Mailbag: Postmodern Theologian
Subject: Questions?
I came across your "area" while searching for some information about the Southern Baptists. I was wondering, if you do not believe, and are an "atheist" why do you spend time insulting what others believe instead of uplifting your view. While I am not a supporter of the position the SBC has taken, I am less impressed with your mean-spirited approach.
I find it interesting that this so-called theologian accuses me of being negative and full of hate (a rather negative statement, yes?) and when I asked him to point out where (suggesting that if he cannot do so, then perhaps I can't take his accusations seriously), he just went off to say that this was more negativity and hatred.
This suggested to me, as a consequence, that this so-called "mean-spirited approach" was simply the fact that I make a point of asking people to support their claims and argue that, without such support, the claims should not be believed. So I'm a big meanie for being skeptical. For shame!
I will tell you, I am offended when people accuse me of being blinded by hate, negativity, and a desire to abuse. I'm even more offended when they aren't willing to deal with their accusations and support them. If the accusations were true, I'd want to change. If they weren't true, I've been slandered and misunderstood. But when people won't explain or support their accusations, we'll never know either way and everyone loses.
I am a Postmodern Theologian. While I see value in other faiths, I question your ability to even speak on other faiths - you are an atheist, speak on that. This section should be a place where you up-lift your beliefs instead of insulting others. There is an Old Celtic saying "If you have no legs, it's easy to make fun of other peoples shoes."
Here again we see the argument that if someone isn't a member of a religion, they aren't expected to have anything of value to say about that faith. This is an arrogant and even bigoted position - adopted, I think, simply for the purpose of preserving a religious belief system from critique from outsiders. By denying them the right to speak on one's religion, one doesn't have to actually take those critiques seriously or address any of the arguments. Discussion and debate are halted before they can even begin.
John, the Progressive Theologian, is something of a bigot. I don't wish to have a relationship with someone who sees nothing wrong accusing people of things like hatred and abuse but then backs away without apology or explanation when challenged. I certainly don't want to have a relationship with someone who think that they can dismiss the comments and critiques of someone simply because they don't share his faith or religion.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
“I am a Postmodern Theologian.”
That is seriously scary. Run! Run!
People often think it’s clever to adopt the solipsist position and then use it as a club to knock down any and all objections or inquiries from others. But in order to do this they must completely ignore the inconsistency in maintaining solipsism while simultaneously proclaiming religion discovers deep, universal truths. Of course, by the circular logic of solipsism, such inconsistencies can be ignored just as easy as any other inconsistency or contradiction is ignored.
While I see value in other faiths, I question your ability to even speak on other faiths - you are an atheist, speak on that.
Since John is not an atheist, I question his ability to speak on what atheists should or should not speak on. He should move on to some site where he can up-lift Postmodern Theology and stop insulting us.
How do you insult a Christian? Easy. Tell him the truth.
Tom, I was thinking the same thing when I first read that line. Between you and Tracie, I am having trouble coming up with a thought before everyone else LOL!
Outsiders have no right to question religion. And, as is well known, for many centuries the RCC prohibited questioning from insiders as well. From what I hear, RCC some bible study classes still don’t permit questions.
So, that leaves exactly no one with the right to question Xianity.
>I question your ability to even speak on other faiths - you are an atheist, speak on that. This section should be a place where you up-lift your beliefs instead of insulting others.
I wonder if “John” never criticizes anything but his own beliefs/behaviors in that case? This is the oddest thing I’ve heard in awhile. And I find it hard to accept that John takes his own advice in life. Does he really believe, for example, that I can’t criticize Ted Bundy’s views and actions because I have never mass murdered people? Can only other mass murders judge Bundy? That’s a scary thought! I imagine Bundy would be out killing right now if that was the case. Can nobody criticize pedophiles or the KKK unless they belong to those groups?
Is Postmodern Theology a euphemism for idiot?
Is Postmodern Theology a euphemism for idiot?
No, it’s the definition of idiot.
i love the word bigot. its such a good word to throw around.
