God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[Carol in Cal.]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

You would also think that it would be a lot more civil to express those views in a separate thread instead of trolling into a Christian one.  

[albeto.]

I don't know, Albeto, doesn't everyone just basically come to their beliefs by using their brain to examine the evidence and see what makes the most sense to them (excluding people who inherited their beliefs from their parents and never stopped to think about it)?  So didn't you just basically come to your atheistic beliefs by thinking about things and deciding what makes the most sense to you?  And other people did the same thing and came to different conclusions, that different religions were the correct one.  So what makes you any more likely to be right than a religious person?  You sat down and thought about the arguments just like Michelle Duggar sat down and thought about the arguments and you each came to different conclusions.  So how is the thought process that led you to become an atheist more reliable than the thought process that led others to choose to subscribe to a religion?

 

The difference is in recognizing what evidence is, and how it functions. Faith is not evidence. Claims are not evidence. Personal feelings, emotional responses, and a religious explanation of any given event is not evidence. 

 

But you raise an interesting question. If people decide what's right, how can everyone be right and wrong at the same time? If Jennifer is right and the Orthodox Church is the only one that tests the truth wholistically, then Wilson would be wrong. Most people here probably agree with the part that Wilson is wrong (or at least, not as accurate as he could be), but not that they too are wrong, which is the logical consequence if one does not accept the Orthodox theology. So only the Orthodox are right. But Arctic Mom would beg to differ, I'm sure, with the implication that her faith is not the result of testing the truth in a wholistic way (whatever that means). So Jennifer can't be both right and wrong, can she? But if she decides which reality makes the most sense, then those whose conclusions don't conform with hers are wrong. But if they decide which reality makes the most sense, then she's wrong. But she's not wrong, because she's right. Unless you ask someone who's not her. So why is Wilson exempt from this? If he gets to decide which reality makes sense, then Jennifer is super wrong. I'm using Jennifer as an example (mostly because I like her and I think she understands I'm not trying to put her in the hot spot), but this isn't unique to her, or the Orthodox believers, or even xians specifically - it's a problem with the logic of faith-based belief systems whereby certain information can only be gleaned by faith, which is by nature subjective and therefore inconsistent between people.

 

I don't make the same exclusion as you because I don't think anyone "never stops to think about it. "One lives in the real world, and from time to time religious expectations simply don't come to fruition. One must consider, even if for a moment, how to proceed. The choice is to modify one's belief according to this experience, or modify the interpretation of the experience according to the belief. In either case, they're stopping to think about it, even if they aren't putting a lot of conscious effort into it. What makes me right is when my opinions line up with objective evidence. Consequently, I'm wrong when they do not. Michelle Duggars' opinions are so proudly in defiance of evidence that while she's right about a great many things (she probably tries to catch something if it starts to fall because she's right about gravity, for example), she's profoundly (and disastrously) wrong about a great many others, and demonstrably so. 

[ktgrok]

It's no more appropriate to bop into every random thread and disparage faith than it would be to bop into random coversations at a party and do it. Not cool. Not polite. Not winning any converts or friends. 

[JoJosMom]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

 

For the win...

[mommaduck]

I agree that if Albeto is wanting to continuously challenge faith and evidence, another thread would be more appropriate. This way, those that would be willing to participate may do so and others may continue with the subject of DW and his blog post.

[albeto.]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

 

Maybe you can explain how my heart is a little idol factory, and why I must guard against that. What happens if I don't? How can I know if any negative thing happened because Jesus isn't in my heart (whatever that means)? What about the positive things that happen? Did the idols in my heart work to my benefit? Can they do better than Jesus? Perhaps you can explain what that means that humans are "worshippers by nature, and if we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we WILL insert other things in there, be it money, celebrity, or even saints," because that makes no sense factually, and no one will explain it, not even the person who said it, or those who agree.

 

As an educator, facts are important to me. As a parent, knowing human behavior and how my children will develop in relation to the social world is important to me. If there's something I can do to help my children get along in this world, I want to know it, and I don't mean to limit that to education. I don't agree that beliefs can evolve into facts when someone really really really thinks they are, so when someone makes a claim that makes no sense, it stands out. As this is a public forum, many of us wonder what in the world this could mean. I wonder "out loud." I understand your impulse to wonder "out loud" why I should criticize certain claims. I felt frustrated when people poked at the vulnerabilities in the logic of my faith, too. I also see others are interested in these topics, and wonder if you might have missed that. Rather than making cheap shots against me personally (which idol is that?), you might consider responding to what I actually say, or simply ignore my posts. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't see very many complaints about Albeto specifically.  

