>snitsnat wrote:
> >
> > maybe you could explain exactly how you think i'm an aggressive atheist?
> > what posts have i written that lead you to conclude that this is an apt
> > characterization?
>
>An aggressive atheist would be someone who regularly _initiated_
>discussion on the topic. On the whole, however, most atheists (all
>atheists on this list I believe) rarely if ever initiate discussion of
>the existence of god. And that was true of this thread. It wasn't an
>atheist who initiated it; it was a vaguely non-atheist who initiated it
>with an attack on atheists, some of whom then responded to the attack.
>At which point Chris D tried a flanking movement by claiming that that
>atheists were just a bunch of fanatics who aggressively went around
>initiating attacks on non-atheists. Apparently Chris is not capable of
>reading a post in context.
>
>Carrol
Well I interpreted WDK as being, like me, genuinely interested in what Tommy Kelly had to say about why he was no longer an atheist. So, after WDK asked and Tommy didn't really answer the q, I asked again. I think it's interesting to hear why.
I _did_ think Tommy's refutation was funny. if god doesn't interact with its creation, does it exist? Tommy used a logical fallacy, to try to get Matt to see that he was a hypocrite. Tommy said, "If most of the world didn't intervene to stop the atrocities in Haiti, does that mean their humanity doesn't exist?"
Now, of course, this is bad argument, not the least of which, it's an attempt to make Matt out to be a hypocrite. What made _me_ laugh was a couple of explanations that came to mind as to why people don't get involved and try to stop atrocities:
1. They don't actually know it's happening. Which means that maybe god just doesn't have the budget for a newsdesk on earth? Or maybe it's big media concentration? Dunno, but god ain't getting the news about bad things happening on earth and so, he doesn't intervene to stop it.
2. People are too busy and too tired when they get done working to do anything but console themselves with food and watch the tube. Thus, they don't pay attention to the news that does get through. So, god is a couch potato. :)
You've said that you don't find questions about god and religion particularly interesting,. I actually find them interesting -- hearing what other people believe. I can't think of a time when anyone on this list has been attacked for their beliefs. I liked listening to Tommy because I wanted to hear the explanation. I don't have to agree with it.
Matt, currently, isn't attacking Tommy. He's asking Tommy hard questions. Do people think questions like Matt's are attacking religion? If so, I think that's bizarre.
Maybe not. Maybe the problem is that people want to cordon that off: you shouldn't be asked to explain why you believe, only what you believe, and to ask is to be "hostile to religion"? Belief and faith, these can't be explained.... that sort of thing? This is where people feel they have a right to assert their belief, but it mustn't _ever_ be subjected to scrutiny, defended, or anything that we normally do on this list? Thus, belief is _sacred_ and shouldn't be subjected to the principles that guide the profane world? That's defiling religiosity and spirituality.
As for Chris, he can't even understand my (or apparently Deb's) comments about Florida and Texas. They are not claims that christians only live in Fl (or TX), they are claims that we encounter certain types of christianity here, what I've called "just christians" (apparently much to chip's dismay, but that is what they call themselves!) and I'm not sure how Deb refers to them. We are talking about certain instantiations of christianity and its wider use as a form of identity politics, its use of business and economic relations to spread the "word", etc.
as for Jim's comments about institutionalized religion. Durkheim's claims were about institutionalized religion in the sense you mean anyway. They were claims that the kind of spirutality and rejection of "institutionlized" religion we see today are inevitable end products of the social structure of a society with a highly complex division of labor. When we worship the sacred and concpetualize it, we are really worshipping the mystery of a social structure and its operations we don't understand. When we are "spiritual, but not religious" we are expressing the mystery of individuation in a complex society. What makes us so unique and special is, in fact, that we live in such a complex society and have so many different kinds of experience, these shapes us into who we are, and why we feel special. This complexity is also why the idea of an interior private self emerges and comes to have such hold over people (which is really Simmel's territory). YOu have the experience of a private self as you experience movement from one "social world" to the next to the next, each with different expectations, ideals, etc. I go from cleaning house, to running a business, to be a lover, to an association meeting, to a pottery class, to the playground with the kids and talk to other moms
k
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin