Question for religious parents

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:25:09 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

In article .com,
"Caledonia" wrote:

wrote:
dragonlady wrote

Then there's the strong antheists who seem to think that only uneducated
or immature, superstitious people believe in God -- and are more than
happy to tell you what an idiot you are if you express a belief.
Somehow, that seems to be considered (by some) to be more socially
acceptable.

I'll be honest here, I do think that for the most part that everyone
would be an atheist if they thought critically about thier religions,
but frankly, I don't care. People can live thier lives how they see
fit. And I can live mine. Not all atheists fall into those two
catagories. So I just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused.

So you'd be in the second category?


After a fashion -- but only if she feels free to make sure those who are
theists KNOW she thinks they're unthinking.

But if she truly believes that about everyone who has a faith having
to do with god, surely that may not be very well hidden under the
surface?

But if she truly believes that about everyone who has a faith having
to do with god, surely that may not be very well hidden under the
surface?

So I guess my own word isn't good enough. I didn't even say that I DID
feel that way about religious people.

Once again I said: I can THINK religious people are morons all I want,
but I don't say it to them and I provide them the same respect I
provide ALL people.

I'm sorry, that was a poor statement to make. It didn't come out how I
intended it. It was supposed to be more of an example. I wish people
would take my word for it. I feel like I'm being backed into a corner,
let me try something else.

I think smokers have a disgusting nasty habit. And I'm allowed to think
that all I want. But I don't say it, and I don't get in smokers faces
about it... I do think it is a poor choice, a selfish habit. But I
don't say it to them...and no, the smokers I know don't sense it not
being "very well hidden under the surface."

It's just another life choice. Like religion.

Instead of the word "moron" lets say I use the words "not critical
thinkers concerning thier relgion"...I apoligize for the confusion and
if I offended anyone.

People think all kinds of things and it doesn't leak through the
surface. I'm allowed to think what I want....or am I not?

wrote in message
oups.com...
"because they are morons and too stupid to know any better."

Exactly who are you quoting there? I don't think you are following in
the entire conversation. I didn't say that I think all religious people
are morons, I said I can *think* that but not say it. I didn't say that
I *did* think that. Follow along better.

I DID say however that I think religious people aren't critical
thinkers in terms of thier religion. And a lot of religious people will
agree with that. They don't critically analize thier religion.

I do practice "real" tolerence. You don't know me, you don't know
anything about my real life. Everyone I love is intensly religious
except my husband. I am speaking on the internet candidly because I
CANNOT do that in my REAL life. I am not allowed to have my own
opinions be free. My opinions are, and for the most part, will always
be kept to myself because I am an extreme minority and I prefer to have
my family in my life. So do NOT talk to ME about tolerence. My entire
life is walking egg shells around my catholic, mormon and protestant
family. And every single one of them will tell you I'm the easiest
person in the world to get along with. This is the internet, it's a
tool and I'm using it.

And do not EVER make a fake quote from me again please.

It was not a fake quote from you. If I'd been quoting you,
I'd have attributed it to you. I was setting apart a thought.
It tried it without the quotes, but it made no sense.

From reference.com, "Another important usage of quotation
marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic
words. Ironic quotes are sometimes called scare, sneer, or
distance quotes." You can be sure that if I'm quoting a
person or a source, I will say so.

Bizby

You might want to practice real tolerance, and consider
that people may have their own valid reasons for having a
strong religious belief that do not include "because they
are morons and too stupid to know any better."

It looked like it was attributed to me, it probably appeared so to
other people. And I just wanted to make sure because I certianly didn't
say anything close to that. You were speaking to me and making
reference to what I said. I'm not sure if you are back peddling now or
not but I just wanted to be sure that no one else thought I said that.

wrote:

There's a serious question here, about what it is that civility
requires. As Sidheag pointed out earlier, *any* adherents of any
religion think that adherents of other religions are wrong. By
definition. Those of different faiths think those not of their faith
are making errors in their critical thinking about really hard
questions, like whether or not morals are non-cognitive or what it is
that counts as justification for a belief. Different faiths are
inherently mutually antagonistic.

