Is this forum anything other than an atheists debate theists forum?

[Selwynn]

If yes, I'm intrigued and would like to pursue that.
If not, then I have zero interest whatsoever, and want to avoid that.

I really hope this space can avoid 10,000 posts rehashing the same tired old religion vs. secular, atheist vs. theists, believer vs. skeptic debates that are so tedious and old. Perhaps I have the wrong expectations - my expectations for a special board entitled religion and theology was that religion and theology would be the primary focus of discussion. I assumed that the primary posters here would be people of like mind who basically want to discuss religion and faith, not primarily non-believers looking for a fight.

If the primary purpose of this forum was for religious people and atheists to debate each other, please change the name to Religion vs. Atheism and then create a new Religion and Theology forum for the rest of us who just want to talk about faith or theological issues and questions without having them eventually ALL turn into an atheism vs. religion debate. :(

I'm not angry, I just really love the idea of a place where people of faith could talk about interesting issues, questions and theologies, compare religious traditions, learn from each other and grow in faith and love. I do NOT AT ALL love the idea of another hate-fest board with two sides at "war" with each other over the same tired old issues of whose right and wrong about religious belief.

Perhaps I can just save some atheists some time here:
Do you believe religion is a crutch for the weak-willed and the weak-minded? Guess what - I can accept that. That might be true. Hows that for ya? I don't have anything to argue with you about, because you might be right. You might in fact see the world more clearly than I do.

But let me ask you this? Do you go up to a disabled person and say, "you know a wheelchair is just a tool for the crippled" and the proceed to dump the guy out of his wheelchair and walk off with it? Maybe religion is a crutch but let me tell you what I know about my life: my faith has made my life better, it has been a source of comfort and strength for me. It was the reason that I came to believe that the things I cared about most in life was learning to be a more compassionate person and learn how to better take care of myself and the people around me in my life. I'm certainly not perfect, but that has become my desire. It has been my faith that has created a wellspring of great joy and happiness in my life. My life is absolutely better via the influence of my spiritual beliefs. My relationships to others are better, stronger and richer because of the way my faith has inspired me to think about the world.

Religion may be an illusion or a mental projection - it may be a crutch. But I am a man who NEEDS THAT CRUTCH what is it to you if I need crutches to walk around? Do you make a habit of going around on the street and finding people on crutches and saying "ha ha! Look at me I'm so much better than you, I don't need a crutch!" I don't know if atheists are right and religion is nothing more than a crutch or not, and I don't really care. All I know is that I'm a made who is a better person because of that so-called "crutch." I don't ask you to take my "crutch" if you don't need it, but I do. So I have no interest in debating this same tired old subject with you over and over and over and over again, because I accept the possibility of all the arguments you want to make. Maybe you are a better, more mature, more enlightened, more intellectually astute person than I. So what?

So I ask again - what is this forum going to be? Will it be a place for meaningful fellowship and dialog between people interested in talking about religious issues and theological subjects, sharing different faiths and learning from each other? Or is this actually just an atheism vs. theism forum?

Edit - to highlight

[Dookus]

1. The forum's going to be whatever people post about

If you feel uncomfortable with being challenged on these issues, there are some "groups" where non-believers are not allowed. You could probably find the discussions you're looking for in those.

[Selwynn]

2. There's nothing to challenge? There's no point of disagreement...

Perhaps if I categorically rejected the arguments of an atheist about religion, it would have a purpose. But since I don't, it doesn't.

[Dookus]

4. My point is simply that

if you want to post about specific religious topics, do so. If the fact that atheists may contribute puts you off, there are a number of Groups that might be better suited. That's all.

[papau]

3. the atheism crowd swamps most debate - but being Buddist and Jew or

being Buddist and Christain, or eastern versus western, or everyman a priest versus this is the Word as stated by an authority fiqure, how science is verifying the factual history of the Bible, the role of tradition in Islam vs what was originally intended - and the same for other religions - the politics of the early centuries as reflected in religion.....

There are a lot of good topics that I'd like to lurk and read the threads that are posted - and maybe even post on those threads - but they do not seem to be happening as yet!

but we wait!

peace

:-)

[Dookus]

8. All good points for discussion...

and I'd encourage you to start threads on them.

That being said, though, if you post about how science is proving the Bible, you should expect some push back from people who interpret the results differently. That's why there are groups for people who don't want to challenged.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I picked this up on the 'Latest Discussions' rather than in the

R&T, otherwise, as an atheist, I wouldn't have seen it. And I appreciate your concern, because those are pointless arguments. Just like how I used to be in AA, for many years, until I was turned off by the growing 'stealth evangelism' there. I then realized that I joined in a very down, weak period when I was severely abusing alcohol, but I was never an alcoholic. I don't go around debating the merits of AA, despite its evangelical roots and tendencies. There are alcoholics who need it and profit by it, and I wouldn't want to put doubts in their sobriety.

I hope you find a welcoming forum. I feel the same way when religionists invade the atheists forum trying to save us.

[Selwynn]

6. Heh .. there is an atheists forum? LOL I didn't even know.

I certainly don't want you to change if your happy, and don't assume that if you aren't happy that means my way should be your way. :) :toast:

[Maat]

9. Yep.

Look under DU Groups. Then, if you want to hit, 'Add to my forums' (near the name title), and it will appear to your left on the main screen.

[saltpoint]

7. Arguments in favor of theism generally --

-- reek of authoritarianism. It's usually a sugar-coated authoritarianism but it's authoritarianism just the same.

Which runs counter to the spirit of expression across the widest possible range. And which is anti-intellectual.

"Theists" aren't being challenged here for sport or spite. They're challenged because they stubbornly refuse to surrender that authoritarianism. Theism tends toward exclusion. In fact, that's its goal in both the spiritual and material world.

They want Santa Claus to keep them on his good-little-child list, they want Jesus to pat them on the head upon entry into Heaven for obedience, and they want no one to challenge these constructs. Anyone who does question them is branded a trouble-maker, a disruptor.

These are exactly the contructs that limit discussion in a public forum.

And should as a result be challenged with vigor. A forum ought to have a Socratic energy. DU does, much to its credit. If you want an unchallenged authoritarianism among like-minded limitees, get thyself to a convent or monastery and close the door tight.

[Stunster]

10. Your post reeks of authoritarianism (n/t)

[saltpoint]

12. Ah heck. You don't really mean that.

By content alone, I'm sure you can discern the difference between who is and who is not challenged and why.

Give it another shot, won't you?

[beam me up scottie]

13. Thank you.

I can barely leave my house these days without hearing someone talk about their personal deity.

[Selwynn]

16. Yet you're upset when you hear about it in the RELIGION AND THEOLOGY forum

?

[beam me up scottie]

17. umm, actually no. Did I say that?

I expected to read about it in this forum.

[AngryOldDem]

79. Then what are you doing HERE?

It just boggles the mind that there are even atheists posting on a Religion and Theology board.

I'd think you all would have better things to do with your time.

[beam me up scottie]

81. What is this, a church? What right do you have to question

anyone's reason for posting?
Let me know when atheists are banned from this forum. Until then, might I suggest another thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x5505

IMHO it appears most DU theists welcome diversity.

"Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man."
~Robert G. Ingersoll

[saltpoint]

83. I appreciate the brains you bring to this thread, bmus.

I agree with you about most theists welcoming diversity. I'm merely a non-theist and felt my initial point was within the bounds of discussion.

Anyway, you seem to have traveled a bit on the ideas highway and it shows in your posts on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Thank you, coming from you that is high praise indeed.

And I am not being sarcastic. Your posts reflect a great amount of patience for snarkiness.
I tripped over this thread on LBT and since our name was on the door (the title did read "Is this forum anything other than an atheists debate theists forum?") I thought we were invited to the party.
This is a very sensitive subject and I am encouraged by the amount of intelligence and tolerance most DU'ers bring to the table.

[saltpoint]

88. I would accept your compliment, but it doesn't belong to me.

It belong to you and the other DUers whose posts I look forward to and learn from.

Also I think you're right about the sign on the door. I didn't see anything that excluded others. Theists and atheists and whatever other categories there are -- seems like anyone may attend.

Good wishes.

[saltpoint]

85. Any number of "us" aren't atheists, AOD.

Do you require that we be?

How 'bout a thumbs up for democratic dialogue in a given forum?

[trotsky]

14. "Anyone who does question them"

is also sometimes accused of hate speech as well.

[Selwynn]

15. Find the authoritarianism in my post.

[saltpoint]

18. You may have missed the comment I made which --

-- links authoritarianism with the material and spiritual goals of those promoting it.

These aren't my personal assertions alone; I'm standing on the shoulders of many, many thinkers across the centuries.

Your own post admits that you need the crutch. The tone of your post is -- I believe -- conciliatory, but a huge majority of "theist" posts on DU clearly use "faith" as a hammer and pretend that it is equal to science.

I happen to believe it is not equal to science. Again, I'm not alone in that assertion.

If one shakes one's fanny in the agora, it prompts comment. Theism by definition requires authoritarian response.

[Selwynn]

21. And you didn't answer my question.

Standing on the shoulders of many many "thinkers" across the centuries is also known as an illicit appeal to authority. And it doesn't answer my question: where is the authoritarianism in my post?

My own post doesn't admit that I "need the crutch." It says rather than even if it is true that religion is a crutch, it works for me, and what is that to you? It is my personal choice - what difference does it make to you? How can you possibly find any way to squeeze the word "authoritarian" out of my complete and total lack of any desire to alter or influence your personal point of view?

Now finally, I ask you - if theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response, would you agree that either a) you are wrong in your assumption that this is a necessary requirement of theism, since I claim to be a theist or b) I am not the theist I claim to be, in which cause I'd ask you to name what specific basis or criteria you use to reject my own claim to be a theist?

Basically, you're making stereotypical generalizations and then drawing universal conclusions where are impossible to rationally support. Theism does not require "by definition" authoritarian response. The American Heritage Dictionary defines theism as "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Notice there is nothing inherent in the explicit definition that has anything to do with authoritarianism.

I'll certainly agree, theistic beliefs have very frequently lead to authoritarian attitudes and institutions - but that's not what you said. You said all theism is directly connected to authoritarianism (when you said that theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response). So I'd like to you speculate as to what aspects of my personal belief in God you define as authoritarian in nature?

Or maybe you would just rather concede that no - perhaps theism cannot be said to "by definition" require an authoritarian response, regardless of whether or not if frequently evokes such a response.

Sel

[saltpoint]

23. Your objection ignores your own post, for some reason.

You are interested in a thread to your liking, but no, you are not interested in "tired" old discussions of theism and atheism, etc.

You wanted limits on this from the start. You operate from an authoritarian reference. You have no apparent interest in anything other than the "crutch" of your own cosmology, such as it is.

One either chooses to learn or one chooses not to. If I stand on the shoulders of others' viewpoints across history, I assume the mantle of learner. Quite frankly, many in the spiritual community open their mouths wide and swallow whatever the Gospels tell them, swallow whatever their local pastors tell them, swallow whatever their own fears tell them to swallow.

They swallow and swallow and swallow until an authoritarian rendering of human experience is their only view.

Anyone objecting to that narrowness is then branded.

What about the distinct possibility that your crutch is a dumb tool on which you lean to shield yourself from others' world views?

It certainly seems to be the case here.

[Selwynn]

46. What does that have to do with theism?

What does my desire to have certain kinds of discussions and not others have to do with theism, specifically?

Set that question aside for a second, and answer this: what is the opposite of authoritarianism? Is it no requirements, no conditions, no parameters and no rules of any kind? Think of it in the political arena? Is any society with any kinds of rules authoritarian, meaning that the only thing that would not be considered authoritarian is anarchy? Is a society that has a law against rape, but that the same time a society that has a well-functioning social democracy, well protected freedoms, and emphasis on community and participatory action to be labeled "authoritarian?"

I would think no, perhaps "authoritarian" is not a reasonably applied word to that context. So I consider it at least questionable when you attempt to label me as "authoritarian" becuase I would rather talk about certain things in a forum that is explicitly established to talk about thoes things, and not talk about things that - to the best of my understanding - really fall outside of that scope, in addition to being tired and pointless discussions.

I suppose you could really stretch the limits of the world, and label someone who didn't want to primarily talk about Gun Rights on the Israeli/Pallestinian discussion boards as "authoritarian." But I think reasonable people my question whether or not you weren't really "stretching" in your attempt to apply that term in that context. I see little difference here.

Now, that brings us back to the beginning: even if you feel that wanting this particular forum not to fixate on a topic that, to the best of my understanding, really falls outside the scope and purpose of this forum should be described as "authoritarian" - it still does not explain what that has to do with describing theism as "authoritarian" by definition.


One either chooses to learn or one chooses not to. If I stand on the shoulders of others' viewpoints across history, I assume the mantle of learner. Quite frankly, many in the spiritual community open their mouths wide and swallow whatever the Gospels tell them, swallow whatever their local pastors tell them, swallow whatever their own fears tell them to swallow. They swallow and swallow and swallow until an authoritarian rendering of human experience is their only view. Anyone objecting to that narrowness is then branded.


I'm failing to see what any of what I quoted has anything to do with my question. It is a criticism of belief, and yet it does nothing to answer the direct questions I posed. I suppose, I could interpret your last sentence there as your feeling that I am "branding" your objection to that narrowness, and that you therefore feel I am somehow "authoritarian." However I am not "branding" you objection to what you feel to be narrowness. I am instead objecting to using this particular forum to have that discussion. To me it doesn't seem to fit into what I think of when I think of a forum entitled "religion and theology." That seems to me to reflect a place where the religious and those interested in theology can come together and share ideas, not a forum that is primarily dominated by debates with atheists.

That's not to say I wouldn't be willing to thoughfully participate in such an exchange - in the proper place and time. Perhaps I would in certain contexts. But as a DU member you should recognize the rationale. There is a reason why DU bans "freepers." Becuase DU holds the philosphy that this place should be a place where like-minded people can come together and discuss ideas that fall on one particular side of the spectrum. DU administrators feel that there are plenty of other places all over the web where polar-opposite left and right folks can come together and debate each other, but this is not such a place. I feel similar about the Relgion and Theology boards. I'm not sure it is easy to defend your assertion that this somehow makes me "authoritarian" - and I certainly see no relevant connection to my personal feelings about what kinds of things belong in a certain forum with a statement about theism.


What about the distinct possibility that your crutch is a dumb tool on which you lean to shield yourself from others' world views?

What about it? First, what does that have to do with my questions to you, or with the subject of authoritarianism in general? Second, what if it is a dumb tool? So what? What matters to me is the quality of my life. Am I happy? Do I enjoy healthy, nurturing, responsible relationships with others? Am I emotionally and mentally capable of entering into joyful, compassionate healthy relationships with the people around me, especially my immediate friends and family? If the answer is yes, then why should you care at all whether or not I have a "dumb tool" or not?

As I said before, my best friend is an atheist. But he and I don't get into debates about our different points of view. Why not? It's certainly not that we feel that we can't - its that neither of us wants to, becuase neither of us has any desire to change the other. I look at my best friend, and I love what I see. I love the man he is, I think highly of him. So also my friend looks and me, and loves what he sees, loves the man that I am, and thinks highly of me.

An abritrary debate over the existence or non-existence of God would seem trivial and pointness, since I see nothing lacking in my friends live and actions towards others, and he sees nothing lacking in me. We are two whole an happy people, who use different language to articulate our experience of the world. I love my friend so much becuase of the ways he is different than I, not despite those differences. Why should you or I care whether or not my religious language is a "dumb tool" if I am a whole happy, healthy person with strong nurturing relationships and a full life, and I am more than content to accept and enjoy the lives of others who see it differently?

[saltpoint]

47. Selwynn, I don't think you deserve special protections --

-- just because you are a "believer." Nor do I feel that your posts are deserving of special sanction. In your original post, you said in effect that you did not want to have a debate, that you wanted only to set the terms and proceed on those terms, with only those who agree with those terms invited along.

No authoritarianism there, no sir.

One of the definitions of a forum is that ideas careen about in a debate, a conversation, a discussion, what have you. In the agora of old, one was expected to explain oneself when challenged. That was a pre-Christian ideal, and frankly, it's looking better and better.

When you post a question as you did, you engage in an authoritarian act, not least because it's obviously exclusional. All good and well as far as it goes, but you aren't in a world of like-minded thinkers. Institutions like government, the military, and yes, religion, are LIKELY to be questioned on DU, and part of any forum umbrella'd by DU for religion and theology, for instance, should include rather than exclude differing points of view, including ones quite different from yours.

I'm not knocking your use of the crutch until you tell me that you walk the same as anyone else without it. That was the clear point made and you didn't address it fairly, in my opinion. I also have no problem with your faith, and in fact you might find me more informed and interested than you may imagine me to be.

One possibility might be for the DU faith community to acknowledge that within the traditions of their own faiths, there is widespread disagreement, often vehemently expressed, and occasionally violently enforced. You don't need me or anyone else from the non-faith community to provide tension -- most (not all) of world faith traditions excel at it. The Crusades, anyone?

I'm not taking the rap for big or small tensions you may feel when your faith is challenged. You folks need to understand that a very discernible vein of authoritarianism runs through the history and dogma of most faiths. Not all, most. My comment in response to your question was accurate and in a real dialogue among open-minded explorers, would not have provoked the defensive reaction from you and others that it did.

[Selwynn]

51. You have avoided answered every question, and now changed your position

At every stage of the way you have categorically refused to address my question, choosing instead to ignore than and forge ahead with your soliloquy. Let's review a few of the questions you've deliberately refused to answer:

Question 1:
Now finally, I ask you - if theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response, would you agree that either a) you are wrong in your assumption that this is a necessary requirement of theism, since I claim to be a theist or b) I am not the theist I claim to be, in which cause I'd ask you to name what specific basis or criteria you use to reject my own claim to be a theist?

Question 2:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines theism as "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Notice there is nothing inherent in the explicit definition that has anything to do with authoritarianism. I'll certainly agree, theistic beliefs have very frequently lead to authoritarian attitudes and institutions - but that's not what you said. You said all theism is directly connected to authoritarianism (when you said that theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response). So I'd like to you speculate as to what aspects of my personal belief in God you define as authoritarian in nature?

Before I continue on to other questions, it is necessary to point out that after I asked this second unanswered question, you shifted the debate and rather than answering the question at all, changed to a discussion of whether my post about what I'd like to see in these forums and what I wouldn't was authoritarian or not, which has nothing to do with theism.

Question 3:
What does my desire to have certain kinds of discussions and not others have to do with theism, specifically?

Question 4:
Set that question aside for a second, and answer this: what is the opposite of authoritarianism? Is it no requirements, no conditions, no parameters and no rules of any kind? Think of it in the political arena? Is any society with any kinds of rules authoritarian, meaning that the only thing that would not be considered authoritarian is anarchy? Is a society that has a law against rape, but that the same time a society that has a well-functioning social democracy, well protected freedoms, and emphasis on community and participatory action to be labeled "authoritarian?"

