The post that was quoted here has been removedIn a previous discussion with me, you commented (in response to my rejection of claims by internet posters about a person's alleged racism) that people could still come across as racist even if they weren't. You thought it was important that these people recognise that their actions can appear very different to how they perceive it and that they should be alert to this and be willing to modify their behaviour to avoid this unintended state of affairs.
Whether you accept it or not, your posts do come across as condescending, arrogant and dismissive. A number of posters here have commented on this to me privately, and more still in the forums publicly. You may think we are all wrong, but it is a widely held view and there comes a point where, whatever you say, you should recognise that this is because this is how, in fact, they come across.
Which is a pity, as you are obviously an educated and intelligent woman who has a lot to offer in a debate.
But you seem (note I said seem) intent on allowing the debate to descend into why you are superior to other posters. I mean, you regularly point out your superior chess rating, even when this has no bearing on the issue at hand. Does that not strike you as being likely to be considered a tad on the arrogant side?
(I often find that truly arrogant people resort to the 'But it's true!' argument, as if that makes them seem less arrogant, when instead it makes the position worse. It's like someone mentioning their IQ at a party.)
But when it ends up in you trying to make an issue out of a typo by someone who is dyslexic, you really should pause for thought and take some of your own advice that you dole out so readily to others.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel on 28 January 2010.
The Atheists Discussed thus far are all scholars. But, of course, not all atheists are academics. Like believers, they can be found in every sphere of society. In fact, some of the more well known atheists are celebrities. Actress Jodie Foster, for example, has spoken openly about her rejection of all things spiritual. In an interesting case of art imitating life, she has noted the similarities between her own beliefs and those of Eleanor Arroway, the astronomer she plays in the film Contact: I absolutely believe what Ellie believes—that there is no direct evidence [for God], so how could you ask me to believe in God when there’s absolutely no evidence that I can see? I do believe in the beauty and the awe-inspiring mystery of the science that’s out there that we haven’t discovered yet, that there are scientific explanations for phenomena that we call mystical because we don’t know any better.
The late George Carlin was more emphatic about his atheism, even turning an anti-religion harangue into a comedy bit. Here is an excerpt from his 1999 HBO special: When it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize . . . something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.
This is the kind of [stuff] you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. So Carlin gave up his efforts to believe in God. He opted for atheism “rather than be just another . . . religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn’t [care]. ”Notice that Carlin’s and Foster’s reasons for unbelief are founded on the two pillars of atheism discussed earlier. Foster’s rationale for her view reveals a latent positivism, the notion that all knowledge must be verifiable by the senses. Carlin, on the other hand, provides a tart version of the objection fromevil, which is as thought-provoking as it is irreverent. But Jodie Foster and George Carlin have more in common than just being thoughtful celebrity atheists.
They also share the experience of having lost their fathers while they were young. Before she was even born, Foster’s father left her family. Hermother raised young Jodie, eventually guiding her into the acting career she enjoys to this day. Carlin also grew up fatherless. His mother left his alcoholic, abusive father when George was two months old, and she raised him and his older brother on her own. Is there any relevance to the fact that these two atheists grew up without a father? Some recent research strongly suggests that there is. In this chapter we will look at evidence for the claim that broken father relationships are a contributing cause of atheism. We will also consider evidence that immoral behavior plays a significant role in motivating views on ethics and religion.We will see how desires often drive a person’s beliefs when it comes to such issues, and I will propose that herein lies the explanation for atheism.
The Faith of The Fatherless Paul C.Vitz teaches psychology at NewYork University. Though now a practicing Roman Catholic,Vitz was an atheist until his late thirties. Reflecting on his change of mind, Vitz observes that his “reasons” for becoming an atheist in the first place, during his college years,were not intellectual so much as social and psychological. Eventually, he began to focus his psychological research on atheism, and in 1999 he published the provocative Faith of the Fatherless,which proposes that “atheism of the strong or intense type is to a substantial degree generated by the peculiar psychological needs of its advocates.” Looking at the lives of numerous renowned atheists,Vitz’s study reveals a stunning link between atheism and fatherlessness. This he expresses as the “defective father hypothesis”—the notion that a broken relationship with one’s father predisposes some people to reject God.
While some might be critical of any attempt to psychologize the phenomenon of atheism,Vitz notes: “We must remember that it is atheists themselves who began the psychological approach to the question of belief.” Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.Of course, a principal figure to whom Vitz’s observation applies is Sigmund Freud,whomaintained that religious belief arises out of psychological need.According to Freud, people project their concept of a loving father to the entire cosmos to fulfill their wish for ultimate comfort in a dangerous world.However, it was this same Freud who developed the concept of the “Oedipus complex,” characterized by a repressed sexual desire for one’smother andmurderous jealousy of one’s father.Vitz notes that here Freud inadvertently provides a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of the rejection of God. . . . Freud makes the simple and easily understandable claim that once a child or youth is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible. . . . In other words, an atheist’s disappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God.
Thus, Freud’s own theory can be used to explain atheism. And, as Vitz proceeds to show, the empirical data bears out this account. The following are several cases from the modern period explored by Vitz that confirm his thesis.
