Where is Bmus? And...uh...other religious stuff

She usually post about 450 times per day, but I haven't seen her around lately. Where are you BMUS?

And just so this post stays in this forum...a religious question.

Why do you think God, Moses, Jesus, etc where only present in the middle east? Do you think its fair that all the native americans didn't have a chance to be saved until about after 1500 years after the death of Jesus?

If the One God was universal, why didn't the Native Americans believe in him until after their bloody subjugation?

On the other topic, something troubles me when original Americans abandon their diverse cultures in favor of one from the East.

I do hope the fundies in her area haven't done her in. :scared:


Why do you think God, Moses, Jesus, etc where only present in the middle east? Do you think its fair that all the native americans didn't have a chance to be saved until about after 1500 years after the death of Jesus?

If the One God was universal, why didn't the Native Americans believe in him until after their bloody subjugation?


Interesting question, though you're opening a huge can of worms with it. However, it's not just the Native Americans that are a question in that respect. What of the Africans? Their exposure to Christianity didn't begin until around the 15th century when the first missionaries arrived from Europe.

ideals of Christianity. God has many faces and many names. God is wherever man is. The Neaderthal were the first to leave representations of such thinking in their graves hundreds of thousands of years ago.
God was with them too.

What we know is that rituals accompanied some of their burials. We don't know that any concept of God was present, or that the rituals were anything more than a method to handle the psychological loss of a loved one.
There are present day atheists who lay flowers and stones at gravesites or include mementos in caskets, but that doesn't mean they believe in God.

and now. Then again, unless they left a manualwe can only guess. SOmeone has a fifty percent chance of being right.

according to Christian history. But God sent lots of prophets or Sons, to every part of the world through all human history. God hasn't left anyone alone or lost. It's just that our limited ability to see other peoples history as valid is not a Chrisitan trait. When there is only one "Son of God", everyone else is out of the picture.

It's a huge myth of our culture that humans need prophets to tell them how to live. That simply isn't so, and there are still cultures existing happily today who have zero prophets in their worldview/religion and don't want any.

to show humans how to advance to a higher spiritual stage and a higher cultural stage.

you'll forever be told you couldn't be right

but you are right

and it's a couple of good posts you have there FloridaPat!

that all cultures have had spiritual leaders that have given insight to the culture, and ask me to explain how that is logical, tells me a lot.

namely that you will persist in this BS that only Christians need prophets because you seem to have it in for Christians

But Florida Pat is correct

Peace

Btw, didn't you laugh that Florida Pat will be forever told that they can't be right?
Then you did a similar thing to me? Whatever.

Prophets of revealed religions are very different from spiritual leaders. The issue isn't as cut and dried as you think. You seem to coming from a culture-centric & Christian pov. There are a lot of different human cultures out there, ya know?

man you are just too smart fer lil old me

damned I wush I wuz as smart as you are

if only God had give me brainz like he did U

Hell, I'd be a brazillionaire by now

I'm sure you're smart enough to know that, heheh. ;)

There is about 2,000 to 1 million years of history, most of which there is very little written or known about. (I have a large difference due to the Christian belief of 2000 years for the planet and 1 million is about the last thing I heard for humans being on the planet). The American Natives have stories of religious leaders coming and they also have prophecies about a leader who will come again. THere have been great civilizations which have come and gone and no one knows anything about them - MACHU PICCHU and the Incas, Angkor Temples in Cambodia, and the Ancient Egyptians. The biggest problem with a lot of these old relligions is that their history is unknown, but Christians have done research and determined what happened and what they believed in based on their understanding of Christianity.

A lot has been destroyed over the centuries. The Romans destroyed a lot of cultures and civilizations. The Christians sure have too. But your looking at prophets through the Christian meaning. Sometimes there is no difference from what is believed to be a spirital leader and a real prophet. I don't believe that God let people wander around for a million years without sending prophets to them. I don't believe God waited for million of years to finally send Jesus to Israel while the rest of the planet was in the dark. I believe there are a lot of wonder religions out there, most of which are destroyed and we will never know what they believed in. Unwritten history is a real bitch. But a lot of wonder things have gone on through history and everyone believes in God in one form or the other.

Our culture began about 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. (Iraq)
10,000 years ago, there were more than 10,000 other human cultures.

How many are trying to live the myth that God Made Man to Conquer and Rule the Earth?

Here's a great to place to start: www.nativeplanet.org/indigenous/cultures/indonesia/mentawai/mentawai_indigenous_cultural_assimilations5.shtml

Humanity at large doesn't need to learn how to live from angels, prophets or aliens in the sky. There are reasons why so many people in our culture continue futile searches like that, but that can be repaired.

"As for the prophets - they come to show humans how to advance to a higher spiritual stage and a higher cultural stage.

That sounds kinda nice, but it's pure culture-centric myth.

So, how's that workin' out so far? :evilgrin:

Am I to believe that were it not for the great work of all of these prophets (sent, no doubt, from Salvation Central Headquarters) that the sad, bloody spectacle of human history would be sadder and bloodier? That we humans are so lacking on our own, without divine intervention, that something on the overall cultural and/or personal scale of the human experience would be even worse than it is now without the blessing of these alleged prophets?

I miss BMUS too.

I visited the Wounded Knee memorial last summer and found it in the middle of a Christian cemetery. It broke my heart.

The Christians killed those people and then erected a monument to them in a Christian cemetery. How utterly disrespectful. To me it is a monument to the total lack of shame of the Christian Whites. I was too embarrassed to stay.

The two things that sent me over the edge:
A few/several years ago, there was some awards show, or maybe even a repub political convention that included an Indian tribe in their ceremonial clothing dancing, then at some poiht the Chief stood up and began to praise his savior Jesus. I was like, oh my god, what kind of setup is this?

Second, we're friends with the princess of the Mattaponi who lives on the reservation near West Point, VA. Amidst the amazing Mattoponi and Pamunkey artifacts in her tiny house, is a cheap ass velvet painting of Jesus looking up into the bright clouds. She injects "my Lord Jesus" into conversation about every third paragraph. It's difficult to describe exactly how that makes me feel. Hopeless, overwhelmed and defeated come quickly to mind.

edit: www.baylink.org/Mattaponi/loneeagleplea.html

overwhelmed and defeated because someone else has found Christ? In fact, why should you be concerned at all with someone else's faith? Where does this need to control the religious beliefs of other people come from?

The computer says it was a reply to #10, but the content doesn't!

Did you mean to answer #10? Your post has nothing to do with it, so I will have to assume otherwise.

the quote about hopeless, overwhelmed, and defeated gives it away

I understand the first part of this, but not the second:


I agree with the why should you feel overwhelmed and defeated because someone else has found Christ part. It was their choice to find that belief. But I respect their right to feel that way just as I may feel happy that they found that, or I may actually just feel happy for them that they have spiritual beliefs, because those make me happy.

I don't understand the second part as I think it was pulled out of someone's ass




because I don't see that in the post at all

that someone else finding Christ was something that made them feel hopeless or overwhelmed, if youre-read.

So they used the same words, but if it was meant as a reply... then I shall give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they misread it somehow.

I read it that they felt hopeless, overwhelmed and defeated because the princess had become a Christian.

Maybe they were feeling that because of the "cheap ass velvet painting of Jesus", or injecting "my Lord Jesus" into every paragraph, but those are things that some (although not me) might consider part of their Christian beliefs.

I don't know how else to read it.

even what was said, but just that anything repeated enough times is likely to make a person rather irritated.

So, it was not about their faith, just a person getting annoyed at another persons quirks.

(My perspective... also, I must admit, if someone were to be very in-your-face about their religion, that would also be rather annoying, but that is a story for another day)

someone is a Christian is to be a bit too concerned with someone else's faith, IMHO. Why should it bother anyone if this princess is a Christian? The poster can have whatever beliefs or lack of beliefs s/he chooses; but why is there a need on the part of the poster for the princess to have the same views, and a profound disappointment that she does not? That's what I was referring to as a "need to control the religious beliefs of other people."

You're way off. Confirmation bias misled you, read my post again.

the actual religion, or similarity thereof, was a problem.

So, where in their post did they become overwhelmed at hearing someone was a Christian?

I should doubt, given how many non-atheists any given person interacts with, that they should have any reaction to hearing someone was a Christian.

How do you explain those two points?

Listen, my post was centered around the loss of culture, not a gain in happiness whose source I disapprove of.
I don't want to invest much in trying to explain it to you.

"Where does this need to control the religious beliefs of other people come from?"

What need? I think you missed my point.

why are you calling this woman a "princess?" You do realize--or maybe you don't--that there was and is no such thing as an "Indian princess" outside white men's imagination? (Emphasis on men.) Read Vine Deloria on the subject sometime.

I don't question that or her Christianity when we talk, and it's not uncommon for Indian tribes to use that term these days.
Since you've brought it up, I'm even more distraught, thanks sooo much. ;)

Oh right. That'll be the Eastern Band of the Wannabes.

I'm getting it first hand from the daughter of a Mattoponi chief.

edit: You're acting as though no assimilation has taken place. I'm sad that it has.

Like my grandfather, I happen to belong to the faction among Native Americans that resists it where and whenever possible. That involves not capitulating to white myths about Indians, however romantic whites may find them.

If you absolutely must persist, however, you may address me as "Marchioness." Let me see, now. How does "Marchioness Happy Rainbow" suit you?" (The Princess-thing is soooooo trite and overdone.)

That should be clear.
There are degrees of assimilation, so rather than "isn't uncommon", would you at least agree that it "isn't unheard of" for modern Indians to use that term, right or wrong?

would you at least agree that it "isn't unheard of" for modern Indians to use that term, right or wrong?

I can only tell you that the sole context in which I have ever heard of it from Native Ameican women is in making fun of whites who use it, especially whites who claim to have an "Indian princess" in their geneology.

One does wonder, though, what happened to all the "Indian princes." Surely some of these alleged Royal Highnesses had brothers. :shrug:

It's embarassing, and I think too much can be made of it.
I'm not exactly getting the feeling that you aren't trusting my story, but not being immune to occasional paranoia... Just between you and I, the "we" I spoke of was my girlfriend, her parents, and I. Her parents were volunteers at Colonial Williamsburg - her dad alternated between playing a slave and a Native American, and he was multi-racial himself. He used to say that his "ancestors were here before his ancestors brought his ancestors over on boats from Africa." He was a seriously beautiful and wise man and when he first referred to her as "the princess", I didn't question him. I'm sure he didn't say it out of ignorance.
I think there must be parallels with how the term African Queen is used by some. It may be a way to co-opt the dominant lanuage to regain measures of deserved respect and attention.

Elizabeth "Princess" Custalow is on the left ;) :



Back to Evoman's question:



This didn't only happen in the Americas, and it shows no signs of stopping. I don't care for the idea.
It makes sense to me that there are millions of members of Native tribes and Nations clinging to the last grasses and sands of their world that don't like it either.

To clarify another issue, I don't want to give the impression I feel this way because atheists/agnostics have more empathy for indigenous people than Christians do. It's also because I look at the world and can't find a place where violent cultural/religious take-overs have ever provided a sustainably peaceful replacement. It doesn't work.

He used to say that his "ancestors were here before his ancestors brought his ancestors over on boats from Africa." He was a seriously beautiful and wise man and when he first referred to her as "the princess", I didn't question him. I'm sure he didn't say it out of ignorance.

Okay. This sounds much more as if "Princess" was her dad's nickname for her than any claim to a title. Is that a fair statement?

Elizabeth is the daughter of Chief Custalow. Chief Custalow may have called her Princess, but I don't know.

I had understood that the "Princess'" father had called her that.

What aren't you comprehending here?

n/t

Back to Evoman's question:

"If the One God was universal, why didn't the Native Americans believe in him until after their bloody subjugation?"


This didn't only happen in the Americas, and it shows no signs of stopping. I don't care for the idea.
It makes sense to me that there are millions of members of Native tribes and Nations clinging to the last grasses and sands of their world that don't like it either.

To clarify another issue, I don't want to give the impression I feel this way because atheists/agnostics have more empathy for indigenous people than Christians do. It's also because I look at the world and can't find a place where violent cultural/religious take-overs have ever provided a sustainably peaceful replacement. It doesn't work.

If you had, you'd have noticed that the monument wasn't put up by White Christians but by the relatives and survivors of the massacre victims. It says so, right there on the monument itself.

When the Wounded Knee victims were buried, there was no cemetery in that location, Christian or otherwise. Check out the contemporary photographs. The cemetery grew up around the mass grave and its monument. The people who are buried there, some of them Christian, some of them not, can hardly be faulted for wanting to be buried near their relatives and ancestors, the Lakota people's martyrs.

skewered by the truth Cosmik

what to do, what to do?


LOL

The first was erected by the Army. It took a while for the Sioux because they were slaughtered or in prison camps, eh?
Anyway, the story of the massacre and the monuments scores no points for the "Christian side". In fact, it subtracts some points from the entire 'humans need prophets' myth.

The memorial at Wounded Knee, on the site of the mass grave, the one that's surrounded by a cemetery, is the one that was erected by the relatives and survivors of Big Foot's band. End of story.

Anyway, the story of the massacre and the monuments scores no points for the "Christian side"

And again, your point is? Who said it did?

it subtracts some points from the entire 'humans need prophets' myth

Be very careful here. It's not up to you to determine what Indian people do or do not need. The Ghost Dance was revived during the Pine Ridge uprising and is still practiced today. You're on the verge of misinterpreting it every bit as badly as Miles did, and every bit as much for your own ideological purposes.

Here's a few:
Humans don't need prophets, but most Christians don't know that.
There is no One Right Way to Live - many Christians don't understand this, but the original Americans did.
Many Christians think that everyone needs to be saved by Jesus.
There is a distressing history of Christians murdering those who disagree with them.
I have empathy for cultures that are decimated by an arrogant invading culture.
You haven't answered the questions in the OP yet.

Humans don't need prophets, but most Christians don't know that.

I'll get to this one further down the line.

There is no One Right Way to Live - many Christians don't understand this, but the original Americans did.
Many Christians think that everyone needs to be saved by Jesus.
There is a distressing history of Christians murdering those who disagree with them.

So? These are truisms bordering on platitudes. The only Christians likely to disagree with them are fundamentalists.

I have empathy for cultures that are decimated by an arrogant invading culture.

You call it empathy. I call it something else, but we'll get to that further down the line, too.

You haven't answered the questions in the OP yet.

a. I don't know where BMUS is.

b. If other peoples want to worship Great Mystery under other names (Yahweh, Inana, Allah, Kali, whatever) most Native Americans would have no objection.

that the poster is going to ever agree with you


that would be so, well, never mind

The monument that I saw was not a monument that celebrated martyrdom or spiritual victory. It was a monument that symbolized the complete destruction of the values that the honored dead had given their lives to uphold.

These facts remain. The burial ground of the non-Christians who were slaughtered by Christians was co-opted by Christians. The Lakota people who chose to practice a religion other than Christianity were murdered. If the Lakota People had been allowed to practice their own religion it is doubtful that they would have become Christians. But the Christians decided that murder and repression in the name of Jesus was the right path. Many were killed and the Christians drove many more away from their culture at gunpoint.

To me, the story here is how utterly contemptuous the Christians were of the Lakota culture and how completely they have destroyed it. So I will assume that you are right about the history of the monument and the cemetery. That just proves my point that the Christians have won a complete victory over the Lakota by taking away their lands, their lives, and their culture.

If the white Christians weren’t so shameless they would do something to correct their wrongs. Instead they mock the Lakota by sending missionaries to further their own goals of obliterating the Lakota religion.

stories that you can blame Christians for atrocities

man that must be some chip on your shoulder, from where did it come?

You can’t read the history of the US or of the world without finding plenty of examples of bloodthirsty Christians killing, stealing, and persecuting non-believers. And you need not look further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to find contemporary examples.

Have you never read the Bible? If I understand correctly the God of Moses prohibited killing except for revenge killing (Genesis 9:6) or when there was a good war to be had. And his followers took ample advantage of that little loophole that allowed them to decide when killing was OK. (Of course Jesus said “Do violence to no man.” (Luke 3:14) but there is no fun or profit in that!)

You may deny the bloodthirsty nature of your religion, but you can’t bury the bodies fast enough.

Because I haven't done any violence to anyone, however you seem to relish the fact that a lot of violence has been done in the NAME of Christianity, however Christianity itself is not the perpetrator as it is a faith, not an entity capable of acts itself. Unless you are blaming God for all of this, in which case that would mean you weren't really an atheist.

who were slaughtered by Christians was co-opted by Christians . . .."

Okay, Cosmik, here's a real chance for you to act on your convictions instead of just holding forth on a message board. Why don't you betake your non-Lakota self up to Pine Ridge and inform the Lakota people who happen to be Chistian that--in the judgement of your non-Lakota self-- they have no right to be buried in the same cemetery as their ancestors and relatives whom they revere because--in the opinion of your non-Lakota self--they would be showing contempt for their culture.

I sincerely hope that you get back home with your hair.

And BTW, you would be hard put to find a "missionary" on the rez today. Just in case you haven't gotten the memo, Lakota religion is in full- scale revival.

I love it!

She'll be back I'm sure.

The Mormons got that covered.

Haven't seen her posts recently.

I think that Moses was Jewish, and that is why he was in the M.E.

Jesus was Jewish, he was in the M.E.

There weren't a lot of Jews in N. America or elsewhere in the world.

I suspect that God is everywhere, and that Native Americans beliefs are no less valid than Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone else's beliefs about a deity.

I think that God is God, and God will reveal God to anyone who is interested in many different ways, usually using the tool of the culture to do that.

Christianity got a big boost from the Roman Empire, and the mixing of the Church/State, and it's failure of the state, and the continuation of the Church.

All these stories about feeling whatever because someone has chosen to believe in Christ vs. their native beliefs. Why feel bad about it? People make their own choices as to whether to believe in their native beliefs. Maybe they decided they weren't adequate.

I know that Christianity has been used as a political tool by several including today.

But it isn't Christianity that is to blame for that, it is the people who choose to pervert it and use it to control others.

Stalin used atheism to control others. People found ways to worship anyhow.

It's just the contemporary atheist version of the nineteenth century missionary's "poor dumb ignorant Injins lost in superstitious deviltry." And it's patronizing as hell.

When the nations were "pacified," the government literally handed them out to various denominations for Christianizing. That's why most Christian Lakota today are Catholic or Episcopalian: that's who won them in the lottery. Same with my people, the Tsalagi; the Episcopal and Baptist missionaries got us. Ergo, most Christians among us are Episcopalian or Baptist. Some managed to be both converts and traditionals, for reasons of their own. My great-grandfather was at once a Native holy man and a Baptist deacon. My grandfather ditched the Church and went back to traditional ways, and we've been a mixed family ever since.

Re which, not all Native Americans see a huge contradition in practicing Christianity and traditional religion at the same time. The NAC, for example, is a meld. Though I'm not a member, I attended a regional conference a few years ago where I had the distinct pleasure of watching a local fundamentalist religous reporter turn puce when one of the elders thanked Jesus "for the great peyot' harvest" of that year. Some folks who frequent this forum would probably have a similar reaction. ;-)

a great peyot' harvest is good, right.

so contemporary atheists have taken the place of the 19th century missionaries? LOL

To be clear, I have no desire to convert indigenous people to atheism. None! I have no desire to change them at all.
I'd like them to remain the same. Many of the Christians who came to the Americas came specifically to convert the Godless heathens. That's salvationist religion for ya.

I'd guess that a majority of atheists and humanists have empathy for cultures lost at the hands of Christians, while a majority of Christians think it's just fab.

I have no desire to convert anybody, indigenous or whatever, to atheism. But it pains me to see Evangelists/missionaries thrust their religion on others claiming Christianity is superior to the other peoples' backward/heathen religion. Christianity is not the only religion in the world, but some of its followers seem to think it should be and strive to make it so.

it is taken by some that we mean to convert others to our way of thinking.

Do you think, as a general rule, that atheists would prefer to fight for preservation of indigenous, non-salvationist religious diversity rather than for the victory of one religion over all others?
(dumb question, i think);)

"Where twelve religions will live peacefully, two will cut each others throats"

Or more accurately, diversity as a mechanism to oppose placement into groups.

