| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"societopia.net" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 07:06:55 AM |
| Object: |
Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
Are you aware of any writings of atheist philosophers on the meaning (if any
exists) of "Tolerance" in the atheist disposition?
Is deliberate criticism welcome in any atheist population in the same manner
as atheists complain that they are not allowed to criticize religious
people? Do you have examples of atheist communities that tolerated criticism
within its ranks? Or do atheists conceive deliberate criticism as unwelcome
and hostile that should be met with degradation and punishment?
Can you, as an atheist, describe whether personally you find a meaning for
"tolerance" in life or not? Where would you drive its meaning from in your
personal life?
Would you be kind enough to provide examples? What did you do when people
did not match your expectations of what you considered "tolerance" towards
you? What did you do when they did?
Would you be kind enough to provide examples of situations where you faced
deliberate criticism and not considered them as insult to your ego?
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 01:17:19 PM |
|
|
"societopia.net" <societopia@societopia.net> wrote in
news:aY1se.1698396$Xk.1153310@pd7tw3no:
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy7lws.1k1txy1e38ymgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
Snippage......
Do not follow violent gangs who can justify violent actions by
meaningless words if only they appease your ego and convince you that
you became special by following their footsteps.
Do you realise how violent your words are ?
To end your posts with. 'God bless you', in an atheist group is rather
violent in itself !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 01:47:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:17:19 -0500, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
"societopia.net" <societopia@societopia.net> wrote in
news:aY1se.1698396$Xk.1153310@pd7tw3no:
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy7lws.1k1txy1e38ymgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
Snippage......
Do not follow violent gangs who can justify violent actions by
meaningless words if only they appease your ego and convince you that
you became special by following their footsteps.
Do you realise how violent your words are ?
To end your posts with. 'God bless you', in an atheist group is rather
violent in itself !
He's doing it on purpose. It enables him to be nasty in a way that
salves his conscience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
15 Jun 2005 08:46:45 PM |
|
|
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
The Soviet Union, China and others had their rules too. Rules which
collided with freedom of expression have proven not real. They are
fictitious products of inflated egos. Now you are even advocating
applying the same to Cyberspace; which I believe is currently the
case in China too. Ideas know no boundary.
Abner Mintz wrote:
There's a big difference between 'not welcome' and 'not allowed'. He
said proselytizing was not welcome - in other words, if you do it,
you're being rude and will be thought of poorly, perhaps even
referred
to with condemning words - which is also part of freedom of
expression.
He didn't say anything about making you *unable* to proselytize - he
did not advocate what you are falsely saying he did.
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
You are hanging your entire argument on a false premise that the people who
set you up on this forum made you believe that it was the reason you should
behave with violence;
This is a series of incorrect statements on your part.
1) My argument is not hanging on the premise you claim. My argument
was based on the idea that some behaviors can be stated to be
unwelcome and impolite by the residents of a forum without consisting
of censorship - indeed, stating that such behaviors are unwelcome and
impolite is just as much free speech as the original unwelcome
behavior. There was nothing about violence in my premise.
2) No-one 'set me up on this forum'. I'm here of my own free will.
I was no more 'set up on this forum' than you were.
3) No-one has convinced me that I should 'behave with violence'.
Are you claiming that I have behaved with violence? If so, be specific
in stating how I was violent.
that false premise is a word called "proselytize" It is a smokescreen,
my friend.
No, some people really do proselytize here - I've seen it myself; thus,
claiming that if someone proselytizes here, it is unwelcome is *not*
a smokescreen - the behavior does occur. And, BTW, strangers are
not my friend; it will take polite interactions over a period of time
before I may consider someone such.
Did I induce you to convert any religion? What religion is that? How did I
induce you? What did I promise you? What did I warn you of?
I did not claim you had done any of those; please read more carefully.
I said that *if* you do it, not that you had done it. Frankly, I
haven't read enough of your posts yet to come to much of an opinion
about your nature, other than that you have a tendency to read more
into what people are saying than what they actually say.
Do not follow violent gangs who can justify violent actions by meaningless
words if only they appease your ego and convince you that you became special
by following their footsteps. Have your own mind. Let values guide your
intellect and protect it from such deceptions.
Good advice - but I had no intentions of doing what you warn me against
and am already doing what you advise me to, so it's rather wasted
breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
15 Jun 2005 10:33:27 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy7w0c.1e5wggu159zng8N%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
....
Are you claiming that I have behaved with violence? If so, be specific
in stating how I was violent.
You exerted your intellect to find an argument in support of the mob that
claimed that I was rude and that thereby I should be treated by other than
civility.
that false premise is a word called "proselytize" It is a smokescreen,
my friend.
No, some people really do proselytize here - I've seen it myself; thus,
claiming that if someone proselytizes here,
Don't repeat word that you have not spent enough time understanding their
meanings. What is proselytizing in the Cyberspace context to your mind (not
to some one from the mob)?
I did not claim you had done any of those; please read more carefully.
