Theist's the Hard Truth

shunyadragon said:

A very very theist negative response condemning atheist belief systems.

Click to expand...

You irrationally believe in most of those, and you claim to be a 'freethinker' too

shunyadragon said:

I believe they are keying in on specific 'behavior and buying habits by most of the members of each group.

Click to expand...

So they are generalising commonalities in the group. Excellent.

shunyadragon said:

. . . but your stereotyping generalizations go beyond this. The claim of being a free thinker crosses many belief boundaries, and as far as I am concerned is unfortunately a universal ego trip.

Click to expand...

Claiming to be a 'freethinker' is an ego trip? We agree on something for once.

Is that why you claim to be a freethinker?

charlie sc said:

What sort of things do they believe in?

Click to expand...

I'll also add a conceit that the 'see the world as it really is' rather than 'relying on comforting myths' (You'll see that one on RF all the time)

Few realise they have simply replaced one set of religious myths for another set of irreligious ones.

Augustus said:

So they are generalising commonalities in the group. Excellent.

Click to expand...

Your going beyond the scope of my response.

Claiming to be a 'freethinker' is an ego trip? We agree on something for once.

Is that why you claim to be a freethinker?

Click to expand...

The claim is a too vague a claim to be meaningful.

I did not claim to be a freethinker. I said I advocate 'free thinking' outside the box.

Augustus said:

They generally profess to base their beliefs on reason, yet generally uncritically swallow anything that paints religion in a bad light.

If we assume they base their views on reason and scholarly evidence, then we should assume a rough alignment with secular scholarship in the relevant fields. On the following, though, we see a great misalignment:

1) Belief in the conflict thesis
2) Vastly overstating the number of deaths caused by religion
3) Belief in the 'Dark Ages'
4) Vastly overstating the role of the (secular) Enlightenment in the development of rights, science, etc
5) "Religion was invented to control the masses" type arguments
6) Adopting the most negative interpretations of religious origins (Easter is just an appropriation of the festival of Eostre, etc)
7) Adherence to Jesus mythicism (less common than the others, but disproportionate)

There are other things, but these are more complex so I'll leave them out.

(As a note: I'm an atheist, and I used to believe all of these things until I actually engaged with scholarly literature rather than 'New Atheist' type preaching to the choir.)

Click to expand...

You know more about this group than I do. I'm curious if you have any evidence other than, say, forum posts? Like, seminars, lectures, meetups where they say these things.

How were you involved anyway?

Augustus said:

I'll also add a conceit that the 'see the world as it really is' rather than 'relying on comforting myths' (You'll see that one on RF all the time)

Few realise they have simply replaced one set of religious myths for another set of irreligious ones.

Click to expand...

The group mentality and integrating identity into ideas is very strong

shunyadragon said:

The claim is a too vague a claim to be meaningful.

Click to expand...

It was your claim

Augustus said:

It was your claim

Click to expand...

My claim is that the claim of being a freethinker is too vague to be meaningful, something like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall.

. . . and in your case you use it as a stone to throw at atheists.

charlie sc said:

You know more about this group than I do. I'm curious if you have any evidence other than, say, forum posts? Like, seminars, lectures, meetups where they say these things.

How were you involved anyway?

Click to expand...

These are common views held by "New Atheists" (and New Atheists are disproportionately represented in atheist groups).

Just from 1 min on Atheists Alliance website 3 false things in their "famous atheists" section:

Fake quote (it was actually Gibbon who said this):

Seneca Roman philosopher.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Kepler and Kant were Christians, yet are "famous atheists":

Johannes Kepler German astronomer.
“When miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question.”

Immanuel Kant German philosopher.
“The death of dogma is the birth of morality.”

charlie sc said:

How were you involved anyway?

Click to expand...

I wasn't. I just read the literature and believed what it said.

shunyadragon said:

. . . and in your case you use it as a stone to throw at atheists.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting how you claim it is not possible to generalise about specific subsets of atheists, yet you can't actually believe I'm an atheist at all because I presented a load of peer-reviewed scholarship in another thread that went against your preconceptions of what an atheist should believe.

