This Section

[Ouroboros]

Since I'm the assigned moderator for this particular section (Theism or Spirituality) I'd like to open up this discussion. I want to allow a discussion about the purpose of this section, and also get a collection of directions, so when new posters come here, can go to this thread and get the "spirit" of it and know better what they can do and what they can't do.

 

From time to time we have a few posters that criticize other religious beliefs presented here. My understanding is that this particular sections was created for the purpose to let people discuss, in a positive and open way, the alternative faiths, and hold back on any negative attitudes or rants. However, there must be some level of discussion, which means disagreements, and to find the level to how much of critique I can allow or not is sometimes hard. Some posts are definitely out of line, but we wouldn't have any discussion unless people would disagree and could voice this disagreement.

 

I wanted to open up this thread for discussion, to make sure everyone and anyone can get their say if this is how we should handle this section or not. So feel free to post in this topic any opinions you might have about how I'm dealing with maintaining the "spirit" of this section.

 

Hans

[florduh]

I think that people espousing beliefs other than Christianity should be held to the same standards of proof as the Christians are.

 

When evidence and logic is demanded of one religion, it should be demanded of all unfounded beliefs.

 

The problem with this area and its rules, anyone can put forth the most absurd supernatural claim and be exempt from scrutiny, while they are still free to condemn Christianity for being illogical and without foundation.

 

Everyone's pet belief is sacred to them, including the Christians. If there is no logical or rational defense for a position, it should be fair game for anyone wanting to why someone would believe such a thing.

[Deva]

From time to time we have a few posters that criticize other religious beliefs presented here. My understanding is that this particular sections was created for the purpose to let people discuss, in a positive and open way, the alternative faiths, and hold back on any negative attitudes or rants. However, there must be some level of discussion, which means disagreements, and to find the level to how much of critique I can allow or not is sometimes hard. Some posts are definitely out of line, but we wouldn't have any discussion unless people would disagree and could voice this disagreement.

 

Essentially I agree with the above, but I would emphasize "in a positive and open way and hold back on any negative attitudes or rants." There might be some ex-christians who are honestly interested in different religions or philosophies other ex-christians have explored, and why. It is nice to have this section of the forum to talk about other paths people have taken. Much depends upon the way the inquiry is worded. I understand that this is a close call for the Moderator sometimes, since we don't want to be politically correct and restrictive. I do think that posts with a categorically negative view of other religions/philosophies, which consist of purely a rant, should be moved to another section.

 

I don't think that people will generally feel free to post their explorations of other non-christian religions/philosophies if they think that every time they do that, they are going to be jumped on and ask to defend said belief/philosophy.

[Ouroboros]

I think that people espousing beliefs other than Christianity should be held to the same standards of proof as the Christians are.

I agree. But that's why we have all the other sections, like Lion's Den, Rants, Colosseum, ... and much more. The reason to this section was (In my understanding) to give a breathing-space for those who do maintain a belief. In other words, this section would have to be held to a lesser standard when it comes to proof etc.

 

When evidence and logic is demanded of one religion, it should be demanded of all unfounded beliefs.

Which can be done freely in all the other sections.

 

My thoughts are: if this section would allow all criticism which is presented in Rants, Lion's Den, Colosseum and so on, then of what difference would this section be? If you have a garage and a carport and a lawn of grass, and you allow parking of old rusty in all those spots, they would all look the same. But if you keep on spot for one purpose, and another spot for another purpose, then you can see differences and meet different purposes. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? If we allow ToS (Theism or Spirituality) to become like Rants, then we can just as-well move all posts to Rants, and close this one, since it wouldn't be anything more than just another Rant section... but with a different name...

 

The problem with this area and its rules, anyone can put forth the most absurd supernatural claim and be exempt from scrutiny, while they are still free to condemn Christianity for being illogical and without foundation.

Correct.

 

And this is a problem because? I don't agree with most crazy beliefs either, but we had complaints that atheists pretty much demand evidence from everyone presenting thoughts about anything spiritual. After all, this is an Ex-Christian website, and not Now-I'm-an-Atheist website. The difference is huge and yet very small. Ex-Christians can come in many different shapes and forms. Many leave Christianity and do go into other faiths, and this website wasn't made to rant against those faiths, it was made to support those who just left Christianity. Can you see the difference? I think it's very important. Personally, as you know, I'm an atheist, but I do defend people's right to believe things they can't explain or prove. I have a fairly good grasp on why and how they do it, even if I don't personally have that need. I do put my focus more on Christianity in my discussions. Would I go to another website, like some atheists forum, I would give my full attention to all the other (in my view) crazy beliefs, but in this forum we have to show a little courtesy (or empathy) for anyone who are not Christian, but still have some form of belief. I meet people constantly that say they're not Christian, and they're of no other religious belief either, but they still "feel" that there must be some kind of Creator or God or Purpose or whatever, and they do so without any factual support or proof... and my response is usually, "okay, that's how you feel, nothing we can do about it." And somehow we have to allow a little of that response on this forum too.

