Is there a New Secular Quasi-Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately "Religious" or Ideologically Tribal?

[Gadianton]

You quoted the most important part of my post, Free, I'll give you that. Let's start there.

Look up Confucianism and think about the case for it as a moral philosophy and not a religion. Then read the points you make about free will, selfhood, induction (sun rise), government documents, reductionism etc, and think if any of those points could ever be evidence that Confucianism was a religion like Buddhism, instead of being something better described as non-religious or a-religious.

Confucianists didn't talk about gods, but they did believe the sun would rise the next day, therefore they were religious.
Confucianists didn't focus on personal spirituality, but they also didn't have a full description of reality at the particle level, therefore they were religious.
Confucianists didn't talk about an afterlife, but they did believe people who broke laws were guilty of crimes, therefore they were religious.

One more:

Your first point is that "many" anthropologists have used the term "homo religious" to describe humanity. Please cite ANY anthropologist anywhere, who has ever marshalled any of your reasons to their case that humans are "homo religious".

Humans are "homo religious" (including atheists and secularists) because they believe the sun will rise the next day.
Humans are "homo religious" (including atheists and secularists) because they believe in the "self".

Your project here in Celestial is just trying to insult secularists by telling them that they are the very thing they don't like, religious, and you're doing it in the most gnat-straining way imaginable, by basically saying there is no such thing as secularism, only religion, if supposed secularists literally aren't omniscient -- can't solve all open problems in philosophy and have a complete physical description of reality.

Since you are uncomfortable with my tone I'll leave it at this. I thought I'd make a few more observations but wasn't planning on continuing much longer after you complained people weren't watching your videos, and so I spent t least an hour watching your videos and responded, and then you moved on to something else.

[Free Ranger]

You quoted the most important part of my post, Free, I'll give you that. Let's start there.

Look up Confucianism and think about the case for it as a moral philosophy and not a religion. Then read the points you make about free will, selfhood, induction (sun rise), government documents, reductionism etc, and think if any of those points could ever be evidence that Confucianism was a religion like Buddhism, instead of being something better described as non-religious or a-religious.

Confucianists didn't talk about gods, but they did believe the sun would rise the next day, therefore they were religious.
Confucianists didn't focus on personal spirituality, but they also didn't have a full description of reality at the particle level, therefore they were religious.
Confucianists didn't talk about an afterlife, but they did believe people who broke laws were guilty of crimes, therefore they were religious.

One more:

Your first point is that "many" anthropologists have used the term "homo religious" to describe humanity. Please cite ANY anthropologist anywhere, who has ever marshalled any of your reasons to their case that humans are "homo religious".

Humans are "homo religious" (including atheists and secularists) because they believe the sun will rise the next day.
Humans are "homo religious" (including atheists and secularists) because they believe in the "self".

Your project here in Celestial is just trying to insult secularists by telling them that they are the very thing they don't like, religious, and you're doing it in the most gnat-straining way imaginable, by basically saying there is no such thing as secularism, only religion, if supposed secularists literally aren't omniscient -- can't solve all open problems in philosophy and have a complete physical description of reality.

Since you are uncomfortable with my tone I'll leave it at this. I thought I'd make a few more observations but wasn't planning on continuing much longer after you complained people weren't watching your videos, and so I spent t least an hour watching your videos and responded, and then you moved on to something else.

It is really unfortunate that instead of actually having an exchange of ideas there is what I consider nitpicking minor points while ignoring the subject and topic.

I don't consider it a good faith conversation if the person continuously nitpicks the meaning of words and straw man's and attributes false agendas to the OP. Either you are a bad faith actor not intending to have an actual exchange of ideas or you really actually misunderstanding me, for the sake of it I will assume you just honestly misunderstand me even though I have repeatedly explained my views that I'm not here to convert or insult anybody and NEVER have, and that my views are actually against most traditional organized religions so your false accusations are troubling and inaccurate.

Are you aware that there is such a thing as religious humanism which is different from secular humanism? That is basically all I am presenting to you and the audience, an option to explore for those who are interested; and so my arguments and what I consider good evidence is simply the means to show that it's not completely irrational, stupid, or silly to explore religious humanism. But somehow me expressing an option, a perspective, that has been working for me, is to you proselytizing and insulting to secular atheists. I can't understand why you would think that way and act this way instead of just saying to yourself on here, "Oh, that's interesting, that works for Free Ranger, he simply moved from atheistic secular humanism to a kind of nontheistic religious humanism like Marcus Borg. Okay, cool, let me learn more. That's interesting. I disagree with that, but that's a good point, well I think this way but hey that could work for another exmormon." Instead, you nitpick words and basically attempt to character assassinate me attributing to me a false agenda, mock me with straw men comments, and extend backhanded insults and attribute false agendas to me. So much for making someone feel welcome.

