It's all good Res Ipsa, you're acting in good faith I can tell. I take your criticisms to heart.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:38 amI responded to your statement that began “The point of all this is….” I don’t think there is anything unfair about responding to what Would said was “the point.”Free Ranger wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 1:25 am
If you read everything I wrote in this thread and other threads I started in the Celestial Forum, and see my thoughts in their full context and not just take one snippet of something I said, you will see that of course I could be overgeneralizing from my personal experience, I have said repeadedly said that I am just exploring a different option and perspective. I have said in other threads I was a happy secular atheist for nearly twenty years! It worked for me until it didn't, as I said in another post. I would not attack my own self for petes' sake.
I wasn’t offended or insulted. You made a point. I disagree with it.Free Ranger wrote:Look, if you take everything I said in context, the statement you quoted above while I admit it could have been worded better, was clearly not meant to offend or be insulting in any way; in context of everything I have been writing from my own perspective while repeatedly admitting it's only my perspective and I could be wrong, that quote was given for rhetorical affect.
I can only read what you wrote. And please note that I did not just refer to myself, but to other atheists as well. Some of your arguments appear to be grounded assumptions about atheists in general that I believe are incorrect. You are welcome to express your thoughts and ideas, and others are come to react to them, including criticizing them.I don't think everyone is going to benefit from my position or perspective, I have clarified that repeadly. Given all the repeated disclaimers and respect I have shown to secular atheists, again saying I was a secular atheist for 20 years, then a more generous and welcoming and respectful interpretation would have been to see my words as rhetoric and directed at no one personally. The same way one might more graciously interpret a liberal Democrat saying to a Republican something like, "If you think you're going to get a decrease in abortions without increasing an emphasis on safe sex education and birth control, then you're being naïve." I do not think most Republicans being told that would immediately feel insulted.
No. I’m not joining up with Marcus and Gadianton to rally against you. If you object to having more than one person at a time offer criticisms of your posts, I’ll happily bow out fire now and resume engaging with you later.Res Ipsa, I see you are joining Marcus and Gadianton to rally against me, 3 on 1. So I will ask you Res Ipsa, do you genuinely feel insulted? Is that really what you think, that my project is to convert you personally (as a member of the forum) to religious humanism over secular atheism even if secularism is working for you? Do you really think I don't believe that there is such a thing as people who are secular atheists and that my arguments and rhetoric defending those who choose to be religious humanists, is a direct attack on you and I am proselyting to you to get you to convert to religious humanism even if it was not a good fit for you?
I was not insulted. I never indicated I was insulted. If I feel that you have insulted me, I’ll let you know.
I have no idea what your motivations are. I’m just reacting to what you post. As I told you at the beginning of our conversation, I’m interested to hear about what you have come to believe has made your life better. But so far, most of your posting has consisted of arguments supporting a conclusion that goes beyond “here’s what works for me.” You make a number of broad claims that I don’t think are supported by evidence or sound reasoning. I’ve summarized my general objections, and I’ll provide more specific examples when I have time.
I don’t understand why you need to defend religious humanists. I certainly haven’t attacked them. If they have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.
Whether you continue to post is your decision, not mine. Again, I haven’t felt insulted. If I had felt insulted, I would either let you know or simply bow out of the conversation.I'm not sure I can communicate much better than how I have Res Ipsa, the only thing I could think of is to offer several more disclaimers than I already have. So if the way I am communicating feels insulting to you Res Ipsa like it does Gadianton, would you agree that I should just not post on here anymore so I don't upset you three?
You said:
That is all I'm really saying yet it ruffled feathers. I gave some strong arguments from scientists arguing the practical utility of religious or even quasi-religious beliefs or practices increasing well-being; and expressed my opinion that we all might have some quasi-religious beliefs in regards to our political beliefs, like believing we have inalienable Rights, etc., and thus religious humanists with quasi-religious beliefs may not be as stupid, silly or poisonous as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen argued. I think it's fair to make those arguments in response to Hitchens and Dawkin's, no? I was simply opening a friendly discussion on the topic of politics and quasi religious beliefs. But re-read through all of the posts in this threads and you will see that nobody ever not once (that I can recall) addressed whether or not the current political climate in any way manifests the ingredients or symptoms of quasi religiousness and if that might point to humans being innately prone to at least quasi-religiousness in some way?If they [religious humanists] have found quasi-religious beliefs or practices that help them in their lives and don’t hurt anyone else, that’s great.
So that was the topic of this thread, but nobody was dwelling on the actual topic of the thread which was, "Is their a New Secular Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?" Nobody was addressing that and instead in my opinion knit picking the use of words. But you in good faith, know exactly what I was getting at in your summation of me by using the phrase quasi-religious.
Whenever I come to a conclusion or opinion, I'd like to have my ideas challenged by good faith actors to make my position better or even change my mind.
In other words, I'm here for (as the rules say) respectful communication about ideas, not sparring with people on who can one-up the other, which seems to be the tone from others (not talking about you Res Ipsa). Some people seem to carry over from the terrestrial forum that sparring disrespectful tone, which Dr. Shades himself said, to paraphrase him in my own words, was sadly an unfortunate bad habit of failing to switch gears to a more mature civilty. I'm here to think not endlessly spar disrespectfully.
You make me feel welcome and you communicate respectfully without hostilty. Question, Marcus says it is inappropriate for me to ask him if he welcomes me to post here or if he'd rather I not. But that is exactly what Dr. Shades did was make sure that I felt welcomed, and said I was welcome here, see: viewtopic.php?t=157731#p2837573
I think that's a fair question to ask. If I go on a Mormon apologetic website and ask if I am welcome they will say in one way or another that this is not the place for me. They will likely say it needs to be faith promoting only.
The bottom line is I was asking that question to Marcus because multiple people were being unwelcoming in their tone and acting like they don't want to me to share my ideas and see me as the enemy. I'm not interested that kind of energy. I'm here to agree to disagree respectfully and accept constructive criticism, but not have enemies and recieve contemptuousness. I actually would like to make some friends even if we disagree. So am I inappropriate to ask Marcus if he is interested in welcoming me and allowing me to express different views? After all, he is a frequent poster and so it is reasonable of me to expect him to frequently respond to my comments. And so if it's going to be constantly vitriolic and contemptuous and he sees me as an enemy right out of the gate and has it in for me. Then is it not reasonable for me to request of him what I can I expect moving forward in the celestial forum?