And a refusal to consider actual dialogue.

i think their closed-mindedness is based on bigotry -- they will consider actual dialogue from the "right" sources.

One of the biggest social problems that we have is of people who want to NOT know things.

Like, say, loyalty to the Fuhrer.

Are you saying that liberals, or a subset of liberals, can also share this idea, but framed differently?

So when people dismiss faith as silly superstition, or a manifestation of mental illness, or other silly dismissive rhetoric, is that the non-theistic counterpart?

Last edited Tue Nov 21, 2017, 08:22 PM - Edit history (2)

But do carry on.

Or persist in your interpretation.

Inadvertently or not.

Your article excerpt says the following:

No nuance there, simply a rejection and a dismissal as idiocy of a belief shared by 85% of your fellow humans.

What is interesting to me is how a very few atheists who complain about the intolerance of some theists are willing to engage in the same intolerance, and to defend such intolerance when it is practiced by other atheists.

Proving the point that intolerance is a human failing.

I cannot speak for yallerdawg, but I was making a point of how those who condemn others should remove the beam from their own eyes prior to removing the speck from their neighbors' eyes. And I suspect that yallerdawg was making the exact same point.

Nor is it presuppositionalism, the topic of you op.

Perhaps a bigger shovel would help.

Thank you for proving, inadvertently or not, the point.

In your own clear words, without reference to another post or to the behavior of another poster.

But considering how much mis-framing occurs here, I will allow the poster's comment about idiocy to stand. And considering that yallerdawg and I both understood what the point was, I see no real need.

But you might wish to ask the other poster what the point was in that post also. The one referencing religious idiocy.

Or not.

Or you might wish to ask the poster who described religious belief as evidence of a mental illness what that meant also.

Or not.


Edited at 4:18 to add:
Or you might wish to read #29 and tell us what you understood from it.

I could, but I wouldn't want to embarrass Tom Brady, so I won't do it.

But I will not.

You seem to prefer standing on the field pretending to play.

Just like your excerpt describes in the OP (my excerpt is more from Ms. Worthen).

Liberal secular humanism is not a neutral position.

If we are the tolerant and inclusive people, our "presuppositions" about faith and religion have to be transformed or we can have no dialogue - and we lose all of them, which we have been doing steadily since Reagan.

It argues that fundamentalists cannot trust non-fundamentalists on any topic, political, social, economic etc. because they don't start from taking the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

"Liberal secular humanism is not a neutral position" is not what Dr. Worthen says; she was describing what the fundamentalists say.

What she does say for herself is:

Secular humanist presuppositionalism begins with there is no God.

The "debate" we dodge around here is in finding a common ground - because it continually spins back to the core presupposition - there is no god.

It's to say that all arguments of someone starting from the "wrong" position are invalid. Specifically, this is talking about political support.

I don't think you'll be able to give an example of a secular humanist presuppositionalist.

when it comes to nazis. I really don’t care what nazis have to say about anything.

Anyone here think we should listen to nazis?

Also, there is always the possibility of someone changing. Not necessarily through a one off argument, but through learning to see the "other" as real human beings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.84b37635c06e

on any subject. There is a difference.

And if I have the opportunity, I talk to them. But not on the internet. In person. So we can look at each other as human beings.

That pretty much ends discourse.

"He may be a sonofa -----, but he's our sonofa-----." He'll push their agenda, that is all that matters to them.

We also have to remember that many Christians have deluded themselves into believing that Moore never did any of it. The women are lying. The creepy yearbook inscription is fake. He never went to any mall to pick up girls. Etc. The forces of Satan are conspiring to destroy this fine man of God and champion of the faith, and prevent him from going to Washington to do God's work there. Those inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land will vote for him no matter what may come out.

2 different countries, each dismissing the other.

I have a reputation to uphold.

Hey Everyone! Gil agreed 100% with something I posted in the Religion Group! Please prepare yourselves for the end of the world, which must be imminent.

See, we really really do agree!

I've lived in Alabama and in several other Bible Belt states. I've attended evangelical churches in all of those places. Now, I live in New England. When I try to explain the thought processes of Moore's supporters in Alabama to my friends (Christian and otherwise) here, they do not understand at all. It's not that they don't agree with Moore's supporters, although of course they don't. It more that such thinking is so far outside their experience that they have no idea what I'm even talking about. It is utterly alien.

Edited for clarity.

Another country indeed. It seems to me that the southern states still have not realized that your civil war is over. The culture seems so different, especially the idea that the north dominates the south.

So how can that be repaired?

The allegations against Moore are all from before his marriage, and fundies may well believe that the marriage was part of Jaysus' plan to "cure" him.

Besides, the right wing is out to make Jones look very far to the left, and Moore could benefit from the "lesser evil" calibrations of the fundamentalist mind.

but I also believe in the injunction to go and sin no more. Moore apparently missed that part.

since he was married, then this is a different ballgame. Fundies, especially Southern ones, will have that "boys will be boys" attitude that excuses bad behavior prior to marriage, but condemns it a bit more strongly (sometimes) after marriage.

Their main focus is the effect on the general populace, not the sins of the "powerful leader" who enforces them.

they have rights, rights to their own bodies and a right to an independent opinion or position.

It sort of makes sense they wouldnt be all that bothered by women being abused, it sort of all makes sense when you think about it, to them anyway.

Possible. I do not know enough female evangelicals to have a strong opinion, but the few that I know are not like that.