Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.Originally Posted by Petronius
Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...
No one challeneged his "right" - what was being challenged was the nature of his claims. Mine was not an attack - it was a clarification of some of the points his claims suggest.
Stop. Hill's claim that someone is a "brainwashed cultist" and that spiritual things are "nonsense" do not belong to the realm of faith or knowledge - they are simply his glib dismissals of things that carry powerful meanings to others. That's all I was pointing out. You seem intent on making this some sort of "faith vs knowledge" debate (but the two terms aren't in conflict, by the way - surely that it clear?).
My good man/woman/person: I'm forcing nothing of the sort. I challenged Hill's misuse of the word "truth." I don't know what you're doing right now.
What are you talking about? Why are you bringing up statistics? Huh?
You know nothing of my knowledge of so-called "secular science" (which, by your usage, correctly suggests that science takes a "secular world view" [ie naturalism] as its basis, and by doing so, automatically limits itself in its ability to understand the world) - so your assumption is unfounded. You do not know what I lack in terms of science because I've said nothing in reference to it - how can you judge my proficiency in something I've not demonstrated? Do you possess God-like powers of clairvoyance? Wait until I talk about science and then decide if I'm ignorant. Thanks.
Your use of the word "rational" to describe non-believers is laughable at best. It reveals the silly assumption that many nonbelievers carry that they are more intelligent and rational than those who believe in the spiritual. What you really mean is "I've limited my world to the things that I can see and measure" - which is fine, but there's more to life than that. There are many aspects of athiestic belief that defy logic and rationality even more than the idea of a divine being (like the odds of abiogenesis - ever seen those?). Your use of "stupefied" reveals that any discussion with you on the matter will be fruitless because - like Hill - you think it justifiable to insult that which you choose not to believe, do not understand, or both.
God did not manifest Himself in the Bible to the entire world - He did so to certain people during certain events. Don't be sure He still doesn't do so today.
Your comparison of a fictional movie to a belief system that has profoundly changed lives is absurd and shows not only your lack of respect, but your almost complete ignorance of the contents of the Bible. Nobody who reads it with an open mind (and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) would come to such ridiculous conclusions. Your comparison is an insult to those who find great meaning and inspiration from holy writings. Your arrogance is stunning. How interesting that you are not required to be at least tolerant or minimally respectful of those who believe differently than you.
Which of your rights are being affected by believers? How has your freedom been limited in a way that has degraded your quality of life?
If you count up the numbers of people killed, you will find that the athiestic regimes of the 20th century alone have amassed larger numbers than all the misguided religious wars of history. Stalin was athiest enough.
I hear plenty of athiests who - rather than tolerate religious people and their views - advocate religious belief as a dangerous sort of mental illness (cf. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) as well as a number of posters in these threads. Christians don't post things about how athiesm is some sort of dangerous mental illness - Christians don't tell athiests they're stupid, ignorant, etc... (those Christians who do ought not wear the name).
I didn't equate athiesm as a belief system with anti-life - I simply indicated that historically, the most anti-life movements have been athiestic in nature.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
So I presume you have studied and understand each of them, yet you can not understand my simple statement?Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.
Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...
When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A. It is, however, implicitly, an objective remark on the person's mental response to proposition A, self-observed and comunicated. Now, this can either say something relevant about the person, or the proposition - granted that we have enough information about the other in order to work through the ecuation defined by the remark.
In our case, if we know that many rationalists have a reaction to religion similar to Dr. Hill's, we can conclude, though for now through simplistic and general relationing, that religiousness is irrational.
Am I more clear and less offensive to your list of names now?
Red, apparently we posted at the same time.
You bring up respect of other's beliefs. I don't value such pleasentries in a serious debate, because to me they are nothing more than pretense. Don't think that I don't find your dismissal of my rational conclusion to abandon religion, or your association of atheism with Stalin and anti-life movements as implicitly offensive. Just as well, never for a moment think that my considering religion to be a narrow-minded world-view makes me disregard the believer's person and intelligence in its entirety. But I don't see why, having some honest opinion, I need to feel humiliated to share it.
Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone.I simpathized with Dr. Hill because I presumed his motives for word-choosing to be similar.
Why I bring up statistics? Because even inadvertently you rely on chances, odds and posibilities... you do so by bringing up abiogenesis in this very post, as a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one. Again, counting up people killed is only relevant when put in context to the mass-murderer's possibilities - not that counting villains is a good way of ascertaining truth.
I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I may be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not.
Last edited by Petronius; 12-10-2008 at 01:20 PM.
a good rationalist would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational at root, in that reason always leaves out more variables in its formulation than it includes.
making the good rationalist's conclusions irrational indeed.
300 yipee
Last edited by billyjack; 12-10-2008 at 01:14 PM.
Wouldn't that be undermining the whole basis of reason, since it is based on an irrational decision? Rather than thinking his reasoning irrational, a good rationalist should take his blank spots of knowledge into consideration before reaching a conclusion.a good rationalist would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational at root, in that reason always leaves out more variables in its formulation than it includes.
making the good rationalist's conclusions irrational indeed.
In any case, here I was not talking about the rationalist's reasoning against religion, but rather his primary aversion to it, which would lead a neutral observer to conclude an incompatibility of basic premises in the two worldviews.
Yes, some from all of them.
You haven't said much in your statement, just that since some people claim atheism is rational, therefore religion is irrational. This doesn't mean anything, except that it's what you believe.
It's moot to argue; but then I am not saying anything against atheism. I'm here to discuss ideas, not to argue really.
My philosophy is basd on the fact that we are not this body. Everything you say is based on the idea that we are this body. Therefore your philosophy seems like nonsense to me and mine seems like nonsense to you. The difference is I am not trying to convince you your philosophy is nonsense, nor in a rude way.
I mentioned those writers although I have read more than them; I am trying to bring some of the energy spent on this thread to go into discussion; at least some. We can easily discuss the issues as they relate to any one of those persons philosophy. Or others, but I don't know all of them.
No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!
Last edited by NikolaiI; 12-10-2008 at 01:53 PM.
Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend.
First, your make the assumption that your conclusion about religion is "rational." That's debatable. Second, I did not "dismiss" your conclusion so much as challenge its validity. Surely you can see that (perhaps on a second read)? Thirdly, Stalin is associated with atheism (not simply by me). From WikiAnswers:
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
Once again, I simply made the point that the largest collective killings in history were undertaken by ostensibly atheist regimes. No more, no less. If you wish to be offended by facts, do so.
Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?
Presumed.Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone.
A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word truth to defend his insulting language.
You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your assumption of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a shred of evidence (evidence: the holy grail of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I may be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not.
Last edited by Redzeppelin; 12-10-2008 at 03:00 PM.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Nikolai, if I came a bit on the offensive, it is because, even spiritually, I consider the idea of God as redundant, and somewhat perverted if you will allow. I too like to discuss, but I wonder how that can be done constructively if we accept from the start that both our worldviews are relatively true unchalengeable, although they would seem to exclude eachother. Cease interaction and live in these separate worlds maybe?
You've made the following statements:
There is no causality here, no reasoning, just claims. What were they meant to demonstrate? Where do they come from? (I presume a compilation of ideas from philosophers you've read, but sending me to retrace your path of knowledge negates my own and may very well prove a wild goose chase) How are they linked to our knowledge of this realm if there is no evident bilateral correlation between them? I know some will say that God reveals himself to chosen ones or believers (am I allowed to laugh?), but really, the history of mythos has had all too many boys who cried wolf, and all too many strutting naked emperors.Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.
