What I am is what I am, are you what you are or what

[eomer]

Someone recently made the claim that "broadbrushing of all believers with a single brush is present in amost every thread". I asked for examples and someone else referred me to this thread:

3 universal truths that all religions agree upon.

"We are right."
"Everyone else is wrong."
"We are better than you."

Three universal truths that all religions agree upon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=60959

After some thought I have to agree that the cited thread is a broadbrush smear. But I would add that probably the brush is too broad only near the edges even while it is smear all the way through. So I actually will criticize it more for being smear than for being broadbrush.

I call it smear because it appears to be mostly animus - more heat than light. The question of what religions have in common with regard to what they know and how sure they are about knowing it could have been posed with civility and collegiality and such a treatment might stimulate a more thoughtful exchange of ideas. Wrapped in so much snark, it was taken (and apparently intended) more as a slap than as an invitation to work through a question together.

Regarding whether the post was broadbrush, it seems to me that most religions do believe they are right (which is why I say the brush is mostly the right width). Of course, in some sense the post could be taken as tautology - you can reword it into "they believe what they believe" (and who doesn't). But the more nuanced question is not just whether they believe what they believe but rather how sure are they and do they give much allowance for the possibility they may be wrong.

So it is on this latter question - do they give much allowance that they may be wrong - that I say a broad brush works well across most religions but a finer brush is needed at the edges. In other words, I don't think most major religions (the mainstream Christian churches, for example) give much allowance that they may be wrong. At least the ones that I've (previously) been a member of, the Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic churches, in my experience convey a message of delivering the truth to those who will receive it.

At the edges we need the finer brush to paint the picture that there are other religions that do allow for the possibility that they are wrong. I'm presently a member of a UU congregation and probably the thing we all agree on is that we don't necessarily agree on anything. That we don't know is about the only dogma we have. I'm not personally too familiar with the other religions that are based more on searching for answers than delivering prepackaged ones and if anyone who is wants to elaborate on this it would be appreciated.

Having examined religions it's only fair to also paint in a part of the picture that was left out - to look at the atheist/agnostic schools of thought. Agnostics obviously don't claim to know - that's of course what the word means. Some who self-identify using the word atheist will also allow for the possibility that they are wrong - many atheists, maybe most atheists, are also agnostics at some level. And "at some level" is really the crux of the quesion for atheists and agnostics. Many atheists would say (and do say) that the possibility they are wrong (the possibility that there is a God) is the same as the possibility of a Spaghetti Monster god in the sky with all his noodly appendages or the possibility that fairies or leprechauns exist. So while they admit a possibility of being wrong, they feel pretty sure they are right. Others would lean more to the agnostic side, saying they really don't know, but it seems to me that most atheists feel strongly that the chances are slight that they are wrong. I count myself in this last group.

Is there anyone else in the Religion group interested in a civil and collegial discussion on this topic? I sincerely offer the above as the start of that - I'm not sure if I succeeded at keeping it 100% snark-free but it's meant to be so please take it in that spirit.

And let me leave you with a piece of a song that I like:

What I am is what I am, are you what you are or what
Oh I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Do do ya
Shove me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Shove me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
What I am is what I am, are you what you are or what

What I Am - Edie Brickell

[tama]

1. Socrates

From what we are told, Socrates was accused and condemned of atheism. He denied the accusation but accepted to verdict of Death, instead of taking advantage from the opportunity to leave Athens and live elsewhere.

Socrates main philosophy and teaching was skepticism and/or agnosticism: "I only know that I don't know nothing", but it also seems he has strong ethical convictions and he was not afraid to die. Socrates attributed his ethics (and denial of charges of atheism) to what he called Daimon, a voice of conscience that told him what not to do, when he was about to do something unethical, but not what to do. We don't know how exactly Socrates experienced his Daimon, as auditory hallucination or other form of "imaginary friend", or something else.

