religion being false. You can't back it up.

I didn't say Freud was a fraud. There are many things that the good doctor and I disagree about, but I honor him for his brilliance.

[Brettongarcia]

55. Can anyone disprove all of religion, in just a tiny blog posting or two? Of course not.

I'm just offering preliminary evidence. Just the quickest sketch. Much, much more follows.

In addition to 1) the evidence against physical miracles, then 2) Freud calling "all" religion delusory. Then I've recently noted 3) some surprising BIBLICAL arguments against "all" religion: "all have sinned"; "no one is good but God" himself.

If "all" have sinned, then our highest religious leaders sinned too. And we show, made mistakes in describing God; according to the Bible. While there are arguments that nothing washed those sins away; not even the "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit.

Then 4) I offered any etymological argument from Plato. That suggested that the very concept of Religion was flawed, by the very nature of its name, and central characterization. Plato said the word "religion" came from roughly, "re-leger," or re-telling stories, even hypnotically, over and over. Plato's implication was that Religion was based not on intelligence or proof; but on hearsay and common propaganda.

This and about two dozen more arguments finally add up to something.

Note furthermore, that many of these and then other arguments, are arguments not just against this or that PART of Religion. But explicitly "ALL" of it. Collectively. Every bit of it.

"All" have sinned; even your own priest or minister or church. Collectively. Then even your highest Christian apostles individually and by name, if necessary too (Mat. 16.23).

[cbayer]

57. Let's just start with god, ok.

Any scientific evidence that disproves god?

Because without that, you can pick at the little bits all you want, but you will not prove religion is false.

[Brettongarcia]

58. If you have a god that promises physical miracles on demand, but those provably don't arrive?

Then you have disproved THAT idea of God.

Next?

[cbayer]

60. You may have disproved an idea, but you haven't disproved a god.

Next?

[Brettongarcia]

61. That would disprove a very common NOTION of God; the God said to work physical miracles on demand.

Essentially that was the God of most of the Bible; Old and New Testaments both (to some degree).

So advance another idea of God; let's see if that holds up.

Would you like to examine the notion of a transcendent God? One who, by virtue of being transcendent, allegedly cannot be proved or disproved?

It's useful to show problems with all the major individual assertions about or characterizations of God. In fact, we have to cover them; since otherwise the term is undefined.

So what concept of God would you like to examine, next?

You seem to have in mind the transcendent God; above all characterizations. Ineffable. And therefore seemingly above all disproofs.

[cbayer]

62. You can not disprove god.

As I said, you can nibble around the corners, but you have nothing definitive.

To claim otherwise is folly.

I am done with this conversation. As I said, when you have some proof, get back to me.

[Brettongarcia]

63. No one can prove OR disprove a term you refuse to define. That is foolishness.

You're copping out; and in a cheap way.

You have proposed a term that literally, has no meaning as yet. To try to address that (or believe in it either) would be simple tomfoolery.

You are afraid of the results of any honest inquiry. You fail to respond, except with an arbitrary objection. You are offering no reasons at all; just flat assertions of the impossibility of the task. Ms cbayer offering no proofs of that impossibility.

Should ANYONE respect THAT?

If you'd like to give honest discussion an honest chance, then why don't you start by saying WHY you think no one can disprove God.

[cbayer]

65. Exactly! God is a concept that can not be defined.

You have hit the golden nugget. I do not believe there will ever be proof or disproof.

And I will challenge anyone who says they have either.

[Brettongarcia]

71. Having no definition, it therefore has no meaning either.

And therefore can be safely ignored.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. A conceptual god is more perfect than an actual god!

Therefore god does not exist.

[Brettongarcia]

79. Or, if the concept proves incoherent or indefinable? Then it is literally, non-sense.

By the way? Most of the time, even those who say God is "indefinable" after all, still try to saying SOMETHING positive about him: he is "creator of the universe," or "giver of miracles," say. But then we have SOME defined things in this "indefinable" entity.

If we say NOTHING about him, then we can hardly defend him; having nothing to say.

[LiberalAndProud]

84. You are shifting the burden of proof.

The burden is fixed on the affirmative team.

We do this all the time in real life. CTs get sent to the basement here; the evidence is not sufficient to prove the claims. Anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept should provide sufficient support.

Without those rules, I could say that a dragon flew over my house today. Do you believe me? Well, prove that it didn't. If you can't prove it didn't, then it might be so. Mightn't it?
I think you have pretty solid reasons to believe that a dragon did not fly over my house, today or any other day. Why would you have to prove that?

"Prove it isn't," is simply not a sound argument.

Will it be better if I concede that I cannot know with certainty that there are no gods? Conceded, to the same degree that you can't know for certain that a dragon did not fly over my house today.



Eta: A personal note for cbayer. I so admire that you're willing to have these conversations. You keep them interesting.

[cbayer]

165. No, I am not.

I did make a definitive statement. I have no opinion on whether a god exists or not.

