Is there an Atheist preference for the Democratic party going on here?

[Ana the Ist]

I'd say that you don't listen to people on the left and instead you assume to know their points better than they do

I generally do know their points better than they do....I know the source material more often, I know the axiomatic or epistemic basis for them, and I know that about 99 times out of 100, the person holding those positions doesn't.

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to engage in discourse with someone less informed...I am.

The problem is they tend to be so uninformed they don't actually have the ability to explain what they think their position is. They simply repeat talking points and rhetoric.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm struggling here to think of any route that doesn't include disbelief in gods. Although I can think of many reasons why someone might reject religion.

Again, you're talking about a position of belief...

Plenty of people started off believing in a God and became atheists. Some didn't. The reasons why are different.

Atheism is such a non-position that there's not much important about not believing God. Not really. It's far more important why you don't....and how that conclusion was reached.

 

[stevil]

I generally do know their points better than they do....I know the source material more often, I know the axiomatic or epistemic basis for them, and I know that about 99 times out of 100, the person holding those positions doesn't.

And that is the core problem. This belief of yours stops you from actually listening, thinking and understanding. So you keep your belief that they are not engaging in intellectualism.

My position is that smart people listen and trying to understand. This way they learn and that is how you become smart.

Not so smart people think they know better than everyone, so they don't listen and they don't learn.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And that is the core problem. This belief of yours stops you from actually listening, thinking and understanding.

Would you like a recent example?

My position is that smart people listen and trying to understand. This way they learn and that is how you become smart.

Here's the thing....

Let's say someone is telling me something....and they use a term or phrase I've never heard before....or never heard in that context.

If I'm to understand what they're saying....I'll have to ask what that term means. I'll need them to explain.

Otherwise, I'm just pretending to understand.

Not so smart people think they know better than everyone, so they don't listen and they don't learn.

Sure...what I tend to do is drill down on source material until I find a coherent explanation or not.

Sadly, this isn't the case for most.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Matt Shea is still a member of good standing in the GOP. He wrote a paper called “The Biblical Basis for War” in which he laid out how non-Christians are to be executed. Washington state lawmaker Matt Shea defends advocacy for ‘Holy Army’ as Spokane sheriff refers his writings to FBI

Until Republicans removes people like him from the party, my vote for Democrats doesn’t have a political basis, it is purely a self-preservation tactic.

Great....before I bother looking at this...You're certain this has nothing to do with "Just War Theory" as framed by Aquinas and adopted by many largely Christian nations, including our own, and was in fact....borrowed conceptually from Ancient Rome?

Like if I read the paper....I'll see what you're describing here? A call to arms and slaughter of heretics?

Edit- After waiting a few minutes I looked and hey....Just War Theory.

Got a link to the original document?

 

[mark46]

This has little to do with Christianity per se, just the fact that one party believes that the state should enforce their beliefs.

If there were a Muslim party in the majority somewhere in the country favoring the institution of sharia, atheists would probably oppose that party also.

The right wing of the Republican Party is happy to affirm that they want to implement a Christian set of laws. The leaders of most white evangelical groups are happy to affirm that the Republican Party is their party.

It is no surprise that those who oppose the views and laws proposed by the evangelical right call themselves Democrats.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Great....before I bother looking at this...You're certain this has nothing to do with "Just War Theory" as framed by Aquinas and adopted by many largely Christian nations, including our own, and was in fact....borrowed conceptually from Ancient Rome?

Like if I read the paper....I'll see what you're describing here? A call to arms and slaughter of heretics?

Edit- After waiting a few minutes I looked and hey....Just War Theory.

Got a link to the original document?

Of course
https://media.spokesman.com/documents/2018/10/Biblical_Basis_for_War.pdf

 

[stevil]

Sure...what I tend to do is drill down on source material until I find a coherent explanation or not.

Sadly, this isn't the case for most.

You don't find people's explanations coherent because you fundamentally misunderstand them. You go in with the preconception that they have an incoherent or logically unsound position. You get confused when they explain so you assume you are right with your preconception.