I don't know that I'd go that far. I think there are
religions that don't necessarily require adherents to believe
that their beliefs are morally superior, though it's always
a bit of a touch business as most would probably find some
conflicts between their tenets and the tenets of some other
religion.

Which is likely why Ericka (and Miss Manners) said that we Just Don't
Discuss religion. Period.

Yep. It's nearly impossible to do without stepping
on toes, unless it's a purely academic discussion between
two people who somehow manage not to have any particular
feelings of their own on the subject. And, of course,
the prohibition is against polite social conversation,
not necessarily interesting talks among good friends
who know each other well enough to have the discussion
without alienating one another, or discussions in forums
devoted to religious discussions, or anything like that.
Trotting out religion at a dinner party, however, is
*very* likely to get you in trouble with someone, whether
they bother to tell you about it or not. Dangerous
waters ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

wrote:
On my planet, pointing out errors in someone's critical analysis of
these positions is called work, and it gets done in department
colloquia every Friday. It doesn't necessarily involve impugning
anyone's character or abilities to suggest that they might, just might,
have made a mistake.


For some reason, which I DO understand but can't articulate well,
religion is off limits when pointing out that someone might have made a
mistake. There is this feeling that faith is something not tangable or
explainable, and it's individual to each person so saying they "made a
mistake" would be wrong because it would be impossible to know. I
understand that, I don't AGREE with it, but I understand it. There fore
I don't tell people I think they are wrong. Also, hell, they think I'M
wrong, so it's all a crap shoot.

I think in an academic environment where religion is
an object of study, one has to be able to deal with one's
personal beliefs and one's critical study of religion (or
related issues) on somewhat different levels. If you're
thin skinned enough that you can't tolerate hearing anyone
question anything to do with your religion, then perhaps
those academic fields are not for you ;-) I think there
are lots of religious folks in those fields. They are
just able to look at religion as a social or philosophical
construct to be studied in a critical manner on the one hand
and still maintain their own beliefs on the other without
too much stress. Other folks might not be able to do that
as easily. In a social situation, on the other hand,
you're absolutely right that you couldn't approach it in
that manner. Challenging people's argumentation is
part and parcel of academia, but not dinner party
chit chat ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

wrote:
On my planet, pointing out errors in someone's critical analysis of
these positions is called work, and it gets done in department
colloquia every Friday. It doesn't necessarily involve impugning
anyone's character or abilities to suggest that they might, just might,
have made a mistake.

For some reason, which I DO understand but can't articulate well,
religion is off limits when pointing out that someone might have made a
mistake. There is this feeling that faith is something not tangable or
explainable, and it's individual to each person so saying they "made a
mistake" would be wrong because it would be impossible to know. I
understand that, I don't AGREE with it, but I understand it. There fore
I don't tell people I think they are wrong. Also, hell, they think I'M
wrong, so it's all a crap shoot.

I certainly don't walk up to people and tell them that I think they've
made a mistake in their choice of faith. But I do talk seriously about
these sorts of questions in appropriate venues and I do not believe
that suggesting that maybe I've made an error in my critical reasoning
equates to thinking I'm a total idiot *or* that it's impossible to
evaluate people's reasons for holding beliefs.

As I said, though, these are HARD questions to answer. They are hard
questions even to ask in a clearly formulated manner. I expect
everyone to make some mistakes here and there. :-)

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
wrote:

There's a serious question here, about what it is that civility
requires. As Sidheag pointed out earlier, *any* adherents of any
religion think that adherents of other religions are wrong. By
definition. Those of different faiths think those not of their faith
are making errors in their critical thinking about really hard
questions, like whether or not morals are non-cognitive or what it is
that counts as justification for a belief. Different faiths are
inherently mutually antagonistic.