The person I am responding to made the definitive statement. He said religion had been disproved by science. I brought it down to it's simplest form - the existence of a god. The burden is entirely on him to prove his assertion.

So, you are right. If one makes a claim which they consider rational and expect others to accept, they should provide sufficient support. He hasn't and he can't.

Thanks for the compliment. I think you have been a very positive addition to this group and very much welcome your input.

[okasha]

86. Re 4).

Plato was Greek. There is no evidence that he knew any Latin at all, much less enough to discuss the etymology of Latin words. You're simply fabulating here and hoping no one will notice.

The actual derivation of the word "religion" is from Latin roots signifying either "reconnect" or "reconsider, consider carefully. "

[Brettongarcia]

99. Woops. Meant "Cicero"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

Clever fellow, Cicero.

[okasha]

107. LOL

You've made that slip-up multiple times. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[Brettongarcia]

114. The link is to the etymological dictionary.

There's been significant academic discussion on Cicero's important point: his implication that "re-ligion" therefore meant simply repeating old things over and over. Until they seemed true. The classic principle in Propaganda.

The essential point is still there. And it's an important one. That you have not addressed.

You're good at name calling. But what about the essential argument? The most important point ... that you as usual, are desperate to distract attention from.

Anyone who wants to can link on my link; and find out that my argument is indeed, classic.

[okasha]

120. Anyone who clicks on that link

will find that you've misreprented Cicero's derivation. According to him, it means to "reread." or, as I've stated, "reconsider." Your amateur derivation is inaccurate.

[Brettongarcia]

121. As usual, you just can't accurately deal with scholastic sources. Here's what it says, quoted direct

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)).

[okasha]

129. Thanks. QED.

[Brettongarcia]

134. No, Okahsa; thank YOU. Here's what you missed: repetion in reading and "thought"

[okasha]

138. Uhm, no. "Reconsider" covers that amply.

[Brettongarcia]

144. Except "reconsider" is not in THIS definition. Leaving the meaning simple "repetition" open.

The preferred reading of Cicero that is furthermore, supported by the scholarly literature. The literature that you as usual, seem not to know about; assuming that I "made it up."

In the preferred direct transcription: it means reading the same stories over and over. Mindlessly saying the same things over and over. The basic principle of mind-washing: hypnotic repetition.

Learning by rote. Never learning critical thinking. Or learning to think about, and understand the arguments.

Just memorizing things without understanding; through repetition of to many, mysterious phrases.

[okasha]

150. You've attached meanings to it

that come from nowhere but your imagination. Once again, thanks for making my case for me.

[Brettongarcia]

154. Still haven't looked up the academic articles on "my" reading yet, have you?

[okasha]

155. To which the fundamentalist replies,

"You shall not tempt thr Lord your God" (Matthew 4-7) and "An evil and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but the only sign it will receive is the sign of the prophet Jonah." (Matthew 12:39.)

Your "experiment" only provides futher confirmation for the fundamentalist.

[Brettongarcia]

159. "Tempt" means not to tempt God's patience by doing rash things

While elsewhere God tells us "put me to the test says the LORD" (Mal. 3.10); "test everything" (1 Thess. 5.21?).

Then in Dan. 1.4-15 KJE and 1 Kings 18.20-40, God explicitly commends people of "science." And then God not only allows but commands us to set up what were, for the times, early versions of scientific experiments. To see which ideas of God were true, and which were false. By means of objective material results. Measured by science.

As usual, Fundamentalists were very, very wrong. They got things almost exactly wrong.

Liberals made plenty of mistakes too, to be sure.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. science cannot prove all delusions false either.

so you might not be making the point you want to make there.

[Brettongarcia]

56. Feel free to repeat that argument. And then I'll suggest some friendly counterarguments

Among other things, they would probably NOT have been called "delusions" by scientists, if they were not thought to be false.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. "thought to be false" and "provably false" are different statements.

Bayer is hanging her assertion on "provably".

[Brettongarcia]

76. Well, MANY key assertions CENTRAL to Christianity say, CAN be disproved; found to be delusions.

And thus the core falls.

For example? My favorite is: the promises of/belief in "all" the physical "miracles" we "ask" for. If that promise in John 14.13 ff was true, then we should be able to "ask" God to make a thousand loaves of actual bread appear in front of us, "now"; and it would happen. Since it demonstrably does not happen in most cases? Then this major idea in the very core of much of Christianity, fails to be true. Making any such belief a "delusion."

The fact is that we can prove dozens of core assertions in Christianity to be false. And that is enough. Logically if we proven even one, then much of Christianity begins to crumble; or technically, because it claims to be "infallible," then ALL of it.

Many will accept the collapse of parts of it; but then defend other parts. While they give up on "infallibility. But next we can disprove one after another part. Including usually their favorite part.

So that finally the Christian is left holding on to almost nothing; and then eventually, nothing at all.

