Most atheists, even hard-core "God is dead" atheists, try to distance themselves from the idea of faith as much as possible. They usually try to frame their belief in the absence of God in terms of science, logic, and fact. Even though it takes some measure of faith to make the leap from "I can't prove that there is a God" to "I know that there is no God," you rarely hear them speak about their belief in the same terms, or from a similar perspective, as a theist.
NPR is doing a series on faith, and as part of this series, they asked Penn Jillette to write a piece on atheism. He came up with an essay that frames his belief in terms of religion, which it sort of is. The essay not a slam on theists, like he's made so many times before. Rather, it's positive, thought-provoking, and even inspiring.
I thought some of you might like to see it, so HERE IT IS
There's a button with a speaker icon underneath the title of the essay, if you want to hear it read in his own voice. Either way, it's worth reading.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I enjoyed the essay. Thanks for sharing. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: The essay not a slam on theists, like he's made so many times before. Rather, it's positive, thought-provoking, and even inspiring.
"I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."
If you don't consider that a slam on thiests, I hate to think of what you do.
I didn't think what he had to say was thought-provoking at all. Of course, since I believe in God, that's simply because I'm closed-minded and incapable of appreciating a different point of view.
edited* funny how a single letter can change your entire point
[ November 04, 2006, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Thanks Baron.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That is a good piece by Penn. I really respect the man. He can be loud and obnoxious, but he doesn't put up with any BS, and he sticks to his convictions.
Plus, he puts on a wicked awesome magic show.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
What God means in His context and what I think He means in mine are likely to be two different things. How can anyone as limited in view as a mortal, fallible being ever truely hope to know exactly what God meant by any statement other than "Love me; love your neighbor"?
It's kind of nice to see the other side's point of view. I think too often the religious don't understand it and dismiss it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
His thoughts just show that you can use belief in God or disbelief in God to justify the same things.
He wants to be careful to do what's right because there's no God. Flies in the face of being careful to do what's right because there is.
Every day is a gift because nobody gave it. It could as easily be a gift because somebody did.
The part about how people who disagree with him are closed-minded (!) does go further, though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This is generally why an atheist is, generally speaking, going to be more flexible in what they believe than a religious person. Because of the fact that "God can't be wrong" is floating out there, the religious person is not going to change a whole lot in what they believe.
But then again, both being flexible about what one believes and being immovable about what one believes can be seen as positives or negatives.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thing is, the viewpoint of every atheist or even every theist from a different faith about your own religion boils down to "as far as I'm concerned, you believe in a fairy tale." It's difficult not to treat religionists condescendingly from that viewpoint, like talking to children about Santa Claus.
Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful even though I completely agree with the attitude towards life and growth that Jillette expresses here. I just don't agree with Jillete's own immovable belief in the nonexistence of god, something that is surely as blind (and non-scientific) as the inflexible theists he rails against.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This sentence assumes, though, that you cannot be mistaken about your god - not only its existence, but also about its ability to be mistaken.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
True. On that point, we just have to agree to disagree.
The central point that all religious folk are 100% certain in every belief and never change their minds or express doubt on anything I take issue with.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This is a question I had about other Christians even when I was Christian. The chance of any one person's interpretation of the Bible being 100% correct is vanishingly small. So why was it so hard for them to acknowledge that there was a chance that the people who interpreted it differently from them were right on one or two points?
I guess the best commonly accepted word to describe my religious beliefs now would be agnostic. I prefer "confused". I'm not going to tell anyone if what they belief is wrong because I have no idea. I am going to try to learn from people's beliefs in the hope that somehow that will untangle my own.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
No, I'm pretty sure he was referring to people who believe in God.
I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence." Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful...
My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much. There are a handful of exceptions out there, but in general I wouldn't want the God described by most American faiths to actually exist.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful...
My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much. There are a handful of exceptions out there, but in general I wouldn't want the God described by most American faiths to actually exist.
Agreed. I do believe in God...but not one that has been described by any "mainstream" (if I can use that term here) religion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I just don't agree with Jillete's own immovable belief in the nonexistence of god, something that is surely as blind (and non-scientific) as the inflexible theists he rails against."
Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Baron, that's a great find! Thank you. Penn is brilliant.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much."
I'd agree. But that doesn't mean I should look down upon people who believe it.
"Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it."
Then the only scientific conclusion that can be reached is "inconclusive." If you tell me that Steve is hiding somewhere in Newark and I cannot see him myself, find anyone who can prove he exists, or find him in Google, claiming therefore that I know for a fact Steve does not exist is inaccurate. Some people may have "proven" the nonexistence of a god thoroughly enough for their own needs, but in this realm where a conclusive answer is virtually impossible "we don't know" is always going to be more accurate than "it doesn't exist."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith...
Funny, I've encountered exactly the reverse on this very forum. The difference is that theists often don't realize they're doing it.
Also:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
""Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it."
Then the only scientific conclusion that can be reached is "inconclusive.""
Nope. No known way to measure god, or detect the presence of god. Therefore scientifically non-existent. There are known ways to detect steve, even if at the moment you can't detect him.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Scientifically non-provable at this point. Not non-existent. There was no known way to detect a quark a hundred years ago, but I submit it would be foolhardy to suggest that they didn't exist until 1961.
The net effect is the same -- I'm not suggesting god be used to solve for any formulas or phenomena -- but to declare anything as being an absolute fact in the absence of proof strikes me as fundamentally unscientific, like scientists flatly denying for years that meterorites existed. It ensures that even if evidence of proof was discovered, or a new method of detection, it would be ignored because the book has been closed on that issue.
A professor at my son's college once spent 45 minutes talking about all the times in history scientists have been certain they had all the laws of physics figured out. Had a ball laughing at them too, those wacky primitive scientists. Then he ended by saying that by now, of course, we really do. And he was serious. Or else irony is scientifically non-existent.
[ November 04, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Scientifically non-provable at this point. Not non-existent. There was no known way to detect a quark a hundred years ago, but I submit it would be foolhardy to suggest that they didn't exist until 1961."
Of course, no one hypothesized a quark before Murray Gel-Mann did in 1960. Lots of people have hypothesized god, and yet haven't been able to suggest a way we can measure him that passes scientific muster.
"but to declare anything as being an absolute fact in the absence of proof strikes me as fundamentally unscientific,"
I'm using "scientifically non-existent" to mean something different then "fact."
I mean "something that cannot be dealt with by scientific means, and completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology."
Someone who uses the scientific epistomology as their only means of gathering data about the universe would be forced to declare that god is some imaginary concept developed by people that has no basis in reality, because not only can't those people tell the uber-scientist how to detect or measure god, but they can't even come up with a test that passes scientific muster as to how to measure god.
If it can't be dealt with by scientific means, for all intents and purposes, it does not scientifically exist.
And god isn't the only idea that doesn't exist scientifically. Its just one of a whole group.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I suck at quoting. Third edit:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith...
Funny, I've encountered exactly the reverse on this very forum. The difference is that theists often don't realize they're doing it.
Maybe on this forum. And I wasn't saying that there isn't a streak of condescension that runs through the community of the faithful. I was saying that it the one practically guaranteed characteristic of an athiest, as evidenced by THIS statement:
quote:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial? Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. I'll retract the "non-scientific" portion. I'll leave "blind" though, because I don't think that most atheists are using the same definition you are.
I'd also suggest that there is nothing that cannot be dealt with by scientific means or completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology, but we may not be capable of it at this point.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Fair enough. I'll retract the "non-scientific" portion. I'll leave "blind" though, because I don't think that most atheists are using the same definition you are."
Oh, I agree. Being immovably inflexible on ANYTHING is a bad idea.
"I'd also suggest that there is nothing that cannot be dealt with by scientific means or completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology, but we may not be capable of it at this point."
I think most of what might be outside the scientific epistomology needs to be redefined in certain specific ways in order for science to get a handle on it.
Justice is a good example. What the heck do we MEAN by justice? Since its not something we, as people, can even agree on a meaning for, and since the definition is abstract to begin with, I don't think we'll ever be able to "measure" justice.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
No, I'm pretty sure he was referring to people who believe in God.
I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence." Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
I don't see how I was claiming that Penn was talking about anybody but theists. All I said was that I think Penn was also talking about theists who use faith as a last resort argument.
As for atheists always being condescending towards faith, that's simply not the case. We simply don't put stock in it, and don't want to debate the matter as if they do. The same goes for theists - some are condescending of the atheist's belief in the supremacy of reason in all matters, some aren't. They do put stock in faith, and aren't willing to debate the matter as if they don't.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I was saying that it the one practically guaranteed characteristic of an athiest, as evidenced by THIS statement:
quote:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial? Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
Given that there's a multi-page thread here discussing what Kerry meant to say and what he said in context, even conclusions as obvious as you apparently think yours is in that case aren't as unassailable as you suggest.
Added: To clarify a little bit, I'm basically saying that there's no reason for me, as an atheist, to discuss anything with you when your default assumption is that I'll be condescending to you.
You know, given that, I'm not sure why I'm even trying to have this conversation. Forget it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You know, given that, I'm not sure why I'm even trying to have this conversation.
Atheism has its roots in fundamental optimism. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's what separates us from the nihilists!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote: twinky: "I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
You said, "This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us," in response to me saying that I'm extremely unlikely to be convinced by any attempts to show that atheists are not condescending to theists. Aside from proving my point more beautifully than I ever could, when you you talk about "granting consideration," that sounds more like you are using the verb "to consider" rather than the adjective "considerate."
quote: Given that there's a multi-page thread here discussing what Kerry meant to say and what he said in context, even conclusions as obvious as you apparently think yours is in that case aren't as unassailable as you suggest.
I'll have to check that page out. But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for. I heard what he said, I saw the revised version of what he was supposedly meaning to say, and I recognize that there is no way that that was a "botched joke."
quote: Added: To clarify a little bit, I'm basically saying that there's no reason for me, as an atheist, to discuss anything with you when your default assumption is that I'll be condescending to you. "
Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions? Or is it because my arguments are so meaningless that any discussion with me is pointless? Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Besides, why shouldn't I assume before going in that I am going to be condescended to? Seeing as how I have been condescended to in this pseudo-debate, it turns out that that pre-conceived notion was spot on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll have to check that page out. But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for
I see - those conservatives who think he did blow a dumb joke about Bush are idiots now? Or is it only you, not other conservatives, who require idiocy in addition to conservatism to believe that a seasoned politician purposefully called the American troops dumb right before the election?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The forums on this website have a higher caliber of analytical thinking compared to many others I have visited. Even so, the lack thereof is still pervasive. People hear what they want to hear.
I NEVER said he meant to call our troops stupid, though I think it may have been a freudian slip and that it is actually how he feels, at least in his subconscious. I said that it was never meant as a joke. And if anyone, conservative or otherwise, does not recognize that, they need to stop drinking the kool-aid, as O'Reilly would say.
I mean, look at what he said compared to what was supposedly written. They weren't close. He deviated from the script and started speaking what he thought. And if he wasn't mindlessly reading from the page, then he had to be aware of what he was saying. And he didn't try and correct himself, he just kept on going unfettered in any way.
[ November 04, 2006, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions? Or is it because my arguments are so meaningless that any discussion with me is pointless? Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
It doesn't. It says that if you are not going to assume the atheist will argue honestly, why would we want to have a discussion with you? It is extremely annoying to have people going "OMG you're being condescending" rather than addressing the actual arguments.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How does assuming (correctly, I might add) that an atheist is going to be condescending also require assuming that an atheist is not going to argue honestly? When have I ever not addressed the argument? I don't use cheap tricks or try to change the subject.
And of all the false assumptions about me, when have I EVER said "OMG"? Never!!!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: How does assuming (correctly, I might add) that an atheist is going to be condescending also require assuming that an atheist is not going to argue honestly?
This is somewhat off the topic, but why do you deal in such stark terms of black and white? It is incredibly insulting to assume someone will act a certain way merely because of their belief, whether they are atheists or theists.
Telling someone that you're absolutely sure they will be condescending to you is no way to endear yourself to them, and does not promote a good environment for discussion and debate.
So c'mon, at least wait until we condescend, and then you can tell me you told me so. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The fact that one atheist was condescending (assuming that's true) does not make correct the assumption that all atheists will be condescending. Or should we assume that all fundamentalists are closeted tweakers?
Surely, out of millions of atheists there are some who are not condescending? Sorry, Reshpeckobiggle, I don't mean to call you Shirley. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because once you assign someone to a group in your mind, you can forever after assume that that person always agrees with the extremist opinions or actions of that group (even the ones that never existed) and argue from that position. It's fun! And way easier than actually, you know, trying to find out what that specific person actually believes and discussing it.
"But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for."
"Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions?"
These two lines, delivered in the same post, are a nice summary of most political arguments, at least outside Hatrack. ALL liberals share exactly the same outlook in stark opposition to ALL conservatives, and the person speaking is clearly speaking on behalf of every member of whichever party he or she belongs to while claiming to have an open mind. Never mind the wide variety of opinions on both sides, or the conservative Democrats (i.e. OSC) or the Republicans with liberal views (such as Schwartzeneggar) or the many, many voters who are drifting towards Independent after getting fed up with both sides.
Just about any sentence that begins with "All Democrats" or "All Republicans" or "Liberals always" or "Conservatives just want to" or, for that matter, any sentence that takes it as a given that every single member of a group acts in perfect lockstep, that's an indication that the discussion has nothing useful for me.
[ November 04, 2006, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You just did. But more to the point, saying "You are saying I am an inferior person" when clearly no such insult was intended is a cheap trick and a change of subject.
You may be right that there is no necessary correlation between thinking you'll be condescended to, and thinking you won't be argued honestly with. It seems to me, however, that these two things usually go together. You, in particular, seem to assume that all liberals and atheists are not only out to get you, they will get you purely through groupthink, propaganda and shouting you down.
Take your posts in this thread:
quote:I didn't think what he had to say was thought-provoking at all. Of course, since I believe in God, that's simply because I'm closed-minded and incapable of appreciating a different point of view.
quote:I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence."
quote:I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial?
quote:Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
Whine, whine, whine. Quite apart from the issue of faith, if you want to be taken seriously, it's not that great an idea to complain about insults that haven't been delivered. It makes you look rather childish. (You can complain about that as an insult, if you like, although it was meant as advice.)
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Avid,
quote:I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
"The only one who can't be wrong is God"
What does that mean? Since we are all in agreement that God and His actions are undetectable, what difference does it make to us mere mortals if God is somehow "right" or "wrong"? It can have no impact on us here on earth.
And how do you know that God can never be wrong?
BTW, I'm not really a Newark sort of guy...
--Steve
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Since we are all in agreement that God and His actions are undetectable
There are many people, myself included, who do not agree with that statment.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Avid,
quote:I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
"The only one who can't be wrong is God"
What does that mean?
It's actually a circular argument, since what he's saying is that it's right because God intones it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It need not be circular. Some theists, myself included, believe that there are rules that God himself has to follow, so if he says it, it's because it's right, not the other way around.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
mph,
So you disagree with the "Scientifically non-proveable" comments made earlier?
Either way, there is no way to know that "God cannot be wrong." It is an assumption, made by people, who we know can be wrong.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I'm really confused. There was some other entity, or some pre-existent universe that created rules or established rules that your God has to follow?
And you say, "If he says it..." I assume that by "he," you mean "God." And then "He saying it" I them assume refers to the King James version of the bible? Or what else (what other bible) represents the unequivocal "word of God"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: I'm really confused. There was some other entity, or some pre-existent universe that created rules or established rules that your God has to follow?
This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
To Javert and Chris Bridges: Yes, I am definitely dealing in generalizations and down-playing all the grey areas, simply for the sake of the debate. If we didn't do that, I don't think anything would ever get done.
To Morbo: I explained a little earlier that the one common thread between all atheists is condescension. That's pretty much what started this thing (aside from what boothby, mr. potiero head and euripides are going on about). I am aware that there are exceptions, but when it comes to discussing the faith/science issue, I have yet to encounter one who didn't immediatly assume a position superiority.
And to King of Men: I don't think it was a trick, it wasn't cheap, and it most certainly wasn't a change of subject. It believe what I said was effective and made my point exactly. Also, I don't understand why you think condescension and dishonest debating tactics go hand in hand.
And if you thought I was whining, I wasn't. I was being sarcastic. You see, there is a theme to my posts here so far, and it has been about condescension. Now I don't know what your stance is on theism/atheism, because I don't remember if you ever stated it. But another example of condescension (I'm getting sick of typing that word) is you telling me that I'm coming across as childish and then telling me that it's just advice. You may not (or probably not) have meant it that way, but that's how it came out.
And as for those insults you listed as being undelivered, the first two were responses to general attitudes that have most certainly been delivered, the second two were in response to direct...I don't want to say attacks because that's not what they were... comments directed at me.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Blackblade,
If the universe has no begining, or need of beginning, then what's with all the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."?
Those bibles are wrong, or they just don't get it or something?
I'm perfectly fine with the concept of a universe without beginning. I just don't see any particular God there, then. Certainly not the big three choices most of us have been given (Judeo-Christian-Islam). What are you offering?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So you disagree with the "Scientifically non-proveable" comments made earlier?
I don't know what specific comments you're talking about, so I don't know how to answer that.
I think that God's actions are detectable inasmuch as God lets his actions and will known to men.