I said that *if* you do it, not that you had done it.
Then at best my friend, you would arrive to condemn an injured person that
you would see down our street because the mob lynched him. Do not venture
to exercise your intellect to condemn someone in events when you are not
sure who, what, and why? Otherwise you might one day murder an innocent
person just because the mob made it appear to you that he was guilty.
From your style I can tell that you are very decent person. This is why I
am concerned about the behavior I have seen on this forum. If it can turn
decent persons who are desiring to become independent thinkers to become so
complacent in committing these mistakes without a grain of questioning the
meanings of the terms they exchange, then something is dangerously wrong
about the culture of this forum.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 05:39:38 AM |
|
|
Abner Mintz wrote:
Are you claiming that I have behaved with violence? If so, be
specific in stating how I was violent.
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
You exerted your intellect to find an argument in support of the mob that
claimed that I was rude and that thereby I should be treated by other than
civility.
If you consider someone to be violent if they express the opinion
that it is understandable when they treat rude people incivilly, it's
not surprising you go around accusing so many people of violence.
Anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how politely, is violent
because they agree with those who treated you uncivilly ... Frankly,
I don't even consider the people who treated you uncivilly to be
violent. Violence is a 2-by-4 to the head or the like, not being
impolite, and certainly not politely agreeing with the people who were
impolite!
If being impolite is violence, then you yourself are being violent,
for your accusing me of violence just for disagreeing with you
was at least as impolite as anything I have said to you. What is
your excuse for your 'violence' towards me?
that false premise is a word called "proselytize" It is a
smokescreen, my friend.
No, some people really do proselytize here - I've seen it myself; thus,
claiming that if someone proselytizes here,
Don't repeat word that you have not spent enough time understanding their
meanings.
I've probably understood that word longer than you've been alive. :)
What is proselytizing in the Cyberspace context to your mind (not
to some one from the mob)?
Proselytizing is trying to convince someone to convert from one
religion, philosophy, or system of belief to another. Anyone who
tries to convince someone else to become a Christian (or Jew, or
atheist for that matter) is proselytizing - and I have seen people
do that in this forum, where it is explicitly stated by the people who
set it up that doing so is unwelcome.
I did not claim you had done any of those; please read more carefully.
I said that *if* you do it, not that you had done it.
Then at best my friend, you would arrive to condemn an injured person that
you would see down our street because the mob lynched him.
You consider expressing a view that impolite behavior will often be
considered unwelcome and responded to incivilly to be the equivalent
of joining a lynch mob? Your sense of proportion seems somewhat out
of whack. Next you will be telling me that expressing disagreement
with your views is an act of terrorism, or that voting for someone
other than your favorite candidate is treason, or dating someone you
wanted to date first is the equivalent of rape.
Do not venture to exercise your intellect to condemn someone in
events when you are not sure who, what, and why?
I did not condemn you - I am quite content to let people form their
own opinions on you based on your words, just as I am currently
doing so. Your own words lead people to their judgement of you,
and that is how it should be.
Otherwise you might one day murder an innocent person just
because the mob made it appear to you that he was guilty.
Unlikely - I've never been the sort of person to join lynch mobs
or to condemn people based on the unsupported words of others.
If I condemn someone, it's based on observation or evidence.
From your style I can tell that you are very decent person. This is why I
am concerned about the behavior I have seen on this forum. If it can turn
decent persons who are desiring to become independent thinkers to become so
complacent in committing these mistakes without a grain of questioning the
meanings of the terms they exchange, then something is dangerously wrong
about the culture of this forum.
Or maybe you're just reading things into it that aren't there? As a
reality check, you really might want to consider that you're reacting
to things out of proportion. As far as I can tell, you're so delicate
that you bleed profusely at the touch of a spring breeze (the only
way you could consider me to have been violent to you) - this is
not a good state for debate. You may want to retire from starting
or joining debates until you develop a thicker skin and aren't
getting slashed to ribbons by even the most genteel disagreement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 07:25:03 AM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy8kb6.1jiwinszitihgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
,,,
Or maybe you're just reading things into it that aren't there? As a
reality check, you really might want to consider that you're reacting
to things out of proportion. As far as I can tell, you're so delicate
that you bleed profusely at the touch of a spring breeze (the only
way you could consider me to have been violent to you) - this is
not a good state for debate.
What you said is wonderful. It is probably the same logic that those who
lived under communist regimes did not understand from their communist
leaders who had thicker skins. I am glad we reached to that point of
demonstration. Almost every one who was tortured in prisons did not
understand that they were stupid by the standards of their torturers, who
were trying to force them to see the truth of their intellect. They never
saw their intellect, only the fruits of their anger. That's why I attempted
to introduce to you the role of values in guiding one's intellect. The
fruits of intellect in society are a check of reality rather than brute
intellect that turns people to murderers who do not see themselves as
murderers rather that their victims are simple, emotional and stupid (like
atheists on this forum view theists). The fruits of this haughty intellect
are the litmus paper for reality.