Augustus said:

I find it interesting how you claim it is not possible to generalise about specific subsets of atheists, yet you can't actually believe I'm an atheist at all because I presented a load of peer-reviewed scholarship in another thread that went against your preconceptions of what an atheist should believe.

Click to expand...

The only generalization I ever acknowledged concerning atheists is that they do not believe in God(s). The only criteria for affiliation with the Atheist Alliance is one does not believe in God(s).

shunyadragon said:

The only generalization I ever acknowledged concerning atheists is that they do not believe in God(s). The only criteria for affiliation with the Atheist Alliance is one does not believe in God(s).

Click to expand...

Is believing in God a prerequisite for quoting large amounts of peer-reviewed scholarship that goes against your preconceived ideas?

That's what turned you into Miss Marple regarding my 'religious beliefs' after all

Augustus said:

Is believing in God a prerequisite for quoting large amounts of peer-reviewed scholarship that goes against your preconceived ideas?

That's what turned you into Miss Marple regarding my 'religious beliefs' after all

Click to expand...

You have made your religious beliefs very obvious, and no significant detective work required.

Not a coherent meaningful response. It is like asking 'Did you kill your mother with a rifle or hang gun?

SalixIncendium said:

The doctor does it because he knows based on evidence that the patient won't "get well" and will likely die if he doesn't convince the patient that he has cancer and that he has to get it treated. Again, measurable and observable based on previous documented and observed cases.

The priest does it because he believes based on blind faith that the unrepentant person will be overtaken by Hell. He has no evidence. It cannot be observed that Hell exists and he has no documented or observed previous cases of others having been overtaken by it.

Considering both scenarios, which consequence of disbelief has a greater degree of certainty? Do you not agree that it is more egocentric to suggest your are right and another is wrong based on no evidence whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that i believe there IS evidence of a hell, but no, i dont want to debate that at the moment, because it will distract from what im beating at here about ego.

Ok, ill assume for the sake of argument theres no evidence for a hell. Ok, just because the priest believes on blind faith, does not mean perse that his motivation is ego and not concern. How can you know that he does not have genuine concern for those he truely believes are going to hell? Remember, high concern equels low ego, right? So, how do you know he dont have high concern? You cant know it based on the priest NOT knowing theres a hell. Because the priests lack of knowing does not do away with the fact that he really believes it and based on that belief, he really can have high concern. So....how do you know hos motive is ego?

No.

Click to expand...

I agree, ego should remain.

For me it's mindfulness through meditation and awareness.

Click to expand...

So, if ego should remain why do you seek to lower it?

shunyadragon said:

You have made your religious beliefs very obvious, and no significant detective work required.

Click to expand...

Or maybe you are a bit dim and made the whole thing up in your imagination

Augustus said:

These are common views held by "New Atheists" (and New Atheists are disproportionately represented in atheist groups).

Just from 1 min on Atheists Alliance website 3 false things in their "famous atheists" section:

Fake quote (it was actually Gibbon who said this):

Seneca Roman philosopher.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Kepler and Kant were Christians, yet are "famous atheists":

Johannes Kepler German astronomer.
“When miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question.”

Immanuel Kant German philosopher.
“The death of dogma is the birth of morality.”

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to defend them, but on that page they explained, "Given the times in which they lived, some on this list might not have called themselves atheists, but all expressed at least significant doubt about the efficacy of religion and/or the existence of all-controlling deities and wrote something clever or revealing about their position." Therefore, they are saying some are theists. I can appreciate what they're saying here because I've read of some philosophers/scientists getting barred or alienated after releasing their books or ideas. However, I do dislike using famous people as examples to get any idea across. I also appreciate miss attributing quotes. I used to do it all the time and I try to avoid quotes/proverbs now anyway.

Is there anything in particular I can see where they claim the stuff you mentioned in the previous post?

