This Section

[Antlerman]

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 policy were to be the case 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.

It's really interesting to see my thoughts having evolved about this forum. At first when it was created my initial feeling was that it was unfortunate. Not that there was a forum set aside specifically for the safeguarded protection of non-atheistic beliefs, but that it was necessary. I felt a loss that happened in the other forums as a result of different perspectives being challenged from the atheist perspective as the measuring stick of all thing credible and valid.

 

As to the criticism characterizing those with non-Christian, non-Atheist views as having "delicate sensibilities" in their objection to having to incessantly defend their views using the tools of science and reason to the satisfaction of modern neo-atheists, viz., "philosophical rationalist materialism", I would ask why should they have to? Again, who sets this standard?

 

As having more traditional atheistic existentialist views, I also recognize that humans are much more that some sort of calculating, rational machine. Humans operate functionally well in ways that don't follow strictly to logic and reason. In fact, I argue that's true of all humans, and those who claim to be strictly rational in fact don't live that way themselves. We can't. It's not possible to be human and function with pure rationality. We don't process information and interact with the world that way.

 

So what we have here as I see it are those who frankly don't care to get into debates about their beliefs every time they express them to an apologist who seems to feel everyone should believe as they do, holding their criteria for truth up to them to measure up to. "You must be rational, if not you are being illogical and your beliefs are silly."

 

What I've come to see now over time, is that just as where Christians are not allowed to come into ExChristian Life and cast challenges to people's views where they become provoked into debating and defending their views instead of talking about them in the way they intended in the first place, this forum is a safe space where people can talk about matters of spiritual interest without having to defend and debate their views every time they bring them up to those who feel compelled to challenge a belief that doesn't square with their own.

 

There is a difference between a discussion of differences, and being branded as silly or having delicate sensibilities because they don't care to fight with rationalists. Is the ExChristian Life forum for those ExChristians who have "delicate sensibilities", because they choose an area where they don't care to deal with the dogma of Christian apologists? Should I criticize them because they avoid the Lion's Den where apologists are allowed to challenge freely? Bottom line, I've come to appreciate the reasons for this forum, even though I consider it unfortunate it seems necessary.

[florduh]

The only truth is that we each hold views, and we each believe that those views are the correct ones. That is why we hold them, after all.

 

These and other forums of discussion and debate are all about proving your own position to be valid. While one may say that every idea deserves consideration and respect, it is still asserting a position to say that. The argument that such a position is best because it removes all barriers to thinking freely doesn't fly. By assigning value, validity or consideration to absolutely every notion people can dream up, you lose discernment by requiring yourself to not reject out of hand all the foolish and disproved ideas. Some very old and sincerely believed concepts are just flat out wrong. We should be free to discard them.

 

Some practices such as prayer, rune stones, card and candle spells, astrology, magical potions and hex casting do have real effects on people at times. This is, of course, the placebo effect or positive/negative thinking. If you are superstitious and know you've been hexed or cursed, you will be unable to concentrate and subconsciously make things go wrong, even make yourself physically ill. That does not mean that hexes and curses are real, it just means the mind-body connection is a valid mechanism and some people are simply ignorant of how it all works physiologically. Christianity, so eagerly vilified here, offers real and practical value to many otherwise hopeless people. Belief that God will see them through the tough times is all they have. Does that make Christianity the true religion?

 

My original point remains. I simply believe people should think about and know why they believe what they do. After leaving Christianity, we need to be careful about falling for another line of wishful thinking.

[Antlerman]

The only truth is that we each hold views, and we each believe that those views are the correct ones. That is why we hold them, after all.

 

These and other forums of discussion and debate are all about proving your own position to be valid. While one may say that every idea deserves consideration and respect, it is still asserting a position to say that. The argument that such a position is best because it removes all barriers to thinking freely doesn't fly.

This is an argument that is the same as saying that by stating "There is no truth", you have just declared a truth and contradicted yourself. Another comparison would be to trap someone with words for saying, "I'm intolerant of intolerance". Though a seeming contradiction in language, it is a valid concept nonetheless. To say one should be open minded, is not valid to then say they would therefore of necessity have to be open to being closed-minded, or put another way that they are closed minded to the idea of being closed minded, and therefore not open-minded. The conundrum expressed in the language does not negate the validity of meaning conveyed in its statement. It's an argument of words, not meaning. Is science for instance, a closed system because they take a position of being open, and therefore closed to being closed? This is in effect is what I hear in the argument you are making above.

 

A couple other points to the above. I hold my views to be true - to me. And I also hold them with an open hand, not with a firm grip. If one actually were to be scientific, they would not hold their views as Truth with a capital T. Read my signature line below as something that accurately reflects the open-ended approach to knowledge that to me gives more power than claiming certainty.

 

Also, are these forums really all about nothing other that proving your own position to be valid? Not to me it isn't. When I debate an issue really what I'm doing is testing it for myself, and through that I can shape and mold my thoughts in an ever morphing, ever evolving point of view. I'm an explorer of me, so to speak. Others are here for lots of other reasons, and some don't care to debate or defend their views. Again, not all people left the religion for the reasons you may claim to have - that of the strength or lack of proof. Again, I'm personally suspicion anyone changes their beliefs for logic reasons alone, but even so, most clearly not everyone thinks the same or has the same reasons for leaving. This forum is diverse. I just happen to be one of those who enjoys debate for the reasons I stated above for me. It's not everyone's cup of tea.