As to your comments, I will briefly comment. I simply disagree with your interpretation of Buddhism and Confucianism and Taoism. If you don't consider those religions having ideas that are based in ideas and rituals and concepts that cannot be grounded in the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, well then I really don't understand why we need to continue talking. I think anyone who has studied those religions would say that they are non-theistic religions. But I'm not interested in getting mired in minutia, as I said in my previous post, the title of this thread is the topic and not whether or not Eastern religions are theistic or not. Those are minor details that have no bearing on the topic and title of this blog thread. And we can agree to disagree and let the audience of the forum decide. Please focus on the topic of the thread.

If you have never read a book or read an article discussing the concept of humans as homoreligious then I just don't know what to say. I have read the term and seen it used so many times over the years it's ubiquitous. We can let the audience decide on that.

Your attempt to belittle my position, which is disrespectful and rude, by saying that just because I mentioned Hume talking about we can't know for sure the Sun is going to rise that therefore I think that means that we are homoreligious is really disingenuous and a cheap shot. I could do that back but I will be respectful.

You said:

"Your project here in Celestial is just trying to insult secularists by telling them that they are the very thing they don't like, religious, and you're doing it in the most gnat-straining way imaginable, by basically saying there is no such thing as secularism, only religion ....."

Your claim that my project here is to insult secularists is a false accusation and I'm really troubled by your attitude.

Are you aware that there are religious versions of humanism and atheism called religious humanism? When those books, sites, and podcasts say the same types of things I am, are they all tyring to insult secular atheists? No, they are explaining why they are religious humanists not secular humanists.

If you search through the posts I have made one person said that as long as I'm willing to say "hey this is just my way, you have your way and allow for exchange of ideas everything will be fine." And I agreed with that person, I said yeah I'm just presenting my perspective and what is working for me which is a kind of religious humanism and if anyone's interested in that or exploring it great, if not to,each their own, as you yourself said Gadianton. But to say that I'm here too insult all secular atheists and say they must be religious humanist is blantantly false. It is an attempt to poison the well against me which is disrespectful, Othering, and unwelcoming when Dr. Shade's said I was welcome, see viewtopic.php?t=157731#p2837573

Dr. Shades said "Some people simply have a difficult time switching to 'Celestial' mode, sadly." You have been given ample amounts of time to switch to celestial mode Gadianton, so I don't think it's difficult for you I suspect you are blantanly refusing to be respectful and help me feel welcome as Dr. Shades encouraged.

My communication has been consistently respectful and I'm am only presenting philosophical ideas and asking interesting questions exploring one particular path, that of if it seems like humans are naturally prone to supernatural myth-making or religion-making which we see all around us, then is it possible that we are innately "spiritual" as what some atheists like Michael Shermer calls pattern seeking animals, and thus could all of those atheists I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779 who say that non-toxic religious practices can be healthy for the psyche, then could it be practically useful and harmless for an exmormon to explore that path of religious humanism? That is all I'm saying, that there seems to be some legitimate support for that option and maybe we who choose the path of religious/spiritual humanism are not stupid or silly or "bad" people for exploring it, which was the position of atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, that any form of religion or spirituality "poisons everything" as Christopher Hitchens put it, and even went so far as to condemn meditation. And in one talk, I heard him criticize a fellow atheist for being a Secular Buddhist. So I'm just presenting the view that maybe it's not stupid or poisonous. Am I allowed to do that Gadianton?

Maybe it's a good option for other people. Maybe somebody exploring on the board is not interested in only being a secular humanist or anti-theist seeing any and all forms of religion as poisonous. Maybe they want to be atheist(+), maybe they want to join wokeism, or be a religious humanist at a Unitarian Universalist Church. Are they allowed to explain why they are exploring that option without being attacked and told they are insulting atheists?

