|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2006 : 23:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Please give me your sources that show that this is a psychoanalysis, and to show that I ever claimed to have an M.D. after my name.
When you can't do that, I'll await both your apologies.
Hey Rev!
I understand you are giving an opinion. We all have that right. Our thoughts on a subject don't have to be backed up with someone else's opinion. Don't let them get you down. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 01:47:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And now you're calling me fat?
It's the eyes. Where are they? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 01:51:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your welcome, so how about you laying off the insults for now. I gaurantee that they aren't making your argument any more compelling.
But his face! That horrible face!
Relax. It's a joke. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 01:52:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
So, here's the question I have. Would folks here consider Gellman a moderate or a fundie or an extremist or what?
The big problem is that the article was vague as the opening post points out. We don't have a clue as to what he's talking about or who he's talking about. Who are these angry atheists that he's referring to? Likewise, we do not know how extreme or liberal his other views are at this point. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/29/2006 01:53:45 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 02:02:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In all seriousness, I no longer have a clue about what it is you think you don't understand. About anything. I once thought I had a handle on where you were coming from on a variety of subjects, but I now know that I was completely wrong. I hereby apologize to you for presuming that I had a grasp on any point you may or may not have been trying to make for the four years or so that I've been reading your posts. Furthermore, I apologize to you, Gorgo, for acting upon my ignorance of your intended meaning by replying to you as if I understood you. I am sorry.
Thanks for the apology. I apologize if I seemed irritated or impatient or as some people said, attacking. I'm trying to be clear, but evidently either this medium makes that more difficult, or I really am using words that aren't visible on the page. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/29/2006 02:05:33 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 08:23:51 [Permalink]
|
leoofno, your thorough critique of the column was awesome. Thanks so much for it. After reading it I wanted to write a letter, but the very first letter among the readers' responseshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537782/site/newsweek/?page=2 said exactly what I would have: quote:
“I ask you this, rabbi: what do you think the reaction would have been if you had made those kind of sweeping and unflattering generalizations about followers of a particular religion instead of atheists? What if someone of the Catholic faith wrote a column like yours asserting that Jews are ‘angry,' and that because they don't believe in an afterlife they believe in ‘nothing' … Or what if they said that people enter the priesthood or became a rabbi because they've suffered some sort of personal damage?
What is frightening to me is that religious people of old and established faiths automatically get respect that atheists and young religions (Scientology, neoPagans) do not, and the only way they can lose that added respect is if they engage in an act of outright terrorism, such as bombing an abortion clinic. Meanwhile, fictional atheists are getting ripped on in Newsweek for being angry, and the Rabbi doesn't have the decency or intelligence to mention the real reason many atheists are angry. The religious right is trying to take away many of our freedoms and pushing values based only on scripture into our laws – that's a damn good reason to at least be leery of evangelical Christians.
Respect for freedom, support for science and reason, and protection of social stability should always be valued more highly than religious beliefs. It should be that way because those things touch everyone, and cause each of us to identity with every other human being on this planet before we identify with a worldview or religion.
dglas wrote: quote:
So, here's the question I have. Would folks here consider Gellman a moderate or a fundie or an extremist or what?
Well, the fact that he started defending evangelical Christians and clearly hinted at a condemnation of homosexuality (“chosen lifestyle”), I'm guessing he's a type of fundamentalist. Definitely not a general moderate.
leoofno wrote: quote:
He doesn't seem extremist, just totally ignorant about atheists.
Hmmmm… I'm not buying this argument because this is exactly what fundies tend to do: publicly vocalize specific and hard-line opinions about things they are ignorant of. They do it regarding homosexuality, evolution, abortion, and in their criticism of other religions, as well as atheism. He didn't just hold this opinion in ignorance – he sat and stewed about it (rather than actually researching atheism with an open mind) enough that he was motivated to write and publish his lame opinion.
This sentence in particular sounded a lot like stuff fundies say: quote:
Some religious leaders obviously betray the teachings of the faith they claim to represent, but their sacred scriptures remain a critique of them and also of every thing we do to betray the better angels of our nature.