["No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each
tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from
thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of
the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of
the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his
mouth speaks."] Matthew 6:43-45
As for the thickness of my skin :-) I would rather maintain a thin skin
than become one day a murderer.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 08:33:35 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote:
Or maybe you're just reading things into it that aren't there? As a
reality check, you really might want to consider that you're
reacting
to things out of proportion. As far as I can tell, you're so
delicate
that you bleed profusely at the touch of a spring breeze (the only
way you could consider me to have been violent to you) - this is
not a good state for debate.
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
What you said is wonderful.
Thank you.
It is probably the same logic that those who lived under communist
regimes did not understand from their communist leaders who had
thicker skins.
Heh - you now claim that thinking that you are over-sensitive is
logically equivalent to the horrific communist regimes. Later in
the same paragraph you try to imply that I am like those who
torture people in prisons. I can't think of a clearer example of
what I was saying, and rest my case.
That's why I attempted to introduce to you the role of values in
guiding one's intellect.
I am well aware of the value of such, and have been aware of
that for many years.
As for the thickness of my skin :-) I would rather maintain a thin skin
than become one day a murderer.
As would I - but those are not the only two options. If I had to choose
between being so sensitive I considered incivility as equivalent to
murder and being a murderer, I would also choose the first option
- but there are other options I can and do choose.
In any case, if you are too thinned skin to deal with any form of
disagreement, even the most polite, you would do well to avoid
places where lots of people who disagree with you hang out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 09:19:11 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gybkvi.kfqg7v6dttj4N%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
What you said is wonderful.
Thank you.
You are welcome, Abner.
It is probably the same logic that those who lived under communist
regimes did not understand from their communist leaders who had
thicker skins.
Heh - you now claim that thinking that you are over-sensitive is
logically equivalent to the horrific communist regimes. Later in
the same paragraph you try to imply that I am like those who
torture people in prisons. I can't think of a clearer example of
what I was saying, and rest my case.
I would point that there is a different between expression intended to hurt
(such as explicit profane language) and expressions that are not precisely
due to the lack of time to spend on responding to several messages on such a
forum (particularly when the environment was explicitly hostile) The value
that one extracts out of a particular activity determine the worth expending
effort in doing that activity (this expression again is not directed at you
in a derogatory manner, it is just an explanation why my previous
expressions arrived to you with such ambiguity)
That's why I attempted to introduce to you the role of values in
guiding one's intellect.
I am well aware of the value of such, and have been aware of
that for many years.
Again, the statement not meant to cast aspersions on you of lack of values
(though I have serious doubts about any one who seriously participates on
this forum) This statement was just stating out a concept. (You got to
understand though that due to the nature of the medium (cyberspace),
messages that I respond to are not written by persons (conceptually); they
are just electronic pixels on my screen posted conveying some ideas that I
am responding to. I don't know the persons and cannot possibly cast
aspersions on them. Compare this though to uttering curses and violent
language that is not ambiguous in its nature.)
As for the thickness of my skin :-) I would rather maintain a thin skin
than become one day a murderer.
As would I - but those are not the only two options. If I had to choose
between being so sensitive I considered incivility as equivalent to
murder and being a murderer, I would also choose the first option
- but there are other options I can and do choose.
There is no disagreement here. And I am not really thin-skinned as you
constructed my sarcastic statement. I have participated on cyberspace
debates since 1992 when I was a co-op student. If I were thin-skinned I
would have not survived the amount of verbal violence on this forum while
still blessing everyone. :-)
In any case, if you are too thinned skin to deal with any form of
disagreement, even the most polite, you would do well to avoid
places where lots of people who disagree with you hang out.
No. I make a difference between civilized debates and criticisms (that are
void of profane language) and presented in individualized meaningful manners
on the one hand and gang activity by mobs that are hailing someone with
violent language on the other hand. There is a difference. Can you see it?
The concept that I tried to draw a parallel to was not personally directed
at you. (As I explained, I am merely responding to computer pixels) The
concept is that brute intellect is as a dangerous as brute force. People do
not agree by intellect. That's why the communist regimes did not survive
because they were not human. God created man in his image of mercy and love
and warned him of knowledge. Those who stripped off values, love and mercy
out of human intellect turn (inevitably) into ferocious animals. (Again
this expression is not directed personally at you and contains no offensive
language)
The atheist ethos has many characteristics to it; the first being the lack
of values to measure outcomes of intellect; this causes them to reverse
valuations; the guilty becomes innocent; the innocent becomes guilty; a mere
passerby becomes proselytizing; profanity becomes criticism; criticisms
become rudeness, and invoking God's blessing becomes an insult. Yet you
characterized me as thin-skinned J
God bless you, (I truly mean it)
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 03:40:41 PM |
|
|
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
(particularly when the environment was explicitly hostile)
This environment is not *explicitly* hostile - in fact, there have been
theists here who have been quite welcome, such as Jayne K. or
Stillsunny. Alt.atheism can be very welcoming to theists who
approach it politely and respectfully - and quite hostile to those
who don't. It's all a matter of who your posting style attracts.