1) Simple attrition has some use. As the core assertions of traditional Christianity crumble one by one, finally even the most loyal individual begins to read the writing on the wall.

2) Then too? I'm offering several arguments against "all" of religion too.

So can we "only" prove that the top 100 ideas of Christianity are "delusions"? That means the vast majority of Christianity is disproven. Then there are the arguments against "all," to fill in the gaps.

It takes a lot of patience to do hundreds of these one by one. But if you write out just one a day, for 500 days, that pretty much does it.

Another one? If you demonstrate even a single delusion in a given belief system or theology, then the whole is no longer "perfect." No longer "holy." And therefore no longer real religion.

Yes, there are hundreds of counter-arguments to answer. But finally its not so hard to answer even hundreds of them.

One by one. Then collectively, "all" of them too.

Reminds me of the cure that they used to offer to children carrying security blankets. On day 1, tear a third off the blanket. Then next another 1/3. Keep doing that until they are holding on to a postage stamp. And they begin to realize how silly it all was.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. the religionists will just go all metaphor and allegory on anything substantive.

So you are left having to prove unicorns don't exist anywhere in the universe, or perhaps even outside the universe, whatever the heck that means.

It is a dishonest claim. The claimants know it is dishonest. "Prove my conceptual deity doesn't exist!" so there, gotcha!

[Brettongarcia]

82. Nah. I wrote my PhD disservation on metaphors in part; no problem there.

A few arguments against the "metaphors" arguments. First most of the "God is metaphor" arguments insist more specifically that "the things of the Bible are metaphors for SPIRITUAL things" not material things, specifically. So say, when God promised us "water," that was not meant to mean literal, actual water in the desert, say; but only the metaphorical "water" of his saving ideas or spirit. But there are dozens of arguments against spirituality in turn.

1) First much of the Bible WAS historically taken as literal; if it wasn't true literally, then historical Christianity was false.

2) So what about modern, spiritual Christianity? When someone says the Bible is metaphorical, usually they want to say specifically that it was all metaphor for "spiritual" things. But then? There are a dozen arguments, even biblical ones, against spirituality. Essentially a) the Bible itself often warned about false things even in spirits and spirituality: "false spirits." We can have the wrong idea of the spirit message.

b) Especially the Bible warned that religion that gives us only spirit, but not material things like real actual literal food or "bread," leaves us literally, physically starving to death (James 2.14-26). If we do not live by literal, physical "bread alone," we live by bread in part. And a religion that does not take responsible care of the physical, material side of life, that gives us only "words," "spirit," but not the physical things we need to live, is a literally, physically crippling and fatal.

These responses to "spiritual" things will cover about 99% of "metaphor" arguments.

Concepts? Mention a few more specific claims of what concept they say god is, and I'll offer counter-arguments. One first method around the "concept" God, is to note that MOST of Christianity contains dozens of rather concrete particulars about God; his promises of miracles and so forth. Particulars that can be disproved. So major elements of Christianity collapse. Note what I'm saying about some of cbayer's concepts for example.

Other concepts? Some say God is Good itself. But that's disproved, by the Argument from Evil: if God created everything, then he must have created all the evil in the universe.

All the main apologetic arguments for Christianity have sharp rebuttals.

To be sure, the list of Christian defensive sermons and homilies, is ALMOST endless. And when you are talking to a priest, minister, or seminarian, or trained defender of the faith, you are talking to a highly trained professional. Who spend decades reading the Bible; then memorizing a playbook of hundreds of standard responses to the usual objections to Christianity. Which makes it hard for the amateur to respond effectively.

However? Some atheists have also gone to church for years; and some of them like me are now compiling our own lists of hundreds of counter responses to the usual attacks.

It's a lot of work. But some of us are now trying to do much of the work for the rest. Many of my own rough draft books are in effect responses to standard Christian defensive arguments or "apologetics."

Hopefully some one will compile a master list or web site, alphabetized.

Anyone here want to help?

[LiberalAndProud]

202. Check this out.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

[Brettongarcia]

204. Thanks! A useful list of arguments against common Christian apologetics

[LiberalAndProud]

208. You're welcome.

The name tickles me.

[font size="1"]And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.[/font]

[Brettongarcia]

211. It is cute: "Iron Chariots" invokes modern re-evaluations, updates, replacements, of old ideas.

It might be a rejection of the past. But also maybe to naturalistic interpretations of old "miracles"?

So for example, I sometimes suggest that if Moses was said to have been lead by a "miraculous" column of smoke by day, fire by night, that might be a garbled reference by confused followers, to signal fires.

Such naturalistic re-readings of religion sometimes find SOME kind of truth to religion. But it wasn't really what most people thought it was. Whatever truth it had in it, was in the moments it came closest to science and technology.

[phil89]

67. "Science"doesn't tend to worry much

about Unfalsifiable claims

[cbayer]

68. You are absolutely correct about that.

That is why this is the silliest of silly arguments.