More questions I will want answered, if I am to not be derrisive:
What do you understand by material? Is it anything more than wave particles, light, quarks (all of which I would classify as material myself), perhaps something entirely unknown? Then how can you measure it, and if measuring is irrelevant by what laws or in what form do you relate to it and how would an outsde observer describe the transition between these phases? Your notion of "material sky" suggest there is such a definable boundry.
How is our natural state service to God, when we are obviously either not doing it or doing it unwittingly, and too insignifiant to even matter as such? Why isn't God in our service the way a government is?
Is it something wrong with me if I do not feel imprisoned by mortality? Why would we have wished separation if we are so revulsed by it?
What if our transition into our current form was in truth the natural course of our evolution, and we are meant to be stirred in the cauldron of life and leave the spirit realm behind as a preferable option?
Finally, what makes your mythos better than any other, small scale or universal? Is lack of imagination and pop triteness the only thing that makes the ideas of reincarnation in a Start Wars universe or having our bodies replaced, stolen and revived by an underground Hobbit race after burial, to live an eternity of heraldry as either orcs or elves, offensive when compared to christian/buddhist spirituality of ascension? What if we still need human sacrifices to be made by a remote and hidden cast of south-american natives for the Earth to keep spinning and the Sun to rise?
Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility.No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!
No, that got too long.
Notice how I write a couple or more lines and you write these long paragraphs -- saying nothing except that you do not believe in God.
For a moment ignore the 1/4th to 3/4ths number. I trust you a number is not perverted, nor am I. And I won't tolerate -- that is, respond -- if you keep writing like this. There's nothing to be benefitted from this and I will not be insulted.
Now, what is material you ask? The material universe is the one science knows about. It is energy, as well as matter. It's temporary and it's based on the laws of birth and death, cause and effect.
But that's part of the problem, Pet: opinions are relevant - in argument they are often what we must use to make our case - but Hill's defense of his opinons as truth is the heart of the matter. Secondly, I did not dismiss insulting language: I questioned its appropriateness; as well, I question the validity of such language in reference to a group to which I belong (since the insulting language suggests something about the unsoundness of the position being attacked). I get to do that - when people insult me, I get to take issue with that. If you or Hill would like to present an argument in your favor, do so - an argument will speak far stronger than tactless, insulting language; good debaters make their case not through antagonism, but through well-wrought arguments. "Starkley negative reactions" are neither valid nor invalid by nature - but they are not condusive to real discussion; they merely antagonize one's opponent, which results in egos coming out on both sides, and the intellectual issue at hand disappears amongst the sparring (this sequence of postings being evidence enough of that).Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility.
Last edited by Redzeppelin; 12-10-2008 at 03:35 PM.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Oh, but since this is so obvious, I expect people to shield their egos in a serious debate, enjoy the irony or even the self-irony in flamboyant strikes, or simply ignore them (as you will see me ignore your Stalin rethoric), and lunge into equally intelligent and rewarding replies.Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend.
I do not mean to persuade you, so I will not try to get under your skin or even earn unwarranted respect from you. I'm indulging myself in a clash of ideas. If we're lucky, something worthy will arise, if not, it was all in good fun.
Hats off to irony! We drink to it.Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?
As you may have been told countless times before, it is impossible to come up with empirical evidence against the existance of anything. Find me empirical evidence against a flying pink elephant from space (who must also be from earth since it's called an elephant)!
My existance is not at all limited, since I have been christian at a time and gradually let it disperse into oblivion. My life experience does include dashing through this popular superstition, and since I now view it from outside a box, and am still aware of some principles and symbolic refferences, I don't feel limited at all... nor would I feel if I hadn't heard about the Bible until this very day.
I don't live solely in the world of measurable things, since economy is a growing science with lots to philosophise about, especially right now, and writing's an exrecise in originality... very spiritual-a whole, I'd say.
Now that's a shame... Bashing statistic's a favourite occupation of mine.A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word truth to defend his insulting language.It's even sillier than religion!
