He's right!; they each believe they're right, even if wrong!

[gaara4158]

I'll leave that up to you, but a few things to consider...Have I given you any reason to believe I would not be truthful about my imaginary sandwich, and have you ever even heard of anyone telling a lie about their imaginary sandwich?

Are you aware there are other options between telling the truth and lying? It is possible to be honest while factually incorrect, so my confidence in your honesty is not an issue.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As I said, those were a few questions to consider, as in, not all.

 

[Uber Genius]

more an artifact of our self-preservation drive than any religious or nonreligious ideology.

Yet another appeal to ad hoc evolutionary genetic causal just so stories. It very well could be the case that evolution is true, and also one of the religious inferences from around the world is true. And unless your evolutionary inference is destructive of rationalism, which of course saws off the limb it is standing on, then it could be the case that one religious inference gave a more cogent account of say:

Where humans came from, where we will go when we die, how we get meaning out of life, how should we live and treat others. So we could examine features of our external world and ask on Atheism, or Deism, Pantheism, paganism, Polytheism, panentheism, or theism which view best explains:

Why there is anything rather than nothing
The beginning of the universe from nothing
The origin of objective moral values and duties
The apparent fine-tuning for life in our universe
The origin of intentionality
The uncanny applicability of math in understanding our universe

And about 18 additional features of our world.

We could then see if one inference continued to be more powerful in depth and explanatory scope, and lack ad hoc-ness.

That is before examining the data from any scriptures if such things were applicable.

So why not again to we need to say people are black and white in their religious inferences due to "self-preservation," or "survival advantage," insert darwinian ad hoc tautological statement here... " "

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You’re right, I shouldn’t speculate as to the origin of egotism in humanity without evidence beyond intuition, but suffice it to say I don’t think it originates in ideologies. I think it’s just a common personality trait. It’s interesting to note that many ancient cultures have used the same word to describe humankind and their specific tribe or people and another word for outsiders.

You asked which worldviews encourage humility and discourage egotism, and I’m actually having trouble thinking of one that doesn’t. Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Taoism... they all hold humility as a virtue. Sure, most people fail to uphold these ideals in practice, but that’s a failing of the individual, not a feature of the worldview.

Yes, most of the World Religions seem to commend the value of "not verbally beating others up"....but, if we can say that "most people fail" in this regard despite their respective religions, then do we really want to avoid saying that hypocrisy and duplicity are also common personality traits, despite the lip-service given to the contrary? (I don't know that we can or can't avoid it. I'm just trying to place this into a mode of conjecture for us to wrestle with since Whaddo You Meme's message seems to have a slight Ying-Yang quality to it....)

As for the rest of your response, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I think I agree. The general message of the meme falls apart if taken too seriously, and indeed may just be an emotive response of the sort you described as inevitable when worldviews collide.

Yes, the meme does have its limits, but I do like the thoughtful rejoinder given by Whaddo You Meme [point #4], even if it might be laced with a hidden inference to OSAS.

“Who are they to say they’re better than us? Don’t they know we’re the heroes and not them?” The fun of the meme comes from the fact that to nonbelievers, a religious person’s proclamation of faith often sounds like “Oh thank God I’m clever enough to have found the right invisible dragon among all the false ones and become an enlightened/saved/chosen person because of it.”

I'm sure that this interpretive fact provides hours of finger pointing fun for the average nonbeliever, especially for those who are of a more atheistic bent. I don't doubt that a bit. Nevertheless..........invisible dragons there may still be.

That doesn’t mean we don’t find similar attitudes in atheists. It’s just not that deep

Perhaps it's not as deep, but I could have sworn that atheists wear their pasture boots ... just like everyone else does.

 

[gaara4158]

Yet another appeal to ad hoc evolutionary genetic causal just so stories. It very well could be the case that evolution is true, and also one of the religious inferences from around the world is true. And unless your evolutionary inference is destructive of rationalism, which of course saws off the limb it is standing on, then it could be the case that one religious inference gave a more cogent account of say:

Where humans came from, where we will go when we die, how we get meaning out of life, how should we live and treat others. So we could examine features of our external world and ask on Atheism, or Deism, Pantheism, paganism, Polytheism, panentheism, or theism which view best explains:

Why there is anything rather than nothing
The beginning of the universe from nothing
The origin of objective moral values and duties
The apparent fine-tuning for life in our universe
The origin of intentionality
The uncanny applicability of math in understanding our universe

And about 18 additional features of our world.

We could then see if one inference continued to be more powerful in depth and explanatory scope, and lack ad hoc-ness.

That is before examining the data from any scriptures if such things were applicable.

