Collaboration with theists?

[Secularone]

Thank you "EvidenceVsFaith." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I would like to emphasize the point you made about Saerules behavior having nothing to do with atheism.

Saerules blew up for good reason. But even so, is wasn't because of some atheist conviction. It was because of her conviction that all people deserve respect and equality regardless of differences. So, I don't know why she feels her actions were representative of "negative atheism." Her behavior had nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

And actually, I congratulate her for standing up for equality and justice for all. I can excuse her behavior because I have empathy and understand her outrage. I don't think she was out of line.

When people accuse me of being extreme or fanatical, I normally do not get defensive unless I detect that they are trying to characterize me unfairly. (Like trying to compare me with Fred Phelps or Adolf Hitler.)

But if they are just trying to say I am zealous, then I must agree. But I remind them that being zealous may not always be a bad thing. Most of those who have given their lives to causes and made tremendous sacrifices for them were zealots. Yes, some may have been evil causes but some definitely were noble.

The thing all zealots must work hard at is being reasonable and fair. I try. It's hard.

But, if I sometimes fail, I am not above confessing my error and asking forgiveness.

Saerules... I appreciate your explanation. I hope you will give the subject further thought. Thank you.

But I have a question... Do you think that "nurturing hate for homosexuals with a view to disenfranchise them" is a legitimate right of theists as part of their free exercise of religion?

[Violet]

Saerules blew up for good reason. But even so, is wasn't because of some atheist conviction. It was because of her conviction that all people deserve respect and equality regardless of differences. So, I don't know why she feels her actions were representative of "negative atheism." Her behavior had nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

True, but as I directed a number of statements toward the kind of god that could support such evil... it could be partially interpreted as such I think that that 'negative atheism' is a term defined differently by many people (although I agree with both you and Evie on this, I still hold open the possibility that an atheist might exist like Pippy defined).

I wouldn't call you a 'negative atheist' either... I do think you are a zealot for atheism and humanism though

But I have a question... Do you think that "nurturing hate for homosexuals with a view to disenfranchise them" is a legitimate right of theists as part of their free exercise of religion?

No, I do not... which is why I said this (before citing an example [depends on interpretation really] of what one might call 'toe-treading' on 'theistic rights?'):

What legitimate rights, might I ask?

[fr0d0]

I find it odd you have to call me a lair SO. I didn't say you were _doing_ anything extremist. I said your ideas were extremist and would lead to extremism. Completely different. I'm sure Hitler would've used similar coercion, comparing good people with great causes - like we wouldn't 100% support those ideals.

But fr0d0, here's what you wrote in post #30... the post where you clearly characterized me as an extremist.

What you're doing is masking your extremism. That's where fundamentalism begins, with the respectable face. That for now you settle in a 'reasonable' camp does not dilute the strength of your message. You seem discontent that people, not extremists, call you on your extremism. That's because what you're promoting is disgusting and couldn't take off if everyone knew your real motives.

Sorry, fr0d0, but referring to "my extremism" is the equivalent to calling me an extremist. The reason I find you to be a liar is that you lie. You can't even keep the story straight from one post to the next. Here's more...

I don't seek to silence you. You continue to use that despite the fact I've said the opposite. Again: I fully support anyone's right to extreme views.

Wow! Again you imply I'm an extremist by referring to my "extreme views."

Yes SecularOne.. those are my words I was referring to in what you think was contradiction. You clearly very badly misunderstand me.

But there's more...

What you're doing is like the polar opposite of Fred Phelps' followers actions. I personally abhor Fred Phelps' beliefs, and I would protest against them. You are not like me though, you hate just like he does.

Well, fr0d0, you really sound like you are full of hate. And comparing me with an extremist like Fred Phelps is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise me, an attempt to discourage others from entertaining what I have to say. In other words, to silence my voice.

Actually, in some respects, I am glad that you are so vicious in your posts to me. You undermine your own credibility. There is nothing reasonable about your approach and any objective person can see that.

I have no hate SO. You'd have to read and understand what I said above to get that. I'm not being viscous, I'm saying what I see. You are a placard waving fundamentalist of the same school as the WBC as far as I can see. Of course you don't like the comparison, but ow are you different?

