Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[Jozanny]

Good article. I've always seen religious texts written that way; men using the authority of a deity to impose their own morality.

This piece goes a step too far:

Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I think this is drawing conclusions from casual connections rather than causal ones. I'd agree that the cohesive factors are probably societally beneficial, but whether it's the driver for success is just a little too big a gap to bridge just yet.

Atheist: In the context of the article itself, I am not sure, since I do not know the book and my statistical training comes from what The New Republic teaches me. If you read the whole article, it is about why we're *touchy*--which certainly fits many indicators. The faithful get defensive, and the atheists get incredulous at faithful close-mindedness, and on it goes, but, in the context of advanced primate behavior, Emily makes some useful insights about status, the brain work it takes. Church has a great deal of this in it. Alpha leaders mediating negative self-interest for the sake of social cohesion (yes, when I wake up my body needs about an hour to convince itself it isn't dead, so this distraction is permissible).

[JCamilo]

[COLOR="SlateGray"]


I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.

Humor is often as sense of disregard with the reality or with the stabilished positions. Maybe that.
Maybe we can think in what the Ancient Comedy was meant to be
Or that Irony was first developed as a questioning tool.

[Pendragon]

In case you hadn't noticed, Pen has managed to gain my respect in this very thread, and that ain't an easy task for a bloke who's not just a bible-thumper, but a damn preacher/pastor as well! That alone shows the value of things like this forum, and neither Pen nor myself is any kind of juvie.

.

Um, thank you! I didn't gain that respect by being either a crawfish or a bully. You have to find ways to talk to people without seeming to be forcing them to see your point of view. Share don't cram it down their throats.

And be honest to yourself and them as well. Twain wrote: "You can't pray a lie." You can't convince anyone of anything unless you give honest feelings.

The phrase "Let God sort 'em out." might be a great point. Here we have atheists and theists in argument over who is right. One will go the way one chooses, irregardless of whether or not they hear a ton of things to the contrary.

A case in point: Fearful of the effect public schools might have on his six children, a friend of mine who is a fellow minister home schooled his through graduation. Only one remains in church or believing any sort of religious feelings. School had nothing to do with it.

I and my siblings were public schooled and only my brother refuses to go to church. My sisters are married to preachers.

Of my own kids, my daughter has quit church and my son goes to a different church. They have to find their own path, not mine.

God bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

Red, the analogy is simply wrong. If you need me to tell you why rape and plastic surgery are different, then you shouldn't be writing on the internet. Interestingly enough, the only person I know of who claims to be able to lift enormous weights but refuses to show evidence is Pat Robertson, a well-known christian.

You seem to be in love with poor analogies. I'm not about to pander to your whims on them.

If you don't like my style of writing, don't bother commenting.

That is one of the scariest statements I've ever read on the internet, in the context of the next statement:

Apologies for the incorrect assumption.

You mean the way you've completely overlooked the double-quote of yours I posted?

This is what really scares me about you, Red, you complain about absolutism while making the most outrageous abnsolute statements yourself. The two I quoted were completely contradictory posts, one after the other - and the contradiction in them is far more important than the small fish we've been chasing.

My friend, the longer I correspond with you the more I become convinced that you cannot maintain any coherent argument with me. You conflate together different threads of an argument in order to accuse me of bad analogies (see your 1st comment above), refuse to engage or explain the validity of your evaluations (yet again! see 2nd comment), created a straw man in order to bypass my assertion about yoru arguing style (by changing it into an attack on your writing style - which I have no problem with - you write lucidly - you just don't argue clearly), and then spend more time evaluating me as a parent rather than deal with the philosophic points I've made. I'm sorry, I am now fully convinced that you cannot sustain an argument without twisting it into something it clearly is not.

Good luck to you in your conversations - if you were able to back up the statements you make (including assertions of my errors) in a way that showed that there was some sort of merit in your unsubstantiated charges, we might have a conversation. Clearly, at least right now, that is asking more than you are either willing, or capable, of giving.

Bye.

[The Atheist]

Clearly, at least right now, that is asking more than you are either willing, ....

Willing is quite right; I've said to you many times that I'm unwilling to converse with you on many subjects.

If we can maybe get to the stage of completely ignoring each other, it's probably going to be for the betterment of LitNet.

My suggestion - and I'm encouraged by the challenge to atheists to just ignore vocal christians - is that let's both undertake to just ignore the hell out of each other. I think I can extend that to not sniping at you by discussing you with others as well, so let's avoid that, too.

That's how I'd like to play it and I'll even leave the last post to you. We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.

Red, I wish you all the best in life.

[islandclimber]

We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.

I know what you mean here, but the way you put it is quite the improper use of the english language... hahah.. just teasing

[Redzeppelin]

Willing is quite right; I've said to you many times that I'm unwilling to converse with you on many subjects.

If we can maybe get to the stage of completely ignoring each other, it's probably going to be for the betterment of LitNet.

My suggestion - and I'm encouraged by the challenge to atheists to just ignore vocal christians - is that let's both undertake to just ignore the hell out of each other. I think I can extend that to not sniping at you by discussing you with others as well, so let's avoid that, too.

That's how I'd like to play it and I'll even leave the last post to you. We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.

Red, I wish you all the best in life.

But I'm willing to talk about any subject with a willing discussion partner.

I think Christians and atheists "ignoring" each other accomplishes little. Disparate groups have been able to understand (not necessarily "accept") each other better through shared conversations and a willingness to talk through the differences. I understand what you're saying, but "ignoring" each other strikes me as a good way to only increase the "otherness" of each group to the other, and I don't think that's a good idea. The only way to stop the "militant" strain present in both Christianity and atheism is to learn to accord proper respect to the separate beliefs and then dialogue about those differences in reasoned, respectful discourse. Disconnecting only increases the odds that the militant strains of both camps will only get moreso. Oh well...

And I guess that's where you and I are different; I do not believe that the distance between two positions makes conversation difficult; I believe it is the attitude of one towards the other that contributes to that problem.

Either way, I wish you the best as well.

[Jozanny]

And I guess that's where you and I are different; I do not believe that the distance between two positions makes conversation difficult; I believe it is the attitude of one towards the other that contributes to that problem.

Against my better judgment, I am going to be frank, since I am the one who raised my voice about it in the first place. Both you and Atheist are at constant loggerheads with each other, with no end in sight, and no, I do not think it is particularly conducive to the discussion of texts or religious culture, precious little of which goes on in this forum, in any case. You once posted that I seemed to show little tolerance for your beliefs--well, do you ever stop creating anything but justifications for them as opposed to looking at other worldviews? I do. I read Jewish literature and enjoy its culture. I have a profound respect for Asian Indian mysticism and am fascinated by how it extends into the social fabric and the acceptance of individuals dealing with conflict. I've even taught myself a good deal about Mormonism so as to know what I'm up against.

But most discussions here never deal with observation and cultural exchange, and or discussion of the text itself. It always comes down to a debate about points for or against the supernatural, and in your case, your theological version of it, and that is a very self-limiting way to learn about anything. You do not always need to be right, neither does Atheist, but that is what the game is always about, to the point of being strident and tone deaf.

[Logos]

Closed because this has been off-topic long enough