So why not again to we need to say people are black and white in their religious inferences due to "self-preservation," or "survival advantage," insert darwinian ad hoc tautological statement here... " "

Yet another Gish gallop landmine explosion. Relax, I already backed off my speculation on the origin of egotism in humanity

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, most of the World Religions seem to commend the value of "not verbally beating others up"....but, if we can say that "most people fail" in this regard despite their respective religions, then do we really want to avoid saying that hypocrisy and duplicity are also common personality traits, despite the lip-service given to the contrary? (I don't know that we can or can't avoid it. I'm just trying to place this into a mode of conjecture for us to wrestle with since Whaddo You Meme's message seems to have a slight Ying-Yang quality to it....)

Yeah, I’m not at all uncomfortable saying many if not most people are hypocritical in some respect. We’re often not even aware of our own hypocrisy until it’s pointed out to us.

Yes, the meme does have its limits, but I do like the thoughtful rejoinder given by Whaddo You Meme [point #4], even if it might be laced with a hidden inference to OSAS.

Yeah, that part never made sense to me. You get paid your salary (all the money you’ll ever need) before you even start working, so what’s your incentive to work after that? It’s not as though my money could be taken back. Or is his point that True Christians(TM) are the ones who do God’s work knowing they’re not earning anything for it?

Perhaps it's not as deep, but I could have sworn that atheists wear their pasture boots ... just like everyone else does.

Oh, I didn’t mean atheist superiority complexes weren’t as deep, the very existence of the meme in question is evidence that they are. I meant the meme wasn’t that deeply meaningful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I’m not at all uncomfortable saying many if not most people are hypocritical in some respect. We’re often not even aware of our own hypocrisy until it’s pointed out to us.

That's for sure! I never could figure out my own shortcomings..........but I finally did figure out that I could come here to CF and have my faults be made more visible to me.

But seriously, you're right. Many if not most of us live in our own little mental bubbles and often stop short of being able to empathize with how other people may feel or see things from their own perspective, and we then point the finger at them, accusing them of doing things that we ourselves do.

Yeah, that part never made sense to me. You get paid your salary (all the money you’ll ever need) before you even start working, so what’s your incentive to work after that? It’s not as though my money could be taken back. Or is his point that True Christians(TM) are the ones who do God’s work knowing they’re not earning anything for it?

I don't know enough about Whaddo You Meme's actual denominational stance to say if he is in one theological camp or another. As for myself, while I can agree with him that his point #4 should apply to Christians and slough off a tiny edge of their own guilt in the whole of this finger pointing mess we call 'Truth,' it's difficult to really adopt it as a principle if OSAS is true (which I don't really think it is).

Oh, I didn’t mean atheist superiority complexes weren’t as deep, the very existence of the meme in question is evidence that they are. I meant the meme wasn’t that deeply meaningful.

Ok. I get your meaning, and that's alright. I didn't really expect everyone to just be bowled over by the OP meme. Rather, I think it's a talking point that needs further development from all sides ... thanks for providing some of 'your side' on this.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's an interesting, perhaps effective way to state it. Maybe we do tend to "take the reins from God," and like Saul of the Old Testament, we take matters into our own hands. At the same time, Paul the Apostle seems to have offered up the sharp, even barbed, reposte on occasion to those who opposed him. Do you think we should take his rhetoric as an attempt to "take the reins from God," or was there something in his cutting critiques that sounded forth the truth of God? (Such as we can read in the 1st chapter of the letter to the Galatians.)

No conflict, no paradox there. Of course there is the necessity to defend the truth (no, I'm not talking about being angrily contentious about opinion), not that truth does not speak for itself, but that people need to hear more than a mistaken side to any issue. There is a time for everything. That is actually part of our job, as his people: to represent the truth.

What I'm referring to is a mindset thing, as though God commands, we perform, God watches and rewards accordingly, success is in our bailiwick, not God's. (Again, I'm saying "as though" --please don't quote that sentence without it.) We are nothing without God, and not in any position to be taking the reins from him.

That's a good point! Could this be some of the reason that James said we should be "quick to listen but slow to speak..."?

Yep. I've repeatedly tried, and don't know how, to explain in these forums something that lays heavy on my heart --the infinite difference between God and us. I think of people angry with God, shaking their fist at heaven, as if they can call God to account. It is ludicrous, of course, but maybe it is equally ludicrous to think we have the standing as believers to deal with God as intellectually and morally capable of even MEANING anything real by our thoughts and actions, apart from him doing it in us.

It is one thing for an unbeliever to do this, who thinks humanity is the pinnacle of evolution, if not of the universe. But we who know the CREATOR??? What are we??
Who do we think we are, thinking like that???

I know there is another side to the matter, in that he has made us for his own sake, and so we are important to him. And that in John 15 he even gives us the status, instead of servants, of friends, who DO know what he is about. And that in the end, we will be one with him, in a way that even the Angels cannot be ---WE, these incredibly stupid rebellious self-important fools, given the capacity for something we cannot even imagine.