Maybe they want to attend a Buddhist monastic retreat and learning about some scientific studies on meditation would make them feel like such a practice is not silly or stupid or religiously "poisonous." Maybe they want to explore Marcus Borg's views and Progressive Christianity, maybe they want to explore my extremely unorthodox approach to Mormon Scripture I learned from Marcus Borg. Maybethey are feeling stressed and think maybe I should just pray to the Universe or something, or even a benevolent conception of God to reduce stress, but have been told such a practice is silly or stupid or poisonous. Well then are they allowed to learn about a brain study that showed that an atheist's brain experienced positive experiences. I mean I quoted to you Richard Pachman who talked about the benefits of prayer for him. If you didn't know Richard Pacham was a very popular exmormon atheist and a frequent speaker at the ex-Mormon foundation. He was overall a secularist. I read almost all his articles and he makes strong arguments for secular atheism but guess what, he also shared a point of view aligned somewhat with religious humanism. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of his articles even defended a concept of the after life from an atheistic perspective. If he had presented his views on here I think you would have attacked him and attributing false agendas to him just like you are to me. I just don't understand you Gadianton, why the vitriol, why the false accusations, why the rudeness? What have I done to you directly, what have I said to you to offend you? Why is me presenting an option, exploring another way of being in the world and thinking about things, so threatening to you?

Why is my simply asking you to follow the celestial rules of conduct on this forum, me "complaining" as you put it? If a Mormon apologist came on here and started saying insulting things to you and breaking the rules wouldn't you hold them accountable? Why the double standard? If you went on a Mormon apologist board and they were rude and insulting to you and attributed false agendas to you, would you like that? No you would not. You would wonder why they would not following their own ethical code of conduct, right?

Look, I came on the celestial forum for an exchange of ideas and I'm willing to change my mind on things and I want to test my ideas and have them challenged but not to be disrespected with rudeness which again is against the rules of this board. Not being genuinely interested in my perspective and trying to understand it but instead jumping to conclusions and falsely attributing projects/agendas to me is not respectful, it's a disrespectful attempt to poison the well against me, it is combative not welcoming.

I chose to come on the Celestial Forum to have a mature and honest exchange of ideas. I think that mature adults can practice a form of stoicism and not engage in insults and false accusations. I think we cwn have the maturity of self-control to restrain ourselves and simply just engage the ideas and again yes as the rules point out, not be disrespectful and personally attack anybody. Why is that so hard for you Gadianton? If that's what you want to do, constantly personal attack me and falsely the attribute false agendas to me, well then I will either stop posting here and go elsewhere; and then nobody will benefit from these other options of existential living and so everyone will be stuck in an echo chamber and everyone will think and act and believe the same. Nobody will be given other options after they leave the Mormon Church, everyone will be sent the message only be this way and if you're not that way and if you present another way you're going to be insulted and falsely accused and mocked and ridiculed and then two three other posters will join in and they will start ganging up on you. Is that the kind of atmosphere that you want to present here Gadianton? If it is I want no part of it.

Other people who may not be exactly like you in personality and temperament and in their own stage of life, may be Interested in my point of view. Maybe they could benefit from an alternative option, so why would you want to take that away from them? Why are you being so close-minded and controlling of what people say and do, why are you being like that? Why am I so threatening to you?

I'm not going to deal with toxic energy. If you guys can't follow the simple Celestial Rules, if you can't be mature and respectful as the rules say, then why should I bother posting? Again Shades already commented on this issue.

I live in Southern California, so if I want confrontation and disrespect, there's plenty of places to go get it. I'm not interested in receiving it from somebody who does it over a digital screen.

So if you don't change gears and start being respectful then I'm out of here. You will feel like you won but all you're going to do is feed an echo chamber and not allow others to explore other options.

Has it ever occured to you that there are many people leaving the Mormon Church and that maybe they do not have your personality or temperament or would not be happy with your frame of mind and your perspective and worldview, that maybe they would be interested in other options rather than dogmatic Brighamite Mormonism or anti-religion atheism, and would be maybe be happiest as a religious humanist or nontheist Christian like Marcus Borg; why are you unwelcoming and Othering people like me, why would you want to take away that option from other people, of exploring different ideas?

Look, unless I start feeling welcomed and respected I'm gone. Either the next posts are going to say something along the lines of:

Hey, you know what man I (or we) jumped to conclusions and treated you unfairly. You don't deserve that. Some of us have been rude and disrespectful, we want you to stay; we want to understand another perspective, we don't want to be an echo chamber; we don't want to act the same way as Luis Midgley treats people, we don't want to be reverse dogmatic. We don't want have a double standard, we welcome you, we want to hear you out; we want to have different options of perspective .