 

However, it's rude to go into a thread and start snarking all over the topic and the beliefs of everyone in it.  You don't see Christians doing that in pagan threads or in those threads that celebrate anti-Christian stuff.  We do spin offs here for a reason--so as not to derail and so as to show respect for the original poster.  Like all matters of courtesy, this is a question of self-restraint rather than of law or rules.

 

 

 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Sure, and so too does Douglas Wilson. and AcrticMom, and JimBob Duggar, and Bill Gothard, and the president of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

 

And everyone else who is sure they've got their finger on the pulse of the god of the bible.

 

And interestingly, each and every one of you appeal to the same thing - knowledge gained from reading the words, studying the arguments, and prayer.

 

This process, reading, studying, and prayer, is historically, and for all practical purposes, utterly unreliable. So when people scoff at someone like Wilson, the hypocrisy double standard similarities overlooked, and rationalization for being "different" and "right," stands out to me. I find rationalizations such as hearts being little idol factories, and idols taking over when Jesus isn't occupying one's every thought to be... well, odd. And wouldn't you know it, at least four other people publicly "liked" that sentiment, so it's not like AM is on her own here. But it's no more or less odd and logically problematic than Wilson's ideas, or the ideas of your church, the mormons, or anything preached by the Duggars.

 

 

Yours isn't the first theology to reject information in order to maintain a traditional belief. Approaching the concept of morality from a scientific, specifically biological perspective isn't new. Nor is it surprising to see churches and xian communities ignore this information and therefore fail to pass it on. As far as I can see, it's no different than ignoring or being unaware of the evidence about the age of the earth and failing to pass the facts on to the next generation. Then when faced with this information for the first time, it sounds implausible simply because one has been taught, and understands, differently.

I think you missed the part about all humans being endowed with the nous which by extension includes you and all the people you listed in your post. We all have intellect and are free to use it in ways that seem fitting. It is how you come to defend your belief in unbelief.

 

The scientific community accepts the fact that our human intellect sets us apart from other creatures. What is the new information that we are rejecting?

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I welcome Albeto's questions. They are good for the nous!

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Dp

[Bluegoat]

It's appropriate to post in any thread. 

 

It is not appropriate to past anything in any thread.  It's one thing to have a conversation go down a bunny trail, and another when the same agenda is inserted constantly.  I don't think people mind alternate views - we could have any number of views about Dave Wilsons political analysis or his understanding of the role of icons in theology.

[ktgrok]

I think it's totally appropriate for albeto to post in any public thread she likes.

 

Private groups are the appropriate venue for those who wish to discuss religion sans any alternative view.

 

There is also the ignore feature, which does the trick, albeit forcing people to stop complaining about albeto. Which people seem to enjoy greatly, or they wouldn't do it so often.

 

No, it's allowed. That doesn't make it appropriate. It wouldn't be appropriate or polite for me to bop into every thread about say, math or science, to proclaim the glory of God. Nor is it appropriate or polite for anyone to hop into every thread about Christians to proclaim the fallacy of faith. 

 

And using the ignore feature doesn't work well when people quote the person you have on ignore. Trust me, I know. 

 

I've actually never complained about Albeto before, but for the love of God/Buddha/Science, it's getting old. And it's just plain rude. 

[ktgrok]

Put her on ignore. It doesn't matter if you are quoted - that's your choice to indulge your curiosity or not. 

 

Yes, things get old, depending on the other person's pov. I have rabid anti-gay posters on ignore. It works. It's better than public complaining or making more work for mods. It's even better, when I can bear to admit it, than shaming someone into silence.

 

You are missing my point. If I have someone on ignore, and another poster quotes that person, then I see the post after all, in that quote. I'm not talking about ME being quoted, I couldn't care less about that. But even with the ignore feature on I have to wade through post after post defending faith in general, rather than about the topic at hand. Again. And again. And again. 

 

I'm just done today. 

[albeto.]

The scientific community accepts the fact that our human intellect sets us apart from other creatures. What is the new information that we are rejecting?

 

Morality is biologically driven, and that it is not unique to humans.

[EmseB]

Morality is biologically driven, and that it is not unique to humans.

Morality is an abstract concept applied to the physical universe. Different people groups have different morality. In some places, stealing is a morally acceptable way of getting what you want. In other places, theft is wrong.

 

Biology, matter, physics, chemistry...they are all amoral.

[ktgrok]

Well, the answer to any of us being done isn't to shut down another poster, it's to walk away. Not that I do a great job of it myself, but in calmer moments, yes, that is the answer. 

 

Been there, done that. At this point, that feels more like giving in to a pushy person at a party who keeps monopolizing every conversation. At some point, I'd like to enjoy a nice thread without someone coming to monopolize it. 

[Guest]

Dragging me into your posts isn't going to get you answers, Albeto. Humans are worshippers. I'd say we were designed that way, you'd say we evolved that way. Our hearts always seek things to venerate, follow, obsess upon. You arguing about this doesn't make it less true.

