MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:03 am
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
MG 2.0 has already told those of us who are not people of faith that we are the agents of the adversary. He has staked me and others out as his enemies in the existential battle he imagines is going on. That's not building civil society.
I do think that atheism and secular humanism are an enemy of religious faith and ultimately civil society as we have known it.
The term you are looking for is “anti-theism,” not “atheist” or “secular humanism.” In fact, if you’re actually interested in “civil society,” you should be thinking of secular humanists as allies, not enemies. In terms of promoting civil society, their core values substantially overlap with those of theists.
MG 2.0 wrote:I’m doubtful that I have literally called you an agent of the adversary. I do see Hitchens and other prominent atheists as enemies of religious belief.
Whether you specifically singled me out by name or referred to a category in which you’ve placed me, I think my statement is accurate. Aren’t there two and only two sides in your holy war? Didn’t you just label me as an enemy of religion?
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
The self-proclaimed Christian politicians like the MTGs and the Bohberts are not promoting civil society; they are promoting hatred and division.
I agree. I’m a Romney guy.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
There are also lots of religious believers, including friends of mine, who reject division and are trying to build communities based on values that are not unique to religion. And there are non-believers who promote division.
Again, I agree.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
But when MG 2.0 starts out by trying to turn me into a scary bogeyman that will destroy society…
MG 2.0 wrote: If you can point out contextually where I have literally done this I’d appreciate it. Actually, you for the most part come across as a pretty reasonable guy.
Literally in this post.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
…he isn't building a community worthy of any degree of praise.
MG 2.0 wrote:I’m in favor of calling out atheism as being essentially anti religious. If you’re taking that personally, that’s on you.
I’m an atheist. How could I not take it personally? You seem to forget that all these categories you are talking about are composed of human beings, just like you.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:53 am
His community is based more on fear and hate of others than the types of values he claims to hold.
MG 2.0 wrote:I’m not a Trump guy. Or far right. I’d consider myself to be a moderate.
I’m not talking about Trump. I’m talking about you.
MG 2.0 wrote:The dangers of secular humanist extremism and GenZ’s attachment to liberal values (not classical liberalism, but leftist views) that are being promoted by secular humanists at universities, and the failure of these same universities to allow diversity of thought, are slowly decreasing the attachment of younger people to the religious impulses of their fathers. A humble belief in God as their maker and our accountability to Him for our actions and behaviors.
This illustrates my point. You are appealing to hate and fear of liberals, leftists, secular humanists, etc. It bears no resemblance to the values you propose to promote or to words of Jesus as found in the New Testament.
MG 2.0 wrote:If I have personally offended you either directly or indirectly, I apologize. If the fact that I strongly believe you are mistaken in your position as an atheist offends you…I’m not sure there is much I can do about that.
This is a classic passive-aggressive apology that neither requires nor deserves acceptance or rejection. I’m not offended by you in the slightest. I’m just pointing out in very concrete ways the stark contradiction between your purported concerns and your own words.