You can either post something like that or you can send me a personal email and convince me that you're genuine; or I will not be posting on here anymore and the loss will be yours or those on this forum. I'm not going to be part of a group of people that are not interested in other points of view and following their own rules, if you are to be on a board that has rules at least respect them. I want to be in a city where traffic laws are followed, so people are not a constant accidents and even death occurs because someone raced through a stop or yeild sign intentionally in blant disregard of the others on the road, same here with the rules of conduct. If you are not interested in following the simple rules of social etiquette and an actual fair and genuine exchange of ideas and opinions and respect and maturity, why come on the celestial forum at all?

Unfortunately there has begun a certain attitude and demeanor among the frequent posters that the moderators just simply probably can't control and I don't blame them because if there's just too many of those loud voices shouting down everyone else and causing everyone the displeasure of being repeatedly disrespected then it ends up being an echo chamber and that's really unfortunate and sad and I feel bad because this should be a what wokeism might call a safe space as the Celestial Forum, to exchange ideas, but unfortunately it's not. But again if I can be made to feel welcome I might change my mind, but as of now I'm likely going to take my thoughts and share them elseware.

Unfortunately in life if you want respect you have to demand respect. The choice is yours, I will not tolerate one more disrespectful and mean-spirited disingenuous post from anyone.

Bottom line is this is supposed to be a place to discuss Mormonism, where all points of view are respected, especially in the celestial forum but you seem to think tribally and it's exMormon atheist secularist against everybody else, including religious humanists who actually have a lot in common with you and are actually no threat to you if you would actually be open-minded about it. But instead you've turned this into instead of discuss Mormonism and all are welcome to if you do not think and believe exactly like us and you in any way try to ask questions or put out ideas to discuss we don't like, you're going to be disrespected and unwelcomed and Othered as an enemy. I will not be part of that toxicity, I will not tolerate it among Mormon apologists or Catholic apologists and I won't accept that kind of behavior from ex-Mormon secular atheists or exmormon Christians or anyone, either you are tolerant of other points of view like religious humanism or not. The choice is yours

The other option that might change my mind is if other posters start speaking up and pointing out the wrongness of such behavior and convince me I will be welcomed and multiple posters ganging up and disrespecting one poster will not be tolerated in the celestial forum. But short of any of that, I'm gone.

[Marcus]

...Your project here in Celestial is just trying to insult secularists by telling them that they are the very thing they don't like, religious, and you're doing it in the most gnat-straining way imaginable, by basically saying there is no such thing as secularism, only religion, if supposed secularists literally aren't omniscient -- can't solve all open problems in philosophy and have a complete physical description of reality.

Since you are uncomfortable with my tone I'll leave it at this. I thought I'd make a few more observations but wasn't planning on continuing much longer after you complained people weren't watching your videos, and so I spent t least an hour watching your videos and responded, and then you moved on to something else.

It is really unfortunate that instead of actually having an exchange of ideas there is what I consider nitpicking minor points while ignoring the subject and topic.

I don't consider it a good faith conversation if the person continuously nitpicks the meaning of words and straw man's and attributes false agendas to the OP. Either you are a bad faith actor not intending to have an actual exchange of ideas or you really actually misunderstanding me, for the sake of it I will assume you just honestly misunderstand me even though I have repeatedly explained my views that I'm not here to convert or insult anybody and NEVER have, and that my views are actually against most traditional organized religions so your false accusations are troubling and inaccurate.

Are you aware that there is such a thing as religious humanism which is different from secular humanism? That is basically all I am presenting to you and the audience, an option to explore for those who are interested; and so my arguments and what I consider good evidence is simply the means to show that it's not completely irrational, stupid, or silly to explore religious humanism. But somehow me expressing an option, a perspective, that has been working for me, is to you proselytizing and insulting to secular atheists. I can't understand why you would think that way and act this way instead of just saying to yourself on here, "Oh, that's interesting, that works for Free Ranger, he simply moved from atheistic secular humanism to a kind of nontheistic religious humanism like Marcus Borg. Okay, cool, let me learn more. That's interesting. I disagree with that, but that's a good point, well I think this way but hey that could work for another exmormon." Instead, you nitpick words and basically attempt to character assassinate me attributing to me a false agenda, mock me with straw men comments, and extend backhanded insults and attribute false agendas to me. So much for making someone feel welcome....

Your own words show that you have not expressed "an option, a perspective," but, as Gadianton pointed out, are "basically saying there is no such thing as secularism, only religion..."

Here are some excerpts showing why I see Gad's point, and disagree with what you say you are doing:

...in my view it proves or supports my point to a certain degree that we are by nature homoreligious.