[Brettongarcia]

72. That's one fairly good response. But? Note cbayer; some use that, to get around it all. So?

Many Christians use the unfalsifiable idea to crow that their God therefore can't be disproven.

So in response? We note that not all parts of God are unfalsifiable. Many parts of the Bible promise very material, physical miracles. And they, being physical and material, should be falsifiable by Science.

So we can take a promise attributed to god - of "all" the physical "miracles" we "ask" for. Then ask for it, say "now." And if they don't show up? Then we have disproved a major part of the traditional Christian God.

Much of Christianity in fact, is easily falsifiable.

[phil89]

125. How is a miracle physical? Could you point me to the

recorded, measurable examples of miracles? And precisely what parts of christianity are falsifiable? I think we're throwing Occam's Razor out the window. And what of other religions making the same claims?

[Brettongarcia]

130. PROMISED miracles, were often pictured as graphic physical events:

Jesus allegedly makes real physical "loaves and fished" appear in empty baskets.

Moses allegedly parts real, actual seas, water.

Moses makes actual water flow from literal, physical rocks.

In the tradition of Christianity, miracle healings of our physical bodies are continually recounted.

Dozens more, if not hundreds in both 1) the Bible itself apparently; and 2) in mainstream Christian traditions.

Other religions make similar claims ... and are equally false.

[Htom Sirveaux]

97. Freud was half right.

Freud's claim that religion was the result of unconscious death aversion turns out to apply to only some kinds of religion. For more on that, see The Authenticity of Faith: The Varieties and Illusions of Religious Experience by Richard Beck.

[Brettongarcia]

109. That was not the only way Freud tied Religion to Psychiatry

Among other things, it was also a "wish-fulfillment fantasy" for the poor, for example. Follow God, and get miracles as well as heaven.

[Htom Sirveaux]

115. Where did Freud say that?

I suspect you may have gotten Freud confused with Marx.

[Brettongarcia]

117. Here's one link. No time to fully track it down

"Freud thought the concept of God was illusionary. In one of his religious works, The Future of an Illusion, he wrote, “They [believers] give the name of ‘God’ to some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves.”

As to the motivation for creating such illusions, Freud believed two basic things: (1) people of faith create a god because they have strong wishes and hopes within them that act as comfort against the harshness of life; (2) The idea of God comes from the need for an idyllic father figure that eclipses either a non-existent or imperfect real father in the life of a religiously-minded person. Speaking of the supposed wish-fulfillment factor in religion, Freud wrote, “They [religious beliefs] are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. We call belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation and in doing so we disregard its relation to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#ixzz3CU3S5qXe "

http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html

No confusion here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

122. Nope, the poverty gloss is one you applied.

Nothing on that website specifically applied "wish fulfillment" to the context of poverty. Again, Marx, not Freud.

[Brettongarcia]

124. Nah. They wish to escape the "harshness of life."

That will eventually include poverty. It also includes imperfect fathers. Who are seen as inadequate material beings in part.

So it's easy enough to join Freud to Marxism. As many theoreticians do. (Cf. Lacan vs. Foucault?). In strict Freudianism, it also ultimately has to do with the retention of feces, as a desired material object or possession.

Here in any case we have Freud calling religion an illusion and delusion. And wish-fulfillment fantasy. Not just an evasion of death.

Death? Being the ultimate form of material deprivation in turn. A point that even the Bible made (Ecclesiastes). Don't value wealth and your own body, it was claimed; because in effect you can't take it with you. But Heaven promised retention of that sacred self in some sense. Even better, the resurrection of the "body."

[trotsky]

38. I have an issue with liberals who oppose reproductive choice.

I also have an issue with liberals who oppose gun control.

You yourself despise liberals who aren't fans of religion.

It's OK for people to disagree, cbayer - and you need to accept that it's OK for them to disagree with you.

[cleanhippie]

45. "Oh, it's only religious liberals that you have an issue with". In the context of enabling fundies.

Thanks for obscuring that completely.

[Brettongarcia]

64. That WAS the point of the OP. But if it gets diverted into proof or dispoof of God/religion?

That could be a useful return to what is the core problem.

Might as well start to do that here I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. .

[cbayer]

59. Really?

[cleanhippie]

75. Lol. The intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Great job, cbayer. You really showed him.

[okasha]

69. Wrong, as usual.

More than a few of us "out-and-leftists" do in fact believe in God (s). I'm one. There are a few more who post in this group, but I'll let them speak for themselves.

[Brettongarcia]

78. Correction: I should have said "most" leftists don't believe in God.

Most classic leftists regard the whole concept of God and his heaven, as a transparent lie or trick, used by our rulers to fool us.

Telling people for instance that there is an invisible person in the sky watching them all the time, a god who will send them to heaven or to hell when they die, is usually thought to be a transparent trick. To get people to behave, even when the police are not around. (Other kinds of religion have similar problems).