See, he seems moderate by admitting that some religious people have used scripture for bad purposes or misi |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/29/2006 08:27:57 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 08:52:45 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
It is necessary to create an eternity in order to give his life worth. Therefore, he believes that life has little worth, and must create a lie to give it worth. He believes he and his life are worth little, and is angry about that.
I think part of the reason people are jumping on you for this is that you are not being clear and specific enough. Do you mean that the guy has a low sense of self worth, or do you mean that he is upset about life being objectively meaningless. Because life IS objectively meaningless (at least from an atheistic point of view.) But given how you've extended this theory of yours to so many other things, I don't think you mean it that way.
quote:
That is what makes religion dangerous. Not that the rest of us don't have these same worthless beliefs here and there, because we all do, but that religion makes that anger sacred.
Define “sacred”. One of the atheists in my Humanist group wrote a book called “The Case for the Sacred”, and she promotes the concept of sacredness from a naturalistic point of view. So obviously her definition of “sacred” is different from yours. You need to be more specific.
I think what is dangerous about *some* religious people is that they are dogmatic about both their beliefs and their morality, and then considering their beliefs to be absolute Truth, they feel totally justified in forcing it on everyone. But not all religious people do that. I talked to a Catholic friend just the other night. He said he thought abortion was wrong, and if he got a girl pregnant, he'd encourage her to not abort and then he'd be a good father to the kid. But then he added that he thought abortion should be legal. I asked him why, and he said, “Because that comes from my religion, and I can't force my religion on everyone.” How is a religious person like that dangerous?
Moakley wrote: quote:
If I had a nickel for every time I heard a christian state, "My faith in God/Jesus makes my life meaningful." I'd have $42.85. So is that self worthlessness? I don't think so, but it does convey the idea that without this faith their life just might be worthless/meaningless.
I think you just hit the nail on the head; thinking life is ultimately meaningless is not the same as not having a sense of self worth.
It's probably worth noting that there is a vagueness to that often stated sentence “Faith makes my life meaningful.” That can mean different things to different people. My mom and my friend Kate have both told me that their being Catholic is largely motivated by wanting to keep a connection to their family and because they enjoy the ritual. I make art in order to feel more connected to life. I participate in my Humanist group in order to feel more connected to my fellow human beings and because I want to help create strong communities that promote my values. I think my motivations regarding art-making and Humanist community involvement parallel many peoples' motivations to be involved in religion. And I don't think I'm driven to those things by a lack of self worth; I think I'm drawn to it by a love for my fellow mankind, my desire for a more secure and free society for myself and everyone I care about, as well as the rewards of camaraderie with people who share my values.
Many religious people are motivated by similar hopes, desires, and compassion. That is why, while religious groups are |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/29/2006 08:53:24 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:05:04 [Permalink]
|
Part of the problem with what you say is the fluidity of meaning of words. Religion means a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. What you are describing is people who like to socialize. Sacred means concerned with religion or religious purposes. What you are describing is things people like.
"Upset" is not the same as preferring something. What is the difference? Do you think you need to be "upset" about something in order to change it?
The problem may not be that I'm not being clear, but that the ideas involved are impossible to discuss in any sensible way because of the fluidity of meaning and the emotional attachment people have to them. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/29/2006 09:11:07 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:31:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
But his face! That horrible face!
Relax. It's a joke.
I apologize then. It's not always clear to me when you're joking. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:36:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
Religion means a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Sometimes. But not always. A Deist's belief in God has nothing to do with control of human destiny. That is why they are Deists! Buddhists don't even have a God belief, or at least, not the western kind of belief in God. Many Christians and Jews who do believe in God are comfortable with interpretations of the Bible that are very close to a secularist view in practice.
Lumping is always a problem. Hell, I don't even use the word “fundy” anymore because it lacks precision and is all to often used as a way of lumping everyone who has a God belief into one convenient target of ridicule.