I do not think it is possible to detect God's actions nor his existence with the scientific method.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I mean, look at what he said compared to what was supposedly written. They weren't close. He deviated from the script and started speaking what he thought. And if he wasn't mindlessly reading from the page, then he had to be aware of what he was saying. And he didn't try and correct himself, he just kept on going unfettered in any way.
Yeah, because it's not possible to completely and utterly mess up while trying to quote something.
I'm suddenly reminded of Bush delivering a speech. Something about "fool me once, shame, shame on you. fool me...won't get fooled again."
I mean obviously that's so different from the way the speech was written that there's no way that was just a flub on the president's part.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
mph,
The scientific method includes basic, simple human observation. How can you say that people can detect God's actions (when He wants them to, of course) but that He cannot be determined/proven scientifically.
I can prove simple existence with repeated observation. Think...Ivory Billed Woodpecker.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
For more on atheism please visit here. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you want respect, act in a way that inspires it. Constant whining about how everybody condescends to you would not get you any, even if it were actually true. I won't be responding further until you grow up a bit. Have a nice day.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Do people of faith generally believe that the deities claimed by other faiths are equally as real as their own Deity? Do Christians, for example, believe that the god Zeus exists? Do they believe that our star, the sun, is a god, and that worshiping it can change the weather? I've never come across a Christian who does.
If people of faith don't believe that other deities exist, why should they expect atheists to concede that their particular deity MAY exist, we just don't know.
Honestly, how many Christians can say in good conscience, "I believe that there is a real possibility that the great god Zeus exists."?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I believe mankind has always been aware of the existence of a deity. Zeus, Odin, any pantheon represents the acknowledgement of something greater than ourselves.
Is the Christian view necessarily right? No. Is it right for me? Yes.
However the world actually works, I believe God is the fundamental concept of Goodness. All my definition of Good comes from what I believe He is.
My view of God can be wrong without changing the fact that whatever He is is Good. So whether He's out there or can be proven is not my point. My point is that I disagree with Penn that theists can be wrong.
Plenty of theists act like they can't, but that's true of a certain personality type and has nothing to do with religious beliefs or non-belief as the case may be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To Morbo: I explained a little earlier that the one common thread between all atheists is condescension.
Which is obviously false.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The scientific method includes basic, simple human observation. How can you say that people can detect God's actions (when He wants them to, of course) but that He cannot be determined/proven scientifically.
I believe that where God and his works are concerned, our mental/spiritual state (whether or not we believe, have faith, etc.) affects our ability to perceive God and receive his messages.
One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is repeatability. If you see can see an ivory billed woodpecker, but you can't collect physical evidence (such as a photograph or a dead specimen) and nobody else can see it, the scientific community is probably not going to take it very seriously.
But since I believe that God's ability to perform miracles in our lives (including giving us answers to our prayers) is affected and limited by our faith in him, it is not repeatable by others. If it's not repeatable by people who are skeptical (another cornerstone of the scientific method), then it's not good science.
And since it's practically always a personal experience, there's no evidence to show others.
That is why I believe that God is detectable by humans but not by the scientific method.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: You said, "This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us," in response to me saying that I'm extremely unlikely to be convinced by any attempts to show that atheists are not condescending to theists. Aside from proving my point more beautifully than I ever could, when you you talk about "granting consideration," that sounds more like you are using the verb "to consider" rather than the adjective "considerate."
quote: People hear what they want to hear.
You are misrepresenting what Twinky said so that it fits what you wanted to hear. It is unconsiderate to assume that all atheists will be condescending. It is not condescending to point this out.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Very cool! Thanks, Baron. I'm not sure what the "God is Dead" atheists are, and personally, I don't actually know any atheists who leap from "There is no proof of God" to "I KNOW there is NO God." And I know a whole buncha atheists. I think it's a pretty common misconception that the majority of us hate religion, faith, the idea of God, etc. and that we believe that we're right because we say so. That's untrue - for most of us, although of course the jerky atheists are out there.
Anyway, I liked the essay, and I think it was very thought-provoking and well written. Particularly the last bit describes my own beliefs and my own reasons for being an atheist. Danke!
[ November 05, 2006, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Libbie ]
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
mph,
Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers. Recent studies with cardiac patients has actually shown that the people being prayed for showed a slight but not-statistically-meaningful increase in mortality rates. Unless you want to redefine answering prayers as to mean "God responds to prayers by doing what He knows is best," which is tantamount to saying that "God ignores prayers and does what He always would have done, anyhow."
And was it here or on P-Web that I started the thread "The God of the 250,000" regarding the people who died (one assumes, praying to God to save them) in the tsunami a few years back?
Statistically, scientifically, God "ignores" prayers (or does not exist, choose your poison). All else is coincidence, or something hapening to the third cousin of someone's friend's brother's golf buddy.
And, as we all know, God hates amputees.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:You are misrepresenting what Twinky said so that it fits what you wanted to hear. It is unconsiderate to assume that all atheists will be condescending. It is not condescending to point this out.
I never said there was something wrong with pointing out. And how did I misrepresent? Twinkey tried to come back and change the meaning of his post. That's what I meant by the difference between the verb and the adjective. I don't hear what I want to hear. I hear what I hear. Ya hear?
And I'm not about to call you childish or anything, King of Men, but until you start talking to me like an equal, like Amanacer and the others, I will not reposnd to you further. You are not being constructive.
Then again, I don't know how constructive any of this is, but it's fun! But that's why I engage in debates like this; for the challenge and maybe to learn a thing or two, and I enjoy doing it with like minded persons. So you may as well stay out of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers...
Correction: people have failed to find a strong correlation between prayer and a specific positive result. That's not precisely the same thing.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: To Morbo: I explained a little earlier that the one common thread between all atheists is condescension.
Which is obviously false.
Yeah it is. I said that there are certainly exceptions, and now that I've had time to think about it, i think the exceptions are going to be the ones (and this may even be a majority) who don't have any solid reasoning for being atheists, or are not skilled at logic. Maybe they were brought up to believe that there is no God. But these atheists are not likely to engage anyone in a debate defending their belief (dis-belief) and so the only atheists that I engage in a debate with end up revealing their underlying condescension torwards people of faith.
Oh yeah, the other exceptions are atheists who are condescending to faith but not to me because they know me and know that I am not one to be condescended to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sadly, you have trapped me. I find your assertions laughable and wish to dismiss them contemptuously, but cannot do so without condescending to you.
Perhaps, if you are unable to speak to atheists without receiving condescension in return, you might consider that the cause of this attitude is possibly not in the atheists to whom you're speaking but rather in the one universal constant present in all those conversations: you.
Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers.
What you described does not prove that God does not answer prayers, as it only dealt with God answering prayers by healing people.
There is no way that science could ever prove that God has or has not not answered my prayers about, for example, the Book of Mormon, as the answer was not something that anybody or anything other than myself could hve detected.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Sadly, you have trapped me. I find your assertions laughable and wish to dismiss them contemptuously, but cannot do so without condescending to you.
Perhaps, if you are unable to speak to atheists without receiving condescension in return, you might consider that the cause of this attitude is possibly not in the atheists to whom you're speaking but rather in the one universal constant present in all those conversations: you.
Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
Hah! Don't worry, you are being condescending.
All good points, though. And you may be on to something there, about me being the universal constant. But my observation is based upon attitudes I have observed whether I was involved or not. In books by atheists, articles (like the Penn Jillette one that started this), classroom instructors, the like. And it was respect for me, not fear, that reduced the level of condescension among people who know me. Believe, no one has any reason to fear me. No, it is only here or on other message boards where all I am is a name on the screen that people feel free to reveal themselves for who they truly are.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
I don't understand. I formed those opinions and gave my reasons why, all I have gotten is fortification of those opinions, and you are less likely to "respect" me because I don't just change my mind?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And it was respect for me, not fear, that reduced the level of condescension among people who know me.
You'll forgive me if I find this highly unlikely.
quote: I formed those opinions and gave my reasons why, all I have gotten is fortification of those opinions, and you are less likely to "respect" me because I don't just change my mind?
The thing is, I could elaborate on the reason. But I'm forced to assume that you're either posting dishonestly -- i.e. trolling -- or are so blinded by your pre-existing bias that it's rendered you functionally illiterate. If you're sincerely interested in an explanation of my position, let me know; I would appreciate it if you rewarded any of my subsequent efforts, though, by making some effort yourself to actually read and comprehend what was written.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Of course I'll forgive you. But I'd like to know why. You know nothing of me except what I've said here, but you find it highly unlikely that anyone would respect me? Or are you saying that you find it highly unlikely that anyone wouldn't fear me?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: And how did I misrepresent? Twinkey tried to come back and change the meaning of his post.
I do not believe he did. You responded to his post that said you were being inconsiderate by saying:
quote: Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
You turned his considerate (adjective) into considered (verb). Twinky realized the misunderstanding and clarified:
quote:I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
. You somehow interpreted this as condescension.
It seems to me like you are the one being hostile and creating negative interactions. This is not a comment on anything that you believe, but on the way that you present your beliefs and respond to those that disagree with you.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's the fact that you've equated the atheists you find condescending with the atheists that can actually put up an argument for their position. Such a statement makes myself (and Tom, it seems) think that it's less the fact that the athesits are being condescending, and more the fact that you don't like to lose an argument - and anyone who can beat you at one, or seems to be about to, should be flagged off the field for the penalty of condescenion.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: It's the fact that you've equated the atheists you find condescending with the atheists that can actually put up an argument for their position. Such a statement makes myself (and Tom, it seems) think that it's less the fact that the athesits are being condescending, and more the fact that you don't like to lose an argument - and anyone who can beat you at one, or seems to be about to, should be flagged off the field for the penalty of condescenion.
Good point, but this isn't an argument about beliefs, it is about the level of condescension among atheists torwards theists.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Amancer, I went back and re-read his post where he first said it, and I think you may be right. I missed the precise meaning of what he said, but I do not think I misinterpreted his condescension, willful or otherwise.
I hope I don't come across as hostile, and I don't consider any of these interactions to be particularly negative, except for where King of Men was involved. Like I said, I think it's fun!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And you guys wouldn't be doing it unless you thought it was fun too, right? I just hope your idea of fun isn't just to cut down all the theist's arguments.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I hope I don't come across as hostile
You do.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, I'm not.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think it's a lot of fun to discuss ideas, find out what other people believe and why, explain my own beliefs, and have people explain why they might disagree/ see logical flaws in my beliefs. I think this is the most fun when done in a respectful environment where I do not feel attacked. When you say that all atheists are condescending and those that aren't haven't thought it through well, it no longer feels like a respectful environment. You are not attacking ideas, but the character of the people discussing them. I do not find that fun.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And why did you just jump in all of the sudden? Thanks for your imput, though. I'm going to examine my posts and see what it is that makes me seem hostile to even a previously neutral observer now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You said you hoped you didn't come across as hostile. I assumed that because of that you'd want to know if you did, because otherwise, what would be the point of posting that at all?
I also hoped that since I haven't been arguing with you, that you might listen to me saying it more than if some others did.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Okay, I went back and read this whole thread again, and I have definitely been on the defensive, except at the very beginning. Back then I was just posting my thoughts and not expecting to get into all this. But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that. All I can do is point to the evidence that supports my opinion, which is abundant, and just say "hey, you think YOU"RE under attack?"
Besides, there is no real attacking here. Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads. I am not innocent of the same either. I can be condescending too. For the sake of my argument on this board, I have tried REALLY hard not to be. I don't think you could point to any examples where I have been, except maybe my first couple of posts. And now I will wait to be proven wrong, because I know they're coming.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You said you hoped you didn't come across as hostile. I assumed that because of that you'd want to know if you did, because otherwise, what would be the point of posting that at all?
I also hoped that since I haven't been arguing with you, that you might listen to me saying it more than if some others did.
I try to give what everyone says equal weight, though I probably did lend more credence to your opinion because you hadn't been involved.
Since I can't really defend anymore the idea that I didn't sound hostile (thanks a lot, Mr. Porteiro Head; j/k), all I can say is that I'm not hostile and I really didn't mean to sound hostile. I really thought I was just making reasoned arguments, really!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
So we've established that it's the people who can actually post a half-way decent argument (from either side) that are the ones considered hostile or condescending. The ones that can't make a good argument seemingly aren't a threat. The accusations of "hostile" or "condescending" serve to attempt to defuse the opponent's argument by discrediting the person making the argument (sort of a passive-agressive ad-hominem attack). Nicely done.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads.
I don't agree with this, but even if I did, it is still something that creates an environment where people do not feel free to discuss their ideas and learn from each other.
quote: But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that.
Yes, you can. You can choose to not make an inflammatory comment that in no way furthers discussion but instead polarizes people against you. Saying you found Penn or his reasoning condescending would be fine. But you said you found ALL atheists condescending, although you later amended that to just all atheists with thought out beliefs. You are directly calling many people on this board condescending who have done nothing to show themselves as such. That is an attack and it leads to negative experiences, not enjoyable ones.
(Note: It’s not really relevant, but I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Excellent analysis, Boothby. Seriously. I hadn't even looked at it that way. But wait. My arguments were essentially based on the ad hominim attack. So where does that leave us?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads.
I don't agree with this, but even if I did, it is still something that creates an environment where people do not feel free to discuss their ideas and learn from each other.
quote: But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that.
Yes, you can. You can choose to not make an inflammatory comment that in no way furthers discussion but instead polarizes people against you. Saying you found Penn or his reasoning condescending would be fine. But you said you found ALL atheists condescending, although you later amended that to just all atheists with thought out beliefs. You are directly calling many people on this board condescending who have done nothing to show themselves as such. That is an attack and it leads to negative experiences, not enjoyable ones.
(Note: It’s not really relevant, but I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist.)
Well, saying that I have to be careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment is called "political correctness," and there is nothing more restictive to free speech than that. If you refrain from expressing yourself for fear of being placed in an uncomfortable position, that's your problem. And calling people on this board condescending when they have done nothing to show themselves as such? I beg to differ. Now please, don't be so sensitive. If there is anything I am 100% certain of, it is that you are a nice person, and I don't mean to hurt your feelings.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The accusations of "hostile" or "condescending" serve to attempt to defuse the opponent's argument
Except that Reshpeckobiggle has not been my opponent.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The accusations of "hostile" or "condescending" serve to attempt to defuse the opponent's argument by discrediting the person making the argument (sort of a passive-agressive ad-hominem attack). Nicely done.
I can't help but feel that one of the people you are talking to is me since I first used the word hostile. I certainly was not trying to discredit Resh or to make a passive-agressive attack. In my opinion, Resh was creating negative interactions. It occured to me that this might not be intentional and so I was trying to explain how I was feeling to Resh so that he could hopefully see where I was coming from and possibly modify his interactions to be more positive. I do not think that in this context saying he was coming across as "hostile" was in any way the ad-hominem attack that you describe.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Deleted last post because it didn't make sense.
No, you are right, Amancer. The only one really guilty of ad hominum is me, though that was in essence my entire argument. Atheists are condescending. The funny thing is that people who wanted to engage me did so by being condescending!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Something like this:
reshpeck: "Atheists are condescending." atheists: "No we're not! Grow up and stop being an idiot." reshpeck: "Shut up you big jerk!"
I know, this isn't what happened, but it's funny and I think this thread is winding down now.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Resh, I have to say I'm impressed with the way you're handling this. You could have easily interpreted the last several posts as attacks, but instead you considered what people had to say and tried to find some common ground. To me, that's the whole fun of debating.
Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I really wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I wrote that. I just saw the whole situation as related to the general approach of discrediting intellectual discourse common in many theological discussions (well, coomon to the side that is trying to make the case for theism/deism).
The "It's not fair--you're beong condescending (or hostile)" approach.
It's actually a corollary to Sywak's Third Rule of Theological Debate.
But here's the solution: all of you (both sides of the aisle) need to grow some thicker skin, and just get over it. And stop trying to side-track the debate/discussion/argument. Sheesh.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Resh,
They weren't being condescending; they were just being kind...
Sorry, couldn't resist that one!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Sorry, couldn't resist that one!
I have faith that you could have.
Really though, after a bunch of people (myself included) have just jumped on Resh and he's tried to find common ground, it doesn't seem all that nice to attack him.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I believe that falls under the heading of "being able to take a joke."
I probably should have followed it up with a noogie to the arm; then it would have made more sense.
[ November 05, 2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Boothby171 ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Normally yes, but the whole debate was based on the ad hominim. In that situation, I think there is no avoiding it. Unless it went something like this: "Atheists are condescending, except the ones involved in this debate."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I knew it was a joke. And even if it wasn't, I really don't take anything personally on an internet message board.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Normally yes, but the whole debate was based on the ad hominim.
That might be part of the problem right there.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Thanks, Resh.
I figured you could handle it, after your funny little dialogue "snippet" before!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Normally yes, but the whole debate was based on the ad hominim. In that situation, I think there is no avoiding it. Unless it went something like this: "Atheists are condescending, except the ones involved in this debate."
"I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both easy ways to say that your experience with atheists has been that they condescend to you without implicating all atheists and preemptively cutting off the possibility of meaningful dialogue at the knees.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, saying that I have to be careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment is called "political correctness..."
It's also called "courtesy."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:"I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both easy ways to say that your experience with atheists has been that they condescend to you without implicating all atheists and preemptively cutting off the possibility of meaningful dialogue at the knees.