 

 

By assigning value, validity or consideration to absolutely every notion people can dream up, you lose discernment by requiring yourself to not reject out of hand all the foolish and disproved ideas. Some very old and sincerely believed concepts are just flat out wrong. We should be free to discard them.

I'm hearing a fallacy a few times now, where it takes a principle of open mindedness and gives extreme examples of "absolutely every notion people can dream up". Who is doing that? Who is "embracing" absolutely every idea? That's a straw man argument. It's like the apologist saying, "If you don't believe in God, what's to keep you from just killing everyone?"

 

Again, no. It's not consideration as to the testable, or even feasibility of anything that comes out of imagination. Obviously there has to be some measure of testablity if we're talking about things like claims that magnets actually have a direct physiology impact. Now we're talking about scientific claims. But that's not what I mean at all. I'm talking about systems of symbolic beliefs, seeing the world through a framework of mythology. Not all things "believed" has a literal meaning to the believer. But the comment you make in fearing this would open you to not being able to discern reality, or right or wrong, is itself taking it literally. It's literal thinking. I covered this before.

 

 

Some practices such as prayer, rune stones, card and candle spells, astrology, magical potions and hex casting do have real effects on people at times. This is, of course, the placebo effect or positive/negative thinking. If you are superstitious and know you've been hexed or cursed, you will be unable to concentrate and subconsciously make things go wrong, even make yourself physically ill. That does not mean that hexes and curses are real, it just means the mind-body connection is a valid mechanism and some people are simply ignorant of how it all works physiologically. Christianity, so eagerly vilified here, offers real and practical value to many otherwise hopeless people. Belief that God will see them through the tough times is all they have. Does that make Christianity the true religion?

I agree with all of this up to the tie in with your last sentence. I note the word choice, "the true religion". Who would say that even though people using the symbols gain benefit, it would suggest Christianity is "the" true religion? In fact, define "true"? I personal won't use words like this in regards to any belief system, whether religious or secular. If someone believing in God, or any other deity derive benefit from it, it in no way can be concluded they are therefore "the true religion". That's not even a valid question. I would argue that through the means you described it may or may not work for an individual. At best it could be said it has benefit to them, at that time.

 

I have to go for now, but something a friend said to me once really got me thinking towards this point I am now. He said, "The difference between before when I believed I had the truth when I was a Christian and now, is that now I really do have the truth." That really struck me as telling to so many things. It's a world view that approaches life as static answers to be sought. It changed me to hear that and look at the reasons in myself that I was attracted to a literalist system in the first place.

 

 

 

My original point remains. I simply believe people should think about and know why they believe what they do. After leaving Christianity, we need to be careful about falling for another line of wishful thinking.

Not all people approached religion for the same reasons you did.

[Neon Genesis]

As having more traditional atheistic existentialist views, I also recognize that humans are much more that some sort of calculating, rational machine. Humans operate functionally well in ways that don't follow strictly to logic and reason. In fact, I argue that's true of all humans, and those who claim to be strictly rational in fact don't live that way themselves. We can't. It's not possible to be human and function with pure rationality. We don't process information and interact with the world that way.

 

So what we have here as I see it are those who frankly don't care to get into debates about their beliefs every time they express them to an apologist who seems to feel everyone should believe as they do, holding their criteria for truth up to them to measure up to. "You must be rational, if not you are being illogical and your beliefs are silly."

I definitely agree with this and another thing to consider is that what is considered irrational and rational isn't always an objective fact, sometimes it's a subjective opinion. Take the existence of aliens, for example. One person might think that it is irrational to believe in god but that it's perfectly logical to believe in the existence of aliens. On the other hand, somebody else might think believing in god makes perfect sense and that believing in aliens is childish and illogical. Somebody else might come along and think both people are crazy for believing in either one without evidence. And yet both of the believers might think the third person is illogical and narrow-minded for dismissing the plausibility of both. Now we could spend all day arguing who's right and who isn't, but at the end of the day without any actual evidence, does it really matter or are there more important things to worry about than whatever somebody's private beliefs are? And even if you were to argue the debate to death, what exactly are you accomplishing?

[pitchu]

When I say any believer in anything ought to be encouraged, on this site especially, to give as good as s/he gets, I'm not contending that rationality or science or objectivity or any other standard should be the standard that must be met in any discussion.

 

If, for instance, Thurisaz were to be questioned on why he espouses his beliefs, he might, perhaps, explain that a religion embedded in the history and mythology of his ancestors and native land feels like home to him, and the feeling of "being home" is more important to him than the actual logic or demonstrability of any of the stories or tenets of his religion.

 

That, for me, would be Case Closed. It would be so because such an answer would demonstrate that he knows himself in terms of what his religion gives him, and isn't pretending to having any greater universal insight into, or handle on, The Ultimate Truth.

 

It seems to me that Ex-c is a haven for more than shedding xianity; we're a place where it should be possible (and safe) to get closer to our authentic selves, and be able to understand and describe the nature of that authenticity as it pertains to the belief or non-belief system one holds. Because of this, I think it's a gift to every member here to encourage him or her to dig deeply into whichever conviction s/he espouses, and to be able to stand sanely and comfortably with it in the face of challenging questioning.