And exactly what is that message that you despise so much, fr0d0? The truth about how you and other religious nuts care nothing about freedom, equality and social justice? Is that what's bothering you, fr0d0? Well, I've not seen you championing those principals now have I?

So here you specifically accuse me of limiting your freedom, equality, and social justice. Show me by quoting my words just how I've done that please. I will then show you quotes of mine on this forum where I have done what you have said I have not.

You complain about how I misrepresent you but all you do is misrepresent everything, from beginning to end.

That's quite shocking given the heinous errors you've just committed in just a few words.

If you really are such a great guy then how about posting reasonable explanations of your ideals, thoughts and beliefs, instead of your worthless one-liners and demagogic tripe.

I and every other atheist on this forum would like to hear what you have to say about your faith and how you got to where you are. But getting you to have an honest and/or reasonable conversation is next to impossible. Maybe you're trying to hide the details of your faith so that nobody can question them. I don't know. I just know you don't give straight answers or reasonable answers.

So, until you do clean up your act, things are not likely to get better between the two of us.

Funny SO you seem to be living entirely your own little reality. Your blindness is self enforced.

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

Kyu (Admin/ site owner of Angry Atheist) actively seeks to silence Theists because he believes that to be right. He wants to censor them. He left this forum because he wasn't allowed to do so. Hows that?

---

See the subtle brainwashing there? Christian extremism has to equal murder no less. Not what Christianity is about at all. To be true, that statement would have to read: "for Christians to be considered extremist, they just have to say out loud that they are Christians."

No... because Christians aren't considered extremists simply from being Christians.

Of course they are, it's the default position. Most Atheists here assume a hell of a lot of bad things about Christians akin to demonising them.

[Secularone]

I have no hate SO. You'd have to read and understand what I said above to get that. I'm not being viscous, I'm saying what I see. You are a placard waving fundamentalist of the same school as the WBC as far as I can see. Of course you don't like the comparison, but how are you different?

You sure fooled me! There is no reading what you said and understanding something different. I don't have to justify how I'm different than Fred Phelps. You need to justify the comparison before you make it.

Would you care for a photo of me protesting in front of Westboro Baptist Church? Yes, I'm guilty and I'd be happy to send you one. But that doesn't mean I'm just like Fred Phelps. It just means I've got the balls to give Fred Phelps a dose of his own medicine. The people driving by loved it.

So here you specifically accuse me of limiting your freedom, equality, and social justice. Show me by quoting my words just how I've done that please. I will then show you quotes of mine on this forum where I have done what you have said I have not.

Wonderful. Now we're getting somewhere. I want to hear all about your commitment to freedom, equality and social justice. If your on the level, I'll apologize for thinking you’re a fascist. Just send me to the thread and post# and I'll go read your best thoughts on the subject. But if the total of your commitment is little more than a one liner, don't be surprised if I'm not impressed.

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

Kyu (Admin/ site owner of Angry Atheist) actively seeks to silence Theists because he believes that to be right. He wants to censor them. He left this forum because he wasn't allowed to do so. How’s that?

Well, I'm unaware of the controversy but I'm interested in the details. Just how did he go about attempting to silence the theists? He left this forum or was kicked off? If he had the power to do as you say, and did do as you say, he should have been kicked off. I hope your facts are not exaggerations, lest I take you to task. But if you are correct, this would be an example of an atheist nut doing damage to atheist credibility. I'll review the facts before I pass judgment.

And fr0d0, I have many Christian friends. I do not regard all of them to be fascists. But if they reacted to me the way you have, since day one, I would assume they have a problem with me taking Christian Fascists to task for their fascist mentality.

Further, I actually am not against all religions. Yes, I discriminate. My problem is with fascist religions like Fundamental Christianity and Islam. I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Some folks are theists, some are not. But none are fascist theists.

My hot button is human rights. However, I see the assault on human rights coming right out of Christian Fundamentalist churches. Naturally, they are the target of my outreach activism. Liberal churches that defend freedom, equality and social justice for everyone, never see me at their doorstep.

