|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 1, 2015 10:52:16 GMT -5
Interesting Camille Paglia interview on Salon -->> Camille Paglia takes on Jon Stewart, Trump, Sanders: “Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true!”
So Camille Paglia, an atheist, invents a new term for "adolescent", "juvenile", atheists with "stunted imaginations" stupidly sneering at religion: Snark Atheism. There is no doubt Snark Atheism exists, and that we have seen evidence of it even here on TMB. I was wondering about inventing a new term, "Snark Christianity". Would that describe the phenomena of adolescent, juvenile, Christians with stunted imaginations stupidly sneering at other Christians? It's obvious there is more than enough of it around - even here on TMB. Camille says snark is a disease she despises - it's obviously out there everywhere - and has proliferated. I think she is right to identify lack of respect as a root cause. Why is it that snark seems to be respected and defended? When it's become that twisted is there any hope for a cure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 17:46:23 GMT -5
I enjoyed the comments on Christopher Hitchens’ Like various publications about ourselves it is stocked with "facts" which are selective, disjointed, out of context and essentially irrelevant to the issue the author claims to address.
People taken in by The Secret Sect would be suckers for Dawkins.
He sold that book on the basis of the brilliant chapter titles. If he had actually done the research and the work, where each chapter had the substance of those wonderful chapter titles, then that would have been a permanent book. Instead, he sold the book and then didn’t write one–he talked it. It was an appalling performance, demonstrating that that man was an absolute fraud to be talking about religion. He appears to have done very little scholarly study. Hitchens didn’t even know Judeo-Christianity well, much less the other world religions. He had that glib Oxbridge debater style in person, but you’re remembered by your written work, and Hitchens’ written work was weak and won’t last.
Dawkins also seems to be an obsessive on some sort of personal vendetta, and again, he’s someone who has never taken the time to do the necessary research into religion.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 1, 2015 19:18:11 GMT -5
So Camille Paglia, an atheist, invents a new term for "adolescent", "juvenile", atheists with "stunted imaginations" stupidly sneering at religion: Snark Atheism. There is no doubt Snark Atheism exists, and that we have seen evidence of it even here on TMB. I was wondering about inventing a new term, "Snark Christianity". Would that describe the phenomena of adolescent, juvenile, Christians with stunted imaginations stupidly sneering at other Christians? It's obvious there is more than enough of it around - even here on TMB. Camille says snark is a disease she despises - it's obviously out there everywhere - and has proliferated. I think she is right to identify lack of respect as a root cause. Why is it that snark seems to be respected and defended? When it's become that twisted is there any hope for a cure? Good evening Jesse Lackman. Thanks for posting this interview with Camille Paglia. I am a big fan of Camille and try to catch most of her essays and columns. Even though I only agree with about 25% of her views, I find her writing entertaining and provocative, an appealing blend for me. I had a mixed reaction to Camille’s interview. Several points I agree with, in particular, I agree that the real problem is lack and knowledge of and respect for “religion”. I would probably not use the word “religion” since I interpret the word to mean the product produced following the tampering by man. Rather I tend to think that the real problem is the lack of knowledge of and respect for the wisdom of those who have sought and continue to seek the meaning of life beyond the material realm (and its impermanence), the mundane and self-hood. I disagree with her coining a “new phrase” - - - - - snark atheism, and I would personally skirt the temptation to coin the “new phrase”, snark Christianity”. Both phrases seem to further compartmentalize the world into antagonistic stereotypes. I do not perceive antagonistic stereotypes has constructively contributing to compassion for the suffering of a wounded world. In your post, you ask; “is there any hope for a cure”. Interestingly the first thought flashing through my mind was “charity begins at home.” I suggest that all the slings and arrows on both sides of the chasm are but background noise. Efforts to dig deep and attempt valiantly to understand and respect the “wisdom of the ages” might well reveal the impermanence of slings and arrows and suggest a more rational and contemplative approach to a cure. I thank you for posting a portion of the Paglia interview and hope that her perspective might stimulate a honest and sincere exchanges of constructive views on the current state of affairs and paths forward. By the way, I have not read “God is Not Great” so I cannot comment on it’s contents but I did enjoy the “bon vivant” and rhetorical style of Christopher Hichens style. I mourn his loss. I choose to read Paglia’s remarks regarding Mr. Hitchens as referencing his last book and not his full body of work.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 1, 2015 20:50:16 GMT -5
Hi yknot. I think root cause of snark in general is lack of respect. In many ways I don't even like to divide into religions / non-religious. When you do that it gets messed up like on the "Science meets god: try this on for size".
"There is no denying that well-meaning individuals will commit the most horrific acts of violence because they are convinced the voice of god told them to do so. They can retrieve parts of scripture to validate their actions."