But that wouldn't be the same thing, would it? I didn't know my early posts were going to turn into this. If I had, I might have planned ahead.
And it's courtesy to the people who are not to be offended. It's opinion-stifling political correctness to the one unable to say what he thinks and how he feels. You're saying that if I feel that notions of superiority are inherent to atheism, which I do to a certain degree, I should water it down as a courtesy. I'm sorry, but that is political correctness 100%.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're saying that if I feel that notions of superiority are inherent to atheism, which I do to a certain degree, I should water it down as a courtesy.
No, that's not actually what I'm saying. What I'm saying, specifically, is that "(being) careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment" is called "courtesy."
Moreover, if your initial complaint were that notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy, that's a much better way to word it than "atheists are condescending," simply because it gets your point -- and the basis for your point -- across more clearly and less insultingly. (By comparison, imagine if I'd complained that all vegetarians were ugly, because in my experience they didn't get enough protein and consequently looked gangly.)
Now, I still reject the assertion that "notions of superiority" are inherent to atheism, especially when compared to theologies which include concepts like eternal life for a select few, chosen of God. But put the better way, it gives me an opportunity to correct your misunderstanding; put the original way, it leads me to believe that you're a troll.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I think that any time you have a discussion (debate) between people who think that their own POV is correct, you're bound to have some condescension--real or imagined, felt or not.
If you're going to enter into the arena of public discussion, you have to be able to handle a little condescension from your opponent.
It's like wanting to play basketball, but not wanting to get bumped. Tough luck; there's no way to do it. Don't play basketball.
Can we get over this whole sidebar, and get back to the original discussion, please?
What was the original discussion?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm not concerned overly much with the condescension -- as you say, it's gonna happen. But the worldview it reveals tells me a lot about whether or not anything I say will be evaluated on its merits.
Don't think of it as courtesy. Think of it as accuracy. You do not know all atheists, you cannot make any assumption whatsoever about "all" atheists aside from their allegiance to the atheist viewpoint (and even that is open to argument over definitions). "I've often found atheists condescending," or "I've often been condescended to by atheists" are both defendable positions that get your point across. As you've stated it, if even one atheist is not condenscending, your absolute position is proven false.
Defending an ad hominem attack by complaining about political correctness just shows me you don't understand why such attacks are worse than useless in an argument and why they will work against you by weakening even your valid points by burying them in faulty reasoning.
So, how about agnostics? You OK with them?
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I believe in God. But I know enough not to tell people that I believe in god because His existence is somehow provable.
I believe that God and the universe are reasonable, but I know that my personal belief in God stems not from abstract, but from subjective evidence. therefore I don't expect other people to believe in god based on my evidence.
I believe that any person can KNOW that God exists, but there is a prerequisite: they must first choose to believe, and this belief will be confirmed through their own subjective evidence.
IME, the problem with any conversation between theists and atheists comes down to the fact that theists act upon evidence that does not exist for atheists.
therefore, depending on your point of view, either theists are citing false evidence, or atheists "Just don't know enough" to recognize the truth. Both of these positions are condescending.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I think Boothby is the smartest person on the message boards.
I'm ok with agnostics. I'm ok with atheists. I'm ok with people being condescending. And I'm obviously ok with being consistently misinterpreted. I'm ok with these things because I do them all the time (well I don't agnostic or atheist all the time; apparantly I write poorly constructed paragraphs all the time too.)
Again, Tom, I must point out that I didn't know what I was getting into when I first started this thing. If I had, myabe I would have planned ahead. But even if I didn, I don't know that I would have said something like "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," because I'm just...not...smart...enough to recognize how much better that sounds. It was only after, what, three pages now? that I realize that I could have laid a much better foundation. But that is one of the great things about these message boards. I am now better prepared to make my point, if ever I need to, in the future. Thanks for being my guinea pigs!
Here's how it helps. Chris says that if there exists one atheist who is not condescending, that disproves my assertion that ALL atheists are condescending. True enough. But with the much better assertion that "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," I am in a much better postition. Now, lack of condescension in an atheist is simply an effort by the person to quell a distastful characteristic of his personal philosophy. Just like when a Christian refrains from telling everyone he's going to hell or a Muslim doesn't blow up a bunch of innocent people.
Why did it get so quiet?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You're absolutely right, Hank. Except I don't really agree with your last statement. And now that I have said that, I can't think why not. Maybe I just don't want to agree with that. Hmmm.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Why did it get so quiet?"
Probably the reaction to the additional ad hominem generalizations of Christians as smug elitists and Muslims as suicide bombers. Good thing they're all able to repress their natural tendencies...
Do you think it's possible for someone to think another person wrong without being condescending to that person?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: Chris says that if there exists one atheist who is not condescending, that disproves my assertion that ALL atheists are condescending. True enough. But with the much better assertion that "notions of superiority are inherent to an atheistic philosophy," I am in a much better postition. Now, lack of condescension in an atheist is simply an effort by the person to quell a distastful characteristic of his personal philosophy. Just like when a Christian refrains from telling everyone he's going to hell or a Muslim doesn't blow up a bunch of innocent people.
I'd say the assertion that "atheists are condescending" is misleading then. It would be more accurate to say that "people are condescending".
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Years ago, my family had a great little dog. It was a mutt--a combination of a German Shepherd and Lord knows what else. The end result was a 1/2 size German Shepherd. It was a great dog, very well tempered, and always friendly.
One Thanksgiving, we were at a friend's apartment in Brooklyn. The cousin of that friend was there, and she just hated dogs. Her characteristic statement was, "Oh, you brought your dog? You probably should just have it killed, instead." Throughout the night, she made a series of anti-dog remarks; they came from her as easily as someone else might discuss sports scores.
Well, our dog somehow knew. He walked over to her and sat down next to her, put on a typical panting dog smile, and slowly growled. To the rest of us, everything but the growl indicated a happy, friendly animal. But I knew that the growl was freaking this dog-hating woman totally out. I loved that dog!
I am a condescending atheist--but only (I realize) when I'[m sitting next to a condescending theist. One of my best friends IRL is devoutly Christian, and when we have our discussions, there's no condescension at all between us. Yet we both/each believe we're totally right.
However, sit me next to a condescending theist, and I start to smile and growl.
And Resh, I hope your kidding about "smartest," though you do have some of the smartest posters on this forum participating in this thread.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, no, because not all people are. I make the assertion, true or not, that condescension is a characteristic of many people, but is also a characteristic inherent to atheism. Therefore being an atheist places you in a default state of condescension, and it requires an effort to remove that characteristic. And honestly, I don't actually believe that, but it would explain a lot of things if it were true. In fact, it would be better for atheism if it were accepted as truth, becasue then all the atheist who act so much more enlightened than everyone else, and I DO believe that is the majority, could be excused by just saying, "well, he's an atheist, what do you expect?" And the ones who are not condescending would be rewarded with "Wow, how nice of you to not be condescending in spite of your atheism!" I don't know, seems like that would be better. As it is, the current state of things has most people thinking of atheists "jeez, what an a$$hole."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Boothby, one of my best friends, Stefan, is an atheist. And we have philosophical discussions all the time (usually when we're drunk). And I made mention of the fact earlier that people who know me but disagree with me are not condescending out of respect for me. It was at this point that one poster decided to take the cut-down route by saying he doubted I had anyones respect. I ignored him after that. But anyway, I think that, as well as what boothby had to say, might answer your question, Chris. By the way, I hope you realized I was being tongue-in-cheek. About the Christians. The Muslims really need to keep their impulses in check.
*chirp chirp*
Crickets.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I take that back, what I said about atheism being better off if the common conception is that condescension is a default state. I thought about it and realized how much is wrong with that. I won't go into details, but imagine applying the same attitude to a race. Yeah, thats a no-go.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Resh,
How is your assumption any different than the one saying that all Christians or all Jews (or all Muslims) are inherently condescending, and it's the rare person who finds a path without condescension?
And I'm ignoring the other denegrating and condescending remarks you're making about the other religions.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm glad you're ignoring them. They should be ignored.
I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner. Love your enemy, worship God and recognize how inferior you are, all that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
To elaborate, as a christian, I know that there is nothing I can do that will ever bring me closer to God than anyone else. I'm a despicable sinner who has nothing withou Him. The superior attitude I adopt at times is out of pride and is not something pleasing to God. An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary. This is where my superiority complex takes over when I start thinking, "how could someone let himself be convinced by a theory as ridiculous as macro-evolution? Open your eyes! The evidence is only there because it's what you want to believe!" And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
More on that coin: "I used to believe in evolution, until I found out otherwise. Now I know better."
This is how I actually feel. But change the word "evolution" to "God" and see how familiar that sounds.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I believe you just contradicted yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really.
when just above that, you say:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The two sides of the same coin is about people, not religious/irreligious philosophy.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
And what could be more elitist that claiming that only members of your faith can achieve salvation, while atheists will burn in hell? (unless your denomination doesn't believe in a hell)
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Not much, Euripides. Fortunately, that's not what most thoughtful Christians believe. Like C.S. Lewis, one of the faith's best writers. He certainly didn't feel that way. It was more about your sincerity in your search for truth. The idea is that truth will always lead you ultimately to Christ, though if you don't make it that far, you still get rewarded for trying. It is for that reason that I thin kthat Socrates is certainly in Heaven, if everything that was written about him was true. In fact, if you consider the Allegory of the Cave, he probably made it to heaven while still living.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Yes, in a sense. The coin idiom is about people in the two different camps, but the two different camps are not similar at all. If anything, atheism mimics true religion. I'll amend what you said by saying that a Christian believes his faith is superior to an atheist's because his faith is in something while an atheist's faith is in nothing. Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I see. But we're still a step behind you, then.
I salute Christians such as yourself [edit: (?)] who honestly and consciously search for truth. But likewise, I believe they've made an error somewhere. In my book they get credit for trying, too.
So in that respect, theists and atheists have a heads-and-tails relationship.
I don't think that this was what you were saying though, when you accused atheists of being elitist while claiming Judeo-Christians are mostly humble. I don't disagree that humility is a virtue among Christians. But it can also be for atheists. There are many kinds of atheists - the label refers to people who don't believe in a god or gods, and that's all we have in common. What matters is the system of morality we put in place of religion.
[ November 08, 2006, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That was a good post. As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right. I'm not smart enought to convincingly make this argument, but C.S. Lewis is. And Socrates. If you want to know how I feel about this particular issue, I suggest reading the Dialoges by Plato and Mere Christianity by Lewis. If you could care less what I think, I suggest you read them anyway.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Ok, so you say that atheism sees religion as farcical and false. But religion sees atheism as wicked and sinful. Which is worse?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: So a Christian claiming that his faith is superior to an atheists' faith in reason is on the other side of the coin to an atheist claiming that reason is superior to religious faith. Yet its atheism which is elitist, but not religion?
Yes, in a sense. The coin idiom is about people in the two different camps, but the two different camps are not similar at all. If anything, atheism mimics true religion. I'll amend what you said by saying that a Christian believes his faith is superior to an atheist's because his faith is in something while an atheist's faith is in nothing. Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
That's simply not the case. Atheists aren't people who believe in nothing - the word you're looking for is nihilists. Atheists are people who don't believe in religion. Most of us believe instead in a secular morality, in family, in beauty, in love.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:"Ok, so you say that atheism sees religion as farcical and false. But religion sees atheism as wicked and sinful. Which is worse?"
I didn't say that religion sees atheism that way, though it may. If you consider atheism idolatry, then it does. That's up for debate.
quote: That's simply not the case. Atheists aren't people who believe in nothing - the word you're looking for is nihilists. Atheists are people who don't believe in religion. Most of us believe instead in a secular morality, in family, in beauty, in love.
I know what a nihilist is. "We beleeves in nut-ting! Now geev us da mu-uhnee, Lebowski!"
Without reason, there is nothing. Not love, beauty, anything. And without purpose, there is no reason.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I guess this is where we disagree - I believe a system of morality can exist outside of religion; based on enlightened self-interest, on a system of values which promote honest and productive life rather than a 'might makes right' philosophy. I haven't read the Dialogues in their entirety, or Mere Christianity, and I might just follow your advice.
---
No, I don't consider atheism to be idolatry personally, but to be an atheist is to reject (not just to be ignorant of) the ways of God. Is that not a sin?
Certainly, there is nothing without reason and purpose. I just believe that those reasons and purposes can be found on earth.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Certainly, there is nothing without reason and purpose. I just believe that those reasons and purposes can be found on earth.
How can they exist in a universe that exists only by chance? Follow that down the rabbit-hole, you will see that they cannot. I'll start you off: If this is all a big roll of the dice, how can we have freewill?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Nobody today can explain the creation of the universe, and I never said it was a matter of chance. 'Chance' or 'luck' is the label we give to reasons which are too tedious or complex to explain. Maybe the real story of the creation of the universe is less glamorous and profound than Genesis. Who knows.
And I believe that human beings are biochemical machines. So if in your definition that precludes any notion of free will, then I don't believe we have any. Though to me, the ability of our biochemical minds to rationally weight the consequences of our actions and form a decision based on criteria of our own choice, is free will. I'll give you an idea of what I believe - if there was a computer powerful enough to take into account every iota of matter and energy and all of their properties at a given point in time, I believe that that computer could calculate what the future will bring, exactly. [Edit: unless physics research into the critical state indicate otherwise]
To me that doesn't make life any less beautiful or meaningful.
And speaking of purposes, here is the purpose of my morality: life on earth.
[ November 06, 2006, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary.
I don't think this describes most atheists. Believing that you are right about one issue does not mean that you believe you are a superior person. It also does not mean you see all theists as "poor brainwashed saps."
quote: How can they exist in a universe that exists only by chance? Follow that down the rabbit-hole, you will see that they cannot.
Sure, they can. They just can't be objective and universal. People can assign reason and purpose to their own lives. I find meaning in the activities that I engage in and the relationships that I form with other human beings. I see virtue in helping others not because of anything external, but because it means something to me. I don't need an objective morality to have reason and purpose.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
This thread has deteriorated a couple of times, but keeps returning to something more civil. I've stated in the past that when this happens I will lock the thread, because the value in general isn't worth putting up with the bile. Perhaps this was long enough ago that some people involved in the thread weren't here or at least weren't active, so I'm going to give this a temporary pass and refrain from locking the thread for now. There won't be another warning.
Thank you for those who have endeavored to be courteous in the thread (and I believe Tom is indeed correct that courtesy is the accurate term at work here at Hatrack -- several politically incorrect attitudes have been expressed here, and in general that's fine as long as they're courteous, though there have been exceptions).
--PJ
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm not sure what PJ was reading. Surely this thread hasn't been that bad? Maybe it was my remarks about the Muslims... but they were obviously jokes weren't they? Or were they...?
Euripides, I don't know what to say. I really don't think that your position of existence is unteneble, but that may be my own density. I'm gonna go with what the ancient philosophers went with when they asked the most fundamental questions about existence that have yet to be answered. The questions themselves pretty much place the universe outside the realm of chance.
And Amanecer, I wasn't necessarily describing atheists so much as atheism itself. And as for the meaning and virtue you describe, I think that the place you say you find them is the shallows of an ocean of meaning. This is not to say you are shallow. Just that if you look at why that meaning and virtue exists, you must go a bit deeper, which will raise new questions which take you ever deeper. The idea that at the deepest level there is nothing but random occurences.. it just doesn't make any sense once you get there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for a system of morality, there is none without religion...
Like many of your assertions, this one is also unsupported by argument and is demonstrably false.
Tell you what: for ease of discussion, why not lay out your actual assumptions about what is "inherent" in atheism so we can address them? The idea that morality requires religion, for example, is one that's been rejected several times on this forum alone, and I believe you've voiced several other claims which have been roundly debated and ultimately discredited.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I don't hear what I want to hear. I hear what I hear. Ya hear?
This shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness.
Unless today is opposite day and no one told me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Resh, your analogy of "going deeper" only applies if you assume that ethics and morality must be universal (which, incidentally, Euripides already addressed). It is quite possible to establish for oneself a subjective morality without an appeal to a higher power- indeed, the moral system most folks get from enlightened self interest is identical in most points to the one favored by your average theist. Meaning and virtue need not "exist" as some objective truth in order to provide edification and guidance to a person.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My nonreligious ethical base, swiped from my landmark post of a few years ago:
"I call myself apatheist, but I'm closer to areligious. Religious belief simply has no relevance or impact on my life, except where my life is affected by people with religious beliefs. I'm not disdainful of religion, I recognize it's importance to society and our history, and I strongly believe that without religion it would have taken the human race much longer to achieve civilization, assuming it has. And I have absolutely no opinion regarding which religion, if any, may be true. I'll find out eventually, or not, and it helps me stay respectful when I talk to religionists about their beliefs. In the meantime I endeavor to be a good person anyway. There is satisfaction in making the world a better place, there is joy in making others happy, there is peace in making others comforted, there is strength in integrity, and there is confidence that comes from never doing anything you would be ashamed to admit to."
[...]
"Everyone in the world, everyone, knows at least one thing I don't, and likely a lot more. Something else to keep in mind when I get too self-centered."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:As for a system of morality, there is none without religion...
Like many of your assertions, this one is also unsupported by argument and is demonstrably false.