 

Everyone's pet belief is sacred to them, including the Christians. If there is no logical or rational defense for a position, it should be fair game for anyone wanting to why someone would believe such a thing.

And you're free to open up those discussions in Rants, Lion's Den, Colosseum, or most all other places on the forum. But this section would be a "sacred" place for positive discussion about beliefs. (In other words, supportive and less critical.)

 

And btw, I'm glad you posted, because I think we do need to talk about these things here...

[florduh]

I understand the reasoning and the right to have an area where all magical beliefs except one can go unchallenged. I'm just not convinced it is helpful in the long term.

 

When people leave Christianity for the right reasons (because it is illogical, runs counter to observable and proven fact and recorded history, and had no evidence other than personal feelings going for it) they are beginning to flex their critical thinking skills. With a spectrum of other beliefs with their own adherents available to them, it rightfully raises some questions about magical thinking in general. Case en point, this post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...c=25352&hl=

 

Unless critical thinking skills are honed, these people who have crossed off one belief system can easily fall for another, and another, and another. They will continue to be swayed by personal anecdotes and their own wishful thinking. When you are willing, even eager, to believe something that feels good but has no evidence that it is real, you are still open to many dangerous cults and even re-conversion to Christianity.

 

So I question the helpfulness of encouraging magical thinking, but I shall respect your right to allow it. I know you have a tough job as a moderator here.

[Ouroboros]

I hear ya', and at first I was thinking you're making good points, but then I realized some problems: first of all, how can I say that atheism is the only healthy way for all people? In other words, atheism works great for me, but I can't say that it's the ultimate goal for every person. Some people might have to live with some belief because it's completely inconceivable for them to think otherwise. Secondly, how can I be sure their current belief is just a stepping stone from Christianity to non-belief? Some members on this board were Deists, Buddhists and such, before they became agnostic, and some later became atheist. So should I judge them by saying they can't go through that phase or that we can't have open discussions about their belief during that phase? I don't think I can. I can't absolutely know what is the best way or path for a person to go through to relieve themselves from the bondage of Christianity. Just like there are steps people go through emotionally when they handle grief, or that kids grow up and go through several phases of cognitive abilities, people need to be able to go through the steps/phases when they leave Christianity, without the risk of being mauled. (Which I know we all do quite often... it's a favorite hobby of mine, so no judgment from me. )

 

And I see that the beliefs expressed in this ToS section does not have to go completely unchallenged. Start the same topic but under Rants or Lion's Den and bring up all those issues, and invite the believers to engage in the debate. Just like Ex-Christian.net is a safe-haven for Non-Christians, we also need a safe place for Non-Christians-But-Still-Believe-Something-Else-members.

[florduh]

Just to clarify, I didn't say atheism is the only healthy way for all people. Christianity works for a lot of people. So does astrology and Scientology. I simply assert that having a rational reason to believe something is preferable to blind faith, whether it's faith in Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard, Buddha or tea leaves.

 

I do understand the stages of deconversion and the confusion that usually follows. I would just hope people try to understand why they hold the beliefs they have adopted.

 

I promise to be good if I come in here.

[Ouroboros]

I promise to be good if I come in here.

I know you will.

 

But i will try to allow some level of opposition to the questions, as long as they stay within my arbitrary (based on random fluctuations of emotional state) rules.

[BlueGiant]

First off, most of the beliefs expressed here are personal, we are not trying to shove them down your throat, florduh. I, for one, am not asking you to accept anything I believe as true, religiously.

 

I think the key point of this part of the board is that people here aren't proselytizing (with the possible exception of some fervent atheists). I appreciate that some people see "magical thinking" (whatever that is) as some sort of great threat to the world that needs to be stamped out. That (their) rationality and (their) experience is the right one and that all people need to follow it. This section stands and says that, indeed, one can leave Christianity and yet can maintain their own religious identity and/or forge a new one.

 

Some of us have honed our critical thinking skills and still found our own spiritual paths. Some weigh what evidence they have and come to their own conclusions about the underlying nature of reality. It may take a lot of exploring, and it may be a stop on the way to atheism, or it may be what someone realizes is a right belief for them.

 

As far as the disagreements go, other than proselytizing (and the you're stupid because you're not an atheist sentiment I've seen on this board in the past when people get worked up is a form of proselytizing), and plain flamewars seem to be the line as far as I'm concerned.

[Ouroboros]

And I hope everyone will point out when I step over the line, or didn't step far enough.

[florduh]

Some of us have honed our critical thinking skills and still found our own spiritual paths. Some weigh what evidence they have and come to their own conclusions about the underlying nature of reality.

