Spirituality
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI respect your privilege of holding and expressing an opinion on this forum [even if and when it grossly distorts the facts].
Actually there are a lot of reasons for personality attack and animosity.
Yes, I know what I referenced.
Yes, I know what you replied.
Yes, I know that nothing has changed in your perspective. No surprises there!
But your ego-stroking had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote to josephw.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by vistesdIt's rare that I get all the way to the bottom of a post that long.
Freaky: “Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.”
[b]That is a lie.
You have engaged with enough atheists on here to know that it is a lie - including Buddhists and Taoists and Vedantists, and some whose spiritual path, so far a ...[text shortened]... ut who are or are not “True Christians™” according to other, self-proclaimed “True Christians™”.[/b]
Some theists - such as Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook (orthodox), to name just one famous example - have recognized the value of atheism as a necessary response to the aforementioned idolatries; and have affirmed the arguments of atheists in that necessary deconstruction - rather than shallowly condemning atheists as “god-haters”. I doubt that the atheists I know on here would accept that as their purpose, or limit their atheism to that.No, I don't think I'd accept that as my purpose here, in so far as I have any beliefs I'd have to believe in a contradiction, but I do like the idea. Something similar did cross my mind earlier and I nearly posted the following sentence in response to a claim that God created everything. If God created everything then that must include atheism, so why did he do that?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAfter man sinned, some men devolved into believing in atheism.
It's rare that I get all the way to the bottom of a post that long.[quote]Some theists - such as Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook (orthodox), to name just one famous example - have recognized the value of atheism as a necessary response to the aforementioned idolatries; and have affirmed the arguments of atheists in that necessary deconstruction - rather than s ...[text shortened]... ed everything. If God created everything then that must include atheism, so why did he do that?
24 Jun 14
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's rare that I get all the way to the bottom of a post that long.
It's rare that I get all the way to the bottom of a post that long.[quote]Some theists - such as Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook (orthodox), to name just one famous example - have recognized the value of atheism as a necessary response to the aforementioned idolatries; and have affirmed the arguments of atheists in that necessary deconstruction - rather than s ...[text shortened]... ed everything. If God created everything then that must include atheism, so why did he do that?
I’ll take that as a compliment! 🙂 My wife says that it would be rare for anyone to get to the bottom of my longer posts as well (and she includes herself! :'( ).
With regard to your other comments - Yes, and even a somewhat affirming view like Rav Kook’s can be condescending. I don’t recall that he intended it so (but I no longer have the context of some of his writings - my bookshelves had to be severely purged when we moved to a much smaller living space last year). So I should have added that there is no reason why atheists or agnostics should view their positions as anything but independently and honestly held - regardless of any affirmations by such as Rav Kook.
Originally posted by Great King RatSounds good. Good enough I almost gave in. 🙂
I don't think my post really qualifies as being "Drama Queen-esque". But Suzianne is on "your side" and I am on the other side, so you'll use whatever attack you can come up with to defend "your side". Including the age old "I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I" reply.
Does she have a legitimate cause? No, I think it was a load of cry-baby bollocks. I ...[text shortened]... ine example of this. It's the classic persecution complex showcasing itself time and time again.
Thing is though that negative personal remarks do nothing to advance understanding. I don't know if it's worth keeping score as to 'which side' is winning or losing. Don't care. What I care about is developing an irrefutable argument to the effect that we all win. Believe it or not.
You write well Rat, but you also put down as well, and that doesn't further anyone's agenda. Maybe it makes you feel good about yourself one upping the weaker fellow. IDK. Thing is I get a charge out of thinking I 'won that one' too, just like anyone else. I think it means we're all human after all.
Most of what is posted in this forum is a matter of opinion depending on one's biases anyway. Some of us are more rational and logical than others, and better educated. In the church we practice a spiritual thing called 'esteeming others as better than our selves', and condescending to those of simpler estate. I try to be kind to atheists, but folks around here have rather thick skin, so I don't worry too much.
One thing is true though, Christians take the brunt of the insults thrown around in here. Perhaps someone with time on their hands could tabulate a score. I wouldn't necessarily be interested in the results though one way or another.
This one thing: No atheist will ever understand a Christian, and not because the Christian is illogical or irrational, any more than the atheist, but because when it comes to comprehending Biblical spiritual concepts the atheist mind is closed. That's a fact.
Originally posted by josephwThe totally ironical thing is that that is exactly what Christians are being accused of! (Your mind being closed).
