I think it has to do with love. As if: when we light candles for George Floyd, can we light one for all the others who have been forgotten? Like that.

I think it has to do with love. As if: when we light candles for George Floyd, can we light one for all the others who have been forgotten? Like that. — frank

Who's George Floyd?

Infinite candles is a very poetic concept, but I think each person should light a candle to "his-self", the greatest tragedy one will ever experience.

And "love" is entirely metaphysical. That is in contrast to "blasting some pussy" and "making an army" yo! One more distinction....the metaphysical is only for the believer. For the nonbeliever, the metaphysical is only words we use for various reasons.

Who's George Floyd? — Merkwurdichliebe

A famous victim.

For the nonbeliever, the metaphysical is only words we use for various reasons. — Merkwurdichliebe

Isnt that a metaphysical statement?

For the nonbeliever, the metaphysical is only words we use for various reasons.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Isnt that a metaphysical statement? — frank

You'll have to explain what you mean by "metaphysical statement".

I would definitely call it a statement about the metaphysical, even a claim about one actor's relation to the metaphysical.

Who's George Floyd?
— Merkwurdichliebe

A famous victim. — frank

Not that famous. I know who James Brown is. Wait he's not a victim, nevermind

(Reginald Denny is the funniest victim, no offense to any victims)

One of those things is that morality comes from god. — Merkwurdichliebe

Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not.

So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.

You are the source of your ethical decisions.

Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. — Banno

First of all, "good lord" is the greatest of contradictions, such a thing is less likely than a hexahedronical sphere.

The believer believes that he has only one viable choice, even though he recognizes that there is more than one choice (many wrongs, but one right). It is paradoxical in that the believer chooses, even though he has no choice. But on deeper examination, the right "choice" of the believer becomes indisputable for him. Nothing can tell against it, no reason can be considered, morality to the believer is eternal law.

The "choice" of the nonbeliever, can be explained better, and to me or you it definitely makes more sense from a practical standpoint, like doing things together. And as we know nothing is more stubborn or divisive than religious conviction, and rightly so. But none of that matters to the believer.

Hard determinism...?

Cheers. You take care, now. Bye.

Hard determinism...? — Banno

Only when I'm with my lady...cheers matey!

would definitely call it a statement about the metaphysical, even a claim about one actor's relation to the metaphysical. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you're making claims about the metaphysical, does that show you're a believer?

If you're making claims about the metaphysical, does that show you're a believer? — frank

Making metaphysical claims does not show that one is a believer. Strictly speaking, there is no actual way to show (to prove) that one is in fact a true believer. Even claiming oneself to be a believer, or practicing religious ritual, does not show that one holds actual religious belief.
This is because everyone else has only indirect access to that person's belief via his actions and words. Only the believer himself can know, with any certainty, whether he is truly religious since he is the only person with direct access to his own belief.

The bitter irony is that some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who’d make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many (whom I refer to as) institutional Christians (i.e. those most resistant to Christ’s fundamental teachings of non-violence, unconditional compassion and non-wealth). Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings I’ve met or heard about are the most devout practitioners of institutional Christian theology.

As for religion/theism (much of which I also disapprove of), I believe that if it wasn't religion/theism, a different form of fanaticism or extremist belief system would take its problematic place. One might look at Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge concept of the righteous society as a scary example of this.

Having said that, however, I can see how there could be no greater perceived justification for or the-end-justifies-the-means motivator of inhumane/immoral behavior than ‘the Almighty has willed it!’

The bitter irony is that some of the best humanitarians I’ve met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics who’d make better examples of many of Christ’s teachings than too many (whom I refer to as) institutional Christians — FrankGSterleJr

Not sure that's an irony these days. One of secular humanism's primary drawcards is as a place to find morality given the continued demonstrations of immorality by believers and churches.

It's hard to judge people.

"Right-wing" has become a pejorative term. Oh! What great times do we live in... — Gus Lamarch

So has "liberal" which is left-wing.

Birds these days must have a tough time when flying. They use both wings.

It's hard to judge people. — Gregory

yet many find it too easy, and that's why they practice it left right and centre.

It's hard to judge people. — Gregory

In relation to what?

Only the believer himself can know, with any certainty, whether he is truly religious since he is the only person with direct access to his own belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

And God, if the dude is religious. But God ain't tellin' no one.