If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
The idea that morality requires religion has been rejected by atheists on this forum, but I don't recall it having been demonstrated false. It is clear that atheists can (and usually do) act morally, but it is unclear that this morality would exist without the influence of some religion upon them.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
He can't. I'm sure he'll make a good go at it, and it will be convincing enough to him and others who want to believe in morality without religion. The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes. This idea of "self-serving morality" is realy just moral relativism.
I'm rambling. I just woke up. I just mean to say that my arguments are, for the most part, not my own, because as I've said before, I'm just not that smart. But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
To you? No. Because I know you've done your own reading on this one, and are perfectly capable of doing more. I'd be happy to do so for Resh, though, if he's genuinely interested.
quote:The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes.
You do Lewis far too much credit. His "Triune Paradox," for example, is laughable. May as well haul out St. Augustine while you're at it. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No offence, but what is laughable is you disdain for two of the greatest thinkers in history. I mean, if your disdain is appropriate, we must be engaging an intellectual giant!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No offence, but what is laughable is you disdain for two of the greatest thinkers in history.
I don't grant the assertion that Lewis and Augustine are two of the greatest thinkers in history. Nor do I actively disdain them. I do disdain several of their arguments, however, many of which are horribly internally inconsistent.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Is the question here "Can morality be learned without religion?" or "Is morality at all possible without religion?"
The first is yes. Teach children that they are part of a society, that their actions have consequences, and the golden rule (a concept more universal than just one faith).
The second is also yes. Humans live in groups, and certain actions result in stronger groups. To enjoy the benefits of living amongst honorable, honest, kind people you yourself need to be honorable, honest, and kind. Removing the possibilty of an afterlife involving rewards or punishment does not immediately encourage people to go wild since nothing matters, it makes their lives and the lives of those around them all the more important since that's all they'll have.
I have no doubt that without religion or other form of outwardly-applied restraint, many people would behave immorally (many do anyway). I also have no doubt that, even had they never found religion, many people would still be honorable, honest, and kind.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
So you just grab the Time magazine with a 'top 10 smartest people of all time!' list and then parrot their arguments, content that they must be right because the people who came up with them were soooo smart? There's some intellectual rigor for you.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He can't. I'm sure he'll make a good go at it, and it will be convincing enough to him and others who want to believe in morality without religion. The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes.
Doesn't sound to me like an honest and conscientious search for truth.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Resh,
You're being condescending again, dear.
If you want. I'm very good at ripping St' Anselm's assumptions totally apart, too. Plus, there are some assertions by Stephen Hawking that I think are patently false, on their face. We should maybe have a party.
So, once I work my way to the "top 10 intellectuals" list, will I then be free to spout any sort of nonsense I want, and be believed? Cool!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
And I think that we all know that religion--even devout religion--is no guarantee of living a moral life, either. Does give you a great shield to hide behind, though, when things start falling apart.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: And I think that we all know that religion--even devout religion--is no guarantee of living a moral life, either. Does give you a great shield to hide behind, though, when things start falling apart.
I forget where I heard this, but I once heard on the radio someone or other suggesting there be a study to determine what percentage of people behing bars for violent crimes are atheists and what percent are religious. It would certainly be interesting to find out.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes. This idea of "self-serving morality" is realy just moral relativism.
...But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
I agree that C.S. Lewis was smart. I also think Penn Jillette is smart. And, for the record, I think we have some people in this very community who are smarter than you're giving them credit for. So, if two or more smart people make opposing arguments, I think we need something a little more conclusive than some abstract "my philosopher can beat up your philosopher" discussion to decide which is right.
In other words, maybe you should familiarize yourself with some of the more common logical fallacies before trying to support your claim on such an argument. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, Resh isn't asserting that his philosopher could beat up Tom's philosopher. He's asserting that his philosopher could beat up Tom. Which is even less convincing, to be sure.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Blackblade,
If the universe has no begining, or need of beginning, then what's with all the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."?
Those bibles are wrong, or they just don't get it or something?
I'm perfectly fine with the concept of a universe without beginning. I just don't see any particular God there, then. Certainly not the big three choices most of us have been given (Judeo-Christian-Islam). What are you offering?
Without a clarifying noun such as, "In the begginning of time, or the universe, or everything." We have to leave the word "beginning" found in Genesis 1:1 as ambiguous.
If it meant, "In the beginning of this earth." well that makes perfect sense.
Certainly when somebody says, "This is the end!" they don't necessarily mean, "This is the end of everything in the universe!" Though sometimes that claim is made, it has yet to be true. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"He's asserting that his philosopher could beat up Tom."
And his philospher is dead. I'm betting Tom can take him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno. Augustine was pretty wiry.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
You're basically invoking Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I dunno, dead people can be quite nasty fighters. Without information on Tom's stock of holy water, garlic, shotguns, and relics, I don't think you ought to be setting any odds.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
You're basically invoking Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time!
No I'm not, when there is no clarification as to what beginning is being spoken of, assuming you know the answer does not a credible arguement make.
Or whenever you use the word beginning from now on, ought I to assume you mean "the beginning of all that is." from now on?
I certainly hope you have told nobody of the day, you BEGAN to have facial hair. Big Bang took place the same instant no less.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
You're basically invoking Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time!
And you know this, because you speak Biblical Hebrew fluently?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
BlackBlade,
I'll be courteous, and call your response disingenuous. Earlier, you spoke of a universe without a beginning, and so much theological discussion revolves around God "Creating the heavens and the Earth." That's a clear contradiction in concepts, regardless of how you wish to redefine "beginning."
Rivka,
Since you obviously speak Biblical Hebrew fluently (otherwise, what would make you automatically assume I was wrong), please tell me how Genesis really begins...
That is, if you understand what I mean by "begins"...
For reference:
quote:RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
BlackBlade,
Your statement was:
quote:This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
Rivka, if your deep understanding of Biblical Hebrew allows you to read this concept into "Genesis", then I'll apologize. But let's not be contorting ourselves such that your ankle is rubbing against your ear, your elbow pressing against your anus, or any such thing. Agreed?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Rivka, if your deep understanding of Biblical Hebrew allows you to read this concept into "Genesis", then I'll apologize. But let's not be contorting ourselves such that your ankle is rubbing against your ear, your elbow pressing against your anus, or any such thing. Agreed?
Am I the only one that thinks that sounds kind of hot? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The word is "b'reishis," and it doesn't really have a good translation into English. "In the beginning" is common, but not terribly accurate.
"b'" can mean in, for, on and several other prepositions. "Reishis" is a form of "rosh" -- head, beginning, of most importance, leader, etc.
So, can it be translated as it most commonly is? Yes. Is that a complete or accurate translation, when excluding all other possibilities?
Nope.
Do I believe that God created the universe? Yes, although I don't necessarily think the creation account is literal. Was there a time at which time began? Maybe. But since God is outside of time, I don't why it maters much.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Rivka--are there any other commonly accepted translations? Or even any other reasonable translations. So far, you're just helping me make my case. But that's fine.
Obvioualy, everyone's welcome to their own theological belief. Thousand names of God and all. I just think that BlackBlade may have found the 1001st, though...
MightyCow--Oh, behave!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: [QB] BlackBlade,
Your statement was:
[QUOTE]This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
I do not interpret, "Heavens and the earth" as meaning, The universe. I think it means heavens and earth. The universe for me entails ALL OF SPACE. Earth can be a small planet with heavens spanning trillions of light years across, or more. The stars and the planets in this expanse all have a beginning. That does not mean the universe had a beginning.
IMO thats not a vague definition of universe, earth, and heavens. And it's my definition, if it turns out thats not how things are, I can be wrong, but don't pretend I am going to keep redefining the words I use to avoid having my stance on the matter locked down.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
I imagine (read, have a usefull analogy) of dimensions. As a three dimensional person would deal with a "two dimensional" picture. Only more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Rivka--are there any other commonly accepted translations?
Yes. Bishvil Yisrael, she'nikrah Reishis. On behalf of, Yisrael (i.e., the Jews), who are called "Reishis" (first born).
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
So, this interpretation says that:
"On behalf of the Jews, God created the heavens and the earth"? Or something like that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pretty much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews?
I'm assuming Yisrael = People of Israel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews?
I'm assuming Yisrael = People of Israel.
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews?
I'm assuming Yisrael = People of Israel.
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
Just taking the Q/A thread and dominating all other threads with it.
What about when Solomon died and 10 tribes said, "We have no part with David" and left. Were they ever after classified as belonging to the tribe of Judah? You can answer this in this thread or the Q/A thread I suppose, I don't want to be rude.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know too much about Mormon theology to be willing to start answering questions about the Ten Tribes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I know too much about Mormon theology to be willing to start answering questions about the Ten Tribes.
Take your answer to the Q/A thread, and I promise not to challange anything you say on the matter.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Rivka,
To your knowledge, are there many accepted translations of Genesis that presume "the heavens and the earth" include only a local group of planets and stars, placed in a larger, pre-existing universe?
Or is BlackBlade probably interpreting things from a Mormon point of view--where each person may eventually become a God and create his/her own planet and local group of stars within a larger, pre-existing group, and rule over them?
BlackBlade...care to comment?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Rivka--I think I may have answered my own question.
BlackBlade--have I "got it"?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:But these atheists are not likely to engage anyone in a debate defending their belief (dis-belief) and so the only atheists that I engage in a debate with end up revealing their underlying condescension torwards people of faith.
Edit: Obviously, my post is now a moot point, since others said this already. Ignore, ignore. some day, I'll learn to read an ENTIRE thread before replying to a single post near its middle, but I haven't learned yet.
I won't delete it, though, because I hate when people delete posts.
(end of edit)
Really? Have you considered, then, that maybe your attitude brings out the condescension in them? I mean, honestly, the only people of faith with whom I ever *debate* get pretty condescending to me. Perhaps it's the debate itself that is the problem. I have never had any issues *calmly discussing* or *sharing ideas* with people of faith, and I've never heard them complain about me in such situations, either.
If you want to talk about religion/atheism, maybe you should try changing your tack. You might find atheists to be pretty nice people if you don't get all snotty on them.
Oh yeah, the other exceptions are atheists who are condescending to faith but not to me because they know me and know that I am not one to be condescended to.
[ November 06, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Libbie ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Boothby171: I'm not dabbling into the whole, man becoming a God shtick. But yes I believe that.
There's nothing local about it, God has worlds without number, which might mean infinite, or it might be beyond numbering, take your pick, I am not sure.
My purpose was merely demonstrating that yes some of believe there were pre existing rules that God followed to become God. Its not a widespread idea, call it fringe if you want.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I know too much about Mormon theology to be willing to start answering questions about the Ten Tribes.
Take your answer to the Q/A thread, and I promise not to challenge anything you say on the matter.
It's not a question of challenging or not. I'm just not going to have that discussion. *shrug* Feel free to see if someone else will, over there.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: To your knowledge, are there many accepted translations of Genesis that presume "the heavens and the earth" include only a local group of planets and stars, placed in a larger, pre-existing universe?
Or is BlackBlade probably interpreting things from a Mormon point of view--where each person may eventually become a God and create his/her own planet and local group of stars within a larger, pre-existing group, and rule over them?
To answer your first question, there probably are. In fact, I think there's at least one book with such a premise (although I think it's nonsense -- the whole book, not the specific premise). To answer your second question, I'd be surprised if that were not the case.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And you guys wouldn't be doing it unless you thought it was fun too, right? I just hope your idea of fun isn't just to cut down all the theist's arguments.
Dude, seriously, where did you get all the atheist-hate from? Did an atheist kill your uncle? Did atheists push you down and steal your milk money when you were eleven?
I'm so, so glad that all the theists here aren't leaping to conclusions about the atheists and painting them all with one big, fat, totally useless brush. So, to all you folks of faith with whom I've had so many lovely conversations, whether about religion or no, THANK YOU. I am reminded more and more in this thread why I like you guys and don't particularly care for others.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
BB,
Just checking: The Mormon faith, then, does not claim to know how the universe came about. It's one of those things (well...the thing) that's just always been there.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm glad you're ignoring them. They should be ignored.
I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner. Love your enemy, worship God and recognize how inferior you are, all that.
That would be awesome if Judeo-Christians actually felt that way. When you're on the other side of the fence, mi amigo, it often looks like being humble and loving your enemy is the furthest thing from their minds. No intention of insulting any of the good Christians and Jews here, you understand - it's just a total fallacy to believe that because one is Christian, one is humble. Just as it's a total fallacy to believe that because one is not Christian, one thinks one is better than others.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I should just stop responding to you. You have all of us pegged SO wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary.
quote: This is where my superiority complex takes over when I start thinking, "how could someone let himself be convinced by a theory as ridiculous as macro-evolution? Open your eyes! The evidence is only there because it's what you want to believe!"
Not even going there.
quote:[/qb] And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really. [/QB]
Know thyself, and all that. What is your complaint against atheists, again?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If anything, atheism mimics true religion.
How?
quote:Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
The reason is the reason itself. I believe this concept may be beyond you, but I have a feeling the more reasonable theists here might get what I'm saying.
Oops, was I being condescending?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Resh,
You're being condescending again, dear.
Again? That was the first time!
Like I said, I had just woken up and wasn't think very clearly. Addressing the comments about th top 10 most smartest people ever and all that, I read a lot and I make the judgments for myself whose arguments hold water and whose do not. I'm pretty sure most everyone else does who is not a scholar/philosopher himself. So really, what we have is "my source is better than your source."
This is not entirely true either. Man, I'm getting tired.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right.
Congratulations: You have just insulted me more in this one post than in all of your other posts combined. You win, I guess.
Have you ever heard of the "golden rule?" I'm not talking about Phi. I'm talking about "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you." That, contrary to popular belief, is not a necessarily religious belief, and it is the most important belief in any moral society. In any set of morals anywhere, the golden rule is first and foremost, almost without exception.
That includes atheism, sir.
I don't steal. I don't lie. I don't murder. I don't cheat on my husband. I don't let jealousy control me. I don't walk by a person on the street who's in need without giving him something, anything I can, even just a smile and a kind word. I don't hold the dollar sacred above all else. I don't believe that the force of numbers should rule anything other than true democratic process. I don't hold any of my money back for myself - I give it to charities. I don't spend my free time idly whenever my sanity permits it - I volunteer to help those who can't help themselves.
Why do I behave this way? Please tell me, because since I am devoid of religion, then clearly these actions cannot be founded in morality. You must surely have a pat explanation for my apparently moral behavior even though I'm a morall bereft atheist.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Nobody today can explain the creation of the universe, and I never said it was a matter of chance. 'Chance' or 'luck' is the label we give to reasons which are too tedious or complex to explain. Maybe the real story of the creation of the universe is less glamorous and profound than Genesis. Who knows.
And I believe that human beings are biochemical machines. So if in your definition that precludes any notion of free will, then I don't believe we have any. Though to me, the ability of our biochemical minds to rationally weight the consequences of our actions and form a decision based on criteria of our own choice, is free will. I'll give you an idea of what I believe - if there was a computer powerful enough to take into account every iota of matter and energy and all of their properties at a given point in time, I believe that that computer could calculate what the future will bring, exactly. [Edit: unless physics research into the critical state indicate otherwise]
To me that doesn't make life any less beautiful or meaningful.
And speaking of purposes, here is the purpose of my morality: life on earth.
Euripides, you rock so very much. You sum up my beliefs so perfectly here. Thank you for being eloquent and RAD.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: BB,
Just checking: The Mormon faith, then, does not claim to know how the universe came about. It's one of those things (well...the thing) that's just always been there.
The only thing Mormons can say without hesitation is that God has a father, who has a father etc, and that He was not always God. The nature of the universe is not very well covered, suffice to say no man can comprehend its boundaries.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I dunno. Augustine was pretty wiry.
And Lewis had a mean left hook.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
It means He never participates in daylight savings. Kind of like Arizona.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Oops, was I being condescending?
yeah, but I think we're all past that.
quote:Know thyself, and all that. What is your complaint against atheists, again?
After all this, none really.
quote:originally posted by Baron Samedi: agree that C.S. Lewis was smart. I also think Penn Jillette is smart. And, for the record, I think we have some people in this very community who are smarter than you're giving them credit for. So, if two or more smart people make opposing arguments, I think we need something a little more conclusive than some abstract "my philosopher can beat up your philosopher" discussion to decide which is right.
Placing C.S Lewis and Penn Jillete in the same intellectual category is going to require some explanation. And I think I'm giving people here credit for their intelligence, simply by trying to address their arguments as honestly as possible. And I don't know how poor an assumption it is to credit Socrates/Plato and Lewis with greater intellect than anybody I can ever expect to meet. But then, I haven't read everything anybody else has written over and over again, like those two, particularly Lewis. Not even Mr. Card. I've probably read 95% of his work, but not much more that once.
Also, my arguments are my own when I mess them up, and the are someone elses when I get them right.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Eh - I don't think it's such a far cry to put them both in the same category. They were/are both very smart men, very articulate, and made very good points for their "side." Edited to add: It may even be tricksy to give Lewis more credence just because he had a bunch of stuff published. In this day and age, TV and radio reach more people than publication does (in most cases). Penn Jillette is an airwaves kind of guy, Lewis was a print kind of guy. They still both have/had relevant, intelligent things to say.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About these 'arguments'; when are you going to make any? So far all I've seen is "Lewis disagrees with you" and "Evolution is stupid!"
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right.