 

I don't know that we're doing anybody any favors by having a "hands off" section where people are treated like inmates whose mental and emotional fragility can't withstand the scrutiny of their beliefs by "miscreant outsiders"... It's almost, kinda, maybe, a little cultish, dontcha think?

[Heavenslaughing]

The only truth is that we each hold views, and we each believe that those views are the correct ones. That is why we hold them, after all.

 

I submit that this statement runs counter to scientific rationality. Scientific propositions, by their nature, never have the value of "correctness." They have the value of most useful or most supported by available observations. Scientists do not believe their views are the correct ones; they believe their views help them make sense of the universe best based on what they can observe. When I say this, I do not speak in critique of scientific language, but thoroughly within it. Ask a scientist.

 

If we step back from views to frames, we have a statement which describes some scientists: people of all sorts frequently understand their frame for making sense of observations as "correct," but more in the sense of something they have not questioned than as something subject to evaluation as true or false. Once such frames do become subject to examination, the question once again becomes usefulness, not correctness.

 

These and other forums of discussion and debate are all about proving your own position to be valid.

 

I believe if you look at the stated purposes for each of the forums on this board, you will find disagreement with the above assertion.

 

Antagonistic forms of argument have their place, though I find the thought of all discussion taking this form rather dreary.

 

While one may say that every idea deserves consideration and respect, it is still asserting a position to say that. The argument that such a position is best because it removes all barriers to thinking freely doesn't fly. By assigning value, validity or consideration to absolutely every notion people can dream up, you lose discernment by requiring yourself to not reject out of hand all the foolish and disproved ideas. Some very old and sincerely believed concepts are just flat out wrong. We should be free to discard them.

 

Some practices such as prayer, rune stones, card and candle spells, astrology, magical potions and hex casting do have real effects on people at times. This is, of course, the placebo effect or positive/negative thinking. If you are superstitious and know you've been hexed or cursed, you will be unable to concentrate and subconsciously make things go wrong, even make yourself physically ill. That does not mean that hexes and curses are real, it just means the mind-body connection is a valid mechanism and some people are simply ignorant of how it all works physiologically. Christianity, so eagerly vilified here, offers real and practical value to many otherwise hopeless people. Belief that God will see them through the tough times is all they have. Does that make Christianity the true religion?

 

Something interesting about the placebo effect: it does require the pill to work, and it works best when patients don't know it's a placebo. The valid mechanism of the mind-body connection requires some meaningful symbol in order to operate. You stated straightforwardly that Christianity offers real and practical value to at least some people some of the time, and the same would apply to anything in which people put faith. Fundamentalist Christians attempt to judge beliefs on the basis of Truth, and thus see fit to impose those beliefs. I judge on the basis of usefulness. Hearing what others find useful helps to illuminate what I find useful, myself. If I find an idea unuseful in the context of this forum, I simply ignore it, unless somehow I saw it causing harm.

 

My original point remains. I simply believe people should think about and know why they believe what they do. After leaving Christianity, we need to be careful about falling for another line of wishful thinking.

 

This last sentence of yours raises what I also view as a very real concern. I am not so sure that "wishful thinking" need be avoided, since as you yourself described above, wishful thinking of a certain kind can have real and positive effects. But what if someone leaves fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist Islam or Judaism? I haven't seen such people here, but it definitely happens. Religious fundamentalists of any stripe would attempt to prove their perspectives right and demand proof of alternative perspectives in a way no less damaging than a demand for universal rationalist interrogation. The point to the guidelines of these forums is not just to prevent atheists from demanding rationalist defenses; it is to prevent anyone from attacking one person's perspectives from another. Inquire, yes; attack, no. It's about specifying the mode of discussion for this space.

 

It seems to me that Ex-c is a haven for more than shedding xianity; we're a place where it should be possible (and safe) to get closer to our authentic selves, and be able to understand and describe the nature of that authenticity as it pertains to the belief or non-belief system one holds. Because of this, I think it's a gift to every member here to encourage him or her to dig deeply into whichever conviction s/he espouses, and to be able to stand sanely and comfortably with it in the face of challenging questioning.

 

I don't know that we're doing anybody any favors by having a "hands off" section where people are treated like inmates whose mental and emotional fragility can't withstand the scrutiny of their beliefs by "miscreant outsiders"... It's almost, kinda, maybe, a little cultish, dontcha think?

 

I like very much what pitchu has to say about the potentials of the forum. We don't just shed and revile what we have left; we explore, interrogate, and celebrate what we have and might become.

 

This particular subsection is about the exploring. To a smaller extent, it also celebrates. In this space, people can elaborate their ideas, which they may not have worked out or established as firm beliefs, without having to worry about whether someone will tell them why something they are finding useful or intriguing is silly or wrong. Many of us had quite enough of that in church before leaving. Here, we can present thoughts we are having about the way the universe works, and read what other people have thought. I agree that we should also have places where our thoughts face tough scrutiny.