This one thing: No atheist will ever understand a Christian, and not because the Christian is illogical or irrational, any more than the atheist, but because when it comes to comprehending Biblical spiritual concepts the atheist mind is closed. That's a fact.
Would YOU honestly say that YOUR mind is open for new insights? That you would be prepared to concede for even a microsecond that the atheist point of view has any validity at all?
There is the problem. Because you KNOW that you are right, that you HAVE the full truth, that you declare confidently that they are wrong.
There is a desparate need for us to change our vocabulary, if we ever believe that we will be able to converse meaningfully with each other.
Originally posted by josephwI'm not sure this is true. I was a Christian for many years. I'd like to think I understood the spiritual concepts as well as most. Now, naturally you probably won't agree, since you'll say that I wouldn't have stopped being a Christian had I truly understood the concepts. However, I think even now the Bible has some useful spiritual concepts to offer. Just not the ones that require theism. 🙂
This one thing: No atheist will ever understand a Christian, and not because the Christian is illogical or irrational, any more than the atheist, but because when it comes to comprehending Biblical spiritual concepts the atheist mind is closed. That's a fact.
Originally posted by josephwI think it has already been pointed out earlier in the thread: if you are on the loosing side of many of the debates/discussions/arguments, then you should consider the possibility that you are the one who has got it wrong. Instead, it seems several theists, yourself included, openly choose to ignore the results of any rational arguments however convincing they may be.
I don't know if it's worth keeping score as to 'which side' is winning or losing. Don't care.
This one thing: No atheist will ever understand a Christian, and not because the Christian is illogical or irrational, any more than the atheist, but because when it comes to comprehending Biblical spiritual concepts the atheist mind is closed. That's a fact.
Surely this suggests that it is you that has your mind closed?
It certainly does suggest that you are more illogical and irrational than the atheists in question.
But back to your claim. It appears that you are saying that atheists never convert to Christianity. So does this mean you were born a Christian? Or are you saying that an atheist can only ever understand a Christian after he converts to Christianity?
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by vistesdIt was intended as a compliment.
[b]It's rare that I get all the way to the bottom of a post that long.
I’ll take that as a compliment! 🙂 My wife says that it would be rare for anyone to get to the bottom of my longer posts as well (and she includes herself! :'( ).
With regard to your other comments - Yes, and even a somewhat affirming view like Rav Kook’s can be condescendin ...[text shortened]... ything but independently and honestly held - regardless of any affirmations by such as Rav Kook.[/b]
I didn't feel condescended by the Rav Kook quote, I rather assumed it was aimed at people within his religion, rather than as a comment to atheists.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderVery funny.
You remind me of an accounting partner I knew who once asked a trainee to explain an issue he wasn't familiar with and asked whether the trainee could prepare the partner "an idiot's guide that he could understand" on the issue.
The trainee thought long and hard and said "Yes, and no".
You know perfectly well that I cannot read.
Originally posted by Great King RatI find it interesting you would reference a post which contains seven pages of posts, yet yields only three people offering approximately two and a half reasons why, as atheists, they frequent the forum.
I don't think my post really qualifies as being "Drama Queen-esque". But Suzianne is on "your side" and I am on the other side, so you'll use whatever attack you can come up with to defend "your side". Including the age old "I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I" reply.
Does she have a legitimate cause? No, I think it was a load of cry-baby bollocks. I ...[text shortened]... ine example of this. It's the classic persecution complex showcasing itself time and time again.
Twhitehead is "...interested in the psychological aspects of why you believe something so ridiculous," among other seemingly scholarly reasons.
He also admits a desire to help find out "...if anything can be done about the God delusion."
Very philanthropic of him, we assume.
SwissGambit/BigDoggProblem expressed that he had "...learned a great deal from threads like bbarr's "general argument from evil" thread," which is good to know, but it makes one wonder why he went looking at a Spirituality forum for words from an atheist/agnostic position.
I'm sure he had his reasons.
karoly aczel simply claimed a new perspective on what it means to be an atheist.
Yeah: I was scratching my head at that one, too.
The point being, of course, is that this referenced thread was replete with more avoidance and counter-attack than any actual responses to the question.
Funny you would use this thread as your "nothing to see here, folks, it's all over" to the question--- especially since you (more than anyone else) engaged the topic, and yet never answered it yourself.
Not even once.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay, I won't hold this against you seeing how earlier you were brave enough to admit that you can't read.