In effect, Religion is seen as a means that our rulers use religion, promises of heaven, to control the people; with a lie. Since the real root is the exploitation, tricking of the lower classes by the rulers, the upper class, it's thought to be a tool used by the rich, against the poor; in class warfare. A situation described by Karl Marx; father of most if not all, leftism.

Since the root idea of much classic Leftism is Marxist, and Marxism/Leninism became rather adamantly atheistic, it is normally a reasonable assumption that the average leftist that you meet, will be an atheist.

Not all it seems. But probably most.

In any case, this minor point is a mere distraction or red herring. The dozens of answers to Christian excuses, apologetics offered above, would be by far the most important thing offered in my responses above.

[okasha]

85. Still wrong, as usual.

Liberation theology is a leftist interpretation of religion that has taken root in all the liberal Christian denominations and among a number of evangelical bodies. The very foundation myth of all forms of Judaism is anti-imperialist. Native American societies tend to be socialist in practice and in theology.

Etc.

[LiberalAndProud]

88. How important do you find the anti-imperialist message to be?

I know a Christian (at least one) who thinks that may be the primary message of the first Gospel. It's really an interesting perspective, imo.

[okasha]

98. It's extremely important. I'd say essential.

Jesus's Kingdom of Heaven is explicitly set up as an alternative to the Roman Empire. He apparently came from a nationalist family, and a number of scholars now identify the apostle Simon "called the Zealot" with Jesus's brother of the same name. Many of the mythologizing elements of the Gospels are borrowed directly from the cult of the Emperor, again explicitly setting up a messianic king in contrast to Caesar. (See esp. Crossan's. Jesus and Empire. )

[LiberalAndProud]

103. I swear I must know you IRL.

Yes. Those ideas are intriguing, even in the absence of belief. I can't argue the intent of the writers. Very interesting to think about.

[Htom Sirveaux]

123. Crossan's book is excellent

precisely because of the information you cite. That clarified a lot for me.

[Brettongarcia]

128. You and Crosson don't see imperialist ambitions in the Jewish god that will rule "all nations"?

And have them bowing in subjugation to Israel?

[Htom Sirveaux]

137. Nope.

The idea is that the nations will recognize of their own accord the goodness of God, and come to Zion of their own free will. See Yoram Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture for that discussion.

[Brettongarcia]

139. Free will - after considerable military warfare against them? Jesus F. Christ! Read the Bible!

See the Bible itself. Israel goes into physical battle with much of the rest of the world, in Armageddon and so forth.

Don't trust religious leaders,and liberal topspin/twisting of scriptures.

[Htom Sirveaux]

143. Armageddon is from the Book of Revelation.

I'm talking Isaiah 2:2-4, where we read this:

2 In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised above the hills;
all the nations shall stream to it.
3 Many peoples shall come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

[Brettongarcia]

147. Look again. Your own quote refers implicitly to earlier actual warfare as part of the larger process

Then there are HUNDREDS of places in the OT (and NT) where Israel goes into literal war with other nations. Essentially the people come to peace ... having been brought to it by military force, and massive killings.

Guess your liberal ministers left that out? Or spin-doctored or semantically "twist"ed that? Semantic tricks and logical sophistry are the hallmark of liberal exegesis. That's where you learned it: the ministers.

Don't trust any religious leaders. "All have sinned."

[Htom Sirveaux]

162. "All have sinned"...except you?

And that's why I should agree with your Biblical interpretation and not "the liberal ministers"?

[Brettongarcia]

174. When I was younger, when I seemed to assert that Christianity was true? Some very wise people

with a cautious look ... asked me to promise to read the Bible itself.

I did. And I found a massively self-critical and finally self-cancelling side to it. The Bible contains literally hundreds of warnings about bad - and in its language, "false" - things in essentially every aspect of religion, even Christianity religion, from A to Z. From "angels" and "anointing and Christian "apostles," "baptism," and "faith"; all the way through to "spirit," "worship," and "zeal."

So I'll just relay the wisdom I heard, and found true: I'll just ask that your yourself, to simply read the Bible.

Read the Bible widely, and with an open and independent mind.

Then tell us what you see.

[okasha]

136. It was a light-bulb moment for me, too.

[Brettongarcia]

101. Except? Note problems to this day for the Church, in recognizing its Liberation Theology founder

The problem is its Marxist roots; which were mostly atheist.

Judaism is anti-imperialist? The same Judaism that said that "all nations" would bow at its feet?

By the way? Worldwide, it was atheist Communism that ruled whole nations like the USSR and China. So? The great bulk of atheists worldwide ... has been Marxist/Leninists atheists.

Liberation theologians have been trying to in part obscure THAT tie to be sure.