 

The current label of "Ex-Christian Theism or Spirituality" to my mind might misguide us as to the stated purposes of the forum. I am an atheist. I find no reason to believe in any manner of god in any objective sense. The same applies to several of the more outspoken participants in this forum. Exploring different metaphors for making sense of the cosmos better describes what has gone on here in the past summer. "Ex-Christian Explorations in Cosmology" might serve as a more appropriate title. Theism isn't the point, even for cosmologies which include theistic propositions in literal senses. The point is to have a space where any of us can elaborate on ways that we create meaning, and trust that others will inquire or contribute in a manner supportive for our own explorations. "Supportive for our own explorations" doesn't have to mean support for particular beliefs (and sometimes it arguably shouldn't); it means addressing discussion in a way that seeks not so much to challenge, in this particular forum, as to understand.

[Antlerman]

When I say any believer in anything ought to be encouraged, on this site especially, to give as good as s/he gets, I'm not contending that rationality or science or objectivity or any other standard should be the standard that must be met in any discussion.

 

If, for instance, Thurisaz were to be questioned on why he espouses his beliefs, he might, perhaps, explain that a religion embedded in the history and mythology of his ancestors and native land feels like home to him, and the feeling of "being home" is more important to him than the actual logic or demonstrability of any of the stories or tenets of his religion.

 

That, for me, would be Case Closed. It would be so because such an answer would demonstrate that he knows himself in terms of what his religion gives him, and isn't pretending to having any greater universal insight into, or handle on, The Ultimate Truth.

Isn't Thurisaz in your example offering to you an explanation that satisfies the need for a rational context for his beliefs? As you say, "Case Closed" because it demonstrates he knows and can articulate rationally the basis for the belief? What if he couldn't articulate those reasons? Is this then perceived as being irrational and we should hold them to the standard of being able to demonstrate a rational understanding of the nature of faith? In other words, rationality is the standard that must be met to demonstrate a sound basis for a belief?

 

Here's where my thinking goes from this. I think it's great if someone can understand rationally the context for their religious beliefs, to see it from a perspective of both reason and faith, but the problem I have is this: Is that ability to do so the measure of where all should be at? That this understanding becomes the measure of "enlightenment". To me it might be, but that does not mean it is for everyone else, and our "encouraging" them to in essence, "become us", may in fact not have the intended effect of encouragement, and in fact quite the opposite.

 

If we take the example Heavenslaughing pointed out about the placebo effect, the symbol may cease to be effective when the actual power is understood to be in one's own psychology. Not everyone is able to bypass the symbol to access the effect directly, to realize the source of power is themselves (not an easy thing for most of us, no matter the context - the realization of self actualization). What is more important, self-actualization, or a uniform approach to life; a uniform system of thought; a single doctrine, so to speak?

 

 

It seems to me that Ex-c is a haven for more than shedding xianity; we're a place where it should be possible (and safe) to get closer to our authentic selves, and be able to understand and describe the nature of that authenticity as it pertains to the belief or non-belief system one holds. Because of this, I think it's a gift to every member here to encourage him or her to dig deeply into whichever conviction s/he espouses, and to be able to stand sanely and comfortably with it in the face of challenging questioning.

What if digging deeply into the rational reasons behind it doesn't suit everyone? Is pushing them towards that end about them then? Isn't belief it's the right thing to do, itself a presumption; a religious belief in its own right? Isn't this saying that rationality in approaching life should be the standard for all beliefs?

 

I don't know that we're doing anybody any favors by having a "hands off" section where people are treated like inmates whose mental and emotional fragility can't withstand the scrutiny of their beliefs by "miscreant outsiders"... It's almost, kinda, maybe, a little cultish, dontcha think?

I would prefer to not see it as a "hands off" approach. That to me this seems a bit of a caricaturization of a bunch of mentally weak, overly-sensitive folks who you dare not upset; which portrayal can easy be perceived as insulting and anything but encouraging, to be blunt. Rather than "hands off", its a case of pluralistic ideas where we understand it more supporting an exploration of "alternative systems" towards that end of self-actualization, or "enlightenment", as it were. What that is, and how this is achieved is not the same for everyone.

 

When someone stands up and says, "That makes no sense rationally. That belief is downright silly, when you stop to think about it", I'm not hearing them participating in the spirit of supporting alternative approaches. In effect, what they are doing is standing up and essentially saying, "My approach is the only one that makes sense, and your's doesn't." Again, that's not participating in a forum of supporting alternative points of view towards the end of the individual discovering meaning for themselves. That comes off more about them and their faith that can't allow easily for alternative views, and not about others at all. This really isn't a matter of "hands off", so much as respecting a community that allows for diversity, rather than sameness to the end of their individuality.

 

If someone feels they don't fit in in a group that is interested in exploring alternative approaches to meaning in their lives beyond Christianity or Science, then the best that could be hoped for is that they recognize that others don't share their views and respect them for that, and allow them the space they need to explore ideas freely without challenges from the rational camp to defend and debate on their terms. To me, those that can't respect other views for other people, despite not sharing in them... well... I guess that's why I left Christianity, really. I saw the world as more diverse than a single language. In effect you could say this is a multi-lingual community.

[pitchu]

When I say any believer in anything ought to be encouraged, on this site especially, to give as good as s/he gets, I'm not contending that rationality or science or objectivity or any other standard should be the standard that must be met in any discussion.