You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say?You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your assumption of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a shred of evidence (evidence: the holy grail of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.They're even more pointless if they come from religious sources. What happened to free thinking? All I ask is for claims to make sense. "X said so" isn't even evidence, not even with scientists, let alone philosophers.
Defend your lack of tact if you will. It's difficult to enter into discussion with someone whose diction is geared to belittle your position. You can excuse yourself and trivialize my objections if you want - but good debators are called so by the arguments - not by their insults. I'll assume from your constant defense that you do not intend to raise the level of your game. So be it.
If you have chosen to see the world only through the lens of naturalism, you have limited the possiblities of understanding the world. That's pretty simple, I think.
Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?
Not obsessed - simply asking empiricists to be something resembling consistent in their position. Atheists/naturalists/empricists insist that there is no evidence for God, therefore He cannot possibly exist. I'm just asking for consistency, that's all.You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say?
I'm not even sure what you're talking about and why we're still going on. Hill made an error in logic in his claim, I criticized it, you charged in and defended it and here we still are - why? What's left to discuss?
You've made it clear that you think being rude is a legitimate debating tactic and I acknowledge that you can do so if you wish. You are perfectly within your rights to argue in an obnoxious, disrespectful way - but understand that to belittle people's religious beliefs is to ridicule what is -for many - something deep, profound, and personal. If I spoke as you have about something for which you felt similarly, you would probably come roaring out of the gate as well. The inability to at least understand that what you insult is very special and profound to others suggests nothing flattering about your character.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?...defense of his opinons as truth is the heart of the matter
"It is not measurable by our means" is more what I meant. Either because it is too complex, or we are part of the system and such unreliable observers.Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?
What makes the spiritual world invalid isn't actual lack of proof... intelligent theories can be extrapolated without the means of producing any tangible result. It is the misuse of observation that challenges spirituality. It's usually games of shadows, leaps of faith and generalization that lead to claims of deep complexity and claimed accuracy, which when traced back don't cast logically at all back on the real world.
Similar things can be said about social sciences, which classify, simplify and build around themselves their own quaint universe. You try to throw poor squirming me into the empiricist jar, or the naturalist jar, up there on the Atheist shelf (and I admit, I call myself atheist, but am I reduced to it? - no) inside my box so to speak, with you looking down and prompting whenever I skirt outside these imaginary boundries.
If you feel you have to be ofended by my attitude, then I apologize and will have nothing against ending this argument. But I would mention society is always irreverent and offensive toward's one's individuality. Your religion is no more personal and profound than undefined worldviews we may attack inadvertently.
Look, I already said you're entitled to argue in whatever way you want. I do not need a lecture about what the real world is like. I do not expect all of reality to speak respectfully or deal with issues in a mature matter; however, in intellectual debate, I do challenge what I perceive to be immature, hostile, and disrespectful language because debate is supposed to be a forum where parties present their ideas and challenge other ideas; those who decide that their respect only need be extended to ideas that they support reveal a distrubing lack of sophistication.
If I - as an American - go to a foreign country and dismiss or mock the traditions of the people (traditions they take seriously and I see no point in), how will I be perceived by that country? A response of "Who cares what they feel? Their customs are stupid, life isn't always nice, f___k 'em" may be how you feel, but is always the best response? Or, out of respect for the people there, should I choose to respect their customs because respecting others' beliefs (or at least tolerating them) shows respect for people? So that's probably my primary point: mocking and insulting what people deeply believe in is essentially an attack upon an aspect of that person. You may not see it this way - but again, it's easy to defend your position until someone steps on something for which you hold high esteem or reverence. Our beliefs are a part of us; insult them and you have insulted us. Is that your goal? To insult people?
I'm done with this conversation - it's not really going anywhere. If Hill would like to defend his use of langugage, fine; but you've made it clear that you think you're entitled to yours. I'll assume that he's cut from pretty much the same cloth.
Good luck to you -
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
next thing they'll be dancing!!!
Posting Permissions