Jollybear said:

Ok, ill assume for the sake of argument theres no evidence for a hell. Ok, just because the priest believes on blind faith, does not mean perse that his motivation is ego and not concern. How can you know that he does not have genuine concern for those he truely believes are going to hell? Remember, high concern equels low ego, right? So, how do you know he dont have high concern? You cant know it based on the priest NOT knowing theres a hell. Because the priests lack of knowing does not do away with the fact that he really believes it and based on that belief, he really can have high concern. So....how do you know hos motive is ego?]

Click to expand...

Your example assumes the priest believe in a concept of Hell and the other person does not. The priest is forcing his unsubstantiated belief on the other person. His ego is driving the conclusion that he is right and the other is wrong, and he is acting on it without any other foundation than blind faith.

Jollybear said:

So, if ego should remain why do you seek to lower it?

Click to expand...

As I see it, ego is the cause of suffering in relative reality, but a necessary tool on the path to liberation. By learning to control, manage, and transcend the ego, one can reduce suffering and introduce joy and bliss.

SalixIncendium said:

Your example assumes the priest believe in a concept of Hell and the other person does not.

Click to expand...

Am i assuming the priest believes in hell or does the priest actually believe in hell as he says he does? Are you saying hes pretending to believe in hell?

The priest is forcing his unsubstantiated belief on the other person.

Click to expand...

There is no force, he got no gun to his head.

His ego is driving the conclusion that he is right and the other is wrong, and he is acting on it without any other foundation than blind faith.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you know his ego, rather then his concern is driving him?

Is concern ego? Concern vs ego.

As I see it, ego is the cause of suffering in relative reality, but a necessary tool on the path to liberation. By learning to control, manage, and transcend the ego, one can reduce suffering and introduce joy and bliss.

Click to expand...

Ah i see....

I like your owl evator, it has that look of strength and wisdom and insight. Did that complement make you feel good?

Jollybear said:

Am i assuming the priest believes in hell or does the priest actually believe in hell as he says he does? Are you saying hes pretending to believe in hell?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm saying precisely what I said. Stop trying to read things into what I say that are not there.

Jollybear said:

There is no force, he got no gun to his head.

Again, how do you know his ego, rather then his concern is driving him?

Is concern ego? Concern vs ego.

Click to expand...

Why would the priest tell him to repent or he's going to Hell knowing full well that the person doesn't believe in the concept of not for the sake of ego, considering the priest has no foundation for his advice?

Jollybear said:

I like your owl evator, it has that look of strength and wisdom and insight. Did that complement make you feel good?

Click to expand...

*smiles* Even if I was naive or gullible enough to not recognize the intent behind the empty compliment, why would I feel good about you telling me a drawing has the look of strength, wisdom, and insight? What point are you trying to make here? That I am a slave to my ego?

SalixIncendium said:

Not at all. I'm saying precisely what I said. Stop trying to read things into what I say that are not there.

Click to expand...

Well i didnt understand what you said then. So, that means what you said was not clear. It was only clear to you. But if i dont understand it, then its not clear to me. And the whole point in yuou typing it out was for me to understand, not for you, right?

Why would the priest tell him to repent or he's going to Hell knowing full well that the person doesn't believe in the concept of not for the sake of ego, considering the priest has no foundation for his advice?

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, the priest does not know if he dont believe. He only knows after the person tells him his disagreement.

Then the priest can make a choice of either moving on or try to convince him hell is real.

Again, you are oversimplifying every priest, pastor and minister who preaches hell fire. You dont know that they all have fat egos. Perhaps some of them do, but ALL of them? You dont know that. Some of them would have genuine concern. How do you know they dont?

Your judging ALL of there motives as pure ego. I dont understand how you think you can do that and yet be in touch with reality doing so.

*smiles* Even if I was naive or gullible enough to not recognize the intent behind the empty compliment, why would I feel good about you telling me a drawing has the look of strength, wisdom, and insight? What point are you trying to make here? That I am a slave to my ego?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is my point.

In otherweords, if i gave you a compliment without trying to make a point, im confident it would make you feel good. Or if someone else gave you a compliment, would it not make you feel good?

If it does make you feel good, then you feel "joy", yes, no?