[okasha]

113. See post 108.

[Brettongarcia]

118. Then one of my responses like 116

Your 108 does not answer about 5 of my objections to you, by the way

[okasha]

146. According to news items posted right here in DU,

Pope Francis has warmly received Gustavo Gutierrez at the Vatican, lifted the teaching/publication ban on Boff and other leftist priests, and reopened the canonization process of Archbishop Oscar Romero.. (He's playing catch-up on Romero, who has already been named a saint by the Anglican churches and the liberal branch of the Lutherans.)

Of course, liberation theology goes directly back to the Gospels. See the Magnificat. An Episcopal priest of my acquaintance likes to point out that "Our Lady St. Mary was the first liberation theologian."

[Brettongarcia]

153. Yes. Notice it's a little belated? Notice that it is yet to be fully accepted? Guess why?

First: the canonization process was "reopened." Not finalized. Yes some progress is being made in the recognition of Liberation Theology. But note the important point.

The important point: the sticking point in its recognition has been its Marxist/ atheist roots. Which were always there ... in most Leftist movements. Even Liberation "theology." Look it up.

Why didn't you know this? Controversial as atheists in progressive Leftist movements would be, religious instructors didn't make that perfectly clear. Not to folks in religious schools, in Catechism, and so forth.

That's one of the things they suppressed, censored, in the religious educational system: the presence of atheists in core movements. Even in your highest church leadership.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Most people who don't believe in god are leftists.

The other way around doesn't work, just yet. Maybe in 10-20 years. Maybe sooner. I'm a pessimist.

[okasha]

102. I have my doubts about that.

I can think of only a very few non-believing leftists who post in this group--and at least a couple of them have been banned from the clubhouse.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Doubt away.

Curious if I pass your purity test.

[okasha]

110. I shall.

No, you don't. You're a "progressive. " Not the same thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Fair enough.

I even accept the scare quotes, because on one issue, I tend to diverge with progressives, so I fail my own purity test.

[Brettongarcia]

106. I can think of 1,000,000,000 of them in the USSR and China, c. 1917-2000 AD

[okasha]

108. And every one of them an imperialist.

Try again.

[Brettongarcia]

116. They cited anti-imperialism as the main principle of Communism.

In any case, the point is that they were Leftists. And atheists. 1,000,000,000 of them.

Somehow you overlooked one billion people. What happened?

[okasha]

141. I noticed that they were imperialists.

Are you claiming that the USSR and PRC were/are not imperialist?

[Brettongarcia]

148. They thought they were not;rather as Christian liberals never see their own cultural imperialism

Or their military action in WWII; that created a de facto hegemony.

[okasha]

152. Recognition of Western cultural and economic imperialism

is exactly where liberal theology and liberation theology come from. You may have noticed that the most prominent current liberation theologians are Latin American. (Or then again, maybe you haven't. )

[Brettongarcia]

156. And? Its fundamental anti- "imperialism" was taken from the Communist watchword and shibboleth

Which apparently you never noticed? The culture of One Billion people? That is typical of a cultural imperialist: they just don't "see" certain people. No matter how many there are.

By the way? In my work for minorities, I am sitting - right now, this very second - surrounded by five or six minority and mostly Hispanic friends.

It was thanks to this kind of experience, that I knew all along exactly where Hispanic Liberation theology came from. In fact, I in effect taught it to minority students, as one idea among many, myself. As a Japanese-born American myself, it seemed important.

By the way, why am I arguing with you? Just read any standard (not religious) academic account of Liberation Theology. Marxism is written into it. As its central principle. The cleaned-up idea of "Leftism" you were taught (in religious schools? Churches?), left out the absolutely core, central contribution of ... Atheist Marxists.

What do you know? Liberal religious education censored something out; they went into Denial and suppression about it.

[okasha]

163. Its anti-imperialism was and remains

Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)

a direct reaction and resistance to colonialism. Liberation theology threatened the economic hegemony of the US/European corporatocracy.
It's at root a Latin American movement because its foundations are in the work of Hidalgo and Morelos, Bolivar and San Martin, not Lenin or even Marx. The comunidades bases were explicitly founded in Christianty's early communalism, which is one of the reasons JP II and Josef Ratzinger attemped to suppress both them and liberation theology. They represented a radically different model of what the church was and should be. The "commie-commie" panic the Vatican and the Reagan administration injected into it grew out of Cuba's attempt to spread its own style of revolution in Latin America. The two movements were and obviously still are confused by those who never had actual contact with them.

[Brettongarcia]

170. Some of the Latin American anti-imperialist movement takes pains to deny its Marxist side

In order to 1) gain acceptance in a massively, piously Catholic population. And 2) to avoid military attacks by the Christian US and local military and paramilitary/ Christian terrorist proxies. (As in the Philipines).

Anyone who wants to, can look up Liberation Theology in a standard survey. Obviously, pious Christians are still in Denial of its largely Marxist origins. Which to be sure attempted (successfully) to link to local peasant and other minority movements.