So yes, I should like the world to be a diverse place.

I'm hoping the Charismatics will win out...

To be clear, I have no desire to convert indigenous people to atheism. None! I have no desire to change them at all.
I'd like them to remain the same. Many of the Christians who came to the Americas came specifically to convert the Godless heathens. That's salvationist religion for ya.


In other words, you want us to remain insane, delusional, invested in fairy tales, childishly believing in beings of the same level of reality as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, imagining that we have conversations on a daily basis with the Heap Big Thimgamajig(s) Up In the Sky. You want us to go right on deceiving ourselves that spiritual experiences encountered in ceremony are illusions or brain farts, born of a lack of mental fortitude and an unwillingness to live in reality. Because here's the deal, BC: Native Americans are theists. Some of us even believe in more than one deity. Some of us communicate with animal spirits. We call rocks and trees people. That means, according to you and your buddies, that we're all bugfuck crazy. Gee, thanks. With friends like that, who needs Bunnynpants and his BIA?

But oh, you never said that! Of course you didn't. If you insulted traditional Native American believers the way you do Christians you'd be nailed for racism on the spot. Your cred as a good liberal depends on a double standard here.

You are willing to tell us that we never needed our holy men and women though, our culture bearers. We didn't need Wovoka or Deganawitha or Ptecincala Ska Wakan Winan or Quetzalcoatl or Nanyeha. Your authority on this? Why, it's mass murderer Bearcoat Miles. Gee, thanks again. Does it occur to you how incredibly arrogant such a statement is? You recognize cultural imperialism when Christians are the culprits, but see none in yourself.


I'd guess that a majority of atheists and humanists have empathy for cultures lost at the hands of Christians, while a majority of Christians think it's just fab.


Bro, you got a spelling problem. What you have isn't "empathy," it's "empty." Empty gestures, empty words, empty posturing. What you really have for "cultures lost at the hands of Christians" is use.
As this post shows, you what you really want is to be able to use Native Americans as examples of Christian viallainy. Back off. You're just another white guy with an agenda.

I'm enjoying this skewering with truth!

:popcorn:

:hi:

Mind if I join you? The revisionism's already setting in.:popcorn:

This time through an empty proxy of useless empathy?

1) "you want us to remain insane, delusional, invested in fairy tales" et cetera.
here are a few things:

A) When you believe that your world view is correct, you believe that your world view is correct. In other words, the Christians (may, according to specific belief) think you and I are going to hell, or in other words, you could rephrase that as "you think it bad to continue to believe something you don't" which is obviously incorrect in it of itself, but more importantly, given that we all think our worldview most correct it implies that solely the difference between the beliefs is enough to give insult, in other words, criticising someone for not believing what you do.

B) You have used heavy handed hyperboly with regards to what greyl thinks about religion, given that it has been explained ten times over that the Santa analagy was well intended but a failure, it borders on implication of untruth to use it, or to imply that greyl thinks poorly of persons of religious belief.

2) "Empty gestures, empty words, empty posturing". He said, unless I am somehow mistaken, that he felt empathy, not that he had solutions, the very idea ofwhich reeks of paternalism to me. (That may be just cultural though)

By the way, the ability to empathise with peoples of different faiths precludes the kind of attitude you put on him (A). :)

Basically, no-one hates Christians, no-one wants to villify Christianity (unless bieng neutral = villification). A lot of flamewar could be avoided if this could be remembered.

A. I've tried to read this several times, but the syntax is so completely tangled up that I have no idea what you mean beyond the first sentence.

B. Sorry. I've seen the Santa analogy--and others--accepted, defended, expanded and rationalized in this forum. If you think it was well-intended, good on ya. I won't be the one to disillusion you.

2. By the way, the ability to empathise with peoples of different faiths precludes the kind of attitude you put on him

My point precisely. But the attitude is his own.

Basically, no-one hates Christians, no-one wants to villify Christianity (unless bieng neutral = villification). A lot of flamewar could be avoided if this could be remembered.

A lot of flamewar could be avoided if this were true.

A) Rewritten: You are implying (explained above, was not difficult to read for me, strangely) that his worldview of simply not believing is invalid, is what I was saying.

B) Disillusion? I am somewhat difficult to illusion. (For various personal reasons, I had to learn). I shall attempt clarification: The analagy was not intended as insult. However, it quickly became apparent that this was how it was seen, and, out of respect for others (which you seem to think is not there) is no longer used.

2. It seems pretty clear to me that you think that people want to villify religion, and really do not empathise with people. This certainly is a sad state of affairs, well, to my knowledge, none really do, and I myself shoot down antitheistic sentiment whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Note please at this point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=75881&mesg_id=75979

Basically, a number of atheists I know fairly well, and none of them are antireligious in the sense you make out; basically, contempt is absent would be an excellent starting point. In the knowledge that the reader is the one who puts the tone into the post, I would ask you to evalaute the tone of posts as you read them, and attempt to find the alternate tones, perhaps, in my opinion, closer the real ones. I shall be doing this myself, of course.

Cheers, in the hope that greater understanding between people can be found,

R_A.

P.S. I admit bieng a touch snarkish or flamey above, and perhaps a touch at the start of the post. ;) Happens to us all.

A) Rewritten: You are implying (explained above, was not difficult to read for me, strangely) that his worldview of simply not believing is invalid, is what I was saying.

In that case, you're wrong. I begin to fear we're divided by a common language.

The analagy was not intended as insult.

I'm not in the market for used bridges. Sorry.

2. It seems pretty clear to me that you think that people want to villify religion, and really do not empathise with people.

Not people in general, and certainly not atheists in general--I know too many in RL to assume that the population of R/T is representative. But forgive me if I repeat again that I do know what I have read on this forum, and that I am hardly alone in my reading of some of the posts. You've certainly seemed to be a more moderate voice here than some. But again, we seem to be divided by a common language.

In the knowledge that the reader is the one who puts the tone into the post,

Writers don't "put tone" into what they write? Please don't ask a professional writer to go there.

Cheers, in the hope that greater understanding between people can be found,

On this we can agree.

"I'm not in the market for used bridges. Sorry." I have never heard this expression before. What does it mean?

"Writers don't "put tone" into what they write?" I was not referring to structured (though I am unsure if that is the word for it) text, but rather that in this situation, when we are more talking by keyboard than writing, 'tone' refers to 'perceived characteristics of poster', this time, which is interpreted here much more by the reader than elsewhere.

Do we comprehend (if not agree) each other on the tone bit, is the question. (Where failure of communication happens this often, it is reassuring to know your point was understood.)

You're are totally missing the difference between divine saviour prophets and holy men/spiritual leaders.

As you should be aware, there are multitudes of native tribes in the Americas. All First Americans are not the same. Similar to Africa. I don't understand why you pretend to speak for all of them.

