Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?)


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 986 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:


OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.

I'm not. Many people approach Atheism from different points of view. What they all have in common is a rejection of control.. or a particular form of authority. That sort of rejection never comes without a reaction. if you come to a conclusion that there is no God, than his Priests have no hold over you, nor do appeals whose backing is based solely on a belief on such a supreme being...and the rewards used to bribe your behavior, or the punishments threathened to curb it.

Many people hold to the belief that without such coercion, a person can not be trusted.

What you're talking about is irreligion, not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Period. Something that most Buddhists, and practitioners of a number of other religions share. Being an atheist doesn't even preclude belief in the supernatural, or that someone is a particularly rational thinker. It ONLY describes one's lack of belief in a god or gods.

So yes, tying the term atheism to leftist principles, specifically progressive secular humanism (and I say this as a progressive secular humanist) is a perversion of the word atheist.


Well, it kind of makes sense to tie atheism to the "secular" part of that. :)


thejeff wrote:
Well, it kind of makes sense to tie atheism to the "secular" part of that. :)

Since secular means non-religious, and you can have religious atheists, I can't say I concur...


Religious atheists?

How's that?


Scythia wrote:

Religious atheists?

How's that?

People who perform religious activities and remain members of religious communities while not believing in a god or gods. There are a variety of reasons this may be compelling.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scythia wrote:

Religious atheists?

How's that?

Also many Buddhists or Taoists do not believe in a deity but would be religious.


Yeah, religious atheists are those who lack belief but, for various reasons, participate in religious ritual/customs/community.

Floored me the first time I met someone who identified as a Jewish atheist, but yeah, it's a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As we talked about a bit earlier, some forms of Buddhism are essentially atheist.
Unitiarian Universalist Churches welcome atheists. I'm sure there are others.

Still, while it's technically true that some atheists are religious and that "secular" means "not-religious", "secular humanism" isn't quite the same. A secular humanist is likely to be pretty comfortable in the modern religions that don't require belief in God. And secularism by itself in this context tends to be more about the influence of religion on the state than about not being part of a religion. Even most more marginal religions approve of that side of secularism, if only because they know they won't be in charge.

That might not apply in a religious state dominated by atheist Buddhism or some such, but it certainly does it the modern West.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yeah, religious atheists are those who lack belief but, for various reasons, participate in religious ritual/customs/community.

Floored me the first time I met someone who identified as a Jewish atheist, but yeah, it's a thing.

Community, ritual and custom are things that bind groups of people together. Belonging to such a group is appealing, particularly if not belonging/participating would separate you from a lot of people you know and love.

If you look at the most successful religions (those that recruit and retain the best), you see the ones with more rituals and traditions drawing people in and keeping them. Catholicism dominates Christianity. In the US, the fastest growing denomination is Mormonism (though it's still relatively small). Buddhism, despite having a home in two of the most populous countries in the world is small compared to Islam and Christianity. Where it is dominant it tends to be Theravada, which is the more strict and ritualized version.

For all our talk about freedom, people also find a certain amount of comfort in conformity and having decisions made for them. There's some research that shows we don't like having dozens of options to choose from, we find 2-3 much easier to choose from. We also have limited capacity to make decisions, it's work for your brain to make one and reducing the number of decisions you have to make in a day means you have more brain power for the ones that remain. We've all felt it after taking a long test in school, your brain is just ready to shut off and when asked to make a decision you often just don't care any more.

It's a reason I think atheism isn't very popular. It doesn't provide answers (which are comforting) and mostly offers up shrugs to all questions. It doesn't provide any rituals or traditions. If an atheists rejects religious authority, they often aren't willing to step in and provide that same authority (or aren't willing to join when someone else does).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Saying that there is no afterlife is actually an answer that can allay the fear of what comes after death


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Saying that there is no afterlife is actually an answer that can allay the fear of what comes after death

Of course, saying that there is an afterlife is also an answer that can allay the fear of what comes after death.