Question 5:(though not technically phrased as a question)
Now, that brings us back to the beginning: even if you feel that wanting this particular forum not to fixate on a topic that, to the best of my understanding, really falls outside the scope and purpose of this forum should be described as "authoritarian" - it still does not explain what that has to do with describing theism as "authoritarian" by definition.

These are just some examples of the questions you've deliberately chosen to ignore - choosing instead to continually respond in your own monologue of things largely irrelevant to the only question I was asking you about.


-- just because you are a "believer." Nor do I feel that your posts are deserving of special sanction. In your original post, you said in effect that you did not want to have a debate, that you wanted only to set the terms and proceed on those terms, with only those who agree with those terms invited along. No authoritarianism there, no sir.

Let's not look at the "in effect." Let's look at what I actually said, shall we?



SELWYNN: I really hope this space can avoid 10,000 posts rehashing the same tired old religion vs. secular, atheist vs. theists, believer vs. skeptic debates that are so tedious and old. Perhaps I have the wrong expectations - my expectations for a special board entitled religion and theology was that religion and theology would be the primary focus of discussion. I assumed that the primary posters here would be people of like mind who basically want to discuss religion and faith, not primarily non-believers looking for a fight.

If the primary purpose of this forum was for religious people and atheists to debate each other, please change the name to Religion vs. Atheism and then create a new Religion and Theology forum for the rest of us who just want to talk about faith or theological issues and questions without having them eventually ALL turn into an atheism vs. religion debate.

I'm not angry, I just really love the idea of a place where people of faith could talk about interesting issues, questions and theologies, compare religious traditions, learn from each other and grow in faith and love. I do NOT AT ALL love the idea of another hate-fest board with two sides at "war" with each other over the same tired old issues of whose right and wrong about religious belief.



You are almost desperately stretching now to ascribe authoritarianism to what I have said. Authoritarianism would be a statement like "I want all people who post on x subject banned from the boards." But that isn't want I said is it. And if that's what you inferred, that reflects a personal problem and bias on your part, because nothing in what I actually wrote can justify such an inference.

Let's break it down:

If yes, I'm intrigued and would like to pursue that. If not, then I have zero interest whatsoever, and want to avoid that. - This is the most un-authoritarian statement there could possibly be. It says, "hey what is this forum really about? If its about more than just the atheism vs. theism debate, then I will probably hang out here a bit. If it isn't, then I don't have any interest in that, and while I WILL NOT TRY TO CHANGE THAT, I will simply move on to things that personally interest me more. Explain to me the authoritarianism in that statement -- please note this is a question, I'm asking you for an answer.

I really hope this space can avoid -- notice I don't say, "I demand this place avoid," or "I want all people who don't post like I want banned. It is not authoritarian to have desires. It only becomes authoritarian when you take draconian measures to make those desires a reality. Simply posting my desires has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Perhaps I have the wrong expectations - Authoritarianism typically doesn't include an willingness to acknowledge the possibility of wrong. Right up front I say, "hey maybe my expectations are wrong and I am expecting the wrong kinds of things from a board entitled "religion and theology." It's pretty difficult to somehow try and make a case for authoritarianism out of this.

I just really love the idea of a place where people of faith could talk about interesting issues, - here I explain my motives, that I'm just excited about the idea of a place where I could have certain kinds of discussions we don't have elsewhere. Those discussions tend to get crowded out and drowned out when the boards primarily turn into a big fight between a group of atheists and a group of theists. Personally, I would find the most enjoyment out of the boards if that wasn't the direction things went. If they do go that direction, I'll likely make a personal decision to move on to something else. Now go read the definition of "authoritarianism." Now I ask you (please note this is a question I am asking you that I would like an answer to) where is the "authoritarianism" in that sentiment?

Perhaps its time to start contemplating all the preconceived notions and biases you had about me before you even started writing, and contemplate the assumptions you've made that have turned out to be erroneous, along with the inferences you've made probably without being consciously aware of it. You have attempted to "fit" a jacket on me that doesn't fit.

And now you know it doesn't fit, but are for some reason - hanging on for dear life to an untenable position instead of saying - as a true lover of reason would - "ok, first I misspoke when I claimed that theism by definition was authoritarian, though theism certainly frequently leads to authoritarian institutions which justify themselves on the basis of their belief in God. Second, I attempted to depict your comments as authoritarian in order to justify my weak position, and I realize now that I really don't have much of a case to back that up."

That would be the honest thing to do.


One of the definitions of a forum is that ideas careen about in a debate, a conversation, a discussion, what have you. In the agora of old, one was expected to explain oneself when challenged. That was a pre-Christian ideal, and frankly, it's looking better and better.


Go try to make a post about Abortion in the Israeli Palestinian forums. When your post is locked and moved, are you going to cry "authoritarianism! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help help! I'm being repressed?" One of the realities of many, if not most forums is that they organize themselves thematically - with sub-forums for particular discussions. The reason they do that so frequently is because they realize that even within the larger community, there are sub-groups of folks who have certain subjects in common who much like there own little place to discuss some of those specific issues more deeply. It makes sense that within those sub-groups, if people starting coming in and dominating the conversation with things unrelated to the purpose of that sub-group, they might want them to stop doing that. It detracts from the conversations that are trying to be had, it hinders the kinds of discussions and dialog that are the purpose of that sub-group.

I agree that if I am addressing you, I should have to explain myself if you challenge me. (I'm not sure you do though, since you've consistently deliberately ignored every question I've put to you, all while talking about the glories of civil discourse and the "olden days.") I especially agree if I am attempting to make a persuasive argument to you. However, I don't believe I have any expectation to defend myself if I am talking to someone else, and you - a total stranger - interrupt my conversation and demand I give an explanation to you for some point you don't like. I am not likely to feel inclined to do so, as I wasn't talking to you in the first place. And that is completely appropriate to feel.


One possibility might be for the DU faith community to acknowledge that within the traditions of their own faiths, there is widespread disagreement, often vehemently expressed, and occasionally violently enforced. You don't need me or anyone else from the non-faith community to provide tension -- most (not all) of world faith traditions excel at it. The Crusades, anyone?

One possibility for what? I didn't see this statement as connected to anything you have previously said. And who exactly is not acknowledging this? Certainly I acknowledge it. I belong to no religious organization, by the way, and I do not attend a "church." But I completely fail to see the relevance of this entire paragraph to the questions that I posed to you or the issues at hand. It seems a bit like a red herring to me, and perhaps drifting dangerously close to the ad hominem zone.


I'm not taking the rap for big or small tensions you may feel when your faith is challenged. You folks need to understand that a very discernible vein of authoritarianism runs through the history and dogma of most faiths. Not all, most. My comment in response to your question was accurate and in a real dialog among open-minded explorers, would not have provoked the defensive reaction from you and others that it did.

No one has asked you to take the rap for anything. However you have been asked numerous times to defend your claims that theism is by definition as well as your claims that my post is authoritarian and you have consistently refused to answer. I don't know who you are referring to by "you folks." I am Selwynn. There are no other "folks" attached to me. A very discernible vein of authoritarianism runs through all human institutions throughout history, including but not limited to religious ones.

You conclude your post with a passive-aggressive accusation, that because I dared to challenge you with questions, I am therefore not truly open-minded. The only closed-mindedness I see here is within you, choosing to pass judgment over me, and base your arguments and responses on stereotypical generalizations while avoiding every opportunity to rationally and reasonably address the questions as hand. Rather than demonstrate the true hallmark of open-minded explorers - the willingness to admit when you're wrong - you spend the next three posts avoiding direct questions and walking as close to the line between fair argumentation and logical fallacy of attacking the person and not the argument as you can possibly come.

My only two points are that theism is not defined by authoritarianism. All you have to do to prove that is look at the dictionary definition of theism, and then point to many real world examples of people who meet that definition but to not meet the dictionary definition of authoritarian. When theism becomes institutionalized, it is subject to the same inherent problems of institutionalization that all other institutions are subject to - one of those is the predilection toward authoritarianism. That is not an inherent problem with theism; it is an inherent problem with human beings, and that very human problem regularly manifests itself in religious institutions as well as all other institutions.

Note that you've now changed your position - moving from saying theism "by defintion" is authoritarian to saying that there is a discernable pattern of authoritarianism in most faiths. Not the same thing at all. So I guess I'll take that as a concession.

My second point is that your shift of the argument from the subject of theism being authoritarian by definition to me and whether or not my post was "authoritarian" was both a cheap and illicit avoidance argumentation tactic, and also unjustifiable as has clearly been demonstrated.

Sel

[saltpoint]

52. If your post asked a question and earned thoughtful --

-- responses, which it did, and you can't accept that some of those responses run counter to your personal viewpoint, then the burden for reconsideration is on you.

You wrongly assume that "most" means "all" in my posts or anyone else's.

I reassert my position -- hardly mine alone -- that theism and authoritarianism are intrinsic. It defies belief that you would not concede this connection. To cite just one example: "I am the Truth, I am the Light. NO ONE comes to the Father but through me." As authoritarian conceits go, that one will do as an example. And it's famous enough that you could have acknowledged it early on instead of go into defensive posture.

I admire very much your choice of avatars. Evidently we are both members of a worthy organization and share in common the impulse to create mercy currently denied wrongly imprisoned people. I find AI to be the ultimate in anti-authoritarian organizations. Many of the beneficiaries of AI are imprisoned and tortured by governments using religion of one kind or another as moral leverage.

I'm very sorry you took such a negative attitude toward my thoughts, Selwynn. It's very limiting, and it closed off many avenues of possible agreement and understanding. I acknowledge and respect your choices regarding faith, but in a forum on DU or anywhere else, you may encounter opposing views. Your posture against them is defensive and not mutually acknowledging.

[Selwynn]

53. And you still have refused to answer a single question --

-- even after waxing nostalgic for the olden days, even after they were made explicitly plain. You are not choosing to engage in responsible discourse, all the while remaining civil and well-spoken. And yet underneath it all the same fact remains. I have very plainly, very explicitly, very simply asked you to answer some questions, and you have consistently refused, choosing instead to continue to deliver soliloquy at every opportunity.

-- responses, which it did, and you can't accept that some of those responses run counter to your personal viewpoint, then the burden for reconsideration is on you.

I haven't yet had a chance to "accept" or "reject" any answer to any direct question I've posed to you. Instead you've chosen to continue arguing red herrings and straw men, avoiding the direct answers at all costs.


you wrongly assume that "most" means "all" in my posts or anyone else's.


No, I don't assume that at all, and its becoming quite clear to you you didn't bother to really read my response before replying. Perhaps you assume you're mind and your point of view are so vastly superior that you really don't need to "read" what is being said to "get the gist." You've got my number, etc.

You did not say "most" when you equated theism with authoritarianism by definition. If something is true "by definition" then it is true all of the time, not some of the time. Then in your last post, you backed away from that, saying "most" theism, not all. You away because it is an obviously untenable position to claim otherwise, but its not my problem that this is what you chose to say.


To cite just one example: "I am the Truth, I am the Light. NO ONE comes to the Father but through me." As authoritarian conceits go, that one will do as an example. And it's famous enough that you could have acknowledged it early on instead of go into defensive posture.


Of course what you've just described is not at all intrinsic to the definition of theism. If you want to say that organized, orthodox Christian tradition is intrinsically authoritarian, then say so. But that isn't what you said. and Orthodox Christian tradition does not equal "theism." The definition of theism, which I have given multiple fins for your convenience, is: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Another dictionary simply states, "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods." So your example is utterly irrelevant as support of the claim that theism is intrinsically authoritarian.


I admire very much your choice of avatars. Evidently we are both members of a worthy organization and share in common the impulse to create mercy currently denied wrongly imprisoned people. I find AI to be the ultimate in anti-authoritarian organizations. Many of the beneficiaries of AI are imprisoned and tortured by governments using religion of one kind or another as moral leverage.

This is an irrelevant distraction from the issue at hand.


I'm very sorry you took such a negative attitude toward my thoughts, Selwynn. It's very limiting, and it closed off many avenues of possible agreement and understanding. I acknowledge and respect your choices regarding faith, but in a forum on DU or anywhere else, you may encounter opposing views. Your posture against them is defensive and not mutually acknowledging.


Another classic example of argumentation snake oil. It is a manipulative and back-door way to attack the person instead of the argument. Basically, you are saying you are "very sorry" that I had the audacity to challenge your claim that theism was intrinsically connected "by definition" (your words, not mine) to authoritarianism.

I challenged you to defend that assertion by posing multiple questions to you that would require an answer in order to rationally defend the claim. You refused to attempt answer at every turn. You tried every other tactic - you tried making long speeches about the evil history of authoritarianism in organized religion, you tried to disparage me directly through various innuendo and implications. The one think you never did do however, was simply answer the challenges.

I in turn am "very sorry" that you feel my asking you to defend your assertions equals a "negative attitude" and closes off "avenues of possible agreement and understanding." I'm sorry that you feel the fact that I challenged you to defend your claim means that I have assumed a "defensive and not mutually acknowledging posture."

Perhaps in the future, if you would not avoid direct questions, choosing instead to respond in rhetorical soliloquy you might discover that I posses the ability to respond very favorably to well-made arguments that directly address challenges and questions made of them.

Sel

[saltpoint]

54. Well, Selwynn.

One must conclude that if nothing else, you don't mind a windy response.

At this point I would have to say that your best option would be to post what you want.

I will certainly be posting what I want, and once in a while, you may encounter still others who find your position worthy of challenge.

When I DID respond to your points, you merely repeated your own. That's not discourse, that's defensive posturing. You're good at it, and you probably have to be, given that your self-admitted crutch is what sees you through.

You might try reconsideration of the the relevancy -- to use your term -- of Amnesty International's mission. It's relevant because some governments use some dogma from some religion which IS theistic to imprison and torture human beings. I would imagine for those being tortured, the allusion is damned relevant. Where you get off claiming it is not is well past my powers of reason. Even when I pointed it out to you in understandable English, you went haywire and pretended it wasn't there.

Defense and delusional response to valid, demonstrable points doesn't do much persuading.

You posted a question. You got responses. Some differed from your defensive little "rules." And when challenged, you went hyper-defensive and kept digging yourself in deeper. You are asking for special protection in a forum, and I would suggest t you that you aren't going to have it.

[Selwynn]

56. I must have missed it.

I tried to read carefully, but I must have missed the places where you did respond to these things:

Question 1:
Now finally, I ask you - if theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response, would you agree that either a) you are wrong in your assumption that this is a necessary requirement of theism, since I claim to be a theist or b) I am not the theist I claim to be, in which cause I'd ask you to name what specific basis or criteria you use to reject my own claim to be a theist?

Question 2:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines theism as "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Notice there is nothing inherent in the explicit definition that has anything to do with authoritarianism. I'll certainly agree, theistic beliefs have very frequently lead to authoritarian attitudes and institutions - but that's not what you said. You said all theism is directly connected to authoritarianism (when you said that theism "by definition" requires an authoritarian response). So I'd like to you speculate as to what aspects of my personal belief in God you define as authoritarian in nature?

Question 3:
What does my desire to have certain kinds of discussions and not others have to do with theism, specifically?

Question 4:
Set that question aside for a second, and answer this: what is the opposite of authoritarianism? Is it no requirements, no conditions, no parameters and no rules of any kind? Think of it in the political arena? Is any society with any kinds of rules authoritarian, meaning that the only thing that would not be considered authoritarian is anarchy? Is a society that has a law against rape, but that the same time a society that has a well-functioning social democracy, well protected freedoms, and emphasis on community and participatory action to be labeled "authoritarian?"

Question 5:(though not technically phrased as a question)
Now, that brings us back to the beginning: even if you feel that wanting this particular forum not to fixate on a topic that, to the best of my understanding, really falls outside the scope and purpose of this forum should be described as "authoritarian" - it still does not explain what that has to do with describing theism as "authoritarian" by definition.

Maybe the fault is mine - perhaps if you could give answers prefaced by "in direct answer to Question x" I could recognize that this is a specific response to questions I posed.


You might try reconsideration of the the relevancy -- to use your term -- of Amnesty International's mission. It's relevant because some governments use some dogma from some religion which IS theistic to imprison and torture human beings.


The reason it is irrelevant to the issue at hand is because it does nothing to defend the claim that theism is by definition authoritarian. If you continue to stand by the "by definition" part, then this does not help. It certainly confirms that theism can certainly lead to institutional authoritarianism, a claim with which I completely agree. So too can all institutions. The drift toward authoritarian attitudes is a profoundly human problem. But that isn't what you said.


Defense and delusional response to valid, demonstrable points doesn't do much persuading.


Neither does making personal attacks instead of focusing on the issues at hand. I don't think you are "delusional" just because you disagree with me. But I do admit the "valid, demonstrable points part" has me a bit befuddled. So far I have not seen one point that stands up to scrutiny. Case in point, the "I am the way, truth and light example." It is not a "valid demonstrable point" because orthodox Christan institutional tradition is not synonymous with theism.

Furthermore, when pressed, you've changed your argument - you concede later than instead of authoritarianism being intrinsic to theism "by definition" it is instead true in most - but not all - cases. Which means that apparently you conceded that you agree with me, for I would say the same thing. If it is true in most but not all cases, it there for cannot be intrinsic "by definition." I would like you to specifically respond to points raised in refutation to your arguments, but that seems to be too much to ask.


You posted a question. You got responses. Some differed from your defensive little "rules." And when challenged, you went hyper-defensive and kept digging yourself in deeper. You are asking for special protection in a forum, and I would suggest t you that you aren't going to have it.


I posted several questions, and each time your "responded" by talking past the questions, in a continuing soliloquy. When "challenged" I directly responded to the things you said - you have yet to explain or demonstrate in any way how those responses were somehow invalid. To name a specific example, you gave the example of "I am the way the truth and the light, etc. etc." and I responded directly to that "challenge." I didn't talk past the issue, or pretend you didn't give that example, I specifically addressed it. You've chosen to ignore than response.

You've now chosen to conclude your post with more misleading statements. I am not asking for any more "special protection" in a forum than a person wanting to post topics having to do with Israeli/Palestinian issues might want discussions about "gun rights" to be taken to another forum. There are plenty of fairly understandable reasons why a person might one this, and the board administrators seem to agree. That is why posts are frequently locked in one forum and moved to a forum where they would be more appropriate.

Having said that, you are also being further misleading, since what I actually ask in my original post is a) what kind of forum this is going to be b) what I would like the forum to be and c) end not by demanding that the board change - which you claim that I did, and you can find no quote in anything I originally wrote to defend such a claim - but rather by promising to make personal choices about where I want to post and what discussions I will choose to have.

[saltpoint]

57. The longer you make your posts the less persuasive --

-- they become. That's a gentle criticism, by the way. The parables of Jesus were effective in part because they were democratic. That is, they left spaces for others' responses and reactions and thoughts.