Atheists Whose Fathers Died:
• David Hume—was two years old when his father died
• Arthur Schopenhauer—was sixteen when his father died
• Friedrich Nietzsche—was four years old when his father died
• Bertrand Russell—was four years old when his father died
• Jean-Paul Sartre—was 15 months old when his father died
• Albert Camus—was 1 year old when his father died.
Atheists with Abusive or Weak Fathers:
• Thomas Hobbes—was seven years old when his father deserted the family
• Voltaire—had a bitter relationship with his father, whose surname (Arouet) he disowned
• Baron d’Holbach—was estranged from his father and rejected his surname (Thiry)
• Ludwig Feuerbach—was scandalized by his father’s public rejection of his family (to live with another woman)
• Samuel Butler—was physically and emotionally brutalized by his father
• Sigmund Freud—had contempt for his father as a “sexual pervert” and as a weak man
• H. G.Wells—despised his father who neglected the family
• Madalyn Murray O’Hair—intensely hated her father, probably due to child abuse
• Albert Ellis—was neglected by his father, who eventually abandoned the family
While this list is impressive,Vitz’s overall case for his thesis is not limited to these but includes analyses of well-known theists from the same era. These scholars had consistently healthy relationships with their fathers or significant father figures. This confirms by contrast Vitz’s thesis about their atheist peers. Such prominent modern theists include Blaise Pascal, George Berkeley, Joseph Butler, Thomas Reid, Edmund Burke,William Paley,William Wilberforce, Friedrich Schleiermacher, John Henry Newman, Alexis de Tocqueville, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Abraham Heschel. Of course, none of the fathers of these men were perfect moral exemplars. Some, such as the elder Kierkegaard, grieved or disappointed their sons by their misbehavior. Still, the relationships persevered, and resentment did not prevail. In most cases, these men had strong love, admiration, and respect for their fathers or father figures.
To be clear,Vitz’s thesis does not imply that having a defective father guarantees one will become an atheist. He takes care to emphasize this point. This is because, as Vitz puts it, “all of us still have a free choice to accept or reject God. . . . As a consequence of particular past or present circumstances some may find it much harder to believe in God. But presumably they can still choose to move toward God or to move away.” In fact, some people with defective fathers do not turn away from God but become vibrant believers and faithful practitioners of their faith.Given the strong majority of religious believers, it appears that most children of defective fathers manage to resist the temptation of atheism. Still others, such as C. S. Lewis and Antony Flew, give up their atheism even after many years of unbelief. So the psychological dynamics of atheism are very complex, but the impact of the father relationship does appear to be profound.
I would add that when it comes to atheism, as with any other behavior, an explanation is not an excuse.To identify a cause of a belief or behavior does not imply that the person is not morally responsible for it. So even if we can causally explain why some people reject God, this does not mean that they aren’t responsible for doing so. Rather, the lesson seems to be that having a defective father presents special challenges to faith, but that this kind of psychological wound can only predispose one to atheism." (1 of 4 to be continued)
https://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80
The post that was quoted here has been removedI do understand your concern. I'm an American, and we have shysters hawking wares all the time. I like to think I'm somewhat adept at spotting the scam artists. Despite the fact that my dojo mostly sees children come in for beginning martial arts training, my sensei is a really good guy and we get along fabulously. He is a high level black belt and he even was involved in serious competition back in the day. He gives me lessons on overconfidence all the time. Once we had an impromptu lesson right after I was joking with him about "kicking his ass" and I ended up with a nice bruise on my face that lasted a day or two. I learned in that moment to be more respectful of him and what he was trying to accomplish and just how far I had to go to be able to beat someone with training. His focus with me is a combination of rigorous "real life" techniques and classic sparring techniques for evaluation. He's taught me many "close in" moves I can use to neutralize someone who is "in my face", the importance of pressure points and some anatomy-based tips on how and what to twist to inflict enough pain to get anyone to stop what they're doing, balance techniques to keep mine and to take away "theirs". I also keep myself fit by cycling literally hundreds of miles each week. I figure I can always just "run away" as a last resort if my technique ever fails me against a more technical foe. And I do not have a vain overconfidence at all. I would much rather avoid a conflict that be pressured into hurting someone because they won't leave me alone. I see absolutely nothing wrong in running from a fight if I have to.
I get what you're saying though. Yes, I'm blonde, and yes I'm American, but it takes more than a slick advertisement to fool me most of the time.
(And no, I didn't really take your post as 'condescending'. I feel you were truly concerned that I not become taken advantage of.)
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you". My meaning was that maybe you don't see most men as bastards because they don't act that way with you, and that you wouldn't think of acting that way yourself. I was saying it says that you're not like that. I didn't feel that what I said was attacking you. I don't care if that's 'reality' or not, all I meant was IF. I don't see why I cannot make a statement without checking all *your* statements first. One doesn't really have much to do with the other.
Wow are you barking up the wrong tree.
I will smack down anyone trying to teach me to suck eggs and I really don't
care who or what they are.
I treat you no differently than I treat anyone and everyone else here.