You're are totally missing the difference between divine saviour prophets and holy men/spiritual leaders.

No. You're totally missing the fact that some of those that I listed, and many more that I didn't, fall into the category of what you would call divine savior prophets.

As you should be aware, there are multitudes of native tribes in the Americas. All First Americans are not the same. Similar to Africa. I don't understand why you pretend to speak for all of them.

I don't speak for all of us. I don't understand why you pretend to speak for any of us. Sorry, but your comment on how you have "empathy for cultures destroyed by Christianity" while "most Christians" would consider the destruction "just fab" tips your hand.

I take it back--on one thing I do believe I speak for all of us. We don't care to be used by one condescending non-Indian to score points in his feud with other non-Indians. At the risk of repeating myself: put a cork in it.

And, no, your examples are very different from divine saviour prophets like Jesus and Muhammed.

If you know anything about tribal cultures, let the one thing be that they don't believe there is one right to live.

Btw, why don't you have a problem with the fact that her first name is Elizabeth? Same reason you don't seem to have a problem with genocide?

Same reason you don't seem to have a problem with genocide?

Outright, deliberate lie. How contemptible.

and probably deserves its own thread.

prophets supposedly have knowledge gained through ways unavailable to other people. They speak with divine authority. What they say can't be verified, and we are asked to forever take it on faith.

I have absolutely no interest in converting anyone. Do I think religious people are dumb and ignorant...no, of course not. Do I think their wrong? Yes, undoubtedly. Do I care? Not really.

Many of us are saddened by the fact that so many people had to die or be abused due to religion. Here in Canada, there are still Native people alive who lived in residential Christian schools as children...the abuse they suffered is incredible. Its not even way in the past like the crusades. They were beaten whenever they spoke their language or tried to hold on to the culture of their parents. Some of them were sexually exploited. Its disgusting.

Look, I know that "Christianity is not inherently evil or bad" and that "its people who are perverting christianity" that are the problem. But when we look back in history, and for every one good thing to come out of christianity is surrounded by about 100 evils, it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I literally wish I could go somewhere where there is no religion or religious abuse, and no religious agendas to take over government. But I can't...religion is everywhere, and if there was a place with no religion, you would bet there would be 1000 missionaries booking a plane the next day anyways. Cuz unlike atheists, christians can't seem to help but prosetlyze.

I think this would be the best of all possible worlds if everybody were an atheist or an agnostic or a humanist -- his or her own particular brand -- but as for compelling people to this, absolutely not.

That would be just as infamous as their imposing Christianity on me.

At no time have I ever said that people should be stripped of their right to the insanity of belief in God. If they want to practice this kind of irrationality, that's their business. It won't get them anywhere; it certainly won't make them happier or more compassionate human beings; but if they want to chew that particular cud. they're welcome to it.-- Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Playboy Interview (October, 1965)

as having an "insanity" because I believe in God

I read this kind of shit all the time here, that those who believe in God have "delusional" beliefs

all couched carefully by posters so as to not attack an individual personally, but to just say that all individuals who believe in God are, well "delusional", "insane", "silly", etc. without actually saying that all individuals who believe in God are those things.

Your quote gives a great example:



See how she doesn't actually attack any individual

and you buy putting the quote here avoid actually attacking an individual by hiding behind the quote
that says that people who believe in God are insane.


Nice

There are plenty of similarities between mental illness and religion. If that offends you, that is your problem.

plenty of similarities between narcissism and atheism too

if the shoe fits

scientific studies about Christianity and Insanity vs. Atheism and Narcissism

the problem being that I've never heard of a study.
I'd be willing to look around to see.

My post was directed at the other party who takes great joy in piling on whenever I post

but I'll get back to you if I find anything

I have a feeling that you already think I won't, but I'm still willing to look.

Btw, were you aware that claiming liberals are narcissistic is a common shabby argument presented by right-wing dingleberries?

so my thought that atheism might be akin to narcissism is without dingleberries

no nuts thank you

many parts are edible

Well I think that on either side of the argument you are going to be mired in pseudoscience, since psychology is largely a pseudoscience, with the exception of physiological psychology.

So, here are some interesting articles nonetheless, pseudoscience not withstanding:

http://www.origins.org/articles/vitz_psychologyofatheism.html



and more: (very psychoanalytical which is ironic given Freud's views on Religion)



And here's a book by the same author:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1890626120.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Finally, I concede, that there aren't any easily found scientific papers on atheism and narcissism
so, you win.

But that doesn't mean that intuitively atheism doesn't seem to be a manifestation of narcissim

I think that perhaps the fields of scholarly psychology and sociology are filled with atheists who don't want to look at their narcissism?


:shrug:

calm down, buddy.

I wouldn't have expected such blatant hypocrisy from you RA. How is it that onager's direct quote of O'Hare comparing belief in a deity with mental illness gets a pass from you but Southpawkicker's reference is flamebait? Did I miss something?

Just because one thing is flamebait, does not make something else not flamebait.

By the bye, the reason I am not going to respond to the mental illness, nor SPK's response, because it would be a big fuck-you to the both of them for denigrating mental illness, and that is not particularly helpful, so I have butted out.

Blatant hypocrisy? Point out MY flamebait, THEN call it hypocrisy. Shit me dead, I did not insult SPK with that post, I did not even ask him to reconsider, except to make sure that he knows that to me it sounded like flamebait, which would be useful if he did not know. That is all.

Blatant hypocrisy? Back that up with links to flamebait from me, or retract it.

My comment was to the hypocrisy of implying that SPK's post was flamebait and that the original subthread was not. I never accused you of posting flamebait in this thread, and I know of no instances where you have in the past.

You cite not wanting to get involved in the "mental illness" subthread, fine. But cautioning SPK that his post was potentially inflammatory, while saying nothing about onager's was hypocritical.

You have called me on my lapses before, and I have appreciated it. I believe you were in the wrong this time. I stand by my assessment.

I did not say that the original subthread was not flamebait. The call was not a caution, I said "calm down, buddy" and I meant all three words, the last one included. To talk civilly, we need to be calm enough to be rational, after all.

(If we want to be picky, implying that someone was at that time not calm means that something happened to make them not calm, that is, it says by proxy that the subthread WAS flamebait)

Also, would I be correct in thinking that your post, contrary to what I had thought thus far, was not sarcastic?

(To be precise, the "I would not have expected such blatant hypocrisy from you" bit)

First, I was not being sarcastic. I truly would not expect you to be hypocritical. And I have seen you take both atheists and theists to task for inappropriate posts. I respect your bipartisan approach in that respect.