Congratulations: You have just insulted me more in this one post than in all of your other posts combined. You win, I guess.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean that as an insult. I'm not sure how you took it that way.
quote: Have you ever heard of the "golden rule?" I'm not talking about Phi. I'm talking about "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you." That, contrary to popular belief, is not a necessarily religious belief, and it is the most important belief in any moral society. In any set of morals anywhere, the golden rule is first and foremost, almost without exception.
That includes atheism, sir.
I don't steal. I don't lie. I don't murder. I don't cheat on my husband. I don't let jealousy control me. I don't walk by a person on the street who's in need without giving him something, anything I can, even just a smile and a kind word. I don't hold the dollar sacred above all else. I don't believe that the force of numbers should rule anything other than true democratic process. I don't hold any of my money back for myself - I give it to charities. I don't spend my free time idly whenever my sanity permits it - I volunteer to help those who can't help themselves.
Why do I behave this way? Please tell me, because since I am devoid of religion, then clearly these actions cannot be founded in morality. You must surely have a pat explanation for my apparently moral behavior even though I'm a morally bereft atheist.
Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals. Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason. To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
As several posters have pointed out, everybody benefits from people being moral, including the moral person. What part of this concept are you having difficulty with?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals.
Wrong. Your statement was that without religion, there is no morality. That directly implies that people without religion are also without morals.
quote: Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
It benefits society. In a world where no one behaves morally, society falls apart, and survival becomes difficult. There is plenty of reason. If we all deal with one another in a moral manner, life is easier for everybody. No religion is required. No threats of going to hell, no promises of stockpiling a glorious future in heaven. Simple logic: If we all treat each other with kindness and consideration, we all enjoy life more.
quote: To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
That was me, and I don't believe you understand it at all. You implied that "reason" as in "logic" must have a "reason" as in "ultimate purpose." That, in turn, implies that an "ultimate purpose" is some kind of final goal, master plan, reward, etc. That in itself is illogical - or it strikes me so, anyhow.
My quote implied ("Reason is the reason," that is) that the pursuit of logical explanation is its own purpose. It doesn't require any hidden nugget of reward or any "ultimate purpose" or "reason," to use your defintion, other than better understanding the world around you.
I knew you didn't understand. I'm not poking fun at you here. The problem in communication here is that you define "reason" very differently from how many of the rest of us define it - particularly atheists.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The biggest problem with Penn's essay is that he built a strawman of Faith in God and then used it to show how much he benefits from his belief that there is no God.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
It means He never participates in daylight savings. Kind of like Arizona.
I am SO stealing this!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals.
Wrong. Your statement was that without religion, there is no morality. That directly implies that people without religion are also without morals.
No no no no no. I am saying that morality is not independent of religion. It is because of religion that there is morality. That does NOT imply, as you say, that people without religion are without morals. Just because you don't believe in religion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I guess I'm saying that, in a sense, irreligious people borrow their morals from religion. Now THAT you can debate.
quote:
quote: Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
It benefits society. In a world where no one behaves morally, society falls apart, and survival becomes difficult. There is plenty of reason. If we all deal with one another in a moral manner, life is easier for everybody. No religion is required. No threats of going to hell, no promises of stockpiling a glorious future in heaven. Simple logic: If we all treat each other with kindness and consideration, we all enjoy life more.
This is the point that seems to be most consistently misunderstood. I'm not going to try to explain it because so many have done it so much better than I ever could. But the point that is being missed is that if there is no reason or purpose behind everything, then there is no reason behind morality UNLESS it is beneficial to survival. But that isn't true existence. It's the same reasoning behind some evolutionary theorists that religion is a beneficial trait for humans, and that is why it developed as a cultural universal. That doesn't make religion real, and nor does it make morality real. It's just more survival of the fittest, might makes right, sophistry, all that. You see, there is a pattern to my reasoning, I'm not just making this up as I go along!
quote:
quote: To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
That was me, and I don't believe you understand it at all. You implied that "reason" as in "logic" must have a "reason" as in "ultimate purpose." That, in turn, implies that an "ultimate purpose" is some kind of final goal, master plan, reward, etc. That in itself is illogical - or it strikes me so, anyhow.
No, back up. It doesn't imply an ultimate or final purpose. It implies an initial purpose. Whether god cares what happened since the creation is another subject, but without a purpose in the beginning there can be no purpose now. And reason can't be a reason for itself, no matter how much you wish it could be. This was established a long time ago by Thomas Aquinas, that an effect cannot be the cause of itself, unless it is The First Cause. So if you want to make reason itself The First Cause, go ahead. But how Reason could have made itself and then everything else after is just as mystifying to me as how God did it.
quote:My quote implied ("Reason is the reason," that is) that the pursuit of logical explanation is its own purpose. It doesn't require any hidden nugget of reward or any "ultimate purpose" or "reason," to use your defintion, other than better understanding the world around you.
I knew you didn't understand. I'm not poking fun at you here. The problem in communication here is that you define "reason" very differently from how many of the rest of us define it - particularly atheists. [/QB]
If you want to say the source of our misunderstanding is semantics you can, but it's not. I know what you were trying to say, and I think that any objective observer could see that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. If you'd read anything but the apologetics, you'd be aware of the flaws in that argument. To wit: Either morals exist independently of human invention, or they do not. If they exist independently, then there is no need for a god to enforce them. If they do not exist independently, then your god poofing them into existence is just more of the good old Might Makes Right, and we can do just as well on our own. Either way, your appeal to consequences, which anyway is a logical fallacy, falls on its face.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Thanks Libbie.
Rash, Like KoM and Libbie have said, there is enlightened self-interest. Morality isn't valuable instrinsically - it's valuable because it facilitates smooth, productive happy lives on earth. What other purpose could there be for a morality? Why should I live for anything else?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Hey King of Men, just so you don't waste your time, when I see your name I don't bother reading what you wrote.
I know that's what atheists believe, Euripides, but I've been making the argument that that doesn't make any sense. You are basically just repeating the argument I am trying to refute.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A very common tactic in people without the courage to defend their convictions with argument.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok, I read that. It was short enough that I couldn't help it. I think I've been defending my convictions just fine so far. And since I just went up to see what you wrote a minute ago, which I shouldn't have, I think it's obvious to everyone that I've read much more than apologetics. So if all you're here to do is instigate bad feelings, why don't you just go away? Libby and I are having a very nice and I daresay constructive debate. You just want to start trouble.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Maybe Papa Janitor should lock this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And yet you are apparently not aware of the most elementary counterarguments for your assertions. Tell you what, I'm prepared to start over if you are. You come up with a response to my post at the top of the page, and I won't make any more disparaging references to your ignorance.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote: If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
To you? No. Because I know you've done your own reading on this one, and are perfectly capable of doing more.
Tom, if you can't demonstrate that something is false or you aren't willing to for whatever reason, then it is meaningless for you to say that thing is demonstrably false - and intellectually dishonest to use that as a tactic in an argument. I point this out because you frequently make claims that you can prove things, but then fail to back it up with a proof when asked, always with some excuse. While I understand you may not want to take the time and effort it takes to prove what you think you can prove, that doesn't mean you can simply claim something is demonstrably false without actually demonstrating it false. It would be behaviors like that which could lead people to believe atheists are condescending - dismissing views as disproven with a wave of the hand, rather than a reason. (Except for the fact that plenty of theists do the exact same thing, or make similarly unfair dismissals, as Reshpeckobiggle did to KoM a few posts above this one.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm not dismissing him. I'm ignoring him. Have you seen what he is posting? He just wants to start a fight.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually you're talking at different sides of the wall. Reading the posts here I don't think it's possible to actually discuss the matter because, according to his post on the previous page, to Resh any sort of morality assigned by humans for the benefit of humans is not "true existence" and therefore immediately dismissable.
There's an elegant bit of circular reasoning tucked away in there. Any morals not coming from God aren't morals, because they didn't come from God. God is part of the definition of "moral," which explains a lot of the confusion. We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
Since I do not believe the universe or anything in it has a purpose beyond survival or the purposes we ourselves assign, there's little point going on unless we can find a translator...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
I imagine (read, have a usefull analogy) of dimensions. As a three dimensional person would deal with a "two dimensional" picture. Only more.
I find that a particularly interesting analogy, since two dimensional spaces are not really "real" to us. You can't pick up a line. You can't draw a point. They're theoretical. We can only really interact with representations of two dimensional space. At best, we can only think about and discuss true two dimensional objects.
That's part of the reason I don't understand how God can be outside of time. How can something outside of time truly interact with something inside of time? It makes a much sense to me as a person picking up a line segment and putting it in her back pocket. Perhaps God can only think about us, and we can only think about God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Reading the posts here I don't think it's possible to actually discuss the matter because, according to his post on the previous page, to Resh any sort of morality assigned by humans for the benefit of humans is not "true existence" and therefore immediately dismissable.
There's an elegant bit of circular reasoning tucked away in there. Any morals not coming from God aren't morals, because they didn't come from God. God is part of the definition of "moral," which explains a lot of the confusion. We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
That is not circular reasoning, because saying "morals assigned by humans aren't really morals" is NOT the same thing as saying that "morals not assigned by God aren't really morals." The reasoning given was this:
1. Morals assigned by humans aren't really morals 2. Under atheism, morality could only come from human beings, or a natural order of might makes right 3. Therefore, atheism by itself either leads to no actual morality, or a morality of might makes right
You could obviously question premise 1 or premise 2. But isn't it true that a morality arbitrarily assigned by human beings is not really a morality? If I decided that for me it will be moral to kill people and commit terrorist acts, does that mean it actually IS moral for me to kill people and commit terrorist acts? I know some relativists will bite that bullet and claim it is true, but I cannot agree. I think things that are wrong are wrong even if you and your society think they are right. I think slavery was wrong, even if most Americans at the time thought it was right. I think the genocide committed by Nazis was wrong, no matter how many Nazis there were who wanted to define it as right. I don't think these things simply became wrong because we arbitrarily decided to make it so at some later date.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And reason can't be a reason for itself, no matter how much you wish it could be. This was established a long time ago by Thomas Aquinas, that an effect cannot be the cause of itself, unless it is The First Cause.
Let me add Aquinas to the list of people who are given more credit for being "intelligent" than they deserve. The guy was bright, but some of his arguments -- like the First Cause argument -- are nonsensical.
And if you dispute that, stop for a second and wonder "what caused God?" Did God not have a cause? If God didn't have a cause, doesn't that mean that not everything needs a cause? Are you simply defining "god" as "something that doesn't need a first cause?"
Resh, what you fail to understand here is that you started out in this thread by insulting not only atheists but atheism in general with statements that are easily proven false -- and your defense for those claims so far has been merely a middle-schooler's understanding of basic theological apologia. Believe me, every single atheist -- and agnostic -- who's posted in this thread is aware of your sources and has found them unconvincing.
quote:Tom, if you can't demonstrate that something is false or you aren't willing to for whatever reason, then it is meaningless for you to say that thing is demonstrably false - and intellectually dishonest to use that as a tactic in an argument. I point this out because you frequently make claims that you can prove things, but then fail to back it up with a proof when asked, always with some excuse.
I do this to YOU nowadays, Tres, because I find you tiresome and didactic and have observed in you a tendency to dismiss any argument you don't understand by simply revising your first principles and redefining terms. You're confrontational, condescending, and absolutely tireless in your determination to spin words until the other person wanders away, sighing and shaking his head. If Resh had said he were interested, I'd've elaborated on his behalf; I will not waste further time reiterating arguments you've already chosen to ignore.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Religion is hatrack's own personal Disaster Train™
Every time it comes up as subject or thread or tangent, everyone's hopping on board and saying "Oh, I sure do wonder if we all crash and die again!"
and then oh no here it comes the terrible grinding steel and sophistry and condescention and flying bodies and fire and semantics and i just can't take my eyes off of the carnage oh god
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lines and points are one-dimensional, not two. A sheet of paper is (essentially) two-dimensional, and we certainly can act upon it.
Have you read Flatland?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I do this to YOU nowadays, Tres, because I find you tiresome and didactic and have observed in you a tendency to dismiss any argument you don't understand by simply revising your first principles and redefining terms. You're confrontational, condescending, and absolutely tireless in your determination to spin words until the other person wanders away, sighing and shaking his head. If Resh had said he were interested, I'd've elaborated on his behalf; I will not waste further time reiterating arguments you've already chosen to ignore.
Firstly, you are being a bit unfair to me. How you "find me" is not how I actually am, except perhaps for the confrontational part, which is a valid complaint. I know I am sometimes "found" this way by some who don't want to question the assumptions I tend to try to force them to question; it often requires them to step entirely out of the viewpoint from which their opinions are grounded, and they typically seem to see little value in that. They think it is some kind of trick, which it is not. I've noticed that when I take widely accepted positions, the same style of argument gets a lot of positive responses. The difference always seems to be what I'm challenging, rather than how I am going about challenging it. I'm not usually surprised, for instance, when most atheists dislike my defense of a guy who is basically attacking atheism.
Secondly, you don't just do this to me. You do it to many people on many topics. And, of course, many other people do similar things. Frankly, whether or not you feel like it is a waste of time, it is only fair in a discussion on religion to backup the claims you state you can prove. I'm probably going to keep complaining if you or other people consistently refuse to back up the things they claim are proven, because that's just sophistry. I think Hatrack can do, and has done better than that. Karl Rove-ish tactics should not be allowed here. If it is just an opinion you have, then just say it is your opinion. But if you tell someone their opinion has been proven wrong, thus implying they are ignorant, then you owe it to them to explain why if they don't see why.
Thirdly, Resh DID challenge the same claim that I did, including in the post immediately after mine. He just didn't ask you as directly as I did. You still have not backed it up, although other people have given their own viewpoints on the matter. As for me, I'm on the fence. I'm not convinced that morality could arise purely within atheism, although I'm not convinced it couldn't either.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I think we're in the same boat here, Tresopax.
I don't care what you or King of Men think, Tom. You're just a couple of know-it-all's who like to call people who disagree with you ignorant ---including histotrically recognized geniuses! So at least I'm in good company. I believe I've been consistent in my arguments, and I think I've actually made arguments, unlike you two. If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, we're not in exactly the same boat then, because I do care what Tom or KoM think. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't care about getting either of them to explain what they think.
And I also disagree with my fair share of historically recognized geniuses.... Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"But isn't it true that a morality arbitrarily assigned by human beings is not really a morality?"
Even if I remove God from the equation, it still remains that we are at an impasse. I do not believe in an objective morality and for those who do, nothing I could say would be convincing. So the question of how there can be morality without religion can't be answered in any way that would satisfy all of us. In the eyes of a believer in objective morality, anything I can say will be explained as self-delusion.
In the unordered, unpurposeful universe in which we find ourselves, the only morality (I believe) is what we create. And yes, that can be inconsistent and unreliable but then I'm not there's been a religion yet that wasn't inconsistent with its own commandments (to borrow your example, check Leviticus 25:44-46 on instructions on proper slave acquisition, suggesting that that particular example has not been an absolute one).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering there's a historically recognized genius holding nearly every viewpoint available, I shouldn't think disagreeing with some subset of historically recognized geniuses would be problematic. Or if I can find a historical genius who agrees with a viewpoint will you automatically agree with it, Resh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe I've been consistent in my arguments, and I think I've actually made arguments, unlike you two.
That's part of the problem, Resh. You believe you HAVE made arguments and insist that this is the case, to the extent that you feel insulted when people observe that, as a matter of fact, you have not. You haven't made any arguments to support your broad claims; you've tossed out the names of some famous people who've voiced their opinions on this issue and claimed to have a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but that's where it's stopped.
As I've said, I'm unconvinced that you're interested in actual conversation on the topic; your attempts to avoid engagement make that seem unlikely to me. But good job putting on your cloak of impenetrable outrage, all the same.
--------
For the record, BTW, I haven't called C.S. Lewis ignorant. I've strongly implied that he's been occasionally illogical. (I do think both Augustine and Aquinas were ignorant; I believe they would have prospered in a modern setting, had more evolved traditions of logic and rational argument existed for them to draw upon. Their essays suffer from the flaws of their era, in the same way that Newton's philosophies did.)
--------
quote:Frankly, whether or not you feel like it is a waste of time, it is only fair in a discussion on religion to backup the claims you state you can prove.
*sigh* For one thing, I'm almost certain Resh is a completely self-contained troll. For another thing, I'm absolutely certain that you've already made up your own mind on the topic and are familiar with most of the arguments I would make, and am completely certain that this conversation would devolve, as anything philosophical with you devolves, into semantics.
I strongly suspect, for example, that your definition of "religion" is going to come into play very quickly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're just a couple of know-it-all's who like to call people who disagree with you ignorant ---including histotrically recognized geniuses!
Would one of these historically recognized geniuses happen to be C.S. Lewis?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's worth noting that "apologist," in this context, isn't an insult. I don't believe Tom intended it to be insulting, but that may be where Resh got the impression that Tom was disdainful of Lewis, for example, because modern colloquial usage is often pejorative. The Wikipedia article is a reasonable summary.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Your problem is that people are debating you honestly, but when they pose a question that you can't or don't want to answer, you cry foul and say, "He just wants to start a fight."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] Are you simply defining "god" as "something that doesn't need a first cause?"
As should be clear by now, we can't "simply" define God. But, yes, that is part of the definition of God.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lines and points are one-dimensional, not two. A sheet of paper is (essentially) two-dimensional, and we certainly can act upon it.
Have you read Flatland?
