New Theism

[Brian37]

A couple have been doing 'missionary' work to, what seems like, promote this new movement called New Theism.

New Theists are not believers; we’re evidentialists. We value scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma, or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God (Reality/Ultimate Wholeness/The Great Mystery).

New Theists are not supernaturalists; we’re naturalists. We are inspired and motivated more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don’t. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural.

http://metanexus.net/blog/new-theism-she...dium=email

Would any of you consider yourselves to fit these descriptions? Anything you disagree with about this whole thing?

Translation, "woo light". If you say you are not supernaturalsts then don't cling to the word "theist" and don't claim a god because a god IS super natural.

There is a word for what you are trying to say and Jefferson was one, "Deist", but it still implies a god, no matter how much you want to water it down. This is just a stupid attempt to avoid the baggage of a god claim.

What the theist calls "mystical" the atheist merely says "I have a sense of awe of the natural world but don't insert woo where knowledge currently lacks".

This is nothing but back peddling when faced with the absurdity of a naked assertion. Prop it up with pleasant sounding terminology rooted in the same ambiguity of naked assertions as any other so you can claim "I am not like the others".

[Adjusted Sanity]

Better for credulous people to fall into this than scientology or traditional theism.

[Brian37]

Better for credulous people to fall into this than scientology or traditional theism.

Sorry but "I am not like the others" cannot be given a pass either. Buddhist, for example, at least in the west often exalt the Dali Lama as a man of peace. The problem is when you look at the current number of Buddhists, not all of them are from Tibet nor are the all striving for democracy or pluralism. China's population has plenty of Buddhists. Japan has had a history of Buddhism, not all, but certainly old enough to be part of the fascism prior to WW2. Cambodia and many other countries in that region have a history of bloody conflict waged against and by Buddhists over thousands of years.

So the argument "at least they are not" ONLY means they don't have the numbers right now. When you look at evolution the evidence is obvious, the upstarts play martyr but when they get enough numbers, protecting the resources and alpha male states can and unfortunately will cause that power to justify harm to the outsider.

Which is why I get down on labels, even those minorities claim. There can be no virtue of the oppressed in a species that has always had the history of once the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

The only thing that can maintain civility is common law, not common labels.

[Tempus]

What the theist calls "mystical" the atheist merely says "I have a sense of awe of the natural world but don't insert woo where knowledge currently lacks".

The only thing that can be inferred about an atheist is a non-belief in gods. Anything else would be conflating it with other positions.

Which is why I get down on labels, even those minorities claim.

And yet you use the labels theism and atheism.

[Brian37]

What the theist calls "mystical" the atheist merely says "I have a sense of awe of the natural world but don't insert woo where knowledge currently lacks".

The only thing that can be inferred about an atheist is a non-belief in gods. Anything else would be conflating it with other positions.

Which is why I get down on labels, even those minorities claim.

And yet you use the labels theism and atheism.

Thank you, but please explain to me how I am different than my detractors? I don't think humans should pretend that labels don't exist or should not exist. They will regardless of the wishes of the atheist or theist.

This false tactic of assuming that I am merely a polar opposite of my theist counterparts is absurd and false. I have no desire to force the world to conform to my label or politics. I do have a desire for challenge without fear which is what both the politically correct theist and atheist demand and what the religious zealot of all labels masturbates over.

If you and I shit and pee and fart, and every human of every label does, it isn't a ban on rival labels I am demanding, but a priority shift in that labels, while unavoidable, will never change the fact that we all shit and pee and fart and will die.

[Reforged]

They believe in God, which part of that depends on evidence?

[Brian37]

They believe in God, which part of that depends on evidence?

Agreed, but what is your point? We should kill everyone who claims an invisible friend, even they have to admit that approach would would pit competing super hero claims against each other?

My approach is simple. You don't have to play nice or only say nice things about your detractors, but once you accept you are the same species with the same desires a "fuck you" becomes as desirable as old age. Where "fuck you' shortens all life is when it replaces our desire to reach old age.

Old age can be the only pragmatic goal of our species, we will always fight over politics and labels and resources, but we will do better when our species accepts old age as our common goal.

[Anomalocaris]

A couple have been doing 'missionary' work to, what seems like, promote this new movement called New Theism.

[i]New Theists are not believers; we’re evidentialists. We value scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma, or ecclesiastical authority. ......

Isn't it strange that a person claiming to have only the most wholesome intentions towards children would name his movement "New pederastry"?

[Tempus]

Thank you, but please explain to me how I am different than my detractors? I don't think humans should pretend that labels don't exist or should not exist. They will regardless of the wishes of the atheist or theist.

I didn't mention anything about your detractors - I pointed out that you inferred more about atheists than is justified. I also made the point that you use some labels while criticising others. Perhaps it would've been clearer to phrase it as a specific question: why do you criticise some labels and not others?

This false tactic of assuming that I am merely a polar opposite of my theist counterparts is absurd and false. I have no desire to force the world to conform to my label or politics. I do have a desire for challenge without fear which is what both the politically correct theist and atheist demand and what the religious zealot of all labels masturbates over.

I haven't assumed anything. I didn't say you were a polar opposite of anyone. This paragraph is irrelevant exposition addressing points which weren't even made.

If you and I shit and pee and fart, and every human of every label does, it isn't a ban on rival labels I am demanding, but a priority shift in that labels, while unavoidable, will never change the fact that we all shit and pee and fart and will die.

This point doesn't actually address my own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

[Reforged]

They believe in God, which part of that depends on evidence?

Agreed, but what is your point? We should kill everyone who claims an invisible friend, even they have to admit that approach would would pit competing super hero claims against each other?

What? When did I ever say we should kill people?
What the fuck Brian?