"There is also no denying that scientific progress has enabled conditions and diseases which were once fatal and caused the death of many babies, young children and adults to be either prevented or treated. This is possible due to scientific research."
"Therefore the intention to determine the brain's reaction to religious belief systems is vital."
To be fair there are a lot more "there is no denying" points that have nothing to do with religion to consider prior to the "Therefore". There have been many well intentioned people who committed horrific acts of violence on a massive scale without the voice of God telling them to do so. What belief system did those brains react to? Why wouldn't whatever belief system that was be just as important to study? When it's realized that those belief systems are just as important to study religious belief systems won't be singled out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 21:04:38 GMT -5
The hundred million or so who died under Communism didn't die because someone heard the voice of God, they heard their own voice - which was worse.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Sept 1, 2015 21:20:37 GMT -5
I enjoyed the comments on Christopher Hitchens’ Like various publications about ourselves it is stocked with "facts" which are selective, disjointed, out of context and essentially irrelevant to the issue the author claims to address.
People taken in by The Secret Sect would be suckers for Dawkins.He sold that book on the basis of the brilliant chapter titles. If he had actually done the research and the work, where each chapter had the substance of those wonderful chapter titles, then that would have been a permanent book. Instead, he sold the book and then didn’t write one–he talked it. It was an appalling performance, demonstrating that that man was an absolute fraud to be talking about religion. He appears to have done very little scholarly study. Hitchens didn’t even know Judeo-Christianity well, much less the other world religions. He had that glib Oxbridge debater style in person, but you’re remembered by your written work, and Hitchens’ written work was weak and won’t last. Dawkins also seems to be an obsessive on some sort of personal vendetta, and again, he’s someone who has never taken the time to do the necessary research into religion. Seems you have quoted something wrong here bert, maybe you need to re-read what you have copied & pasted
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 2, 2015 7:50:18 GMT -5
Hi yknot. I think root cause of snark in general is lack of respect. In many ways I don't even like to divide into religions / non-religious. When you do that it gets messed up like on the "Science meets god: try this on for size".
" There is no denying that well-meaning individuals will commit the most horrific acts of violence because they are convinced the voice of god told them to do so. They can retrieve parts of scripture to validate their actions." " There is also no denying that scientific progress has enabled conditions and diseases which were once fatal and caused the death of many babies, young children and adults to be either prevented or treated. This is possible due to scientific research." " Therefore the intention to determine the brain's reaction to religious belief systems is vital."
To be fair there are a lot more "there is no denying" points that have nothing to do with religion to consider prior to the "Therefore". There have been many well intentioned people who committed horrific acts of violence on a massive scale without the voice of God telling them to do so. What belief system did those brains react to? Why wouldn't whatever belief system that was be just as important to study? When it's realized that those belief systems are just as important to study religious belief systems won't be singled out. Good morning Jesse_Lackman, I generally agree with your points. I guess, however, that my mind has been wandering in a slightly different direction, aided in part by the threads that are generated and the discussions that follow here on TMB. At the moment, my thinking has resolved itself into three distinct paths. One, I believe that we completely lack a vocabulary that would allow rational conversation between those that believe all reality ultimately reduces to physical/material processes and those who believe there in a consciousness that transcends materialism. A person can find a few individuals working hard to build that vocabulary but they are generally regarded as “kooks” and dismissed by both sides without even stopping for a moment to reflect on the need. The result is two entrenched groups on either side of the divide screaming their “Truth” to the side trying to win recruits. If one can withdraw far enough from the edge of the chasm of separation and look back at the broad canvas on which this little battle is playing out, the whole process begins to appear almost banal. Second, I am beginning to ask if perhaps the human needs that drive “evangelism” are not present in all of us. I realize that “evangelism” is narrowly defined as those individuals who are extremely convicted to their belief system and attempt to convert non-believers to Christianity. But I interpret this as a symptom rather than a cause. I speculate that there is a cause that lies dormant in all of us that drives us when we become strongly convicted to a particular belief system (religion, scientism, environmentalism, “New Age ism”, etc.) to try to “rescue” others from the perilsof their belief systems and sign on to “evangelist” belief system. I can find no word that describes this condition. I was interested to find reference to an Apple employee who coined the phrase “technical evangelist” and that there was the embodiment of such an individual. Talk to any Mac/Apple user today to readily grasp the power of the actual expression of this concept (in a non-religious context). Finally, and this is my most pessimistic view, I am beginning to wonder if we are not “all” missing the real point. Do not most of us look out from our cloistered views and see a suffering wounded world? Is not one of the objectives of a meaningful life to set aside the petty bickering and focus on our capacity to express empathy and compassion for that wounded world? Should it matter to me if a person holds a conviction that all meaning is secular and then proceed to do good? Should it matter to me that a person holds a belief that an anthropomorphic God guides their steps along a path of righteousness and proceed to do good? Is it truly rational to believe that the conversion of a person from one belief system to another is an act of compassion? These questions haunt me. I would love to hear counter arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 2, 2015 10:04:06 GMT -5
Hi yknot.
