the problem with the new atheists & the radical christian right

[Luce NDs]

If they are insufferable ... under the no pain no gain rule ... what could we know about theM? Nothing! And they are equal to us humble thinkers although the emotional gods say weir go 'n toh elle with the joker ... a cosmological plastic thingy! So lets allow it to metamorphose-I'z and the I'z phoe Cuss ... as you get the hard look from de mudder of all ... aD infinitum!

In old languages aD is beyond us ... like the presents we are now in and do not appreciate as a painful experience for the bulk! Just for the learning ... being we are just beginning to gnoes IT! This may be due to ranging away from de PEW!

 

[chansen]

As I was walking the other day I thought that the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian and the militant atheist are very much alike. Both are absolutely certain of their final destination and both can be absolutely insufferable.

Yes, it must be terrible to be reminded that your beliefs about a final destination are without evidence and appear completely arbitrary. Whereas holding such baseless beliefs and encouraging others to hold them isn't insufferable at all.

 

[Hermann]

What is insufferable, in my opinion, is the self-righteous stance of either side, each side believing itself to be absolutely right, and being contemptuos of the other. This is how the radical Christian right and the radical atheist right are similar.

 

[chansen]

First, thanks for dropping the "militant". Nice touch. I didn't want to go there again, so it's appreciated.

The difference I want to point out, is the radical Christian right are impervious to evidence. Among their common beliefs, are that there is an afterlife (that favours them), that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Jesus was born of a virgin and not the less impressive option that a pregnant girl lied to her boyfriend/husband, and other things that go well beyond what we know for sure.

If you want to change the mind of an atheist, come with some evidence. Show us why we're wrong. We can demonstrate, conclusively, where radical Christians are wrong in their beliefs about, say, the age of the Earth. That has no effect. By saying that radical atheists are the same, is to ignore the basic fact that you could change an atheist's mind with evidence, when, demonstrably, you can not say the same about many Christians, and you know it. I think you only equate the two because you want to give the appearance of being fair, when actually, being fair would include acknowledging this difference.

 

[Hermann]

Well, chansen, I am not a Christian fundamentalist, and I don't want to change the mind of an atheist. I myself am an atheist, and I agree that fundamentalist Christian belief, when regarded as true as scientific fact, is a pseudo science that holds no water at all.

From the perspective of scientific insight, the atheist side is right, and the Christian fundamentalist side wrong, but I do not go along with the contempt with which the two sides regard each other. I think the two sides are alike only inasmuch as they are contemptuous of each other.

 

[chansen]

I agree that the more extreme atheist side is contemptuous of the Christian right, and vice-versa. I just don't think that holding a group in contempt is, itself, a bad thing.

If you hold beliefs that defy all evidence to the contrary, and you insist your beliefs about a "final destination" are correct and that atheists will suffer and/or not share in this wonderful destination, despite this lack of evidence, then I will be happy to stand with the "damned" atheists and hold those who say I have to believe with them "or else" in the highest contempt, and not feel a shred of guilt while doing so.

Meanwhile, I should point out that there is no symmetrical belief on the atheist side. No position that atheists get some reward for not believing, except some free time on Sunday that their wives immediately fill with household chores.

 

[Luce NDs]

Familiarity breeds contempt ... so perhaps those that say we shouldn't know are into something ... a bubble eLle gacy of god or one stinking maas ?

Still yah gotta wonder about those that claim to know everything ... God!

 

[Mendalla]

No position that atheists get some reward for not believing, except some free time on Sunday that their wives immediately fill with household chores.

What? You aren't out having hedonistic orgies while the religious folks are in church? They lied to me. I'll never trust those nice guys in suits carrying Bibles ever again.

 

[Hermann]

I agree that the more extreme atheist side is contemptuous of the Christian right, and vice-versa. I just don't think that holding a group in contempt is, itself, a bad thing.

If you hold beliefs that defy all evidence to the contrary, and you insist your beliefs about a "final destination" are correct and that atheists will suffer and/or not share in this wonderful destination, despite this lack of evidence, then I will be happy to stand with the "damned" atheists and hold those who say I have to believe with them "or else" in the highest contempt, and not feel a shred of guilt while doing so.