Your posts are, well -- since the word has been bandied about here -- authoritarian. You list, you bullet, you split hairs. What would you say if I said I was INTRIGUED by a democratic dialogue with you but NOT INTERESTED in an authoritarian series of near-essays? That's your own construct, in your original post.

You were challenged with opposing viewpoints and you reacted very defensively. If you want to have a conversation with me, I'd enjoy that, but I'm not doing your authoritarian grocery lists.

[Selwynn]

58. You apparently have no idea what the definition of "authoritarian" is

Authoritarian:
# Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
# Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.

You brandish this word around, apparently whenever you don't like what's being said. It seems to have no clearly discernible connection to the word's actual definition.

Listing, bulleting, even "splitting hairs" is not remotely associated with the definition of authoritarian. And neither is asking questions and wanting answers. In fact it is the natural form of argumentation. You can't intelligently say "how dare you ask a question of my position and expect an answer - that's so authoritarian of you!" You can't on one hand wax nostalgic about the "olden days" when people were expected to defend their assertions when challenged, then claim "authoritarianism" when someone actually does that.

You have more than plenty of opportunity to respond democratically, and consistently choose not to. Length or lack thereof is irrelevant to the issues of logical argumentation. Whether or not I'd be more effective persuasively if I was more pithy is not a logical defense. It simply yet another logical fallacy - once again choosing to engage the person rather than the argument.

You've basically come up with a convenient escape - when you can't or won't respond to specific challenges to assertions, you simply claim they are "authoritarian" in nature even though that assertion has no logical connection to the actual definition of authoritarianism.

Not only that, but you've already conceded the point - and yet continue to go after the person since you've already conceded the argument.

[saltpoint]

59. In a parallel post this evening on DU --

-- a great DUer has offered this passage from Matthew.

I believe you might profit from its being repeated here:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

(Matthew 6:5-6)

[Selwynn]

60. What does that have to do with authoritarianism and theism?

Anything?

[saltpoint]

61. A lot. Read your original post, Selwynn. Just read it.

Specifically, read the question you asked.

When you ask a question as you did, people are likely in a forum like this to ANSWER the question. Many responded. I responded. In my response I claim a connection to authoritarianism which many theists acknowledge, although you are not among that group.

But Paul Tillich is, and Eric Erikkson, and so on down a varied list.

So your outrage at my assertion is unfounded. The library will show you this if you zoom down there tomorrow and pick a few books off the shelf. My statement is factual, not inflammatory.

The passage from Matthew gives sanction to anyone wishing to pray, but plainly here the Christ asks believers not to shout on the street corners but to close one's door and engage the quiet spiritual dialogue accordingly.

If you venture out into the sidewalk, you might just be challenged.

[Selwynn]

62. You didn't claim a mere "connection" to authoritarianism.

The only issue is that you intrinsically identified authoritarianism with theism. "By definition," you said. Once again, I say to you that I agree theism frequently leads to authoritarian attitudes. But there is nothing inherent in the root definition of theism that makes that a necessary absolute of theism.

Theism simply means belief in god. Nothing more, nothing less. All the institutions, doctrine, dogmas and the like come after that fact. A person can simply privately believe in god, claim no institutionalized church, or doctrine or creed, have no desire to pass judgement over someone else's beliefs or point of view and still be a theist by the very definition of the term

And you agree with this in a couple post up, where you revise your orignal statement of "by definition" and stay "most - not all" instead.

I am faily intimately familiar with Paul Tillich, and I am going to assert that he never said that implict in the very definition of theism was authoritarianism. He was smarter than that, and I believe, able to open a dictionary. If you would care to give me a quote where you feel Tillch does indeed say something different, feel free. I most likely have the books about twenty paces away from me, and I can go examine them.

By the way, "zoom down the library," "venture out into the sidewalk, you might just be challenged" all continuing examples of your apparent unwillingness to avoid arguing against the person and focusing on the argument.



The passage from Matthew gives sanction to anyone wishing to pray, but plainly here the Christ asks believers not to shout on the street corners but to close one's door and engage the quiet spiritual dialogue accordingly.


Which has nothing to do with the fact that the claim that theism is intrinsically connected to authoritarianism by definition is false. It is not, in all cases, connected to authoritarianism, you yourself concede this - therefore it cannot be said to be "by definition."

[saltpoint]

63. We strongly disagree, I'm afraid.

Tillich uses the phrase "the source of one's ultimate concern" in numerous responses to the question of 'God' or 'religion.'

A fundamentalist would call that a euphemism, but I would credit him for expanding the dialogue away from authoritarianism.

But wait -- there I go again, using that term. Now after considerable study in libraries myself and a few trips down the sidewalk as well, and many challenges, I conclude that authoritarian energy informs Theism.

You apparently do not, and slice off the notion at the point where authoritarian doctrine or dogma takes over. If that worked, I'd be for it, but it does not work.

Here's why. If you want redemptive blood, you have to drive nails into an innocent man. Those are the nails of authoritarianism. If you are a government keen on control, as China's modern governments have been, you don't ask questions when you invade Tibet and kill innocent Buddhists.

Any 'theist' act generates doctrinal response. Those responses are authoritarian. Fundamentalist Christianity is VERY authoritarian. The idea of Hell is authoritarian. Why do you ignore that these are linked? They are intrinsic. Some 'god' creates; then some doctrine punishes and restricts. You are pretending that your cut-off puts you in the clear. I don't see how you get off pretending that.

[Selwynn]

64. Christianity does not equal Theism

You'll have to explain the connection between one's ultimate concern and "authoritarianism" because it isn't readily apparent.

Theism, by dictionary definition is simply belief in a god or gods. No more, no less.

There is no "theist" act other than belief in the existence of a god or gods, by dictionary definition.

Fundamentalist Christianity <> theism. It may be one manifestation of theism, but it is not the exclusive definition of theism. It's root is in theism, but so are the roots of anyone who professes a belief in a god or gods. The idea of Hell <> Theism. Many theists do not believe in hell. That is the answer (see how I directly answer your question?) to why I ignore that these are linked. Authoritarianism may be linked to the idea of hell, but many theists do not subscribe to the idea of hell, therefore it is not an intrinsic component of theism.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not it is an example of an authoritarian idea (and it is) it is not a justification for the claim that theism by definition is authoritarianism. Theism means belief in the existence of a god or gods. No more, no less. Christianity is one religious tradition that has theism as its foundation. If you want to claim that orthodox institutional Christian tradition has historically been very authoritarian and continues that trend into the present day, I agree with you. But that isn't what you said.

Theism <> doctrine of creation. It only equals belief in the existence of god or gods. Theism <> believe that God gives punishments and restrictions. It only equals belief in the existence of god or gods. Someone who is a theist may in addition, or from that foundation, ascribe to other authoritarian beliefs. But they also might not. So far you have not named one authoritarian belief that I subscribe to.

Sel

[saltpoint]

65. My goal would certainly not be to name any belief you --

-- subscribe to.

Here's this:

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

--Thomas Paine

Now parse it all you want, but Mr. Paine knew his stuff. He also can be invoked as an expert against the threat of tyranny and authoritarianism. He acknowledges your point, stated earlier, that 'persecution is not an ORIGINAL feature in any religion' -- but once we're out of the gate, Selwynn -- and we all must leave the gate sometime -- the bedrock and identifiable characteristic of theism is authoritarian in nature.

Tillich is one of my favorite calm minds but take a walk on the wild side and read Nietzsche's BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL. If after a spin with Nietzsche you still feel the two aren't connected, I'll send you a case of your favorite beer.

[Selwynn]

66. Friend I have a degree in philosophy -

Anytime you want to stop assuming I am a benighted, unversed, uninformed mind that would be the first step toward a more decent conversation. Nietzsche is one of my favorite writers. As far as Thomas Paine's quote goes, I offer you an alternative one:

Paul Tillich:
"Being religious means asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt. Such an idea of religion makes religion universally human, but it certainly differs from what is usually called religion. It does not describe religion as the belief in the existences of gods or one God, <Sel: so here we see that for Tillich religion is not necessarily directly equated with theism> and as a set of activities and institutions for the sake of relating oneself to these beings in thought, devotion and obedience.

"No one can deny that religions which have appeared in history are religions in this sense. <Sel: referring to organized religion, which if you are indeed familiar with Thomas Paine, you know that organized religion (and not mere personal conviction) is what Paine is referring to> Nevertheless, religion in its innermost nature is more than religion in this narrower sense. It is the state of being concerned about one's being and being universally."

So do you think Paine meant that persecution is always a strongly marked feature of all asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence? Or do you think he meant that persecution is a strongly marked feature <note this is not the same as saying an absolute quality> of all organized religion, institutionalized religion, and organized "religious" traditions? As I said if you are familiar with Paine its hard to claim his intent was anything other than the latter.

Theism means no more and no less than belief in the existence of God or gods. Organized religion is another matter altogether. Note that Paine himself does not use the word "theism." He used the word religion. Organized religion is certainly most often (always?) based on theism, but it is not synonymous with theism.

Sel

[saltpoint]

68. Generally speaking, Selwynn -- and I mean this from the --

heart -- it is not cool to flash your credentials. A degree in philosophy? Me, too. So what? Don't flash it like a sailor on Friday night leave.

Because when you invoke your academic tags like that, you inject AUTHORITARIAN energy into the dialogue. Its function is to make someone else cow before your glimmering intellecut, to which I say, shove it. You think people are going to withdraw their remarks in the face of that tag? I'm not. I doubt if anyone will. Nor should they. Put it back in your pants.

Next, if you love Fred N. the way I love Fred N., you can't conclude that he exactly loves theistic systems or cosmologies. You know this already if you have the chops you say you have. He dismisses theism on the way out of the barn and it gets ploughed under but good from there on in.

As for Paine, don't forget, he was battling for his life, and he really is an outstanding example of the individual vs. tyranny. Do you believe -- really -- that he was unaware the theism is just the abstract version of King George III? Come on.

"No gods, no masters," Margaret Sanger urged, and the authoritarianism she was rejecting was in fact the invocation of a Theistic paternal authority -- AUTHORITY -- as a social control mechanism against the advancement of dignity for women. Why would she use 'masters' if she didn't equate theism (belief in God or many gods) with authoritarianism ('masters')? To spite you in this thread? She used those terms on purpose and with purpose, and properly so. They are connected, linked, intrinsic.

And also this is interesting:

“I've always liked the story of the Albigensians, besieged by the Pope at Bezien. His soldiers asked him, 'How do we know the heretics from the Christians?' The Pope told them, 'Burn them all. God will know his own'.”

--Paul Cadmus, interview with Warren Allen Smith, FREE INQUIRY

These folks aren't exactly marginal minds. Your quarrel appears to be taking on a lot more than I think you can chew.

[Selwynn]

69. On the contrary -

It becomes a regrettable necessity to mention that I have at least some background familiarity with the people you mention, seeing has how you have - regrettably - chosen to adopt a deeply patronizing tone repeatedly throughout this exchange. You are not talking to a poor ignorant sap. You are not talking to a super-man either. You are just talking to an equal, deserving of that consideration. When I think of you, I think that I am addressing and equal, with whom I have disagreement - both due to actual disagreement and due I'm sure to a lesser extend to some communication breakdown. You have not demonstrated that when you think of me, you think the same way.


Because when you invoke your academic tags like that, you inject AUTHORITARIAN energy into the dialog. Its function is to make someone else cow before your glimmering intellecut, to which I say, shove it. You think people are going to withdraw their remarks in the face of that tag? I'm not. I doubt if anyone will. Nor should they. Put it back in your pants.


No, that is not necessarily true. You notice that in post after post after post I never ever mentioned my background. I only finally did under duress, so that you will stop addressing me like I am a child who needs your tutelage. It is not necessarily authoritarian, though it certainly can be. However in this context the intent was not to say "I know more than you." It was to say, "I am qualified and entitled to be treated with respect as an adult with equal intellect and reasoning capacity.

Truthfully I don't actually believe you even believe the things you are writing. I think you know exactly why I mentioned my background, I think you are full aware that you have been gratuitously writing in a patronizing manner, and I think you use this opportunity as an excuse to further continue to attack the person instead of the argument. Is it so difficult for you to just stick with the argument? You'll notice that this entire time I have not once given you "friendly advice" on how to act, post, what to read, etc., though I certainly could. But I don't feel that is appropriate nor do I think of you as my inferior. It is you have have consistently adopted the language of superior "teacher" to inferior "student" forcing me under duress to point out the fact that I do in fact have some education and experience with the subject matter I am discussing.


Next, if you love Fred N. the way I love Fred N., you can't conclude that he exactly loves theistic systems or cosmologies. You know this already if you have the chops you say you have. He dismisses theism on the way out of the barn and it gets ploughed under but good from there on in.


Bully for him. Nietzsche's biggest objection is to institutionalized religion. When he states that "God is dead," he goes on to say "and we have killed him. My favorite story is of the parallels between FN and Soren Kierkegaard. Are you familiar with him? FN studied theology on his way to being a minster. SK also was intimately familiar with the church of the day. Both SK and FN came to the same painful observations. At the time, the "church" and the state had merged. Being a Christian no longer had much of anything to do with the heart, but rather was a default birthright of simply being born into Western Europe.

The interesting differences between SK and FN is that FN's dissatisfaction with the state of the religious institution he saw all around him caused him to vehemently reject it - to walk out side of it. SK's dissatisfaction caused him to passionately speak out from within, without rejecting what he believed to be the deeper truth of faith, a very personal and existential experience, not one of what he called "Christendom." I love the parallels and contrasts between both men. FN goes on to write the Antichrist - a categorically awesome book. SK goes on to write "Attack On Christendom" - another utter gem. One rejects it all, one does not while remaining extremely critical of the current manifestation of "authoritarian" institutionalize Christendom.

You'll be hard pressed to successfully argue FN's rejection was a rejection of theism, as properly defined.** His rejection was of the institutions Christendom/Christianity he experienced all around him. His attack is a scathing assault on institutional Christianity, which expands into a rejection religions institutionalism wholesale. I pretty much agree on every point. Guess what, I'm still a theist. Why? Not in spite of FN's observations but in light of them. I have strong and harsh criticism of institutions. However, a personal belief in the existence of a god or gods is not synonymous with any institution.

**on edit I need to add, certainly I think its fair to say he personally rejected theism. What I mean is that his excellent writings and arguments are not generally aimed at attacking the root possibility of belief in the existence of a god or gods, they are aimed at wholesale assualts on the organized religious institutions he vehemently opposed. I usually agree with his criticsm. I don't think highly of organized religious institutions on the whole.


As for Paine, don't forget, he was battling for his life, and he really is an outstanding example of the individual vs. tyranny. Do you believe -- really -- that he was unaware the theism is just the abstract version of King George III?


I find none of the qualities of King George III present in my belief i n the existence of a god or gods. I certainly believe Paine clearly say how organized religion was an institutionalized version of King George III. But that is not the same thing as turning it into a argument that either Paine or anyone else did or should claim that theism is "by definition" intrinsically (which I understand to mean inescapably) connected to authoritarianism.


"No gods, no masters," Margaret Sanger urged, and the authoritarianism she was rejecting was in fact the invocation of a Theistic paternal authority -- AUTHORITY -- as a social control mechanism against the advancement of dignity for women. Why would she use 'masters' if she didn't equate theism (belief in God or many gods) with authoritarianism ('masters')? To spite you in this thread? She used those terms on purpose and with purpose, and properly so. They are connected, linked, intrinsic.


Paternal authority is not inherent in the definition of theism. It is a one specific religious interpretation of theism. There are many others. In answer to your question, what she was rejecting was the organized religion she experienced, and its doctrinal interpretation and definition of "God" as a paternal authority. But that rejection of authority is not intrinsic to the definition of theism. One need not believe in an authoritarian god or gods. I certainly do not. Granted many do, and granted we have a very long history of organized religion ascribing to just that interpretation of God. But it is not synonymous with theism, and the very fact that some do not subscribe to that interpretation while still believing in the existence of a god or gods is evidence of this fact.

I have, as of yet, not felt difficulties chewing.
Sel

[saltpoint]

70. You think you're chewing ok?

I don't see it. What I do see is someone who doesn't like to be challenged.

My original response to you, Selwynn used the adverb 'generally.'

Since you are into definitions so much, so much, so much, you might want to admit that it is an adverb. It is an adverb which asserts general trends. My post does this in context, fairly, and in a non-condescending manner.

All those nasty words you add in your posts are from your mouth, not mine. They appear to be part of your defensive posture. You asked a question, you got some responses, you didn't like 'em, and you threw a fit.

I stand by my assertion that theism connects intrinsically to authoritarianism. You're welcome to disagree, but your original post begged a question and response, and when you didn't get what you selfishly wanted, you went into a defensive rage, demanding, "FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST!"

You could have started with, "Yes, the doctrinal traditions of many world belief systems are burdened with bias and even violence," citing historical record. You didn't, though. You went postal.

You screamed it loud and strong, instead of asking into the nature of such a connection. That's not very philosophical, in my view, and not very likely to produce that many respectful responses.

Including, not least, no more of mine. Off to bed. Good night and good luck.

[Selwynn]

71. Speaking of not seeing it....

I don't see it. What I do see is someone who doesn't like to be challenged.


It seems to me that if I have a problem with being challenged, I would have walked away from this thread long ago. You equate the fact that I have not categorically agreed with you with not liking to be challenged. Is the only way you would claim that I "like to be challenged" only if I give your point of view unqualified assent? That sounds awfully authoritarian to me. :)

That's actually a really fair question to you - will you dare answer it? Short of agreeing with you, what would it take for you to feel that I "like to be challenged?" Or will only my agreement be sufficient for that? If the latter is yes, doesn't that send up a disturbing read flag in your mind?

My original response to you, Selwynn used the adverb 'generally.' Since you are into definitions so much, so much, so much, you might want to admit that it is an adverb. It is an adverb which asserts general trends. My post does this in context, fairly, and in a non-condescending manner. All those nasty words you add in your posts are from your mouth, not mine.

Your original statement, "Arguments in favor of theism generally -- reek of authoritarianism" is not the statement that has been the central issue of this exchange. Your use of the word "generally" was not connected with theism - it was connected with arguments in favor of theism. What you said later, is what I take issue with: "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." That is not me adding "nasty words" - that is me directly quoting you. You have still not made a case that stands up to scrutiny to defend that statement. You concede this later, when you rephrase and say instead that "most - not all" of the time, that is the case. I think I can agree with that.

But you've continued after that admission to try and make a case for a necessary absolute intrinsic connection between theism as properly defined and authoritarianism, and there is no such connection, by nature of the very simple definition of theism. Incidentally, specifically what "nasty words" are you referring to? I don't remember adding "nasty words" at any point. If I did, I want to retract them.


They appear to be part of your defensive posture. You asked a question, you got some responses, you didn't like 'em, and you threw a fit.