To some extent, some such ties were veiled; since the United States was heavily involved militarily for many decades in suppressing Marxism; and particularly in suppressing any movement in SA, that evidenced obvious ties to Marxism Leninism. In notably Colombia, among a dozen other countries. Any movement that was very open on a Marxist affiliation was normally physically attacked, and key members killed, by US and allied forces. Therefore such ties were sometimes not widely displayed openly. Still, for some time the Vatican has been openly criticizing "capitalism." As an attempt to meet Marxism at least halfway. And countless links can be found in the language and History of liberation theology.

Whose watchwords in fact, were directly borrowed from Communism: the war on "capitalism" and "imperialism."

Various church ladies seem not to be aware of this. Preferring to think they thought it up themselves at Sunday socials, I guess.

[LiberalAndProud]

178. As soon as we get rid of the notion that Marxism is explicitly evil,

we may make inroads against social injustice. Labeling ideas as socialist or Marxist as a way to reflexively dismiss them is counterproductive and harmful. There is such a thing as Christian/Marxist dialogue in which ideas are free to be considered, rather than discarded on an unthinking ideological basis. That ideological bias is exactly what prevents us from considering, in any serious way, the true benefits of universal healthcare, to mention just one example.

[okasha]

180. I've known several unabashed Christian Marxists.

[okasha]

181. How nice that you had Hispanic friends around you to teach you liberation theology.

I am sitting--right now, this very second--a bit over a mile from half a million or so Mexican nationals. I learned about liberation theology from working alongside a Methodist minister, an Episcopal priest and a couple of deacons in one of the worst slums in Mexico. I've spoken with women who survived paramilitary attacks on the comunidades bases in Guatemala and El Salvador. And I've read the foundation texts of the movement, in Spanish.

I'll leave the "academic texts" to you.

[Brettongarcia]

184. Don't forget the 1,000,000,000 atheist Marxists. Whose lives you deny and negate

[Htom Sirveaux]

100. Was that last question directed to me?

It's hard to tell when the rest of your post speaks of me as if I'm not even in the room.

[Welibs]

81. I am an atheist and the ONLY time I reject the legitimacy of religion is when a right wing

fraud tries to shove it down my throat. Conservative religious people just can't mind their own business and they constantly try to inflict their beliefs on
others.

I don't find that atheists do that unless someone is in their face about religion.

I have a Jehovah Witness sister and she knows I don't believe, yet she never stops talking about the bible and has for 40 years tried to convert
me. When I tell her to stop it she says I'm picking on her because she's tiny! WTF????

Her 14 year old son came to me years ago and told me that he didn't believe in religion and also asked if he had to go to their Kingdom Hall. I told him
that when he is an adult he can make his own decisions. Until then, he is under his parents jurisdiction and that it was important for him to listen and learn
and find out what he's rejecting before he rejects it.

My sister freaked at me and told me that I should have told him that JW's were telling the truth and the the bible was all fact! She's not long on brains and
I refuse to promote religion that no child should be exposed to. And that doesn't mean JW's, it means all religion.

I believe making children sit in church or even in Sunday school, both of which I attended until my teens, is child abuse and indoctrination.

Also, I grew up around 'real' Christians and they don't check the colour of the hand reaching out to them for help and they don't ask sexual orientation,
they just take the hand and do what they can. They give completely of themselves and they're humble. No so with right wing christians, they're frauds and
they believe their religion makes them moral.

Empathy creates morality, not religion.

[Brettongarcia]

83. Jehovah's Witnesses are particularly inflexible. Good luck, brother!

Empathy is a good thing.

Sometimes people just stop talking to their relatives, for these reasons. It's easy when you move to a different part of the country.

[Htom Sirveaux]

104. When 'real' Christians take their children to church or sunday school, are they also guilty

of child abuse and indoctrination? Or do you have in mind specifically authoritarian right-wing churches when you say that?

[LiberalAndProud]

111. I think child abuse is optional.

On the other hand, if not for the intent to indoctrinate, why send a child to Sunday school? We can argue whether a given indoctrination is a good thing or not as a separate issue, but religious training is indoctrination by definition.

[Htom Sirveaux]

119. "Indoctrination" is just another word for education,

but that doesn't sound quite so sinister.

[Brettongarcia]

131. Not quite. In its lexical and semantic field are included, objectively, negative connotations.

Look up the word in a good dictionary. Like the OED. Or better "Le Grande Robert" especially; if you speak French.

Here's Merriam Webster's:

in·doc·tri·nate verb \in-ˈdäk-trə-ˌnāt\

: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

[LiberalAndProud]

133. I think there are both subtle and unsubtle differences.

In the academic setting, for instance, one can indoctrinate a child to speak only at designated times, while educating that child in the principles of mathematics. Sunday school is an odd mix of the same in even more perplexing ways.

[Brettongarcia]

135. Then there's Hitler's "indoctrination" and Mao's

Also known for a while as relating to "brain washing."