He questioned the beliefs of his fellow Athenians, the rational basis behind them, for which he was accused and condemned of corrupting the youth of Athens. He didn't offer other belief systems to replace those he torn down, but he encouraged critical thinking, ethical behavior and search for virtue.

[Festivito]

2. Nicely said. Good luck. I suggest following the money.

Whether anti-smear, anti-broad-brush, or pro-discussion, I see DU disappointment in the Religion, er, or is it the atheism pot-shot forum.

The short of it is that politics involves lots of money, hoards of it. And, that's it.

I think there is enough money to at minimum, send in a rabble rouser to get other angry persons to act like an army. Maybe a famous name. May be a rube him/herself, the idea being to promote a group or idea, the result being to disrupt discussions with pot-shots, angry pot-shots, smearing pot-shots, confusing pot-shots, etc.

The result keeps people of faith in God from coming to DU, or KOS, or, wherever.

Was it Montana where the found all the Republican paraphernalia in a meth house. Have fun, get high, stay high, be protected (so it might seem), and just keep posting posting and posting. These people will work for next to nothing. The more they love Ayn Rand, the younger they are, and the less you have to pay them, the more they don't care about others except in that clinical way that if everyone wants things their way all will be right some day. Yeah, un-huh, right. Eyeroll.

The jury system here got rid of the worst offenders here and we actually did have a few discussions. But, the new tack employs pot-shots. Every couple of days another post written to fly just under the jury's nose. A little army to hit the rec buttons, or sock puppets to hit the recs. DU only needs two or three recs, then it can get to five and thrive on its own.

Note how any discussion might go. Slightly off responses. If you respond in short, they paste a lot. If you counter with a lot of response, they pull out a sentence and feign umbrage. I tried this once with one other DUer, it went on for a hundred posts. It was easier than I would had thought. Only needs to be done for two days. Then, even the highly rec'd posts disappear.

All this keeps people of faith stuck listening to individual ministers and not hearing what we have to say.

And, this keep the hoards of cash money in the pockets of the few.

[cbayer]

4. This so clearly takes place from both sides, imo, that I honestly can not tell which one you are

describing.

I am completely sincere.

[Festivito]

9. It is not the religious right that has hold of DU -- at all.

The Religious Right is horrible, and I would say worse. BUT, THEY'RE NOT HERE!

And, if they were here, we'd be better off understanding their points, maybe even finding ways to work with them to common goals.

Matters not which I was describing. I do not want people of religion stopping/turning away people lacking religion, nor do I want people lacking religion stopping/turning away people of religion. But, that's what I'm seeing, and I don't like it.

[cbayer]

11. I could not agree with you more.

So you were talking about members of both "camps", which is why I could not distinguish.

Overall, I think this group is primarily populated by people who are interested in working together while still being able to debate their differences. That's a good thing, imo.

But the group has a bad and longstanding reputation perpetuated by a handful of members. Much that can be remedied by an individual's selective use of the ignore function.

[trotsky]

5. Meth labs?

Seriously?

That's quite the conspiracy theory you've cooked up when it's just people expressing their opinions freely. This generally comes to a shock to many people who have grown up in a society that defers to religious beliefs, one that looks down upon criticism of them. Atheists are expected to remain quiet and allow the majority belief group to run things. The few who question the status quo are then labeled as "intolerant" or "bigoted" or, in your case, accused of being meth addicts who are just pawns in a vast right-wing conspiracy.

I have never launched such ridiculous and unfounded allegations against anyone I've sparred with in this group. I think you've gone way over the line with your insinuations. The decent and honorable thing to do would be apologize and delete/edit your post.

[Festivito]

7. Here's a DU link. It was in CO with paraphernalia for MO.

Ah, the outrage.

A sentence that strong and makes sense followed by a sentence just unclear enough as to what the subject is. What would one be answering.

Of course, the negativity has to be addressed to the "you" (that would be me) not the post itself.