How do you insult a Christian? Easy. Tell him the truth.
i thought atheist’s (from what i have read on this site) didn’t make any claim to truth?
> thought atheist’s (from what i have read on this site) didn’t make any claim to truth?
“Atheists” don’t. But individual atheists certainly can. In fact, one I know puts it this way: “Verifying that what you believe is true isn’t important–unless it’s important to you that what you believe is likely to be true.”
He uses it, from what I’ve seen, with theists who argue that you can’t prove god’s existence, and you have to believe on faith without verification.
In that mode, he is an atheist who, while not making a claim to truth, certainly expresses a desire to know as much as possible that his beliefs align with “true” in the sense of “what is real” (which would be indistinguishable from “what is verifiable).
I don’t know if that helps or not. But I’m thinking that might also be what Ron meant. He can correct me if I’ve misrepresented his statement, however.
Thanks, Tray.
in other words, he cannot show the truth. however, he can show that the christians he converses with they are in a belief system that is not verifiable to the satisfaction of Ron.
OK, randomguy, tell me this: How is any religion, especially Christianity (since we live in a Christianity-dominated part of the world), verifiable? Nothing in any religion can be verified (outside of a collection of historical facts); theists often see no problem with this and say that faith is the only thing that matters. In that case, you can continue having faith in God, Allah, Krishna, or whatever you want, and we can continue worshipping our beloved deity, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There’s nothing like religious faith — just try proving that She doesn’t exist!
(in other words, he cannot show the truth. however, he can show that the Christians he converses with they are in a belief system that is not verifiable to the satisfaction of Ron). Here is what I meant by this. A couple of people I know do not want to acknowledge earth history regarding the evolution of life on earth. Will indignantly cross their arms in a defensive posture and shout something like: them thar scientist’s don’t know whut thar talking about! My response: You are in a state of denial. Guess what? They deny that too! So, denial runs deep. My never changing stance is that if earth history is true then the Abrahamic religions are false.
>in other words, he cannot show the truth. however, he can show that the christians he converses with they are in a belief system that is not verifiable to the satisfaction of Ron.
I actually have no problem with this statement. I would say it’s correct. Most Xians have much lower standards of what they will accept as “true” given very little or very flawed evidence. In fact, they will accept evidence to support Xianity that they would reject from all other religions and from any other claims (like alien abduction or Big Foot).
In some ways, while I could argue that the evidence Xians accept is really not even “verifiable to the satisfaction” of Xians (otherwise, they’d have to accept all manner of other religions and claims that they openly reject); but I’m not averse to simply agreeing that it comes down to how gullible a persoh chooses to be in the given circumstance. Certainly “evidence” is subjectively reviewed and examined. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have juries who disagree over a person’s guilt or innocence.
But again, it seems odd to me that a person would find someone guilty because their finger prints are on the murder weapon–and then go and criticize jurors in another case for finding someone guilty because their fingerprints were on the murder weapon. And that’s what Xians, by and large, do.
Sorry to be off-topic, but I didn’t know where else to put this. Just wanted to say how much I enjoy the comments by tracieh. It is a pleasure to read such thoughtful, incisive and lucid opinions. Is there any way to communicate with you off-list? P.S. I am not a stalker, just an old lady who admires a fine set of brains when she sees one.
Getting back to one of John the Post-Modern Theologian’s accusations against Austin: has anyone here seen our host failing to “uplift” his atheistic beliefs lately?
Unless, by “uplifting”, John means something other than vigorously, exactingly, and painstakingly describing and explaining atheism as he-sees it—and as, evidently, many of us do too—to any and all comers.
What a perfectly odd charge!
Sometimes I wonder if some of the professed believers who appear here periodically are really just the religious equivalents of “bi-curious” about the whole thing. They say they hate atheism, or vehemently disagree with it, yet they find it somehow tantalizing, almost irresistible….they just have to stop by and see what it’s all about.
Anyways, happy holidays to those what keep ‘em as such.