The problems are:
Lack of respect for the people you are talking to
Confirmation bias
Large ego
Lack of willingness to listen, think and learn

Which makes it almost impossible for people of different opinions to have a considered and engaging conversation with you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course
https://media.spokesman.com/documents/2018/10/Biblical_Basis_for_War.pdf

Ugh....ok...it's a 4 page outline of some larger document.

I'll admit some sections look weird...but it lacks any real context without the larger document.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Ugh....ok...it's a 4 page outline of some larger document.

I'll admit some sections look weird...but it lacks any real context without the larger document.

No, it is a four page document. That’s really what Matt Shea was distributing https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...edit-criticism-for-document-/?amp-content=amp

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't find people's explanations coherent because you fundamentally misunderstand them. You go in with the preconception that they have an incoherent or logically unsound position. You get confused when they explain so you assume you are right with your preconception.

I don't though....I give them am opportunity to explain and try to keep an open mind.

The problem is the explanation.

Again, would you like a recent example? I actually admitted that I worded my question poorly and rewrote it.

I suspect now I won't get any reply from the poster....he's probably aware how his own belief is self defeating.

The thing is...I doubt that would prevent him from stating it again.

The problems are:
Lack of respect for the people you are talking to

Respect is earned, not given @stevil. If you think I've been disrespectful to you I'm curious if you can remember an example.

Confirmation bias

Problem for everyone.

Large ego

I'll own this criticism.

Lack of willingness to listen, think and learn

@stevil I'm one of the few people on this forum who has admitted that they were wrong and asked for everyone to disregard the incorrect post....but still left it up for anyone to see.

Doesn't happen often, but it's happened.

Which makes it almost impossible for people of different opinions to have a considered and engaging conversation with you.

@stevil this is a two way street. If you cannot admit you're wrong....if you are indeed wrong....then we will never have a considered conversation. It requires at least the consideration you may be wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it is a four page document. That’s really what Matt Shea was distributing https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/26/rep-matt-shea-takes-credit-criticism-for-document-/?amp-content=amp

It's an outline, clearly....it's in outline format. Most of the document (I'd say about 90%) doesn't even make any sense outside of the context of a larger conversation.

For example, look at all the points where God is going to tell Christians to go to war. There's four listed.

Do you think you could explain what they mean outside the context of whatever larger conversation he was having?

 

[stevil]

I don't though....I give them am opportunity to explain and try to keep an open mind.

The problem is the explanation.

Again, would you like a recent example? I actually admitted that I worded my question poorly and rewrote it.

I've had enough of these conversations with you to be able to speak from personal experience. I cam out of it feeling like you weren't listening. Weren't willing to even try to understand. That was my feeling from the conversations.

Respect is earned, not given @stevil. If you think I've been disrespectful to you I'm curious if you can remember an example.

All I can say is that I personally take the opposite approach. I give the person full respect and things potentially shift from there. It's a form of "Grace", assume the best of the person, assume the very best possible explanation when interpreting what they have said. Ask for clarification if I don't understand rather than jump to the worst explanation. And above all else try to understand the other person's point of view. And be patient, if they don't understand me, or mis-interprete me, be patient and spend time to clarify or reclarify.

Problem for everyone.

Less of a problem if you give grace and respect to the person you are talking to.

@stevil this is a two way street. If you cannot admit you're wrong....if you are indeed wrong....then we will never have a considered conversation. It requires at least the consideration you may be wrong.

Sure, yes. But it is impossible to control the other person, all you have control of, is yourself.
When I discuss a topic with a person, I don't expect them to say they were wrong and I am right. I respect that people are entitled to have different views, the best I hope for is for them to listen and start to understand (although not necessarily agree with) the other side. Of course I also may have an interest in understanding their own POV, it depends of course what topic it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've had enough of these conversations with you to be able to speak from personal experience. I cam out of it feeling like you weren't listening. Weren't willing to even try to understand. That was my feeling from the conversations.

You think I'd be unable to summarize your position in a way you'd find accurate and agreeable?

All I can say is that I personally take the opposite approach. I give the person full respect and things potentially shift from there. It's a form of "Grace", assume the best of the person, assume the very best possible explanation when interpreting what they have said. Ask for clarification if I don't understand rather than jump to the worst explanation.

