(August 22, 2019 at 8:32 pm)Grandizer Wrote: The argument, to remind you, was whether what Anom said was over the top. Based on what the doctrines of mainstream Christianity, no.

This is your interpretation. Mine is different. 

I think that we can and should face the fact that people are likely to behave very badly. People are selfish and unfair, and we easily find justifications for these things. 

And I think that loving people more is the best way to address this. 

Therefore, I think that acknowledging the flaws in human character does not mean someone is a misanthrope. Love (the opposite of misanthropy) doesn't have to be blind. 

This is from Buber (Jewish not Christian, but compatible):

Quote:In the eyes of him who takes his stand in love, and gazes out of it, men are cut free from their entanglement in bustling activity. Good people and evil, wise and foolish, beautiful and ugly, become successively real to him; that is, set free they step forth in their singleness, and confront him as Thou. [This is Buber's term for when we treat someone as valuable in himself, not an end to a means, infinitely unknowable and unprovably valuable.] In a wonderful way, from time to time, exclusiveness also arises -- and so he can be effective, helping, healing, educating, raising up, saving. [The exclusiveness refers to the fact that we tend to feel special obligation to our own kids, etc.] 

Note that there is no denial about the fact that many people are evil, foolish, and ugly.

(August 22, 2019 at 8:45 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 22, 2019 at 8:32 pm)Grandizer Wrote: The argument, to remind you, was whether what Anom said was over the top. Based on what the doctrines of mainstream Christianity, no.

This is your interpretation. Mine is different. 

I think that we can and should face the fact that people are likely to behave very badly. People are selfish and unfair, and we easily find justifications for these things. 

And I think that loving people more is the best way to address this. 

Therefore, I think that acknowledging the flaws in human character does not mean someone is a misanthrope. Love (the opposite of misanthropy) doesn't have to be blind. 

This is from Buber (Jewish not Christian, but compatible):

Quote:In the eyes of him who takes his stand in love, and gazes out of it, men are cut free from their entanglement in bustling activity. Good people and evil, wise and foolish, beautiful and ugly, become successively real to him; that is, set free they step forth in their singleness, and confront him as Thou. [This is Buber's term for when we treat someone as valuable in himself, not an end to a means, infinitely unknowable and unprovably valuable.] In a wonderful way, from time to time, exclusiveness also arises -- and so he can be effective, helping, healing, educating, raising up, saving. [The exclusiveness refers to the fact that we tend to feel special obligation to our own kids, etc.] 

Note that there is no denial about the fact that many people are evil, foolish, and ugly.

When you say people do you mean all people? Or some?

Anyhow, I don't quite agree that our nature always leans towards selfish acts. We can be selfish in some contexts but remarkably altruistic in other contexts. And this is a far cry from saying that our human nature is tainted with sin.

And loving people despite their flaws (which don't sufficientily define who they are) is a good thing, loving people often also means we tend to see the good in them as well. To say that human beings are tainted with sin by nature but we should love them regardless isn't exactly flattering, and it's reasonable to say that this shows contempt for human nature (which in other words is misanthropic).

(August 22, 2019 at 9:37 pm)Grandizer Wrote: To say that human beings are tainted with sin by nature but we should love them regardless isn't exactly flattering, and it's reasonable to say that this shows contempt for human nature (which in other words is misanthropic).

Well, I think that acknowledging the fact that people are a mixed bag, and it's in our nature to do things we judge to be morally bad, is not misanthropic. 

But if you want to define things that way, I guess we just disagree.

(August 22, 2019 at 5:36 pm)Belaqua Wrote: If Drich etc. are saying false things, you should absolutely call them on it. I don't happen to do that because so many other people are devoted to it, they don't need me. 

It is extremely unlikely that we can change people like that. Self-criticism among people who (supposedly) value truth, on the other hand, seems worthwhile to me. 

If you feel that it's OK for atheists to say false things, then I guess we're stuck.

Funny that your record here points me the other way. You seem to be keen on protecting religious people, I have no qualms with that. Yet you excuse yourself with "others are there doing it for me". In my book sounds like cowardice and ultimately a cop-out. Not only that, but you do good gimnastics trying to portray atheists with double standards, and despite your excuses, theists saying horrible things get crickets from you. I don't believe for a moment you are an atheist, nor someone able to hold any opinion. Who has the double standards after all?

Respect is something you must earn.

(August 23, 2019 at 8:17 am)LastPoet Wrote: You seem to be keen on protecting religious people

I find myself correcting statements about religion that aren't true. And I do defend religious people if people say false things about them.

For example, if someone were to say that someone whose self-image is informed very much by his religion couldn't be important or do important things, I would argue against that. 

European culture was Christian culture for a long time. Much of the very best thinking done in Europe was done by seriously religious people. I am happy to read what they wrote and get from it all that is good. To dismiss it unfairly only hurts ourselves. 

Quote:despite your excuses, theists saying horrible things get crickets from you.

I find such people boring. Mainly, I know that I have little hope of improving their thought. It's more likely that I can improve people who are more like me to begin with -- though the real goal in the end is to improve my own. I'm the only one I have any control over. 

Quote:I don't believe for a moment you are an atheist

Yeah, you can believe what you want. 

I have this crazy idea that I should understand people different from me, have empathy for their views, and get from them what good they have to offer. It appears that such a view is incredible to some people. Maybe we're no longer supposed to have empathy and understanding for people who disagree with us. It is the age of Trump after all. 

Certainly the idea that we have a duty to write true sentences about people unlike ourselves is -- to put it politely -- not strongly defended. 

Quote:Respect is something you must earn.

Why do you think I want it from strangers on the Internet?

(August 22, 2019 at 5:36 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I am not a Christian. I have never been a Christian. I have never attended a church service. I have never been inside a church, expect to look at the art or architecture, even for a wedding or a funeral. 