I actually asked at least five specific questions, to which you never directly responded. There was nothing for me to "not like" because there was never an answer in the first place. I probably shouldn't ask another question but I guess I will: can you show me exactly where, when and how I "threw a fit?" Because what I see is just me disagreeing with you, and you having an apparently very difficult time dealing with that.


I stand by my assertion that theism connects intrinsically to authoritarianism. You're welcome to disagree, but your original post begged a question and response, and when you didn't get what you selfishly wanted, you went into a defensive rage, demanding, "FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST!"


Well, can you at least pick a position and stick to it? First you say that theism is intrinsically connected to authoritarianism. Then when asked to define that claim, you eventually back away from it, adding the qualifier "most - not all." Now you have returned to saying that it is intrinsic. My post to you was not in all caps. Nor did it include an exclamation point, but this does give any other reader of our exchange crystal clear evidence of just how much you have chosen to infer into the words I have actually said. Look at this case. You have inferred tone which I never displayed, motive which you have no evidence for, and attitude which you can't possibly judge.

My simple statement asked you - without any indication of the emotion you have ascribed to me - to find the authoritarianism in my post. You tried to provide examples, all of which categorically failed. I very patiently broke down my original post, and bit by bit showed exactly how it was in fact the very opposite of authoritarianism. You have consistently inferred into the discussion motive and tone. You have no rational justification or evidence for these inferences - none whatsoever.

But you apparently assume that I must feel certain things or have certain motives because I am a "theist." You couldn't possibly be more wrong in your guestimational inferences. And nothing I have put on the page rationally supports your inferential conclusions. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the real problem that irks you is that I have yet to submit to your rule and say, "you're right."

I wish I could do that, but I can't. Because not only do I disagree with you, but your case has been consistently discredited and has yet to stand up to critique. Therefore, I can't honestly subscribe to it.


You could have started with, "Yes, the doctrinal traditions of many world belief systems are burdened with bias and even violence," citing historical record. You didn't, though. You went postal.

Yes, one single lower case sentence with a period is indeed "going postal." You're making unbelievably jaw-dropping leaps in even remotely trying to justify that claim.


You screamed it loud and strong, instead of asking into the nature of such a connection. That's not very philosophical, in my view, and not very likely to produce that many respectful responses.


I screamed it did I? Anyone remember me screaming at any point? I remember disagreeing with you. I remember asking for evidence. I remember providing numerous refutation and counter examples to your arguments. I don't remember screaming. The only think I have done here is a) continue to disagree with you and b) continue to talk to you. You make it extremely clear in this post that the only thing that will satisfy you is if I a) agree with you or b) shut up. Does that seem authoritarian to you at all? I don't know if that word is applicable or not, but it seems at the very least sad to me.

Rest well, with joyful dreams.
Sel

[saltpoint]

72. 'Mornin' Sel.

Here's Erich Fromm (another favorite of mine) on the connection you continue to fail to see. He lists three characteristics of the theist Creator who is nevertheless authoritarian, as I assert. Fromm's three identifiable and connecting traits are:

1 A God who controls fate and does not permit free will;
2 A God who is not accountable; and
3 The people are powerless and insignificant yet their obedience is demanded.

Fromm's God of authoritarian religion was introduced quite a long time before I could call him up and ask him to say that.

Also here is this for your consideration of the connection, from Dorothee Solle's fine essay, "The End of Theism" :

"Orthodox theology, often associated with a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, insists on a God of absolute transcendence.... There is only a very limited adaptation to modernity.... The god of orthodoxy is ossified and becomes an objectionable fetish.... From within that psychology this God is the deepest symbol of an authoritarian religion. Power is more important to the authoritarian God than justice and love."

I didn't ask Ms. Solle to write those words; she wrote them of her own volition. Her references by the way are expansive. Spend time on her phrase, "from withint that psychology this God is the deepest symbol of an authoritarian religion."

You pretend to slice off your God from doctrinal contamination, but sorry, no God survives that slicing. That's the God Fromm and Solle tell us becomes authoritarian. Sounds like a connection to me.

And then we have Christopher Hitchens, no slouch in the philosophy department:

"Some obvious connections can't avoid notice even from the most casual observer: religious absolutism makes a good match with tribal feeling and with sexual repression - two of the base ingredients of the fascistic style. This is also true of the 'secular' forms taken by the religious mentality. Ostensibly irreligious despotisms based on faith and praise and adoration invariably take the form of cult worship. North Korea today manifests this idolatry to an extent not attained even by Hitler or Stalin or Mao. But this observation does not just mean what many take it to mean - that fanaticism or tyranny can take an atheist form. It means, rather, that fanaticism and tyranny have a strong if not ineluctable tendency to take a theistic form. The connection between Stalin and the predecessor system that regarded the Czar in the light of the divine is fairly obvious. China and especially North Korea can be shown to have modeled their precepts of authority on Confucianism. The Japanese emperor-worshiping militarists took the principles of Zen as their inspiration and employed them as a training manual. (See the fascinating new study Zen at War, written by Brian Victoria, a Buddhist savant.) Hitler was a pagan in some ways but he got the Roman Catholic bishops to celebrate his birthday from the pulpit every year. The other fascist leaders in Europe - Mussolini, Pavelic in Croatia, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Horthy in Hungary - were in more or less explicit alliance with the Vatican, and one of them (Father Tiso in Slovakia) was actually in holy orders."

Hitchens goes on:

"Religion, however, is not the recognition of this private and dutiful attitude. It is its organized eruption from the private into the public realm. It is the elevation and collectivization of credulity and solipsism, and the arrangement of these into institutional dogma and creed. It is the attempt to decide what shall be taught, what shall be allowed by way of sexual conduct and speech and even thought, and what shall be legislated. And it is the attempt to make such decisions beyond challenge, through the invocation of a supernatural authority.

....

"They can know no peace until they have coerced everyone else into sharing their good news. Does this argue for confidence in the belief? Not self-evidently. My provisional conclusion, then, is that the religious impulse lies close to the root of the authoritarian, if not the totalitarian, personality."

===
Again, I simply don't know Mr. Hitchens and could not have asked him to say these things. If you have a theist God or gods, you have the doctrinal follow-up, and its form tends toward authoritarianism.

It does seem to me stingy of you to suggest that this connection is not there.

[Selwynn]

73. "tends toward" is not the same thing as "by definition"

You are treading dangerously close to the classic definition of the logically fallacious illicit appeal to authority. I don't consider the people you quote as illicit authorities, however by the very nature of philosophy their opinion, however highly thought of they may be, is not objectively quantifiable. So in the end, what happens if you find a quote from some historical figure that actually matter-of-fatly says "theism is inseparable from authoritarianism, one cannot be a theist without subscribing to authoritarian attitudes? Does that mean you have "proven" the point of view true, because some other human being held the same opinion? You don't have to answer that, because in this case none of the quotes help the case.

Erich Fromm conceptualizes one picture of God and argues against it. However the definition of "theism" says does not specifically include that criterion that belief in god must be a belief in a god that:

1 controls fate and does not permit free will;
2 is not accountable; and
3 The people are powerless and insignificant yet their obedience is demanded

To use an example, I don't believe in a God that controls fate and does not permit free will, not one that is not accountable, nor one that demands obedience through sanction. Yet, I do believe in the existence of a god or gods, therefore I am rightly called a theist, while at the same time all of Fromm's analysis is totally inapplicable to my theism, though I assume it is probably extremely accurate as a critique of an authoritarian conception of God.

The quote from Dorothee Solle speaks of "Orthodox theology, often associated with a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible." No one is denying that orthodox theology is often associated with a fundamentalist understanding of the bible, and no one is denying that a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible is authoritarian in composition. However theism is not synonymous with either orthodox theology or fundamentalist Christianity, or Christianity on the whole. All of our arguments are against the "god of orthodoxy" which she claims (and I agree) is authoritarian in nature. But this doesn't further you argument at all - it doesn't help make the case authoritarianism is "by definition" connected to theism.

The person who gets up on morning, looks at the big blue sky and says, "you know I have to think there's a god behind all of that" then moves on to other thoughts in his head and goes about his day is a theist by definition. He simply has a belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's all the definition of theism is - the institutionalization, concression and systemization of a simple theistic belief into an organization with hierarchy, rules and pronouncements is certainly a very common current in which many people with a theistic belief drift.

But it is not a universal absolute guarantee that this drift will occur. And there are many examples of those who profess a belief in a god or gods who actively reject all authoritarian theologies and institutions. Whether they are the exception to the rule (as I'm sure they are) or not is irrelevant to the issue. The fact is that they stand as direct counter-example to the claim that by very fact of saying "I believe in a god or gods" a person is necessarily authoritarian. That is an impossible to justify claim, and few if any of the folks you have proof-texted would make that claim. Yet you do.

In Christopher Hitchens' quote, he makes it clear he is discussing "religious absolutism" which is certainly one form theism can take, but not the only form. So his comments, while interesting have nothing to do with the claim that some how the mere belief in the existence of a god or gods necessarily forces one to authoritarianism. This is so easy to refute just by practical example:

Again, the definition of authoritarian is: "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime." So a person believes in the existence of god. But he does not believe that god demands his absolute obedience, nor affects individual freedom, nor does he have any interest in participating in or establishing a regime based on his belief. He has no desire to share his belief with others or convince anyone else to feel the same.

That person is, by definition of theism, rightly called a theist. And that person, by definition of authoritarianism, is wrongly called authoritarian. Therefore, theism and authoritarianism are not connected "by definition."

Note that the second Hitchens' quote only further makes my point:

Religion, however, is not the recognition of this private and dutiful attitude. It is its organized eruption from the private into the public realm. It is the elevation and collectivization of credulity and solipsism, and the arrangement of these into institutional dogma and creed.

Organized religion is not the same thing as theism. It is based on a theistic belief, but it is not the same thing by definition of both terms. I partially agree with Hitchens - I certainly agree with his criticism of organized religion. However I feel that religion is an extremely ambiguous word. Some people say "religion" and all they mean is organized religious traditions. Some people say "religion" and they mean a personal piety, or a personal private attitude. Hitchens' says, "no that's not religion" when I think he ought to say "no thats not what I'm referring to when I use the term religion"

Note that the dictionary makes such a distinction with the definition of religion:


a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.


Hitchens' excellently critiques the institutional definition of religion, but if he tries to simply dismiss that the personal definition of religion is an appropriate definition, I think he missteps. Obviously Tillich disagrees with Hitchens. So do numerous outstanding thinkers throughout history. But that is precisely why I have not yet been willing to bombard you with proof-text quotations: because it is so ludicrously irrelevant. For every person you quote it is possible to quote and equal number of historically significant, respected, gifted intellectual philosophers who will say the very opposite.


If you have a theist God or gods, you have the doctrinal follow-up, and its form tends toward authoritarianism.

What do you mean by a "doctrinal follow-up?" I need that term to be defined. And I must point out here, that assuming the term doctrinal follow up is define, I assume that I am in total agreement with you - that its form tends toward authoritarianism. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that theism by definition necessarily and inescapably implies authoritarianism - i.e. you cannot be a theist without being authoritarian. Now those are my words - that's my interpretation of what "by definition" means. If I have mis-characterized your argument you'll have to point that out. But I take saying that "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." I believe that by the dictionary definition of theism, I am have to be labeled a theist. And yet, I yet to make any kind of authoritarian response based on that theism. It is not "coming" any time soon unless its coming is due to me rejection of my specific beliefs in the existence of a god - because those believe are anti-authoritarian in nature.

Many historical authors refer to "classical theism" by which they mean not the basic root definition of the word "theism," but rather the historical western structures which have risen up out of theistic belief and their particular shared dogma, doctrine and theology. It is certainly true that theism has classically been interpreted in largely authoritarian ways. Several of the categories of classical theistic dogma about what god is - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. - are rigid and absolute.

But this is the thing, I both believe in god, and reject those dogmas. Meaning that while I do not fit into the historical trend of classical interpretations of theism, I apparently still am a theist, at least by the dictionary definition of the term as simply "belief in the existence of a god or gods." There is nothing in the term that gives any evidence as to what kind of god must be believed in - just that there is that belief. That is why trying to make the case that authoritarianism must be necessarily equated with theism is wrongheaded, because it does not remain consistent with the very simple definition of theism.

But we can both talk in agreement about the long history of classical interpretations of the theistic foundation and their moves toward intense authoritarianism. Of course that's true. But it is not a necessarily absolute that if a person has a belief in the existence of god that person must a) believe in an authoritarian god and b) adopt authoritarian attitudes himself or herself. It is not only impossible to defend that assertion, it is easily refutable through direct counter example of those who both do no believe in an authoritarian god and to not hold authoritarian attitudes themselves when it comes to their theistic beliefs. It's as simple as that.

Sel

[saltpoint]

74. Sel, the connection is there whether you like it or not.

And plainly you do not like it.

That's you're right. But it's not my responsibility to pretend that a sugar-coating of authoritarianism is not authoritarianism with a little sugar coating.

That's what it is, period.

You're being stingy as hell, and I don't really mind. You know, when you post a question and then can't handle the range of responses, AND admit to needing the crutch, I don't think you're entering into the debate with all engines. In your studies of History have you not encountered entire governments who shield their authoritarianism behind one or another theism? You have, right? So have the rest of us. I called that what it is and I'm not changing it until you can demonstrate that that is NOT what it is.

One last comment to you: congratulations. I visited your URL and thought you have a damned handsome site. Very nice.

Good wishes to you.

[Selwynn]

76. Before I continue to respond, I want to see if you are intrested --

In my attempt to start over, post #75.

[Selwynn]

77. We're back to inference and arguing the person, not the agrument again?

That's you're right. But it's not my responsibility to pretend that a sugar-coating of authoritarianism is not authoritarianism with a little sugar coating.


It is also your responsibility to make a rationally coherent argument which stands up to scrutiny.


You're being stingy as hell, and I don't really mind. You know, when you post a question and then can't handle the range of responses, AND admit to needing the crutch, I don't think you're entering into the debate with all engines.


Well once again, rather than choosing to stick to the subject, you have again demonstrated the insessant need to discuss the person instead of the argument. But worse still, you are dishonest while doing so. Speicifcally, an honest person would admit that I've handled the range of responses just fine. You have chosen to interpret the fact that I have not yet given my unqualified assent to your position as meaning I "can't handle" your responses.

So I put the same question I put to you last night: Short of agreeing with you, what would it take for you to feel that I "can handle the range of responses?" Or will only my agreement be sufficient for that? If the latter is yes, doesn't that send up a disturbing read flag in your mind? See, at every turn you continually demonstrate that your biggest problem with me is that I have not yet submitted to your rule and given my unqualifid assent to your absolute point of view.

But then you go on to both make a subtle jab and be deceitful when you claim that I "admit I need the crutch." Of course, anyone who is being honest and knows how to read can easily scroll up and discover that, lo and behold, that is not at all what I said. What I did was ask a question, not make a statement. I said, question: even if (and you do understand the meaning of the word if, right? It is a conditional - so you can't then reinterpret what follows as a necessary declaration; it can only be a conditional statement) faith is a crutch, does that mean it should be considered a bad thing? What if I am a person who needs crutches?

Saying "what if" is categorically different than saying "I am." And only dishonesty (is it deliberate or just careless) tries to mischaracterize it otherwise.


n your studies of History have you not encountered entire governments who shield their authoritarianism behind one or another theism? You have, right? So have the rest of us.


I have encountered entire governments who shield their authoritarianism behind one or another forums of organized religious instituions. Organized religious instutions may have its root in the individual coming to belief in the existence of a god or gods, but it is not synonymous with it. In other words, it is possible to be a theist, by dictionary definition, and not be part of an organized religious instituion, nor have a hierarchical set of beliefs or dogmas.

One could argue however, that it is NOT POSSIBLE to go the other way - it is not possible for an organized religious instutional structure to be anything other than authoritarian That might be true. I'm unfamiliar with any counter-examples currently that would call that into question (though as I mention else where, I have some questions about how certain eastern religious might fit into that schema). But that isn't the argument you made.

[saltpoint]

82. Your URL is very nice.

Your ego is very large.

You are trying to force discussion on whether YOU are "right" instead of examining the possibilities in others' posts.

If you believe that a Creator or creators are swiftly and perhaps inappropriately hijacked by their doctrinal manifestation, by dogma, by institutionalized practice, then I think we agree.

Maybe we need a moment to realize that that's important.

Hitchens' remarks suggest that these entities spring from an authoritarian impulse. Actually, he extends my assertion to 'totalitarian.'

That's stronger talk yet.

[papau]

22. "shakes one's fanny in the agora" - a disturbance in a public area?

That's would be my best "Greek" translation of that thought.

What was the "shakes one's fanny"? - - the saying that one is a theist?

"Theism by definition requires authoritarian response" - I guess you do not buy that man comes to God by faith alone - I guess he comes to God because someone in authority told him too, per your "definition".

And I suspect you are correct as to the best debating game plan - something not from "logic" can not be disproved by logic, so why not attack via an authoritarian response? But why attack at all?

Why not just say "not my topic/interest" and avoid, rather than trying to convert?

oh well - peace

:-)

[saltpoint]

24. On earth one may encounter challenges to one's --

-- "faith." As I said earlier, I do not believe that "faith" is equal to science. "Faith" becomes the "crutch" the original poster refers to.

This is a forum, an arena for the exchange of ideas. I may or may not have an interest in a given topic. If you have a problem with that aspect of a forum, an agora ("open space"), I would suggest you retreat into an unchallengeable zone. Historically, monasteries and convents have sanctioned those who do not wish to be challenged.

In a constitutional republic, I will call theism authoritarian is I damn well please. That's what it is, by definition.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. having been on both sides of this issue

as a former atheist and current Christian, I have some experience in this area.

When I was younger, I was an atheist of the militant variety. I repeatedly challenged my religious friends, beyond the boundaries of tact and good manners. I felt superior because I thought I was right and could not see how they could believe the things that they did.

Then I realized that they weren't going to change, and I was being a jerk about it. If they believe in x, what was it to me? there are plenty of authorities on both sides if one is interested in switching from one to the other, why did I have to force the issue? I learned that people have to come to faith or atheism on their own, by their own path. It wasn't for me to force them on to any path, by my words or deeds.

Nor am I trying to change you. I am merely sharing an experience. put merit in it or reject it as meaningless, I don't care.

[saltpoint]

29. Your experience sounds genuine and interesting to me.

I don't believe anything I've said obstructs you from continuing as you wish, does it?

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Nope, it doesn't

Have a nice evening:)

[saltpoint]

36. Short fuse on your end. I offered you respect.

[More Than A Feeling]

37. How do you mean?

I accepted and agreed with you that nothing you have said has hindered me from pursuing my path. You have your way, and I have mine. Then I wished you a good evening, even a smiley face). I am sorry if I have offended.

[saltpoint]

41. Ok -- then we're cool, Heaven and Earth. The error --

-- was mine.

