Reply #51: You have avoided answered every question, and now changed your position [View All]

At every stage of the way you have categorically refused to address my question, choosing instead to ignore than and forge ahead with your soliloquy. Let's review a few of the questions you've deliberately refused to answer:

Question 1:
Now finally, I ask you - if theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response, would you agree that either a) you are wrong in your assumption that this is a necessary requirement of theism, since I claim to be a theist or b) I am not the theist I claim to be, in which cause I'd ask you to name what specific basis or criteria you use to reject my own claim to be a theist?

Question 2:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines theism as "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Notice there is nothing inherent in the explicit definition that has anything to do with authoritarianism. I'll certainly agree, theistic beliefs have very frequently lead to authoritarian attitudes and institutions - but that's not what you said. You said all theism is directly connected to authoritarianism (when you said that theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response). So I'd like to you speculate as to what aspects of my personal belief in God you define as authoritarian in nature?

Before I continue on to other questions, it is necessary to point out that after I asked this second unanswered question, you shifted the debate and rather than answering the question at all, changed to a discussion of whether my post about what I'd like to see in these forums and what I wouldn't was authoritarian or not, which has nothing to do with theism.

Question 3:
What does my desire to have certain kinds of discussions and not others have to do with theism, specifically?

Question 4:
Set that question aside for a second, and answer this: what is the opposite of authoritarianism? Is it no requirements, no conditions, no parameters and no rules of any kind? Think of it in the political arena? Is any society with any kinds of rules authoritarian, meaning that the only thing that would not be considered authoritarian is anarchy? Is a society that has a law against rape, but that the same time a society that has a well-functioning social democracy, well protected freedoms, and emphasis on community and participatory action to be labeled "authoritarian?"

Question 5:(though not technically phrased as a question)
Now, that brings us back to the beginning: even if you feel that wanting this particular forum not to fixate on a topic that, to the best of my understanding, really falls outside the scope and purpose of this forum should be described as "authoritarian" - it still does not explain what that has to do with describing theism as "authoritarian" by definition.

These are just some examples of the questions you've deliberately chosen to ignore - choosing instead to continually respond in your own monologue of things largely irrelevant to the only question I was asking you about.


-- just because you are a "believer." Nor do I feel that your posts are deserving of special sanction. In your original post, you said in effect that you did not want to have a debate, that you wanted only to set the terms and proceed on those terms, with only those who agree with those terms invited along. No authoritarianism there, no sir.

Let's not look at the "in effect." Let's look at what I actually said, shall we?



SELWYNN: I really hope this space can avoid 10,000 posts rehashing the same tired old religion vs. secular, atheist vs. theists, believer vs. skeptic debates that are so tedious and old. Perhaps I have the wrong expectations - my expectations for a special board entitled religion and theology was that religion and theology would be the primary focus of discussion. I assumed that the primary posters here would be people of like mind who basically want to discuss religion and faith, not primarily non-believers looking for a fight.

If the primary purpose of this forum was for religious people and atheists to debate each other, please change the name to Religion vs. Atheism and then create a new Religion and Theology forum for the rest of us who just want to talk about faith or theological issues and questions without having them eventually ALL turn into an atheism vs. religion debate.

I'm not angry, I just really love the idea of a place where people of faith could talk about interesting issues, questions and theologies, compare religious traditions, learn from each other and grow in faith and love. I do NOT AT ALL love the idea of another hate-fest board with two sides at "war" with each other over the same tired old issues of whose right and wrong about religious belief.



You are almost desperately stretching now to ascribe authoritarianism to what I have said. Authoritarianism would be a statement like "I want all people who post on x subject banned from the boards." But that isn't want I said is it. And if that's what you inferred, that reflects a personal problem and bias on your part, because nothing in what I actually wrote can justify such an inference.

Let's break it down:

If yes, I'm intrigued and would like to pursue that. If not, then I have zero interest whatsoever, and want to avoid that. - This is the most un-authoritarian statement there could possibly be. It says, "hey what is this forum really about? If its about more than just the atheism vs. theism debate, then I will probably hang out here a bit. If it isn't, then I don't have any interest in that, and while I WILL NOT TRY TO CHANGE THAT, I will simply move on to things that personally interest me more. Explain to me the authoritarianism in that statement -- please note this is a question, I'm asking you for an answer.

I really hope this space can avoid -- notice I don't say, "I demand this place avoid," or "I want all people who don't post like I want banned. It is not authoritarian to have desires. It only becomes authoritarian when you take draconian measures to make those desires a reality. Simply posting my desires has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Perhaps I have the wrong expectations - Authoritarianism typically doesn't include an willingness to acknowledge the possibility of wrong. Right up front I say, "hey maybe my expectations are wrong and I am expecting the wrong kinds of things from a board entitled "religion and theology." It's pretty difficult to somehow try and make a case for authoritarianism out of this.

I just really love the idea of a place where people of faith could talk about interesting issues, - here I explain my motives, that I'm just excited about the idea of a place where I could have certain kinds of discussions we don't have elsewhere. Those discussions tend to get crowded out and drowned out when the boards primarily turn into a big fight between a group of atheists and a group of theists. Personally, I would find the most enjoyment out of the boards if that wasn't the direction things went. If they do go that direction, I'll likely make a personal decision to move on to something else. Now go read the definition of "authoritarianism." Now I ask you (please note this is a question I am asking you that I would like an answer to) where is the "authoritarianism" in that sentiment?

