DWise1 writes:
Why hate atheists so much?
Sooo much?
Enough for you (pl) to want to create a war against us. And for you to want to join. War is not something that you get into for no reason or because you're feeling bored. And your propaganda movie makes it very clear whom you (pl) are targeting as the enemy and its treatment of atheists not only displays hatred for atheists but also is designed to generate hatred for atheists.
You may think that it's nothing but a big joke, but it's damned serious! And I'm not asking the question so much for my own sake (though I still cannot think of any rational reason for that hatred), but rather because
you need to examine the question yourself. You said that you feel that we are threatening your way of life. What do you base that feeling on? What threat do you feel that we are posing? How are we posing that threat? Where are you getting your information from? From your Christian propaganda? Why would you feel that that should be a good source?
You have not yet answered that question. You really do need to answer that question.
DWise1 writes:
Are you suggesting that Jesus would not hate atheists?
It is my belief that Jesus hates sin. ...
So then you
were trying to pull a fast one, a form of "smiling you out the door". Use a misleading response that would be misinterpreted by an outsider. I caught Pat Robertson pulling that trick when he ran for President in 1988. A reporter asked him whether he believed that a non-Christian could be saved and Robertson replied that, yes, he could, if he obeyed the whole of the Law. The reporter and the general public accepted that answer, but that is because they had no eyes to see nor ears to hear. But my fundamentalist training did give me eyes to see and ears to hear, so I saw through Pat Robertson's trick and knew that his answer was actually "No." At least in that church (Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, Calif), the teaching was that God had designed the Law to be impossible to follow completely and faithfully without ever breaking even one of the myriad laws, thus making a Redeemer absolutely necessary. Since you would have to be perfect to do it on your own and nobody is perfect, in that view and in Pat Robertson's it is humanly impossible to be saved without going through the Christ.
Many people have heard of WWJD and they have a view of Jesus as Prince of Peace, "love your neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "walk an extra mile" (albeit
not in the other person's shoes), etc. IOW, they view Jesus as a super-nice guy, so to them WWJD would be to love them and not hate them. They are not aware of the hateful side of Jesus, such as I shared in
Message 114 and which you were also thinking of. You were hoping to fool me.
Please refrain for resorting to such dishonest tricks.
I have more respect for an agnostic who does not know than I do for someone who is simply oblivious to my belief.
First, atheists are
not oblivious to your beliefs. Well, yes, many are, but they are ones who just have no interest in religion nor in discussions about religion, so they do not come to fora such as this nor engage in discussions such as these. In that same manner, I am oblivious to the aesthetic nature of rap, grunge, or "dance" music and I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of that; I am infinitely more oblivious to sports and have extremely negative interest in discussing it. But the atheists who do engage in these discussions are far from oblivious to religious beliefs. In many cases, they know much more about religion than the believers do. And in many cases, they used to be believers themselves. So then, no, atheists are
far from oblivious to your beliefs.
Now as for the details of your own personal beliefs, for anybody to know what those are would require full and honest disclosure on your part. But somehow I doubt that is what you are talking about.
Second, being agnostic is the only true position to hold regarding the supernatural. I am agnostic. You should also be agnostic. What can we know about the supernatural? How can we know anything about the supernatural? We cannot sense the supernatural in any objective way. We cannot detect the supernatural. We cannot even determine objectively whether the supernatural even exists. How then can we possibly determine the nature of the supernatural? How then can we possibly determine the intentions of supernatural beings or their motivations or their long-term intricate plans?
That is all impossible for us to know, so the only honest position to hold is that "We do not know and we cannot know." From that point, we can make one of two assumptions: 1) that the supernatural exists or 2) that it does not or 3) that we couldn't care less and so drop out of the discussion. If we decide to believe, then we may decide to believe that certain supernatural beings, the gods, exist (and thus become theists). If we decide to believe in the gods, then we may decide upon particular gods and then build a theology around those gods. But since it is impossible to actually know anything about the supernatural, not only can a believer also be agnostic, but he should be agnostic in order to be honest. Unfortunately, far too many believers are not aware that they should be agnostic
So what does a believer have to base his beliefs on? Subjective feelings. Revelation, which can be problematic. In closed-revelation theologies, beliefs are based on a tradition that somebody had received a revelation, a direct communication from a god, which he passed on to his followers and which has since been passed down to each generation. In open-revelation theologies (eg, Mormonism, mysticism, oracles), followers my themselves receive communications from a god which are then incorporated into the theology; in Mormonism new revelations are often received in dreams. And then the beliefs gained from the theology would in turn have an effect on those subjective feelings and direct communications (eg, dreams). And those revelation-based theologies are completely dependent on their revelation actually having been genuine, having been accurately passed on from generation to generation to generation many times over. And that that revelation has been accurately interpreted into doctrine and that that doctrine has been validly constructed. Those are a lot of requirements.
If we make the assumption that the supernatural does not exist, then we are taking an atheistic position. However, there are also atheistic positions that can be taken if we assume that the supernatural does exist, or if we take a "don't care" position regarding the supernatural. It should also be noted that an atheist could take a non-agnostic position and assert with no doubt that God positively does not exist; that is a very extreme position that not even Richard Dawkins takes (his position is that while the existence of God is possible, it is so highly improbable that we can safely assume that God does not exist). Another atheistic position would rest on theists' own agnostic reality by, such that the atheist cannot believe what the theists mistakenly believe about the supernatural; this partially describes my own atheism.
quote:
Militant Agnostic: "I don't know ... and neither do you!"