 

As it should be. Too many skip the thinking and weighing evidence part.

[BlueGiant]

Some of us have honed our critical thinking skills and still found our own spiritual paths. Some weigh what evidence they have and come to their own conclusions about the underlying nature of reality.

 

As it should be. Too many skip the thinking and weighing evidence part.

 

Being an active member of a couple of pagan snark communities, I will definitely agree with you on that point.

[Deva]

And I hope everyone will point out when I step over the line, or didn't step far enough.

 

Don't worry Mod Hans, at your service. I will help you keep an eye on things here

[Antlerman]

Unless critical thinking skills are honed, these people who have crossed off one belief system can easily fall for another, and another, and another. They will continue to be swayed by personal anecdotes and their own wishful thinking. When you are willing, even eager, to believe something that feels good but has no evidence that it is real, you are still open to many dangerous cults and even re-conversion to Christianity.

You do realize that this is a faith statement itself? That rational thinking is the only way to live correctly? That that is a religious belief no different than saying you must believe in a God to be saved?

 

The point of this forum as I see it, is that those who choose alternative faiths other than Christianity can do so, without the religion of rationalism telling them to take their adopted path instead of any other? That the objection was that they felt as accosted religiously as the Christians who said the Jesus was the only way?

 

I'm being hard on this - speaking as a member, because I see validity in many alternative approaches to belief. The only thing here is that all concerned find Christianity to be not acceptable. It's not necessarily because of how you see it, that it fails to be logical. Many people leave for many reasons, and it may have little to do with what you or others find important to them - the criteria of rationality. (Frankly I would challenge that even those who say so themselves leave for emotional reasons, and rational support is used as justification for the emotional choice, but that's another discussion for another thread).

 

So I question the helpfulness of encouraging magical thinking, but I shall respect your right to allow it. I know you have a tough job as a moderator here.

"Allow magical thinking"? Let me be blunt, speaking as a member, and one who has a fairly acute rational mind himself, this sounds really arrogant and a religious put down, sort of like calling people spiritually blind because they don't see the world the same way they do religiously. Allow? Magical Thinking?

 

Here's what I do. As a more than reasonably rational, intelligent, thinking person, I try to see the value in all ways of looking at the world and I invite different perspectives, because I'm smart enough and have gained enough experience to realize the wisdom in recognizing there is no one "right" way to approach life as a human. This includes the embrace of science and reason as the single Way, Truth, and Life. I thought in "right way/wrong way" terms as a fundamentalist, and I work to keep myself from limiting my thoughts to only one Way. Calling symbolic thought as Magical Thinking, or in terms that we allow this sort of sub-logical thinking because we somehow have to be nice to people who think poorly according to our beliefs, to me betrays that we haven't left the sort of thoughts we had as fundamentalist Christians, just transfered them to a new god.

 

To me I left Christianity because it limited the growth in me as human being full of limitless potentials. I'm not going to just find a new Truth with a capital T to put up whole new walls for me. I really left that limiting system, not just in name only. I believe in Freedom, with a capital F.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm being hard on this - speaking as a member, because I see validity in many alternative approaches to belief. The only thing here is that all concerned find Christianity to be not acceptable. It's not necessarily because of how you see it, that it fails to be logical. Many people leave for many reasons, and it may have little to do with what you or others find important to them - the criteria of rationality. (Frankly I would challenge that even those who say so themselves leave for emotional reasons, and rational support is used as justification for the emotional choice, but that's another discussion for another thread).

I definitely agree with this. Not everyone leaves Christianity solely for "rational" reasons. Some people might leave because they disagreed with the doctrines that the bible taught and other people might have left simply because they didn't like the religion but not necessarily hate all religion. If it's possible for people to switch between different Christian denominations because of doctrinal differences and reasons other than pure "rationality", I don't see why it couldn't be done for other religions too.

[florduh]

Unless critical thinking skills are honed, these people who have crossed off one belief system can easily fall for another, and another, and another. They will continue to be swayed by personal anecdotes and their own wishful thinking. When you are willing, even eager, to believe something that feels good but has no evidence that it is real, you are still open to many dangerous cults and even re-conversion to Christianity.

You do realize that this is a faith statement itself? That rational thinking is the only way to live correctly? That that is a religious belief no different than saying you must believe in a God to be saved?

 

The point of this forum as I see it, is that those who choose alternative faiths other than Christianity can do so, without the religion of rationalism telling them to take their adopted path instead of any other? That the objection was that they felt as accosted religiously as the Christians who said the Jesus was the only way?

 

I'm being hard on this - speaking as a member, because I see validity in many alternative approaches to belief. The only thing here is that all concerned find Christianity to be not acceptable. It's not necessarily because of how you see it, that it fails to be logical. Many people leave for many reasons, and it may have little to do with what you or others find important to them - the criteria of rationality. (Frankly I would challenge that even those who say so themselves leave for emotional reasons, and rational support is used as justification for the emotional choice, but that's another discussion for another thread).