Either way, the consequences of believing a proposition are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement itself. This has been known for so long that it is listed as a fallacy with its own name --- in Latin.

Basically, this particular line of approach is all just wishful thinking. "What comes after death" is what it is, irrespective of your fear or otherwise.


meatrace wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:


OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.

I'm not. Many people approach Atheism from different points of view. What they all have in common is a rejection of control.. or a particular form of authority. That sort of rejection never comes without a reaction. if you come to a conclusion that there is no God, than his Priests have no hold over you, nor do appeals whose backing is based solely on a belief on such a supreme being...and the rewards used to bribe your behavior, or the punishments threathened to curb it.

Many people hold to the belief that without such coercion, a person can not be trusted.

What you're talking about is irreligion, not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Period. Something that most Buddhists, and practitioners of a number of other religions share. Being an atheist doesn't even preclude belief in the supernatural, or that someone is a particularly rational thinker. It ONLY describes one's lack of belief in a god or gods.

So yes, tying the term atheism to leftist principles, specifically progressive secular humanism (and I say this as a progressive secular humanist) is a perversion of the word atheist.

If you're professing Atheism of either definition, you're essentially telling the major politically dominant religions in this country, mainly Fundamentalist Christianity and to a lesser extent, Catholicism, to go piss off. Religions that don't believe in a deity are so minor in political power in this country as to essentially be irrelevant.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:


OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.

A lot of athiests are anti-authoritarian by nature and Athiesm+ quickly developed a patina of authoritarian moralizing self-righteousness. This was not a recipy for widespread acceptance.


Atheists are by nature argumentative and more than a little iconoclastic, at least the ones that care enough to form an atheist organization. (or, you know, they wouldn't disagree with society and then argue back at society). The kind of ideology behind atheism plus relies on a lot of questionable suppositions and takes the free inquiry and challenge inherent in atheism and science as a moral failing.

Atheism: OOOOO! An idea! Lets try to break it and see what survives! *smash smash smash smash*

Atheism + : .. WHAT are you doing? why are you being so terrible?!?

Atheism: this is what we do with ALL the ideas. ONLY THE STRONG WILL SURVIVE!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lol they are not being terrible. Telling people the uncomfortable truth is a good thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:


OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.
A lot of athiests are anti-authoritarian by nature and Athiesm+ quickly developed a patina of authoritarian moralizing self-righteousness. This was not a recipy for widespread acceptance.

Alternately Atheism+ ran headlong into the same anti-feminism, anti-political correctness, anti-social justice backlash that's been pretty much everywhere these last few years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Possible. To my thinking as an atheist, though, tying any of those things to atheism is a mistake from the start. Atheists are united by their atheism, not their political leanings or views. Tying it to such means you get a pretty small group of people who agree on those counts. Which means a useless grouping, which is ineffectual and will lose people.

Another question was whether atheism ever was the central concept of Atheism +. I wouldn't join a group that claimed to be atheist but the stuff debated was not applicable, instead ranging in areas I had no interest in. Being an atheist is part of my identity. Being pro social justice as American leftists define it is not. Better for me (and a lot of other atheists) to not join, and better for the group not to have us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

ElevatorGate and Atheism+ revealed the level of bigotry and misogyny present in the atheism community. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on hate.

At it's most basic level, atheism doesn't provide any sort of moral framework. Atheism+ was an attempt at creating one that wasn't directly tied to secular humanism or humanism, both of which have strong historical ties to religion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, as I understand it, Atheism+ started as a response to sexism (or perceived sexism, I suppose) within other atheist organizations or the larger atheist community. It wasn't a spontaneous "atheists should also fight sexism" thing.

If atheists groups should stay away from any other social justice issues and focus solely on atheism, how should they deal with internal sexism? Or racism or any of the other social justice issues? Just ignore it? Become a safe haven for such things because addressing them isn't the focus?

Because they'll be there. Those things are part of the culture and atheists aren't somehow immune.

Now, if you just mean that's not what you personally want to focus on, so you'll avoid such groups, that's one thing, but the backlash to Atheism+ went far beyond "Meh, not my thing".