(bumper sticker)
Now, if your understanding of "agnostic" or "atheistic" is radically different from that, please present it. Arriving at common terminology or at the very least defining one's terms is an absolute necessity in successful discussion.
It is more honest, in my mind and way of thinking, to at least admit that I could be right rather than to state unequivocally that without evidence I quite likely and reasonably have no leg to stand on.
Unfortunately, by our very human nature and the realities of agnosticism, it is virtually impossible for you to be right. Oh, sure, you are undoubtedly right about some things, but it is virtual certainty that you've gotten other things wrong. The likelihood of you being wrong about something increases in rough proportion to the degree of complexity and intricacy of your theology.
Similarly, there's that old argument when comparing various religions that only one of them must be right. More correctly, to paraphrase a Lincoln quote I recently encountered, either only one is right or they're all wrong. All religions are wrong, because they have teachings that are wrong. But at the same time, they are also all correct, because they also have teachings that are true (caveat: it is possible for there to be a religion that is completely wrong, but that is irrelevant for this point). Ideally, believers should try to decide which of their teachings are correct and which are wrong, try to correct those that are wrong, or at the very least not be so arrogant about clinging to the wrong teachings.
I cannot honestly say that I hate you or that I hate Dan.
Which is in keeping with the dispelling of stereotypic dehumanizing when you encounter an actual individual.
I can admit to having a strong aversion to your belief.
Do you even know what my beliefs are? Or are you relying on the stereotypes that you have been taught and the "threats to your way of life" that your propaganda keeps frightening you with? Are you even aware that my beliefs include defending your rights to keeping your own way of life?
Perhaps, in all honesty, I do not fully empathize with your thought process due to lack of the experience of living in your skin for awhile.
First, you are not being asked to fully empathize, but rather to understand and to respect. You are not being asked to adopt my thought processes, but rather to understand.
Second, you are not being required to "live in my skin". You yourself stated your intentions to read and learn other philosophies in order to understand them so that you can do a better job discussing them with others. Learning and understanding other ways of thinking does not require that you adopt those other ways. I already described that mistake having been made by several creationists I've encountered, the ones who refused to learn anything about evolution because they mistakenly believed that it would require them to accept evolution. In the USAF Leadership School, we NCOs were taught Marxism and Communism. Did that require us to become Marxists and/or Communists? No. Did the Air Force want us to become Marxists or Communists? No, of course not. So what did they want? For us to understand something about the enemy IAW Sun Tzu (this was in the midst of the Cold War).
This is illustrated by the difference between the goals of education (as stated in
The California Science Framework, 1990) and the goals of creationist "education" (as observed in action):
quote:
from The California Science Framework, 1990, Anti-Dogmatism Statement:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
. . .
Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
In contrast, creationist "public school" materials actually used in classrooms would end every lesson urging the student to choose between "atheistic evolution" and the "unnamed" Creator. The result that the creationists won't tell you about is that a number of students responded by becoming atheists. Did I mention that this happened in elementary school?
Oh, were you aware that part of my beliefs is that we must prevent Christian children from losing their faith and becoming atheists for the wrong reasons? Eg, by being raised on nonsense such as "creation science", which teaches them that they must become atheists if evolution is true or the earth actually is old.
Learning does not require indoctrination. You do not need to adopt a way of thinking in order to learn about and understand it. And the fact that we are both of the same species (human) and living in the same society (US) should be more than enough of a common basis for empathy.
Watch people in a grocery store approach the lottery scratch ticket machine. You will observe, as have I and others, that they quite literally bow to the machine as they reach down to pick up their purchase of a scrap of dreams.
Really? Seriously?
When you have to bend down to pick something up, you think that you're worshiping it? Like when you look at your phone? Or at your computer keyboard? So you think you're worshiping your electronics? Calling it the "Blackberry Prayer" is just a joke! Or looking through a card catalog in the library? Or reading a book? So you think that you're worshiping books? Get real!
I would argue that some people at the very least worship their kids. They would counter my argument by claiming that the very concept of worship is not anywhere in their worldview.
Have you ever been a parent? You have been a worshiper, so tell me something about that. Are you trying to raise Jesus? Are you having to teach Him everything? To pass down to Jesus all that you have learned, to pass on some of your wisdom? Do you have to constantly monitor Jesus' behavior and to discipline Him when necessary? To protect Him against harm? From my understanding of worship, none of that would apply. If anything, you are looking to Jesus to provide those things for you, not you for Him.
Now, it is possible for one person to worship another. But that is an indication of poor mental and emotional health. Is that what worship is to you? Mental illness?
I do embrace love more than hate, however.
And yet you love and feel greatly inspired by hateful propaganda that instigates religious warfare against atheists and other Others.
DWise1 writes:
Please answer the question.
I hope that I have answered it, but if not, please clarify more fully.
No, you still have not answered it. To reiterate from above:
I'm not asking the question so much for my own sake, but rather because
you need to examine the question yourself. You said that you feel that we are threatening your way of life. What do you base that feeling on? What threat do you feel that we are posing? How are we posing that threat? Where are you getting your information from? From your Christian propaganda? Why would you feel that that should be a good source?
™ Version 4.2