 

Some things are good and appropriate to focus upon in this manner, some aren't. I'd say God creates the rules about this very accurately. You may disagree. And life goes on.

[ktgrok]

Well, social groups are the place to have private parties, imo.

 

It's not a private party. But public space doesn't change what's rude. But I'll drop it, as now I'm the one monopolizing the conversation ;)

[EmseB]

Well, the answer to any of us being done isn't to shut down another poster, it's to walk away. Not that I do a great job of it myself, but in calmer moments, yes, that is the answer.

As someone who prefers and is often guilty of thread drift (vs s/o's), I agree with this in principle.

 

On the other hand, I don't feel like albeto (sorry to talk about you like you're not here) is persecuted any more than she invites by challenging people's deeply held convictions, and she has stated she doesn't feel the need to be polite about it. And then to feel singled out? Well, she's a singular poster, more in style and repetition than anything else. I feel like she can take as good as she dishes out, and it's sort of understandable that people just get tired of the one note in different threads over and over again. When I first came here, I thought she was a troll (not because I disagreed with her, but based on my experience with repetitive single subject posters on Usenet) until I had been around for awhile.

 

But, you're right in that people should use ignore or not read the thread. Otherwise most of theses threads get locked.

[Guest]

Oh, and Wilson is still troll of the highest order. Also truth.

[Mrs. A]

Albeto, you may be interested in this blog post titled Why Morality is not Christian:

 

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2011/09/09/why-morality-is-not-christian/

 

The comments there are usually pretty interesting too. 

[Bluegoat]

I'm pretty good, personally, with an agenda of challenging assertions about the reality of demons and the idol factories in my heart. Tbh, I find it really embarrassing to think that a non-homeschooler might stumble on those type of statement and assume that those extreme views ( and they are pretty extreme ) represent homeschoolers in general. I appreciate that albeto regularly makes a case for critical examination of ideas like those BECAUSE we are a community of educators. I very much doubt I am alone in that appreciation.

 

I too found the discussion of the role of icons interesting. I think a thread can follow a few different paths :)

 

I think we could have quite an interesting conversation about demons and idols in people's hearts.  But I think you are wrong to assume those ideas are somehow  confined to ill-educated fundamentalists - though the language isn't always identical, there are many very well educated, sophisticated Christians who would agree with both of those ideas.  What's really offensive to people I think is that they are totally dismissed as possibly having any kind of coherent set of ideas behind them, that their words are used without bothering to try and understand them.

 

I don't think people's issue is with questions being asked - there are plenty of people here with many different worldviews who ask questions.  It's about the attitude.  I'm in the middle of a book right now by Joseph heath, who is a Canadian philosopher, about the importance of the rational in public discourse.  One of the things he talks about is the idea that in the public discourse, it is really important to assume that the other person is making sense - that all of us take our experiences and intuitions and try and weave them into a coherent set of ideas and views.  It's only by doing this that we will be able to really come to understand what other people are getting at, and avoid building incorrect sets of assumptions of our own about them.

 

People resent it when others make the assumption that they are irrational, and when you've told them for the billionth time that you are not ignoring information, or making such and such an assumption, or they are using a key word inappropriately within your thought system, it is pretty reasonable to come to the conclusion that is what is going on.

[8circles]

I'm a Xian.  

 

I find albeto's posts to be very interesting and my faith isn't in any way in danger from considering her points, and even sometimes agreeing with them.

 

 

[Aelwydd]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

 

You know what, ktgrok, I would agree with you.  Especially I, myself, just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to every instance of a personal expression of faith on this board.  Not enough hours in the day, and it would be akin to banging my head against a wall anyway.

 

The point at which I have to diverge with you is that people use their faith all the damn time to justify imposing their morality onto the rest of the herd. That gets old even faster. And while albeto's posts may be annoying to believers, the overall effect is not impinging upon their lives in any way.  It's not like she's Kim Davis or the Pope or or any number of religious-inclined individuals who are willing to use faith to shape public policy for the rest of us, and it's taken for granted by many people that that's just what they do and it's ok, because religious freedom and all that.

 

Well, I don't mind that assumption of privilege being challenged, even if it's just on a discussion board.

[Mimm]

Not radically offended. Just tired of the same old same old. Wishing there was a way to discuss nuances of Christianity without every thread devolving into the same discussion. I miss that around here.

 

I've been interested in what she's said in the past. But thread after thread after thread... we get it. That horse isn't just dead, it's pulverized.

[Aelwydd]

Not radically offended. Just tired of the same old same old. Wishing there was a way to discuss nuances of Christianity without every thread devolving into the same discussion. I miss that around here.

 

I've been interested in what she's said in the past. But thread after thread after thread... we get it. That horse isn't just dead, it's pulverized.