There are many posters, such as myself, who are interested in
polite and reasoned debate; if an initial post by a theist fits our
style, we respond to it and you get a fairly friendly reception.
There are other posters who seem to be interested in playing
whack-a-mole on the heads of impolite theists; if an initial post
fits their style, they respond to it and you get a fairly unfriendly
reception.
Your posts are, IMO, marginal - they could be interpreted as
either polite or impolite, depending on how much latitude
people want to give you. By my nature, I tend to give a fair
amount of latitude - for instance, when some people told you
they considered 'God Bless You' to be impolite, you responded
to them with a 'God Bless You'. This could be either cluelessness
or deliberately slapping them across the face; I chose to interpret
it as the first: you don't seem to realize that doing so to someone
who you know finds it unwelcome is deliberately rude. If you
knew that some of the natives of an island found eating with their
left hand to be rude, would you avoid doing so while around them
- or would you eat food with your left hand right in front of them
right after they told you doing so was unwelcome?
If I may give an example of more proper behavior, my in-laws are
devout Christians who hold hands and say grace before every meal.
When we are visiting them, I hold hands with them and wait politely
while they say grace. Even when they're visiting with us - the same,
in my own house, when neither myself nor my wife are Christian.
They would be uncomfortable otherwise, and I wouldn't dream of
deliberately making them uncomfortable. You, on the other hand,
are deliberately making people uncomfortable with your 'God Bless
You' even after they informed you it was unwelcome.
Again, the statement not meant to cast aspersions on you of lack of values
(though I have serious doubts about any one who seriously participates on
this forum)
Does that mean that you are not seriously participating in this forum?
In any case, I have serious doubts about the values of anyone who
is deliberately rude. Your behavior doesn't particularly bother me
(one of the advantages of that thick skin I value) - you can bless
me every post if you wish and all I'll do is chuckle tolerantly. But
how can you complain about lack of civility when you are being
rude yourself, or lack of values when you don't care about the
feelings of others?
So far I have been just assuming that you don't realize the incivility
of many of your posts ... but I hope that sooner or later your realize
that your poor reception is mostly based on your own behavior. (Of
course, I still think that some of your respondants are overreacting,
but that's another issue.)
As would I - but those are not the only two options. If I had to choose
between being so sensitive I considered incivility as equivalent to
murder and being a murderer, I would also choose the first option
- but there are other options I can and do choose.
There is no disagreement here. And I am not really thin-skinned as you
constructed my sarcastic statement. I have participated on cyberspace
debates since 1992 when I was a co-op student. If I were thin-skinned I
would have not survived the amount of verbal violence on this forum while
still blessing everyone. :-)
If you weren't blessing everyone (and several similar behaviors)
you wouldn't be getting so much 'verbal violence'. :)
In any case, if you are too thinned skin to deal with any form of
disagreement, even the most polite, you would do well to avoid
places where lots of people who disagree with you hang out.
No. I make a difference between civilized debates and criticisms (that are
void of profane language) and presented in individualized meaningful manners
on the one hand and gang activity by mobs that are hailing someone with
violent language on the other hand. There is a difference. Can you see it?
I do, but I don't think you do. After all, you've claimed that I am
doing the latter, not the former. If you consider my posts 'verbally
violent', then I don't see what sort of disagreement you're not going
to class that way.
That's why the communist regimes did not survive because they
were not human. God created man in his image of mercy and love
and warned him of knowledge. Those who stripped off values, love and mercy
out of human intellect turn (inevitably) into ferocious animals.
Actually, they didn't survive because they were based on an economic
system that was fundamentally flawed for any group over a few
hundred people. There are *small* communistic groups, both
atheistic (i.e. some hippie communes) and theistic (i.e. some farming
communes in Israel), that do just fine. The communistic system,
unfortunately, has no way to survive the 'free rider' problem, nor does
it have a proper feedback system to deal with unworthy leaders
(capitalism is far better at the first and democracy at the second).
Unworthy leaders in a society are survivable (witness the large
number of societies with such throughout history), but economic
collapse due to rampant inefficiency and waste is not.
Your claim that such is based on theism-vs-atheism rather than
on despotism-vs.-democracy is quite odd when you consider that
theistic despots have been just as bad as atheistic ones, and
atheistic democrats have been no worse than theistic democrats.
(Small-d-democrats, guys, this isn't about the American political
party.) For instance, democratic atheists aren't ferocious animals,
devoid of love and mercy.
(Again this expression is not directed personally at you and
contains no offensive language)
Oh, I don't find that offensive, since I don't belong to the group
you referred to (those who stripped off values, love, and mercy
off of human intellect). I wish I could make you see that whether
or not people belong to that group isn't a matter of atheism or
theism. Such people can be atheists or theists, and they are
the common enemies of all atheists and theists of good will.