It's just that the abruptness of your post is very similar to how I've been dismissed in these forums before, that I thought it was one more instance.

Again, the error is mine. I apologize.

[More Than A Feeling]

44. no apology needed. we are indeed cool:)n/t

[supernova]

27. On what grounds?

do you call theism "authoritarian?"

A theist is simply someone who believes in a Creator. :shrug: I don't know where you are getting your definition.

edit: spelling

[saltpoint]

31. Hi, supernova.

Few Creators in relgious constructs come free of theological authoritarianism.

In other words, it's their universe and they'll run it as they please.

In most of these traditions, books appear, often attributed to the voice of that same Creator, and become the 'holy texts' of that tradition, and their implementation is one of naked control. Some read The Bible, for example, as history, some as poetry. Others read it as the authoritarian Word, the Rule from on-high.

By definition, the authority of that Creator as "revealed" in those texts is used to control, to bully, to supplant, to pressure, and to strip indigenous peoples for example of their dignity and natural resources. It was used to affirm slavery. It is used to slander lesbians and gays. It is authoritarian.

That's the authoritarianism I'm talking about and it is legion among many religious traditions. Not all, but many.

[supernova]

34. Oh, that's a strictly human problem

and I agree with you.

the authority of that Creator as "revealed" in those texts is used to control, to bully, to supplant, to pressure, and to strip indigenous peoples for example of their dignity and natural resources. It was used to affirm slavery. It is used to slander lesbians and gays. It is authoritarian.

From my POV, it says more about the people reading it and the context of the time period than about what the text may say itself. People can use any sacred text to challenge themselves to greater heights of enlightenment or they can use it to prop up their narrow-mindedness. From my POV, it is our job while we are here in this life, to work our way out of these problems. Sometimes we do (slavery) and sometimes we haven't... yet.

[saltpoint]

40. Yes. I grant that it is a human problem --

-- but that's what we are. All of us fall short of ideals, but what I'm getting to is that these "revealed" books and texts are elevated to divine Word, and are therefor authoritarian.

When I read the New Testament, I find in it immense poetry. The Bible generally is a rich source of art and poetry, but as we agree, its uses are often anti-human. That is a serious matter and it speaks to the authoritarian nature of these traditions.

That's the objection I'm talking about. I have no quarrel, for example, with the pathos of the young man in Mark 14 who risks imprisonment to give Jesus the white garment, then flees naked into the desert and into anonymity. Free of authoritarian judgment, it is a moment of startling beauty.

But just this week, some -- not all, just some -- Christian evangelical "aid" groups are prosyletizing in Indonesia, insisting on delivering their sermons before tsunami victims are fed.

[supernova]

43. I find that deeply offensive

too. If you're going to offer help to someone, but all means, do so. But don't offer it with strings attached, like "let me lecture to you first. :eyes: It isn't showing the unconditional love that God wants us to show.

It think it comes more from that colonial, European dominance aspect than anything.

I dont' know where certain forms of christianty got so preachy. Our spiritual forebear, Judaism, isn't like that at all. People take Paul's Great Commission much too seriously.

[saltpoint]

45. Well, don't get me started on Paul.

Agree very much with your comment on Judaism. Have had many inspiring friends from that path and still love them to death.

I wish Francis of Assissi would be a more popular prototype of Christianity than Paul.

And that's all I'm saying about Paul, or I'll start throwing things through the windows.

Thanks for your post, supernova.

[Az]

28. Telling a person they are wrong will not convince them they are wrong

You really have to get to know a person before you can even begin to suggest a path for them to take. You cannot demolish a person's beliefs in a single hit. Force of will and facts by the tons will not suffice. Each person's understanding of the universe is their own. Only by addressing the path they are on can you find a way to suggest a change of course.

[saltpoint]

33. Az, my goal isn't to wipe out their damned faith.

I'm aware that it's intrinsic to their psyches and I ain't gonna dabble in that swamp.

On the other hand, this IS a forum. My 2 cents is as good as anybody's.

Do you really think I'm the first guy to come down the street with the view that institutions are authoritarian? Really? I'm not.

My post, responding to the original post in this thread, made a statement about why many religious/faith posts are challenged. If you re-read it, I don't think you'll find anything nasty in it.

[Az]

38. Here is a trick

Always allow someone a means to a graceful exit. Deliver the idea you wish to. But phrase it is a way that they can seem to walk away from it. What this does is it allows them dignity in front of others. And secondly and more importantly it allows them to own the idea and incorporate it into their own thinking.

If your goal is to impart any sense of your view on the world to others then its not just a matter of being right. Being understanding is a much superior tactic in conveying ideas.

[saltpoint]

42. If you had not suggested this course of action, Az --

-- I was THAT CLOSE to strangling everyone in sight.

Thank God you spoke when you did.

[papau]

32. forum = agora - open space (actually a space, usually public - in

Greece today in Athens the original agora is a housing developement)

ok - no problem.

And enjoy posting your challenge!

just curious - do you believe that if your challenge is not responded to, there is something more in play than forgetfulness or bad manners - say like the other poster has agreed with your point?

Just for the record I believe science is a process - repeatable experiments.

and I believe much in science is taught as a belief system - namely the du jure reasons as to why an experiment does what it does.

And there is part of science that simply is a pure belief system that like God - can not be proved right or wrong - such as string theory or zero point energy.

But whatever floats your boat - I look forward to reading your future posts (but please excuse in advance my bad manners that you will notice - namely I often do not get back into a post - simply because I forget - a curse/blessing of old age!)

peace

:-)

[saltpoint]

35. Of course science is a process -- I wouldn't trust it if --

-- it were not.

And I respect and enjoy the thoughts of Albert Einstein on the mysterious nature of the cosmos. If there were a Church of Einstein, I might haul my carcass out of the sack on Sunday morning and go hear what's doing there.

What is so lovable about Einstein (and I praise him here as a Scientist and a Thinker across many realms) is his playfulness. At high altitudes of thought, he remained playful as well as brilliant.

He is the ultimate anti-authoritarian thinker in modern history, I believe, and so I invest much time and respect into his thoughts on God and Mystery.

What's powerful (though not very playful) about Jesus is that he told the established, institutional, AUTHORITARIAN temples to cram it and he went out into the desert to hang out with John.

[papau]

39. very true on both points - Jesus and old Al

Church of Einstein would be defined by the fellow speaking every Sunday -

could occur in a UU building, or in a church or synagogue, or just a debate group!

I understand the Sunday motivation comment - but it works for me!

peace

:-)

[Selwynn]

75. Let's start over

I'm going to see if you would be willing to start over before I continue responding in our previous chain. I feel like I am running dangerously close to "arguing for the sake of arguing" rather than arguing for the sake of clarity.

I will attempt to be concise.

1.
Let me begin by pointing out the places which I think we agree. I feel that I strongly agree with you if you believe that religious institutions have had a historical bent toward authoritarian attitudes. This bent is so pervasive that it causes me to question whether or not it is even possible to have an "organized" religion that does not include authoritarianism. The only reservation I have about this latter statement comes from Eastern Religions.

Certainly it seems to me that virtually all examples I can think of from Western religious institutions include an authoritarian bent. However my mind flashes to Buddhism as an example of an eastern religion that I'm not sure could be considered authoritarian. I don't actually know - I just question.

My agreement on the authoritarian bent of most if not all western religious institutional traditions is one of the reasons why I do not subscribe to any religious institution or organization myself. I read once that Bruce Lee had a medallion he always wore, and on the back of it were inscribed the words, "Having no way as Way; Having no limitation as limitation." I take that concept as my own. I would consider myself a religious free spirit - not personally ascribing to any authoritarian religious structure.

2.
This background causes me to raise serious questions about the following statement: "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." For now, let's focus on only this one thing. Yes, we definitely had a separate debate going, about whether or not my post was authoritarian or not. But I think that particular debate is largely put to rest. The issue that we have continued to discuss is my rejection of the statement given above and your subscription to it.

If we are to respect each other, and have a genuine, honest discussion, I have to take a moment and attempt to clearly define important terms and statements. So first, let me make sure I understand what you mean when you say "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." I am taking that to mean you claim that one cannot be considered a theist by definition without an authoritarian response. Put another way, that theism and authoritarianism are intrinsically and inseparably linked from each other in all cases. If it is not "all cases" then it cannot be "by definition."

To reiterate: I am understanding your statement to mean that it is not possible to be properly label a theist without also having authoritarian attitudes based on that theism. Is this correct?

3.
Assuming that this is correct, my objection is not to the observations that historically speaking, western religious institutions have all gravitated toward authoritarianism. That much is evident. However, I would add that all organized institutions have gravitated toward authoritarianism. It seems to me that the bent toward authoritarian institutions does not have its root in religion alone, but rather is a universally human problem. It is because there is a natural tendency toward authoritarianism at the heart of human life that we see this move across all institutions, not just religious ones.

My specific objection to what I understand to be your position is that I see nothing in the technical definition of theism to support those conclusions. The technical definition being merely belief in the existence of god or gods - no more, no less. So The person who gets up on morning, looks at the big blue sky and says, "you know I have to think there's a god behind all of that" then moves on to other thoughts in his head and goes about his day is a theist by definition. He simply has a belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's all the definition of theism is. There is no guarantee that this person will next decide to let that belief drive him to institutionalization, to dogma, hierarchy and authoritarianism. It certainly may - it frequently does - but it also may not, and sometimes doesn't.

4.
I give one case example: I both believe in an experience appropriately or sufficiently described as "god," yet and reject the dogmas historically connected with classical manifestations of Western religious institutions. Meaning that while I do not fit into the historical trend of classical institutional interpretations of theism, I apparently still am a theist, at least by the dictionary definition of the term. There is nothing in the term that gives any evidence as to what kind of god must be believed in - just that there is that belief. That is why I feel that trying to make the case that authoritarianism must be necessarily equated with theism is wrongheaded, because it does not remain consistent with the very simple definition of theism.

Again however, in conclusion I restate that I strongly agree about the historical trends of institutional religions toward authoritarianism. I agree with you when you pointed out earlier the history of harm and violence associated with institutional religious structures. I spent a period of my early life writing many scathing attacks on Christendom for that very reason. However, none of this is synonymous with the very simple and straight-forward definition of basic theism - which is no more and no less than a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Sel

ADDENDUM: In a separate thread you say, "Few Creators in relgious constructs come free of theological authoritarianism." Few implies that some do, or at least that you leave the possibility that someone might envision a creator free from theological authoritarianism. This seems to make my case, that authoritariansm is not a necessary condition of simple theism, though clearly authoritarianism is quite often the destination to which simple theism frequently leads.

[saltpoint]

86. No, Sel, that isn't it. You are in a tizzy over whether YOU --

- are "right."

That isn't what's being discussed here.

My assertion does in fact allow for the possibility that a Creator or creators may exist as non-doctrinal entities, and yes, you are quite right to suggest that if they're there at all, they very likely are eastern in origin. Certainly they are pre-Christian and pre-Muslim.

But I imagine that they exist only in the ecstatic state, let us say as example the moment captured in St. Theresa in Ecstacy.

Because the second they become doctrinal, they "ossify" into inflexibly rigid authoritarian beings and are used to oppress. That's the essence of my original post in response to your question and frankly, you have been stingy in acknowledging it.

[Selwynn]

89. So then, theism is not inherrently connected to authoritarianism

- if there are plausible states of theism which are not authoritarian.

Also, define what consitutes a "tizzy?" Is it when someone doesn't agree with you as soon as you think they should?

Question to you: I believe in the existence of god, and that belief has not led me to authoritarian dogmas. I do not believe I am living in a permanently ecstatic state, so how would you account for this?

It would seem that I stand as an example of the real possibility of being a theist (i.e. believing in the existense of a god or gods) and not adopting authoritarian doctrine. That example seems to stand in contradiction to your assersions?

[saltpoint]

90. Beats me, Sel. I don't think you're that special, no.

Which is to say, no, I don't think you are in an ecstatic state, although I would wish that for all of us, because I meant it as a postive, not a negative. The Ecstacy of St. Theresa is a cosmic show-stopper, if you ask me. I love it. I love it a lot.

There are Zen Buddhists who have evidently achieved that level of discipline. I regret to say I am not among them. But my hat's off to them, in any event. Of world faiths, it appears to me that Buddhism is the least likely to veer into doctrinal stratijackets.

Let's get 'you' out of this discussion for just a bit, ok? Let me snip one or two sentences from Hitchens' excellent essay on this subject:

"...the religious impulse lies close to the root of the authoritarian, if not the totalitarian, personality."

Now again, I did not ask Christopher Hitchens to write those words or think those thoughts. My assertion is milder than his, but then again, I've heard Hitchens debate and I don't have the range he does.

Why would you suppose an intellect like Hitchens would make a claim like that if it weren't resonant across human experience? Certainly the DU Religion and Theology forum is not his target. He's not trying to rile you folks up. His statement emerges from his considerable range and scholarship. I respect him, even when I disagree with him (as i did on the Iraq conflict, for example).

He locates the religious impulse near the root of the totalitarian personality.

You got off easy with me, Sel. Hitchens roams the night with a scythe. Watch out.

[Selwynn]

91. So there is no answer then, therefore we must conclude that

an experience of belief in god devoid of authoritarianism is possible. Therefore authoritarianism, however likely to result from the grounds of theism - and it is likely - is not a necessary component of the base definition of basic theism, i.e. the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Incidentally I believe the key to understanding hitchens entirely centers around the definition of one word: religion. Note, not "theism" but "religion."

By the way, I should ask - what is your desired intent with your appeals to authority? Are you suggesting that because an intelligent, thoughful, respected person says something - that stands as logical defense of a certain point of view? I'm assuming not, since we both know that would be a clear logical fallacy. Clearly there are times where we - possibly rightfully - disagree with a respective, even "authoritative" source, as in the exmaple you mention with the issue of Iraq.

So, while I do find it enjoyable and interesting to ponder the insights of great thinkers, it does not stand in the place of sound logical argumentation. What's more, in virtually every example quoted, there has been a persistent fact that none of them justify the assertion that authoritarianism is by definition liked to the basic starting belief in the existense of a god or gods. Many of the proof-texts provided (it's interesting that this is precisely the way Christian fundamentalists seek to defend their own dogma - by proof texting sources they consider to be "authoritative" rather than logical argumentation) hinge on definitions of terms that are not readily apparent in a single snippet.

One of the biggest "elephants in the room" in so much thought about these subjects is the definition of "religion." Until the terms are really qualified and nailed down, its difficult to move foward. Is religion properly defined as solely the personal act of belief, soley the institutionalization of belief, or both or neither? Arguments for any of those points of view are made by great thinkers. And how we think about even questions of authoritarianism in religion will depend greatly on how we define terms like religion, theism and the like (as well as making sure we properly understan how the people we quote as an authority define the terms.)

Incidentally, would justifying an agrument by appeals to authority be considered authoritarian? It in affect says, you should give your unqualifed assent to my position, becuase you should accept the authority of these people. Does that qualify as authoritarian?

Sel

[saltpoint]

92. I respectfully submit that understanding Hitchens' words --

-- most certainly does not center around a definition of 'religion' or 'religious' as you suggest.

It centers around his entire thought, and you have very conveniently decided to pass on that.

The judges score one for Hitchens.

His comment locates the impulse toward authoritarianism, and locates it dangerously close, if not smack-dab IN your defense of theism.

If you feel that runs astray of things, say why. But Hitchens' essay stands nicely on its own, I believe.

And as I mentioned earlier, you got off easy with me. He's the one after your spiritual cajones.

[Selwynn]

93. It is only possible to understand his entire thought, if...

you understand each of the elements that comprise his entire thoughts. If "religion" is left ambiguous and undefined, then one is never certain exactly what Hitchens means which is why it is "central." Being "central" doesn't mean ignoring everything else.

For instance, Hitchens' can quite easily and justifiably be understood to define "religion" as the institutions of faith - what we commonly call organized religion. In that case, this is very separate from basic theism, which may lead a person to the institution of religion, and then into authoritarianism, but also may not.

His comment locates the impulse toward authoritarianism smack-dab in the middle of religion, not theism. Religion could - and has been frequently - defined as the institutionalization of theism. Theism itself is not where authoritarianism is inexorably linked in that case - religion is where the connection is made. Not everyone who comes to belief in the existence of a god or god makes the transition to religion, as so defined. Therefore, it is possible to find a non-authoritarian theist. There is nothing in Hitchen's comments that remotely challenges that idea, and I agree with all of his assertions, given religion is so defined.

See my edit above, about appeals to authority. There is a limit to which I care what Hitch ens' or anyone else has to say. Do our scholars and historical figures provide insight? Yes - they give us tools. But they are only tools, they don't tell us the right and wrong way to think. I don't believe a point of view is right or wrong simply because someone else - anyone else - says it is. I use the thoughts of others as tools to aid me as I come to my own conclusions. That is the non-authoritarian approach to knowledge. Appealing to an authority as "case-closed" justification for a point of view is exactly what Christan fundamentalists do, and it something that all of us here have spent a large amount of time being highly critical of. It is authoritarian. Using the wisdom of others as tool and resource to find our own path and form our own conclusions is the non-authoritarian path to knowledge.

So, I enjoy the insights of intelligent, respected people such as Hitchens. In my estimation and understanding of his arguments, I not only agree, but find no contradiction between his points and on own about the absence of a link between the the simple belief in a god or gods and authoritarianism. The link, I believe, comes latter, with the move to institutionalize. But despite the fact that I essentially agree with Hitchens, I don't take his opinions as "authoritative" - I take them as tools and resources by which to form my own opinions as best I can.

Sel

EDIT - I had another thought. I think one of the problems here might be that I get the feeling you use the word "theism" and "religion" interchangably as though they mean the same thing or are synonymous with each other. I don't believe that they are. We have to understand the distinctions between the terms in order to have clarity.

[saltpoint]

94. "I take them as tools...by which to form my own --

-- opinions as best I can."

Well, big whup. We all do that. That's not the point.

You are dancing around his claim of locating the authoritarian impulse in the religious personality.

Then you pretend that you can have a theistic construct in some sort of protective bubble that miraculously does not include the doctrinal follow-up.

Nope. Don't think so. Hitchens is clear about that and you are running from his claim. I made a milder assertion, but he has upped the ante.

I can understand your not liking what he says, but he said it after all, and it address the very heart of your objection to my post.

And Hitchens didn't even offer you a 'generally' for a mitigating adverb.

[Selwynn]

95. The key issue is "religious personality"

Does he mean "religious" as the mere personal, private belief in the existence or non-existence a god or gods? Or does he mean "religious" on an institutional level? "Religious personality" could mean either - we often talk about the personality or pathology of institutions and groups of people within intuitions. The "pathology of corporations" is an example that comes to mind.

EDIT - note that this discussion of "religious personality" is moot, because it is a misquote of what Hitchens actually says. Even as I wrote a response to the term, it seemed non-sensical and I thought something didnt' seem quite right. I was thinking "wait a minute, I thought I was agreeing with him just fine but that doesn't sound right. Well I discovered what the problem was, and discuss it on the post below this one.