Knowing whether Christianity makes better people or not is hard to decide on because atheists will judge their friends more carefully than a Christian

This thread has been miraculously resurrected.

Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right
What once seemed like a bracing intellectual movement has degenerated into a pack of abusive, small-minded bigots
By PHIL TORRES
PUBLISHED JUNE 5, 2021 12:00PM (EDT)

... New Atheism appeared to offer moral clarity, it emphasized intellectual honesty and it embraced scientific truths about the nature and workings of reality. It gave me immense hope to know that in a world overflowing with irrationality, there were clear-thinking individuals with sizable public platforms willing to stand up for what's right and true — to stand up for sanity in the face of stupidity.

Fast-forward to the present: What a grift that was! Many of the most prominent New Atheists turned out to be nothing more than self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people who, at every opportunity, have propped up the powerful over the powerless, the privileged over the marginalized. ....

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

Nice polemic by Torres who remains an atheist despite some prominent celebrity atheists having political views he dislikes.

:yikes:

For a while after the New Atheist fad started, I kept track of reviews of their books. I should explain I’m not a specifically theistic person, not biblically-oriented or church-going (although I’m certainly not atheist either). Regardless, I felt all their books were egregiously mistaken in their depiction of what religions mean. Anyway - it’s become clear now, about 15 years later, that the New Atheism was nothing particularly new or noteworthy.

Overall the best summing-up reviews were these:

Lonely Atheists of the Global Village, Michael Novak

The God Genome, Leon Wieseltier’s review of Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell.

Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching, Terry Eagleton’s hilariously acerbic review of The God Delusion, the review which got me into forums (having signed up to the long dead Dawkins forum to debate it.)

I think the best atheists never have to bother dismissing God, because they’re simply doing other things. As Einstein said, ‘atheists are those who still feel the weight of their chains’.

Agreed. I was never impressed by any of them new atheists, whom I see as characterized by facile hatred of religion. An atheist myself, I know better than brand all religious folks as idiots and all religious message as fake. Theirs is an "us vs them", make no prisoners mentality. I would rather try and see what is good in religion, what heritage from it needs to be carried forward in a more secular mind frame.

The 'New Atheists' themselves didn't like that definition but it suited a very marketable media proposition. So well in fact that we are still talking about them. It's the old 'new and improved' routine so beloved of advertising and so superfluous to the cause of free-thought.

I didn't follow them closely but I think they were almost entirely right for the most part in their dedication to debunking and going after fundamentalisms. This fundamentalist mindset remains a serious problem for the world and these not so new atheist polemicists have done some fine work in this space. They have not been intending to provide academic philosophical dissertations on the nuances of theism, just good and basic ammunition against nasty, hating, often violent theists and the more banal reasons for accepting theism as reasonable.

Let's face it no one is going after Christians like academic David Bentley Hart... for a start he's a progressive non literalist and a sophisticated theological thinker (also a part-time, anti-atheist polemicist). No one is going to shun their child for being gay because of Hart's form of Christianity. No one is going to vote for a Presidential candidate because Hart says they should.

I think the alleged New Atheists were brash and strident and unacademic and pithy and polemical and for the most part they got their pitch right.

There are straw men arguments, but there are also straw god arguments, which are arguments directed at gods nobody really believes in. I think nearly all of the new atheist arguments were of that stripe.

An atheist myself, I know better than brand all religious folks as idiots and all religious message as fake. Theirs is an "us vs them", make no prisoners mentality. — Olivier5

Wonder where they learned that.

No way. I know my fundamentalists. Any work that deconstructs literalist fundamentalism is significant.

Even though literal fundamentalists would be the last people in the world to take them on board. If you can believe Dinosaurs in Genesis then nothing Richard Dawkins says will make the least bit of difference. They’re not worth the time.

Anyway - not going to carry this onwards. I’ve given my refs, I’ll leave it there.

//not all fundamentalists are religious.

Even though literal fundamentalists would be the last people in the world to take them on board. If you can believe Dinosaurs in Genesis then nothing Richard Dawkins says will make the least bit of difference. They’re not worth the time. — Wayfarer

Now you see, that's not accurate is it? Heading into straw man land, even. You only have to talk to support workers at Recovering form Religion to know that many fundamentalists (Southern Baptists, JW's, etc) do leave the faith, often after hearing arguments from people like New Atheists. No one is not worth the time.