And still, when the Christian Fascists put some Amendment on the ballot essentially to make gays second class citizens, many of these so-called freedom loving Christians rushed to the polls in droves to deny equality to them. So how did you vote when the so-called Definition of Marriage Amendment was put on the ballot in your state?

---

I wouldn't call you a 'negative atheist' either... I do think you are a zealot for atheism and humanism though

I'd rather you called me a zealot for freedom, equality and social justice. It just happens that I see the attack on these principals coming from monotheism. And when folks don't have a mandate from heaven to disenfranchise others, it amazing how freedom, equality and social justice have a fair chance.

Yes, I am a secular humanist, but I'm not fighting for secular humanism. And I'm not fighting for atheism either. I really don't care what people believe as long as their beliefs are not inspiring them to use the force of law to repress others. If they are, I'm likely to take their values to task and their dogma too.

I'd like to invite you and everyone else who is interested in who I am to read my very first post on September 9, 2009, in "Introductions." I stated what I believe to be the most important principles that define who and what I am. A lot of thought and commitment went into writing them. They are no joke and I don't take them lightly. I am proud to be a zealot for them!

As far as "legitimate theist rights" are concerned, I'll recognize any legal exercise of religion that does not trample freedom, equality and social justice for all. But any form of "tyranny of the majority" under the pretense of religious freedom will not be recognized by me as legitimate.

[fr0d0]

Would you care for a photo of me protesting in front of Westboro Baptist Church? Yes, I'm guilty and I'd be happy to send you one. But that doesn't mean I'm just like Fred Phelps. It just means I've got the balls to give Fred Phelps a dose of his own medicine. The people driving by loved it.

Well done you

So here you specifically accuse me of limiting your freedom, equality, and social justice. Show me by quoting my words just how I've done that please. I will then show you quotes of mine on this forum where I have done what you have said I have not.

Wonderful. Now we're getting somewhere. I want to hear all about your commitment to freedom, equality and social justice. If your on the level, I'll apologize for thinking you’re a fascist. Just send me to the thread and post# and I'll go read your best thoughts on the subject. But if the total of your commitment is little more than a one liner, don't be surprised if I'm not impressed.

I really think you have a problem reading... I asked first, and only promised response _after_ you came up with the goods.

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

Kyu (Admin/ site owner of Angry Atheist) actively seeks to silence Theists because he believes that to be right. He wants to censor them. He left this forum because he wasn't allowed to do so. How’s that?

Well, I'm unaware of the controversy but I'm interested in the details. Just how did he go about attempting to silence the theists? He left this forum or was kicked off? If he had the power to do as you say, and did do as you say, he should have been kicked off. I hope your facts are not exaggerations, lest I take you to task. But if you are correct, this would be an example of an atheist nut doing damage to atheist credibility. I'll review the facts before I pass judgment.

He 'left' after refusing to face the issue. He wasn't forced. His violations were reversed, which was more than Kyu could take it transpired. You can read Kyu's last post but sadly not his now deleted blog post for the details

And fr0d0, I have many Christian friends. I do not regard all of them to be fascists. But if they reacted to me the way you have, since day one, I would assume they have a problem with me taking Christian Fascists to task for their fascist mentality.

Further, I actually am not against all religions. Yes, I discriminate. My problem is with fascist religions like Fundamental Christianity and Islam. I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Some folks are theists, some are not. But none are fascist theists.

It's you SO that came here full of aggression. Quoting your long lists and agreeing with me that you were an atheist street preacher more interested in what you had to say disregarding any thoughtful response. I'm glad you say you have theist friends - Kyu said he would never do that. Universalism seems like ultimate bullshit to me but I guess you have your reasons, and I'm interested in that.

My hot button is human rights. However, I see the assault on human rights coming right out of Christian Fundamentalist churches. Naturally, they are the target of my outreach activism. Liberal churches that defend freedom, equality and social justice for everyone, never see me at their doorstep.

And still, when the Christian Fascists put some Amendment on the ballot essentially to make gays second class citizens, many of these so-called freedom loving Christians rushed to the polls in droves to deny equality to them. So how did you vote when the so-called Definition of Marriage Amendment was put on the ballot in your state?

