""Is their a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?"
Sorry to be a spelling jackass, but it's "there" not "their"
To answer your question, I think most humans have a "religious" impulse, but it's more about tribalism and ideology.
Peace
I made the correction, thanks. I also decided to modify the title and go with Res Ipsa's use of the term "quasi-religion."
I'm sorry for judging you harshly before. I've been reading your posts and you are a very sincere and deep thinker. And I can be a jackass. Especially with a BAC over 0.12. I've enjoyed your posts.
Peace
The views and opinions expressed by Bill4Long could be wrong and are subject to change at any time. Viewer discretion is advised.
I made the correction, thanks. I also decided to modify the title and go with Res Ipsa's use of the term "quasi-religion."
I'm sorry for judging you harshly before. I've been reading your posts and you are a very sincere and deep thinker. And I can be a jackass. Especially with a BAC over 0.12. I've enjoyed your posts.
Peace
No worries, I didn't really consider you being harsh, but I appreciate the comments.
"" ...To answer your question, I think most humans have a "religious" impulse, but it's more about tribalism and ideology and trying to understand the cave of the unknown. The span of the entire gamut of human personalities from what I can tell. ...
Peace
I actually agree with this. Today, I was also thinking that what I'm really getting at is like you said we humans have an impulse(s) toward tribalism and ideology; and also I would add an impulse to moralize and form moralities and according to Jonathan Haidt this moralizing is innate and based a lot on our personal psychology and personality.
He bucks against the current ‘dogmas’ of science to ascertain reality.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
... Today, I was also thinking that what I'm really getting at is like you said we humans have an impulse(s) toward tribalism and ideology; and also I would add an impulse to moralize and form moralities and according to Jonathan Haidt this moralizing is innate and based a lot on our personal psychology and personality.
Well, at least you're describing attributes and not lumping all humankind together under the umbrella of religion, quasi or otherwise. That's a much clearer position. I disagree with your summary of Haidt, however, as he is pretty clear on how he uses the term "innate." I also don't think he said "moralizing is innate," could you explain how you are using the term?
(And the usual disclamer, disagreeing with you is not being hostile, nor does it mean any feathers are ruffled, nor does it mean you are being bullied. It just means someone disagrees with you.)
I'm going to offer you some advice that will be worth 1000 times the amount you paid for it. It's about what it means to have a good faith discussion.
1. Enter the discussion with a clear understanding of what you can and can't control. You can control the words you post, the tone you use to post, and how you interpret the words of others. You cannot control the words others post, the tone they use to post, and how they interpret your words.
2. Do not attempt to control the things you cannot control.
3. Be committed to explaining your ideas and/or trying to persuade others without resorting to well-recognized techniques of manipulation (personal attack, attacking others' motives, gaslighting, fallacies such as ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc.)
4. Presume that the people you are engaging with are doing steps 1-3 as well.
5. If you think that someone is not doing the things in 1-3, continue to presume good faith on the part of that person. No one is perfect, so no one is going to follow 1-3 perfectly in every single post. In addition, you may have understood their intent.
6. If you are unable to do 5, simply label the behavior you are objecting to and return to the substance of the conversation.
7. If you conclude the other person's behavior is disrupting the conversation, report it to the moderators but don't post about it. The moderators may not agree that rules have been violated, but your objection will have been heard without you having to disrupt your own thread.
8. You cannot demand this kind of "good faith" behavior from others. You can only engage in it. But by doing so, the effect in most cases will be to lead people to trust that you are posting in good faith.
by the way, the time it takes to respond to a report depends on who is available and whether the moderator that gets the report feels the need to get feedback from the rest of the team before asking. I've recused myself from moderating your two threads in Celestial. Your reports are still open, meaning that they haven't been acted upon. Please keep in mind that, even if they are, the result will be that posts or parts of posts will simply be moved to another thread. The words you object to will still appear on the board.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
It seems you've decided to engage again, FR, welcome back!
I would be interested in your further discussion of a comment you made previously, roughly in the middle of your post below. It's from your comment here:
...A guy named Thunderf00t who documented what he sees as the rise of this new far-leftism and its metanarrative and how in his opinion it ruined the atheist community. He sees modern feminism as cultish and has a video series, Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, part one here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR ... cmYwMHQ%3D
I'm not here to defend thunderf00t but even if only 5% of what he says is accurate, that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism (see: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/femin ... nosticism/) then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge in front of our eyes as critical thinkers who were able see through the cultish ways of Brighamite Mormonism. That I think is a huge elephant in the room; and I am wondering why a community who prides itself on critical thinking and deconstructing the problems in Mormonism has not turned that same critical eye to far-Leftism, like all the atheists I have mentioned throughout this thread are doing?
... It seems like atheism creates a void and that void has been filled with a new cultish metanarrative which people like Bill Maher and Anna Kasparian consider a quasi cult. Is Bill Maher wrong? Is James Lindsey of new discourses, completely wrong? Is exmormon Jonathan Streeter wrong? Is Richard Dawkins, who sees this rising cultism, wrong? That is the elephant in the room and I'm curious about discussing it....
[bolding added]
Here is the quote i am most curious about: "[If it is true] that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism...then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge..."
You define this issue as "a huge elephant in the room" and also as "a new quasi-religion" -- could you elaborate on your concerns?