I reject the idea that everyone who holds to an idea that I think is flawed, based on the kind of evidence that I think is acceptable, suffers from some sort of mental problem.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I reject the idea that everyone who holds to an idea that I think is flawed, based on the kind of evidence that I think is acceptable, suffers from some sort of mental problem.
I would reject that as well. Although Republicans have to be seriously, seriously damaged in some way. 
Again, these are not the words on the page that I've written. You're reading something that isn't there. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 10:04:18 [Permalink]
|
I was responding to this:
quote:
Gorgo:
Religion means a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
If I misread what you were saying here, please correct me. Don't just tell me that “[I'm] reading something that isn't there.”
As for the notion that we all hold some ideas, or act in ways that are meant to bolster our own self worth, and that we all do that sometimes, I can go with you on Gorgo. So perhaps you should not read into something that I said that isn't there. But we both know that there are those who think that anyone who holds a religious belief is dangerous or crazy. And you do seem to apply that particular litmus test yourself. The qualifier that we all do that sometimes just seems to me a way of softening the blow.
But again, the main part of my response was to what I quoted.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 10:08:38 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
Part of the problem with what you say is the fluidity of meaning of words. Religion means a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. What you are describing is people who like to socialize. Sacred means concerned with religion or religious purposes. What you are describing is things people like.
What did you do, pull those definitions out of thin air? Under any definition, religion has always been more than just belief. It can be just belief (such a Christian who believes but doesn't go to church or fellowships or even pray much) or it can be just ritual and community (such as my atheist friend who attends his Unitarian church's service every week, or secular Jews who still participate in religious rituals and sometimes even keep kosher.) Most often religion is a mix of belief and ritual/community, but BOTH are and have always been components. Hell, in ancient Greek and Roman cultures, the authorities didn't care if you really believed. They just wanted people to abide by the rituals as a show of alligence to the city-state/Roman Empire. In the case of many religions in history, belief has clearly been a secondary characteristic.
I would also like to point out to you that religious beliefs in regards to morality have, in modern times, been framed in a totally Humanistic way. The Humanist Manifesto was partially written and signed by many clergy members of Humanistic religious societies. Those groups are still around today. The last speaker at my atheistic Humanist group was clergy from the local Ethical Society, and he spoke of Humanists as "religious" communities. I myself am clergy, and when I officiate legal ceremonies, I am regarded legally as representing a religious body called the Humanist Society.
Religion has evolved to allign with modern values, Gorgo, and the nature of religion around the world in through history has been diverse enough that there is no essential characteristic of religion. What is or isn't a religion is based on historical and social context. By simplifying religion in this way, you are dumbing down your own and others' understanding of what religion is and the role it plays in human societies.
And I was not talking about merely "people who like to socialize". I guess you just skipped over the part regarding ethics and social responsibility - which has also always been a component of religion.
As for sacred, that is a vague word that has taken on several related, but different, meanings:
sa·cred ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sacred
What my friend Deena refers to in her book is more than "things people like". "Sacred" in a naturalistic and humanistic sense has a more specific and powerful definition than that. (See 4, 5, and 6.)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 16:38:57 [Permalink]
|
Since Kil referred to another thread, I thought he had read the other thread where I spelled out some ideas. When I did that, I was careful to define religion. See http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5944&whichpage=6
Generally, I don't use the word "religion" in these conversations, but in this case, I was careful to spell out what I meant. I didn't mean people who wear funny hats and go to parties, and I didn't mean pink slippers.
More later. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/29/2006 16:39:21 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 16:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Respect for freedom, support for science and reason, and protection of social stability should always be valued more highly than religious beliefs. It should be that way because those things touch everyone, and cause each of us to identity with every other human being on this planet before we identify with a worldview or religion.
I really like that Marf, well put.
It does make me think though, how do we deal with religions whose doctrine places their beliefs above those of society in general? "You can practice the bits of your religion that society sees as appropriate." tends to not go down real well, and then you have all the "look, their picking on us poor religious folk again!" whining. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/29/2006 16:57:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
