I want to say thank you to the atheists here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I've had many positive interactions with you. Even our arguments have been civil affairs. I hope you've enjoyed them as much as I have. I deeply regret the air of suspicion and resentment that too often hangs over this and other groups. I wish I could do more to change that, but what I've learned in here is that the only person I can really influence is myself. I hope we can continue having positive interactions (including tough but civil arguments) onward into the future.

[Brettongarcia]

1. Thank you. Perhaps you set up polls that frame things in a pro-theistic way, by accident

You seem to have heard many of the standard apologetics arguments - sermons - for Christianity.

For example, 1) one of your polls implied this standard sermon, theology: the one that tells us that no one knows ultimate truth or value; so that therefore, only those who use intuition or faith in their spirit, can give us ultimate value.

Another suggested 2) the popular spiritual notion that atheists, like many haters, are too attached to, loved, their hate. That they in effect are just another kind of believer, with irrational attachments. Opposites are often related.

Or ... The list goes on and on.

To be sure, 1) I suppose these sermons need to be addressed. And 2) perhaps you are doing this by accident.

However, it would be helpful for 1) the purposes of transparency, 2) and/or for your own self-awareness, if you yourself knew/acknowledged exactly where most of your major points, the intellectual framing in your polls, originally comes from. The frameworks underneath your polls, are among the more intellectual but still-standard sermonic/theological defenses of Christianity.

Built deep into the structure of your questions, are, one after another, the exact sermons I heard every week in say, the more intellectual Presbyterian churches. Or in the generically-Protestant US Army Chaplin services. Possibly you heard them there; or in You You.

Perhaps you are doing this by accident? Though it seemed in a head-to-head chat between you and Ms. Bayer, that you were confessing a defensive position.

That is allowed, of course. But it is helpful for everyone - including you yourself - to know where you are coming from.

I recognize that your arguments are more intellectual than most; I thank you for that. Still? I recognize some of the more intellectual - but still standard - sermons in them. Perhaps we can help you break free of these (unnoticed?) molds.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. Answers:

You seem to have heard many of the standard apologetics arguments - sermons - for Christianity.

For example, 1) one of your polls implied this standard sermon, theology: the one that tells us that no one knows ultimate truth or value; so that therefore, only those who use intuition or faith in their spirit, can give us ultimate value.

That's not my position at all. I've argued for objective morality in here at least twice and both times I said that knowledge of that comes through a mixture of experience, reflection on that experience, and reason. At least once I've added that it is rooted in a common human nature.

Another suggested 2) the popular spiritual notion that atheists, like many haters, are too attached to, loved, their hate. That they in effect are just another kind of believer, with irrational attachments. Opposites are often related.

Not sure which poll you're referring to on this one, but I'm pretty sure I've never referred to atheists as "haters" and I don't think that atheism inherently involves hate.

To be sure, 1) I suppose these sermons need to be addressed. And 2) perhaps you are doing this by accident.

However, it would be helpful for 1) the purposes of transparency, 2) and/or for your own self-awareness, if you yourself knew/acknowledged exactly where most of your major points, the intellectual framing in your polls, originally comes from. The frameworks underneath your polls, are among the more intellectual but still-standard sermonic/theological defenses of Christianity.

or 3) You've got your own presuppositions that you're reading into my statements instead of asking me what I think. For example, your continued insistence that spirituality equals monks starving themselves to death. I've never said it, and that's not what spirituality means to me, but you've brought that equation up more than once and then gone off on riffs about it as though it had anything to do with what I'm talking about. Self-awareness and transparency go both ways.

Built deep into the structure of your questions, are, one after another, the exact sermons I heard every week in say, the more intellectual Presbyterian churches. Or in the generically-Protestant US Army Chaplin services. Possibly you heard them there; or in You You.

Perhaps you are doing this by accident? Though it seemed in a head-to-head chat between you and Ms. Bayer, that you were confessing a defensive position.

That is allowed, of course. But it is helpful for everyone - including you yourself - to know where you are coming from.

I've posted a list of books that have been formative for me here. I've also done a lot of arguing and reflecting on matters ontological and cosmological.

I recognize that your arguments are more intellectual than most; I thank you for that. Still? I recognize some of the more intellectual - but still standard - sermons in them. Perhaps we can help you break free of these (unnoticed?) molds.

Again, instead of assuming you know what I think or why, just ask. Ironically, I feel like you are trying to stuff me into the very kinds of molds you speak of.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Re: your hint that only extremely destructive religion is "authentic" ORreal "butter" (to atheists?)