I can accept a God who is "real" the same way that a piece of paper is "two dimensional."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My paper analogy is nothing more than a useful aid to my imagination in trying to imagine something that is beyond my comprehension. It isn't meant as a scientifically accurate model.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lines and points are one-dimensional, not two. A sheet of paper is (essentially) two-dimensional, and we certainly can act upon it.
Have you read Flatland?
I can accept a God who is "real" the same way that a piece of paper is "two dimensional."
Actually, you and I are the ones who are two-dimensional.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Hey King of Men, just so you don't waste your time, when I see your name I don't bother reading what you wrote.
I know that's what atheists believe, Euripides, but I've been making the argument that that doesn't make any sense. You are basically just repeating the argument I am trying to refute.
But it makes perfect sense to us. So why should you worry about it?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A very common tactic in people without the courage to defend their convictions with argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I can't quite figure out if you're being sarcastic, there, Libbie; so I think I'll just say that I accept your tribute in the spirit in which it was given. Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
Right. I tried explaining this to him in another post, and he shot that down, even though it's patently true. So I opted to stop responding to him altogether. There's no point in getting hauled into another pointless "you're wrong because I say you are" discussion about atheism/theism. I'm happy to discuss if all sides are willing to respect what the others say, but constantly having circular logic thrown into our faces kind of precludes that.
So much for that! By the way, I still believe in macroevolution, Resh, because it's a RIDICULOUSLY simple concept to grasp. Actually, the moment I understood macroevolution was the moment I stopped being religious.
quote:Since I do not believe the universe or anything in it has a purpose beyond survival or the purposes we ourselves assign, there's little point going on unless we can find a translator...
Hear, hear. End of discussion for me! Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I can't quite figure out if you're being sarcastic, there, Libbie; so I think I'll just say that I accept your tribute in the spirit in which it was given.
No, not remotely sarcastic. I loved that comment.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Religion is hatrack's own personal Disaster Train™
Every time it comes up as subject or thread or tangent, everyone's hopping on board and saying "Oh, I sure do wonder if we all crash and die again!"
and then oh no here it comes the terrible grinding steel and sophistry and condescention and flying bodies and fire and semantics and i just can't take my eyes off of the carnage oh god
HAHAHHA! I love you.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Your problem is that people are debating you honestly, but when they pose a question that you can't or don't want to answer, you cry foul and say, "He just wants to start a fight."
Frankly, I'm surprised at his putting me into the "respectful" arena. I'm afraid I've been less respectful to Resh in this thread than I ever have to anybody else with whom I've had a similar discussion. The sarcasm has flowed heavily from my keyboard these past 24 hours. Probably because I have shingles right now, or something.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My paper analogy is nothing more than a useful aid to my imagination in trying to imagine something that is beyond my comprehension. It isn't meant as a scientifically accurate model.
I don't expect it to be a scientifically accurate model. If I cannot make sense of a person, who exists in three dimensions, interacting in a meaningful way with something which exists in one or two dimensions, then the analogy makes it equally difficult for me to imagine a being out of time, interacting with things within time.
How do non-corporeal things influence corporeal things? What sort of energy transfer needs to take place? How does a non-temporal thing influence a temporal thing? The more we insist that God is such a being that it is wholly different from us, the more difficult I find it to comprehend how such a being can interact with us, or us with it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Comprehend" is a term that I find oxymoronic when discussing God. Perhaps God can be both inside and outside of time. At the same time. Perhaps it is that time itself means something different when not incarnate.
And, I think, another stumbling block is thinking of God as "a being". While that is helpful in dealing with the relationship aspect of God, it is limiting.
At any rate, comprehension is not necessary for belief.
And I find that the most practical way to interact with God is to interact with the Holy Spirit - that aspect of God that is present iin other people.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: And as for the meaning and virtue you describe, I think that the place you say you find them is the shallows of an ocean of meaning. This is not to say you are shallow. Just that if you look at why that meaning and virtue exists, you must go a bit deeper, which will raise new questions which take you ever deeper. The idea that at the deepest level there is nothing but random occurences.. it just doesn't make any sense once you get there.
I'm coming back into this late and several others have responded to this better than I'm likely to, but I'll give you my take anyways.
I think it's very easy to mystify the unknown. If we can't completely understand something it feels deeper and more meaningful. One of the hardest classes I've ever taken was a basic neurophysiology course. Everything seemed so complex which made it seem somehow bigger and more important than other classes I had. But gradually I began to understand it a little bit and it seemed a bit less grandoise and a bit more like the practical way things are. Were I to take several more classes in the subject, I have no doubt that it would eventually become routine and the awe that I associated with it would lessen.
I think that trying to discern God's will can similarly feel deep and meaningful largely because you can't completely understand it. I suspect the reason that you find my meaning less deep is because it is very easy to understand. But I do not think this is valid. I find my own meaning more meaningful because of its unquestionable reality. A hazy view of God's will can not bring me the same level of satisfaction as making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into. These things may have become routine and less awe inspiring to you. The bigger unknown may seem more rewarding to you. That is your choice. But my method of thinking does make sense and it has plenty of depth if you're willing to see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: A hazy view of God's will can not bring me the same level of satisfaction as making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into.
Those things (for me) are not separate things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How do non-corporeal things influence corporeal things? What sort of energy transfer needs to take place? How does a non-temporal thing influence a temporal thing? The more we insist that God is such a being that it is wholly different from us, the more difficult I find it to comprehend how such a being can interact with us, or us with it.
You do realise that this is just kmb saying "I'm going to believe this far-out stuff anyway, but these are some nice smokey words to disguise my total lack of reasons for doing so", right? When people begin to say things like "We cannot possibly understand this", and apparently think that this is a reason for believing in its truth, I think it's time to be getting out of the discussion.
Or, as one might say, "When I hear the phrase 'outside of time', I reach for my pistol." Not, you understand, that this is a comparison I enjoy inviting, but it is the only possible response to argument from meaningless words. If people won't stick to the rational, then ultimately there is nothing to do except outdo them in irrationality. And this, by the way, is precisely the reason I get so frustrated when kmb and her ilk say "I choose to believe" without offering any other reason. To abandon rational argument is to invite arbitration by the gun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on what you are arguing.
God just isn't going to fit into that box for you.
edit to add: and I'm kinda excited about the possibility of having an "ilk".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Those things (for me) are not separate things.
I think I see what you're saying. Perhaps I should rephrase it to "A hazy view of God's will does not enhance the satisfaction I recieve from making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Depends on what you are arguing.
Um, no, it doesn't, actually. There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along." It may possibly be less evil, but that's a separate discussion.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Um, no, it doesn't, actually. There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along."
I don't entirely disagree. But I think that at root everybody chooses to believe whatever they believe because of irrational reasons. I choose to wake up every morning because I feel that life is worth living. If I were to set up some sort of emprical experiment weighing the amount of pain I receive from life and the amount of joy I receive from life, the results would make no impact on my decision to believe that life is worth living. I think that in every person's philosophy/values, underneath the layer of reasons for thinking as they do, eventually you will get to "I choose to believe".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, no, no! I'm not talking about moral or preferential choices, such as a choice to live. I agree that in these cases there's nothing except "I just feel like it", in the final analysis. I'm talking about claims of fact, such as "God exists". I've made this distinction in three or four threads now, but it doesn't seem to sink in.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
What, in your way of thinking, is the difference in rationality between believing that life has value and believing that there is a creator of the universe? (I'm sorry if this is repetitive. I probably missed the other posts.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
One is a claim of fact. The other is a personal preference. It's the same as the difference between "In summer the sky tends to be cloudless" and "I like sunny days".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
"I choose to believe in God" is asserting a personal preference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As is, "I choose to believe that life has value".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
kmbboots, I'm not sure if that was directed at me or KOM. If at me, I agree. It just seemed like KOM already accepted that as a personal preference so it seemed unnecessary to assert it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: "I choose to believe in God" is asserting a personal preference.
No, it's a claim of fact. "I believe that a god exists" is a claim that a god exists. "I believe that life has value", on the other hand, is just asserting a preference for life over non-life.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or to make it clearer, let me rephrase : "I choose to believe in god" is a statement of personal preference about facts, which is not legitimate. "I prefer life to non-life" is a statement of personal preference about how you would like things arranged, which is.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Both make non-provable claims. One about the existence of God, one about the value of life. I notice that you have changed my statement from "I believe that life has value" to "I prefer life to non-life". While they both have the same result, they are not completely equivalent. To alter the God statement the way you have altered the value of life statement, it would say "I prefer God to no God." This is also a preference of how you like to arrange things, albeit mentally. Whether the preference lies in an irrational belief in a value or an irrational belief in a greater being, they are both irrational.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Kate, may I join your ilk?
Are there dues?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you are playing word games, here. When you say "I believe that life has value", you would not usually expect people to hear "Some value exists" in the same sense that they hear "Some god exists" when you assert your belief in a god. I agree that if you do the same kind of transformation to "I prefer God to No-god", then that's a preference, and perfectly acceptable - indeed, many atheists do have such a preference. But this is not what the sentence "I believe in god" means in common speech. Conversely, that is what you would understand someone talking about the value of life to mean. If he were claiming some kind of objective value that exists independent of his appreciation of it, then that's an irrational claim of fact, true. But that's not what the sentence usually means; and it's certainly not what you were referring to when you talked about getting out of bed in the morning.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I don't think it is a word game. I could be wrong, and kmboots please correct me if I am, but I get the impression that she would agree with the statement "I prefer God to no God." JennaDean has also said something similar in the past. While I think that you are correct in saying the statement "I believe in God" usually means more than just a preference, I think that "I choose to believe in God" is asserting that fundamentally it is a preference.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I could be wrong, and kmboots please correct me if I am, but I get the impression that she would agree with the statement "I prefer God to no God."
I'm almost certain that's true, but it's not relevant, because it is not the strongest statement she would accept as true. (Hell, for that matter, with the god kmb believes in, I would agree with that one.) I believe she would also agree with the statement "God exists".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
But I think the reason for agreeing with "God exists" is "I prefer God to no God."
Edit: I am not saying that all theists think of it as a preference. But I think that some do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, but then we come back to my point again : A preference is not a sufficient reason to make claims about facts.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
While re-reading how this tangent started, I see that you stated:
quote:There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along."
I suppose you are correct. You can not convince somebody of an irrational preference.
I think the point where we disagree is that I see "I prefer God" to be something equally irrational to act on as "I prefer life." Both are arbitrary. You seem to see one statement as being far more irrational to act upon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did not say anything about acting on; that's your innovation. I was talking about what's rational to believe. But even with that caveat, I do not see how you would act on a preference for god, if you didn't also believe in the god. Would you try to create a god where none existed? (Well, actually, that's not very irrational; I just don't see how you'd start.) Would you try to be good and kind to people? A fine thing, to be sure, but completely orthogonal to the preference for a god. Or do you claim that only kmb's feelings about how she would like the Universe to be, prevent her from going around kicking puppies? Let's hope she doesn't change her mind, then.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think that in the cases I'm talking about, belief is the result of acting upon the preference. "I choose to believe" says I believe because I prefer it. You think the belief is completely irrational. I'm saying that yes, it is irrational but so are almost all of the underlying preferences that we choose to act upon. When it comes down to just being a matter of irrational preferences, it is rational to choose one. The only other option is inaction. In the case of God, this is the choice that I make (agnosticism). However I would not want to make that choice in all areas of my life and I can understand why people feel uncomfortable making that choice in regards to God. It feels better to have a preference.
So in other words, kmb's belief in God is as rational as my belief that it's worth waking up in the morning.
quote:Would you try to create a god where none existed?
If you did not believe in God, this would certainly lack integrity. However if you were raised with a belief in God and were trying to decide whether to continue believing in God (when you had experiences that led you to believe as well as other possible explanations for the events),making the choice based on preference seems perfectly rational.
quote:Would you try to be good and kind to people? A fine thing, to be sure, but completely orthogonal to the preference for a god. Or do you claim that only kmb's feelings about how she would like the Universe to be, prevent her from going around kicking puppies? Let's hope she doesn't change her mind, then.
This has nothing to do with what I was saying so I'm assuming it was said because you were unsure of my meaning. Hopefully I've clarified.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"I choose to believe" says I believe because I prefer it. You think the belief is completely irrational. I'm saying that yes, it is irrational but so are almost all of the underlying preferences that we choose to act upon.
To act to ensure that you will have food is rational, although the preference for food over no-food is not. But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid. This situation does not change if you substitute 'god' for 'food'.
You are attempting to argue that belief is an act; this is just a word game. If you insist on this, then I shall insist that there are two different kinds of 'action', one which is rational when based on irrational premises, and one which isn't; and we'll be right back where we started, except for having muddied up the language.
quote:If you did not believe in God, this would certainly lack integrity.
I think you must have misunderstood; by 'create a god', I meant literally that, ie work towards the existence of an all-powerful, all-good being. I don't think that's lacking in integrity.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
btw kmb/kmboots/Kate,
I apologize if my use of your name and inferred beliefs is in any way offensive. This tangent started from something KOM said in regards to you, and I've been continuing to use your name. To avoid any potential offense, I'll now try and use the name "Sue" to represent the holder of the beliefs that I've (possibly falsely) ascribed to you.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid
I somewhat disagree with that. I prefer food over no-food. If I was on the verge of starvation and had no idea where I would acquire food, I would still believe that there will be food for me, because that belief is better than the alternative belief, that I would die from starvation. Perhaps that might more accurately be called hope, but often times in life the two expressions have a bearing on one another. So, is it stupid to hope in things? Sometimes perhaps, but sometimes it's necessary, and acting on a hope is not always irrational.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: To act to ensure that you will have food is rational, although the preference for food over no-food is not. But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid. This situation does not change if you substitute 'god' for 'food'.
"To act to ensure that you will have belief in God is rational, although the preference for God over no God is not." I agree that this works. As for the statement "But to believe that there will be God because you prefer that is stupid", I think it's important to remember the modifiers I placed earlier. If you just conjure your belief from nothing, that is stupid. If you have experiences that you have interpreted as belief in God but recognize that there are other other rational explanations, choosing based on preference is not stupid but rational.
You seem to be implying that God's existence is something that people have control over. It's not. His existence and belief in Him may overlap in certain ways, but the two are not dependent on each other. He could exist and have no one believe. Or He could not exist and have believers. I don't think that God's existence is nearly as relevent to the rationality of the belief as is the person's reasons for believing. This is why religious people do not take the IPU seriously. There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God. To analyze the rationality of the belief, you must take this background into consideration. An argument on the rationality of the existence of God is different than an argument on the rationality of belief in God.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
You want to eat food because it feels satisfying and you know that it is required for your survival.
You want to survive because you have a preference for continuing to life (for whatever reasons - you are successful, you have good friends, etc. etc.), you are afraid of death, and your brain is generally rigged to encourage survival.
A pregnant woman wants to eat strange things like cucumber on ice cream because of the imbalance of hormones and other chemicals in her body at the time.
A person with OCD might want to avoid stepping on the seams between concrete paving because of the unusual way in which his/her mind works.
There is a rational reason for every preference, though in many cases we can't pinpoint it (sometimes we hire psychologists to help). KoM is saying that a preference and the rational reasons for it have no bearing on whether the object of desire exists or not. I would love to have an omnipotent omnipresent all-forgiving entity watching over me. But there isn't one.
So if anyone wants to convince KoM or myself that we should believe there is such an entity (which, Amanecer, I know you are not trying to do here), they can't start off by talking about faith and belief.
Edit: sp, Added minor qualifying statement.
[ November 07, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God.
The purpose of the IPU is to point out that if you substituted a cultural bias towards an IPU for a cultural bias towards God, that the two beliefs are functionally identical -- i.e. to observe that many things people believe to be true of a given God would be true of any hypothetical fiction elevated to that same position within society.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Personally, I'm deeply offended. Me? Me fighting fairly and rationally?
That was never my intent!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I think it's time I presented these:
quote:Sywak's five rules of theological debate:
RULE 1: Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).
RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."
Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."
One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."
RULE 4: As things start to go downhill, you may have to use the old reliable notion that "God exists because people believe that He exists." There are deep theological problems with this approach, especially if other religions have more believers in their God than yours (except you know, of course, that they're totally wrong, anyhow). But still, it keeps you away from RULE 5.
RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.
To which I guess I should add #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important. It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
These are the rules for theists. I guess should also work on a series of rules for atheists (including, of course, the necessary references to condescension)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sometimes, I just wonder where the heck theists come up with some of these ideas. In my head, it's something like this.
Atheist: So, if God created the universe, what created God? Theist: God just IS. A: How is that different from the Universe just IS. T: Um... because God is outside time. A: What does that mean? T: Nobody understands, so you can't disprove it. Ha! A: O.K. You got me there. T: Did you also know that it's impossible for you to experience God without already believing God exists, and that nothing you can do will ever make me say anything that makes logical sense? A: I get it. T: Let me tell you about how there are 3 Gods, but there's also only 1. A: I'm going to get dinner now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here, I'll fix the title for you:
quote:Sywak's five things he made up to make himself feel better about theological debate
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:*sigh* For one thing, I'm almost certain Resh is a completely self-contained troll. For another thing, I'm absolutely certain that you've already made up your own mind on the topic and are familiar with most of the arguments I would make, and am completely certain that this conversation would devolve, as anything philosophical with you devolves, into semantics.