 

If, for instance, Thurisaz were to be questioned on why he espouses his beliefs, he might, perhaps, explain that a religion embedded in the history and mythology of his ancestors and native land feels like home to him, and the feeling of "being home" is more important to him than the actual logic or demonstrability of any of the stories or tenets of his religion.

 

That, for me, would be Case Closed. It would be so because such an answer would demonstrate that he knows himself in terms of what his religion gives him, and isn't pretending to having any greater universal insight into, or handle on, The Ultimate Truth.

 

Isn't Thurisaz in your example offering to you an explanation that satisfies the need for a rational context for his beliefs?

 

No. [see bolded segment of my post, above.]

 

It seems to me that Ex-c is a haven for more than shedding xianity; we're a place where it should be possible (and safe) to get closer to our authentic selves, and be able to understand and describe the nature of that authenticity as it pertains to the belief or non-belief system one holds. Because of this, I think it's a gift to every member here to encourage him or her to dig deeply into whichever conviction s/he espouses, and to be able to stand sanely and comfortably with it in the face of challenging questioning.

 

What if digging deeply into the rational reasons behind it doesn't suit everyone?

 

I didn't say "rational reasons" -- it's you who's insisting on this.

I don't know that we're doing anybody any favors by having a "hands off" section where people are treated like inmates whose mental and emotional fragility can't withstand the scrutiny of their beliefs by "miscreant outsiders"... It's almost, kinda, maybe, a little cultish, dontcha think?

 

I would prefer to not see it as a "hands off" approach.

 

Our characterization preferences don't always reflect actuality.

[Ouroboros]

Pitchu,

 

I don't know if I have stopped any serious debate, discussion or even questioning about the truthfulness of any belief in this section. What I have mostly been coming down on is the "you're an idiot for believing that" kind of arguments. If anyone feels like participate with a positive attitude, and constructive debate, then it's welcome. So I guess it shouldn't stop anyone from putting up serious question signs for some strange beliefs and such. I think I have mostly only stopped personal attacks, ad homs and when the debate has been more of a negative rant against belief. In other words, if this section is about belief, there's no need to put rants against belief here, since we have a Rants section already, and a Lion's Den, where those styles of debate is allowed (and encouraged).

 

In a kitchen you have cabinets for cups, plates, pots and pans, and you have drawers for silverware, utensils of different kinds etc. Why would it be wrong to have some organization of style of debate on this site? One section is where you can do flame-war debate, and another we only accept serious, constructive, and positive debate. I see this one as the latter kind. And this doesn't mean a serious, and deep, discussion with good intentions is held back.

 

Just look at the "The Universe is God" discussion. Some disagreed with the OP, but I didn't shut it down or even demanded some form of automatic agreement from everyone, but the issue is rather the form of discussion. Does it follow a certain level of politeness, and that's all there is to it. Then, wouldn't you agree, there's no real danger in this?

[R. S. Martin]

Pitchu,

 

I don't know if I have stopped any serious debate, discussion or even questioning about the truthfulness of any belief in this section. What I have mostly been coming down on is the "you're an idiot for believing that" kind of arguments. If anyone feels like participate with a positive attitude, and constructive debate, then it's welcome. So I guess it shouldn't stop anyone from putting up serious question signs for some strange beliefs and such. I think I have mostly only stopped personal attacks, ad homs and when the debate has been more of a negative rant against belief. In other words, if this section is about belief, there's no need to put rants against belief here, since we have a Rants section already, and a Lion's Den, where those styles of debate is allowed (and encouraged).

 

In a kitchen you have cabinets for cups, plates, pots and pans, and you have drawers for silverware, utensils of different kinds etc. Why would it be wrong to have some organization of style of debate on this site? One section is where you can do flame-war debate, and another we only accept serious, constructive, and positive debate. I see this one as the latter kind. And this doesn't mean a serious, and deep, discussion with good intentions is held back.

 

This sounds to me like a rational and sensible approach. While these forums were down I spent some time on the RichardDawkins forums. I think what you are describing is very similar to their Forum Rules:

 

Criticise ideas, not people....When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone....It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike, and that's where the fun is!

 

I realize that this puts spirituality or theistic beliefs on the same level as ideas and opinions. What would happen if we inserted "spirituality and theistic beliefs" instead of "opinions, ideas, and facts"?

[florduh]

I don't think this forum has ever been over-moderated. I have asked hard questions of believers and haven't been shut down or reprimanded. Personal attacks aren't permitted, but challenges are. I would moderate the same way.

 

People have a right to believe anything they want. Some believe in Jesus, some in Krishna, some in angels, fairies, astrology and alien abduction. Well, have at it. I'll just get out of the way because I shall never be convinced that an irrational belief is as valid as a rational one.

[Antlerman]

People have a right to believe anything they want. Some believe in Jesus, some in Krishna, some in angels, fairies, astrology and alien abduction. Well, have at it. I'll just get out of the way because I shall never be convinced that an irrational belief is as valid as a rational one.