Meanwhile, I should point out that there is no symmetrical belief on the atheist side. No position that atheists get some reward for not believing, except some free time on Sunday that their wives immediately fill with household chores.

Yes, chansen, I agree with what you say, except that I, personally, am not contemptuous of Christian fundamentalists, neither as group nor individually. It just isn't my style to be contemptuous of those who I think are wrong. But this is a personal feeling and a personal choice.

You see, I genuinely love my enemies, and will kill them lovingly--if I have too.

If one has superior logic, then the superiority of one's argument will eventually assert itself. Expressions of negative emotions toward an opponent are of no help, and can be a hindrance. What's more, from a strictly pedagogic perspective, being contemptuous of those we are trying to teach is not an effective teaching tool.

 

[chansen]

It's not that they're wrong, so much as they become complete a**holes while being wrong, telling people that they are going to suffer. We see it on this very forum.

And while you say you have no interest in holding anyone in contempt, what you're doing in the meantime, is saying both sides are somehow equal, and in some ways, holding both sides in contempt. Yet at the same time, agreeing with me that both sides are not the same.

 

[Hermann]

Hi chansen: I am not contemptuous of the contemptible!

Oops, sorry, I guess I am.

 

[Delightful Life]

ah, the addiction to sides...even here...time to groove out to the FSM...israeli style!

 

[Hermann]

It's not that they're wrong, so much as they become complete a**holes while being wrong, telling people that they are going to suffer. We see it on this very forum.

And while you say you have no interest in holding anyone in contempt, what you're doing in the meantime, is saying both sides are somehow equal, and in some ways, holding both sides in contempt. Yet at the same time, agreeing with me that both sides are not the same.

I think that Christian fundamentalism, and with it Biblical literalism and absolutism, are minority positions, not only within modern society but also within the United Church and other liberal Protestant denominations. The radical Christian Right defeat themselves with their own rhetoric. Battling them only makes them more defensive of their indefensible position. If given enough rope, they will eventually hang themselves. Conducting rational arguments by quoting reams of scripture works only for those who believe in scripture as absolute truth, and those who do are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

But what about radical atheists or anti-theists? If they believe in logic as the only method of finding truth, then they might also be mistaken. According to many philosophers, scientists among them, there are two diametrically opposed kinds of truth, the small t truth of the analysis, and the capital T Truth of the synthesis.

It appears that reality ultimately is nondualistic: an inseparable, unified whole: a singularity in a state of synthesis. Analysis is only one possible way of apprehending the singularity. But analysis necessarily fragments the singularity, and therefore gives us a fragmented and distorted picture of reality. Reality, as it really is, can only be experienced in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. Experiencing reality in its pure "isness" is experiencing ultimate Truth!

Those of us who dare to experience ultimate Truth, and immerse themselves in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality, experience the unity that underlies all diversity. They are overcome with awe, and experience unitive love. They experience what Christian fundamentalists extoll as "Christian virtues." Some atheistic mystics even go as far as metaphorically describing their experience as an "experience of God." Allan Watts called the stance of atheistic mysticism "atheism in the name of God."

I would like to emphasize that by "mystical experience" I mean nothing more and nothing less than immersing oneself in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. Anyone can do it. One only needs to silence the incessant chatter of one's thoughts, and go deeply within, in silence and stillness.

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus the gathered emotions are as un-fixated ... or at fault as scattered thoughts ... as OI-lye goe-sts ... concepts that fall out of my mind as some believe concepts are stuck ... when they are non-in-fallible! Unlike stardust that drifts ad infinitum ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Isn't that de Light .. dark or other ... wise?

Thus Shadow wisdom that emerges from under the span ... but eph you don't know Esperanto ... you wouldn't rant about it in un-knowing fantasy ... loosing as much as you gain when coming to equilibrium or the point of equivalence with everything ... or God neigh all that is in final integral ...

You might fall off the point ... of known return ... sort of like ten Isis! One continues to volley ... and canans go on and on ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Ka Nous get over this materialistic humping?