The atheist ethos has many characteristics to it;
There are many atheistic ethos; anyone who tries to put all
of them together as one 'the atheist ethos' is going to come
to false conclusions - just as false as anyone who tried to
put all theistic ethos together as one belief system.
the first being the lack of values to measure outcomes of intellect;
Not part of my ethos, so false - as is all of your analysis based
on it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 04:52:06 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gyd0j0.1v3m2jq1ioaow0N%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
....
Your posts are, IMO, marginal - they could be interpreted as
either polite or impolite, depending on how much latitude
people want to give you. By my nature, I tend to give a fair
amount of latitude - for instance, when some people told you
they considered 'God Bless You' to be impolite, you responded
to them with a 'God Bless You'. This could be either cluelessness
or deliberately slapping them across the face; I chose to interpret
it as the first: you don't seem to realize that doing so to someone
who you know finds it unwelcome is deliberately rude.
It is an expression of an item of faith, to bless everyone. Yet you seem to
refuse my explanation for it and are all too willing to build an excuse for
the group to act with hostility. Yet from my perspective, I find that
hostility is not excusable, any more than it would be excusable for a mob to
attack a devout Jew dressed in Yarmulke nor for a mob to attack a devout
Muslim dressed in veil, under the pretense that such a display violates the
mob's sensitivity.
You compared my signature, though, to eating with left hand among natives
who would consider it unwelcome to do so. I find it odd that you picked up
an analogy of uncritical tradition and culture where pleasing the prejudices
of folks who wish to see no challenge to their way of life is paramount to
tolerating personal beliefs that do not infringe others essential rights.
You seem to ignore another aspect of alt.atheism being a public forum.
Public forums are allowed to every reader on the Net, despite the
unenforceable rule that you want to deceive people to think that it is the
reality. If your intent were to hide yourselves from any other form of
expression; why did not you join a private mailing list? You guys do not
lack the expertise to build a private mailing list; do you? That way you
save any member of the public being trapped into your network of violence.
A *public* group's claims to be the culture of no prejudice, no fantasy and
no illusions would definitely be challenged by the first passerby who would
identify an ethic that is otherwise. In *public* people have the civic duty
to be critical of any activity is not as advertised or that is contrary to
public good. It seems that the regulars on this newsgroup have not figured
that out yet and keep complaining about "theists invading their forum"
Your analogy only informed me that this forum is a primitive enclave of some
violent "natives" (of a kind), whose strongest will is to maintain their
opinions aired to the public but without accepting any challenge to their
propaganda. I do not know how you are going to do it? If you want to
maintain your "native" (to use your analogy) customs unpolluted start up a
private mailing list and save the public the agony of running into this
troubled forum.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 05:57:28 PM |
|
|
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
It is an expression of an item of faith, to bless everyone.
Even if they don't want to be blessed? If a neighbor kept on
saying 'May you have wild sex with a stranger tonight!' or
'May Satan take you to join him in an eternal party in Hell'
even after you told him you didn't want that and found his
wishes for you offensive - what would your opinion of him be?
Probably that he didn't care about your feelings. Same with
the other examples I gave - while expressing the hope that
your God will bless someone may be a positive thing in your
culture, to continue doing so after someone tells you it isn't
a positive thing in their culture is just plain rude. To act rudely
to someone even when they have explained why it is rude
to them is, IMO, as hostile as anything I have seen anyone
do to you here.
Yet you seem to refuse my explanation for it and are all too
willing to build an excuse for the group to act with hostility.
*shrugs* I have been trying to explain to you why the more
polite atheists are shunning you and the more hostile atheists
are clustering to you as an appropriate target for their ire. It's
not too late for you to alter your behavior - yet - but I doubt that
you will. I usually don't respond to people who I feel are being
rude, but every once in a while I make an exception to try to help
out someone who may not realize what they are doing. Sometimes
it works, as the person says 'Oh, I never realized my actions could
be seen that way - no wonder I'm getting all these hostile responses!
My apologies, and I will try not to repeat it.' Such people usually
get shifted over from the hostile responders to the polite responders
in short order. As it is, you don't seem willing to change your ways,
and pretty soon your only respondant will be Christopher Lee. *sighs*
Sometimes I miss Stix. Sorry, Chris, but his posts were things of
beauty. :)
Yet from my perspective, I find that hostility is not excusable, any
more than it would be excusable for a mob to attack a devout Jew
dressed in Yarmulke nor for a mob to attack a devout Muslim
dressed in veil, under the pretense that such a display violates the
mob's sensitivity.
Perfect people might respond to even the most rude of acts without
ever giving in to hostility. We're not perfect people - but I doubt
you'd get any less hostility being equally rude to any other group.
Why not try going into the Christian groups, telling them Christians
inevitably turn into ferocious animals, that the Christian religion
leads to people with no values, and end all your posts with 'May
Satan bless you'? If they're any less hostile, let me know and I
will reevaluate my position. :)
You seem to ignore another aspect of alt.atheism being a public forum.