Here's the link. Thank goodness the election is over. Time to rebuild.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014283362
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) »
Mysterious Documents Found In Meth House Bare Inner Workings Of Dark Money Group

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/big-sky-big-money/mysterious-docs-found-in-meth-house-reveal-inner-workings-of-dark-money-group/

[trotsky]

10. No, it's YOU who has insinuated that somehow people who post here in this group...

are meth addicts that are part of this massive conspiracy.

It's YOUR allegations that are ridiculous, over-the-top, and insulting. So much for raising the tone.

[Festivito]

12. I always try to address the post, especially when being controversial.

The idea that there may be trolls, is well accepted around DU even by admins. Radio personalities acknowledge some of their callers are paid by the RW, provided they get in so many talking points.

How trolls work, what their posts look like or whether or not they even know they are trolls is academic.

Some DUers are avoiding certain groups because of posters who use too many loaded adjectives such as ridiculous over-the-top insulting in a single sentence. I think that piling on of adjectives comes from NOT being steady enough to support any one of those words, so, instead, several such words are piled together to make the assertion sound stronger than it is.

IT'S STOPPING DUers FROM POSTING.

[trotsky]

13. I think you are secretly ashamed of your behavior, as you should be.

And the inexcusable allegations you are making. But your ego has veto power for some reason. I am sorry you are intimiated by the use of accurate descriptors, and that you need to lash out and blame others, creating scapegoats as you see fit.

Then again, that's pretty standard Christian behavior as we can see from its history, sadly. I can't blame you for simply emulating your theological predecessors. But you should really work on changing the tone, if that's supposed to be the goal.

Or you can continue to attack. Your choice. I guess it depends on your answer to the question, "What would a true Christian do?"

[Festivito]

14. Maybe that's a describer describing the describer's self.

Now it's inexcusable. And, there's that second sentence again. Veto power? Hmm. The sorry looks so like one feigning emotional connection in order to make the other person take the next comments more to heart so that they would be more hurtful. Ouch -- not!

Then a broad-brush by means of "standard Christian behavior." It gets pretty put in front. Oh, my.

Maybe I'll be intimidated by not being a true Christian in someone else's eyes. Naw.

Better luck next time.

[trotsky]

15. I see you made your choice.

So much for raising the tone. Take care, and peace.

[Festivito]

16. I do wish you well.

May peace, love and joy fill your life.

[cbayer]

3. Excellent piece and I would love to see this be the tone of this group

instead of the snarky contest between teams that feel that need to win an argument which is, in the end, essentially unwinnable.

Recognizing that many who believe or don't believe in a god or gods think they are right is a good first step. Who doesn't want their POV to be the right one.

Condemning, attacking or ridiculing someone for their beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others, is not a democratic, liberal or progressive value, imo.

The religious right's intrusion into politics really poisoned the well and made it difficult for progressive religious people to be heard or even taken seriously. They need the support, or at least tolerance, of secular and non-believing groups to regain their foothold.

The longstanding fear of and discrimination towards non-believers is being challenged and cracked in some unprecedented ways. Groups representing them are critical in pushing back against the legislative intrusions of the religious right. They need the support, or at least tolerance, of the faith community.

And the recognition that the two groups share values and are stronger together than apart is where the real power is.

Anyway, I really enjoyed and appreciate your very thoughtful piece here. I hope many will read it and those that wish to engage in civil and constructive dialogue will stick around this group. Religion and the lack thereof aren't going away and will continue to be contentious, but powerful, forces.

[trotsky]

6. The tone of this group is not helped when people like your father...

... in all sincerity, state that they don't think atheists could be moral without a religious ethical framework.

How are we supposed to react to that slap in the face? Countless people have told him how hurtful and bigoted such a remark is, but he has never even TRIED to listen and understand to the people he's insulting. He tells us we misunderstood him, but doesn't clarify what he really meant, and then even worse, goes on to repeat the insult again.