I live in the uk ...Wales. I'm pro gay marriage.

[Secularone]

It's you SO that came here full of aggression. Quoting your long lists and agreeing with me that you were an atheist street preacher more interested in what you had to say disregarding any thoughtful response. I'm glad you say you have theist friends - Kyu said he would never do that. Universalism seems like ultimate bullshit to me but I guess you have your reasons, and I'm interested in that.

OK. Here's a perfect example of what it's like trying to have an honest conversation with you.
You claim that I disregard any thoughtful response. Is this what you call a thoughtful response?
You use "one-liners" full of demagogic tripe and expect me to accept it as thoughtful response. So, if it is, in fact "thoughtful response" on your part, let's have you explain this one-liner in more detail.

Universalism seems like ultimate bullshit to me but I guess you have your reasons, and I'm interested in that.

So, let's all examine this "Unitarian Universalism" that you call "ultimate bullshit."

Unitarian Universalism is based solely upon seven principles that all members of their congregations value and cherish. Nothing more. And they are a very short read. So, if they are as you say, "ultimate bullshit," you now will have the opportunity to tear them apart and explain to everyone why they are "ultimate bullshit." The following is taken from:http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

The seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

So, fr0d0, there you have it, the sum total of Unitarian Universalist's "ultimate bullshit." Now, tear Unitarian Universalism apart and explain to everyone, in terms we can all understand, just exactly what you think is wrong with these principles that you would characterize Unitarian Universalism as "ultimate bullshit."

[Violet]

Hmm, interesting belief system.

1: By worth, are you referring to the summation of their attributes (including the attribute we call a 'person')? Because while attributes are inherent... worth is a value determined by the individual judge. In an example that touches on this:

---

The Location


Let us say that there are two identical swords, made of the same materials, exactly alike to the atomic level. Now, one of these swords is hung on a wall in a rich man’s home… and the other one is in the hands of a great warrior, who is battling endless legions of demons. The only difference between these swords is their location… but that location brings quite a difference to the value of these swords.
To the rich man… the sword is ‘that valuable weapon I bought’… but to the warrior: the sword is his very lifeblood, survival or death as he faces the demonic onslaught.

Now let us look at a similar, but different issue. Say I own a boat… a really big and expensive one. This boat is in my beautifully built dockyard behind my wonderfully built mansion. Where am I? On a small uncharted desert island, 5000 kilometers away.
How much is that boat worth to me now? Does not the boat’s location change how useful it is to me… doesn’t it define the boat? If I were to tell the only other survivor on the desert island that I own a boat… is not their first question going to be “WHERE IS IT?!”?

Back to the twin blades… if the warrior drops his weapon, and cannot retrieve it: does not his blade change in identity? It is no longer within his reach, and he must make do without it… despite its usefulness. If that rich man were to bring the warrior the second blade, would that blade not suddenly become much more valuable than the first? Perhaps the warrior could fight his way over to the first, and then he would have two blades in a similar location, both being useful.
But now that he is dual wielding… are the swords still different? He may be ambidextrous, so maybe the swords are of equal use to him… but he is using a different blade in each hand. How are these ‘identical’ swords different now, one might ask? Simply, it is because they occupy a different place in space.



Coming back to our topic of Identity… ‘Identical’ is not a word that can be used to describe anything in physical existence… as so long as location differs: there will always be the difference. There are no identical twins… nor identical spoons… nor identical atoms in space. There are similar twins… similar spoons… similar atoms… but location is a very important attribute of three dimensions. What something is, where it is, and when it will be, is, or was there: these three questions define existence.
“Why?” and “How?”… Those are questions that target the defined existence… and without the other three: could not be asked. Before a question may be asked of a base… that base must be established, however impossibly or incorrectly... but there is nothing to question without a base upon which it can be questioned.

---

Worth is based primarily on where a thing is is, when it is there, and what the thing is. So I take it that you are basing 'inherent worth' on the status of 'personhood'?

2: Those are good values

3: Acceptance is generally good... but what do you mean by 'spiritual growth'?

4: This is also good.

5: This is good in general

6: Same. Although surly you mean to update this when we meet aliens/advance our society beyond a single 'world'?