Your suggesting that destructive religion is "butter" to some of us who criticize it, seems consistent with a few pop, Eastern spiritual notions:

1) That we are in a way, strangely attracted to the things we hate. Things that we hate get more attention, and action: it's our "bread and butter."

2) Then ironically: attention is worship.

3) So ironically, we end up worshiping the thing we hate. Allegedly.

4) The point being not to "hate" or criticize anything.

5) Especially not religion it seems.

And/or 6) milder liberal religion especially does or should get an exemption from criticism, because it is not full, authentic.

While I might agree with parts of this rather oriental logic, on the other hand... my position would be that 1) indeed, perhaps we take on too often the extreme and easy targets. But for that matter they especially deserve it. While 2) liberal half-religion should not be let entirely off the hook: it still has lots of problems on its own. Like the problem with spirituality, which you partially acknowledge.

At present I don't know enough about your own version of UU religion, to direct criticisms at your individual concepts. Though I can see some possible problems in the oriental logic that I see implied in say your "Authentic/inauthentic" post. If nothing else, implying that people love, worship the things they hate, loving it like "butter," has some truth to it. But seems extreme. And when carried to extremes, perverse.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. Yeah, none of (1)-(6) was in my comparison.

I was having trouble conveying what I meant by "true" religion, because people thought I was using "true" to mean "making accurate statements". So I used the butter comparison to explain that I was using true to mean "authentic" as opposed to "imitation". And my position is not that liberal religion is the "imitation" and therefore should be exempt from criticism.

That "oriental logic" is something that you came up with on your own. Another example of reading your own presuppositions into what I say rather than asking me about it.

[Brettongarcia]

24. Consider the semantic field and polysemic resonance of "butter"

I'm a cultural critic. My main methodology is poststructuralist deconstruction. I'm trained to metaphorically speaking, "psychoanalyze" texts; to see things in texts that the authors themselves did not necessarily consciously see.

In the present case? Most people prefer butter to margarine. And? You were using "butter" to describe as good (or you now add, "true&quot , something that is often seen as bad. As if ... we might have a special taste for the bad.

I'm happy to hear this was not your conscious intent. Though in deconstructionism, it is thought that typically an author's conscious intent, his own thesis, is usually undercut by opposing undertones that the author himself might not have fully seen. An unconscious antithesis.

However, I guess I'm about done with deconstruction for the moment. I'll attempt to read your future statements more at face value. Though ending up calling bad things like murderous religion good, real "butter" in effect, is a hard sign to overlook.

If I accept your explanation that you were using "butter" to try to get away from the resonances of "true," then I would have to say that unfortunately, by settling on real butter, you settled on a term that was worse than the first. One that not only implied truth [or positive value in some way], but even provided a vivid poetic/synesthetic "taste image" for something that is highly desirable on a visceral level: real butter, not margarine. This suggests some unconscious inner conflict on this matter; one at war with your conscious or stated intent.

[phil89]

26. You think you can recognize unconscious intent?

What empirically validated method do you use?

[Brettongarcia]

28. Literary criticism is not a science. But philology/etymology can be more exact. As for Psychology?

And studies of Culture?

When I'm wearing my Culture Critic hat, I'm not usually doing the work of a full scientist; this kind of work is far more speculative; more like Literary Criticism. But even literary crit firms up a bit, when tied to historical study of the evolution of language and culture. And in other writings when I start to look at "Culture," we are almost in the realm of at least, soft sciences. Like Anthropology and Psychology.

The hope and expectation is that these fields will develop into full-fledged sciences, some time in the reasonably near future. Anthropology already seems reasonably firm. Psychology and its study of things like the "unconscious," is currently lagging slightly behind to be sure. But generally most would accept that there seem to be objective brain structures say, lying unconsciously behind mental phenomena. And generally it is accepted that it is possible for say Psychologists to examine patients, to give them tests, to discover things in their minds ... of which the patient himself was not fully conscious.

Here I'm assuming that at least we can begin to notice some semantic/lexical features of some utterances and overall structures; features that seen to be at odds with explicit authorial statements of at least, explicitly "stated intent."

Yes, what you are reading here is not yet a science. I support and follow a fuller science however in some of my other writings. Here and now we are in the process of hopefully say, hypothesis formation; a rational guess at something that might be proved - or to be sure, disproved - by fuller science, as it develops.

