Abaddon,
Excellent reply. It is this kind of honest inquiry that makes post JW life so wonderful.
I like many of your views, disagree with some, and feel that you missed my point and we are in agreement with other observations. I'll address them one at a time.
Perry; I have to say I think you are begging the question a bit;Mmmm, not difficult to see where you're coming from... but anyway;
I have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.
Are you suggesting I'm an apologist for deism? I'm against all forms of unethical ideological influences. Ones that are based on deceit, craftiness, ignorance and especially unfairness. Call a spade a spade and bring it out in the light for examination, that is what I like to see.
Whether a person subscribes to theism or atheism is irrelevant to the fact that those positions rarely exist in a vacuum.
I was actually musing the other day about how I dislike the word atheism, as it defines people by something they don't believe exists.
You get my vote on the dignity, self-worth, and self-realization part for sure. However, I'd argue that the term athiest does indeed imply belief. If there was no "First Cause" then what exactly brought us into existence? Unless I'm missing something here, the only alternative beliefs are (1) an infinite digression of cause and effect events or, (2) something from nothing. Each of those views require faith since it cannot be scietifically demonstrated or duplicated.
I like the word 'humanist' ("a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values, especially a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason"
I'd agrue as above that the humanist must accept supernaturalism since the answers on the question of origins all require faith because they are outside our experience in the natural world and the laboratory as well.
As far as the Humanist religion goes respecting a "way of life centered on human interests or values", just whose interests and values is it centered on? The incredibly arrogant creeds in this religion that claim to speak for all mankind is truly breath-taking. This kind of "we know better because we're us" thinking is intellectually repulsive, repressive and unfair to other world views. In "The Humanist" Jan/Feb 1983 John J. Dunphy had this to say concerning the spreading of Humanist ideals:
These [Humanist] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundalmentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level. The classroom must and will becomean area of conflict between the old and the new - the roting corpse of christianity together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of 'Love Thy Neighbor' will finally be achieved.
Now to be fair, don't you think that athiestic Humanists should just be honest and say, "Hey, were a religion too, but you really ought to check this out!" Do they ? Oh no, they have chosen to march in the footsteps of the WBTS to the tune of "Religion is a Snare and a Racket." In my opinion, just pure religious fanaticism. If they were really all about ethicalness, they would be touting "equal teaching for equal worldviews".
This is an interesting point;
... he/she has formulated the very essence and purpose of religion; and that is to make sense of and attempt to control the environment, at least for his/her self.
You say that is the essence of religion, but it is also what science is about, really. You can also say it is what philosophy is about too. So I'm not sure what you're saying given what you say religion is about is also true of science and philosophy.
Very simple, a defineable worldview.
What I find so ethically shocking is when any construct of thought, whether based on deism or athiesm, presents itself as "fact", "truth" and ideologically "free" while at the same time pursues its own logical agenda as a consequence of such constructs.
You have to accept that there is differentiation between constructs of thoughts and differentiation between consequnces of constructs of thought.Are you putting Jim Jones and David Koresh on a level playing field with other constructs of thought? Or ancient Aztec religions where one had to cut the heart out of prisioners of war to make the sun rise on the same playing field as Universal Unitarians or Quakers?
I think there is clear differentiation between constructs of thought. I think there is clear differentiation between the concequences of these constructs.
To escape this with a sentence implying to think such a thing is shocking is to hide from reality.
Talk about a straw man argument! We are in complete argeement on the different consequences. So, why is it when I'm shocked, its hiding from reality and when your shocked, its somehow justified? Very strange thoughts you display here. Perhaps you could elaborate at a future time.
My angst is directed toward those constructs of thought (world views)who choose to deceptively identify themselves otherwise for the purpose of painlessly injecting its ideologies into others, outside of the victims awareness. Kinda like what the WBTS did in Mexico as a "cultural organization".
A theist, unless they have some pretty good proof, is just exercising their opinion, and that should start and stop with their own lives. I agree that theists trying to impose their opinions upon the world has generally been an unpleasent business for those imposed upon.
Please reread your quote above and replace the word theist with the word athiest. This is the kind of intellectual masturbation that is ruining our educational institutions and producing "group think" on a massive scale. Fairness and ethicalness would demand that all major world views be taught....equally and fairly considered; and then the individual would be in a much better position to make informed choices.
An atheist would be most unusal if they would expect their opinions to affect others' lives. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but what is more likely is that certain things a theist would NOT want to happen CAN happen, as opposed to forced conformity.
Oh really? That is simply pure propaganda myth. It is so sad that people have actually been duped more than once after leaving the WBTS. Athiests have united under the banner of Secular Humanism and have brought about huge societal changes through the auspices of deceptively denying that they are a religion (that would blow their cover and the separation of church and state doctrine would end their educational influence), while they themselves certify "counselors" who enjoy the same legal status of priests, rabbis, and ministers. At least one Humanist was granted conscientous objector status before the supreme court on religious grounds. Yes, the Humanists want it both ways just like the WBTS.