As far as "pretending" one can have a belief in the existence or a god or gods that does not include the authoritarian follow-up (I say authoritarian rather than doctrinal, because "authoritarian" is the issue at hand), no pretending is necessary. It is fact. And if you dispute this fact, then I ask you to "challenge" me with counter-example and show how in fact my belief (or some other individuals belief; it doesn't have to be me, since you didn't like that) in the existence of god or god necessarily leads to authoritarian attitudes. Just a specific counter-example, even one for starters would excellent.

I don't feel I am running from his claim, nor do I dislike his claim. I don't see anything in his claim that affects the simple reality that basic belief in the existence of a god or gods may lead one to an authoritarian response, but it does not necessarily do so. We have lots of practical examples of this. We both mentioned eastern religions, and I think especially of Buddhism as an example of this fact. What's brutal about that example is that Buddhism is arguably a religious institution, not simply a private theism, which means it stands as direct counter-example to even the claim that even religion-as-institutional personality is the location for the authoritarian impulse. Buddhism may stand in contrast to that claim. Though Budd ism is a challenging example on many fronts, since some argue it is not even a religion, but a philosophy.

Other examples include individuals, who to not move to religious institutions or authoritarian doctrines following a coming to belief in the existence of a god or gods. You don't get to simply say, "Nope, that's not possible" (at least not while keeping a rational leg to stand on) without providing some specific counter-examples or challenges to show how and why that is impossible. What kinds of authoritarian beliefs to you feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods? That is the begged question out of this entire exchange, and it is worth an answer from you.

[saltpoint]

97. Yes, he could mean either, but let's offer up that he means both.

In that instance, he locates authoritarianism in the religious personaltiy.

Your expansive remarks on what that should constitute blur the screen. Let's offer up that it includes the entire expressive range, from the isolative and contemplative to the doctrinally institutional, and all between. That is, if the Catholics have st. Francis, they also have psychotic popes and Jesuits. If the Protestants have Bill Moyers, they also have Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham. No one, least of all Hitchens and much less me, has suggested that the entire range should not be considered.

Again, I was the one who offered you the 'generally,' not Hitchens. He plays a lot rougher than I do.

What I'm asking you to consider (well, what Hitchens is asking you to consider) is that the religious impulse, including the one that insists on a non-doctrinal Creator, is in and of itself the authoritarian impulse.

That's Hitchens' assertion. Clearly, it is not going to go down easy in some circles. But that doesn't make it wrong.

So I would say, go with that notion for a moment and see what it tells you. Do theists create a Creator or creators SO that this authoritarian/totalitarian impulse can be manifest?

Taken to its logical extreme, Hitchens' assertion finds that theism is authoritarianism in its infancy.

Given the developmental outcome of the initial theistic creation of a God or gods, I would say Mr. Hitchens might well know what he's talking about.

[Selwynn]

98. Actually he means neither.

It was a misquoting of what he actually said.


What I'm asking you to consider (well, what Hitchens is asking you to consider) is that the religious impulse, including the one that insists on a non-doctrinal Creator, is in and of itself the authoritarian impulse.


You are asking me to consider. Ok. Show me how this is true. Give me an example of how a non-doctrinal creator is in an of iteself the authoritarian impulse.

[saltpoint]

99. The temptation is to tell you to accept it by faith.

That was a joke.

But it is a joke with teeth.

The Theists are the first to say, "Oh, ye of little faith...!"

So now the table is turned by Hitchens onto your own personal landscape.

Why should a third party observer believe that your theist construct is true or valid and that Hitchens' assertion that authoritarianism lurks near its root is untrue or invalid?

If Hitchens says what he says, and he says it unambiguously, then you stand accused of two things. First, according to his claim, you are trafficking, giving birth to, enabling -- you pick a verb -- the subsequent and inevitable authoritarian doctrine which follows your creation of or belief in a theist entity; and

he further accuses you of responding to anyone in his camp without regard for the possibility that he's right.

I laid out an assertion of my own which is suggestive of Hitchens' viewpoint, though my words don't nearly match his for eloquence. I was at least sniffing around the same tree.

And as I have mentioned, I set in place a 'generally' which your first response to me IMMEDIATELY discarded so you could rail about your own personal opinion.

Following, you attempted to make this a discussion of why YOU were right.

I think it's important that we all try to learn things from others. I listed other writers and thinkers, but Hitchens comes to your point faster than I did, and I will re-assert that if he is right, then you are wrong.

If you are wrong, then your strenuous objections suggest... well, you tell me what you think they suggest.

No observer is more urgently recommended to your view than to Hitchens'. If I choose Hitchens' view, and I do, I have a right to that view, wouldn't you agree?

Or are you trying to squelch even the notion of people posting their own thoughts on this board?

[Selwynn]

101. Well for one thing, Hitchens doesn't say that

Why should a third party observer believe that your theist construct is true or valid and that Hitchens' assertion that authoritarianism lurks near its root is untrue or invalid?


Well first of all, I don't ask a third party observer to believe that once thing is true or valid and another thing is invalid. I leave them free to make up their own minds. Second, Hitchens actually says the opposite of what you are saying. Hitchens' assertions is not that authoritarianism lurks near the root for the ambiguously-defined word "religion." Hitchens assertion is that the ambiguously-defined word "religion" lurks near the root of authoritarianism and that is a very profound difference.


If Hitchens says what he says, and he says it unambiguously, then you stand accused of two things. First, according to his claim, you are trafficking, giving birth to, enabling -- you pick a verb -- the subsequent and inevitable authoritarian doctrine which follows your creation of or belief in a theist entity; and he further accuses you of responding to anyone in his camp without regard for the possibility that he's right.


If he does so unambiguously then what is his definition of "religion?" In response to the first "accusation" I am trafficking in nothing. I neither ask others to subscribe to any point of view nor force any point of view upon them. Furthermore you once again refer to the "subsequent and inevitable authoritarian doctrine which follows your creation of or belief in a theist entity" without providing a single solitary example of the authoritarian doctrine to which your refer. How can I possibly rationally consider your argument without such examples?

In response to the second "accusation" - because I don't believe in the objective certainty of finite beings, I by default assume it is always possible that someone else is right. However in this case, that's totally irrelevant because I agree with what I have seen of Hitchens so far - at least when they are correctly quoted and not misquoted. But assuming I do come to the conclusion that I disagree, it will not be with objective certainty, but only as a finite human being feebly pursuing understanding. It is always possible that someone else is right.


And as I have mentioned, I set in place a 'generally' which your first response to me IMMEDIATELY discarded so you could rail about your own personal opinion.


We are back to misleading statements again, and at this late point in the discussion I can only assume that it is deliberate. Intentions aside, the fact remains that I did not "immediately" discard anything in my first post. My first post simple asked you to find examples of authoritarianism in my original post - no more, no less. You then, in your response introduced a new, stronger claim - that theism was "by definition" intrinsically connected with authoritarianism. And that claim has been the subject of our continuing discussion. Are you now saying that you misspoke?

It is hilarious to me that you continue to bring up the term "generally" as a defense. You have repeatedly argued anything but "generally" and seem to change positions whenever it is inconvenient to be consistent. First it was "generally" - but then, it became "by definition." Later, it became "most - not all." But then, it became "I stand by my assertion" which was that theism is intrinsically linked to authoritarianism by definition. Perhaps I could request that you make up your mind?

Either way, we've both done a fair share of "railing" about our own personal opinions, therefore you using than in an accusatory and condescending way toward me is humorous to put it mildly.


Following, you attempted to make this a discussion of why YOU were right.


You keep saying this as thought it has some kind of value. The value is lost a little bit since you have been doing the exact same thing the entire time. Two people arguing an issue with each other do so in part because they continue to try and explain or persuade why they are right. That's an obvious truism. You have been here, making this a discussion about why you are right just as long as I, just as tirelessly as I. That's not wrong, that's what happens in argumentation.

Having said that, the bulk of my response has been trying to get you to defend your own assertions with at least some degree of logical consistency. I've actually said surprisingly little about my own personal take on things. So certainly on the one issue at hand, we are obviously both writing about why we think the way we think (i.e. are right, or that our position is valid) and despite the fact that you are attempting to brandish this fact around as a criticism you are steeped as deeply in it as why. I don't think there is a single third party reader of our exchange who would say, "boy, Selwynn was really trying to argue for why his point of view was right or valid, but man not Old Crusoe."


I think it's important that we all try to learn things from others. I listed other writers and thinkers, but Hitchens comes to your point faster than I did, and I will re-assert that if he is right, then you are wrong.


Since nothing in what you have quoted of Hitchens contradicts my own assertions, I find nothing to disagree with. If he is right, then he is right. I may still be right or wrong, and the two do not seem to be directly connected.


If you are wrong, then your strenuous objections suggest... well, you tell me what you think they suggest.


If I am wrong, and don't realize it, then my objections suggest little other than that I have found on convincing or persuasive evidence to suggest that theism is by definition intrinsically connected with authoritarianism, and in light of the fact that you have been unable or unwilling to provide me with any specific examples of how it would be, I see no compelling reason to be persuaded. Perhaps if I was better persuade, though things like evidence, then I would arrive at place where it became clear that I am wrong, in which cause I would not continue to object. I would adjust for new information.


No observer is more urgently recommended to your view than to Hitchens'. If I choose Hitchens' view, and I do, I have a right to that view, wouldn't you agree? Or are you trying to squelch even the notion of people posting their own thoughts on this board?


The only one trying to squelch anything here is you. You do this every time you attack the person rather than the argument. You do this when you criticize my choice to continue conversation with you by inferring tone, motive and things you have no evidence for, and when you talk about trying to make it "how YOU were right" over and over. You seem to be the one who wants to "squelch" the notion of people posting their own thoughts. You obviously have a right to your view. You also have the right to comment on other people's views. I have a right to my view as well as the right to comment and ask questions of other people's views. The fact that I continue to do so does not deny you your right to your point of view.

This is separate conversation from the subject of what kinds of discussions I would desire to have been the central focus of this particular board. Obviously, I don't necessarily get all the things I desire. But since I am not asking for anyone to be banned, or for rules to be implemented to restrict anyone, my desires will remain just that - my desires for the kinds of discussions I would enjoy seeing be predominate on this particular forum, vs. the ones I would not.

Finally, I return to the unanswered questions I posed to you just recently. I am willing (and always have been) to consider the validity of your point of view. What I need however if not simply to take your word for it. No one should ever do that, and no lover of reason should ever expect anyone to do that. What I need for you is to give me some examples and evidence.

What kinds of authoritarian beliefs to you feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods? It would help my understanding greatly if you would give me some examples. It is not really possible to consider your position unless you can explain your position practically.

[saltpoint]

103. Selwynn, with due respect to you as a human being --

-- you are going to have to concede a few basic points of discussion.

First, my 'generally' appeared in readable English right from the start and you have failed to appreciate its role in this dialogue. The voice insisting that 'most' means 'all' is yours, not mine.

Also, you may re-arrange the deck chairs on the boat however elaborately you wish, but when you hit an iceberg, it's all going down. You are nitpicking Hitchens' assertion instead of confronting it head on. He is among the LEAST ambiguous of essayists, and his words are clear and his aim is true.

As I mentioned, I happen to agree with him.

That being the case, my assertion in response to your original claim is valid, is it not? And that would cast your authoritarian demand, FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST as the response of someone who doesn't like a challenge.

I side with Hitchens here, and not you. Plainly that is something you aren't willing to get around.

Why are yo unable or unwilling to begin at the point of consideration which I made less well than Hitchens, but I made it just the same... ? Why are you unable or unwilling to begin at this point:

"Maybe many posts on the theist track ARE authoritarian. Maybe peoples' objections to them are legitimate and valid."

You could have begun there and we could have had an entirely different discussion.

Do you REALLY belief that the subsequent doctrinal authoritarianism is not related to the theist entity? Really?

That's a tough sell, I would say, even without Hitchens' very persuasive historical examples. With those examples, I believe Hitchens has it just right.

Why do you begrudge this view point so exhaustively? You are certainly not giving it fair respect and consideration.

[Selwynn]

105. I can only concede that which is valid and logically consistent

-- you are going to have to concede a few basic points of discussion.
First, my 'generally' appeared in readable English right from the start and you have failed to appreciate its role in this dialog. The voice insisting that 'most' means 'all' is yours, not mine.


My response to your "generally" was not to argue that you had somehow said "all." Anyone reading our discussion can simply go back to the beginning, follow the progression, and discover that my first response to your post which included the word "generally" said nothing more or nothing less than asking you to find the authoritarianism in the topic post of this thread. I did not accuse you at that time of saying "all" when you had said generally. You brought that on yourself.

You brought that on yourself, when you in the next post said that - and I am directly quoting you, not using "my words" - "Theism by definition requires authoritarian response." You later added that authoritarianism was intrinsic to theism. It was at that point that I address that specific assertion - not before that point. Are you now retracting that statement?


Also, you may re-arrange the deck chairs on the boat however elaborately you wish, but when you hit an iceberg, it's all going down. You are nitpicking Hitchens' assertion instead of confronting it head on. He is among the LEAST ambiguous of essayists, and his words are clear and his aim is true.


Just because you say it a lot, without evidence, does not make it so. Tell me please, if you will, what is Hitchens definition of the word "religion?" It's a simple question.

If you desire to stay with in the realm of logical consistency and rational argumentation, the burden is on you to defend the claim that I am failing to confront his assertion head on. In what ways am I failing to do that, specifically? I think it was pretty head on, when I said:

Hitchens says the religious impulse lies close to the root of authoritarian if not totalitarian personality. What is the religious impulse? There is nothing in the quote that indicates religion is not properly defined as institutional - that the impulse toward religious organization and institutionalization lies close to the root of authoritarian personality. Meaning that religious institutions are naturally attractive to those with a pre-disposition towards authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I couldn't agree more with that.

The trouble here is not that I have failed to approach Hitchens dead on - the trouble hear is that you did not expect and do not like my response. If you do indeed feel I have "dodged the issue" please give me some specific examples of exactly how I have done that. Just because you don't like my answer does not mean that I have not directly answered. I agree with Hitchens statement. That's is not exactly a "dodge."


That being the case, my assertion in response to your original claim is valid, is it not? And that would cast your authoritarian demand, FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST as the response of someone who doesn't like a challenge.


Once again, you choose to mis-characterize what I said, adding emphasis that was never there. I did not post in all caps, I just asked a simple question. It is impossible to characterize it as an "authoritarian demand" and anyone who can open a dictionary can see that this is true. The short dictionary definition of authoritarianism is "Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience." Asking you to find examples of authoritarianism in my post neither implies disagreement with your "generally" claim, nor does it represent authoritarianism in any way, shape or form. It simply presented a challenge to you: to find the authoritarianism in my post. Whether you choose to accept or refuse that invitation was entirely up to you.

Again, we return to the same old ground - you making the discussion about the person rather than the argument. You once again resurrect the the label of me as "someone who doesn't like to be challenged. So in return I resurrect the same response:

It seems to me that if I have a problem with being challenged, I would have walked away from this thread long ago. You equate the fact that I have not categorically agreed with you with not liking to be challenged. Is the only way you would claim that I "like to be challenged" only if I give your point of view unqualified assent? That sounds awfully authoritarian to me.

That's actually a really fair question to you - will you dare answer it? Short of agreeing with you, what would it take for you to feel that I "like to be challenged?" Or will only my agreement be sufficient for that? If the latter is yes, doesn't that send up a disturbing read flag in your mind?


I side with Hitchens here, and not you. Plainly that is something you aren't willing to get around.


I side with Hitchens too. And since nothing that Hitchens says either confirms or denies the assertion that authoritarianism is "by definition" intrinsic to theism, it also seems largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.


Why are yo unable or unwilling to begin at the point of consideration which I made less well than Hitchens, but I made it just the same... ? Why are you unable or unwilling to begin at this point: "Maybe many posts on the theist track ARE authoritarian. Maybe peoples' objections to them are legitimate and valid."


I have said this over and over and over again, and anyone else reading this thread can plainly see I have said it over and over and over again. I have never taken issue with the fact that theism can often lead to authoritarian attitudes, and i certainly take no issue with the idea that authoritarianism seems almost inexorably linked to western religious institutions. Certainly people's objections to various forums of authoritarianism are legitimate and valid. Of course, I've never been arguing that other people's objections are illegitimate - never, not at any point in this discussion. It's likely that you came to the discussion with a lot of preconceived notions about what you assumed I was and was not arguing, what my motives are, what my tone is, what my attitude is, what my level of understanding is, and so on. But those assumptions have not proven out.

The one thing that I have been doing, is repeatedly and consistently asking for evidence to defend the claim that theism and authoritarianism are inseparably linked, "by definition." You have largely backed away from that claim, so there is little left to argue. However, if you find that you want to change positions again and reassert an inseparable and "by definition" link between theism and an authoritarian response, then all I ask is that you answer a very simple question:

What kinds of authoritarian beliefs to you feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?


Do you REALLY belief that the subsequent doctrinal authoritarianism is not related to the theist entity? Really?


Define "related." Theism frequently leads to subsequent doctrinal authoritarianism. But it does not have to. If you disagree and believe that it does have to - which is what you argue when you said that by definition of theism an authoritarian response is necessarily implied - then I'm willing to be convinced. But you need to answer this question: What kinds of authoritarian beliefs to you feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?



Why do you begrudge this view point so exhaustively? You are certainly not giving it fair respect and consideration.


For the same reasons that you are still here writing also. There seems to be a lot of pot calling the kettle black going on. What would it take for you to feel that I am given this point of view fair respect and consideration? Would anything other than my unqualified assent to your point of view suffice?

Is the mere fact that I disagree with you disrespectful in your mind?

Isn't that reasonable considered an authoritarian attitude, when the only conditions under which I can be free from your criticism of my attitudes, motives and character is if I submit to the authority of your point of view, one given largely without evidence, in which frequent requests for evidence have been refused, and I was jokingly - but not so much - ultimately told to "take it on faith?"

How is your own attitude to be differentiated from that of religious fundamentalists? If I don't agree with them, by simple fact of disagreement that disparage my character, call me disrespectful and all other sorts of things. How are you different?

[saltpoint]

109. How might my position differ from the fundamentalists?

Wow, you must have slept through the whole movie, dude.

That's a MAJOR Rip Van Winkle deal there.

You post that you don't want "atheists" to respond, that you aren't even going to be as much as "intrigued" if they do. Shoo, you nasty atheists! Go away!

I respond, saying that G E N E R A L L Y there is a whiff of authoritarianism to theist posts.

You freak. FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST, you demand.

No one has to loook too hard to find it, Sel, when you're yelping like a wounded theist right up front.