Funny you would use this thread as your "nothing to see here, folks, it's all over" to the question--- especially since you (more than anyone else) engaged the topic, and yet never answered it yourself.
Not even once.
So, get your wife or your children or your nurse and ask them to read the thread out loud for you so that you may understand where you went wrong.
No need to apologize. Not your fault.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by vistesdYou have engaged with enough atheists on here to know that it is a lie - including Buddhists and Taoists and Vedantists...
Freaky: “Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.”
[b]That is a lie.
You have engaged with enough atheists on here to know that it is a lie - including Buddhists and Taoists and Vedantists, and some whose spiritual path, so far a ...[text shortened]... ut who are or are not “True Christians™” according to other, self-proclaimed “True Christians™”.[/b]
One, it was a generalization.
Perhaps a gross generalization, but a generalization nonetheless.
In my mind, when I consider the term "atheist" I don't include anyone who is on a spiritual path--- even if they are on a path with which I vociferously disagree, such as the ones you mention here.
Two, the God-haters to which I refer are those who deny the spiritual aspect of man, the ones who claim this is all there is, when this is over it is all over.
... but who have contributed to spiritual discussions that had nothing to do with atheism/theism at all.
Undeniably true.
For an underwhelming amount of the time.
I don't pretend to keep quality stats on all of the posts on all of the threads of the forum, assigning numerical values based on a scale of my liking and then charting the results in order to express in graphic terms a scale of acceptable hospitable atmosphere.
Too, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that where ever there is smoke, fire exists.
Yet, there is a general consensus among Christians herein that their beliefs are the piñata of choice for atheists.
Such is the plight of post-modernism, I suppose, where rules are no longer really considered: it's all really a bunch of opinions.
The divide here is not between theists and atheists. It is between idolatrous (in the precise sense of the Jewish tradition - which includes the idolatry of fixed god-concepts) - idolatrous dogmatism, and any deconstructive threat to that dogmatism from any corner.
Couldn't agree more on part of that.
As we have discussed many times, dogmatism is a killer of truth.
My personal assessment is that I fight it at every corner, but, as you have graciously pointed out, I might have missed three or four of them.
... descend into snarky insults, fear-mongering and shrieking personal abuse on here more than I have seen it among atheists (though it happens on both sides - and intramurally within each camp).
I admit to a predilection to snarky.
Sorry, but it just feels sooooo good and makes me feel so much smarter.
Sometimes it gets the best of me.
That being said, I still disagree, because, well, they started it.
I just happen to be better at it.
😉
And that is one reason why I no longer hang around here much.
To my (and the forum's) general loss.
But, you underscore the point (however brutishly relayed) how the place has become a battleground of heat with no fire.
If there were a place to warm your hands, you'd frequent it more often, I'm sure.
Instead, it's just spit bomb after spit bomb and no end in sight.
Some theists - such as Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook (orthodox), to name just one famous example - have recognized the value of atheism as a necessary response to the aforementioned idolatries; and have affirmed the arguments of atheists in that necessary deconstruction - rather than shallowly condemning atheists as “god-haters”.
I welcome the challenge to my idolatry and often change my mind toward the insults when seen in the proper light, but my ire is not directed toward those who challenge sloppy thinking--- of which I am sometimes prone.
My ire is toward those who lack the consideration of a proper conversation, one which assumes I am trying just as hard as they are to get this b.s. right.
I doubt that the atheists I know on here would accept that as their purpose, or limit their atheism to that. But the point is well-made: it appears that “religionism” always faces the danger of internalizing its own idols, so that they are no longer recognized as such, but are vigorously defended as “right doctrine”.
Then perhaps they can admit they are just as wrong as I am on these points.
As always, I'll take ten lashes from you before I'd accept a single pat on the back from anyone else.
Thank you, brother.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe mighty FreakyKBH brought to his knees ..😀
[b]You have engaged with enough atheists on here to know that it is a lie - including Buddhists and Taoists and Vedantists...
One, it was a generalization.
Perhaps a gross generalization, but a generalization nonetheless.
In my mind, when I consider the term "atheist" I don't include anyone who is on a spiritual path--- even if they are on a path wi ...[text shortened]... ashes from you before I'd accept a single pat on the back from anyone else.
Thank you, brother.[/b]
I love it.
Whats more, by a man who says the kindest words possible even to the most arrogant of posters.
Well deserved though.