A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Theocratic Sedition (Miz)... the person EP was quoting, who was posting in satire ;)
• 

  palmtree67

  and moving forward to start fresh.

  I believe that's what we're discussing, but not in generic "butterflies and froo-froo" terms.

  My goal was to get some specific ways to do that for both POV's, and I'm happy with the results so far.

  No one was bringing up the past.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  This one:

  As a non-believer, I find it difficult if not impossible for nonbelievers to be capable of respecting a truce or having civil discussions because they the values of a racist god that loved slavery, rape, murder, abotion, mutalation of babies, genocide and indiscriminate murder. ]
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  the person EP was quoting, who was posting in satire ;)

  Oh, that was satire? to be honest, I just got back from dinner after a long da of getting up at 6 A.M. and then changing 2 time zones. My sacasm meter may be a bit off due to me being stupidly tired after a few long days.

  If that was satire then bravo. If not, then I still need to go to bed.
• 

  tec

  That's cool, Palm. That was just my suggestion in how we can proceed with starting fresh. Not calling out bad behavior on one side, but letting it go on the other side, is also true.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  If that was satire then bravo. If not, then I still need to go to bed.

  It was, lol... and have a good sleep.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  This one:

  if you love the Jesus in the Bible, then you endorse all of that. Otherwise, you don't love the Jesus in the bible.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  It was, lol... and have a good sleep.

  I said I NEED to go to bed, not that I WAS going to bed.

  I'm stupid that way.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I'm not a person who takes the Bible to be from God. I feel it is written by people. Ancient ones at that. Not to say there isn't any good advice in the Bible, because there is some here and there. As for Jesus, I never believed he was God, not even growing up in the Episcopal Church. I've said it before, but I will say it again. I am a universalist. I am not a Christian or any other faith, though I do attend the Episcopal church sometimes because I love the beauty of the rituals and the respect that is given me to walk my own unique spiritual journey. They showed the same respect to Julian who very clearly told them he embraced atheist views. .
• 

  Qcmbr

  We can slice and dice the ideas any way we want and come up with a meal we find palatable. We can easily argue for a war of ideas that has been going on since the first time when a hominid began to worship something and had the opportunity to verbalise that concept to another. Seen in this light whether someone believes in a fully illustrated being like Ganesh or in a simpler idea like ancestor ghosts they will always be in a competitive set of ideas which the adherent will feel passionate about. Everyone has their reasons to reject everyone else's ideas, some based on pure whim and ego through to rational deduction.

  As social beings we rely very heavily for our ideas on our care givers, peers, media and culture. That which we consider a personal revelation is always a pastiche of ideas that surround us that we are simply synthesising. Isolated cultures never give rise to the same supposed universal beings simply due to statistical improbability and different starting ideas. Focusing on religion ( but the same can be said about philosophy, politics, cliques and countries ) the idea has to have several characteristics to propagate and replicate; the ability to categorise (sheep/goats, good/bad, chosen/hard hearted) , the unique language to describe the categorisation (commandments , the adherence to which marks one as a member of a group, some are obvious - 10 commandments, willy skin removal - most though are unwritten and implied - always respect x , reverence y, finish your phrases with a mantra, privilege the words of this or that person) and a reward/cost structure for adherence ( burn in hell/ enjoy bliss / gain group validation/ be censured by group etc.)

  Sharing ideas has a root concept of trying to help yourself (!) it is never simple altruism. As biological beings we trade for advantage. If we focus in again on religion and the specific evangelising nature of xianity we see a divine mandate ( a commandment ) to warn/teach/witness/testify to everyone and those who do not fulfill this - even at seeming immediate personal cost - are punishable ( guilt, feelings of inadequacy, sadness at a lost soul right through to a potential overriding concern for a future judgement day.) Faith must compete in the arena of public ideas amongst its opposing ideas. That which believers think is an opposing idea ( atheism) is not at all; atheism (noun) isn't any more than the stance that your god / object of divine worship isn't real - a stance taken by all believers in opposing faiths. That which believers ascribe to atheism should really be pointed at skepticism ( your faith isn't backed by enough evidence to accept it), rationalism ( your faith doesn't make sense in a causual way , your logic is faulty or based upon incomplete facts ), politics/philosophy ( religion is the opiate of the masses ) or some such concept. Calling a truce between ideas may seem noble but it only ever benefits the idea that's losing. If truces were the best response to tension then nothing would ever change, nothing ever could because nothing could be challenged, nothing could ever be rejected. Focusing back on religion , xianity to be even more precise, the war in heaven , good v bad, Satan v god is played out in every single event, word, interaction and person. There can be no truce, to a believer in god a truce with Satan is unthinkable. No believer will ever leave a debate/ discussion/ forum in defeat, they will always be victorious even if their victory is 'won' by such statements as 'god just hasn't revealed it to you' or 'you haven't got the right attitude , you are simply an angry atheist'.

  Final thought (phew sorry long polemic), what it seems people are objecting to, warring over , is tactics rather than ideas. Ideas can never be in a state of truce , the best they can hope for is balance. Tactics however, can be changed. Here is my personal list of tactics that often ensure I'll make a reactive post- feel free to add more tactics you find distasteful:

  1 - A lack of reflexive statements (e.g. IMO/ I believe) attached to opinions , the paucity of such turns the opinion into an assertion. I believe god speaks to me v god speaks to me. One is subjective the other objective. One specifies your world the other tries to specify mine.

  2 - Blatant bias. We all recognise at some level bias. Some however, use blatant bias as a tool. Extremely obvious support of an insupportable position merely because of who made the initial incorrect statement. Silence is bad enough ( I'm guilty of simply ignoring bad behaviour if I see no personal gain in aggravating the poster so I simply read the next post) but overt intercession to support bad behaviour/ideas is blatant bias and is ugly. Poster x claims poster y is <unacceptable concept> Poster z supports poster x even so far as to begin arguing for < unacceptable concept> simply due to bias.

  3 - Misuse of words. Redefining words endlessly to match a narrow specific agenda or making up new words is a hallmark of group division. Religions and gangs do it all the time to exclude outsiders (God is love, Jonadub class etc) . It is inappropriate to attempt to steal a word and reclassify it so that it now only means what you want it to. When people say they have 'seen' Christ and we only need to 'look' to him, they are deliberately attempting to reclassify words. If you could see Christ there would be no argument for lack of evidence.

  4 - Bad logic/ bad science/ bad facts. If you wish to reference something from the world of deduction , nature, physics or maths you have to be willing to accept that it can be checked and verified. If you take one science article and sing it's praises for no reason other than it supports something you believe in, it is bad form to reject other science/logic/facts by the same logic. This is Cofty's chess game where you play by the rules until you lose and simply start arbitrarily moving pieces and making up a new game such that you are constantly winning.

  Now if we could agree not to use bad tactics I suspect our war of ideas would be much less personal and much cleaner and more satisfying. IMO.

  True humility is the willingness to put your most cherished idea on the altar of peer review and dispassionately allow it to be dissected and examined and if, after weighing, it is found wanting to join in heartily as everyone takes a hammer to it.