Public forums are allowed to every reader on the Net, despite the
unenforceable rule that you want to deceive people to think that it is the
reality.
Huh? I'm not sure what you are saying here (or in the previous
paragraph that I snipped due to not being able to make heads
or tails of it). I never claimed that alt.atheism is not a public
forum or that it wasn't available to everyone. Same with
rec.pet.cats (but you're still likely to get hostile responses if
you post recipes there) and alt.fan.elton.john (but you're still
likely to get hostile responses if you post there that you hope
he gets AIDS and dies). If you post something offensive to
many of the people who read a public forum, some of them
will take offense - and of those who take offense, some of them
will ignore you and some will try to offend back - that's human
nature.
Now, how exactly are you claiming I was trying to deceive people?
Your analogy only informed me that this forum is a primitive enclave of some
violent "natives" (of a kind), whose strongest will is to maintain their
opinions aired to the public but without accepting any challenge to their
propaganda.
Oh, no, I respond quite politely to polite challenges to my claims.
It's quite possible to post challenges to atheism without being
rude about it. *shrugs* You just don't seem to have any interest
in learning why you were rude or avoiding rudeness.
I do not know how you are going to do it? If you want to
maintain your "native" (to use your analogy) customs unpolluted start up a
private mailing list and save the public the agony of running into this
troubled forum.
I feel sorry that this forum is so agonizing to you. As I said before,
if you're that thin-skinned, you may wish to avoid the places that
agonize you. Most people don't seem to find alt.atheism agonizing.
In any case, I have tried my best to show you where your approach
is causing you problems and you just aren't interested, so it seems
I am wasting my time in trying to help you. Oh well - there was
always a *chance* that you wanted debate instead of argument. But
if you want to post recipes to rec.pets.cats, that's your business, not
mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 06:47:07 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gyd7lc.p7itt6i9q3k0N%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
It is an expression of an item of faith, to bless everyone.
Even if they don't want to be blessed? If a neighbor kept on
saying 'May you have wild sex with a stranger tonight!' or
'May Satan take you to join him in an eternal party in Hell'
even after you told him you didn't want that and found his
wishes for you offensive - what would your opinion of him be?
I would wish him God's blessings.
Probably that he didn't care about your feelings. Same with
the other examples I gave - while expressing the hope that
your God will bless someone may be a positive thing in your
culture, to continue doing so after someone tells you it isn't
a positive thing in their culture is just plain rude.
Collision of wills can and will happen. (As a matter of fact it must happen
for any progress to occur in human life) People should not change their
principles when it happens; only that they act peacefully.
To act rudely
to someone even when they have explained why it is rude
to them is, IMO, as hostile as anything I have seen anyone
do to you here.
People use words to suit their prejudices. Your usage of the term "rude" is
not a legal definition; rather it is a personal one. The fruits of any
collision of wills or opposites, if carried peacefully, can bring
enlightenment to the participants.
Yet you seem to refuse my explanation for it and are all too
willing to build an excuse for the group to act with hostility.
*shrugs* I have been trying to explain to you why the more
polite atheists are shunning you and the more hostile atheists
are clustering to you as an appropriate target for their ire. It's
not too late for you to alter your behavior - yet - but I doubt that
you will.
You are almost operating with one of two assumptions 1) that I should be
proselytizing the group and therefore I ought to alter my behavior to win
those hostile atheists, 2) that I should be seeking friendship and therefore
express only what the potential friends on this forum expected me to say.
Both assumptions are not true. My expression is not dependent on the
reaction or choices that I expect from this forum. The choices and behavior
of the respondents are not based on my expression rather based on how their
values (or lack thereof) afford them.
God Bless You,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 09:19:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:47:07 GMT, "societopia.net"
<societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
You are almost operating with one of two assumptions 1) that I should be
proselytizing the group and therefore I ought to alter my behavior to win
those hostile atheists, 2) that I should be seeking friendship and therefore
express only what the potential friends on this forum expected me to say.
Both assumptions are not true.
What, pray tell, do you think you *are* doing, then, other than making
yourself look smug and condescending? Do you have a point in being
here?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "societopia.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 09:41:07 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:bfl9b1dmltavqifobecls6en7t12s1ob18@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:47:07 GMT, "societopia.net"
<societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
You are almost operating with one of two assumptions 1) that I should be
proselytizing the group and therefore I ought to alter my behavior to win
those hostile atheists, 2) that I should be seeking friendship and
therefore
express only what the potential friends on this forum expected me to say.
Both assumptions are not true.
What, pray tell, do you think you *are* doing, then, other than making
yourself look smug and condescending? Do you have a point in being
here?
The only benefit I could see of your posing these questions is that they
represent an ethos that is shared in two realities: 1) atheist, 2)
dictatorial societies where people have to present a reason for their
peaceful expression if it were not appeasing the controlling mob (or the
political party or the ruler). Can you see the parallels? Does that make
the Atheist Ethos a bit clearer to you?