I give you a handful of useful, pertinent examples to support my position, in addition by the way to other DUers who weighed in with my viewpoint, and you try to shoo them away as well. You dive for your dictionary, trying to pars definitions the way Bill Clinton claimed that blowjobs weren't "sex," and "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." Absurd.

Hitchens more sharply blasts your theist crutch from under you and instead of acknowledging that the man might have a pretty clear mind and a pretty strong point, you get the dictionary out again and pretend that the failure in understanding and perspective is someone else's.

How odd and how "crutchy." You believe in a theist entity? I got no problem with that, boss.

I don't. And you clearly have a problem with that.

Post what you want, Sel. But if people challenge you on DU or out on the sidewalk, don't be too surprised. Your view is asserted in what is now a post-Christian world, and that resonates across eve non-Christian theist constructs.

You folks have a constitutional right to believe what you want.

So does everyone else.

You're being terribly stingy about that.

[Selwynn]

113. What an interesting work of fiction.

You post that you don't want "atheists" to respond, that you aren't even going to be as much as "intrigued" if they do. Shoo, you nasty atheists! Go away!


There is nothing wrong with having the desire for certain kinds of community. There is nothing wrong with persons who are interesting in discussion Israeli/Palestinian issue saying that they would prefer is issues about Gun Rights or Abortion be discussed elsewhere. That's just pretty normal. The complicating factor in this case was that it was unclear what this kinds of discussions were really to be considered within the scope for this particular religion and theology board. Personally, I think the scope should be religious and theological since that is the name, not religion/non-religion debate. But that's just my personal preference. There is nothing authoritarian about that. Obviously, everyone is free to post whatever they want, and I am free to desire what I desire and make my choices accordingly.


You freak. FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST, you demand.


Do you have reading comprehension problems? I realize that sounds offensive, but I am seriously asking since I have repeatedly discredited this miscaracterization - anyone who bothers to read the actual thread knows it is discredited - and yet you continue to say it. I did not "freak." You can provide no example of my "freaking" without lying about it. I did not post in all capital letters. I simply posted "find the authoritarianism in my post." No more, and no less than that.


No one has to look too hard to find it, Sel, when you're yelping like a wounded theist right up front.


What no one has to look to hard to see is how completely dishonest you have chosen to be at every turn. Which doesn't bother me at all, because there it all is right at the top of our discussion for all to plainly see. It is categorically impossible for you to defend the claim that I was "yelping" or "freaking" out or "screaming" as you said earlier -- because all I posted was one, simple, lower case sentence with a period, challenging you to find any authoritarianism in my post. No more, and no less than that. Your deliberate choice to continue to lie about these facts is the most discrediting to you of anything that has been said so far.


I give you a handful of useful, pertinent examples to support my position, in addition by the way to other DUers who weighed in with my viewpoint, and you try to shoo them away as well. You dive for your dictionary, trying to pars definitions the way Bill Clinton claimed that blowjobs weren't "sex," and "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." Absurd.

Each "example" given was challenged, and you consistently willfully ignored the challenges, as well as consistently willfully refusing to respond to an entire plethora of questions and counter-examples to your claims. You can only "parse" definitions if you try to use definitions different than what the definition actually is. On all cases when I bring up the dictionary definition of a term it is because it is you, my friend, who are trying to parse meanings and force words to say things that the basic definition of the term simply will not support. I on the other hand, and using the terms exactly as they are technically defined. No parsing there.


Hitchens more sharply blasts your theist crutch from under you and instead of acknowledging that the man might have a pretty clear mind and a pretty strong point, you get the dictionary out again and pretend that the failure in understanding and perspective is someone else's.


Hitchens makes fantastic critical points about the nature of religious institutions and I couldn't agree more with his claims. If you disagree with my understanding of Hitchens the the burden is on you to illustrate in what was and at which points I have misunderstood Hitchens. But you refuse to do that. Instead, you just keep blindly asserting that he is right and I am wrong. Saying it over and over again, as though repetition makes it true.


You believe in a theist entity? I got no problem with that, boss.


You can talk to me with basic respect and courtesy, which would include refraining from terms like "boss" "sport," "champ" or any other words which are designed to paint the recipient as inferior and you superior.

I also have no problem with your lack of belief in a theist entity.


Post what you want, Sel. But if people challenge you on DU or out on the sidewalk, don't be too surprised. Your view is asserted in what is now a post-Christian world, and that resonates across eve non-Christian theist constructs.


I do just fine, though I do consistently infuriated those who enter in to arguments with me loaded with biases, false assumptions about my character, dogmatic unsupported arguments and unexamined notions. People capable of actually logically consistent and rationally coherent argumentation get along just fine with me. In fact I have some friends who make some absolutely stellar critiques of theism which I think have a lot of validity, and we enjoy great discussions on those from subjects from time to time. The problem in this case, is that throughout our entire exchange you have been logically inconsistent, guilty of numerous logical fallacy, and have refused to embrace the most basic principles of rational discussion, such as the reality of falsification, conjecture and refutation, and argument by counter example.

You've consistently refused to defend assertions when challenged. You've consistently ignored questions and refused to answer - choosing instead to keep ramming home the same talking points, without evidence, without defense to direct counter-example (you certainly give "a" defense, just not a defense to any direct challenges to your claims). And to top it all off, you've consistently and relentlessly attacked my personality and character at every turn for no other reason that because I have not yet agreed with you. My agreement is the only condition that will cause you to not call me one who "doesn't like to be challenged" or any of the other things you've said against me. Note that: only my agreement with you would cause you to not say those things. That's authoritarian at its core. Accept my terms or I shall execute a sanction against you - in this case not a physical but a psychological sanction.

Worst of all, your continuing and relentless commitment to make the agrument personal instead of professional leaves me little choice but to challengers your personal assertions on the personal level...

In other words, you have - throughout the course of our discussion demonstrated the most classic attitudes of fundamentalism and authoritarianism all while railing against it. You're positions are dogmatic, your attitude toward me is "I'm right and if you do not agree with me it is because you are ignorant, stubborn, or otherwise lacking in someway" you refuse to address critical questions and challenges to your assertions, you chose to argue instead about my character - you ascribe tone, motives and attitudes to me that you have absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.....

I feel like I've just been to a baptist church. I would find the same attitudes and approaches there.

[Az]

115. Discussion of the pros and cons of religion

are by definition a discussion of religion.

I understand your hopes. But as I pointed out in a thread just below I don't think the admins intent in creating this forum was an exclusionary discussion of just the pros of religion.

Religion is a problematic discussion. It can affect different people different ways. It can easily blow up into a collosal flame fest. Such issues fought out in the middle of GD have proven to be problematic. Although I believe that such discussions are necissary before the public I agree that they can get out of hand. Thus I suspect they created this forum for just such matters.

This seems to be a place for an open ended discussion of such diverse matters.

I agree with you that it would seem fair and appropriate for those of a liberal Christian mindset to have their own sanctuary. I am just not sure this is it.

[Selwynn]

116. Yes, I understand the point you make. As I responded to you below.

I do appreciate your ability to see how it might be ok for those of a liberal christian mindset to have their own little place - and that the desire cannot be rationally construed as "authoritarian."

I agree with you that this is not likely to be it, and that's ok. :)

[saltpoint]

119. This is my last post on this thread, Sel.

I meant the praise I wrote for your apparent association with Amnesty International; I can't think of a more noble cause to attach oneself to in all the world. Our mutual support of this organization, I believe, is important.

I also think your website is impressive. I assure you I could not put up one as good as yours is.

Not an atheist and not an anti-theist per se, I think we would agree on more points than not, but my assertion that many theist posts are authoritarian seems to be prevalent across the history of world religioius traditions. The voices are many.

I cite Hitchens as the most modern observer to the scene (although he's too conservative for me on Iraq). I find him insightful and agile-spirited, and would list him as the person I would LEAST like to piss off. He's a brilliant man and I feel perhaps we U.S. citizens have not afforded him the wide swath he has cut in the world of ideas.

Your quarrel is not with me -- I'm a marginal typist on a given post -- and not even with Hitchens per se, but with many thousands of years of thinkers who felt that a theist entity is the first stage, the birth stage, of a controlling authoritarianism. Hitchens swings the bat hard, and the ball soars over the leftfield fence, but he's not the first to make this claim. And I'm not the first to rely on his considerable perspective.

If -- and you are entitled to disagree of course -- if theists entities necessarily engender authoritarianism, then Hitchens' claim is frankly devastating. It raises the clear possibility that a seed planted with the very best of good intentions might bear poisonous fruit. If such a tree bore such fruit, as I mentioned earlier, I would seek to halt its cultivation.

I honor your experience, range, and intelligence, and I also wish you all good steps in your life's endeavors.

Peace.

[Selwynn]

121. I only disagree with the "by definition" part

If you would have been more willing to simple admit you misspoke on that part, if you hadn't so immediately assumed you were dealing with an "inferior" or "ignorant" person, we could have enjoyed a wide range of discussion on many issues.

Of course you are right that many theist posts are authoritarian. You are of course right that theism very often leads to an authoritarian response. I have always told you that you were right on these things since the very beginning of our argument. But when you said that theism by definition demands an authoritarian response, you mis-stepped.

And that was all this entire exchange has been about. And at any point where you try to defend this absolute assertion, I have responded with a very simple question: what kinds of authoritarian responses do you feel are inseparably connected to the belief in a god or gods? Unfortunately this entire exchange got very muddled down in a lot of unnecessary garbage. Unfortunately, I blame a lot of this your choice to allow inferences and assumptions about my character, attitude and tone drive the conversation, rather than rational discussion of the issues at hand.

Before the discussion moved to the issue of theism "by definition" requiring authoritarianism (which I think you passively concede now was a misspeaking on your part) your choice to read into my request of you to "find the authoritarianism in my post" all kinds of attitude and emotion was sad. You made all kinds of assumptions that could not be remotely justified by the simple words on the page. You could have chosen to respond logically can remain focused on the argument, but instead you made it about the person at every turn, and your assumptions about the person were unsupportable and unfounded.

When you finally did attempt to find literal examples of authoritarianism in my original post, those attempts fall flat, which you later concede as we moved into the second phase of our debate. The only way you could see authoritarianism in my original post is by reading into it all your pre-assumptions of what I, as a theist must be probably thinking. But that's the problem with assuming: sometimes you are wrong on all counts.

As we moved into the debate about whether or not theism "by definition" was inescapably connected to authoritarianism, you had trouble deciding what you wanted your position to be. At first you would clarify that you meant generally speaking, or most of the time. However when I would respond, "so you are saying you misspoke then, when you said theism by definition requires an authoritarian response, and you would concede that while authoritarianism is frequently the product of theism, it is not always and therefore does not have to be?" you would balk - apparently not wanting to be struck trying to defend an absolutist claim yet not being willing to admit a mistake had been made.

So our entire debate basically stems from this tension. Throughout the debate, my calls have consistently been for specific evidence and for specific assertions to be defended. You made several assertions which you supported with references to authority figures. I made challenges to those assertions. And rather than respond to the challenges, you simply point back to authority figures without answering the questions. That is where the logical fallacy is at. It is not that you references authority figures in your argument, it is that you treated them as proof-texts and were unwilling to defend their assertions when challenged.

I question the proper interpretation of certain passages, and you refuse to even discuss it. I question the legitimacy of certain arguments, directly challenge them and ask for a defense and you are unwilling, instead making my failure to agree with you a question of my personal character at every turn. In the end, our discussion could have continued in a positive direction, but only if you chose to be willing to actually engage in logical dialog. That would require your willingness to defend statements and assertions you make when challenged.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that I disagree with you that properly understanding Hitchens meaning leads one to conclude that he believes theism is inescapably connected to authoritarianism so that all theists everywhere must be authoritarian by definition, let's just for a moment assume this is true: then there is a begged rational question for both you and Hitchens in this case. It is a challenge so glaring, that it is discrediting to your position when you refuse to answer it.

That question is: What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

You could have chosen to admit I had made a challenge to your assertion, and could have chosen to respond with an answer, giving specific examples of the kinds of authoritarian beliefs that would be inseparable "by definition" from a basic belief in god. But you could not or would not do that. Therefore, despite your love or certain intellects and their writings, your entire argument rests on an unsupported, undefended, unjustified assertion that as of yet has not stood up to the scrutiny brought against it.

One final thought:

If -- and you are entitled to disagree of course -- if theists entities necessarily engender authoritarianism, then Hitchens' claim is frankly devastating. It raises the clear possibility that a seed planted with the very best of good intentions might bear poisonous fruit. If such a tree bore such fruit, as I mentioned earlier, I would seek to halt its cultivation.


I wouldn't seek to "plant the seed" in the first place. I do not ask others to come to belief in god, and I never will. Which is why hitchens conclusions from his assertions are largely non-applicable to me. And as I said above, if you have interpreted hitchens' meaning more accurately than I - which I think is highly questionable - then his assertion would be much more defensible and justifiable if you would stand up to the challenge made against it: which is to find a concrete example of an authoritarian belief that is inescapably connected to theism. I have come to the conclusion that you cannot do it, which is why your entire argument for theism being "by definition" connected inescapably to authoritarianism is discredited.

Though I continue to agree with the lesser claim that theism very, very often leads to authoritarian attitudes. But it does not always.

As I said in my other post - I have come down with the flu. I threw up once while writing, and I know for sure that I won't be able to write more soon. However, I take you at your word that we are done posting in this thread - so I can leave it at this. then.

Take care of yourself, and have beautiful, joyous days this week,
Sel

[saltpoint]

106. Two things:

One, the thread is so long now that it's taking up to ten minutes to load on my dial-up.... maybe start a new post?

and Two, it's nitey-nite time at my house.

[Selwynn]

96. Ok, I have to revise

Actually you are the one who say "religious personality" - I notice now it wasn't Hitchens who said that.

"...the religious impulse lies close to the root of the authoritarian, if not the totalitarian, personality."

Hitchens says the religious impulse lies close to the root of authoritarian if not totalitarian personality. What is the religious impulse? There is nothing in the quote that indicates religion is not properly defined as instituional - that the impluse towards religious organization and instutionalization lies close to the root of authoritarian personality. Meaning that religious institutions are naturally attractive to those with a pre-disposition towards authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I couldn't agree more with that.

That is completely different than saying that authoritarianism or totalitarianism lies at the heart of religious personality.

Sorry for my error, I was only responding to what you wrote, which was a mischaracterization of Hitchens statement. Glad I double checked.

[saltpoint]

100. Yes. Thank Jesus you did.

Otherwise, it might have derailed you from your rant against the broader point, which by the way you still haven't addressed.

If Hitchens is right, then you are wrong.

And if Hitchens is right, then my response to your original post is valid.

That doesn't leave you that much room, Sel.

When the paint drys, it's ok to walk on it back to the start.

[Selwynn]

102. Troubling logic.

If hitchens is right, and I agree with him, then I guess by your logic that would mean that I am right as well. As I said above, when his statement is correctly quoted I agree with it.

Although this is not entirely true. Becuase just because I agree with hitchens' statement, doesn't mean that I am right in my other assertions. I could be wrong and Hitchens' right, or both Hitchens and I could be wrong. Why? Because hitchens doesn't have anything to say that is connected to the claim that theism is by definition intrinsically connected to authoritarianism. He does have something to say about religous institutions being well situation for authoritarian personality, but I agree with that, and that not related to the issue at hand.

[saltpoint]

104. I personally believe that it is related to the --

-- issue at hand and that that is why you are unable to respond with any clarity.

Hitchens' argument takes your purist theism out at the knees.

He asserts that the authoritarianism if not the totalitarianism lurks near its root.

That means you.

There's no need for anyone on DU to take that stand unless he or she wishes to, when others in the real world out there seem to hold the position as well.

Now imagine that.

Any number of people out there disagreeing with you, and all you can come up with as a response is an authoritarian demand (FIND THE AUTHORITARIANISM IN MY POST) and a series of fancy dance steps around Hitchens' very clear assertion.

[Selwynn]

107. Saying it a lot doesn't make it true.

He asserts that the authoritarianism if not the totalitarianism lurks near its root.


I recognize that you feel the statements you make paraphrasing Hitchens (which place religion as the root) are the same as Hitchens actual statements (which place authoritarianism as the root). But I am not sure about that. He asserts that the religious impulse lies close to the root of authoritarian if not totalitarian personality. Meaning, he places authoritarianism as the base and says that religious inclination arises from that foundation.

Now, I'm taking that to mean what I said in my post above. My interpretation of his statement is that the impulse toward religious organization and institutionalization lies close to the root of authoritarian personality. I totally agree with that, if I've correctly understood Hitchens meaning. But why do I understand his statement in that way, and is that an incorrect or unfair assessment?

I understand it that way based on my definition of the word "religion' and/or "religious" as institutional in nature. I find it to be different from theism, though obviously frequently related.

But the trouble is, we are never told what "religion" means to Hitchens. Does it mean intuitions and structure? Or does it mean theism at its core? You think it means the latter. I suspect it is far more likely to mean the former, for the primary reason that it is much more logically defensible. Neither one of us can prove what it actually means, without knowing what Hitchens means when he uses the term "religion" or "religious." Does he consider religion and theism to be interchangeably synonymous, or does he not?

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Hitchens equates religion with theism, and means "religious impulse" as the "impulse to believe" at all rather than the "impulse to organize" those beliefs. If that is the case, then my question to both you and Hitchens is the same, and it is as of yet unanswered:

What kinds of authoritarian beliefs does hitchens or you feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

I'd take even one - just one. But somehow I get the feeling that you will never answer this question, because I don't think you actually know.

Sel

[saltpoint]

108. Saying it's not so doesn't disprove it, either, Sel.

And I think you know that.

So the association Hitchens makes stands strong against all your hocus-pocus and dancing around it.

The facts are clear. You want a thread of like-minded folks who stroke your limitations in a theist zone.

A forum is not limited, however, to such a purpose, and in a 'democratic' forum like this, even folks who disagree with you are allowed to speak their peace. It is very odd that you would discourage that kind of input and odder still that you would become so defensive and angry when someone posts an opposing viewpoint.

Hitchens has cancelled your position against my much milder response. His is much more strongly worded and you are in a frenzy trying to re-define terms. 'Religious personality' and 'authoritarian' are clear enough to most people. They're clear enough to you, for that matter. Stop diving for the Webster's every time a word gets typed on he world wide web. We're all grown ups and we can look them up ourselves if we desire further input on derivation.

Meanwhile, you've failed to allow that others may have an opposing viewpoint. It is in effect your entire strategy in this thread. I reject that notion. Again: if Hitchens if right, your position is cancelled.

[Selwynn]

111. The burden isn't on me, its on you; and Hitchens and I are in agreement

Despite your claims, I am not in fact directly asserting my own position in this exchange. The only reason it comes up is by way of counter-example. What I am doing, and have been doing consistently since the beginning, is asking you to defend yours.


So the association Hitchens makes stands strong against all your hocus-pocus and dancing around it.


