This and That
Oh, heavens, no. Rather, it would seem people need to be reminded, every once in a while, of the associations they choose. Whatever real issues this community faces will never be addressed if we allow self-serving pedantry as a substitute for reality.
There's a story I sometimes tell; I've repeated it recently. It's about a pastor from a megachurch in the Seattle area apparently getting arrested after allegedly attempting to molest a young boy at Disney World. As the story developed, the local paper was inundated with protestations against how they were hounding a good and decent man for nothing. And, of course, as the story developed, it turned out that the allegations appeared true; he was arrested, and the paperwork was buried so that he didn't have to face prosecution. Nobody knows why; that question was never answered. But by this time, the angry voices in the corpus Christi were committed, so it eventually became an argument of leaving an alleged child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private.
I can assure you that plenty who call themselves Christian in this area would resent the idea that "Christians defended an alleged child molester simply because he was a Christian", but that is exactly what happened on a fairly impressive scale.
Those letter writers and editorial voices were all profoundly discredited, and not specifically because any one individual among them is inherently evil. Rather, they hopped on a bandwagon for the sake of a label and landed themselves in a mess.
It would be astounding to think that rational creatures could not understand the point of such a tale, but we're talking about human beings, here.
Whatever legitimate issues trouble this community, we will find no progress toward solutions as long as we continue to follow labels for the sake of convenience, comfort, and ego gratification.
So why should we take such people seriously at all? Well, in the first place, because they seem to insist, and certainly don't think their inherent assertions of self-interest are in any way conflicting with the idea of a broader, diverse community. And, in the second, there are plenty of bandwagoners who will share the perception of offense if we don't take such crackpottery seriously.
And, so, people attempt to address their concerns, find themselves trolled by people who are either playing stupid and "going full retard", or in the sights of some bandwagoner who wants the empowerment of taking the swing, but refuses to acknowledge his or her own responsibility in following the false prophet.
And, besides, there always could be an aspect worth addressing in its own right, regardless of what silly frame one tries to put on it; also, such stupid responses as we got from our "clueluss" neighbor only make the point. Well, except for the bandwagon. They make their own point. And none of those points speak well of them.
Atheism as a personal experience is as subjective as any similar religious experience.
I would take issue with that sentence, especially the part about religious history and apologetics.
The new atheist movement is political.
Rather quite irrational, actually.
The lack of pathos exhibited consistently throughout this thread hinders persuasion. That is to say, the movement is not about persuasion, but ego gratification. As I noted last monbth:
Honestly, what about that situation do you find persuasive?
No, really.
Let's try a different phrasing:
There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.
But this detachment and belligerence is not persuasive. And it doesn't really matter that "they started it" if the point is persuasion. But if that's not the point, and this is all about self-gratification, then "atheism" becomes a hate identity, and that's fine with me, and I'll happily maintain my distance from the movement that doesn't exist, or whatever the hell we might call it.
Randwolf said:
Really? Do you not interact with him elsewhere? Somehow, this is your wakeup call?
Oh, heavens, no. Rather, it would seem people need to be reminded, every once in a while, of the associations they choose. Whatever real issues this community faces will never be addressed if we allow self-serving pedantry as a substitute for reality.
There's a story I sometimes tell; I've repeated it recently. It's about a pastor from a megachurch in the Seattle area apparently getting arrested after allegedly attempting to molest a young boy at Disney World. As the story developed, the local paper was inundated with protestations against how they were hounding a good and decent man for nothing. And, of course, as the story developed, it turned out that the allegations appeared true; he was arrested, and the paperwork was buried so that he didn't have to face prosecution. Nobody knows why; that question was never answered. But by this time, the angry voices in the corpus Christi were committed, so it eventually became an argument of leaving an alleged child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private.
I can assure you that plenty who call themselves Christian in this area would resent the idea that "Christians defended an alleged child molester simply because he was a Christian", but that is exactly what happened on a fairly impressive scale.
Those letter writers and editorial voices were all profoundly discredited, and not specifically because any one individual among them is inherently evil. Rather, they hopped on a bandwagon for the sake of a label and landed themselves in a mess.
It would be astounding to think that rational creatures could not understand the point of such a tale, but we're talking about human beings, here.
Whatever legitimate issues trouble this community, we will find no progress toward solutions as long as we continue to follow labels for the sake of convenience, comfort, and ego gratification.
So why should we take such people seriously at all? Well, in the first place, because they seem to insist, and certainly don't think their inherent assertions of self-interest are in any way conflicting with the idea of a broader, diverse community. And, in the second, there are plenty of bandwagoners who will share the perception of offense if we don't take such crackpottery seriously.
And, so, people attempt to address their concerns, find themselves trolled by people who are either playing stupid and "going full retard", or in the sights of some bandwagoner who wants the empowerment of taking the swing, but refuses to acknowledge his or her own responsibility in following the false prophet.
And, besides, there always could be an aspect worth addressing in its own right, regardless of what silly frame one tries to put on it; also, such stupid responses as we got from our "clueluss" neighbor only make the point. Well, except for the bandwagon. They make their own point. And none of those points speak well of them.
• • •
Trooper said:
Atheism can’t be forced. It’s a journey of personal discovery.
Atheism as a personal experience is as subjective as any similar religious experience.
However, what the new atheist movement does offer is a source of experts, people who know about physics, biology, atheism, religious history, and religious apologetics.
I would take issue with that sentence, especially the part about religious history and apologetics.
The new atheist movement is political.
Rather than relying on our own ability to persuade others, we can point to what many others are already doing. Am I right, Tiassa?
Rather quite irrational, actually.
The lack of pathos exhibited consistently throughout this thread hinders persuasion. That is to say, the movement is not about persuasion, but ego gratification. As I noted last monbth:
One common behavior among atheists in the public discussion of atheism is that they have worked very hard to rhetorically seal themselves off from any real accountability as political or philosophical players; this is generally accidental, but it is a striking result. For instance, in the past I have inquired about what happens when a religionist converts to atheism; the inability of atheists to answer a central question—the resolution of which would actually help them communicate the problems of theism—often ends up in what looks very much like a refusal. This refusal is problematic for diverse reasons.
In the first place is the superficial arrogance. In the second, such a refusal really does appear to support that stupid religionistic assertion that there is no morality without God; or, at least, it makes the question of right and wrong seem very, very arbitrary. And in the third, it does nothing to facilitate understanding among theists.
The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.
In the first place is the superficial arrogance. In the second, such a refusal really does appear to support that stupid religionistic assertion that there is no morality without God; or, at least, it makes the question of right and wrong seem very, very arbitrary. And in the third, it does nothing to facilitate understanding among theists.
The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.
Honestly, what about that situation do you find persuasive?
No, really.
Let's try a different phrasing:
We know that religious faith is an intricate mess of mind and brain. The big fuck you that comes from common atheistic regard for the vacuum created in a person's psychomoral outlook by abandoning God is certainly suggestive. The atheistic argument generally prefers things simple, straightforward, and unattached to any other reality. Progress is hard. Ego gratification is easy.
There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.
But this detachment and belligerence is not persuasive. And it doesn't really matter that "they started it" if the point is persuasion. But if that's not the point, and this is all about self-gratification, then "atheism" becomes a hate identity, and that's fine with me, and I'll happily maintain my distance from the movement that doesn't exist, or whatever the hell we might call it.