Freedom is essentially a value of believing in God.
God Bless You,
www.societopia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
20 Jun 2005 12:08:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:41:07 GMT, "societopia.net"
<societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:bfl9b1dmltavqifobecls6en7t12s1ob18@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:47:07 GMT, "societopia.net"
<societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
You are almost operating with one of two assumptions 1) that I should be
proselytizing the group and therefore I ought to alter my behavior to win
those hostile atheists, 2) that I should be seeking friendship and
therefore
express only what the potential friends on this forum expected me to say.
Both assumptions are not true.
What, pray tell, do you think you *are* doing, then, other than making
yourself look smug and condescending? Do you have a point in being
here?
The only benefit I could see of your posing these questions is that they
represent an ethos that is shared in two realities: 1) atheist, 2)
dictatorial societies where people have to present a reason for their
peaceful expression if it were not appeasing the controlling mob (or the
political party or the ruler). Can you see the parallels? Does that make
the Atheist Ethos a bit clearer to you?
Wow.
You really are a piece of work.
What does it take to get it through the piece of concrete that passes
for your skull to grasp that there is *no such thing* as an "atheist
ethos", as you've been told so many times that it's becoming
ridiculous, making your whole argument moot?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
20 Jun 2005 09:36:37 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:
You really are a piece of work.
What does it take to get it through the piece of concrete that passes
for your skull to grasp that there is *no such thing* as an "atheist
ethos
Hang on a minute: wasn't 'Ethos' one of the 'Three Atheist Musketeers'...? I
seem to remember them being in Paris, round about 1625, and meeting a young
man -- whose name, I think, was *D'Arwinian*...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
20 Jun 2005 11:47:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:36:37 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:
You really are a piece of work.
What does it take to get it through the piece of concrete that passes
for your skull to grasp that there is *no such thing* as an "atheist
ethos
Hang on a minute: wasn't 'Ethos' one of the 'Three Atheist Musketeers'...? I
seem to remember them being in Paris, round about 1625, and meeting a young
man -- whose name, I think, was *D'Arwinian*...
<SNARF!!!>
That coffee tasted a lot better going in through my mouth than out
through my nose!
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
22 Jun 2005 05:47:29 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:
Hang on a minute: wasn't 'Ethos' one of the 'Three Atheist Musketeers'...?
I
seem to remember them being in Paris, round about 1625, and meeting a
young
man -- whose name, I think, was *D'Arwinian*...
<SNARF!!!>
That coffee tasted a lot better going in through my mouth than out
through my nose!
:-)
Thank Gob *someone* got the joke...!
Glad it raised a chuckle!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 10:03:56 AM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
The
fruits of intellect in society are a check of reality rather than brute
intellect that turns people to murderers who do not see themselves as
murderers rather that their victims are simple, emotional and stupid (like
atheists on this forum view theists).
"So the women sang as they danced, and said: 'Saul has slain
his thousands, and David his ten thousands.' Then Saul was
very angry, and the saying displeased him; and he said,
'they have ascribed to David ten thousands and to me they
have ascribed _only_ thousands.'" --I Sam 18:7-8
Why do you suppose Saul got "very angry"?
The fruits of this haughty intellect
are the litmus paper for reality.
Didn't Moses have a "haughty intellect"?
Numbers 31:
15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through
the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the
LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague
among the congregation of the LORD.
17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones,
and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with
him.
18) But all the women children, that have not known a
man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Perhaps you don't know the Bible quite as well as it pleases
you to believe?
e
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 09:41:23 AM |
|
|
societopia.net wrote:
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy8kb6.1jiwinszitihgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
Each
tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from
thornbushes, or grapes from briers.
But people _do_ condemn trees for not bearing fruit
out of season, don't they?
The good man brings good things out of
the good stored up in his heart,
Does the Bible say that it is good to bear false witness?
and the evil man brings evil things out of
the evil stored up in his heart.
If bearing false witness is not a good thing, or a neutral
thing, then it is a bad thing, no?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 06:33:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 03:33:27 GMT, "societopia.net" <societopia@societopia.net>
wrote:
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gy7w0c.1e5wggu159zng8N%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
...
Are you claiming that I have behaved with violence? If so, be specific
in stating how I was violent.
You exerted your intellect to find an argument in support of the mob that
claimed that I was rude and that thereby I should be treated by other than
civility.
So your own lack of civility, your rudeness, which includes alluding to those
who consider you ill mannered, as a "mob", is not violence, but pointing it out,
is?
You take hypocrisy, to a whole new level.
that false premise is a word called "proselytize" It is a smokescreen,
my friend.
No, some people really do proselytize here - I've seen it myself; thus,
claiming that if someone proselytizes here,
Don't repeat word that you have not spent enough time understanding their
meanings.
Are we to assume that, that little insult of yours, is *not* verbal violence?
