Are religionists and atheists on the same team?

by Fernando 191 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  still thinking

  I think your 'bright' comment is taken out of context tec...this is what I found in relation to the way Dawkins uses that term.

  The noun bright was coined by Geisert as a positive-sounding umbrella term, and Futrell defined it as "an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)". [ 2 ] Daniel Dennett has since suggested that people that believe in the supernatural could choose to be referred to as supers.

  As of 2009, the Brights' Net tagline is "Illuminating and Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview".
• 

  tec

  Oh, I know how "brights" use that term... but it is a word that denotes intelligence, and perhaps someone should have thought that through. Or perhaps someone did, and thought it applied anyway. There are many atheists who dislike the term as well, thinking it is cringeworthy, including Hitchens, and even after Dawkins thought it would be a good term for atheists.

  Saying that someone who believes in the supernatural could call themselves supers is not the same thing. Supers = belief in supernatural. That's fine, of course... if believers in just the natural were called 'naturals'. I think we even have naturalists as a title.

  In any case, a 'bright' is supposedly a naturalist movement (so they say on their website), and they are not supposed to be hostile toward religion or the religious. (other than some individuals among them who are acting on their own... so they also say on their website).

  But its not a big deal. Its just a word, and just one e x ample of the attitude that I spoke about, that some atheists do have. I'm not saying that some theists do not also have that kind of superior attitude... I know they do, which is why I called militant atheist the atheist equivalent to the fundamental, e x tremist christian.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  It doesn't take extremism to attach negative terms. Someone here referred to atheists as false teachers, and a liberal, non-fundamental poster agreed. So perhaps when an atheist uses a negative term, it does not automatically make them an extremist. But it is always okay to attack ideas---that does not make one extreme. It doesn't matter though---it is subjective. If you are on the receiving end of criticism (of your ideas) you may feel it is extreme while the other person just thinks they are expressing themselves. It actually sounds like a term that could be used, much like the term false teachers, to somehow discredit the person. "Oh, they are just extreme, or militant . . ."

  For such a term to be valid in my mind, it really would have to cross the line of control. It would have to involve impeding free thought and worship---or non worship. I just don't see any atheists, for the sake of atheism, doing that here. But someone that just strongly believes in their ideas, and does not back down, doesn't need a label.

  NC
• 

  still thinking

  But its not a big deal. Its just a word, and just one example of the attitude that I spoke about, that some atheists do have.

  Its NOT an example though tec. You gave the word a different meaning to Dawkins to support your reasoning. I have put up 'their' reason for the use of the word above...it does not display the attitude you suggest.
• 

  tec

  Well, it is my personal opinion that it is a "dim" word choice... considering that the word is connected to intelligence. He's bright... he's not so bright.

  But no problem, I will concede to you on that word, that e x ample, unless I come across other evidence.

  What about the rest?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  still thinking

  Maybe it is if it offends....maybe the the primary school up the road from me is inciting hatred and calling others schools useless because they call themselves 'The greatest little school in the Universe".....how offensive to other schools....LOL
• 

  tec

  Someone here referred to atheists as false teachers, and a liberal, non-fundamental poster agreed

  No... Vander said:

  All false teachers are on the same team regardless of how their beliefs differ.

  He did not say who the false teachers were. He simply said that all false teachers are on the same team. FHN called that wisdom, and took the words out of my mouth. False teaching is false teaching. Period. Whatever that might be, and whoever they might be.

  As for the rest, militant atheists are hostile toward all religion (or faith). All of it. Regardless of anything good within it. Regardless of the individual within it. That individual is not seen. Only the religion is seen.

  It is the same when a believer sees only 'atheist'. Not the individual person. Just the atheist.

  It would have to involve impeding free thought and worship---or non worship.

  No one can impede free thought and worship, or non-worship. Not at the moment. It is the desire to do so that makes one hostile, and working toward gaining those desires. There are posters who believe parents should not be allowed to teach their children their faith. There are posters who would wipe out faith and religion if that were possible. Never mind what that faith is or does... even the good... just get rid of it all, regardless.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  maybe the the primary school up the road from me is inciting hatred and calling others schools useless because they call themselves 'The greatest little school in the Universe".....how offensive to other schools...

  ... in other universes, no less ;)
• 

  NewChapter

  There are posters who believe parents should not be allowed to teach their children their faith

  Yes, when I was new to this board, I saw that. They called it abuse. I said I thought it went to far to say such a thing. We all raise our children with our worldview, and it is impossible to raise them completely neutral, and that this is a parent's right. I was really chewed off the thread, and have avoided it ever since. If I were to do it again, I would be an atheist, and I would share those ideas with my child. How could I not? Perhaps a religious person (not you---i get it, i get it) would think of THAT as abuse.

  It's an important line. If we want the freedom to continue as nonbelievers, unharrassed, then we had BETTER have the mindset that believers also have that right. If we ALL held to these principals, then there would be very little conflict. The conflict comes in when one group tries to enforce their will on another---and I don't mean through debate--that is always fair----but through policy or abuse. In America, this is far more common with religious people----I get it, I get it---fundies.

  With kids it's harder. They are dependent on, and come under the authority of their parents. What happens if a believer's child doesn't want to go to church or read the bible? Well the parents have the right to force it---children have so few options here. What happens if an atheist's child wants to go to church? If it were mine, I'd allow it of course---would make for some fun debate. As it is, my daughter thinks a lot like me, although her ideas are still forming in this area, and she is still experimenting.

  For myself, the core value that I hold as an atheist, is that we all should get to choose our way. We should all be able to speak up when challenged. But we don't need to hunt each other down and preach. A debate should stop when one party decides it is enough. I have been very frustrated lately, because in my real life, I JUST CAN'T MAKE IT STOP! I don't even start it. It's times like those when I do wish religion and belief would go away, just so I can have some freaking peace. But that's not what I really want. I would rather discuss ideas, and if someone sees something new in them, then good for them.

  NC
• 

  tec

  I hear you, NC. And I know you are not one of those atheists. I know you want others to have the same rights to their belief as you should have to your non-belief. (It is kind of funny if you find peace from the preaching and hunting in the UU church, lol.)

  I was asked what a militant atheist was, and that is who I was speaking about and attempting to define.

  My son is an atheist. Last year he was a theist. I respect him for whatever his stance is... just as I am e x pecting him to respect me for mine. I'm probably losing out a little in that ;), but that is more than likely the 'teen' in him.

  Peace,

  tammy