 

So I question the helpfulness of encouraging magical thinking, but I shall respect your right to allow it. I know you have a tough job as a moderator here.

"Allow magical thinking"? Let me be blunt, speaking as a member, and one who has a fairly acute rational mind himself, this sounds really arrogant and a religious put down, sort of like calling people spiritually blind because they don't see the world the same way they do religiously. Allow? Magical Thinking?

 

Here's what I do. As a more than reasonably rational, intelligent, thinking person, I try to see the value in all ways of looking at the world and I invite different perspectives, because I'm smart enough and have gained enough experience to realize the wisdom in recognizing there is no one "right" way to approach life as a human. This includes the embrace of science and reason as the single Way, Truth, and Life. I thought in "right way/wrong way" terms as a fundamentalist, and I work to keep myself from limiting my thoughts to only one Way. Calling symbolic thought as Magical Thinking, or in terms that we allow this sort of sub-logical thinking because we somehow have to be nice to people who think poorly according to our beliefs, to me betrays that we haven't left the sort of thoughts we had as fundamentalist Christians, just transfered them to a new god.

 

To me I left Christianity because it limited the growth in me as human being full of limitless potentials. I'm not going to just find a new Truth with a capital T to put up whole new walls for me. I really left that limiting system, not just in name only. I believe in Freedom, with a capital F.

 

 

AM, I respect your mind and the knowledge you obviously posses, but I must respond.

 

First, I never equated symbolic thought with magical thinking. I equate tea leaves, crystals and astrology practices to magical thinking. Embracing all foolish beliefs to avoid offending anyone or so you can feel "open minded" is rather nonproductive. And there ARE foolish beliefs and foolish people out there. You might agree that fundamental Christianity is one such wrong and foolish belief, but there are others. Magnets have been proven to have no effect on the human body, but some people swear by the healing powers of their magnetic bracelets. Same for crystals, amulets and talismans. Must we give these ideas validity simply because some poor fool still believes in them? Why is it wrong to recognize silly superstition for what it is? Have we learned nothing in thousands of years? If someone left Christianity and turned to Voodoo, what would you say to them? I can't bring myself to say, "Curing disease by sacrificing a chicken and saying incantations is not my way, but it is just as valid as using antibiotics." That isn't symbolic interpretation of a great cosmic truth, it's a useless superstitious practice of people who don't know any better. Not everything people think or do is valid, and there is no need to keep an open mind concerning ideas that have been shown to be wrong.

 

Reason has brought us to the place where we can communicate via this medium of the Internet. Rational thought took us to the moon. It was not astrology, soothsaying or necromancy. It wasn't any religion.

 

I, too, am an artist. Must I believe in fairies or angels to be creative? Must I believe any outlandish thing people can dream up is possible before I revel in a sunset, or paint an inspiring picture? Or can I enjoy the majesty of our reality without making up fantasies about it?

 

Your use of the word 'allow' is out of the context I used, as the discussion was with the moderator who ALLOWS what gets posted here. You added a pejorative flavor to my words to help make your point of how open and accepting you are, and how closed-minded and arrogant I am. I also see that you believe in Freedom and by inference I don't. Must by my arrogance again.

 

I can't apologize for encouraging critical thinking. Without it, we are open to any and all ideas, be they religious or political. The ability to THINK is our species' most important attribute. The ability to dream and imagine enriches our thoughts, but it is crucial that we think first and last when considering new ideas.

 

 

If my respect for rationality is a religious belief as you say, then my position on these matters is also protected from attacks or scrutiny.

[Neon Genesis]

The way I look at the ex-theism and spirituality forum is that I look at it as being sort of like being invited to an inter-faith church for ex-Christians only on the Internet. If you go to an inter-faith church as a visitor, I think you should have the freedom to ask whatever questions you have and to speak your mind. At the same time though one wouldn't go visit an inter-faith church for the sole purpose of criticizing the members there for some noble purpose of saving them from what one perceives as being irrational mainly because it would be disrespectful to the members there who only want a place to express their faith without being harassed for it. And also because chances are, you wouldn't like it if religious members came to the places you socialize at just to tell you how irrational you are for not accepting their beliefs, so it would make me look hypocritical for me to go around trying to deconvert others for a belief that isn't hurting anyone else when I wouldn't like if if they did it to me. It's that whole "do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing. Would you like it if religious believes came around and invaded a forum made for you to feel safe with expressing yourself to tell you how stupid and idiotic your beliefs are? If you wouldn't like it if the religious did it to you, why do it to the religious if the religious aren't bothering you with their personal beliefs?

