Yes. It’s been obvious from the start that you are angry with some other people.
I’m tactically angry with people who clog intellectual style forums with loads of crap. If I could politely convince them to either stop it or take it to Facebook, I would be happy to make the case politely.
There are obviously unresolved issues about this for you. You came here to express that anger to whomever you could quickly label as atheist.
I can understand why you’d see it that way, but I assure you, I do the very same thing with Catholics and other theists. You should see me rip the religious homophobes to shreds, utterly merciless.
I’ve actually tested this. I’ll join a forum and be rowdy, and I’ll be accepted so long as I don’t rock the group consensus too much.
And then I’ll join the same forum and be overwhelmingly polite, but effectively challenge the group consensus. Banned every time, theist, atheist, makes no difference. Nobody wants their cherished dogmas messed with. Everybody needs to believe in something. Nobody tolerates heretics, nobody on any side.
I am pretty bored with you,
You keep trying to change the subject to anything other than an examination of the qualifications of human reason to address god claims. That appears to be sacred territory for you that you can’t bear having touched. It would go easier for you if you could man up and simply say that, in which case I would respect it and leave you in peace.
but I’ll give you a slight benefit of the doubt given that you just admitted a couple failures. But you’ve got a long way to go. Making a quick assessment about the lack of moderation here is no excuse for acting in a way that you admit is wrong.
Clogging intellectual forums with an endless series of clever quipy one liners is rude in my book, and merits a response in kind. There are literally a million forums and sites on the net where that kind of conversation is welcomed. Why do nerd twerps always have to do that on every single site on the net??
As Frans de Waal said in the book from the other post, he can enjoy the sun without worshiping it.
Ah, but “enjoying” is rather a weak emotion, don’t you think? That’s what Frans de Waal is really saying, let’s keep a lid on this emotion thing, let’s keep it within safe comfortable bounds. Ok, to each their own in that regard, but it’s kind of a chicken shit approach to one’s relationship with nature, don’t you think?
What I mean by “worship” is taking that casual enjoyment, and ramping it up to the greatest possible degree, so that’s one’s relationship with reality becomes an overwhelmingly positive emotional experience. Like falling in love, like that. Go for it, open up, let loose, put all one’s cards on the table. How does this in any way conflict with science or reason? Answer, it doesn’t, in fact it’s highly logical.
My point is that many religious people are kind of the experts at mining such experiences. Their god technique is not going to work for many of us, but that doesn’t mean that the emotional territory they explore can’t be accessed by other methods.
You see, I think a lot of the atheist rejection of religion is not so much a rejection of god theories as it is a running from emotion. It’s the nerd condition, a need to keep emotion at a safe distance, to reduce everything to neat and tidy equation abstractions etc.
Worship is primarily defined in relation to dieties, so it’s your task to take that out if you want.
That is the most common use of the word, I agree. But when we dig just a bit below the surface, we see that religious worship is an emotional experience, and many people are benefiting from those positive emotions. Thus, a critical thinker, a person of reason, a logical person, will seek to separate that which works for us (positive emotions) from that which is an obstacle or otherwise distracting (god claims) etc.
A sloppy lazy thinker will simply throw the baby out with the bath water, and then pout when their laziness is pointed out to them.