I've steelmanned arguments on here....

But I don't unless it's too easy to knock down.

And above all else try to understand the other person's point of view. And be patient, if they don't understand me, or mis-interprete me, be patient and spend time to clarify or reclarify.

Or failing that....accuse them of having a big ego and not listening.

Less of a problem if you give grace and respect to the person you are talking to.

I disagree I don't think confirmation bias disappears with patience and respect for it.

Counter examples serve better.

Sure, yes. But it is impossible to control the other person, all you have control of, is yourself.

Right.

When I discuss a topic with a person, I don't expect them to say they were wrong and I am right.

I'm speaking in regards to facts....not opinions.

I respect that people are entitled to have different views, the best I hope for is for them to listen and start to understand (although not necessarily agree with) the other side. Of course I also may have an interest in understanding their own POV, it depends of course what topic it is.

You generally agree with the left, politically, right?

Would you be able to list 3 or 5 issues you disagree with the left on, entirely?

 

[stevil]

You think I'd be unable to summarize your position in a way you'd find accurate and agreeable?

I think you would miss the crucial parts. Certainly that's what you did last time when you attempted to paraphrase my position.

I disagree I don't think confirmation bias disappears with patience and respect for it.

I wasn't talking about confirmation bias in general, just the confirmation bias of assuming the person you are talking to doesn't have a coherent or consistently logical position.

You generally agree with the left, politically, right?

Depends on your definition of left or right politics. I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Centre right, not far right.

Would you be able to list 3 or 5 issues you disagree with the left on, entirely?

I am not supportive of unions I think they cause massive issues.
I don't think lowly or unskilled workers are entitled to profit sharing.
I am not supportive of giving handouts forever, I think people getting handouts should have an obligation to be either seeking a job or up-skilling.
I don't agree with death duties.
I am not supportive of affirmative action.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Calling people I disagree with heretics and false prophets because they vote for a different political party than I do might not make me a false prophet but it would be arrogant and ignorant . A bad combination.

Oh, you misunderstand. I'm not calling people who vote differently from me false teachers and heretics. I am calling people who teach false doctrine and promote heresy false teachers and heretics.

But, as just one example, Christian Nationalism is heresy, and so those who teach and promote it are heretics and preaching a false Gospel and another Jesus, and therefore are anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

Oh, you misunderstand. I'm not calling people who vote differently from me false teachers and heretics. I am calling people who teach false doctrine and promote heresy false teachers and heretics.

But, as just one example, Christian Nationalism is heresy, and so those who teach and promote it are heretics and preaching a false Gospel and another Jesus, and therefore are anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

Christian nationalism - Wikipedia
If this is correct I don't agree with them either.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christian nationalism - Wikipedia
If this is correct I don't agree with them either.

I think that's a fairly broad summary. In the context of America it also includes belief in American Exceptionalism and Christian Triumphalism.

Other examples of rampant heresy include Dominionism, Enthusiasm, and Gnosticism. The Prosperity Gospel, Dispensationalism, and a whole host of various Theologies of Glory. Not to mention examples of straight up idolatry in the worship of Mammon/Capitalism and Jungoism.

While not necessarily "heretical", examples of anti-Christian systems of "morality" which are championed include various forms of hyper-individualism "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality; holding to principles of glory and power over and against the weak, the poor, and the oppressed.

While all of these things have political ramifications, I don't consider the root problem "political", but theological. The Lutheran diagnosis of this problem would be the overwhelming confusion between Law and Gospel and the promotion of Theology of Glory and rejecting the Theology of the Cross.


On the contrast between theologies of glory (Theologia Gloriae, literally theology of glories) and the Theology of the Cross (Theologia Crucis) as described by Dr. Martin Luther's 1518 Heidelberg Disputation:

"22. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

23. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering ( absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.«»I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth."


A theologian of glory does things "for God" because he falsely believes that that God will reward the moral and virtuous. And therefore scorns the suffering of the cross.