[pitchu]

I rarely read any of the threads in this forum, so I haven't much to say about how posts are handled or how policy here is made, Hans. But I do have an abiding question about it all, for which my guess is that there's no clear, clean answer.

 

The reason I don't often visit this forum is because initially I found myself reading a couple of threads then sighing and exiting, much as I would from a room full of Harry Potter aficionados. I understand that all things religious, mystical, metaphysical and even Harry Potterish may be of great interest to great numbers of people, but such things have been of no interest to me since 1960 when I tried a Ouija board at a high school slumber party and called out Clara for intentionally making the triangle move.

 

Being of this frame of mind, I tend to maintain hands-off on the issue, lest I find myself spouting off in whole-hearted support of Florduh's take on the thing. I am, however, left wondering why there's a cushioned section honoring the delicate sensibilities of those of a "spiritual" bent, to the almost total banishment of any meaningful participation by any other sort of outlook here. I know, I know, there were complaints that atheist-Crips kept pulling switchblades on spiritual-Bloods, but I'm still totally in the dark as to why, especially at a site like Ex-c, Believers-in-Anything shouldn't be expected (and encouraged!) to give as good as they get.

 

(Send them to me and I'll teach them how to make a shiv from a toothbrush.)

[R. S. Martin]

If someone left Christianity and turned to Voodoo, what would you say to them? I can't bring myself to say, "Curing disease by sacrificing a chicken and saying incantations is not my way, but it is just as valid as using antibiotics."

 

Just a suggestion based on the kinds of things people have said to me when I experimented with a rather "way out" idea: I'm glad you are finding something that works for you. Maybe with time you will find that [fill in something you consider more appropriate but perhaps still in line with the person's interests and beliefs]. Try not to suggest something so different that the person takes it as ridicule of the present decision.

 

By sticking with something that is in line with the person's interests and beliefs you respect the person but provide ideas and guidance. It is not unsolicited advice because you are just throwing out ideas. It is important to do it in the attitude of throwing out ideas as opposed to giving advise.

 

You will note that this is a way to avoid expressing judgment on the present decision for Voodoo, etc. At the same time, it allows for you to acknowledge the person, and to do so in a sincere and caring manner, without compromising your own beliefs. If they beg to know your position, you can always admit that you personally wouldn't go that route but the important thing is that they find something that works for them. (If they are doing something that is harmful, obviously, a more aggressive tactic would be required; this response that I am suggesting would be for something that simply comes across to oneself as utterly stupid but harmless.)

 

As a person who has come out of prolonged excessive judgmental situations, I have had a major need for the opportunity to simply experiment with my own ideas. However, I did need guidance and I needed it badly. But what I needed above all else was people who cared about me and who stuck with me no matter what happened through thick and thin. The lady who "rescued" me 13 years ago is still with me. I think our relationship is more normal now than it was at first, yet she was always supportive and never overbearing or judgmental. The abnormal part was how much I needed her and how much she contributed of her time and energy. I'm sharing this just so you know it can work, even in severe cases, but it may take a long time and require much patience and hard work on your part.

 

I'm still not sure how or why she did it. Mostly she just listened to me for hours on end on the telephone. And when I needed a question answered she would help me think it through. Whew! I don't remember how it all worked but what I'm trying to say is that there are alternatives to expressing judgment on a person's decision.

 

I was here when this part of the forum was set up. People were leaving because they felt out of place. They felt out of place because atheism seemed to dominate here as though it were the only legitimate conclusion. Yet they were convinced there was "something out there" but not the Christian god. I understand the central theme of these forums is to support exChristians. Thus, it seems wrong to make exChristians feel out of place just because they feel convinced that there is a god of some kind.

 

Getting out of the dominant religion of the world, i.e. Christianity, can be such a traumatic experience that a support group is required, no matter what other conclusions one arrives at regarding reality or life or existence. For this reason I support this part of the forum and seldom post in it. I am afraid my atheism is too strong and will somehow offend. However, when the question was raised as to where the "god feeling" (I forget the term used) comes from--and it seemed to me like people truly wanted to know as opposed to justify belief--I responded with what I considered to be scientific data. Others also contributed what they considered to be deliberated analysis of the phenomenon. I did not find out that anyone had a problem with it. I assumed that was because the question was posited.

[R. S. Martin]

HanSolo, or whoever, I have a question.

 

Sometimes atheists post questions on here about beliefs. I have wondered about the ethics of that. I always get a feeling it is a veiled "belief in any kind of god is stupid" statement. Maybe I'm wrong but since this thread is opened I thought I'd ask. Does that kind of question follow the guidelines or purposes of this particular forum? Shouldn't atheists post those questions in other forums? Then again, I am not sure if Dave allows any beliefs to be ranted except Christianity. Because this is exChristian and not ex-anything else.