If you don't want to discuss something with someone, don't call their opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
quote:I strongly suspect, for example, that your definition of "religion" is going to come into play very quickly.
Yes, that is likely - because the concept of religion is at the crux of the issue. Is it not? Note that the discussion has already gotten into a disagreement on the meaning of morality - without any instigation from me, I might add.
I'm not sure why you'd prefer not to discuss these things. As of now, the discussion just amounts to two sides calling eachother condescending, and throwing out unsupported claims that the other is wrong. I don't find that very productive. I think it would be more productive to delve into the actual reasons supporting our opinions, and unfortunately that is almost always going to end up entailing some major semantic issues. Do you really prefer the back-and-forth ad hominems instead? Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Have we disagreed as to the "meaning" of morality, or do we disagree as to its source?
What is the meaning of morality if all it is is an edict handed down from God? Morality is because God says it is (or, more realistically, because a number of ancient, self-proclaimed priests of this supposed God said it was)? What's the value in that?
There are plenty of religions that claim a morality directly opposed to what the majority of us consider moral (marry many underage wives, for instance; or mutilate female genitalia...)
Dag,
Splunge
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Dag,
Splunge
Never been there, myself.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Actually, it's here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"To act to ensure that you will have belief in God is rational, although the preference for God over no God is not." I agree that this works.
I don't think 'agree' is the word you want, since I never said any such thing, nor do I see where you get it from what I said, nor do I agree with it.
quote:If you just conjure your belief from nothing, that is stupid. If you have experiences that you have interpreted as belief in God but recognize that there are other other rational explanations, choosing based on preference is not stupid but rational.
It's not, actually; in such a case you should suspecnd judgement, or better still get someone else who doesn't have a preference in the matter judge for you. The reason being, are you really sure the explanations are eqaully good? But in any case, this is not the scenario we were discussing; rather we were talking about kmb's assertion of a choice to believe, without any other evidence offered.
quote:You seem to be implying that God's existence is something that people have control over. It's not.
I absolutely did not imply any such thing. People have control over whether they believe in a god or not.
quote:I don't think that God's existence is nearly as relevent to the rationality of the belief as is the person's reasons for believing.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but even if I did, "I want to believe" is a really bad reason.
quote:There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God.
"Daddy told me it's so" isn't a good reason either, but anyway kmb is much too smart to offer any such argument. I agree with your first two sentences.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Have we disagreed as to the "meaning" of morality, or do we disagree as to its source?
What is the meaning of morality if all it is is an edict handed down from God? Morality is because God says it is (or, more realistically, because a number of ancient, self-proclaimed priests of this supposed God said it was)? What's the value in that?
Well, I think there has been a disagreement over whether the meaning of morality is such that its source cannot be man.
However, I agree with you. I don't think it solves anything to say that God decided morality. After all, would the genocide be okay if God decided it should be okay? I don't believe this is the case.
Furthermore, I think basing morality on God marginalizes the far more important idea that "God is good." If good is arbitrarily determined by God, then "God is good" is circular, and virtually meaningless. I think it is clear, at least, to most Christians that God is good in more than simply an circular sense. Thus, I have to conclude that when some Christians say that morality is determined by God, they are mistaken.
My belief is that morality is objective, but also that it isn't decided by anyone. It simply is true, in the same way that math simply is true.
quote:"Daddy told me it's so" isn't a good reason either, but anyway kmb is much too smart to offer any such argument.
That can often be a good reason to believe things. It was for precisely that reason that I believed I shouldn't run across busy roads when I was four years old - which in turn probably kept me a whole lot safer than if my four-year-old self tried to reason out the best option every time I got the urge to run across that street by myself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ye gods, Tres actually made a cogent post on a philosophical issue, without getting dragged into semantics. Wonders will never cease.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you don't want to discuss something with someone, don't call their opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
I have offered to discuss this with Resh. I have not offered to discuss this with you.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
If morality is objective, then (if I understant "objectivity" correctly) it must have a source outside of that which it addresses. In otherwords, morality for humans must have a source outside of humans, much as an objective morality for praying mantids must have a morality outside of praying mantids.
Does morality then, somehow come into things at the same philosophical level as (let's say) gravity, or the coriolis effect?
How does one determine what this objective morality is? Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Let me rephrase: If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong. If you make bold, unsupported statements like that here, and claim that you can prove them, then you should expect people like me to ask you to give your proof.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Personally, I want to see if I can go further than the typical 10 or so posts between Treso and myself before we get to the inevitable train wreck.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: If you don't want to discuss something with someone, don't call their opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
I have offered to discuss this with Resh. I have not offered to discuss this with you.
Somehow I get the feeling that if I expressed any desire to discuss the issue you with you any further, Tom, I would eventually end up at the bottom of your list of "people I show respect for," tied with Tresopax, guilty of the sin of not being convinced by the brilliance of your words.
Now THAT'S condescension.
In case you guys haven't noticed, I'm now a jeering spectator.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
I think the thing preventing you from having a conversation with someone about philosophy is the pesky way that people seem to keep disagreeing with you. What's up with that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Resh, let me reiterate that I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you, pending your expression of interest. But this is not an offer that will be good forever; I have so far held out hope that you are more than just a random troll, but that hope is dwindling rather fast.
Permit me to observe that I have never had a problem with disagreement; if I did, I can't imagine how I would have survived even my first year at Hatrack. And years ago, I was a more patient person; even in the face of repeated, stubborn insistence and/or dishonest debate, I tended to persist beyond the point of tiresomeness. But I wear out faster nowadays, I'm afraid, and have less time to post, and in some cases -- as with Tres -- remember vividly the ruts dug by previous conversations on similar topics. So I choose to spend my time in more productive pursuits.
If you want to spend YOUR time convincing me that discussion with you is unproductive, that's your own affair. But I think it's a shame, since I'm one of the few people here willing to discuss anything with you at all.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't think I was the one who squandered the chance. You did it many posts ago. To you, I am just a random Troll. To Libbie: I guess all your sarcasm was lost in your reasoned arguments, and that's why I still think you're a swell guy. You too, Amanecer. Assuming you guys are guys, of course.
Not tonight, by the way. I'm a little too inebriated to carry on a meaningful convo. I'm just gonna look for opportunities to take jabs at the supergeniuses and their unassailable logic tonight. At least til it get's me banned. I hope that doesn't happen cuz it's all in good fun, right?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Mirrors? I hope not. Maybe Chris Bridges, but Tom has just been an arrogant jerk.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Resh,
It won't get you banned, or get the thread locked or deleted.
It will, however get you soundly ignored. The more mature members just won't take the bait.
You don't need to eat the whole turd to know it's not a crabcake.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ok, I'm gonna go away now. I'll probably delete my last few posts tomorrow morning. Good night!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Resh, it's unfortunate that your single minded focus on finding some insult or condescension in people's posts is blinding you to some pretty good points that are being made.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you can have been a member here for almost a full year and not realize that many of the people that you insist are incapable of honest discussion have in fact been a major part of many of the very productive discussions that have taken place here. Refusing to recognize this only manages to make you seem dishonest in attempting to have an honest discussion.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
"Mirrors? I hope not. Maybe Chris Bridges, but Tom has just been an arrogant jerk."
uh-huh....
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Resh, it's unfortunate that your single minded focus on finding some insult or condescension in people's posts is blinding you to some pretty good points that are being made.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you can have been a member here for almost a full year and not realize that many of the people that you insist are incapable of honest discussion have in fact been a major part of many of the very productive discussions that have taken place here. Refusing to recognize this only manages to make you seem dishonest in attempting to have an honest discussion.
Eh. I've just been an occasional until the last few days. Not the most pleasant of experiences, and I think my frustration with a few of these guys is coming out, since I've been trying really hard to keep it in. I'm sure an objective observer can see that I was really trying to be intellectually honest and was not trying to allow personality to affect my arguments. But I don't think there are very many objective observers here, and so who am I trying to impress? You guys have fun with each other, I think I learned a lot, and I hope I never talk to any of you again.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say, as trolls go, comrade Resh is a remarkably ineffective one. He is highly dis-invited to be joining the guild. What kind of troll is it that can only get a few tired "Eh, go away"-type posts, in his first week of existence? It's one thing to get that response after a year or two, when people are used to you. But the first few weeks of a troll's existence should be a glorious blazing comet of responses and flames. Maybe in a few years he'll grow up and be a big, serious-type troll worthy to carry a club; but right now, meh, a goblin at the absolute most.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You did it many posts ago. To you, I am just a random Troll.
Well, no. To me, you're potentially a random troll.
Let's put it this way:
You have walked into a random bar in South Boston. After buying your first beer. you walk up to a group of people in the corner and yell "Sox fans suck!"
As a group, they all raise an eyebrow or two. A few of the guys ask you what you mean by that. One of them takes you aside and explains that maybe you ought to consider your audience. Another asks you for proof.
You revise your statement: "Sox fans suck! Except the ugly ones!"
You pretend not to understand why some of the people in the group find this unreasonable or insulting. When two of them offer to discuss this opinion with you, you say "Sure. Unless you're Sox fans, because then you suck. All the Sox fans I know think I'm a jerk."
The guys in the group now have to decide whether you're deliberately winding them up or are already so drunk that you don't realize what a mistake you're making. Most of them are now ignoring you. Another guy at the bar, overhearing one of the group say "Look, the Sox are one of the best teams in baseball," says "Oh, yeah? Prove it." And when the guy in the group replies, "Can it, Ralphie. I'm not getting into it with you again," you say something like "What's the matter? Can't back up your opinion?"
So here's the deal: you don't know your way around. You don't know the underpinnings of the arguments you're making, or understand why they are or are not compelling. You've said up front that you aren't willing to consider alternative viewpoints. And you haven't bothered to get the lay of the land or the history of the bar before putting your two cents in about the regulars.
What I'm telling you, as somebody who has been here a long time and does know how this place works, is that people will give you a fair shake if you take the cotton wads out of your ears and participate in honest discussion. You may not realize it, but what you've been doing so far is not honest discussion. I am willing to explain why if you're willing to listen. But you make it less and less likely that I'll bother making the effort by continuing to attempt to insult me based on your own ill-formed misunderstandings of the local social dynamics.
I know quite a lot about philosophy. So, to be frank, does Tres. Heck, if he weren't in one of his "I oppose everything because I'm contrary" moods, he'd probably be glad to explain to you where you've gone wrong -- and even where you started off wrong. I feel relatively safe in saying that you do not know much about philosophy.
I am willing to share what I know about philosophy and human nature with you. I don't require that you agree with me, but I require that you suspend your automatic hostility to the "atheist point of view" long enough for you to consider some additional perspectives.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize this was a social club where one shows deference to the other more established members. I've been an observer for quite a while, and I decided to test the waters. I mean, lok at my older posts, if you feel like it. I was talking about Aeon Flux and boom mikes. I guess my mistake was jumping in rather than wading. Maybe I'm not a Made Man yet because Card hasn't addressed me personally yet. I don't know, but I'm soured. I may come back some time from now and re-read all of this. I've done it several times and I don't know what it is that I did wrong aside from disagreeing with the "cool guys." Maybe I'll see something new later. But I will say that some of you are the most obnoxious and presumptious people I've ever encountered online, and that's saying something. I love Mr. Cards writings and I have to wonder what it is about them that attracts people like you.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"I know quite a lot about philosophy... I feel relatively safe in saying that you do not know much about philosophy."
"I require that you suspend your automatic hostility to the "atheist point of view" long enough for you to consider some additional perspectives."
King of Men's entire last post.
Seriously, look at yourselves. Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? God's gift to the internet? No, wait... Darwin's gift to the internet?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It has nothing to do with being a member of the club, Resh. It has everything to do with making silly assertions about things you know nothing about. Would you insult Sox fans to a random group of people, not knowing whether they were Sox fans or not? Would you get involved in a conversation between two regulars at a bar, picking sides despite the fact that you didn't know either of them and, more importantly, didn't understand a word they were saying?
It's not a popularity issue, Resh. It's the fact that you don't seem to have ever recognized the possibility that your gut instincts may not be absolutely correct, and so have leaped in with declarative statements of fact despite showing no signs of ever seriously considering them. (I mean, seriously: why do you think C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest geniuses of all time? Or, more importantly, do you really think that being a "big genius" makes someone's opinion inherently valuable? How much of Mere Christianity have you read, and are you aware of the existence of rebuttals to that work?)
Just as an example: that you apparently do not recognize the obnoxious presumption -- to use your adjectives -- in the statement "all atheists are condescending" baffles me. I find the offensiveness inherent in this statement to be incredibly self-evident. Do you really not see it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Atheist: So, if God created the universe, what created God? Theist: God just IS. A: How is that different from the Universe just IS. T: Um... because God is outside time. A: What does that mean? T: Nobody understands, so you can't disprove it. Ha! A: O.K. You got me there. T: Did you also know that it's impossible for you to experience God without already believing God exists, and that nothing you can do will ever make me say anything that makes logical sense? A: I get it.
Even though I think this is quite inaccurate, it's absolutely hysterical.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Oh, please. I wasn't aware we sainted posters around here. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wasn't going to comment on that, Rivka. But my first thought was that if there had been a memo circulated that exempted me from "dissing," I and a number of other posters had apparently missed it. I agree about Chris, though; that guy can do no wrong. *grin*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, yes he can.
*sniffle* He has yet to attend a single Hatrack gathering that I was at.
And it's not like there were limited opportunities. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm rather disappointed I'm off the diss list. Surely I've annoyed somebody I'm not related to...
rivka - blame my anti-social nature. Ic had enough problems getting me out there and he's in easy driving distance. Turns out that Chrises at rest tend to stay at rest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dude, we get off where we don't take ourselves totally seriously. I mean, a post about not letting you into my troll guild? Even without smileys, that should set off some 'humour' bells in your mind. Incidentally, how old are you? This level of taking yourself seriously gives off a light odour of 'teenager' to me. Though at least you're not as emo about it as Pel, so much I give you.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sox fans suck!
There, that oughtta take care of that...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
So, even if the issue of whether or not atheists are condescending remains undecided, would you at least agree that you have decided, for whatever personal reason, to be condescending to me?
I suspect that reason is that I won't agree with you on certain fundamental assumptions that you think I should agree to. The trouble is that these assumptions lock you (like me and everyone else) into the positions that you hold, meaning that if they go unquestioned, there is really no point to discussion - because it will simply lead back to the same positions.
Regardless, I think singling out Hatrackers to ignore and condescend to is not a productive behavior. For instance, at least in this thread, it is distracting from the main discussion. Had you given the reason for your original point, rather than attack me and insist on not giving that reason, we'd be talking about real issues now instead of what is or is not productive behavior on Hatrack.
quote:How does one determine what this objective morality is? Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
This is a tough question. I think morality is something akin to a sense we have - we can see right from wrong in a way similar to the way we can see red or blue. However, it is clear that our sense of morality is pretty fallible. Often wrong things seem right.
That doesn't mean morality comes from us. But at a minimum, I think it can be observed by us, without needing an authority to tell us what it is. Authorities like the Bible are useful to guide us when we get confused, but they are not necessary to be moral.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need? In Norwegian there's a word 'selvhøytidelighet', literally 'self-solemnness' which means 'to take yourself too seriously'. Very useful word, English should have it too!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, even if the issue of whether or not atheists are condescending remains undecided, would you at least agree that you have decided, for whatever personal reason, to be condescending to me?
I'm not condescending to you, Tres. I'm flat-out telling you that I don't consider you capable of holding constructive conversations on philosophical debates that involve semantics or first principles -- and since almost any philosophical debate with you winds up dwelling on those points, it's just not worth it to me. When backed into a semantic corner, you do the Tireless Rebutter thing ad infinitum; it completely prevents any sort of progression. IMO, you enter these debates with your terms and premises very clearly defined in your own head, and play semantics until people get tired of having to reject your definitions over and over again. I like you, but do not like your definitions and don't need to spend another five hours of my life pulling teeth to extract those definitions from you only to disagree with you on them.
quote:Had you given the reason for your original point, rather than attack me and insist on not giving that reason, we'd be talking about real issues now instead of what is or is not productive behavior on Hatrack.
You are certainly welcome to discuss the origins of morality with other posters on this thread, Tres. You just won't discuss them with me. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need? In Norwegian there's a word 'selvhøytidelighet', literally 'self-solemnness' which means 'to take yourself too seriously'. Very useful word, English should have it too!
Yep, there are plenty of Japanese words I can't translate, but are very useful and expressive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Chris, go suck an egg.
/take that, Pillars of the Community!
[ November 08, 2006, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
[sighs happily]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not condescending to you, Tres. I'm flat-out telling you that I don't consider you capable of holding constructive conversations on philosophical debates that involve semantics or first principles -- and since almost any philosophical debate with you winds up dwelling on those points, it's just not worth it to me.
Well, if that's not condescending, I'd really like to know how you define condescending...
quote:When backed into a semantic corner, you do the Tireless Rebutter thing ad infinitum; it completely prevents any sort of progression. IMO, you enter these debates with your terms and premises very clearly defined in your own head, and play semantics until people get tired of having to reject your definitions over and over again.
That's not really accurate. The problem typically arises when people have a set of assumptions they think I absolutely must accept, which would put me in a corner. The trouble is that usually it is exactly those assumptions that I'm trying to question.