Irontruth wrote:

ElevatorGate and Atheism+ revealed the level of bigotry and misogyny present in the atheism community. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on hate.

At it's most basic level, atheism doesn't provide any sort of moral framework. Atheism+ was an attempt at creating one that wasn't directly tied to secular humanism or humanism, both of which have strong historical ties to religion.

Yup, atheism is just a statement about what one is not -- it says nothing about what one is. On a different forum, I ran into an atheist white supremacist. And that was how I discovered Stormfront, even before Richard Spencer and other overt racists starting heil Trump-ing.

I think I have an account on an Atheism+ forum, but honestly I know hardly anything about the movement. I think I thought that Atheism+ was just a forum name meant to separate it from other atheist forums, and only discovered afterward that it's a movement. And I only discovered that that movement failed -- whatever that means -- from this very thread.

In any case, I identify as a Humanist these days because it reflects both what I am not and what I am, so I suppose Atheism+ has failed at least in capturing my attention. If it had not, what would I call myself? A...Plus Atheist? An Atheist Plusser? A Plusser? Hm...have I discovered the real reason that Atheism+ hasn't caught on? ;)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Well, as I understand it, Atheism+ started as a response to sexism (or perceived sexism, I suppose) within other atheist organizations or the larger atheist community. It wasn't a spontaneous "atheists should also fight sexism" thing.

If atheists groups should stay away from any other social justice issues and focus solely on atheism, how should they deal with internal sexism? Or racism or any of the other social justice issues? Just ignore it? Become a safe haven for such things because addressing them isn't the focus?

Because they'll be there. Those things are part of the culture and atheists aren't somehow immune.

Now, if you just mean that's not what you personally want to focus on, so you'll avoid such groups, that's one thing, but the backlash to Atheism+ went far beyond "Meh, not my thing".

It may have started that way, but it shifted into a purity movement almost from the word "go". Like most purity movements, they refined themselves through waves of external and internal purges until they self destructed. Unfortunatly they did some serious damage to the community on their way out. One small consolation was that the Richard Carrier saga was pretty hilarious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well, as I understand it, Atheism+ started as a response to sexism (or perceived sexism, I suppose) within other atheist organizations or the larger atheist community. It wasn't a spontaneous "atheists should also fight sexism" thing.

If atheists groups should stay away from any other social justice issues and focus solely on atheism, how should they deal with internal sexism? Or racism or any of the other social justice issues? Just ignore it? Become a safe haven for such things because addressing them isn't the focus?

Because they'll be there. Those things are part of the culture and atheists aren't somehow immune.

Now, if you just mean that's not what you personally want to focus on, so you'll avoid such groups, that's one thing, but the backlash to Atheism+ went far beyond "Meh, not my thing".

It may have started that way, but it shifted into a purity movement almost from the word "go". Like most purity movements, they refined themselves through waves of external and internal purges until they self destructed. Unfortunatly they did some serious damage to the community on their way out. One small consolation was that the Richard Carrier saga was pretty hilarious.

Maybe. I wasn't really paying a lot of attention and I'm not really tied in to the atheist community, so I can't really say.

OTOH, that's the kind of accusation that's thrown by opponents of any kind of social justice group these days. so forgive me if I'm a little skeptical.


It is also not uncommon to hear people complain that "the antifeminist, anti-PC, anti-social-justice crowd destroyed X, Y and Z". Enough so that I feel further qualification is warranted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You want names and dates?

If you care, do some google searching, most of this happened on the internet, so it's fairly well documented. If you don't care enough to do that, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

Edit: to be more specific, I'm tired of being told this kind of stuff doesn't exist, presenting proof that it does, and people stubbornly resisting and refusing to acknowledge it. If you don't see it, that's your hangup. If you want to convince me it's not your hangup and this is all in my imagination, I'm willing to hear the evidence, but it's going to have to be pretty convincing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

You want names and dates?