 

Atheists, there are atheist forums. Check out RichardDawkins.net. The folks there are pretty intelligent just like here. Slightly different ethos but few topics seem to be off-limits--except one. Personal attacks are strictly forbidden. I wasn't too observant of that rule and flamed a Christian who was on the forums. I got a mod warning and was docked a point. I don't know how many points one has to begin with so I pulled in rein immediately--I deleted the offending post and posted an apology. I guess we can't attack the Christians because they are people.

 

I think I've seen them shred religious beliefs because beliefs are ideas and it's okay to attack ideas. I personally see little difference between ideas and the person in whose brain these ideas originate--I am my ideas and if you disrespect my ideas you disrespect me. That's happened a lot to me. I've learned how to deal with that; just stay away from the people who do that too much and/or grow a thick skin. As for RichardDawkins.net, I seem to be doing okay. That was the only post anyone seemed to have a problem with so the rest of you will probably do fine there, too.

[Antlerman]

First, I never equated symbolic thought with magical thinking. I equate tea leaves, crystals and astrology practices to magical thinking. Embracing all foolish beliefs to avoid offending anyone or so you can feel "open minded" is rather nonproductive. And there ARE foolish beliefs and foolish people out there. You might agree that fundamental Christianity is one such wrong and foolish belief, but there are others. Magnets have been proven to have no effect on the human body, but some people swear by the healing powers of their magnetic bracelets. Same for crystals, amulets and talismans. Must we give these ideas validity simply because some poor fool still believes in them?

Thanks for your reasonable response. I appreciate it. I think where I'm reacting is that I hear a tendency in those espousing rationality to lump all manner of superstitions and religious thought together without regard to the layers of how it actually functions in people and society. Not all religious thought is "superstitious" in practice, but as I said it's more symbolic. Of course, I see any religious thought that is taken literally, to the point of blocking itself to other possibilities; where it closes one's mind off from knowledge, understanding, and perspective as unhealthy and "foolish" ultimately. I say that of any religious abuse, whether it's mystical or secular belief systems.

 

But not everyone who uses those systems takes them literally. And to brand everyone who does as out of touch with rational thought, is both inaccurate and limited in perspective, IMO. In fact, I believe that those who do, to the point of actively closing their thoughts to possibilities through marriage to their beliefs, are not the majority.

 

Do you believe it's possible that someone can practice putting magnets on their body, and receive benefit through that act of "faith", because on a subtle level they are using it as a vehicle to focus their positive thoughts through? I think it's a fine line between "believing" in these stones or magnets, and believing in them as undeniably having scientific, empirical veracity. People believe in X. But is that belief, a belief operating on a human level in the efficacy of the symbol, in that it works to bring about the desired effect - through whatever the actual means is, or is it viewed dogmatically that it is in fact testable and rooted in scientific reality? Does defense of this, translate into a rational disconnect with fact; a tenuous relationship, or a comfortable recognition either consciously or emotionally that it really doesn’t matter?

 

To me, that the tricky part. That's the measuring stick of maturity and understanding the subtle nature and power of signs. That's "spiritual" maturity. That's the wisdom of those who understand the power of the symbol, the power of "God", so to speak. The young in faith, perhaps see them as literal for a time in order to "believe" in them, but hopefully as they grown they move beyond that more simple understanding to see them as signs of something more powerful than some literal external force to something that is an internal power that they own; in other words, that we are God.

 

 

BTW, who said anything about “embracing” beliefs? I didn’t. Is being able to recognize the validity of something to someone else, the same thing as embracing it as a valid system for you? Not in my world it isn’t.

 

Why is it wrong to recognize silly superstition for what it is?

Because it’s more complex than to reduce it to the term “silly”. Think about this: Imagine yourself several centuries in the past as a missionary bringing the Light of God to these backwards savages who live in superstitious darkness. Isn’t that a matter of relative perspective? Whose system is right? Christianity’s? Empirical Science’s?

 

Have we learned nothing in thousands of years? If someone left Christianity and turned to Voodoo, what would you say to them? I can't bring myself to say, "Curing disease by sacrificing a chicken and saying incantations is not my way, but it is just as valid as using antibiotics." That isn't symbolic interpretation of a great cosmic truth, it's a useless superstitious practice of people who don't know any better. Not everything people think or do is valid, and there is no need to keep an open mind concerning ideas that have been shown to be wrong.

Let me throw this out to you. Rationally speaking, if something were as useless as you characterize, why would it persist? Honestly, humanly speaking, evolutionarily speaking, humans don’t keep something around that isn’t offering at least something beneficial. Maybe the problem is us not being able to recognize what that might be?

 

Like I said elsewhere, “what is it you’re trying to accomplish?”. That’s what determines the appropriateness of one system versus another. Also, don’t forget the power of the mind over our own bodies….