Really? In what way exactly. Fortunately the realities of rationality and logical argumentation require that you actually prove your assertions. If you feel my responses are "hocus pocus" it is up to you, logically, to demonstrate how and where. Unfortunately simply saying an unproven, unsubstantiated assertion over and over doesn't make it logically justifiable. It is however what religious fundamentalists do, when they simply repeat their dogmatic mantras over and over while ignoring all requests for evidence or support to back up their claims.

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it." In your case, substitute "God" with "Hitchens" and it fits nicely. Nevermind that you have been challenged to ask questions about what Hitchens has actually said and how it should be more accurately interpreted. Never mind that you've been challenged to clearly link the connection between what he is saying and the blind assertion that theism is inexorably linked to authoritarianism in all cases (that's what "by definition" means) and have yet to do so.

Now if you'd like to actually act like a rationalist, instead of a dogmatist, you'll have to begin actually defending assertions not just repeating that "hitchens is right and you are wrong" over and over again like a mantra against insecurity and doubt. So I say again, to the best of my understanding, Hitchens and I are in total agreement.

My understanding of his statement is that the impulse toward religious organization and institutionalization lies close to the root of authoritarian personality. I totally agree with that, if I've correctly understood Hitchens meaning. If you disagree with my understanding of his statement, its up to you to demonstrate how and where that understanding is incorrect or invalid.

It will be difficult to do however, because it is based on an interpretation of the word "religion" and "religious" that is indeed open to interpretation - Hitchens gives us no clue in the passages cite, as to how he would himself define the term.

We are never told what "religion" means to Hitchens. Does it mean intuitions and structure? Or does it mean theism at its core? You think it means the latter. I suspect it is far more likely to mean the former, for the primary reason that it is much more logically defensible. Neither one of us can prove what it actually means, without knowing what Hitchens means when he uses the term "religion" or "religious." Does he consider religion and theism to be interchangeably synonymous, or does he not?


The facts are clear. You want a thread of like-minded folks who stroke your limitations in a theist zone.

A forum is not limited, however, to such a purpose, and in a 'democratic' forum like this, even folks who disagree with you are allowed to speak their peace. It is very odd that you would discourage that kind of input and odder still that you would become so defensive and angry when someone posts an opposing viewpoint.


Having gotten tired of committing the same old logical fallacies repeatedly for days, I guess its time to introduce a new one - the bait-n-switch. Switching away from the only issue at hand, which is you assertion that theism and authoritarianism are inexorably linked "by definition" to a return to a completely different discussion. You are right however, I do desire a forum for like-minded folks. That's why people join groups and make associations. Hell that's why we all joined DU - because we knew that DU did not allow conservative posters here.

What we wanted out of this particular community was a safe haven from all the bickering and flaming fighting with neo-conservatives that can be found everywhere else on the web. Certainly we may go participate in those debates elsewhere. But DU is a place for like-minded people to come together and talk about issues that they have in common, debate the finer nuances of positions that come from the same side of the spectrum, even debate with each other on a finer group of issues that would never be able to be debated in another context. The fact that we want and enjoy that kind of community at DU does not make us defensive or closed-minded or irrational because we chose to have one community that is "just us." There's nothing wrong with that. If there is, then we'd better all leave DU, because that's what we do here.

Now having said that, I asked a simple question: what kind of forum is this particular forum going to be. There is nothing wrong with my preference that this be a place where actual religious subjects and theological subjects could be discussed among people with common interests. If that is not to be the case, that's fine - there is nothing wrong with me expressing my preference. As far as "angry" goes - please give me a specific example in anything I have written where I have demonstrated that I have ever been angry? This is yet a further example of you reading in your own bias and assumptions into the words on the page when it simply cannot be found if you just stick to the facts of the argument.

As far as "defensiveness" goes, you notice that I have not one time come back at you and said you're still posting - why are you so defensive about your position?" See, I welcome you to disagree and talk about why you disagree - I only ask that your disagreement be logically consistent and back up with justifications, which is the normal requirement of any civil discourse. You on the other hand have called me every name in the book for no other reason than because I have not yet given unqualified assent to your point of view, and you apparently can't handle that.

So in your mind, it seems that you can't possibly simple accept our disagreement - the fact that I haven't agreed with you must be in your mind because I "don't like to be challenged" or because I "am defensive" or because I am weak-minded or any of the other things you have listed as you consistently go after my personal character and motives rather than the merits of the argument.

On the other hand, I think none of those things about you, and reserve judgments on your character at every point, except when you make character the issue - I simply think we are two people who disagree, and I read nothing else into it. You are unwilling to give me the same courtesy, because in your mind the only outcome you will accept is if I concede that you are right without objection. That is fundamentalist thinking in essence.


Hitchens has cancelled your position against my much milder response. His is much more strongly worded and you are in a frenzy trying to re-define terms. 'Religious personality' and 'authoritarian' are clear enough to most people. They're clear enough to you, for that matter. Stop diving for the Webster's every time a word gets typed on he world wide web. We're all grown ups and we can look them up ourselves if we desire further input on derivation.


Hitchens never uses the phrase "religious personality" - only you do. And "authoritarian" and "religion" are not just clear, in fact they are two terms frequently ambiguously defined and misused by many. It is never inappropriate to clarify how two people are using terms in a discussion. It is never inappropriate to define term carefully before continuing in a debate.

In fact, disagreement on the definition of terms is the number one reason why people talk past each other in discussions. It is the number one problem in this context here too, but each attempt of mine to try and get you to focus on clarification and definition of terms like theism, religion, and authoritarianism have been categorically ignores so you could continue to simply talk past me in discussion.

Grown ups actually acting like grownup would always welcome the opportunity to make sure words are being used in their proper ways as well as make sure that both parties engaged in a discussion share a basic agreement on definition of key terms - other wise all you have is two people talking at each other about entirely different things. There's a degree of that going on here, but only because my every invitation to quantify terms and clarify meaning have been consistently ignored.


Meanwhile, you've failed to allow that others may have an opposing viewpoint. It is in effect your entire strategy in this thread. I reject that notion. Again: if Hitchens if right, your position is canceled.

No what I have failed to do is agree with you. Not agreeing with your viewpoint is not the same thing as not allowing that others may have an opposing viewpoint. Again: I believe that Hitchens and I are in total agreement.

We can go round and round on the subject of Hitchens, but it seems to go nowhere. You will not challenge my assertion that Hitchens and I essentially agree with any kind of evidence or justification, instead choosing to just repeat the same mantra over and over, without evidence. But there is a way to move the discussion forward. There is one question, which I have been asking for multiple posts now, which I have repeated frequently, that the burden of proof is on you to provide an answer to:

If I am incorrect in my understanding, and you are correct in yours, then you will be able to logically answer this question with direct examples:

What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

As I have said previously, I am willing to consider your position but "considering" it requires that there be something to consider, not just your fiat. So in order to be sure that I understand your position, and in order to find rational basis for it, I require some examples of the kinds of authoritarian beliefs you see as inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods.

If you cannot provide such evidence, then it therefore follow the claim cannot be justified rationally - it is a claim "taken on faith." However a reasonable person should be able to provide rational evidence in the form of examples to defend your assertion. So I ask for those examples.

This is the begged question in our discussion. It has now become glaring. There is, in fact, really no possible way to move forward in any productive way unless you are willing to give an account here on this point. Because this is the biggest side-stepped question of our entire exchange - I will for the most part, ignore further circular arguments about issues of lesser significants, referring you back instead to the countless other times I have already answered such things. This is the the unanswered question that currently blocks not only me, but any basic follower or logic from accepting your position. Until this question is answered, no rational person could accept the claim as anything other than a faith claim.

So I ask you, What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

[Az]

112. This is a forum that seems to have been set up by the admins

I suspect their intent was for it to be a place to discuss the more controvercial topics that turn into flamefests in GD. This includes but is not exclusive to theist vs atheist debates.

If it had been a member sponsored group such as the atheist group or the liberal Christian group I would expect it to be a sanctionary for people of those particular mindsets. But as it was sponsored by the admins my suspicion is that this is a catchall for discussions concerning religion rather than politics.

[Selwynn]

114. Yes I can see that - that's the conclusion I've come to as well.

Obviously, I was only expressing my desires. I don't actually understand the difference between "member groups" and regular forums, I'm not sure how that all works, so that's probably part of the problem.

I can see how, regardless of the title, the admins might consider this forum the kind of "catch all" for controversial subjects as you suggest. Obviously if the forum goes in a direction that isn't what i'm looking for, I'll just find something else.

[Az]

117. And I do honestly hope you find something that satisfies

Community is an important thing for anyone. But so to is the ability for people of differing positions to come together in critical but friendly comparison of views.

Its a tricky balance living in a big tent. On the one hand the diversity lends us strength. But it can also become a bit blaring at times and everyone needs to be able to retreat to a place where you can comizerate with peopel of a like mind and you can express yourself without the fear of stepping on someone elses views.

[saltpoint]

118. Well, that would depend on how much stock you --

-- put on Hitchens' intellect, Nietzsche's, and any number of other examples cited, which I provided in support of my position.

Or, it may not, depending on how your crutch, as you described it, is an impediment to your openmindedness.

If I were the lone view point here, that would be one thing, but I'm far from alone -- and I concede both substance and eloquence to Hitchens on this, believe me.

So you get your own position, but I'm going to have to vote my heart and mind on this one, Sel. I go with Hitchens, and Hitchens locates authoritarianism at or near the root of the religious personality.

If a tree in my garden bore poison fruit, I think I would seek to halt its cultivation.


---
edit: typo

[Selwynn]

120. Hitchens does not say religious personality?

I doubt the quality of this response will be that great, as I have been sick with the full all night. I doubt I will continue to respond after this today, because I am so sick.

Yet you continue to say "I have to go with Hitchens on this?" Why are you being dishonest?

And if Hitchens is to be interpreted as a defense that theism and authoritarianism are inescapably connected (which I don't even think is what you are saying any more, but your too stubborn to just say, "yes I missspoke when I said that") then it begs one question, and neither you nor Hitchens are too be taken seriously until that question can be answered, i.e. a defense of the position can be made. Making an argument justified by an appeal to authority alone without justification of claims asserted in the argument and expecting someone else to submit (blindly) to its legitimacy or have his character and quality attacked is very authoritarian.

You are saying, "accept my word or the word of this 'authority' or suffer my personal attacks, be labeled a person who "doesn't like to be challenged," be patronized and misrepresented. The only choice you can make to be recognized is to submit yourself to the authority of my opinion." And because I have not done that, but continued to ask you, Hitchens or anyone else to back up your opinion - you have called me everything in the book.

I don't believe in the blind acceptance of authority, and it is mind-boggleing to me that a self-proclaim lover of reason such as yourself would make such outrageous arguments like appeals to authority and appeals to the masses. "This very smart person said this, therefore I am write. And I am not alone in my belief, therefore I am right."

Neither or which, any person with even the smaller concern for logic knows, is a fair and justifiable defense of one's point of view. It might be more compelling, except for the fact that there are just as many brilliant, wonderful, well-respected thinkers throughout history who would argue just the opposite.

Certainly Kant, Kierkegaard and any other number of people would who are certainly known to be great intellects could just as easily be offered in refutation of your position. You may not agree with their analysis, but they are just as qualified, just as "intelligent" and just as "eloquent" as Hitchens or anyone else.

So, in the face of equally intelligent people able to be referenced in support of two different points of view, the argument that "If I were the lone view point here, that would be one thing, but I'm far from alone" becomes - and I don't know how to put this kindly - ridiculously stupid.

It is also logically fallacious. The only thing we can do to hope to determine which of these wonderful intellects and respected historical figures actually "get it right" is to challenge their arguments and see how well they are defended.

So the only thing - the single thing - that can justify and sustain the argument you were making (are you still making it?) is to defend the assertion by answering some simple, direct, questions: What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

If you cannot answer this simple straight-forward question, then neither Hitchens, you or anyone else deserve to be taken seriously in their assertions, not matter what kind of "authority figure" they are. I'm still chuckling at the fact that throughout this entire exchange, the person so vehemently condemning authoritarianism has built his argument on appeals to authority without defending those appeals with evidence or reasoning. I thought I'd seen it all.

It's a really simple question really - not complicated at all: What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods? And you dare not answer it. I am forced to concluded that you don't have any idea how to answer. Therefore, I find the justification for your point of view to be completely lacking, as logical person knows that simply appealing to authorities without being able to defend their assertions is no case at all. All you would need to do to defend your assertion, and not look so foolish would be to answer the simple question:

What kinds of authoritarian beliefs do you or hitchens feel are inseparable from a basic belief in the existence of a god or gods?

I need to tell you that I have been up all night with the flu. I just called into work sick. I am exhausted and sick. There is no possible way I can continue to debate you for now. Frankly, I'm ok with that - because this is hardly an intelligent debate. My every request for you to rationally defend your assertions by answering my challenges to them have been ignored, so that you can instead continue on making dogmatic assertions without defending them. I expected better from an atheist, and instead all I see is the same fundamentalist mentality religious folk or so frequently criticized for. That is tremendously disappointing to me.

But as we are now past the third day of this exchange, and you have categorically refused to demonstrated intellectual honesty at any turn or answer even the most basic, simple challenge to your point of view, I understand now that it is pointless.

So I shall return to throwing up in my bathroom, and leave you to your appeals to authority and fundamentalist argumentation.
Take care,
Sel

[Stunster]

11. Wivya 100 per cent (n/t)

[aneerkoinos]

19. The misguided majority

Theos - just a word, theism and atheism futile debate around a word.

Cultural conditioning of Pistic main stream Christianity and atheistic "enlightment" of naive materialism, "scientism". Happy debates, happy times, bliss of being right, oh so fucking stupid, oh so fucking boring. Yes, they would like to kill each other, but they (most of them) are too polite to say so most of the times.

Fuck philosophy, fuck religion in general and fuck true science. Fuck dialogue, fuck truth, hooray opinions and my egotistic Pavlovian conditioning of having the right fucking opinions! You are all wrong, only I am right!

UGH!

[Az]

20. We create the nature of the world around us

I understand your concerns. But consider how your words affect others. You have created a combative situation with this thread. Instead of embracing those who differ in belief you have divided them.

Religion in any scenario is a tricky subject. Take a look around at all the different sect, denominations, and factions. Religion does not need skeptics to cause dissension. It has shown itself quite capable of it on its own.

And yes there are many religions that are nontheistic. Both implicitly and explicitly. Discussion of religions does not have to turn combative. Think of this as an opportunity to demonstrate this to the atheists that come here.

[Ando]

48. Combative?

The perception among many of the atheists on this board is that we don't want them here because they challenge our faith and we can't defend it. That's a big load of dung. Is the connection to DU really that hard to understand? Do we ban Republicans because we're scared of what they might say? Do we ban them because we can't defend their arguments? No! We ban them because these forums would be a lot less useful if we spent 75% of our time debating Right vs. Left.

I try not to be combative in these discussions, and I'll debate theism/theism as well, but my experience tells me it's a fruitless enterprise. I won't abandon my belief in a spiritual realm through argument, and I don't expect any atheist to abandon their disbelief in a spiritual realm through argument. In that sense I agree with the original post that perhaps multiple forums would be a good idea.

In any case, comments such as They want Santa Claus to keep them on his good-little-child list, they want Jesus to pat them on the head upon entry into Heaven for obedience... do nothing to keep these discussions from becoming combative. I expect a little respect when discussing my faith in a Religion and Theology forum. I thank you for your contributions though, you have been nothing but cordial.

[Selwynn]

78. Well said. That is exactly it. (nt)

[saltpoint]

84. Hello again, Ando.

You might have mentioned that those constructs are in fact questionable from many others' points of view.

Instead you characterized them as disrespectful. You appear to be in the thick of the combat, albeit from the sidelines.

Those constructs are absurd to many people, not just to me. There's a reason why some peole regard them as absurd.

You don't like the connection between the two constructs, is my guess. Perhaps they hit a nerve, perhaps not. In either case, I state them again to anyone else's attention, and again I call them artificial.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I want this board to be a haven for believers

of whatever faith. I think that atheists can and do debate believers about religion on other boards, such as General Discussion. When I post something on other boards, I half expect and realize that it may be answered by nonbelievers questioning my religious slant on a given topic. But when I come here, I want to feel free express my faith and learn about other faiths without having nonbelievers coming in and dismissing faith in general.

[Frogtutor]

49. I agree; I've been spending more time in the Christian Liberals/

Progressive People of Faith forum for that very reason. But I really miss the interaction with people of other faiths; I enjoy learning about other RELIGIOUS viewpoints and practices. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but like you, I thought this forum was for people to discuss religious beliefs and theology, not to express anti-religious sentiments. There are plenty of other forums where atheists can (and do) do this. I mean, I'm certainly not going to go over to the atheists' forum and start preaching about Christianity to them...Perhaps there should be another forum created titled simply, "Progressive People of All Faiths"; I'm pretty sure atheism isn't considered a faith...

:shrug:

[trotsky]

50. Awesome! Thank you!

I'm pretty sure atheism isn't considered a faith

Then you are way ahead of most theists I have encountered. They think of atheism as a faith, even as a "religion."

I appreciate you seeing the difference.

[bloom]

55. I think if you want

to discuss religion with people who share the same religion as you have that there are probably forums for that.

Of course even within denominations there can be so much disagreement that it isn't necessarily that much different from what you see here. At least I've noticed that in an online group in the past. A very conservative member liked to insult and intimidate people who were not as conservative as he was. And it got to going both ways - as things like that tend to do...



Seems like people probably have the best luck having a civil discussion when topics are framed in a positive - instead of flammable manner. People who ask, "Why do atheists hate Jesus?" should expect to be flamed.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. it is what it is.

I would like to see this forum address issues other than Christianity, but that is the direction it has gone. So be it. I still enjoy reading various things on here. I learn much about certain issues and certain posters. I have seen assholes on both sides (theist and atheist). I just wish people would be a little more tolerant of one another. I understand getting "worked up" about something, but the constant "putting on of airs" from both sides is nauseating! The other issue is this is a written forum and all the smilies in the world will not always convey sarcasm, joking, concern, or condescending attitudes. I have often been misunderstood and when I reread my post, I can see why. So, with delicate topics, it is best to be as honest as possible, and if you are being funny, state it because some people will not "get it" in a written forum. Just my thoughts.

[AngryOldDem]

80. Selwynn --

:thumbsup:

[Imperialism Inc.]

110. I don't think that this forum was intended for the purpose you are

asking about.
I think all the general forums are intended to be anyone may post types of forums. It is only in the DU groups where you find specific mission statements and exclusion of certain viewpoints. For example, in the candidate groups you cannot bash the candidate.
Your request is a perfectly reasonable one but I think just misplaced in this case , because I think that this group was intended to be the place for the religion debate (that used to, and unfortunately still does, rage across several different forums) to take place.
The DU Group "Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith Group" might be what you are looking for.