[Htom Sirveaux]

29. And what do you hope to accomplish

when you practice your "deconstruction" right in front of the author who wrote the text?

[Brettongarcia]

30. The author gets feedback. Same as every DU post.

[Htom Sirveaux]

31. I see. Then I offer you feedback in return:

Do you see anything wrong with an approach that involves psychoanalyzing someone you've never met and don't know personally, without their permission, through what they write on the internet, and then posting the results on the internet for everyone to see, again without their permission? What would likely happen to a professional psychoanalyst who did that?

How would you characterize someone who claims the ability to know what others think better than they do, but seemingly cannot take into account how others might react to the situation in the first paragraph? Is that person likely to have the ability they claim, or have they overestimated themselves?

If said person does not have the ability to tell what others are thinking through their texts, might what they think they see actually be a projection from their own unconscious, and they just can't recognize that? How is this person ever going to learn what others really think if they choose loading the statements of others with their own presumptions rather than genuinely listening and learning?

[cbayer]

2. I would like to say thank you to the believers, non-believers and those in the grey areas here.

There are many more people here who want to engage in civil discussion than want to engage in uncivil discussion. Very few posts are removed here and when they are, it is often indicative of a pattern which leads to banning from the site.

Despite the highly contentious topics that are relegated to this group, I think we find lots of things we agree on and are particularly good at identifying our common enemies.

I don't agree that the only person you can influence is yourself. I think you set a good example of staying on the high road and not getting your buttons pushed.

I share your hopes for the future.

[trotsky]

6. Let's start by agreeing that accusing others of supporting or proposing genocide is unacceptable.

Can you do that, cbayer?

[longship]

32. We could do a lot to stop personal attacks.

Why don't we start there.

[trotsky]

33. By "we" do you mean EVERYONE? n/t

[longship]

36. Yup! I certainly agree.

But I reserve the right to call it out when it is evident.

[trotsky]

37. Great - as will I!

For a DUer to feel perfectly fine accusing others of proposing genocide is beyond the pale, I think. Glad we are in agreement.

[intaglio]

3. We both of us fight our corners but ...

that doesn't stop us respecting each other and interacting elsewhere cooperatively.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Indeed!

We can disagree without being disagreeable, so to speak.

[kdmorris]

4. I do not post here much (mainly ever)

But wanted to say Thank you back.

Really, the suspicion and resentment is just an extension of our every day life. My sister didn't talk to me for years after I told her that I didn't believe in God. I have real problems with organized religion trying to insert itself into politics. And so, for me, it's easier to understand why atheists get so angry than why theists do. It's probably easier for you to understand theist anger than atheist anger, but that's OK.

Many of the people here are truly defensive about their religion and saying anything bad about it sets them off. I usually try to just avoid them, but I'm not always successful. There are others who don't back down from that fight and are not as cowardly as I am. For that, they get labeled disruptors and antagonists when the "other side" does the exact same thing and fails to acknowledge it. They don't label themselves as disruptors and antagonists, only the atheist side.

Sorry, this turned into a book (things often do before coffee). I just wanted to say "thank you", too.

[trotsky]

7. This, precisely.

I've lost count of the number of times what we have said gets spun around and distorted and used to attack us.

"I don't think the Catholic Church should be dictating health policy" becomes "OMG, you're proposing genocide on poor people!"

"God is a delusion" becomes "OMG, how can you call all believers mentally ill?"

And so on.

[Htom Sirveaux]

13. I can't speak about every example you could have in mind,

but "delusion" is definitely a loaded word with connotations of mental disorder, in a way that "mistaken belief" or "incorrect belief" is not. Even "God is a myth" is not as tinged with hostility, in my opinion.

If you used "mistaken", "incorrect" or even "myth", and the reaction was still "you're calling us all mentally ill" then I would be fully sympathetic with you in those cases. But I can understand that defensive reaction to "delusion".

[trotsky]

15. The very first definition of delusion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

de·lu·sion
noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

: a belief that is not true : a false idea

At the very least, after someone has said that's how they are using the word, you accept that and move on, instead of continuing to push the lie that "OMG, you think believers are all mentally ill!"

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. If someone asked you to switch to "false" or "incorrect" or "not true"

to convey the same idea without the second definition of delusion, from that same source:

a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness

Would you switch? If not, they could easily conclude from that refusal that you intend to keep the connotations of mental illness from that second definition.