I think there is more common ground between those in your point 1 than people realize. I found it interesting there are pro-life atheists who believe life begins at conception and that abortion at any time is terminating life. That would be pretty much the exact same moral position as many religious pro-lifers. This doesn't need to turn into a abortion thread but that is an example. In some ways there are those who believe in a supernatural power you could say are atheist+. They would have a lot in common with atheists with the addition of belief in supernatural power. I don't think that is too far fetched. But this leads into your point 2. I agree there is evangelism in all of us - even atheists. Evangelism is not limited to those with religious beliefs. Evangelism is everywhere now, take for instance climate change. Or more specifically the part man plays or can play in climate change. It's not about the science for most people - even the scientists - it seems to be more about evangelism: Us vs Them. "They" need to change "their" mind on the matter. I wonder if there has been a time where evangelism has polarized people to the extent it has in our time - that is your point 3. We are there, on so many issues. More and more there is the inability or refusal to even consider another's point of view, it my-way-or-the-hiway - snark - disrespect. The opposite of compassion.
Take a look at these videos. What you have is a tag-team with their minds made up deliberately going to a gin& rally with gotcha questions they think will stump gin&. They cannot allow themselves to consider a point of view other than their own - to the extent they've disabled comments on their videos. Note how they titled the videos. This is an example of what Camille said; "“Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true!” When the priority is evangelism it's an indication that the mind has closed. That's seems to be our world - your point 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 13:36:44 GMT -5
I have often told some ex-professing folks that they are continuing in the same anti-denominational churches they may have been taught in their youth. Except this time, they just added the fellowship meetings into the mix. So I ask the atheists here: Did some worker, friend, or professing parent turn you against religion based upon some perceived unkind treatment in the past?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 2, 2015 13:45:42 GMT -5
I have often told some ex-professing folks that they are continuing in the same anti-denominational churches they may have been taught in their youth. Except this time, they just added the fellowship meetings into the mix. So I ask the atheists here: Did some worker, friend, or professing parent turn you against religion based upon some perceived unkind treatment in the past? I think for me it was the exclusive teachings of the workers that got me thinking about things. It meant most of my family were going to hell and that just didn't seem to make sense and if it was true, it wasn't right. So I think it turned me against religion in general and got me looking into it from a secular pov. I was quite young when this happened so it was a process that took some years. But slowly over time I have become who I now am.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 14:18:39 GMT -5
I have seen say a parent grieving over a child stating something like how they know they will see their son/daughter someday. And an atheist might say something like "there is no afterlife, it is a figment of your imagination" or something like that.
Here is what upsets me about 2 or 3 atheists here: instead of creating their OWN threads about their atheistic views, they hijack your threads.. A thread about say a typhoon in Indonesia might end up into some thread about atheism. I really resent it when atheists take the notion that they are more intelligent and less archaic than Christians. There are some reasonable atheists on TMB who can state their view points in a less threatening way.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 2, 2015 14:33:37 GMT -5
I have seen say a parent grieving over a child stating something like how they know they will see their son/daughter someday. And an atheist might say something like "there is no afterlife, it is a figment of your imagination" or something like that. Here is what upsets me about 2 or 3 atheists here: instead of creating their OWN threads about their atheistic views, they hijack your threads.. A thread about say a typhoon in Indonesia might end up into some thread about atheism. I really resent it when atheists take the notion that they are more intelligent and less archaic than Christians. There are some reasonable atheists on TMB who can state their view points in a less threatening way. Well we are all different and express ourselves differently and TMB is a very diverse crowd. We see the holier than thou on both sides of the spectrum I guess. It's not a trait of atheists or Christians as much it is a trait of humanity in general. In an open forum with diverse beliefs we see everyone discussing what they believe. So yes, you will see atheists posting on all threads. But one thing I thought was very respectful of all atheists here was the thread I started for theists only to discuss whatever they liked without an atheist view point popping up. It is still there for theists to use and so far we've seen it respected in that manner. However, when there was a thread started for atheists only, theists responded on it. I thought that was interesting. My parents definitely thought I was going to hell when I quit professing and I think they died with that mindset. It made me very sad but that is what they were taught to believe.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 2, 2015 14:56:58 GMT -5
I have seen say a parent grieving over a child stating something like how they know they will see their son/daughter someday. And an atheist might say something like "there is no afterlife, it is a figment of your imagination" or something like that. That would be insensitive and anti-social. It would be similarly insensitive and anti-social for someone to tell a grieving parent,"Too bad your son/daughter turned her back on God and is facing a Lost Eternity."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:28:06 GMT -5
I never liked the Saturday night story of the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 16:29:31 GMT -5
I never liked the Saturday night story of the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity. not many like what could be true