 

lol...I'm pretty tired of the discussions, too, but mostly because I don't think anyone ever asks the really interesting questions regarding theology and philosophy. 

[EmseB]

lol...I'm pretty tired of the discussions, too, but mostly because I don't think anyone ever asks the really interesting questions regarding theology and philosophy.

Why not start a thread on those topics that interest you? (No snark intended, I'm genuinely wondering)

[Aelwydd]

Why not start a thread on those topics that interest you? (No snark intended, I'm genuinely wondering)

 

Because honestly, some of the topics I would talk about would likely bring out the worst in both theists and non-theists.  The last time I got involved in a very touchy subject, I remained on topic and avoided any personal attacks, and it still devolved into a shit fest.   I don't believe most people are capable of divorcing their subjective feelings on something like religion.  They always become defensive, and they always get angry.  There is no such thing as an objective discussion in these matters. And when it comes down to having to explain and re-write, and re-write one's position because others are intent on mangling an argument that so threatens their position, it gets too tiresome and time consuming to be constructive anymore.  

 

Plus, I think it just pisses off SWB, because then she has to go in and clean up after everyone's mess (again).

[Aelwydd]

Have you read the Blog & Mablog lately? I can't link the article, but Douglas Wilson is actually blaming Eastern Christian practices for the terror that's going on in the Middle East. Nuts!

 

Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

 

 

Also...just to stay on topic for this thread, DW is apparently a bigot.  Who is surprised???  

 

But, if I had the time, and the inclination, I might post a comment on his board to the effect that clearly God is calling DW to go the ME and express his beliefs. He must go to the those places at which God is clearly most pissed off...meaning somewhere between Syria and Iraq.

 

We've already set up the GoFundMe account for his one-way ticket.

 

Can we please watch???

[Bluegoat]

I think there have been some good conversations about theological topics, without them devolving into messes.  Some might be particularly prone, but with others I doubt it would be too much of an issue.

[Aelwydd]

I think there have been some good conversations about theological topics, without them devolving into messes.  Some might be particularly prone, but with others I doubt it would be too much of an issue.

 

A few.  I wouldn't want to see the pie chart distribution though.  I'm sure it's pretty disappointing.

 

I could introduce a few sticky topics with posters such as yourself, Faith, Moxie, a few others, who tend to engage the subject, and not the individual. But then, there are are others who would just derail the thread through angry accusations.  Still others resort to irrelevancies, such as "I just feel it's true" in defending whatever, and don't or won't engage the actual argument or evidence.  That's their way of frustrating or ending the conversation, which is I guess either uncomfortable or offensive.

 

I'm sure there are a few non-theists on the board you feel you could trust to remain on topic and respectful in a religious thread, and others...less so.  

 

I'm not saying others shouldn't have these discussions, either for or against religion.  I'm only meant to explain why I don't feel it would be a very productive use of my time to start up some discussions about some of my own questions and observations about Life, the Universe, and Everything. It just wouldn't end well!!

[8circles]

  Still others resort to irrelevancies, such as "I just feel it's true" in defending whatever, and don't or won't engage the actual argument or evidence.  That's their way of frustrating or ending the conversation, which is I guess either uncomfortable or offensive.

 

 

And sometimes it's just the truth & not an "irrelevancy".  I couldn't begin to explain many things that I believe, I just believe them.  It reminds me of the question a few months back about "how do you decide what you believe?" which doesn't even make sense to me.  I don't decide to believe or not believe anything, I just do or don't.  It isn't me shutting down a conversation or being uncomfortable, it just isn't something I can explain.  At the same time, I can enjoy "listening" in to the conversation & ponder the questions or arguments.

 

I think that there is a difference between someone simply explaining what they believe, not having any interest in a debate, just sharing for sake of conversation or camaraderie & someone showing how their particular belief is true.  In the former I would think a "it's just what I believe" is appropriate.  The latter I would think not.  Is this what you mean?

[Aelwydd]

And sometimes it's just the truth & not an "irrelevancy".  I couldn't begin to explain many things that I believe, I just believe them.  It reminds me of the question a few months back about "how do you decide what you believe?" which doesn't even make sense to me.  I don't decide to believe or not believe anything, I just do or don't.  It isn't me shutting down a conversation or being uncomfortable, it just isn't something I can explain.  At the same time, I can enjoy "listening" in to the conversation & ponder the questions or arguments.

 

I think that there is a difference between someone simply explaining what they believe, not having any interest in a debate, just sharing for sake of conversation or camaraderie & someone showing how their particular belief is true.  In the former I would think a "it's just what I believe" is appropriate.  The latter I would think not.  Is this what you mean?

 

 

Not really.  What you are basically saying is that whatever it is you believe, it simply is and that's why you believe it.  It's a premise of sorts.  