A theologian of the cross knows that he has nothing except what he receives from God in Jesus Christ by His suffering and cross.

The theology of glory is very concerned with morality, virtue, purity, and "good".

The theology of the cross cares for the common sinner who is ground beneath the wheel of death and who is the prized and beloved possession of God in Jesus Christ.

The theologian of glory beholds the woman caught in adultery and takes up rocks to uphold the moral order.

The theologian of the cross beholds the words of the Crucified who said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you would miss the crucial parts. Certainly that's what you did last time when you attempted to paraphrase my position.

When rephrasing someone's position, I tend to include the things they haven't considered. This is often the weakness of their position.

But gimme whatever example you have in mind....let's see if I can correctly state your position. That way you can tell if I'm listening or not.

I wasn't talking about confirmation bias in general, just the confirmation bias of assuming the person you are talking to doesn't have a coherent or consistently logical position.

Well try to consider it from my perspective...

I keep searching for the coherent or logical grounding of their position....and it never shows up. Instead, the person holding the position tends to either ....

1. Realize this and quit....but keep the position.
2. Attack my character...in attempt to get some ground for holding their position.

I end up...more often than not...looking into the source material for their position and learn more about it than they know.

Seriously, how many people that post in politics here do you think actually know what "standpoint epistemology" is....how central it is to many of the social positions they hold and how unreliable and self contradictory it is when describing reality?

How many do you think would have to look it up.....and work their way forward from there to figure out the actual argument for what they claim to believe?

Depends on your definition of left or right politics. I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Centre right, not far right.

That's interesting....I don't recall you posting on fiscal issues.

I am not supportive of unions I think they cause massive issues.

Interesting.

I don't think lowly or unskilled workers are entitled to profit sharing.

That's a pretty far left position but ok.

I am not supportive of giving handouts forever, I think people getting handouts should have an obligation to be either seeking a job or up-skilling.

In most cases, right? Certainly some people suffer hardships that make work a near impossibility.

I don't agree with death duties.
I am not supportive of affirmative action.

Well done.

Death duties?

 

[BPPLEE]

I think that's a fairly broad summary. In the context of America it also includes belief in American Exceptionalism and Christian Triumphalism.

Other examples of rampant heresy include Dominionism, Enthusiasm, and Gnosticism. The Prosperity Gospel, Dispensationalism, and a whole host of various Theologies of Glory. Not to mention examples of straight up idolatry in the worship of Mammon/Capitalism and Jungoism.

While not necessarily "heretical", examples of anti-Christian systems of "morality" which are championed include various forms of hyper-individualism "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality; holding to principles of glory and power over and against the weak, the poor, and the oppressed.

While all of these things have political ramifications, I don't consider the root problem "political", but theological. The Lutheran diagnosis of this problem would be the overwhelming confusion between Law and Gospel and the promotion of Theology of Glory and rejecting the Theology of the Cross.


On the contrast between theologies of glory (Theologia Gloriae, literally theology of glories) and the Theology of the Cross (Theologia Crucis) as described by Dr. Martin Luther's 1518 Heidelberg Disputation:

"22. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

23. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering ( absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.«»I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth."


A theologian of glory does things "for God" because he falsely believes that that God will reward the moral and virtuous. And therefore scorns the suffering of the cross.

A theologian of the cross knows that he has nothing except what he receives from God in Jesus Christ by His suffering and cross.

The theology of glory is very concerned with morality, virtue, purity, and "good".

The theology of the cross cares for the common sinner who is ground beneath the wheel of death and who is the prized and beloved possession of God in Jesus Christ.

The theologian of glory beholds the woman caught in adultery and takes up rocks to uphold the moral order.

The theologian of the cross beholds the words of the Crucified who said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."

-CryptoLutheran

"In the context of America it also includes belief in American Exceptionalism and Christian Triumphalism."
There's nothing wrong with wanting America to be exceptional.
"Other examples of rampant heresy include Dominionism, Enthusiasm, and Gnosticism. The Prosperity Gospel, Dispensationalism, and a whole host of various Theologies of Glory."
Dispensationalism is just a different view than you have. It's not a heresy.