If you care, do some google searching, most of this happened on the internet, so it's fairly well documented. If you don't care enough to do that, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

Edit: to be more specific, I'm tired of being told this kind of stuff doesn't exist, presenting proof that it does, and people stubbornly resisting and refusing to acknowledge it. If you don't see it, that's your hangup. If you want to convince me it's not your hangup and this is all in my imagination, I'm willing to hear the evidence, but it's going to have to be pretty convincing.

The problem with just "do some google searching" is that it's easy to find biased sources from one side or the other. I could find you plenty of sources about how ElevatorGate was completely blown out of proportion and how Atheism+ was a purity campaign that turned into witchhunts.

But yeah, mostly it's hangups and denial.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Possible. To my thinking as an atheist, though, tying any of those things to atheism is a mistake from the start. Atheists are united by their atheism, not their political leanings or views. Tying it to such means you get a pretty small group of people who agree on those counts. Which means a useless grouping, which is ineffectual and will lose people.

Another question was whether atheism ever was the central concept of Atheism +. I wouldn't join a group that claimed to be atheist but the stuff debated was not applicable, instead ranging in areas I had no interest in. Being an atheist is part of my identity. Being pro social justice as American leftists define it is not. Better for me (and a lot of other atheists) to not join, and better for the group not to have us.

From another point of view, much of the negative baggage we're dealing with, nationalism, racism, and definitely gender orientation and women issues are tied up and propped up with theistic beliefs. The whole Eve thing as justification for the subjugation and objectification of women by the Abrahamic religions is just the starter.

So it makes sense that if you're going to combat the stranglehold that theism has on society, you'd also attack the negative things it is tied to and/or strongly props up.

I can definitely understand both the motivations for Atheism Plus and the backlash it got.

I've got a new thing now... The next time someone rants on you that it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, reply to them "Oh. so you mean Adam and his Transgender Clone then."

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:

You want names and dates?

If you care, do some google searching, most of this happened on the internet, so it's fairly well documented. If you don't care enough to do that, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

Edit: to be more specific, I'm tired of being told this kind of stuff doesn't exist, presenting proof that it does, and people stubbornly resisting and refusing to acknowledge it. If you don't see it, that's your hangup. If you want to convince me it's not your hangup and this is all in my imagination, I'm willing to hear the evidence, but it's going to have to be pretty convincing.

Actuable, epmirical, repeatable, peer reviewed proof?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You want names and dates?

If you care, do some google searching, most of this happened on the internet, so it's fairly well documented. If you don't care enough to do that, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

Edit: to be more specific, I'm tired of being told this kind of stuff doesn't exist, presenting proof that it does, and people stubbornly resisting and refusing to acknowledge it. If you don't see it, that's your hangup. If you want to convince me it's not your hangup and this is all in my imagination, I'm willing to hear the evidence, but it's going to have to be pretty convincing.

Actuable, epmirical, repeatable, peer reviewed proof?

I get it, you don't think this stuff exists. I am convinced of your stance on the issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Actuable, epmirical, repeatable, peer reviewed proof?

When do we want it?

"After a reasonable amount of time to do the double blind experiment, collect the data, review the results, and do it again for repeatability !"

... this is why scientists have such bad handwriting. Trying to fit all that on a protest sign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
It is also not uncommon to hear people complain that "the antifeminist, anti-PC, anti-social-justice crowd destroyed X, Y and Z". Enough so that I feel further qualification is warranted.

I joined one Atheism group on Google plus. I left it because of the misogynistic garbage I found there.


Sooo... because you have found one misogynistic atheism group on Google plus, atheists are all misogynistic garbage?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Sooo... because you have found one misogynistic atheism group on Google plus, atheists are all misogynistic garbage?

I'd say you might be generalizing a bit hastily there.

Perhaps you could give the benefit of the doubt and consider that perhaps the statement was to provide evidence that some, not all, do display the negative behaviour in question.


Irontruth wrote:
ElevatorGate and Atheism+ revealed the level of bigotry and misogyny present in the atheism community. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on hate.

It doesn't seem to me there are many benefits of doubt given here. From what I know of the atheist community, it is strongly anti-authoritarian and anti-dogmatic. You think this could clash with various progressive slogans?


Sissyl wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
ElevatorGate and Atheism+ revealed the level of bigotry and misogyny present in the atheism community. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on hate.
It doesn't seem to me there are many benefits of doubt given here. From what I know of the atheist community, it is strongly anti-authoritarian and anti-dogmatic. You think this could clash with various progressive slogans?

Only if you're convinced that progressives are authoritarian and dogmatic.

I'm sure there are some slogans used by some progressives that would bother atheists, but I don't know which ones you're thinking of or whether Atheism+ used them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.
How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?

Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?
Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?
Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Did you bother to check, or are you just talking out of your ass without doing the barest research again?


BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?
Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Did you bother to check, or are you just talking out of your ass without doing the barest research again?

I think he was being sarcastic.

Also, interestingly, the flaw with do-your-research! based arguments is noted above. I wonder if we all aren't just going on a big wheel back to authority-based reasoning in the grand scheme of things.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?
Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Did you bother to check, or are you just talking out of your ass without doing the barest research again?

I think he was being sarcastic.

Also, interestingly, the flaw with do-your-research! based arguments is noted above. I wonder if we all aren't just going on a big wheel back to authority-based reasoning in the grand scheme of things.

There's a difference between being a slave to external sources and "I don't know much about the community or situation, but heres my armchair opinions." I can understand the first position, but the second deserves abject scorn.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Also, I notice that you completely ignore the question of how to deal with the bigotry and misogyny in the atheist community. It exists. Atheists aren't magically immune to such things.

How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?
Clearly, the answer is burn them and their families at the stake. Nobody expects the progressive inquisition!

Obviously, that is the only alternative.

I think I missed that section in the Atheism+ manifesto.

Did you bother to check, or are you just talking out of your ass without doing the barest research again?

I was, as Freehold DM mostly being sarcastic. As I assumed you were being hyperbolic.

I would be grateful for enlightenment though. If there is an actual Atheist+ manifesto that demands the literal burning of anyone at the stake, please point me to it. I'll retract any support in horror if that was actually their plan.
Note though that saying mean things about people isn't actually burning them and their families at the stake.


thejeff wrote:
How does a community, any community really, deal with such problems, when any attempt to do so it supposedly outside what the community is based around?

I think this is a great question about any community, and one I struggle with.

Obviously if there's a large majority within a community that sees a problem, they can set expectations and use old fashioned peer pressure and shaming tactics to modify at least the behavior of the minority.

But if it's roughly 50/50 or the minority that sees the problem, what do they do to influence the other 50%/majority? I'm not asking what the other 50%/majority would like the 50%/minority to do -- which is likely something along the lines of "keep your opinions to yourself, tow the line, and stick to what we see as our driving purpose" -- I'm asking what actually works?


Sissyl wrote:
Sooo... because you have found one misogynistic atheism group on Google plus, atheists are all misogynistic garbage?

Is this your case against the existence of misogyny?


No, it is my answer to Drahliana's argument. I thought that was obvious. Perhaps it wasn't. It can be difficult to see how people will read what you write.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, it is my answer to Drahliana's argument. I thought that was obvious. Perhaps it wasn't. It can be difficult to see how people will read what you write.

It wasn't. It didn't even seem to make sense. One assumes for example that since Drahliana was joining online atheist groups that Drahliana was an atheist. What she accusing herself?

I can't see any way to read Drahlianna's post as an argument that all atheists are misogynistic garbage. It is an argument that misogyny exists in the atheist community and is enough of a problem to drive some away.

Which was the only claim on the table to start with. We don't need to go to ridiculous extremes to acknowledge a problem. In fact, that's more often a way to deny one.


Sissyl wrote:
No, it is my answer to Drahliana's argument. I thought that was obvious. Perhaps it wasn't. It can be difficult to see how people will read what you write.

So, your argument is because the misogyny was in that group, it can't be anywhere else?