 

When it is used to shut down conversations is when there is a line of argument taking place, and such a premise is offered as a supporting evidence, or as a proof, when it's neither.  At that point, I would state, "That's not a valid response to the point or piece of evidence that has been presented.  You need to show why, not what."

 

And some people do not get that.  They only get annoyed or angry because their belief is not accepted as a form of evidence.  I don't care if that's enough for them to hold to a particular view; but do not seriously offer that up to me in the middle of a debate or argument as if I'm supposed to accept that as evidence. At that point, the person is not contributing to the conversation, but merely obstructing it. 

 

I hope that clarifies my meaning!

[8circles]

Not really.  What you are basically saying is that whatever it is you believe, it simply is and that's why you believe it.  It's a premise of sorts.  

 

When it is used to shut down conversations is when there is a line of argument taking place, and such a premise is offered as a supporting evidence, or as a proof, when it's neither.  At that point, I would state, "That's not a valid response to the point or piece of evidence that has been presented.  You need to show why, not what."

 

And some people do not get that.  They only get annoyed or angry because their belief is not accepted as a form of evidence.  I don't care if that's enough for them to hold to a particular view; but do not seriously offer that up to me in the middle of a debate or argument as if I'm supposed to accept that as evidence. At that point, the person is not contributing to the conversation, but merely obstructing it. 

 

I hope that clarifies my meaning!

 

Yes, I totally get your clarified point and the only thing I would say is there IS a time when "it's just what I believe" is appropriate - like when you are simply explaining what you believe, not making a point about your belief being correct.  

 

Anyhow, I really love albeto's posts.  Yours too.

I DO believe in demons and do NOT venerate icons. lol

[Bluegoat]

A few.  I wouldn't want to see the pie chart distribution though.  I'm sure it's pretty disappointing.

 

I could introduce a few sticky topics with posters such as yourself, Faith, Moxie, a few others, who tend to engage the subject, and not the individual. But then, there are are others who would just derail the thread through angry accusations.  Still others resort to irrelevancies, such as "I just feel it's true" in defending whatever, and don't or won't engage the actual argument or evidence.  That's their way of frustrating or ending the conversation, which is I guess either uncomfortable or offensive.

 

I'm sure there are a few non-theists on the board you feel you could trust to remain on topic and respectful in a religious thread, and others...less so.  

 

I'm not saying others shouldn't have these discussions, either for or against religion.  I'm only meant to explain why I don't feel it would be a very productive use of my time to start up some discussions about some of my own questions and observations about Life, the Universe, and Everything. It just wouldn't end well!!

 

I think that often when people can't explain their reasons for thinking something, it isn't because there aren't any.  Not everyone is very good at describing what they think in an abstract sort of way, but they can give concrete examples.  I find that sometimes its possible, especially if you ask them some questions, to draw out what they are thinking based on their examples.

 

I find that can actually be useful, I think because those people may have a closer connection to other ways of thinking about things than I do, and they always represent a different set of experiences.  You could think of it as a sort of data set. Maybe at the time you can't make much of it, in which case I guess you just accept it as an offering, but then you have it to refer to and maybe later you will be able to see where it fits more clearly.

 

I don't tend to start threads like that because I guess I don't think that way, it doesn't really occur to me to ask what do people think about demons, or whatever.  But I do find it really interesting when other people ask those questions.

[albeto.]

Dragging me into your posts isn't going to get you answers, Albeto. Humans are worshippers. I'd say we were designed that way, you'd say we evolved that way. Our hearts always seek things to venerate, follow, obsess upon. You arguing about this doesn't make it less true.

 

Some things are good and appropriate to focus upon in this manner, some aren't. I'd say God creates the rules about this very accurately. You may disagree. And life goes on.

 

To be clear, I don't think there are answers to my questions other than, "I believe it's this way because I have faith it's this way." But I'm open to understanding if there's more to it than that. You say humans are worshipers by nature. I don't know what that means. This is based on biology? What do I venerate, specifically? How can one tell? What does it mean that I can think of a number of people who don't venerate or obsess upon things, or that I don't find following some ideal to be inherently bad? These are questions that come to my head when I read something like that. I'm not alone in this. Not by a long shot.

 

If you mean this metaphorically, I think it's a pretty poor analogy of the human experience, but clearly I don't understand your comment. I could reference a Deepak generator and find any number of words gathered together to sound profound, but when unpacked mean nothing, and no amount of declaration will make it "true." Or goodness, even understandable. I reject the idea that someone can critique one person's beliefs (namely Douglas Wilson's), but not another (namely Arctic Mama). No one is attacking you personally, just asking about what your comment means. You won't answer, that's fine. I don't expect an answer and I don't want to pressure you into one, but I do want to be clear that these thoughts are not unique to me, nor are they terribly uncommon. Furthermore, they're perfectly logical questions to ask following such a statement. 