What better way to enforce conformity than to control the flow of information, hide your true nature, and train ministers to promote your agenda. That's what the Humanists wanted and did and that is what we experienced in the WBTS.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; you are not entilted to your own facts.
I once saw a great quote: "People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones". Your glass house you have built in your mind doesn't fit the facts. However please correct me if any of my statements are untrue.
It seems appropriate to state to you at this point that I actually like many of the Humanistic ideals. My issue is with its MO.
This is where a major paradigm shift between theists and atheists takes place. A theist's facts or proofs are often of a subjective nature. An atheists are less likely to be subjective and more likely to be externally verifiable.Thus, to seek to argue that athiesm is a relgion, even if this has some semantic foundation, is a baseless arguement, as although there are some similarities, they are of such a superficial nature as to make comparison meaningless. Rabbits are a bit like giraffes, but this doesn't get you far in the study of either.
Again, you missed my point. Athiesm is not a religion any more than theism is a religion. The thought constructs built upon each of those foundations become religious once the are released into society by trained evangelists, whether they choose to call themselves that are not.
If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion.
Based on the above this is a non sequiter.
I disagree, but we'll each reader decide.
However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.
You are confusing religion with society, and also not recognising that religion is essentially old-time politics.
Again, I challenge you to show me the society that is without religion? Your failure to do so is causing you to simply repeat yourself. Please get back to me when you can think of one.
My contention is that just because we live in an information age and it is popular and political advantageous to call current ideologies something other than what they are, it does not negate the function of many ideologies as being essentially religious... even if it does operate outside the adherents awareness.
It seems to me, that to critize the deist for formulating and participating in standards, policies, and community as being "mental illness" as promoted in an earlier thread, while at the same time accepting the athiests' standards, policies, and community to be ideology/religious free, is ignorance at best and hypocritical at worst
This is a bit of a straw man arguement; I don't think theists desire to participate in soceity is seen as mad, and you are verging on saying this is what people have said.
Where have you been living? Do you not get television in your glass house?
Christians have seen their world view effectively eliminated in public schools, and are outraged at the Marxist and Humanists' violations of the present interpretation of the First Amendment. The Christians simply want equal consideration of worldviews. Humanists want total intellectual domination.
The Humanists then add insult to injury by making the 192 million Christians bear the financial responsibility for such discrimination through their tax dollars. The 7.3 million Humanists finance their religion as a parasite on the larger society while the liberal media paints any objectors as religious fanatics and screwballs. Through their cunning and dishonesty, they have simply done a better job of marketing their agenda and have beat out their competitors in some arenas.
The arguement that theists are mad is based upon the fact that in 200,000 years of human existence, and maybe 40,000 years of pre-history and 5,000 years of history, no one has ever proved the existence of god in the same way that one can demonstrate the existence of gravity and value of g with a tenth floor window, a tape measure, a brick and a stop-watch, and a few assistants.[/QUOTE] Total non-sense. Educated theists know that they cannot prove the existence of God but choose to believe anyway because of its perceived accrueing benefits. That is their choice....plain and simple, as well as their right.
The opposite is also true. Educated athiests cannot deny that their take on origins require faith, but they choose to believe anyway. No big deal. What gets me steamed is when they close the information door in our classrooms and masquarade as "this is just the way it is".
But I am glad that you brought up the subject of anger stemming from intellectual embarrassment. I have always wondered why uninformed athiests get so mad when you try to explain that "matter from nothing" or "an infinite digression of cause and effect events require faith. Could it be that they naively believe the propaganda from their Humanist and Marxist masters? What the hell is so wrong in just admitting, "I don't know"? Why must they spout the mantra, "we can prove anything" and then fail to follow up? How different is that from the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Despite this absence of proof, the theist can and does sometimes expect the non theist OR THE DIFFERENTLY BELIEVING THEIST (a very big hole in your arguement) to do what they say, essentially because they say it, or someone once wrote down what someone else said.
Again, simply replace the word theist with the word atheist and you'll see the invalidity of your argument. The bottom line is that a life not based on intellectual honesty, fairness, and examination is not worth living in my opinion. I guess you were once a JW, so I feel a natural kinship toward you and others here on this DB. After we have been through all that manipulation and survived, it would be a shame to simply be carried off victim by another indefensible position that masquarades as something else.
If we choose a position and adhere to its constructs and are comfortable with it, why do we need to deny its existence if it works for us?
Again, I have no problem with athiests. I even like the ideas of the humanists. The concept of greater control is appealing. But, all unethical MO's have got to go.
Perhaps Gary Buss said it best in another thread:
If I am secure in my understandings, there is absolutely no reason why I need to lobby anyone else to adopt my philosophy. I only need company for my insecurities, my weaknesses and my assumptions.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