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 2, 2015 16:41:09 GMT -5
I never liked the Saturday night story of the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity. not many like what could be true Are stories like this still told during the Saturday night meeting of Convention?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 16:45:41 GMT -5
not many like what could be true Are stories like this still told during the Saturday night meeting of Convention? mainly the story of Jesus
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2015 16:52:51 GMT -5
I have seen say a parent grieving over a child stating something like how they know they will see their son/daughter someday. And an atheist might say something like "there is no afterlife, it is a figment of your imagination" or something like that. That would be insensitive and anti-social. It would be similarly insensitive and anti-social for someone to tell a grieving parent,"Too bad your son/daughter turned her back on God and is facing a Lost Eternity." Yeah. I've done my share of being insensitive and anti-social. A number of years ago, I got really clear - that if I had a belief that would cause love and compassion to fail, then the belief had to go. Beliefs are always expendable - love and compassion and people never are. I still see it this way.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2015 16:54:26 GMT -5
I never liked the Saturday night story of the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity. not many like what could be true Sigh. It coooould be true. But it isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 17:07:37 GMT -5
not many like what could be true Sigh. It coooould be true. But it isn't. and you have absolute proof of course
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 3, 2015 8:01:49 GMT -5
Are stories like this still told during the Saturday night meeting of Convention? mainly the story of Jesus The side-step answer makes me think the direct answer to my question is probably "yes".
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 3, 2015 14:27:19 GMT -5
Sigh. It coooould be true. But it isn't. and you have absolute proof of course Well, I can only speak to my own experience, of course. From almost 38 years as a member (from birth), and another 18+ years as an ex, with reasonably close ties to current members. I do not personally know of a single incident where (as @laverdad puts it) "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." I do know of two incidents recounted to me by my parents of people they knew (one, a boating accident on a Sunday morning, two, an alcohol-fueled race down main street of his local town - where the guy did not die, but ended up in jail because he killed some other people). On the other hand, I can recount 20+ (still counting) tragedies that happened to current members. Now, I know this is not unbiased data, because of my close ties to the 2X2 community. But this is my experience. As a student of Bible parables, and of Dr Suess (I have great respect for both) I would not object if there was even a metaphorical truth to "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." But I don't think there is. I know of too many people who have thrived outside of the 2X2 community.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 3, 2015 14:38:18 GMT -5
and you have absolute proof of course Well, I can only speak to my own experience, of course. From almost 38 years as a member (from birth), and another 18+ years as an ex, with reasonably close ties to current members. I do not personally know of a single incident where (as @laverdad puts it) "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." I do know of two incidents recounted to me by my parents of people they knew (one, a boating accident on a Sunday morning, two, an alcohol-fueled race down main street of his local town - where the guy did not die, but ended up in jail because he killed some other people). On the other hand, I can recount 20+ (still counting) tragedies that happened to current members. Now, I know this is not unbiased data, because of my close ties to the 2X2 community. But this is my experience. As a student of Bible parables, and of Dr Suess (I have great respect for both) I would not object if there was even a metaphorical truth to "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." But I don't think there is. I know of too many people who have thrived outside of the 2X2 community. On the other hand, I will concede that I know of a number who left 2X2ism (one close to me, though his leaving was not his choice), totally screwed up their lives (in terms of basic functionality), and upon returning to the 2X2's are seemingly holding it together these days. I have respect for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 16:44:23 GMT -5
mainly the story of Jesus The side-step answer makes me think the direct answer to my question is probably "yes". nice one trev
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 16:45:35 GMT -5
and you have absolute proof of course Well, I can only speak to my own experience, of course. From almost 38 years as a member (from birth), and another 18+ years as an ex, with reasonably close ties to current members. I do not personally know of a single incident where (as @laverdad puts it) "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." I do know of two incidents recounted to me by my parents of people they knew (one, a boating accident on a Sunday morning, two, an alcohol-fueled race down main street of his local town - where the guy did not die, but ended up in jail because he killed some other people). On the other hand, I can recount 20+ (still counting) tragedies that happened to current members. Now, I know this is not unbiased data, because of my close ties to the 2X2 community. But this is my experience. As a student of Bible parables, and of Dr Suess (I have great respect for both) I would not object if there was even a metaphorical truth to "the young man who took his way, lost out, had a car accident , died outside and went to a lost eternity." But I don't think there is. I know of too many people who have thrived outside of the 2X2 community. so then i wonder with all honesty how you could say it wasn't true?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2015 18:15:08 GMT -5
The hundred million or so who died under Communism didn't die because someone heard the voice of God, they heard their own voice - which was worse. WHY would it be worse?
Seems as if GOD wasn't setting a very good example
|
|