...evidence to me that the atheist community was longing for a higher meaning, craving a moral purpose in life based on metaphysical beliefs

...again, in my view I think we are homoreligious.

...not surprising to me that there's a divide because we are I think homoreligious,

...then is it not at least possible that non-toxic spiritual beliefs and religious ideas and practices are innate to our species

My point in all of this is that if you think that by rejecting any and all forms of religion you're going to be free from any religious inclinations or participation in any form of "religiousness," I think you're being naïve.

Once I realized that we are all engaging in some form of religion-making, including atheists in one way or another most of the time,

I was indeed broadening the definition of religion to include participating in our court system and acting like we have free will and expecting others to behave as if they have will and making people accountable as if they have free will, while engaging in some kind of ritual (even as simple as Birthday rituals) and binding beliefs like we all have inalianable Rights, whether we are atheist or not. Perhaps that's an inaccurate assessment,

Switching gears, I do agree that my use of the word religion can be confusing and easily misunderstood. Fair point. Yet my reason for using the term religion was to point out that there is more than one version of atheism, that there's for example secular humanism and religious humanism. Is everyone okay with the term religious humanism?

So for those who are interested in that option of religious humanism, I assume you're okay with that term,

...I do agree with you that the word religion carries baggage, but what other word should I use? Is the term homoreligious okay? What word conveys what I see as the practice of supernatural ideas and ritual all around me, even by atheists

And then there's this:

...So if I were pushed into a corner and I had to define the word religion I would say I define religion as the binding or linking together of a group of two or more people through shared beliefs and rituals that provide meaning and purpose...

making up a new definition of religion does not make the use of the word, as you have used it to apply to all humans (see your title) acceptable.

[Marcus]

I'm am only presenting philosophical ideas and asking interesting questions exploring one particular path, that of if it seems like humans are naturally prone to supernatural myth-making or religion-making which we see all around us, then is it possible that we are innately "spiritual" as what some atheists like Michael Shermer calls pattern seeking animals, and thus could all of those atheists I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779 who say that non-toxic religious practices can be healthy for the psyche, then could it be practically useful and harmless for an exmormon to explore that path of religious humanism? That is all I'm saying,

No, it's not. See my previous post of quotes from you. just because you insist on something doesn't make it true.

[Free Ranger]

I'm am only presenting philosophical ideas and asking interesting questions exploring one particular path, that of if it seems like humans are naturally prone to supernatural myth-making or religion-making which we see all around us, then is it possible that we are innately "spiritual" as what some atheists like Michael Shermer calls pattern seeking animals, and thus could all of those atheists I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779 who say that non-toxic religious practices can be healthy for the psyche, then could it be practically useful and harmless for an exmormon to explore that path of religious humanism? That is all I'm saying,

No, it's not. See my previous post of quotes from you. just because you insist on something doesn't make it true.

Marcus, your tone sounds very hostile.

In your carefully selected quotes did you not notice my very careful use of language, that it's my perspective, and I am not trying to insult anyone in my careful use of words. From your quotes of me:

Free Ranger wrote:
...in my view ... evidence to me ...
again, in my view ... then is it not at least possible ... Once I realized ... Perhaps that's an inaccurate assessment, ... Switching gears, I do agree that my use of the word religion can be confusing and easily misunderstood. Fair point. Yet my reason for using the term religion was to point out that there is more than one version of atheism, that there's for example secular humanism and religious humanism. Is everyone okay with the term religious humanism?

So for those who are interested in that option of religious humanism ..."

I was constantly couching every argument with that's my perspective, or saying fair point or perhaps that's inaccurate on my part, etc., constantly being careful and cautious and considerate of others. How is that me being insulting and having a project/agenda to convert all secular atheists to religious humanism, rather than me giving my arguments for why I, from my perspective, my point of view, am moving toward religious humanism? If you used my exact same language or rhetoric to argue for why you are a liberal Democrat or "Woke" or something, I would not say you were insulting me if I was a Republican, which I'm not to be clear. I would just say you're giving your perspective and making an argument for why you changed your mind about things. You seem angry at me for basically simply arguing for religious humanism as a reasonable option. In order to make the case that it's a reasonable option my rhetoric was how it was, but it was not directed at you personally. Sorry you feel that way.

Just to clarify, so I fully understand: so you Marcus, 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'm not sure I can communicate much better than how I have Marcus, 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 Marcus, would you agree that I should just not post on here anymore so I don't upset you?