7: I would agree with that... but others could interpret that differently...

[fr0d0]

It's quite shocking how you really don't get is SecularOne. You think you can ignore me and force me to do what you want me to do. Why the bullying tactics? If you had a grain of integrity you'd conduct yourself with some civility.

Ignoring that... That's very interesting. I too am interested in understanding how you as an atheist justify supporting spiritual growth, what that could possibly mean to you and other people you associate with in a congregation. Forgive my bluntness, it isn't so civilized. My scant knowledge of UU tends me toward thinking it so vague as to be wholly inconsequential, which so far the evidence seems to support.

[Secularone]

It's quite shocking how you really don't get is SecularOne. You think you can ignore me and force me to do what you want me to do. Why the bullying tactics? If you had a grain of integrity you'd conduct yourself with some civility.

Ignoring that... That's very interesting. I too am interested in understanding how you as an atheist justify supporting spiritual growth, what that could possibly mean to you and other people you associate with in a congregation. Forgive my bluntness, it isn't so civilized. My scant knowledge of UU tends me toward thinking it so vague as to be wholly inconsequential, which so far the evidence seems to support.

No, I don't need to research your other posts to make the case against you. You've handed me all the evidence I needed (on a silver platter so to speak) in this one thread. Thanks.

Ignoring the elephant in the room, fr0d0? Changing the subject, trying to pretend that you didn't stick both feet, shoes and all, in your mouth by calling Unitarian Universalism "ultimate bullshit?"

Nice try at dodging the bullet, fr0d0, but it won't work. You've made a fool of yourself. You know it. And everyone else who reads your crap knows it too. If you had any integrity, you'd simply confess, "Oops! I've made a terrible mistake in making that statement." But, no, as expected, you couldn't muster the integrity to do that.

If you had, you might have been able to redeem some of your credibility. But as it now stands, you've only confirmed for everyone just exactly what you are. Like they didn't already know.

And now, for Saerules, who is interested in what Unitarian Universalists mean by "inherent worth." Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake

And as for spiritual growth...

Yes, spiritual growth has relevence, even for atheists. Theists would like to define spiritual growth for everyone. But many of us don't like their exclusive definition. We think in terms of spiritual growth too, but not the way they do.

Therefore, while a theist might regard spiritual growth to imply something supernatural or having to do with their relationship with their god, an atheist would not.

And since Unitarians are inclusive of both theists and atheists, there is no universal definition. No one can define the term "spiritual" for someone else. So, what it means to me is unique to me alone. (Unless someone happens to like my definition and want to use it for themselves. They are welcome to adopt it.)

For me, spiritual growth implies my growth as a person in character, integrity, values, relationships, happiness, etc. Essentially everything in my life that has anything to do with who and what I am and how I'm coping with the challenges of life. I reject the idea that spiritual growth has anything to do with supernaturalism or deities.

[Violet]

And now, for Saerules, who is interested in what Unitarian Universalists mean by "inherent worth." Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake

Hmm... by that do you mean to elaborate on the point that A=A... in that A's attributes define A?

And as for spiritual growth...

Yes, spiritual growth has relevence, even for atheists. Theists would like to define spiritual growth for everyone. But many of us don't like their exclusive definition. We think in terms of spiritual growth too, but not the way they do.

Therefore, while a theist might regard spiritual growth to imply something supernatural or having to do with their relationship with their god, an atheist would not.

And since Unitarians are inclusive of both theists and atheists, there is no universal definition. No one can define the term "spiritual" for someone else. So, what it means to me is unique to me alone. (Unless someone happens to like my definition and want to use it for themselves. They are welcome to adopt it.)

For me, spiritual growth implies my growth as a person in character, integrity, values, relationships, happiness, etc. Essentially everything in my life that has anything to do with who and what I am and how I'm coping with the challenges of life. I reject the idea that spiritual growth has anything to do with supernaturalism or deities.

Essentially existentialism?:

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called his or her "essence" instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human. Thus, the human being - through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning to his life

I can see that definition of 'spirit'/'spiritual growth' It (Unitarian Universalism) seems a great deal like existentialism to me... would that be a correct observation, Secularone?