[albeto.]

You know what, ktgrok, I would agree with you.  Especially I, myself, just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to every instance of a personal expression of faith on this board.  Not enough hours in the day, and it would be akin to banging my head against a wall anyway.

 

The point at which I have to diverge with you is that people use their faith all the damn time to justify imposing their morality onto the rest of the herd. That gets old even faster. And while albeto's posts may be annoying to believers, the overall effect is not impinging upon their lives in any way.  

 

Good point, and interesting analogy. I think of it along the lines of classical education vs. unschooling. When I first got here and made some comment about unschooling, I was taken to task pretty damn quickly. Posters asked for (some demanded, IIRC) evidence. They picked apart my words, my claims, my point. Perhaps not so much, but boy that's how I remember it. I learned that if I had something to say, I should make sure it had substance and wasn't simply a thought I had that sounds good to, and comforts me.

 

And why not? This is an education board. Education is founded upon information, facts, data. We're not educating our kids on an intellectual diet comprised of superstition and old wives' tales. We're offering them substantial information, and the skills to formulate and defend an argument based on substantial information. One who makes claims that ignore or seemingly defy known information ought to be prepared to support those claims, or watch as they get put on the proverbial chopping block and picked apart. I don't think this is limited to unschooling, and I think we can find examples of critiquing educational tactics all over the board here. 

 

So when I apply this same concept, the very critical thinking that is aimed towards every other subject on this board (including religion, so long as it's other religious people, so long as it doesn't challenge too far?), I do it in the same way - to pick it apart and see what's in there. I really have learned from people who have engaged me, to my benefit. The idea that I do this to troll people seems to me to project an expectation of passive-aggressive behavior, as if that's what some people are accustomed to and therefore expect it from others. The suggestion, no, the declaration that we all have idols insofar as we don't love Jesus, and implying these idols inspire us negatively and only Jesus is good for us, is quite a claim to make. It flies in the face of so much that can be easily pointed out., not to mention it's quite a rude and offensive thing to say. This isn't the only religious declaration around here, as you've seen. This sentiment [upholding religious beliefs as universally accepted and respected] is pervasive here. I don't address a fraction of what I observe. But good grief, derailing a thread to start announcing once again how people are so tired of reading my comments is silly (then don't read them!), and a little like a temper tantrum, imo. If one objects to my comments, it seems far more productive to address the actual comments. 

[Mom-ninja.]

Well now I find myself wondering what I venerate, follow, or obsess upon. I do obsess about proper grammar and whether I'm doing this homeschool thing correctly. I follow the WTM book as a guide. Maybe I worship the Hive? 

[EmseB]

Good point, and interesting analogy. I think of it along the lines of classical education vs. unschooling. When I first got here and made some comment about unschooling, I was taken to task pretty damn quickly. Posters asked for (some demanded, IIRC) evidence. They picked apart my words, my claims, my point. Perhaps not so much, but boy that's how I remember it. I learned that if I had something to say, I should make sure it had substance and wasn't simply a thought I had that sounds good to, and comforts me.

 

And why not? This is an education board. Education is founded upon information, facts, data. We're not educating our kids on an intellectual diet comprised of superstition and old wives' tales. We're offering them substantial information, and the skills to formulate and defend an argument based on substantial information. One who makes claims that ignore or seemingly defy known information ought to be prepared to support those claims, or watch as they get put on the proverbial chopping block and picked apart. I don't think this is limited to unschooling, and I think we can find examples of critiquing educational tactics all over the board here. 

 

So when I apply this same concept, the very critical thinking that is aimed towards every other subject on this board (including religion, so long as it's other religious people, so long as it doesn't challenge too far?), I do it in the same way - to pick it apart and see what's in there. I really have learned from people who have engaged me, to my benefit. The idea that I do this to troll people seems to me to project an expectation of passive-aggressive behavior, as if that's what some people are accustomed to and therefore expect it from others. The suggestion, no, the declaration that we all have idols insofar as we don't love Jesus, and implying these idols inspire us negatively and only Jesus is good for us, is quite a claim to make. It flies in the face of so much that can be easily pointed out., not to mention it's quite a rude and offensive thing to say. This isn't the only religious declaration around here, as you've seen. This sentiment [upholding religious beliefs as universally accepted and respected] is pervasive here. I don't address a fraction of what I observe. But good grief, derailing a thread to start announcing once again how people are so tired of reading my comments is silly (then don't read them!), and a little like a temper tantrum, imo. If one objects to my comments, it seems far more productive to address the actual comments. 