Based on your tone, do you wish to make me feel welcome here, Marcus? Please do not ignore my question. Since you are one of the frequent posters who seem to set the tone, I'm going to let you decide for everyone. Do you want me to post my thoughts or not? Please do not ignore this question.

I already said I'm gone if I'm not made to feel more welcome with less anger, hostility and rudeness directed at me. You are doubling down instead Marcus. Will you truly welcome me Marcus with a genuine interest in understanding me rather than seeing me as an enemy? Or should I just not post on here anymore, would you prefer that?

[Res Ipsa]

All, reminder, please keep the conversation respectful. Address the ideas expressed, not the intent or motives of others. Free Ranger, if you think a post does not comply with the rules for the Celestial forum, please use the report button rather than tone police. Thanks.

[Res Ipsa]

My point in all of this is that if you think that by rejecting any and all forms of religion you're going to be free from any religious inclinations or participation in any form of "religiousness," I think you're being naïve.

I don't think that. And, given the nearly limitless scope you give to "religiousness," I doubt many atheists do. Do you think it's possible that you're overgeneralizing from your personal experience as an atheist?

[Free Ranger]

My point in all of this is that if you think that by rejecting any and all forms of religion you're going to be free from any religious inclinations or participation in any form of "religiousness," I think you're being naïve.

I don't think that. And, given the nearly limitless scope you give to "religiousness," I doubt many atheists do. Do you think it's possible that you're overgeneralizing from your personal experience as an atheist?

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.

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 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.

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'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?

[Marcus]

No, it's not. See my previous post of quotes from you. just because you insist on something doesn't make it true.

Marcus, your tone sounds very hostile.

that's your problem. It was not.

In your carefully selected quotes did you not notice my very careful use of language, that it's my perspective,

no. what i noticed was your generalization to all humans of certain characteristics you define as 'religious', even after multiple people engaged you on that.

I was constantly couching every argument with that's my perspective, or saying fair point or perhaps that's inaccurate on my part, etc., constantly being careful and cautious and considerate of others.

Please see what i quoted. you repeatedly argued that all people were one way.

How is that me being insulting and having a project/agenda to convert all secular atheists to religious humanism, rather than me giving my arguments for why I, from my perspective, my point of view, am moving toward religious humanism?

I didn't argue any of that, i said you were repeatedly stating all people were one way.

If you used my exact same language or rhetoric to argue for why you are a liberal Democrat or "Woke" or something, I would not say you were insulting me if I was a Republican, which I'm not to be clear. I would just say you're giving your perspective and making an argument for why you changed your mind about things. You seem angry at me for basically simply arguing for religious humanism as a reasonable option. In order to make the case that it's a reasonable option my rhetoric was how it was, but it was not directed at you personally. Sorry you feel that way.

Im not making a political argument, nor am i angry, nor did i take anything personally. I am pointing out that you have repeatedly stated all people were one way.

Just to clarify, so I fully understand: so you Marcus, 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?

no, i am not insulted and never said i was. I do not think you are trying to convert me, and i never said you were. I don't take your posts as a personal attack.

I am simply saying, again, that you are repeatedly arguing all people are one way, and "religious", and i disagree.

I'm not sure I can communicate much better than how I have Marcus, 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 Marcus, would you agree that I should just not post on here anymore so I don't upset you?

no, of course not. Why would you think a disagreement about ideas means that ?

Based on your tone, do you wish to make me feel welcome here, Marcus? Please do not ignore my question. Since you are one of the frequent posters who seem to set the tone, I'm going to let you decide for everyone. Do you want me to post my thoughts or not? Please do not ignore this question.

My only tone is one of disagreement. Of course you should post your thoughts. Because people disagree with them is not evidence of hostility.

I already said I'm gone if I'm not made to feel more welcome with less anger, hostility and rudeness directed at me. You are doubling down instead Marcus. Will you truly welcome me Marcus with a genuine interest in understanding me rather than seeing me as an enemy? Or should I just not post on here anymore, would you prefer that?

How you feel upon reading that you are disagreed with is your choice. I have put genuine effort into understanding your point and responding with my opinion. Your repeated question about whether someone would prefer you not post is inappropriate. Please stick to discussing the ideas.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think that. And, given the nearly limitless scope you give to "religiousness," I doubt many atheists do. Do you think it's possible that you're overgeneralizing from your personal experience as an atheist?

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 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.”

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 wasn’t offended or insulted. You made a point. I disagree with it.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.