I don't know that I'd go that far. I think there are
religions that don't necessarily require adherents to believe
that their beliefs are morally superior, though it's always
a bit of a touch business as most would probably find some
conflicts between their tenets and the tenets of some other
religion.

Some might think there are no moral facts, or religious facts, but
presumably they'd think that was a fact. Although then they would be
open to the objection that they shouldn't care if other people think
their beliefs are wrong, since they don't think their beliefs have any
truth values at all and are merely expressive or something.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article .com,
" wrote:

There's a serious question here, about what it is that civility
requires. As Sidheag pointed out earlier, *any* adherents of any
religion think that adherents of other religions are wrong. By
definition. Those of different faiths think those not of their faith
are making errors in their critical thinking about really hard
questions, like whether or not morals are non-cognitive or what it is
that counts as justification for a belief. Different faiths are
inherently mutually antagonistic.

Not true -- though that is certainly the impression one gets from some
religious folks.

Not all faiths teach that they have the One True Way -- there are those
that teach that they have A True Way, but not that it is the only Truth.

Even many Christians believe that theirs is not the only True Path.

There are several useful metaphorss: Scotty McClennan, in "Finding Your
Religion", uses the mountain: he says there are many paths up the
mountain, and the point is to find one that works for you and walk it
well. Heck, he even says you might find a need to change paths at some
point -- the one you were on may stop working for you, and that's OK.

Huston Smith (author of what is often considered the best comparative
religion text) uses a stained glass widow metapho He says Truth is
something we all see bits of, but through different part of a stained
glass window. Exactly what we see will depend on which portion we're
looking through -- we will of course see things differently, but that
doesn't mean anyone is wrong.

People who study with Hindu or Buddhist teachers will sometimes want to
convert -- only to be told that they've missed the entire point: if you
are Christian, they are told, you should strive to be better at
practicing your Christianity, NOT convert to something else.

If you read the writings of mystics of any faith, they sound very much
alike, and accept others of any faith.

I believe that it is entirely possible to hold your own beliefs both
with the firmness required to take action, and with humility,
recognizing that what you know of Truth is necessarily only a partial,
incomplete and imperfect understanding.

Even St. Paul wrote that our current understanding is, at best, partial:
"Now we see through a glass, darkly." (I Corintians 13, in case anybody
wants to look up the full text.)

I realize I'm going on somewhat here -- but this is a subject for which
I (obviously) have a great deal of passion. I am a deeply religious
person who does NOT believe I have found the One True Way, and that
everyone else is wrong. One of the reasons I enjoy conversations with
religious people of all faiths is that I expect I can learn something
from any and all of them.

I am not that unusual -- there are LOTS of religious folks out there who
are not religiously arrogant. (And, for what it's worth, I consider
atheists who think that theists obviously aren't using critical thinking
skills in the "religiously arrogant" category, too.)''

One of my favorite songs says,
"There is nobody with an answer to it all.
No one place the answer can be found.
But everybody has a gift, and everyone can share.
Put them all together, we can turn the world around.

"I've got some of the truth in me
You've got some of the truth in you
And with a little bit of truth in everyone
There's enough to see us through."

I'm sorry that some of you have had so many experiences with religious
folks who are so certain that they've found the One True Way that they
are obnoxious to anyone who is on a different path -- but rest assured
that there ARE religious folks who aren't like that.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article . com,
wrote:

The second catagory stated: "and are more than happy to tell you what
an idiot you are if you express a belief."

This is the part I take exception to when you say : "So you'd be in the
second category?"

I am NOT "more than happy to tell you what an idiot you are if you
express a belief."

That is the part I take exception to. That was the key part that
bothered me in these two catagories of atheists. I do not fall into
either catagory.

Again, let me emphasize that I was NOT attempting a full taxonomy of
"all athiests" -- rather, a short description of two different types of
obnoxious atheists.

Not all atheists are obnoxious.

Just like not all Christians are obnoxious bible thumpers.


And yes, the internet is part of "real life" but it's also a tool and
the people on the internet are great for bouncing stuff off of.


--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care