Suzianne started off in the post I responded to by saying that "Men being bastards"
was news to me.
Which bares no resemblance t ...[text shortened]... e about.
Also, If you think I'm coming down hard on you, go look at my posts to RC and Hinds.
The gist of my post is that I'm not always "up in your face" or attacking you, most of the time, my comments are neutral, they just happen to include you because we're conversing. I'm going to say things that don't have much bearing on what you said , so I sometimes get tired of hearing "I didn't say that" from you. My reaction to that is "so what? I did".
I also sometimes wonder if our aptitude for sometimes rubbing each other the wrong way might be grounded in the fact that we come from different countries, with different cultures. And as a result, we sometimes have different methods of speaking, and sometimes one of us takes umbrage at what seems to be a miscue or misunderstanding. (Yeah, sounds reasonable, I'm going with that. 🙂 )
Originally posted by SuzianneWell, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you". My meaning was that maybe you don't see most men as bastards because they don't act that way with you, and that you wouldn't think of acting that way yourself. I was saying it says that you're not like that. I didn't feel that what I said was attacking you. ...[text shortened]... t seems to be a miscue or misunderstanding. (Yeah, sounds reasonable, I'm going with that. 🙂 )
Not that I necessarily agree with everything GF has said, but c'mon. You're way out of line. If anyone is being unreasonably defensive it is you.
This is what you actually said:
"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, and my reaction was vastly different. Having experienced similar, my reaction was "Eh, so what else is new." The idea that men can be utter bastards is not news to me. That it comes as news to you says much about you."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLord have mercy on thinkofone
[b]Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
Not that I necessarily agree with everything GF has said, but c'mon. You're way out of line. If anyone is being unreasonably defensive it is you.
This is what you actually said:
"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, and my reac ...[text shortened]... can be utter bastards is not news to me. That it comes as news to you says much about you."[/b][/b]
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo what is your point??? MY point is that I was not attacking GF. I think I had every right to say what I said.
[b]Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
Not that I necessarily agree with everything GF has said, but c'mon. You're way out of line. If anyone is being unreasonably defensive it is you.
This is what you actually said:
"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, and my reac ...[text shortened]... can be utter bastards is not news to me. That it comes as news to you says much about you."[/b][/b]
How exactly was I "way out of line"?? I'm baffled by your reaction.
Originally posted by SuzianneC'mon Suzianne, give it up. There was no "IF", yet you quoted yourself as having said so:
So what is your point??? MY point is that I was not attacking GF. I think I had every right to say what I said.
How exactly was I "way out of line"?? I'm baffled by your reaction.
Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
While it may not have been your intention, what you ACTUALLY wrote is the following:
"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, and my reaction was vastly different. Having experienced similar, my reaction was "Eh, so what else is new." The idea that men can be utter bastards is not news to me. That it comes as news to you says much about you."
Try to read the emboldened statements objectively. Seems that GF took issue with the statements and rightly so. Objectively, there is no "IF" stated or implied in "That it comes as news to you says much about you".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePerhaps you could let this drop since the party in question has dropped the complaint and made a peaceful overture?
C'mon Suzianne, give it up. There was no "IF", yet you quoted yourself as having said so:
Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
While it may not have been your intention, what you ACTUALLY wrote is the following:
[quote]"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, ...[text shortened]... ively, there is no "IF" stated or implied in "That it comes as news to you says much about you".
Originally posted by SwissGambitSuzianne responded with a question and I answered. If Suzianne hadn't responded I would have "let this drop". Make sense?
Perhaps you could let this drop since the party in question has dropped the complaint and made a peaceful overture?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI still do not see how any thinking person could think it was an attack. I meant it as I explained I meant it, as if I had said if. Maybe my mistake was saying "I said" when maybe I should have said "What I meant was".
C'mon Suzianne, give it up. There was no "IF", yet you quoted yourself as having said so:
Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you".
While it may not have been your intention, what you ACTUALLY wrote is the following:
[quote]"This is interesting. I read that same post you did, ...[text shortened]... ively, there is no "IF" stated or implied in "That it comes as news to you says much about you".
Geeeeeez, gunned down by the semantics crowd again. I wasn't attacking GF, I was, in fact, complimenting him. If you can't see that, then too bad.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneYou could very well be right.
Well, in my defense, I said "IF (men being bastards) was news to you, that says a lot about you". My meaning was that maybe you don't see most men as bastards because they don't act that way with you, and that you wouldn't think of acting that way yourself. I was saying it says that you're not like that. I didn't feel that what I said was attacking you. ...[text shortened]... t seems to be a miscue or misunderstanding. (Yeah, sounds reasonable, I'm going with that. 🙂 )
Saying "that says a lot about you" without clarification is almost without exception
a bad thing... at least with everyone I've met.
But I wasn't nearly as miffed as I apparently came across.
And as I say, I generally do like you, even if I do think you're a bit nuts 😛
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI was never having a row with you, we're good.
"Well, it appears my work is done here." Lol... that was a [b]joke.
I didn't mean to start you two off on a major tiff. You guys seemed to be getting along fine until I stepped in here. I'm sorry. That goes for you too, GF.[/b]