[LiberalAndProud]

140. Indoctrination / brain washing.

Yes, there must be negative connotations to the idea because some bad people have used bad ideas. Is the methodology different if the ideas are better?

Train up a child in the way that he should go. In what reality is that not indoctrination?

[Brettongarcia]

142. I was brought up a real liberal, trained in competing ideas; all sides. Not ignoring rival ideas

But the definition of indoctrination I cited above from Merriam Webster, is different: it specifies ... ignoring competing arguments.

Much "education" to be sure, is indoctrination in the negative sense; particularly in religious schools.

Train/force the child to believe the one set of ideas you tell them to believe. Make sure they are never fairly exposed to rival ideas.

Make them pray to the accepted idea, as the only holy truth.

Indoctrination is not the same as education. Education is not the same as indoctrination. Their "semantic fields" overlap, but only partially. The part of the field of Indoctrination that is different? Is its systematic attempt to hide or denigrate all competing beliefs; other religions and so forth.

[LiberalAndProud]

145. For the Bible tells me so.

I was raised with the notion that there are other beliefs which also have merit, that God is a loving creator beyond our comprehension. That a Christmas creche doesn't have a place on the courthouse grounds.

I was also raised singing hymns and reciting verses and memorizing prayers. I'm feeling that frustrating sense of, "How can you possibly not see this?"
Things that seem so obvious to me aren't as obvious as I would have them be. (resigned sigh)

I think we are seeing these things from different perspectives, and with different emphasis on the words we're using.

[Brettongarcia]

149. Private practice of religion is protected; using public funds and facilities to present it, is not

[LiberalAndProud]

151. It's good to remind ourselves of the things we agree about.

If one is teaching doctrine (really, really good doctrine) to children as truth, how would the word "indoctrination" not be appropriate?

[Brettongarcia]

157. Doctrine and not doctrines, plural?

[LiberalAndProud]

158. What do you mean by doctrines (plural)?

[Brettongarcia]

160. Often individual doctrines are advanced by one interested party. Its good to be exposed to many ...

... competing doctrines. Then contrast and compare. To see which one is really best.



(Signing out; off to dinner. Busy day!).

[LiberalAndProud]

161. I would agree with that.

Such an unbiased education would be enlightening and can promote disbelief. Nonetheless, that isn't what most Sunday schools do, even by a remote stretch.

[Brettongarcia]

175. I agree that Sunday Schools and churches are not good at objectivity.

I'm really supporting the atheist/agnostic side here.

[phil89]

126. Does that have to do with the "different way of knowing"

because we definitely seem to have different ways of knowing things.

[Htom Sirveaux]

132. I haven't used that phrase.

You may be thinking of a different discussion with someone else.

[cbayer]

185. That is a very old and very tired meme.

But why don't you enlighten me as to what you mean by that?

[trotsky]

186. Yet still very accurate.

You yourself push it constantly. If you're tired of it, stop using it.

[Humanist_Activist]

164. Ideally, I would prefer we kept politics separate from religion entirely...

I outright discount and openly oppose any religious justifications or arguments for ANYTHING to do with politics or secular society, regardless of source, or whether the end result is something I can support.

The issue is that this is an attack on secularization, its great that you think Jesus would want you to help the poor, but where, in that argument, can you argue, either ethically or morally, that secular society should provide welfare for the poor that doesn't involve unnecessarily inserting your religion into the argument?

Religion is unnecessary in society, its replaceable, and in the future it should be replaced, and nothing sacred should replace it, but something secular, mutable and open to inquiry. Because of its ultimate lack of utility, religious arguments, when they come from a liberal religious believer, are ultimately a distraction and counterproductive. Having attempted to insert myself in such arguments online, it just turns into a interpretation-fest that is never resolved. One of the many reasons that books such as the Bible shouldn't be considered authoritative.

And yes, in the United States at least, the framing is almost entirely Christian. Yes, there are active, political Jews and Muslims here, but they are such a small minority they barely register in the sea of conservative Christianity.

The one issue that I can see liberal religious believers and liberal unbelievers have slightly more common ground is in opposing the theocratic nature of Conservative Christianity, at least to an extent. However, even here, there are limits, the most liberal of religious people will choose the good of their religion over the rights and good of their fellow human beings. Being religious, their gods are more important than people.

[Htom Sirveaux]

176. I think your ending generalization sets up a false dichotomy

The one issue that I can see liberal religious believers and liberal unbelievers have slightly more common ground is in opposing the theocratic nature of Conservative Christianity, at least to an extent. However, even here, there are limits, the most liberal of religious people will choose the good of their religion over the rights and good of their fellow human beings. Being religious, their gods are more important than people.

I don't see any need for "either God or people" when God's will is "love people".

[Humanist_Activist]

177. Not really, the only consistent commandment that is present in the Bible is...

to obey God, not to love people. Again, the Bible is so full of contradictions, ambiguity, etc. that its difficult to state anything about the Christian God's intentions.