Perhaps its time to start contemplating all the preconceived notions and biases you had about me before you even started writing, and contemplate the assumptions you've made that have turned out to be erroneous, along with the inferences you've made probably without being consciously aware of it. You have attempted to "fit" a jacket on me that doesn't fit.

And now you know it doesn't fit, but are for some reason - hanging on for dear life to an untenable position instead of saying - as a true lover of reason would - "ok, first I misspoke when I claimed that theism by definition was authoritarian, though theism certainly frequently leads to authoritarian institutions which justify themselves on the basis of their belief in God. Second, I attempted to depict your comments as authoritarian in order to justify my weak position, and I realize now that I really don't have much of a case to back that up."

That would be the honest thing to do.


One of the definitions of a forum is that ideas careen about in a debate, a conversation, a discussion, what have you. In the agora of old, one was expected to explain oneself when challenged. That was a pre-Christian ideal, and frankly, it's looking better and better.


Go try to make a post about Abortion in the Israeli Palestinian forums. When your post is locked and moved, are you going to cry "authoritarianism! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help help! I'm being repressed?" One of the realities of many, if not most forums is that they organize themselves thematically - with sub-forums for particular discussions. The reason they do that so frequently is because they realize that even within the larger community, there are sub-groups of folks who have certain subjects in common who much like there own little place to discuss some of those specific issues more deeply. It makes sense that within those sub-groups, if people starting coming in and dominating the conversation with things unrelated to the purpose of that sub-group, they might want them to stop doing that. It detracts from the conversations that are trying to be had, it hinders the kinds of discussions and dialog that are the purpose of that sub-group.

I agree that if I am addressing you, I should have to explain myself if you challenge me. (I'm not sure you do though, since you've consistently deliberately ignored every question I've put to you, all while talking about the glories of civil discourse and the "olden days.") I especially agree if I am attempting to make a persuasive argument to you. However, I don't believe I have any expectation to defend myself if I am talking to someone else, and you - a total stranger - interrupt my conversation and demand I give an explanation to you for some point you don't like. I am not likely to feel inclined to do so, as I wasn't talking to you in the first place. And that is completely appropriate to feel.


One possibility might be for the DU faith community to acknowledge that within the traditions of their own faiths, there is widespread disagreement, often vehemently expressed, and occasionally violently enforced. You don't need me or anyone else from the non-faith community to provide tension -- most (not all) of world faith traditions excel at it. The Crusades, anyone?

One possibility for what? I didn't see this statement as connected to anything you have previously said. And who exactly is not acknowledging this? Certainly I acknowledge it. I belong to no religious organization, by the way, and I do not attend a "church." But I completely fail to see the relevance of this entire paragraph to the questions that I posed to you or the issues at hand. It seems a bit like a red herring to me, and perhaps drifting dangerously close to the ad hominem zone.


I'm not taking the rap for big or small tensions you may feel when your faith is challenged. You folks need to understand that a very discernible vein of authoritarianism runs through the history and dogma of most faiths. Not all, most. My comment in response to your question was accurate and in a real dialog among open-minded explorers, would not have provoked the defensive reaction from you and others that it did.

No one has asked you to take the rap for anything. However you have been asked numerous times to defend your claims that theism is by definition as well as your claims that my post is authoritarian and you have consistently refused to answer. I don't know who you are referring to by "you folks." I am Selwynn. There are no other "folks" attached to me. A very discernible vein of authoritarianism runs through all human institutions throughout history, including but not limited to religious ones.

You conclude your post with a passive-aggressive accusation, that because I dared to challenge you with questions, I am therefore not truly open-minded. The only closed-mindedness I see here is within you, choosing to pass judgment over me, and base your arguments and responses on stereotypical generalizations while avoiding every opportunity to rationally and reasonably address the questions as hand. Rather than demonstrate the true hallmark of open-minded explorers - the willingness to admit when you're wrong - you spend the next three posts avoiding direct questions and walking as close to the line between fair argumentation and logical fallacy of attacking the person and not the argument as you can possibly come.

My only two points are that theism is not defined by authoritarianism. All you have to do to prove that is look at the dictionary definition of theism, and then point to many real world examples of people who meet that definition but to not meet the dictionary definition of authoritarian. When theism becomes institutionalized, it is subject to the same inherent problems of institutionalization that all other institutions are subject to - one of those is the predilection toward authoritarianism. That is not an inherent problem with theism; it is an inherent problem with human beings, and that very human problem regularly manifests itself in religious institutions as well as all other institutions.

Note that you've now changed your position - moving from saying theism "by defintion" is authoritarian to saying that there is a discernable pattern of authoritarianism in most faiths. Not the same thing at all. So I guess I'll take that as a concession.

My second point is that your shift of the argument from the subject of theism being authoritarian by definition to me and whether or not my post was "authoritarian" was both a cheap and illicit avoidance argumentation tactic, and also unjustifiable as has clearly been demonstrated.

Sel