A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  Sab, if you start a thread, posters can focus on that very different topic.

  I think that it is possible that the consensus on how we will engage in the future will not be in total agreement with individual expectations. That doesn't mean a lot hasn't been accomplished with this thread. An individual may think they know the best way all should go, but that is not the consensus. I think the important thing is that we have come to some type of consensus, whether each individual feels it went exactly as they would have chosen.

  We (mostly) agree to not bait just for the sake of baiting. We (mostly) agree to try and recognize that some posts have the simple purpose of stirring up emotions that may already feel antagonized. We (mostly) agree to do our best not to be manipulated by these posts, and to ignore them, or address them without taking the bait, but simply pointing out that they are progressing the conversation, but seeking to stall it and start a fight.

  There are individual expectations that won't be met. For instance, if I had my wish, people would accept that attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person, and ideas should be fair game, especially when thrown into the crucible--so to speak. I don't think that is going to happen, so I am content with the other strategies we have talked about. I won't prophecy doom and gloom because everyone does not agree with my take, but am just glad we may have figured out a way to keep things from deteriorating into locked and deleted threads, and more hostility.
• 

  sabastious

  Ok, so lesson one from this exchange: creating "on topic rules" is a foul. Just because one is defined as off topic doesn't mean they are. I explained why I think it's on topic and am being rejected like I am addressing a panel. Feel free to ignore, Cofty, the feeling is mutual.

  Now, if non believers are using this term "good believers" what exactly do they mean? That's why I bring up martyrdom because that's the essence of any lasting religion or group of believers. People at some point had to die for it or are continuing to do so. Eventually this seems to level out through an evolution-like process that ends in just sacrifice for faith rather than the ultimate sacrifice. Naturally, the religions of today would have the same martyrdom properties (it doesn't have to be physical death it can just sheding of a past life like when joining the JW's). However in this "secular" day and age, lead by people like Ricky Gervais, people willing to die for faith, as in lacking firm evidence, are considered radicals. And that's not a term that is synonymous with good at all in the secular world. It's actually regarded as bad. So I ask the question for verification and clearification purposes: is being willing to die for your faith a "good believer" trait, or a "bad believer" trait?

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  From the point of view of a fellow believer of the same faith . . . to die for it seems honourable (good)

  From the point of view of someone who believes it's hogwash . . . it seems very dumb (bad)

  Which is precisely why I ask the question. It's an extremely relevant question and it's ON TOPIC. It is in martyrdom where the line is drawn. In the world of non belief it's OK to believe something without evidence, it's not always OK to die for something without evidence. How we percieve the world is directly tied to how we percieve life. And how we percieve life can be determined by what we are willing to die for. The interesting ethical situation that arises here is that if you are willing to die for something, then how can you judge another who is willing to do the same, but for the opposite ideology? That is what loving your enemies is about.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  Sab, the topic of this thread, (and as redefined as we went along) was to find practical ways that we could have these debates in such a way that they didn't deteriorate into mud slinging. If you want to discuss people dying for their beliefs (which is NOT this topic) PLEASE start a thread. I am personally so tired of these threads getting hijacked by unrelated topics. I don't think that is unreasonable of me, since it is very simple to just start a new thread. Palm has worked very hard to keep this thread focused and on track. I am not telling what you can and cannot post. I am simply asking you to be considerate and start a thread. I'm sure many will be willing to engage you there.

  I have no authority over you, I'm not telling you what to do, but I am asking you to be considerate of the OP and topic at hand.

  That's all I can say on the matter. I will put it all on ignore from this point forward.
• 

  sizemik

  NC . . . I think sab is enthusiastic about the new landscape that has been created over the last 29 pages, and is now well and truly out of the blocks on this one.

  Unless more terms of reference are still needed . . . I'm off and running too . . . this could help.

  However in this "secular" day and age, lead by people like Ricky Gervais, people willing to die for faith, as in lacking firm evidence, are considered radicals. And that's not a term that is synonymous with good at all in the secular world. It's actually regarded as bad. . . . sab

  You illustrate the point I made on the previous page sab . . . it's all about perspective.

  Of course an atheist is going to see a person willing to die for their faith as radical (bad) . . . from their point of view it is.

  And your example illustrates well an ingredient in believer/non-believer discussions. Many non-believers see "faith" as unsavoury for just this reason . . . and that view is every bit as valid as one who thinks it honourable (good). The question is . . . does he have a right to say so?
• 

  still thinking

  Ok sab, I'm starting to see where you are going with this...with a little help and clarification from sizemik. Thanks size.
• 

  NewChapter

  The question is . . . does he have a right to say so?

  If it continues in this line, then yes, it is about the topic at hand.

  So I will add to that line. I find it incredibly disturbing when people would martyr themselves for faith in something that can't be proven. We all tend to agree on this when it comes to the blood issue or suicide bombers--and some of us take that all the way and say it is all a bad idea.

  That's not to say that there are not things that a person wouldn't sacrifice life, health and comfort for, but from my perspective, doing so for something i can see no evidence of, it will always be a deep shame and waste to me.
• 

  still thinking

  Tell me sab, If a suicide bomber killed your child for their god...would you still feel the need to love your enemy?

  And should I show that belief respect?
• 

  sabastious

  NC . . . I think sab is enthusiastic about the new landscape that has been created over the last 29 pages, and is now well and truly out of the blocks on this one.

  I always wait for threads to start to die and then throw in the left field stuff. If I come in too early I derail and it dones't matter if I derail a slowing thread, at least it resurrects the discussion for others who may have missed it. I think people get a little hung up on protocol here.

  And your example illustrates well an ingredient in believer/non-believer discussions. Many non-believers see "faith" as unsavoury for just this reason . . . and that view is every bit as valid as one who thinks it honourable (good). The question is . . . does he have a right to say so?

  Is it honorable to die for Science? Sure! That the difference between non believers and believers and why they can't come to a truce. We don't look at the actions of non believers and question the honor. Sure a lot doctrine does and crazy religious zealots do, but not the believers of JWN. How many believers here go to church regularly? I sure don't. They make you regularly sing hyms, that's MIND CONTROL! They make you sway and feel emotional, that's MIND CONTROL. They make you pray publlically and tell you Science is from the pits of hell, that's MIND CONTROL. But the people on JWN are different, they don't do all that. Each member brings something unique to the table. They should be well regarded, not smeared at every chance. If you ask me JWN serves as a shining example for believers everywhere inside and out of churches, synagogs, temples and the like. They should be proud of themselves.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  They should be well regarded, not smeared at every chance.

  "Smeared at every chance".

  Persecution complex Sab?