**TaxCollector: However, I’m certain that everyone else here believes they are using “Reason” to support the points they are making. **
Oh, I agree that many believe they do, yes. That’s a good point. That’s true. Clarification. But I also see that they are distinct from the atheist in that it often results in an embrace of “faith”. That they have reasoned----or let go of reason—to arrive at a place where things are accepted that are not supported by direct observation etc. That, they are referring to as faith, a belief outside of reason alone. Tho they may say that they have reasoned their way to a conclusion beyond reason. Etc.
I think I understand what they are saying they think, and I wasn’t overtly trying to be derogatory when I refer to “Reason” as being a primary defining term for myself. It’s that it best describes how I make sense of things, or try to, minus Faith, so I emphasize it.
TC: Remember, “Reason”, most likely, boils down to “Pride”.
I don’t in fact remember this to be a bad thing as implied. This turns into a tricky game of semantics. I think that “pride” in not being intellectually paralyzed, or having others tell you what to think based on what they think, can be a good thing. Reason, and confidence to embrace it, I generally think are positives! That’s all. Liberty to think and do, can be a good thing, much as humility can.
Bad pride, for me, is when I think that I cannot be wrong, or that others cannot be right. I don’t think that folks here cannot be right about anything, and I don’t believe that I cannot be wrong about anything.
I emphasize “reason” as the primary tool of my toolkit for dealing with the Big Questions, the faithful emphasize “faith” as superceding that in how they define themselves?
From the atheist perspective, they often see the term “faithful” and “faithless” as similarly disconcerting. That is, they see the implied message that they are somehow “unfaithful” [which can have a slightly different meaning, but is easily implied for defaming them], or without “hope”, aka “hopeless”. They have “hope” and consider themselves “trustworthy”, thus they too, can be frustrated with the semantics.
A big problem when any denominations or metaphysical perspectives that come together is that they often embrace mutually exclusive ideas that others take offense to because it by definition negates their own perspective. Hence the rub in how many people think that atheists are persecuting and conspiring against them, and vice versa.
Both sides are invested in promoting ideals important to them that they feel benefit humankind more etc. The only thing I can say to salve the fears of what atheists are “trying to do to religion”, is that most Christians should realize that they are vastly better funded, equipped, visible, heard and organized than any atheist conspiracy. Atheism as a formal agenda is poorly organized when it is at all, and impoverished. There are no Atheism Channels on cable, tho many that are garbage. There’s a difference. Atheism does represent some different conclusions about life, but most atheists I know lean more toward live and let live. But the conclusions are mutually exclusive ultimately, yes. Hopefully we can identify enough middle ground that we can recognize one another’s humanity and function over the long haul. But it’s tricky.
Just trying to share the complexity and make it harder for either side to turn the other into a caricature or something worse than it is. It’s complicated with the best of intentions by folks on both sides, but we all must live together, so more dialogue and understanding are a good thing I think!
) is because of this lack of authority and complete anarchy? Did God give us 33,000 opposing truths or 1? If God does not believe in authority then what need is there for us to worship Him? Why not become gods our self? Come to think of it, at least one protestant sects has done just that?