So the people he's insulted don't get an apology, they don't feel they are being listened to, how can it come as a surprise when they turn to snarky comments that expose the prejudice, bigotry, and hypocrisy?

[Thats my opinion]

19. It has come to my attention that you referred to me directly.

While I don't care enough about what you write to even read it, the sort of personal attack you leveled cannot stand. I never said, nor do i believe that atheists could not be moral without a religious framework. I believe religion at its best has helped base culture on a ethical basis. And at times that input has been negative and destructive in the extreme. And I would not want to live in a society without that positive basis, as I would not want to live in a culture without a moral basis that flows from a non religious commitment,. Neither would I want to live in a culture controlled by any religion that did not have solidly withln its ethical framework the corrective that only agnostics and atheists have provided. They have and do keep all sorts of theists honest.

For the umpteeth time, for you to drag out a statement I made three years ago which you continually purposefully distort, says more about you than it does about anything I have said. Furthermore your post has nothing to do with this interesting thread, in which I have not been involved--except to read. It is a sourball you just need to throw in from time to time. Get over it. Very few here care any more. Most posters here have grown beyond that sort of sniping. It's boring.

[okasha]

23. That one (and a few of his buddies)

are still trying to beat a horse that was ALPO a loooong time ago. I think it's becoma a kind of daily loyalty oath for them to hold their little group together.

[trotsky]

29. I'm glad you think it's a club activity.

We're confronting religious bigotry in one of its many forms. You can toss all the shells you want from the peanut gallery, since that appears to be the only thing you're good at.

[trotsky]

28. There has been absolutely no distortion. These are your EXACT WORDS.

You said, ONCE AGAIN:

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

Your only defense of that statement has been to claim, as you have here, that you wouldn't want to live in a culture where that viewpoint is actively silenced. But that is NOT what you said.

Now, some follow-up questions have been posed to you dozens of times but you have steadfastly refused to answer. I'd like to challenge you here, once and for all, to give an answer:

What if a society had no "ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith," simply through the progress of its history and development? We're not talking about active persecution of religion, just a society that evolved to not have it anymore. Why would you not want to live in such a society? What would be so wrong with it?

Will you answer here, or once again disappear and force us to conclude that you just don't think atheists can be moral without religion?

Oh, and if you're up for it, please explain this other DIRECT quote from you that I asked for clarification on and never received. Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=50604

[rug]

8. Hell, I was hoping to see "I am a Walrus".

I have to do everything myself.

[okasha]

17. Thanks for posting this, eomer. It's appreciated.

The really offensive portion of that post was its hyposcrisy--accusing others of claiming to be "better that you" while clearly carrying the message that the poster and others who agreed with him were indeed "better than you."

I'll admit to having a very liberal circle of friends and acquaintances; that pretty much goes with being a former academic and current art student. They range all the way across the denominational, belief and non-belief spectrum, from Mormons to atheists. In many cases, their liberalism is not shared by the hierarchies of their organizations but comes from their own life experience. What they all agree on is that their (non-)belief is right for them. I think this acceptance of others' opinions is more widespread than polemicists at the extremes are willing to acknowledge. Regardless of what's going on with the honchos, there's much less "We're right/You're wrong" as you get down to pew/personal level. Indifiduals' acceptance of dogma/doctrine is invariably colored by their own life experience. It's even possible to have a very devout but firmly anti-clerical body of believers, as is the case with the Mexican Catholic Church.

Which means in turn that there's a lot of room for individuals to work together, regardless of philosophical diffrences.

[eomer]

18. Thank you for nudging me to, it was an interesting "assignment".

Your description of your circle of friends is familiar; one of the greatest benefits from joining our UU is the new circle of friends that we've gained and like yours they span across quite a range of the religious spectrum, although in our case not including current members of the mainstream churches (Catholic, Anglican, etc) since they are members of our congregation, but there are plenty of former Catholics and so on. We do have a number of practicing Pagans as well as practicing Quakers and other Christians. On the non-believer side we have secular humanists, secular Jews, and atheists, and of course these latter groups overlap.