What is proselytizing in the Cyberspace context to your mind (not
to some one from the mob)?
And another insult, which, no doubt, is *not* verbal violence, either.
I did not claim you had done any of those; please read more carefully.
I said that *if* you do it, not that you had done it.
Then at best my friend,
Now it might be my background, but where I come from, that phrase would be
considered, (a) a lie, (b) an insult, and (c) a threat.
Farther, the fact that you hide behind your k/board, would mark you as a coward,
using it.
God bless you,
More hypocrisy?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 01:14:30 PM |
|
|
(Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gy7lws.1k1txy1e38ymgN%:
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
Snippage.....
I thought that atheism was the rejection of religions altogether.
Nope - it's not believing in any gods. There are atheistic religions
- and religious atheists can belong to them, while non-religious
atheists don't belong to them. For instance, it's possible to be
an atheistic buddhist.
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not atheists.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
16 Jun 2005 08:02:24 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not atheists.
What is there in buddhism that requires believing in the existance
of gods?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 07:35:01 AM |
|
|
(Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gy9p3f.1rv0k1xxz8jyaN%:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not
atheists.
What is there in buddhism that requires believing in the existance
of gods?
All those deities !
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/deities.htm
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'- Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 08:33:34 PM |
|
|
Abner Mintz wrote:
What is there in buddhism that requires believing in
the existance of gods?
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/deities.htm
Hrm. Here's a sample of what I found there in the very
first part of the link:
"According to some Buddhist traditions"
I never claimed that there were not some theistic
Buddhists - I just noted that not all of them were theistic.
I didn't see anything in the reference you gave that
required that all Buddhists must believe in those deities
rather than that some Buddhists do. I'm afraid I don't
find your link convincing in that respect.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 04:10:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:35:01 -0500, Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com>
wrote:
abnermintz@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gy9p3f.1rv0k1xxz8jyaN%abnermintz@earthlink.net:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not
atheists.
What is there in buddhism that requires believing in the existance
of gods?
All those deities !
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/deities.htm
But no requirement, that you believe in them.
You might as well say that no humans are atheist: "All those deities".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
17 Jun 2005 04:42:19 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
abnermintz@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gy7lws.1k1txy1e38ymgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net:
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
Snippage.....
I thought that atheism was the rejection of re ligions altogether.
Nope - it's not believing in any gods. There are atheistic religions
- and religious atheists can belong to them, while non-religious
atheists don't belong to them. For instance, it's possible to be
an atheis tic buddhist.
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not atheists.
He said it is possible to be an atheistic buddhist
and that is true. In fact "Buddha preached a religion
devoid of the supernatural...For all appeal to the
supernatural and reliance thereon amounted, he felt,
to looking for shortcuts, easy answers, simple
solutions that could only divert attention from
the hard, practical task of self-advance."
-- -- Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man.
New York: Harper & Row, 1958. p. 107-108
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 11:50:50 AM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1119044539.680109.242760
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Jez wrote:
abnermintz@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gy7lws.1k1txy1e38ymgN%abnermintz@earthlink.net:
societopia.net <societopia@societopia.net> wrote:
Snippage.....
I thought that atheism was the rejection of re ligions altogether.
Nope - it's not believing in any gods. There are atheistic
religions
- and religious atheists can belong to them, while non-religious
atheists don't belong to them. For instance, it's possible to be
an atheis tic buddhist.
Hmmmm, I've heard that said before, but no, Buddhists are not
atheists.
He said it is possible to be an atheistic buddhist
and that is true. In fact "Buddha preached a religion
devoid of the supernatural...For all appeal to the
supernatural and reliance thereon amounted, he felt,
to looking for shortcuts, easy answers, simple
solutions that could only divert attention from
the hard, practical task of self-advance."
-- -- Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man.
New York: Harper & Row, 1958. p. 107-108
Ok, so what. Buddhists are not atheists, they worship the system of
religion set forth by the early followers of some guy who ended up being
called 'Buddha.'.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
18 Jun 2005 03:40:39 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Ok, so what. Buddhists are not atheists, they worship the system of
religion set forth by the early followers of some guy who ended up being
called 'Buddha.'.
In order to be a theist, you have to believe in the existance of one
or more gods. Some Buddhists do not do that, so they are atheists,
not theists; whether or not they follow a religion doesn't change that
- only whether or not they follow a theistic one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerance in the atheist ethos |
19 Jun 2005 02:57:45 PM |
|
|
(Abner Mintz) wrote in
news:1gyd0fs.1rboq2u1ej54koN%:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Ok, so what. Buddhists are not atheists, they worship the system of
religion set forth by the early followers of some guy who ended up
being
called 'Buddha.'.
In order to be a theist, you have to believe in the existance of one
or more gods. Some Buddhists do not do that, so they are atheists,
not theists; whether or not they follow a religion doesn't change that
- only whether or not they follow a theistic one.
Whatever, I'm not gonna defend an ignorant superstion, whatever it's
name.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