 

[chansen]

I think that Christian fundamentalism, and with it Biblical literalism and absolutism, are minority positions, not only within modern society but also within the United Church and other liberal Protestant denominations. The radical Christian Right defeat themselves with their own rhetoric. Battling them only makes them more defensive of their indefensible position. If given enough rope, they will eventually hang themselves. Conducting rational arguments by quoting reams of scripture works only for those who believe in scripture as absolute truth, and those who do are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

But what about radical atheists or anti-theists? If they believe in logic as the only method of finding truth, then they might also be mistaken.

Scientific theories and facts need to be hashed out through the logical scientific method. If we're talking about the beauty of a tree, then no, atheists and anti-theists are not saying we need an equation to appreciate a tree.

According to many philosophers, scientists among them, there are two diametrically opposed kinds of truth, the small t truth of the analysis, and the capital T Truth of the synthesis.

You keep going back to stuff like this, telling us about what "many philosophers" say about "synthesis". Citation?

It appears that reality ultimately is nondualistic: an inseparable, unified whole: a singularity in a state of synthesis. Analysis is only one possible way of apprehending the singularity. But analysis necessarily fragments the singularity, and therefore gives us a fragmented and distorted picture of reality. Reality, as it really is, can only be experienced in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. Experiencing reality in its pure "isness" is experiencing ultimate Truth!

Those of us who dare to experience ultimate Truth, and immerse themselves in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality, experience the unity that underlies all diversity. They are overcome with awe, and experience unitive love. They experience what Christian fundamentalists extoll as "Christian virtues." Some atheistic mystics even go as far as metaphorically describing their experience as an "experience of God." Allan Watts called the stance of atheistic mysticism "atheism in the name of God."

I would like to emphasize that by "mystical experience" I mean nothing more and nothing less than immersing oneself in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. Anyone can do it. One only needs to silence the incessant chatter of one's thoughts, and go deeply within, in silence and stillness.

People could probably benefit from that, but bringing the word "God" into it is still the worst thing you could do for it.

 

[Hermann]

Scientific theories and facts need to be hashed out through the logical scientific method. If we're talking about the beauty of a tree, then no, atheists and anti-theists are not saying we need an equation to appreciate a tree.



You keep going back to stuff like this, telling us about what "many philosophers" say about "synthesis". Citation?



People could probably benefit from that, but bringing the word "God" into it is still the worst thing you could do for it.

I don't question the scientific method. It is, without any doubt, the best method to analyze phenomena and determine analytical truth. I am just saying that there could be a synthetical, unitive or wholistic truth that is antithetical to analytical truth. Such a truth would not be irrational but anti-rational: the precise diametric opposite of analytical truth. Analytical truth separates; synthetical truth unites.

Citations? I don't remember any offhand, but there is the Unified Field Theory, the Principles of Complementarity, Uncertainty, and other scientific theories that are indicative of reality as a unified whole. I think Carl Sagan used words to that effect, but I don't have any actual quotes.

Yes, using the word "God" when describing one's experience of reality as a unified whole is inappropriate, because the word comes loaded with so much baggage. In my case, it is a cultural bias. In my culturally biased mind, the concept "God" denotes that which is most sacred or holy. And, in my experience, the most sacred or holy experience is the experience of reality as a unified whole.

But when I use "God" in that context, I have to keep qualifying my remark, and am getting a bit tired of it. But, to me, the unified universe will always be that which is most holy, or sacred, or numinous, or divine, or spiritual, etc.

 

[Luce NDs]

I still think for those scientists trying to reduce things as much as possible for economic reasons that everything fits into the God rendering as classic attachment of a name to all that is ad infinitum ... or alternatively eternal stretch of de soul so that the damn thing is ethereal ... or near nothing as a lesser power that can haunt god-knows what with their oppressive attitudes towards larger nominations ... re-numeration?

 

[Mendalla]

Citations? I don't remember any offhand, but there is the Unified Field Theory, the Principles of Complementarity, Uncertainty, and other scientific theories that are indicative of reality as a unified whole. I think Carl Sagan used words to that effect, but I don't have any actual quotes.

But that doesn't say anything about that unified whole being anti-rational or not findable by analytic methods. Those are all parts of scientific theories and the products of the very analytical method that you say won't work here. And there is no Unified Field Theory as of yet and won't be one for some time. If we do find a testable, verifiable GUT (Grand Unified Theory) then you will be wrong because we will have shown the unity of existence through the analytical methods of science, not in spite of them.