OK, not christian. Taking into consideration all your defense of religion and religious thought, what are you? Generic theist? You indicated that you teach/have students, what do you teach? 

Considering your behavior I think not telling Shell and the rest of us what you consider yourself is disingenuous.

Well, if you don't take a position, you don't have to justify it.

(August 23, 2019 at 8:33 am)wyzas Wrote: OK, not christian. Taking into consideration all your defense of religion and religious thought, what are you? Generic theist? You indicated that you teach/have students, what do you teach? 

Considering your behavior I think not telling Shell and the rest of us what you consider yourself is disingenuous.

The definition that this forum demands is that an atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in God. 

I lack a belief in God. I am not a theist, generic or brand-name.

Will that be considered sufficient for my trial? 

My background is in art. To understand Western art, you have to understand Western religion. For example, no one can understand Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel if he doesn't understand the Neoplatonic Christianity of Ficino, etc., that Michelangelo believed. For centuries, aesthetic thought was embedded in and inseparable from religion. 

Have you heard of van Eyck, and the other Flemish Primitives? There's a wonderful painting of the Annunciation by Robert Campin in the New York museum called the Cloisters. When I worked at the cash register there during my grad school days, I could lean over from the counter and see it, which I did a lot. To understand this painting, you need to know about the religious movement of the time called devotio moderna, which has links with great Christian thinkers like Nicholas of Cusa, and with the Byzantine traditions of using icons as meditational aids. The whole thing is beautiful, wise, and good to know.

Even where things are not explicitly religious, their place of birth makes them inseparable from the cultural background. Proust, for example, is unthinkable in a non-Protestant country. The Tale of Genji, which is entirely about sleeping around, could only be written in a Buddhist world. 

One of the problems with many modern New Atheist types is that they don't understand religion very well. I've seen ridiculous statements about truly great thinkers, made by people who have never read a single book about them. 

So, your honor, in my defense, I conclude that there is enormous beauty and wisdom in religious tradition, that I am greedy to get as much of it as possible, and that people who dismiss it are, very often, just ignorant. 

I am not going to tell you about my classes, because they are unusual and could easily be Googled. I am not affiliated with official academia. My book about how an artist's theology determines his means of expression was much praised by poets, and much ignored by professors. This pleased me. 

Again, the only thing that all atheists have in common is that they lack a certain belief. I have learned from this and similar forums that this is often forgotten, and that an atheist like me is judged to be disingenuous. Which I am used to, and don't care about.

(August 23, 2019 at 8:57 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 23, 2019 at 8:33 am)wyzas Wrote: OK, not christian. Taking into consideration all your defense of religion and religious thought, what are you? Generic theist? You indicated that you teach/have students, what do you teach? 

Considering your behavior I think not telling Shell and the rest of us what you consider yourself is disingenuous.

The definition that this forum demands is that an atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in God. 

I lack a belief in God. I am not a theist, generic or brand-name.

Will that be considered sufficient for my trial? 

My background is in art. To understand Western art, you have to understand Western religion. For example, no one can understand Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel if he doesn't understand the Neoplatonic Christianity of Ficino, etc., that Michelangelo believed. For centuries, aesthetic thought was embedded in and inseparable from religion. 

Have you heard of van Eyck, and the other Flemish Primitives? There's a wonderful painting of the Annunciation by Robert Campin in the New York museum called the Cloisters. When I worked at the cash register there during my grad school days, I could lean over from the counter and see it, which I did a lot. To understand this painting, you need to know about the religious movement of the time called devotio moderna, which has links with great Christian thinkers like Nicholas of Cusa, and with the Byzantine traditions of using icons as meditational aids. The whole thing is beautiful, wise, and good to know.

Even where things are not explicitly religious, their place of birth makes them inseparable from the cultural background. Proust, for example, is unthinkable in a non-Protestant country. The Tale of Genji, which is entirely about sleeping around, could only be written in a Buddhist world. 

One of the problems with many modern New Atheist types is that they don't understand religion very well. I've seen ridiculous statements about truly great thinkers, made by people who have never read a single book about them. 

So, your honor, in my defense, I conclude that there is enormous beauty and wisdom in religious tradition, that I am greedy to get as much of it as possible, and that people who dismiss it are, very often, just ignorant. 

I am not going to tell you about my classes, because they are unusual and could easily be Googled. I am not affiliated with official academia. My book about how an artist's theology determines his means of expression was much praised by poets, and much ignored by professors. This pleased me. 

Again, the only thing that all atheists have in common is that they lack a certain belief. I have learned from this and similar forums that this is often forgotten, and that an atheist like me is judged to be disingenuous. Which I am used to, and don't care about.

Trial, your honor? My god, what a fucking martyr.

And I think you're lying.

(August 16, 2019 at 6:59 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Maybe people have different ways to use an Internet forum. Some people want to discuss what's true. Other sites encourage a kind of unthinking consensus -- e.g. "immigrants bad!"

Sometimes I see statements that are over the top. Surely no thinking person can agree with the sentence as made? I mean, we can and should argue against falsehoods, but not by making new overgeneralized falsehoods.

Here is an example of what I'm thinking about. I've resisted the urge to clean up the English.

Quote:For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

There have been many many people in history whose religious view is an important part of what he or she is, who is more than "very little" and has in fact developed very well, into a good and important person -- while staying religious. e.g. Isaac Newton 

Anyway, I called this statement out when it was first made, but nobody else did, and I found that a little disappointing.

I'm sure plenty of people here believe sentiments like that. But it tends to reveal more about them than those whom it's directed to. More about their own insecurities and sense of insignificance, than others. More projection than anything else. 

It comes with the territory, the uglier side of internet cultures.