 

Reason has brought us to the place where we can communicate via this medium of the Internet. Rational thought took us to the moon. It was not astrology, soothsaying or necromancy. It wasn't any religion.

Was it science alone that brought us as a species up to the last 200 years of our evolution, or something else also?

 

I, too, am an artist. Must I believe in fairies or angels to be creative? Must I believe any outlandish thing people can dream up is possible before I revel in a sunset, or paint an inspiring picture? Or can I enjoy the majesty of our reality without making up fantasies about it?

Of course not. I don’t. But I would say you have to believe in some ideal that the tools of science doesn’t address, right? You say “reality”. I actually would argue your reality, is not one that science informs you about, but rather something else. The same as me, the same as everyone else.

 

Your use of the word 'allow' is out of the context I used, as the discussion was with the moderator who ALLOWS what gets posted here. You added a pejorative flavor to my words to help make your point of how open and accepting you are, and how closed-minded and arrogant I am. I also see that you believe in Freedom and by inference I don't. Must by my arrogance again.

As I recall you said, “I question the helpfulness of encouraging magical thinking, but I shall respect your right to allow it.” It impressed me as saying that even though you consider it less than worthy, you will respect the site’s stance to permit it anyway. That sounding a bit condescending to me. Perhaps I interpreted that comment too far.

 

BTW, who is “encouraging” magical thinking, when someone shows respect? Doesn’t this sound along the lines of “If you’re not for me, you’re against me?” To respect and to encourage are not the same things. Why do you seem to take it that way? Am I misunderstanding?

 

I can't apologize for encouraging critical thinking. Without it, we are open to any and all ideas, be they religious or political. The ability to THINK is our species' most important attribute. The ability to dream and imagine enriches our thoughts, but it is crucial that we think first and last when considering new ideas.

I agree with encouraging critical thought. As part of that, I would say it shouldn’t limit itself to materialistic interpretations philosophically only. I would say balance is the absolute heart of critical thought, and one-sided materialistic thinking is a failure to be a genuine “free-thinker”.

 

If my respect for rationality is a religious belief as you say, then my position on these matters is also protected from attacks or scrutiny.

It’s not a respect for rationality that I was calling a religious belief. I have a great respect for rationality as well, as should be obvious. You may wish to re-read what I said about it that crosses over from a tool, to a religion. I was pretty clear about that difference. "I am THE Way, THE Truth, THE Life," that was my comparison to those who view rational thought ONLY as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

Edit: As far as protecting you have a religious thought of rationality, if that be the case: No. It's not having a belief that qualifies it to be protected. What will get criticized is any belief that claims it and it alone is superior and all else less that sub-logical, sub-rational, sub-reasonable, foolish, silly, dumb, stupid, etc. That applies to dogmatic flavors of Christianity, Paganism, Hinduism, Atheism, Materialism, or whatever belief can't find room to be respectful to those who see things differently.

 

 

I appreciate the dialog and look forward to your thoughts. If Hans should wish for us to separate this out from this thread, I’d be willing to do so with you.

[Antlerman]

HanSolo, or whoever, I have a question.

 

Sometimes atheists post questions on here about beliefs. I have wondered about the ethics of that. I always get a feeling it is a veiled "belief in any kind of god is stupid" statement. Maybe I'm wrong but since this thread is opened I thought I'd ask. Does that kind of question follow the guidelines or purposes of this particular forum? Shouldn't atheists post those questions in other forums? Then again, I am not sure if Dave allows any beliefs to be ranted except Christianity. Because this is exChristian and not ex-anything else.

 

Atheists, there are atheist forums. Check out RichardDawkins.net. The folks there are pretty intelligent just like here. Slightly different ethos but few topics seem to be off-limits--except one. Personal attacks are strictly forbidden. I wasn't too observant of that rule and flamed a Christian who was on the forums. I got a mod warning and was docked a point. I don't know how many points one has to begin with so I pulled in rein immediately--I deleted the offending post and posted an apology. I guess we can't attack the Christians because they are people.

 

I think I've seen them shred religious beliefs because beliefs are ideas and it's okay to attack ideas. I personally see little difference between ideas and the person in whose brain these ideas originate--I am my ideas and if you disrespect my ideas you disrespect me. That's happened a lot to me. I've learned how to deal with that; just stay away from the people who do that too much and/or grow a thick skin. As for RichardDawkins.net, I seem to be doing okay. That was the only post anyone seemed to have a problem with so the rest of you will probably do fine there, too.

Ruby, I really think it has to do with the perceived intent in how someone asks the question about a belief. Note I'm saying the "perceived" intent? If the question comes off as some sort of set-up to criticize or ridicule, then it may be met with less than respect. That happens here all the time when a Christian comes in asking a "question". The sincerity of the person asking a potentially controversial question is hard to read sometimes on the Internet. Word choices are critical towards that end.