Onager's post was "provocative", and SPK was responding to it. SPK's original comment that atheism and narcissism may be related was in direct response to onager's quoting of Madalyn Murray O'Hair that equated belief in God with insanity. The particular post you chose to suggest he "calm down" from was in fact continuing the dialog and I found nothing particularly uncivil about it. However, IMO, the whole subthread was uncivil, but how are you going to discuss that sort of topic without someone getting their feathers ruffled?

in a new direction (other than flamewar) by posting something radically different to the expected response? Who would ever do that? :evilgrin: You know, if someone did, there might be less flaming around here. Pity no-one did. ;)

In fact, if someone were to not be able to think of some productive new light to shine on the topic, they might post all sorts of strange things! :D

Glad to hear that you were not bieng sarcastic, it makes you a lot nicer person.

this is in response to a challenge to find something that shows any connection between narcissism and atheism.

the post has no intent to inflame, in fact it shows that there wasn't really any "scientific" work showing a connection.

Soft science is a colloquial term, often used pejoratively, for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly not based on reproducible experimental data and a mathematical explanation of that data. It is usually opposed to "hard science," rather than to non-science.

Studies of anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology are sometimes called "soft sciences."

Even within the natural sciences, research which depends upon conjecture, qualitative analysis of data (compared to quantitative analysis), or uncertain experimental results is sometimes derided as soft science (astrobiology is one common example). But more often the term is applied to the social sciences by doubters of their objective rigor. In its broadest sense, even largely non-quantitative, non-experimental fields of the humanities like literary criticism or gender studies are disparaged as soft science (though one must take "science" to mean something like the German Wissenschaft, or "scholarship," for the claim even to make sense).

Different approaches to the scientific method can be distinguished by the research they term "soft science" and what they consider "hard." The issue is important to the philosophy of science (which does not always support the possibility of drawing a distinction between "hard" and "soft") and to science studies and the sociology of science (which study scientists' implicit perceptions of research and methods).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science


Given the nature of the subject matter (the mental processes and behavior of living beings) it is necessarily going to be difficult, if not impossible, to have the same sorts of objective, reproducible experiments as in hard sciences. In the future technology may make it possible to do so, but for now we must make do with what we have available to us.


As to the bandying about of psychiatric "diagnoses" for believer and unbeliever alike I see it as nothing more than a particularly insidious form of mud slinging. Even for those here who have education or professional experience in mental health the practice of "armchair diagnosis" is inappropriate. Furthermore, labeling people with mental illnesses not only serves to insult them but to further stigmatize mental illness and those who actually suffer from them--something I deeply abhor.

you say tomatoe I say tomatoe

the point is that unless you are studying physiological psychology, you are largely studying something that psychologists themselves have not come to agreement as to what it even is, the mind.

You have the psychodynamic theorists, and the psychoanalytic approach; the cognitive psychologists; the behavioralists; the cognitive behavioralists; etc. etc.

It's hard to call it science, when therapy is really an art. People have tried to find reproducible methods, but the strongest factor in psychotherapy is something that is rather mushy to define "relationship".

Mate, what the hell gave you the idea? And what gave you the idea that consensus was required to be a science?

People made all that crap from what they had observed. The truth is a mix of them all (or so it seems). To be a psychologist, you must be a competent statistician here. Why? Because you have to scientifically analyse all the new info that is constantly given to you. Admittedly, it began inaccurately, but science is well in the process of taking over. Even if you hear things like "evaluation apprehension theory" and know that they are not talking about physical things, does not make it a pseudoscience.

Psychology is built on experimentation, replication and verification. Pseudoscience is not.

To characterise it as such is quite offensive and I will have to ask you to withdraw that statement.

I stand behind what I said

soft science, pseudoscience either way-in a narrow realm of psychology, that being studying the efficacy and efficiency of psychotherapie

Also, an exemption is physiological psychology

social science is soft science at best. Interesting, and full of useful information, but not always reproducible.

scientific study of psychotherapy is pseudoscience since it is largely impossible to replicate one therapist's methods as part of their method is THEM, the personality

I'm not bashing psychologists, or any kind of mental health person

I'm not even bashing soft science

but the reality is that there isn't a way to measure accurately the effects of psychotherapy, which is also why insurance companies get away with denying claims because of that.

That doesn't mean psychotherapy doesn't work, to the contrary it is very successful for many people.

But to say that just because a person has training in the scientific method, does not mean that their scientific method can be applied to studying psychotherapy.

think the main difference here is what pseudoscience means to the each of us... to me, it means fraud, lie & deception.

although I think that when someone presents research saying that a certain type of psychotherapy is "better" than another, that there has to be a skeptical eye that looks at the how, and why, as well as who is it better for?

For example, Cognitive therapy has a good reputation as a rational, and logical therapy. However, it tends to present in theory as if one can just reprogram the computer (person) and they will change. However, therapy doesn't always work that way. There may be some people for whom this therapy will work wonderfully for. Motivated, cognitively intact, above average intelligent people who grab hold of it and it works. But then, some would say that the above described person could "get it" from a monkey with flash cards. They were ready, willing, and able, and had the capacity, and opportunity to go with it.

Insurance companies have grabbed on to this therapy as it is usually fairly brief, and one can easily lay out goals, that can be measured and accomplished. However, not everyone who seeks therapy is as capable, or as motivated. Some don't seek it but are forced or coerced into therapy. What works with them?

I'm not against research with therapy. I'm just skeptical when someone says that they've proven the best way to treat people in therapy.

Psychoanalysis may work best with some, and it sure isn't easy to measure.

be a psychologist here. They look at the t, SEM, P, SD, means, correlation coefficient et cetera, and make an informed decision, what works for individuals is almost impossible to know, but what works on average is much more doable. And are taught to remember the difference between sample and population means, and to recognise the power of the stats. ("power" is something that in statistics you can have too much of it). In the end, there are a lot of funky mathematical things you can do with statistics to remove as much of the bullshit as humanly possible, and it is pretty easy to underestimate too. However, it is easy to manipulate the unwary or untrained, one VERY big drawback.

But if you look and you see t or P as more than 0.05, disregard.

Like that "Prayer imrpoves the health of (disease) patients" cited against that "prayer has no effect on heart patients" study.... it had a mortality P of 0.4, and was thus worthless shit.

(Used as an example, not to diss prayer!)

is that it is now and hopefully forever out of the hands of pseudoscientists who want to study prayer!

JMO

I know, pseudo science again

and my experience with you Cosmik Zappa is that you think you are superior to everyone else and that you like to hide behind attacking beliefs (but not the believer) so that you can act oh so shocked that anyone would ever be offended at your crap.

I can’t attack you personally because that is against the rules, and ad hominem attacks are not worthy of a good argument. But if I attack your ideas I am “out to get you”. You poor victim, you! Did you really expect a free pass here? If you don’t like having your ideas criticized then you shouldn’t wear them on your sleeve.

Oh, and that mind reading trick where you tell me what I am thinking, you could make some money off of that if you tried! But of course you would have to prove that you are not just blowing smoke. Is mine the only mind you can read?