Forgive my early morning wit, but that's very odd considering your "What's your Philosophy Quiz?" showed the following:

You scored as a Hedonism

Your life is guided by the principles of <b>Hedonism</b>: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. <br><br>“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” <br><br>More info at <a href="

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun">Arocoun's

Wikipedia User Page...</a>

Hedonism

100%

Utilitarianism

85%

Existentialism

70%

Justice (Fairness)

65%

Strong Egoism

50%

Kantianism

50%

Nihilism

40%

Apathy

30%

Divine Command

0%

 

At last! A label for me!

Now seeing Existentialism way up there at the top seems to indicate that maybe you are more attracted to irrationalism than you care to admit?

Irrationalism and aestheticism

were philosophical movements which formed as a cultural reaction against positivism in the early 20th century.

These perspectives opposed or de-emphasized the importance of the rationality of human beings

. Instead, they concentrated on Kant's "noumenal realm", or the experience of one's own existence.

 

Part of the movements involved claims that science was inferior to intuition. In this project, art was given an especially high place, as it was considered the gateway to the noumenon. The movement was not widely accepted by the public, as the social system generally limited access of the art to the elite (ie. a "Mandarin elitism").

 

Some of the followers of this idea are Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Henri Bergson, Lev Shestov and Georges Sorel.

Symbolism and existentialism grew out of these schools of thought.

 

Add to this that you rank 100% on Hedonism, which is hardly what one would consider being a Rationalist. One of the main reasons I accept the legitimacy of non-Rationalist approaches is because I've yet to see anyone who claims that rationality is the Only Way, and that any other way is not nearly as "valid" as rationality, actually live life as a human being obeying this sort of doctrine. Humans are irrational beings. That's a core understanding behind all movements of philosophy and art that responded against Positivism. Your own test seems to betray that you aren't really a rationalist yourself.

 

Since we've spoken so much in here about meaning through the symbolic nature of myth, and this directly relates, it's well worth quoting this from the Wiki article on Symbolism:

 

Symbolism was largely a reaction against Naturalism and Realism, anti-idealistic movements which attempted to capture reality in its gritty particularity, and to elevate the humble and the ordinary over the ideal.

These movements invited a reaction in favour of spirituality, the imagination, and dreams

; the path to Symbolism begins with that reaction.[1] Some writers, such as Joris-Karl Huysmans, began as naturalists before moving in the direction of Symbolism; for Huysmans,

this change reflected his awakening interest in religion and spirituality.

 

<snip>

 

Symbolists believed that art should aim to capture more

absolute truths which could only be accessed by indirect methods

.

Thus, they wrote in a highly metaphorical and suggestive manner, endowing particular images or objects with symbolic meaning.

The Symbolist manifesto (‘Le Symbolisme’, Le Figaro, 18 Sept 1886) was published in 1886 by Jean Moréas. Moréas announced that Symbolism was hostile to "plain meanings, declamations, false sentimentality and matter-of-fact description," and that its goal instead was to "clothe the Ideal in a perceptible form" whose "goal was not in itself, but whose sole purpose was to express the Ideal":

So maybe those in this section are not quite so "silly" as one so "rational" might presume? "Me thinks thou dost protest too loudly."

[Vigile]

To be fair AM, just because a philosophy quiz ranked Florduh high in that category does not necessarily reflect the reality of what Florduh actually accepts. I took that quiz as well and I highly doubt that the few questions asked accuratly collected the sum of my world view.

 

People may find personal value in irrational belief systems but they are by definition irrational. In the end I find more value in rationality when living in a world of reality, not emotion. When attempting to understand how the world works irrationality certainly is a factor, but when living our lives most of us find that we must accept reality.

 

E.g., irrationality rules the financial markets, but irrational participants end up giving up their hard earned money to those who use their irrationality against them. Irrationality makes up a great deal of how humanity interacts with one another, but it is through rationality that scientists observe and quantify the human condition.

[florduh]

You caught me. I'm a closet New Ager.

[Antlerman]

To be fair AM, just because a philosophy quiz ranked Florduh high in that category does not necessarily reflect the reality of what Florduh actually accepts. I took that quiz as well and I highly doubt that the few questions asked accuratly collected the sum of my world view.

Of course it was somewhat tongue in cheek as I know the quality of that test is hardly a fair sampling, more a novelty than anything else (although it did put me at 100% Existentialist, so there must be some validity to it. ).

 

People may find personal value in irrational belief systems but they are by definition irrational. In the end I find more value in rationality when living in a world of reality, not emotion. When attempting to understand how the world works irrationality certainly is a factor, but when living our lives most of us find that we must accept reality.

Which comes back to what I've said elsewhere, and what I saw Heavenslaughing also reiterate, that it's ultimately what's most useful to someone, as I say, "What works". I always say the reason I left Christianity wasn't because it was "false", it was because it didn't work for me as a system of belief. When it comes to systems of irrationality, I would say it really depends what you're trying to gain through it. If you're trying to build a space ship using poetry, that would not be a good choice. At the same time, if you're trying to express the emotions of love using a clinical analysis of the chemical evoked in the emotion, that would likewise not be a good choice.

 

My point in acknowledging irrational systems as valid, is that not everything in life is experienced rationally. Some things are, some aren't. It really depends what suits one's purposes. It's "what works for you". I do argue though, that despite humans finding great value in rationality, no one ultimately lives this way exclusively. It's all an exercise in balance, hence why I try to explore the other side of humanity in addition to scientific side, which I also embrace.