[trotsky]

17. Probably not, because "delusion" is a more precise and accurate word.

It's "a false belief." Key word: belief. I.e., when dealing with religion and religious beliefs.

Tell you what: take people to task for using the word "asshole" to refer to other DUers first, then we can talk about "delusion." Deal?

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. No, it's not more precise or accurate

because it carries connotations of mental illness that you do not intend. You could say "false belief' as you just did, and get everything that you mean, without the connotation.

I quite agree that "asshole" is an inappropriate way to refer to other DUers.

[trotsky]

19. Hopefully Goblinmonger will jump in here but English is a wonderful language...

with brilliantly precise words.

We don't have to say someone is "very angry," we can say they are FURIOUS. Even though furious can have negative connotations, including some that imply possible mental health issues.

We don't have to just say someone has a "false belief," we can use the word delusion. Because delusion also implies the holder could be aware that the belief contradicts other evidence, but chooses to believe it anyway (i.e., "religious faith&quot .

Words like "asshole" and "demon" are direct personal insults and far worse of an offense, IMHO. But the self-righteous appear perfectly fine with their use.

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. If you intend that implication, it creates a different problem.

Because delusion also implies the holder could be aware that the belief contradicts other evidence, but chooses to believe it anyway (i.e., "religious faith&quot .

Now you're moving off "there is no evidence for God's existence" and into "'God exists' contradicts this evidence". You're implying a positive evidential case for God's non-existence. You couldn't say "God is a delusion" and stick to agnostic atheism in a consistent way, if that is what you mean by "delusion".

And if you don't intend that implication either, then that's a second problem with supposing "delusion" is the most favorable word to use due to accuracy or precision.

[trotsky]

21. Context. It matters.

Since you weren't part of the previous discussions using this word, you are making assumptions that aren't accurate.

But as long as some feel comfortable referring to atheists as "assholes" or "demons," I don't really give a flying fuck.

[Lordquinton]

22. I wanted to thank you for actually trying here

And, unfortunately finding out that one group just doesn't want to get along with the other side, even when an olive branch is extended.

As a side, I wanted to point out that what you are saying here is tone policing, where you take umbrage with a word because it could be misconstrued as offencive, instead of acknowledging the person's point, and that they have good reason to use strong language due to being hurt by religion in some way.

I'm saying it to you because I feel that you aren't doing it intentionally, and that you will think about it, unlike some here who just intend on disrupting.

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. You're welcome.

I do want to think about tone policing, and understand it better. I want to acknowledge valid points, and avoid condemning all strong language. Can I avoid "tone policing" by accepting many instances of strong language, and only issuing complaints in a few specific cases?

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. I'm sorry about your sister.

That's a lame reaction. And I suspect we are at least close to being on the same page with regard to religion and politics (I'm proud of my (UU) church for adopting statements of conscience supporting marriage equality and reproductive rights, but I hate it when matters of belief are used to exclude and denigrate, or as empty, meaningless symbolism).

[Starboard Tack]

5. Thanks Htom. The feeling is mutual.

We have a great group here and you have been a very positive influence. Your OP's are provocative, in a positive way, and inspire lively discussion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. Awww, thank you!

[LostOne4Ever]

25. I am breaking a self imposed exile from this group just to tell you

Thank you.

You have and are currently standing up to a bunch of your friends to defend what you think is right. I respect that immensely and you deserve to know that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

27. Thank you, I appreciate the kind words!

[longship]

34. Unfortunately reason is not often used on any side of this debate.

Myself, I do not malign people's beliefs (although I might respectfully challenge them). I do not give a shit what a person believes. It is how they act which I might have a say about. And many actions in the name of religion are odious.

I think religion is not a good thing. However, like Dennett, I do not think humans will ever be rid of it. And like Dennett, I think it is important to know as much about religion, and how it came to be, may be amongst the most important thing humans can learn.

Those non-believers who malign believers for their beliefs are tilting at windmills.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. There were a couple threads that I observed in Interfaith a week or two ago.

In all of them, you stood firm for principle in the face of concerted disagreement. It was not unnoticed, nor unappreciated.

[cbayer]

38. That's the sign of a group that can tolerate differences of opinion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. I sure appreciate the patience. (nt)

[cbayer]

41. It's not just patience. I think you have provided a very interesting perspective.

Although I have disagreed with you at points, you have given me cause to step back and assess how much of what I am experiencing is my own shit and how much is justified.

That's a good thing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. That's very kind, thank you! (nt)