But hey, it is your lucky day. I leave in about 6 hours for a month vacation. And while I’m gone I'm sure you will get your free pass from those hateful evil atheist who want to persecute you. I hope a month is enough for you to heal from the vicious assault perpetrated on you, poor thing.

:rofl:

Cambodia.

you hide behind criticizing ideas now?

I'm gonna miss you Cosmik (NOT)

In fact, I doubt I even remember you in a month being as you have so little to offer other than your false superiority complex and oh so innocent attitude when you lash out hiding behind thinly veiled attacks.

Have a good trip!

B-)

edit: what no computers where you are going?

Well, let's see. Religionists tend to believe...

1. That the Universe is run by some sort of anthropomorphic thingamajig, variously called Jehovah, God, Allah, or whatever.

2. That the Big Thingamjig In The Sky is busy running the Universe. But It also has time to take a deep personal interest in every one of its believers. Especially their sex lives.

3. That they routinely communicate with the Big Thingamjig thru various rituals and incantations.

So to sum up: religionists believe they are best buddies with The Big Bossman Of The Universe. And further believe they will be granted an inside track to cosmic secrets by bowing and bleating prayers to It.

And you're calling us atheists "narcissistic?"

:rofl:

Where's that big "projector" picture?

He is very sensitive about that.

Hence, the essential anti-narcissistic quality of the true religious observer.

Narcissism is an individual quality, in which the narcissist worships himself. It is all about self-love and admiration.

So, nobody can be narcissist as a group, be they theist or atheist.

Narcissism isn't clubbish, unless it's a club about the narcissist

otherwise, they believe that they are the center of the universe, that they are essentially the be all end all.

Sky Gods aside, how narcissistic is it to humble yourself to ANYTHING?

But I think I'll stick with the clinical meaning:

Question: Can narcissism be reconciled with a belief in God?

Answer: The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "having a destiny". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention.

He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique...

From this mental junction, the way is short to entertaining the delusion that God (or the equivalent institutional authority) is an active participant in the narcissist's life in which constant intervention by Him is a key feature.

http://www.concernedcounseling.com/Communities/personality_disorders/narcissism/faq47.html

What is Narcissism?

A pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of all others and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominance and ambition.

. . ..

The onset of narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early adolescence. It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by parents, authority figures, or even peers.

There is a whole range of narcissistic reactions - from the mild, reactive and transient to the permanent personality disorder.

Narcissists are either "Cerebral" (derive their narcissistic supply from their intelligence or academic achievements) - or "Somatic" (derive their narcissistic supply from their physique, exercise, physical or sexual prowess and "conquests").

. . ..

Please read CAREFULLY!

The text in italics is NOT based on the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, Fourth Edition-Text Revision (2000).

The text in italics IS based on "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited", fourth, revised, printing (2003)

An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)

Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted


Some of the language in the criteria above is based on or summarized from:

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, Text Revision (DSM IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

The text in italics is based on:

Sam Vaknin. (2003). Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, fourth, revised, printing. Prague and Skopje: Narcissus Publication.

Italic and bolding format did not reproduce. For original go to:

http://www.concernedcounseling.com/Communities/personality_disorders/narcissism/narcissism_defined.html

Atheist or Christian (or Sufi :)).

Atheist or Christian (or Sufi )?

is narcissistic...although, there are a couple of people who DO NOT post in this particular forum (and I don't know whether they are atheist or christian) who show many of the characteristics.

Do I think anybody here is mentally ill (apart from the people who have admitted to have psychological issues)...of course not, no.

Now, do I agree with the rest of what Onager had to say:

"1. That the Universe is run by some sort of anthropomorphic thingamajig, variously called Jehovah, God, Allah, or whatever.

2. That the Big Thingamjig In The Sky is busy running the Universe. But It also has time to take a deep personal interest in every one of its believers. Especially their sex lives.

3. That they routinely communicate with the Big Thingamjig thru various rituals and incantations."

These are all true (except maybe the sex thing..I don't think a lot of the christians on this forum believe that god cares about sex...although I'm sure there are a few). I don't think they are indicatitive of mental illness, however. I think its more the result of parental teaching, and societal pressures. Not in all cases, but in most.

You don't think anyone on this forum is narcissistic, and you don't think anybody is mentally ill, yet in your post you agree with what onager had said. In what way are you agreeing? Do you personally agree that:

1. The universe is run by some sort of anthropomorphic thingamajig, variously called Jehovah, God, Allah, or whatever.

2. The Big Thingamjig In The Sky is busy running the Universe. But It also has time to take a deep personal interest in every one of its believers. (I left out the sex ref, as you already clarified) Actually, this is one area I personally agree with as I believe God IS in control of the universe and has a personal interest in every one of us.

3. "Religionists" (whatever that means) routinely communicate with the Big Thingamjig thru various rituals and incantations.

You finished your post by saying that 1,2 & 3 were all true. Really? In what way? How many "religionists" who post here describe their preferred deity as an "anthropomorphic thingamajig"? What exactly are the "rituals and incantations"? (I'm pretty sure that I have never uttered an incantation in my life).

Incidentally, you left out commentary on onager's summation:

"So to sum up: religionists believe they are best buddies with The Big Bossman Of The Universe. And further believe they will be granted an inside track to cosmic secrets by bowing and bleating prayers to It."

Do you not believe these statements to be true? FTR, I can't recall anyone posting a claim to be "best buddies" with "The Big Bossman Of The Universe", nor has anyone advocated "bowing and bleating prayers" to get "cosmic secrets".

Anyway, no big deal, just thought you could clarify some of this for me. Either way, I still enjoy your posts, and look forward to the next one.

must be all but unbearable.

You lost me on that one greyl. What part of my post indicates "guilt" issues?

FTR, I can't recall anyone posting a claim to be "best buddies" with "The Big Bossman Of The Universe..."

Are you saying you've never seen anyone using those specific words? No shit. I'm being sarcastic and expressing them from an atheist POV.

Anyway, let me clear this up, since you seem to be some sort of bizarro literalist and I don't want you to waste hours searching DU for the phrase "best buddies with the Big Bossman Of The Universe."

Take a stroll thru any of the religious groups and see how many threads you can find on people bragging about their special relationship with God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, etc. etc.

...nor has anyone advocated "bowing and bleating prayers" to get "cosmic secrets".

Then WTF is stuff like "the John Kerry Prayer Thread" from November 2004?

Which naturally worked just as well as prayer always does.

That's sarcasm. Do you need the smilie?

Here's the Webster's definition of sarcasm:

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

Beginning with your original post quoting Madelyn Murray O'Hair's opinion about belief in God, where is the sarcasm?

Stop it!

I like and respect both of you, please don't let this turn into another pissing contest.

Look at who and what the other person was responding to before you take offense at what they've posted in retaliation.

Snark begets snark in here and it's way too easy to forget who you were aiming at to begin with.

"1. The universe is run by some sort of anthropomorphic thingamajig, variously called Jehovah, God, Allah, or whatever"

Don't christians believe in god. It was sarcastically put, of course, but this is absolutely true.

"2. The Big Thingamjig In The Sky is busy running the Universe. But It also has time to take a deep personal interest in every one of its believers."

Again, indisputably true. Personal relationship with christ anyone?

3. "Religionists" (whatever that means) routinely communicate with the Big Thingamjig thru various rituals and incantation.

Um..isn't this what praing basically is. A ritual to communicate with god. Or even things like eating the skin and drinking the blood of Jesus...also rituals to get closer to god.

"So to sum up: religionists believe they are best buddies with The Big Bossman Of The Universe. And further believe they will be granted an inside track to cosmic secrets by bowing and bleating prayers to It."

Best buddes = personal relationship with christ (with a little of that atheist sarcasm we are so famous for).

Inside track and secrets: A lot of christians here argue that they know how the Earth was created or how the universe was created or how humans were created....remember the big bang thread? In fact, most christians I know act like they know more about the universe that pyscicists do...and they have no basis for knowledge apart from their biblical "inside track".

No True Scotsman rides again!

You're nothing if not predictable, old buddy.

But based on your history of aggression toward atheists, you'll probably take it as picking a fight.

and just what the hell would that be?

Narcissists aren't generally people that are willing to join a group and not be the leader or the center of attention of the group members.

So I don't see the no true scotsman fallacy applicable here at all.

Not like it has been other times

is that no "true religious observer" could be a narcissist.

Let's recap. The "No True Scotsman" argument is a fallacy (according to Wikipedia) if the predicate is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject, or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Now let's look at definition:



Are any of these contradictory w.r.t. being a "true religious observer"? There is nothing in the definition of narcissism that indicates one must "worship" oneself and therefore could not possibly view another entity in the universe as being superior or also worthy of worship.

So you see, kwassa is once again using the fallacy. The definitions are not contradictory, thus a true believer could also be a narcissist.

as you often have been in the past in your ongoing misapplication of "No True Scotsman".

You are rather obsessed with "No True Scotsman". It this your belief system? You trot it out immediately. Claiming something is a fallacy doesn't make it so. This is your fallacy, as pointed out before.

trotsky:
"Are any of these contradictory w.r.t. being a "true religious observer"? There is nothing in the definition of narcissism that indicates one must "worship" oneself and therefore could not possibly view another entity in the universe as being superior or also worthy of worship"

Yes, it is contradictory. Why? The very condition of worshipping God releases one from self-worship. A narcissist places themself above God; nothing is above themself. It is an individual, not a group condition. I am talking of the grand narcissist, not the garden variety vanity case. I am speaking of worship metaphorically, too. Sorry you didn't get it. Have you studied psychology much? Doesn't sound like it.

Point out a definition of narcissism that makes "self-worship" a requirement. A definition that says a narcissist indeed places themselves above god(s).

Yeah, someone here doesn't get it. Glad it's not me.

quote:
"narcissism
1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit."

What is the problem? Excessive love or admiration of oneself could certainly describe self-worship. Hard-core narcissists see themselves as the source of all things.

"Excessive love or admiration of oneself" does not equate to "self-worship." Only in your mind.

What you're doing, however, is actually double-dipping in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Please note the 2nd part of the Wikipedia definition: it's a fallacy if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Textbook illustration can be seen in what you're doing. You just love that fallacy, don't you?

Lots of narcissists don't worship themselves...they just think they are gods chosen. There is nothing about narcissism that excludes christians or religious observers (or atheists for that matter).

I think the second topic may deserve its own thread or thirteen.

where is Inland thread and talking about evolution at the same time. Inland has also been missing for quite a while. I wonder where he has gotten of too. In a perverse way, I kinda miss the guy.

Why didn't I see this before?

Just dropped in and read this thread - all the way down to your great response.

So glad you dropped in when you did. You made it all worth while.

Now I'm blushing. You are too much. :hug:

To the show that never ends.

We're so glad you could attend,
Come inside, come inside.

Next upon the bill in our House of Vaudeville
We've a stripper in a till
What a thrill! What a thrill!
And not content with that, with our hands behind our backs,
We pull Jesus from a hat,
Get into that! Get into that!
Roll up! Roll up! Roll up!
See the show!

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
be careful as you pass.
Move along! Move along!

Come inside, the show's about to start
guaranteed to blow your head apart
Rest assured you'll get your money's worth
The greatest show in Heaven, Hell or Earth.
You've got to see the show, it's a dynamo.
You've got to see the show, it's rock and roll ....



There was no musical middle ground for BMUS.
I went from nursery rhymes to David Bowie, Queen and AC/DC.

sigh...




Glad you're still here, my friend.
:hug:

I saw ELP at the first California Jam, held at the Ontario Motor Speedway on April 6, 1974. There was over 200,000 people there, overflowed up into the hills. It took so long for ELP's stage show to be set up that people began throwing around 1 gallon jugs that had been passed out during the day to help keep everyone hydrated. There were so many jugs flying around that it was like being inside a popcorn popper!

It was worth it though, as ELP put on one of the best shows I have ever seen. Keith Emerson had a white grand piano sitting on stage, and as he began playing it, the whole thing, including Keith, rose about twenty feet in the air. It then started rotating end over end, with Keith strapped to the bench wailing away. Unbelievable!

Anyway, glad you picked up on the reference, seemed appropriate. And I'm glad you're back in the mix, you were missed.

I remember listening to the dj's on Montreal's Chom FM giving daily reports about how the stage was being set up in 1976. They couldn't get over how many trucks/equipment they needed.

And they also said it was worth it.

Truth is greater than fiction.:party:

I'm happy to be here.

:hi:

Welcome back.

:hi:

Thanks.

And I'm very glad to see you're still here.
You're one of my favorite sparring partners, and someone I would definitely like to have a beer with.

ANd I know the smilie face is sincere! :)

You're also one of my favorite sparring partners - but of late I have been agreeing with you a great deal - I'll have to work harder on finding a political point we disagree on so as to have a more interesting response than a post that simply says "I agree".

In any case hang in there BMUS - I have gotten a bit more nervous when I do not hear from folks of late due to the fact I just lost a young friend - just turned 60 - who died alone in his apartment - a super nice, gentle witty artsy fellow who was also an atheist. So I worry a bit, knowing so many of my friends are coming to the end of their alloted time. Funny how you do not worry about one's own limited time, but you do worry about others.

Well - that was a downer of a paragraph. I think I am late with the evening's happy pill.

BMUS - it is just good to see you're back! :-)

Dying at home surrounded by books, art and music isn't such a bad way to go, actually.
And he had at least one good friend who cared about him.
He wasn't poor at all, papau.
:)

:(

Sounds like a neat guy who will be missed by his friends. Can't do it in person, but this is for you...:hug:

:-)