 

This is exactly the kind of post that led me to believe you were trolling when I first started reading here.  I mean, pretending not to know the difference in a discussion about pedagogy and a discussion about faith is just as passive-aggressive as what you claim to find in others.  I don't believe you don't know that.  You're talking about what someone does vs. their identity as a person (and labeling that identity as irrational, horrible, hateful, nonsensical...).  Getting into a discussion about how to educate our kids is a much different animal than starting from a position that the other person you're talking to is irrational and nonsensical (at best) and trying to discuss that.  That's not to say I don't enjoy some of the conversations, it just the devolving is a forgone conclusion for me at this point because you can't have a reasoned discussion with someone who doesn't hold any respect for the people they're discussing things with.

[Aelwydd]

Well now I find myself wondering what I venerate, follow, or obsess upon. I do obsess about proper grammar and whether I'm doing this homeschool thing correctly. I follow the WTM book as a guide. Maybe I worship the Hive? 

 

If you're a heathen like me, you pay homage to the mastermind of the cosmos...which makes you a follower of the Great Sagan.  This means you rely upon your hedonistic five senses in order to unravel the mysteries of the universe through empirical laying on of hands on the evidence, as it were.

 

Also, your holy vestments are yoga pants.

[Mrs. A]

If you're a heathen like me, you pay homage to the mastermind of the cosmos...which makes you a follower of the Great Sagan. This means you rely upon your hedonistic five senses in order to unravel the mysteries of the universe through empirical laying on of hands on the evidence, as it were.

 

Also, your holy vestments are yoga pants.

would you say then that empirical knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge?

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Perhaps it's fitting that this topic comes up as we on the old calendar prepare to commemorate the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council tomorrow. http://oca.org/saints/lives/2015/10/11/70-commemoration-of-the-holy-fathers-of-the-seventh-ecumenical-coun

 

The Kontakion for tomorrow perfectly encapsulates the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Icons: "The Son who shone forth from the Father / Was ineffably born, two-fold in nature, of a woman. / Having beheld Him, we do not deny the image of His form, / But depict it piously and revere it faithfully. / Thus, keeping the True Faith, / The Church venerates the icon of Christ Incarnate."

[gardenmom5]

Also...just to stay on topic for this thread, DW is apparently a bigot.  Who is surprised???  

 

But, if I had the time, and the inclination, I might post a comment on his board to the effect that clearly God is calling DW to go the ME and express his beliefs. He must go to the those places at which God is clearly most pissed off...meaning somewhere between Syria and Iraq.

 

We've already set up the GoFundMe account for his one-way ticket.

 

Can we please watch???

 

and back on topic .  .

 

sending him to the ME to preach repentance is simply asking him to be an example of the courage of his convictions . . . I can suggest a few places.  (dh's gf was born and raised in Syria - before he fled for his life.)

 

I'll bring the popcorn.

 

 

eta: sometimes, as I Christian, I don't answer questions because the answer is far too personal and sacred to me to share on a forum setting.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Abeto, I've only skimmed the thread, but although I usually dislike your comments because I believe they are purposely inflammatory (sorry...), I think you've raised some really good ones here.  And I do have a question for you:

 

How do you know, as an atheist, that DW is basically a scumbag?  What ethical ruler are you comparing him to?  I know atheists defend ethics in different ways, and I'm curious what your take is.  

[Bluegoat]

If you're a heathen like me, you pay homage to the mastermind of the cosmos...which makes you a follower of the Great Sagan.  This means you rely upon your hedonistic five senses in order to unravel the mysteries of the universe through empirical laying on of hands on the evidence, as it were.

 

Also, your holy vestments are yoga pants.

 

Apart from the yoga pants and maybe Carl Sagan, this describes a lot of non-heathen as well, though they would not in many cases rely solely on empirical evidence.  But - neither do many scientists, even in their work - pure empiricism isn't that easy.

 

Yoga pants are, of course, completely heathen.

[albeto.]

This is exactly the kind of post that led me to believe you were trolling when I first started reading here.  I mean, pretending not to know the difference in a discussion about pedagogy and a discussion about faith is just as passive-aggressive as what you claim to find in others.  I don't believe you don't know that.  You're talking about what someone does vs. their identity as a person (and labeling that identity as irrational, horrible, hateful, nonsensical...).  Getting into a discussion about how to educate our kids is a much different animal than starting from a position that the other person you're talking to is irrational and nonsensical (at best) and trying to discuss that.  That's not to say I don't enjoy some of the conversations, it just the devolving is a forgone conclusion for me at this point because you can't have a reasoned discussion with someone who doesn't hold any respect for the people they're discussing things with.

 

The bold reflects ideas you've assumed about me as a person, about my thoughts, beliefs, and intents. You've assumed incorrectly. I would encourage you to respond to the comments I make rather than some perceived hidden message written in code between the lines. I wish I could assure you, I'm not that crafty. I'm too boring and simple for that. 