 

E.g., irrationality rules the financial markets, but irrational participants end up giving up their hard earned money to those who use their irrationality against them. Irrationality makes up a great deal of how humanity interacts with one another, but it is through rationality that scientists observe and quantify the human condition.

Exactly my point. We're both. My whole thing in criticizing rationality, is when it irrationally denies the non-rational side of our humanity as lacking value, or validity. To me, that is irrational.

 

I may not utilize a religious myth system myself in life, but I try to see the humanity that is being accessed through those symbols. It's not getting hung up on the "validity" of the sign, and recognizing the aspect of humanity that is being accessed through them. That's the point of value and validity to me. That's what I feel a purely rational system may cut themselves off from; which is why you have such movements as aestheticism, irrationalism, existentialism, symbolism, and ultimately religion in it's metaphoric sense.

 

I certainly am interested in discussion the difference of views regarding the value of this.

 

 

You caught me. I'm a closet New Ager.

Yes. I've suspected this for some time. Should we have a "coming out" party for you yet?

[Heavenslaughing]

I'm going to point out, on the one hand, that I do see some agreement emerging on the purpose and moderation of this forum. Florduh began the discussion with a concern.

 

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.

 

Quoth Hansolo after some discussion:

 

Just look at the "The Universe is God" discussion. Some disagreed with the OP, but I didn't shut it down or even demanded some form of automatic agreement from everyone, but the issue is rather the form of discussion. Does it follow a certain level of politeness, and that's all there is to it. Then, wouldn't you agree, there's no real danger in this?

 

Responded Florduh:

 

I don't think this forum has ever been over-moderated. I have asked hard questions of believers and haven't been shut down or reprimanded. Personal attacks aren't permitted, but challenges are. I would moderate the same way.

 

I believe that the discussion has addressed the initial concerns about the forum itself, and we're now on a discussion concerning the validity of beliefs, practices, or ways of apprehending that do not correspond with the instrumental rationality of twenty-first century scientific method.

 

People may find personal value in irrational belief systems but they are by definition irrational. In the end I find more value in rationality when living in a world of reality, not emotion. When attempting to understand how the world works irrationality certainly is a factor, but when living our lives most of us find that we must accept reality.

 

My point in acknowledging irrational systems as valid, is that not everything in life is experienced rationally. Some things are, some aren't. It really depends what suits one's purposes. It's "what works for you". I do argue though, that despite humans finding great value in rationality, no one ultimately lives this way exclusively. It's all an exercise in balance, hence why I try to explore the other side of humanity in addition to scientific side, which I also embrace.

 

E.g., irrationality rules the financial markets, but irrational participants end up giving up their hard earned money to those who use their irrationality against them. Irrationality makes up a great deal of how humanity interacts with one another, but it is through rationality that scientists observe and quantify the human condition.

Exactly my point. We're both. My whole thing in criticizing rationality, is when it irrationally denies the non-rational side of our humanity as lacking value, or validity. To me, that is irrational.

 

I may not utilize a religious myth system myself in life, but I try to see the humanity that is being accessed through those symbols. It's not getting hung up on the "validity" of the sign, and recognizing the aspect of humanity that is being accessed through them. That's the point of value and validity to me. That's what I feel a purely rational system may cut themselves off from; which is why you have such movements as aestheticism, irrationalism, existentialism, symbolism, and ultimately religion in it's metaphoric sense.

 

Antlerman rejects the absolute supremacy of instrumental, scientific rationality, though in this particular argument he defers at first to the terms that Vigile and others have used: rational versus irrational. As AM's subsequent invocation of other terms suggests, framing the questions of this forum in terms of "irrational belief systems" may misguide us. I do not know of any seriously proposed theory of religion in the empirical social sciences which treats religion in this way. Dawkins, who does make such claims, doesn't actually research religions; he simply evaluates the claims put forth by some religions as falsifiable or non-verifiable under his area of expertise, evolutionary biology, then quite unscientifically makes pronouncements about religion. The closest you'll find to a rational/irrational divide among scientists of religion would be Tambiah's division of human experience into causal versus participatory modes. The causal mode concerns what we might call instrumental rationality, whereas the participatory mode concerns a more emotive rationality in connection with a place in a group or in nature. Even this approach universalizes and dichotomizes more than most contemporary scholars in anthropology would find acceptable. Weber proposed four different modes of rationality engaged in by Westerners alone: instrumental rationality, value rationality, affective rationality, and habitual rationality. Each kind follows a rationality in that it puts its means in accords with what it aims to achieve. Irrationality, as Antlerman suggests, obtains only when some mode of rationality obstructs another, or when an actor can frame no kind of rationality at all. When we leave the West, I suspect our categories of rationality may again need to shift.

 

Irrationality is a poor frame for understanding religion, whether from the inside or from an analytical outside. Insistence to the contrary without engaging in dialogue with the empirical study of religion would itself count as "irrational" under the terms as used. What kind of rationality is being deployed, and (to repeat again the chief concern) what are its effects? These are interesting questions.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman rejects the absolute supremacy of instrumental, scientific rationality, though in this particular argument he defers at first to the terms that Vigile and others have used: rational versus irrational. As AM's subsequent invocation of other terms suggests, framing the questions of this forum in terms of "irrational belief systems" may misguide us. I do not know of any seriously proposed theory of religion in the empirical social sciences which treats religion in this way. Dawkins, who does make such claims, doesn't actually research religions; he simply evaluates the claims put forth by some religions as falsifiable or non-verifiable under his area of expertise, evolutionary biology, then quite unscientifically makes pronouncements about religion. The closest you'll find to a rational/irrational divide among scientists of religion would be Tambiah's division of human experience into causal versus participatory modes. The causal mode concerns what we might call instrumental rationality, whereas the participatory mode concerns a more emotive rationality in connection with a place in a group or in nature. Even this approach universalizes and dichotomizes more than most contemporary scholars in anthropology would find acceptable. Weber proposed four different modes of rationality engaged in by Westerners alone: instrumental rationality, value rationality, affective rationality, and habitual rationality. Each kind follows a rationality in that it puts its means in accords with what it aims to achieve. Irrationality, as Antlerman suggests, obtains only when some mode of rationality obstructs another, or when an actor can frame no kind of rationality at all. When we leave the West, I suspect our categories of rationality may again need to shift.

 

Irrationality is a poor frame for understanding religion, whether from the inside or from an analytical outside. Insistence to the contrary without engaging in dialogue with the empirical study of religion would itself count as "irrational" under the terms as used. What kind of rationality is being deployed, and (to repeat again the chief concern) what are its effects? These are interesting questions.

You have some good points in here I wish to address that is well worth our while to gain some clarification of definition with. But I'm going to start a new topic which we can launch off from in this forum, which should also touch into what we were beginning to discuss about Schopenhauer and music. I agree the point for this topic has been covered and this is now veering off into a deeper discussion of its own. So, hold that thought..... I'll post a link here once I've started it.

[Ouroboros]

Good idea. I could see it side-tracking this morning too, and was considering suggesting a new thread about it. Please feel free to put it in the Religion/Spirituality Forum.

[Antlerman]

OK, topic started: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...t=0#entry390567

[pitchu]

Does it follow a certain level of politeness, and that's all there is to it.

 

I would trust you, implicitly, to determine and maintain said level of politeness, Hans.

[Ouroboros]

I would trust you, implicitly, to determine and maintain said level of politeness, Hans.

I'll try to do my best, my friend.

[Horsey_Girl]

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defence against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.^[3][16] The most toxic of poison-dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites. This is known as the dietary hypothesis.^[17] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not contain significant levels of toxins. Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, there are some predators that have developed the ability to withstand them, including the Amazon ground snake (Liophis epinephelus).^[18]

 

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value.^[19] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine, that has unfortunately demonstrated unacceptable gastrointestinal side effects in humans.^[20] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.^[21] The most poisonous of these frogs, the Golden Poison Frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.^[22] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

 

 

[Deva]

Thanks for bringing up some of those points, Horsey-Girl. I think this is a valuable section of the forums. I know, from certain polls conducted here over the years, that those of us who maintain a spiritual life or have devoted themselves to another spiritual path are in the distinct minority. Its a fact that this site is overwhelmingly atheist. I can understand the reason for that, but I think everyone should have an opportunity to write their thoughts on their non-Christian faith without continually being dismissed with "woo-woo", or compared with folks who believe in Santa or Bigfoot.

 

I know some would challenge this.

 

That being said, I do not think that an affirmative answer to the question "Any Gods?" would create a second-class type of membership. I think that the moderators would like to see where you are coming from, especially if you say "Jesus Christ" or "Yahweh" or something like that for your preference. Christians can post on this site, with some restrictions.

[Horsey_Girl]

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defence against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.^[3][16] The most toxic of poison-dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites. This is known as the dietary hypothesis.^[17] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not contain significant levels of toxins. Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, there are some predators that have developed the ability to withstand them, including the Amazon ground snake (Liophis epinephelus).^[18]

 

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value.^[19] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine, that has unfortunately demonstrated unacceptable gastrointestinal side effects in humans.^[20] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.^[21] The most poisonous of these frogs, the Golden Poison Frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.^[22] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

 

 

[Antlerman]

What restrictions are Christians subject to in regard to posting on this site?

Before I answer that question as a moderator, I'll remark that based on your response to the "Any Gods?" question I would not see that as traditional Christianity. As a result, the odds are highly against you acting out of any sort of programming towards others in the world that is geared to proselytizing, judging, or condemning the freedom of human beings who are not of their specific flavor of religion. I understand those who see "Christ" in a different light, as a mystical personification of the Divine, for instance. In the context of this site, that is not Christianity in the traditional sense of "Jesus died for you and you must believe and convert or he'll send you straight to hell". I don't consider simply seeing Jesus, or the "Christ" in a religious way automatically lumps someone into that heap.

 

To your question about Christians posting on this site. There is only one forum off limits and that is the Testimonies forum. The only forum where active proselytizing will be permitted is the Lion's Den. Other than that, those who identify with traditional Christianity who wish to engage in civil, respectful discourse with the members of this site will allowed to dialog on that level should they have reasons for wishing to do so. This site is not like many where if you don't support the doctrines of their beliefs you find yourself quickly ushered away from the flock. We believe in freedom and respect.