What we don't have at our UU are any members whose beliefs or practices are founded in hate, at least not that I know of. And that's the striking difference for me. I'm currently struggling over my relationship with some family members who self-identify as Christians but constantly spew hatred, most of it racist, all of it hard right-wing. My sister is Youth Minister of a Vineyard church and it has been shocking to me the things she posts on Facebook. I'm working through whether and how much to become estranged from her. I'm not sure I'm ready to discuss this personal struggle here but wanted to mention it because it has a connection, for me, to this topic of tone and civility in this group. I do want to be able to express my own beliefs here without feeling muzzled but I also don't want to become the flip side, not even if it's the liberal side, of a hatefest. This is apparently not always easy but maybe by trying we will find that even our occasional failures will help guide and inform us to that end. If you notice me creeping over the line, please "shove me in the shallow water".

[okasha]

30. I'm glad you've found a comfortable place

and comfortable people in your UU group. One of the great advantages of such a group is that there is such a diversity of experience available to the members. It's a corrollary, almost, to one of Paul Dixon,s Official Rules: Learn fron the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself. And learn from their successes, too, of course.

A community defines itself in many ways. When it's by whom they hate, irs usually driven by fear, envy, deliberate manipulation by the leadership, or any combination thereof. When membership is diverse and leadership loose or rotating, it becomes much more difficult to establish a satisfactoryy hate object.

The sitiation with your sister must be painful. Don't let go of her entirely, though. She may need help to get out someday.

[dimbear]

20. Why not take the easy path? Tell us of a religion which teaches that it is wrong, or that people

who don't believe in it are better than its members.

[okasha]

21. False dichotomy.

Many religious groups teach that«many doors open on God» and that followers of differentr ways are all equally capableof being and doing good.

[cbayer]

22. There are some that teach that the least among you will be the greatest later

without reference to their current beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Why would any philosophy or religion teach that is it wrong? That just makes no sense.

Is that your criteria for a valuable religion?

[dimbear]

24. This is about the famous 3 universal truths.

The easy way to knock two of them down is listed right above ^^ . Somebody ought to do it if they can.


Oh, and as to the famous 3 truths being a broad brush attack? More like spray painting. I'm just asking anyone to show that there's a spot that should have been missed by truth 1 or truth 3.

(I'm giving number 2 a courtesy pass.)

[eomer]

27. UU: a religion that teaches that it doesn't know and that its members are no better than anyone else

Your test goes too far. A religion that doesn't claim "the three universal truths" will not necessarily claim the opposite.

UU = Unitarian Universalism. There may well be others, this is just the one I know.

[uriel1972]

25. you are what you is,

you is what you am,
you ain't what you're not,
a cow don't make ham.

[JDPriestly]

26. Thanks, eomer. I am UU too.

So many people have been hurt and disappointed by traditional religions. When they realize that the dogmas they were taught are absurd if taken literally and scrutinized rationally, they feel that they have been tricked.

They do not understand that many of the traditional dogmas are myths, wonderful but imperfect metaphors used to think about things we cannot explain or understand but also cannot dismiss or ignore. Dogmas, ideas that religions claim to be "true" are merely language. Language, however, cannot capture the religious experience which is beyond the human mind.

It takes a lot of courage to admit that we cannot express in language something we sense to be true. It takes even more courage to admit that we do not know what is true or not true.

It is difficult for people who have a sense of a connection with something beyond themselves to accept that their ideas of "God" as they express them within the limits of language may not be universally accepted as "true." They forget that those ideas like other definitions are verbal tools, nothing more.

A sense of "God" or meaning in the universe beyond what can be explained within everyday human experience is not bound by language. Therefore language, which is a human creation, cannot express it. Who can adequately describe a sunset. We can understand the science of it to some extent and describe that, but we cannot understand why a sunset can inspire such awe in us.