[albeto.]

Abeto, I've only skimmed the thread, but although I usually dislike your comments because I believe they are purposely inflammatory (sorry...), I think you've raised some really good ones here.  And I do have a question for you:

 

How do you know, as an atheist, that DW is basically a scumbag?  What ethical ruler are you comparing him to?  I know atheists defend ethics in different ways, and I'm curious what your take is.  

 

Same way you do. I note his behavior, and the effect it has on others. In this case, his behavior is manipulation of facts, misrepresentation of facts, inflammation of fear. The effects are increased ignorance, frustration, intolerance, and paranoia. 

 

I think you and I judge people and their actions by the same method; we watch, we make predictions based on past events and knowledge we have, and over time we modify our opinions and therefore expectations as events either coincide with our predictions or stray. Xians take certain texts and refer to them to articulate and/or rationalize their opinions against the backdrop of a religious narrative. That's not to say atheists don't ever refer to, or base opinions, on faulty or irrational ideas, but they're not religious ones. 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Same way you do. I note his behavior, and the effect it has on others. In this case, his behavior is manipulation of facts, misrepresentation of facts, inflammation of fear. The effects are increased ignorance, frustration, intolerance, and paranoia. 

 

I think you and I judge people and their actions by the same method; we watch, we make predictions based on past events and knowledge we have, and over time we modify our opinions and therefore expectations as events either coincide with our predictions or stray. Xians take certain texts and refer to them to articulate and/or rationalize their opinions against the backdrop of a religious narrative. That's not to say atheists don't ever refer to, or base opinions, on faulty or irrational ideas, but they're not religious ones. 

 

Ok, all of that makes sense.  I think whatever a person's religion or lack thereof happens to be, the grand majority of decisions are based on evaluating whether or not something is ethical.  

 

But I guess what I'm really asking is, why do you feel that it is a good thing to reduce fear, ignorance, intolerance, or paranoia?  What makes peace, enlightenment, tolerance, or sanity virtues to strike for?

[albeto.]

Ok, all of that makes sense.  I think whatever a person's religion or lack thereof happens to be, the grand majority of decisions are based on evaluating whether or not something is ethical.  

 

But I guess what I'm really asking is, why do you feel that it is a good thing to reduce fear, ignorance, intolerance, or paranoia?  What makes peace, enlightenment, tolerance, or sanity virtues to strike for?

 

Fear is a necessary response to dangerous situations. Orthodox xians venerating icons does not present a dangerous situation. 

 

Ignorance makes people vulnerable. Reducing ignorance increases an individual's well being by giving more resources (knowledge, control), and it also increases a society's well being (education is linked to higher standards of living, better health care, less violence, etc).

 

Intolerance is a necessary response to dangerous or negative situations. Orthodox xians venerating icons does not present a dangerous or negative situation.

 

Paranoia is irrational fear. An irrational society cannot be reasoned with, and that increases everyone's vulnerability. 

 

Peace, enlightenment, tolerance, and sanity are virtues insofar as they increase the well being of individuals, and collectively as a society (for the most part, I suspect the correlation is rather high). I think this TED talk video sums it up nicely in 20 min:

 

 

 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Fear is a necessary response to dangerous situations. Orthodox xians venerating icons does not present a dangerous situation. 

 

Ignorance makes people vulnerable. Reducing ignorance increases an individual's well being by giving more resources (knowledge, control), and it also increases a society's well being (education is linked to higher standards of living, better health care, less violence, etc).

 

Intolerance is a necessary response to dangerous or negative situations. Orthodox xians venerating icons does not present a dangerous or negative situation.

 

Paranoia is irrational fear. An irrational society cannot be reasoned with, and that increases everyone's vulnerability. 

 

Peace, enlightenment, tolerance, and sanity are virtues insofar as they increase the well being of individuals, and collectively as a society (for the most part, I suspect the correlation is rather high). I think this TED talk video sums it up nicely in 20 min:

 

 

 

 

 

Why would we want to strive for well-being?  I'm not trying to sound obtuse, it's a serious question.  There are other measures of "success" for human beings.  What about evolutionary success?  Some of the most successful societies in the evolutionary sense (ability to increase their particular genetic matter in the world gene pool, aka reproduce) are the most oppressive.  

 

I realise my questions probably sound stupid, because DUH, it's obvious we all want happy, healthy, enlightened, peaceful societies.  Or at least, we *think* we all want that.  I can think of several societies that do NOT want all of those things.  

 

Again, my question, to phrase it differently, is WHY can we state that peace, well-being, happiness, enlightenment/knowledge/education are virtues?  And can we state that those who disagree are "wrong" in some absolute sense, rather than just "they are wrong because they disagree with my held beliefs on what virtues a society should hold"?