Multiple posters (you and Hama for example) have behaved as if things like misogyny don't exist, I want to hear the case for it. Convince me that your perception of the world is the more correct one.


Oh, I am well aware that misogyny exists. Why it would be particularly prevalent in atheist groups, though, I don't know.


quibblemuch wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I suppose, but to get from there to "you can still be Christian without affirming literal bodily resurrection" is a very forced conclusion.
It wasn't to Marcion.
Yeah, and the fact that he no doubt had a personal copy of the very Corinthians letter under discussion tells me that people have been ####### ######## for as long as we have written records.
And yet, as best we can tell, Marcion and his adherents called themselves Christians and believed themselves to be followers of Christ. Your insistence that, because they provide a counter-example from antiquity of what you deem to be a relativistic modern trend, they must not be Christians falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Either the text is indubitably interpretable only in the way that you insist it is, and must have been for 2,000 years or it is not. You can't have it both ways: Either it is sufficiently unambiguous that it has been uncontested for two millenia or as long as we have had written records people have been able to contest your interpretation and still consider themselves Christians.

Marcion can contest any statement he likes. Doesn't mean he had merit to his POV.

A person's degree of religious zeal can be placed on a spectrum. Marcion looks to have been particularly zealous in his POV. His POV was not Christian however. Marcion was mistaken, and very likely willfully so.

"Because I'm sincere I qualify as a member of religion XYZ", is a non sequitur.

I could profess that I am a Muslim, but say also that Allah is only the greatest among many deities. That wouldn't make me a bad or marginal Muslim. I would be a blasphemer and, if I shared my POV, a heretic too.

Which is to say, by my thoughts and actions, and contrary to my professed faith, I am in fact no Muslim.

quibblemuch wrote:
I am not entirely clear which of the two is your point.

Yes, I'm sorry but that would require you to make an effort to understand the facts of my position. Though you rather boldly admit that you like to quibble much so I can't say I'm surprised at your recalcitrance.


Sissyl wrote:
Oh, I am well aware that misogyny exists. Why it would be particularly prevalent in atheist groups, though, I don't know.

I don't think the contention is that it's "particularly prevalent", just that it's common enough to be a problem.

More common perhaps than in communities which make an effort to combat it than in those that deny it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I suppose, but to get from there to "you can still be Christian without affirming literal bodily resurrection" is a very forced conclusion.
It wasn't to Marcion.
Yeah, and the fact that he no doubt had a personal copy of the very Corinthians letter under discussion tells me that people have been ####### ######## for as long as we have written records.
And yet, as best we can tell, Marcion and his adherents called themselves Christians and believed themselves to be followers of Christ. Your insistence that, because they provide a counter-example from antiquity of what you deem to be a relativistic modern trend, they must not be Christians falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Either the text is indubitably interpretable only in the way that you insist it is, and must have been for 2,000 years or it is not. You can't have it both ways: Either it is sufficiently unambiguous that it has been uncontested for two millenia or as long as we have had written records people have been able to contest your interpretation and still consider themselves Christians.

Marcion can contest any statement he likes. Doesn't mean he had merit to his POV.

A person's degree of religious zeal can be placed on a spectrum. Marcion looks to have been particularly zealous in his POV. His POV was not Christian however. Marcion was mistaken, and very likely willfully so.

"Because I'm sincere I qualify as a member of religion XYZ", is a non sequitur.

I could profess that I am a Muslim, but say also that Allah is only the greatest among many deities. That wouldn't make me a bad or marginal Muslim. I would be a blasphemer and, if I shared my POV, a heretic too.

Which is to say, by my thoughts and actions, and contrary to my professed faith, I am in fact no Muslim.

At issue is that you are declaring yourself the arbiter of who is or is not an authentic member of a religion. Someone who claims the authority to proclaim the faith of all others has the same problem as someone who acts as their own attorney.

Unless you're a prophet of YHWH, then you're reaching a bit above your station.

401 to 450 of 986 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.