 

As far as attacking the beliefs is attacking the person, I actually will disagree with you respectfully on this. Quite the exact opposite, one of the rules of interpersonal relationships says that we should be clear that to disagree with someone's beliefs, is NOT to disrespect them as a person. Everyone has the right to believe as they choose, and those beliefs may, and often do change. But those beliefs are things we adopt, and that our dignity as human beings transcends those things. It's the ideal of unconditional love. I don't just respect those I agree with. That would be rather shallow of me. It would make my acceptance of them as a person contingent on them agreeing with my views. It's critically important in relationships to be able to disagree with respect. Respect is more important than our differences.

[Ouroboros]

I appreciate the dialog and look forward to your thoughts. If Hans should wish for us to separate this out from this thread, I’d be willing to do so with you.

No, I want it to go on. I have certain views on these things but I need to see what people think on this website, and I'm surprised how extremely different they are.

[R. S. Martin]

I know, I know, there were complaints that atheist-Crips kept pulling switchblades on spiritual-Bloods, but I'm still totally in the dark as to why, especially at a site like Ex-c, Believers-in-Anything shouldn't be expected (and encouraged!) to give as good as they get.

 

May I challenge you on that statement? What do these "Believers-in-Anything" give that they should accept back in return?

1. For example, do they challenge Christians for logical explanations about their beliefs? Or do they charge them on some other grounds that are absent from their specific beliefs? Hmmm. Seems Thurisaz or someone has said they could never connect with the Christian god but has felt connection with some other god. Would that not count as a pretty strong reason for believing in a particular god?
   
2. Another example: Maybe a person has a moral problem with a god that demands so much evangelization as Jesus does but still thinks one should believe in some kind of god. Or feels the need to do so. Or feels the conviction that a god exists or that "there is something out there," etc.
   

If this is the basis for a person's choice of pagan gods/goddeses, would it not seem somewhat unreasonable to expect them to provide a theological exegesis of how they know this god exists, or exactly how this god alleviates pain or answers prayer? (Who ever said this particular god does these things???) It would seem they are in it for emotional or moral reasons rather than logical or practical reasons. And they are probably on these forums to celebrate having exited the dominant religion of the land. Or to recuperate the damage it inflicted on them. Etc.

 

Their new gods probably don't have extensive bibles and other theological literature along with schools, sermons, Sunday Schools, and other fulltime paid and volunteer ministries--not to mention national holidays and slogans in every newspaper and on public buildings. They might not have too many radio and TV programs devoted to them, either. For this reason, devotees might not have had opportunity to think through and develop views on all the finers details of the universe. Just my thoughts.

 

Adherents.com shows the nonreligious position to be the third largest world-wide, after Christianity and Islam.

• Christianity 33%
  
• Islam 21%
  
• Nonreligious 16%
  
• Hindu 14%
  
• Primal-Indigenous 6%
  

That being the case, there may well be more literature and programs available for atheists than for wicca and pagans, etc. My guess is that there is a wider variety in the beliefs of the primal-indigenous religions (in which I assume wicca and pagan religions are included) than in all the varieties of Christianity, due in part to the vast array of gods. I have read that most of the literature and evidence of ancient worship of these gods has been destroyed by Christianity. Thus, the sources from which to draw are scant and there has been less than a century's time in which to develop thought.

 

I understand paganism was revived in about 1940. In contrast, secularists have accumulated quite a collection of classical literature dating back at least two centuries or more. This cannot begin to compare with the libraries full of Christian literature, but right now we are talking about exChristian spirituality and theism, which I understand is mostly paganism on these forums. Maybe I'm wrong in that.

 

What say, pitchu, florduh? I think I'm as atheist as you. I've gone so far as to argue that god can be disproven. Maybe I'm just stupid and naive...but suffice it to say I'm atheist but I fully understand why people are justified to believe in god.

[Deva]

I am, however, left wondering why there's a cushioned section honoring the delicate sensibilities of those of a "spiritual" bent, to the almost total banishment of any meaningful participation by any other sort of outlook here. I know, I know, there were complaints that atheist-Crips kept pulling switchblades on spiritual-Bloods, but I'm still totally in the dark as to why, especially at a site like Ex-c, Believers-in-Anything shouldn't be expected (and encouraged!) to give as good as they get.

 

If this approach (giving as good as they get) were to be the case in this forum, then this site, in my opinion, would be nothing more than another atheist forum. However, the purpose of this site is to support ex-christians of every kind. Why not give them one spot to express their spiritual beliefs which differ from Christianity without being jumped on and asked constantly to "prove it"?

 

There should be room here for atheists and also those who have other ideas. If they start posting voodoo or satanism or whatever on any other section of the forums then they can be asked to defend it. The point is that they are out of Christianity and should have some level of support for that accomplishment.