It tends to work more like this: I come in with a set of observations that don't seem to make sense with one another. For instance, I observe that morality seems to have some objective authority, yet I also observe that it doesn't seem like that authority could come from either human beings or God. I know that there must be some answer that explains all the observations, or at least explains why the observation is wrong. In order to do this, I try to figure out how I could look at the same situation in a different way so that the all the observations can be made consistent with one another. This amounts to changing some of the basic assumptions I was making, because it from those assumptions that the conflict in observations arises. These are normally assumptions about the nature of the things in question - often not semantic quesitons, but things that people seem to get mixed up with semantic questions. (For instance, "What is morality?" is not a semantic question because it is asking about the nature of the concept, not the meaning of the word. But it sounds semantic.)
The end result is that there are a set of very basic assumptions that I end up suggesting we could change to solve the problem. But often the reaction to this is a flat out refusal to consider that those assumptions could even be in question - instead implying that to even question them must be some semantic trick on my part. Usually, I'm offered a few examples to show why those assumptions must be true, that the other party assumes must be completely convincing to me. And when I offer explanations of how those same examples could be explainable in other ways using the altered assumption, the reaction is often "No, I am right. You should be able to see I am right. The fact that you don't proves that either (a) you have no idea what you are talking about, (b) you are just out to make an argument for argument's sake, or (c) you know I'm right and won't admit it." But typically the real answer is (d) I do see how you could be right but I believe you are too quickly dismissing alternative that could also be right, and which would solve the larger problem.
Your assertion is that this method of arguing is not productive. Sometimes that is true. But I can tell that sometimes it definitely is productive, in a way that I don't think other methods of discussion are. It is very very rare for a discussion at Hatrack to immediately change people's minds. It is common for both sides to end up in respectful (and sometimes less respectful) disagreement, just as they started. Almost all of the times I've seen when someone's mind WAS changed are times in which some new assumption was found that that person had not thought to question before, which suddenly paints the situation in a new light. There have been discussions that I took part in where this happened. In many cases, it was myself that had his mind changed. And, for me, a productive discussion is NOT one in which everyone argues their point, agrees to disagree, and nothing is learned. It definitely is not a discussion in which both sides simply call the other condescending, or hurl other ad hominems about. For me, a discussion is productive if it might change my mind, or if it might change someone else's mind - if it might lead to us learning something knew. Since that has happened to me in the past, I know that your assertion that I cannot engage in a productive philosophical discussion is false.
quote:As a total aside, does anyone else find it annoying when a language doesn't have the word you need?
Yes!! Language is annoyingly limited... it is the source of so many problems. It would be so much more useful if there were words for every possible thing, and if everyone knew exactly what thing those words were referring to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have a couple of side comments, Tres:
quote:It is very very rare for a discussion at Hatrack to immediately change people's minds. It is common for both sides to end up in respectful (and sometimes less respectful) disagreement, just as they started.
quote:And, for me, a productive discussion is NOT one in which everyone argues their point, agrees to disagree, and nothing is learned.
While the addition of the "just as they started" and "nothing is learned" clauses to those sentences is a handy way to set up the dichotomy between discussion with and without an eye toward persuasion, you're ignoring what I think is the most common form of useful discussion that happens here: non-persuasive discussion aimed at mutual understanding.
I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: btw kmb/kmboots/Kate,
I apologize if my use of your name and inferred beliefs is in any way offensive. This tangent started from something KOM said in regards to you, and I've been continuing to use your name. To avoid any potential offense, I'll now try and use the name "Sue" to represent the holder of the beliefs that I've (possibly falsely) ascribed to you.
Amencer,
I'm just getting caught up, but go ahead and keep using my name. You are pretty much getting it right. The one thing I would add is that as far as evidence can go it does support my choice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:While the addition of the "just as they started" and "nothing is learned" clauses to those sentences is a handy way to set up the dichotomy between discussion with and without an eye toward persuasion, you're ignoring what I think is the most common form of useful discussion that happens here: non-persuasive discussion aimed at mutual understanding.
True. Non-persuasive discussion can be as helpful as persuasive debate.
quote:I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia.
True, in that I thought my observation of qualia was right, and thought that others should (with introspection) be able to see the same. I definitely do have my own assumptions that I have difficulty questioning, because they seem so true to me.
However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Who's to say that the people you argue with don't do the same?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTEThat doesn't mean morality comes from us. But at a minimum, I think it can be observed by us, without needing an authority to tell us what it is. Authorities like the Bible are useful to guide us when we get confused, but they are not necessary to be moral.
Oddly enough, I actually agree with this part - not that we are observing some Platonic ideal of morality, but rather that primates have an inbuilt sense of fairness. The effect is much the same, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
Boothby, The Bible is not a simple or simply understood thing. It is not a single entity. It is a collection of writings: law, poetry, history, philosophy, letters, etc, written over the course of many centuries. Each of these various writings need to be considered in a variety of ways - context for example.
This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible. I am happy to discuss it with you in another thread, if you like.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I also can't help but note that your description of what the "other party" usually does more or less fits my perception of what you did in the recent discussion of qualia.
True, in that I thought my observation of qualia was right, and thought that others should (with introspection) be able to see the same. I definitely do have my own assumptions that I have difficulty questioning, because they seem so true to me.
However, there is one key difference - when people disagreed, I did not presume they had no idea what they are talking about, or presume that they were just arguing for arguments sake, or presume that they knew I was right and wouldn't admit it. I only presumed that they view things differently.
Yes, while you were stubborn (as usual ), I didn't feel like you were dismissing opposing views out of hand. That's why I qualified my statement and [also] included a winky. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Who's to say that the people you argue with don't do the same?
Some do. However, others have flat out told me why they presume I am disagreeing with them. Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
The Bible (or "Boble") as a centuries long anthology of collected HUMAN writings may certainly be a source of human moral guidance. Not the only source, but a source.
But as a collection of HUMAN writings, it then takes away the "written by God" aspect of the book (acknowledged to be a collection of other books, tales, stories, etc.). This then supports the claim that morals are not necessarily defined by God, because the Bible is written by MEN (and maybe the occasional woman).
Morals are then thought out by people, and based on the current social/societal mores of their times. That's the point I was trying to make.
Q.E.D.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I agree. But a possible counter-argument is that it was written by humans inspired by God. As in, the humans were like pens in in the hand of God.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
...you said "pens," right?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
How would anybody ever really know the difference between a person who claimed that he was "inspired" by God, vs. just a regular ol' person?
And in using the phrase "inspired by God," do you mean a person who thought they could hear God's words and was simply transcribing them, or just someone who was basking in the belief of an all-knowing/powerful/loving deity (in the throes of agape)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I agree. But a possible counter-argument is that it was written by humans inspired by God. As in, the humans were like pens in in the hand of God.
Were the revisionists similary inspired?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: How would anybody ever really know the difference between a person who claimed that he was "inspired" by God, vs. just a regular ol' person?
I haven't the slightest idea. I'm on your side, remember?
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: And in using the phrase "inspired by God," do you mean a person who thought they could hear God's words and was simply transcribing them, or just someone who was basking in the belief of an all-knowing/powerful/loving deity (in the throes of agape)
Probably the latter, and I know what you're going to say, because it's what I would say too - the writing then has everything to do with human interpretation/creation and virtually nothing to do with God.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Which particular breed of revisionist are you referring to Samprimary?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I didn't realize this was a social club where one shows deference to the other more established members. I've been an observer for quite a while, and I decided to test the waters. I mean, lok at my older posts, if you feel like it. ... Maybe I'm not a Made Man yet because Card hasn't addressed me personally yet. I don't know, but I'm soured.
quote:Seriously, look at yourselves. Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? God's gift to the internet? No, wait... Darwin's gift to the internet?
Look, I don't want to interrupt your inexorable and motivated process of failing utterly, but check this out. I think I wrote it, like, two years ago as part of a list of lame forum antics.
quote:TYPE VIII: EVERYONE DISAGREEING WITH ME = GROUP THINK AND SELF-GRATIFICATION a.k.a. THE OROBOROUS COMPLEX
Rarity: Common
IDENTIFYING CHARACTARISTICS:
- Whinging at the 'established members' or 'oldbies' as being responsible for the lack of credibility in a given argument
- Complaints of 'group think' or 'herd mentality' where people are ganging up on you based on mob sentiment as opposed to legitimate complaint.
VERDICT
The concept is as ridiculous now as it was the first time I saw it. It's a wonderfully ignorant defense against a large population when one finds one's positions to be in an extreme minority; it's a doubly ignorant defense against the inevitable consequences of making a bad argument that everyone jumps upon.
Instead of coming to some semblance of understanding involving the error of your positions, you instead magically interpret this widespread dislike and disagreement as being endemic 'group think' or the complete or near total subversion of one person's point of view to some sort of collective herd mentality.
It's the cheapest and silliest response to being wrong that ever existed. The reality of the issue is NOT that we like to get into big circle jerks over targets who we have all designated as a target for some sort of 'outsider' view, it's just that your views are not popular in this demographic and many people here have understandings of rights, ethics, morality, logic, psychology, sociology, activism, philosophy, rationalism, skepticism, or other things .. that are being used to contradict you.
That's all, really. You're just being silly and near everyone here in the thread openly thinks so!
Don't be an Oroborous!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Which particular breed of revisionist are you referring to Samprimary?
Uh, literal ones. Like the ones that modernize or translate it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Oh, I thought you might have been referring to revisionist historians (not necessarily Holocaust deniers, just revisionist Bible historians). Ok now that I reread it that's a bit silly.
I don't believe that anyone at any time can be divinely inspired, so my answer is no. Yet, it's possible to faithfully translate something without sharing the same spiritual state as the original author.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Euripides,
Even though you had raised the point, I really was addresing my response more to the "thread at large" than at you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Yet, it's possible to faithfully translate something without sharing the same spiritual state as the original author.
Leaving aside spiritual issues for the moment, no translation is ever entirely "faithful" to the original. Translation is more art than science, and that's why there are "better" and "worse" translations of, for example, Beowulf. And people may disagree as to which ones fall into each category.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Okay, I concede that. I've helped translate engineering reports (which you would think would be black and white) from Japanese to English, and it's extremely difficult. But as you say, that doesn't mean that divinely inspired words can not be translated very well, so that the reader of the translation can understand the original meaning to a high degree of accuracy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: But as you say, that doesn't mean that divinely inspired words can not be translated very well, so that the reader of the translation can understand the original meaning to a high degree of accuracy.
I did not say that. I would not say that.
There are layers of meaning to the original text that no translation can ever capture. Doesn't mean there aren't some fairly good translations (I can recommend a couple ); just that I disagree with "high degree of accuracy."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that the Bible is a mix of things. Again it is a collection of things. Some more inspired than others. But, whatever the degree of inspiration, they were still written by human beings who were living in specific times and cultures and who were writing for different and specific purposes. Each part is not equal to each other part. You can't judge them all the same.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There are layers of meaning to the original text that no translation can ever capture. Doesn't mean there aren't some fairly good translations (I can recommend a couple ); just that I disagree with "high degree of accuracy."
I guess I have more faith in the ability of translators, but that may be because I can't read Biblical Hebrew.
When I read your post I was reminded of a haiku. Not to drag the debate into 'my territory' (I'm just as much a fish out of water as the average English speaker when it comes to Japanese poetry) but here it is:
quote:an old pond - the sound of a frog jumping into water
As you might already know this poem by Basho is considered one of the finest pieces of Japanese poetry ever written (it's certainly one of the most famous).
Before I go further, I want to let you know that I'm aware of the very important differences between translating a poem and scripture.
But I wonder if some of the other problems are the same? Is it really impossible to translate the poem above? (Because I consider that translation to be virtually meaningless).
Firstly, there are always cultural archetypes at work. For example, a firefly is a very romantic image in Japan, whereas in the West it tends not to be. Also, there are conventions of language and text which apply(which is why I thought this haiku was a good example to talk over). The lines of a haiku have to have 5, 7, and 5 syllables respectively, and that gives the poem a sense of order. Poems also have an aural quality. etc. etc.
As you're no doubt more aware than I, there are an impressive array of cultural assumptions, semantic links and other information which interact when meaning is put into words. Maybe the experience of reading something can not be replicated. i.e., perhaps a non-Japanese speaker will never know what it's like to appreciate that haiku fully.
But can't the meaning and background be explained as an aside? For example you often provide in depth translations of contentious Hebrew words. Say if a Bible was extensively footnoted, and included essays on the context of the writing to follow, would it serve to provide a highly accurate understanding of the authors' original meaning?
Personally, I think that an English speaker can appreciate Basho's haiku, or at least understand its effect on Japanese, if the culture behind it is explored a little. But I concede that the experience of reading it probably can not be translated into English.
Is that subjective experience important when translating scripture? Often scripture has rhetorical and even poetic qualities, but is this imperative to a full understanding of religious doctrine?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I guess I have more faith in the ability of translators
And yet the haiku's translation (which I am indeed familiar with, and I believe I even once heard a recording of it in the original -- which meant nothing to me, but sure sounded cool!) you agree is meaningless alone.
quote:When I read your post I was reminded of a haiku.
I think that's a good analogy.
quote:But I wonder if some of the other problems are the same? Is it really impossible to translate the poem above?
I would say yes to both. At least if you wish to keep both nuance, meaning, and poetry all at the same time.
quote:Firstly, there are always cultural archetypes at work.
Very true.
quote:Also, there are conventions of language and text which apply(which is why I thought this haiku was a good example to talk over).
Another excellent point.
quote:Maybe the experience of reading something can not be replicated. i.e., perhaps a non-Japanese speaker will never know what it's like to appreciate that haiku fully.
That would certainly be my guess. And it's what I have been told by those who do.
quote:But can't the meaning and background be explained as an aside? For example you often provide in depth translations of contentious Hebrew words. Say if a Bible was extensively footnoted, and included essays on the context of the writing to follow, would it serve to provide a highly accurate understanding of the authors' original meaning?
I will ignore the pluralization there. Absolutely, an annotated and commentated translation is far superior. I like both Artscroll's and the Judaica Press'.
However. Both of those come together with the original Hebrew (facing pages), and I frequently check back to see what the original word was. There is no way to translate without not only interpretation, but choosing a single interpretation of multiple possibilities. Again, this is a limitation of any translation, not just of God's words.
quote:Is that subjective experience important when translating scripture?
Indubitably.
quote:Often scripture has rhetorical and even poetic qualities, but is this imperative to a full understanding of religious doctrine?
Yes, but that's not the main point anyway. Certainly doctrine (what I would call halacha) is contained within the Torah. Lots of it. But the main point is not Law; it is inspiration and deeper meaning. And those only translate somewhat, and never simply. Just like the experience of the haiku. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Now, correct me if I’m wrong:
Premises: 1) God inspired a message to some people, in a specific language (sometime in the past). 2) God loves everybody just the same, regardless of their language. 3) The message of God is impossible to translate (perfectly) in all the other languages, (see the haiku analogy)
Conclusion: a) Even if God loves everybody, only those speaking/understanding the original language are able to grasp the true meaning of His message. Therefore, those unfortunate enough to be born in a culture that doesn’t use the original language as a primary mean of communication, should either make an extra effort and learn that language in order to comprehend the message, or believe and act on imperfect translations.
Or
b) The written message is just the result of a human culture using its language and is not inspired by a God that meant it for everyone. In other words, the Bible (with all its context) is just a Human creation.
I tend to se the latter as more “rationally acceptable”. But then again, I am a self-declared atheist …
A.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Okay, I think I know what you mean when you say that a highly accurate translation is impossible.
I'll have to join suminonA in asking; are Christians today living according to translations of the Bible which do not capture its "inspiration and deeper meaning" accurately?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
I will ignore the pluralization there.
Thank you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
suminonA,
Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Euripides,
quote: I'll have to join suminonA in asking; are Christians today living according to translations of the Bible which do not capture its "inspiration and deeper meaning" accurately?
I would have to say all of us, to a greater or lesser extent. I would also say translations and interpretations . Between sincerely living what I would call egregious misinterpretations, twisting interpretations (consciously or not) to suit our own ends, and just plain failing to live up to what's true, we all fall short.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
I have to ask: are you trying to come across with a “holier than you” attitude?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Are you saying that there are more “samples” of “the word of God” besides what is Bible related? What are they? Are there such communications with all the cultures of the Earth?
A.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Given that Jews believe the Torah was intended for us (and any converts who join us), and not the rest of y'all, I don't see a problem.
I have to ask: are you trying to come across with a “holier than you” attitude?
Well, I confess to being flippant. But no. Jews and non-Jews have different tasks. So do men and women.
While I understand that the ultra-PC world no longer accepts these as truths, I do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or God communicated/communicates with many cultures and many people. The Bible is of particular importance to Christians as it records the history of a people who "got" monotheism and from whom Jesus came. (not saying that was coincidental).
Are you saying that there are more “samples” of “the word of God” besides what is Bible related? What are they? Are there such communications with all the cultures of the Earth?
A.
I don't know about all cultures. I think God communicates to anybody who will listen - and often in ways that are not opbviously "god". Sometimes that gets written down; sometimes not. Some of it was judged by the Catholic Church in the fourth century to be authentic, verifiable, etc. This is what we call the Bible. It should be noted that there were a lot of other Christian writings, versions of the gospels etc. that were not included.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I am SO stealing this!
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
By the way, I still believe in macroevolution, Resh, because it's a RIDICULOUSLY simple concept to grasp. ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)