Theists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wesmorris, Dec 14, 2002.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    okay, maybe i'm an asshole. I should give you the opportunity to correct yourself before just gettng all pissy with you. I'll ask then: Tiassa, would you mind re-reading our prior exchange and trying your reply again, this time... think about it a little more? Please? You took a lot of things out of context. It seemed to me like you had only skimmed the post before replying, as if my words weren't worthy of your time. That's mildly insulting to me, but maybe I've failed to communicate myself properly. My apologies for the rudeness in my last post.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    wes:

    I believe Tiassa took a leave of absence before you arrived. It might behoove you to take a look back at some of his posts to get a better idea of where he stands. He's definetly not your average theist (no offense, Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    You might enjoy our discussion in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11770

    It'll give you a good idea of the level he holds a discussion at.

    Tiassa, welcome back... hope all is well.

    ~Raithere
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Okay. I read, I get it. Big thinker, quite elegant. Impressive.

    Sorry, I'm kind of a smart alec big mouth and I sometimes argue like my two year old. I did realize it and apologize though, I'm only mostly asslike.

    I do think I had a point but there was no reason to get upset about it. I was taking all my problems out on you guys and well, that's just not fair and hey, wait, you "duh'ed" me, that was just harsh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I never intentionally implied you weren't a theist. Pardon. I thought you'd made it apparent.

    Regardless, I'm an ass sometimes. *shrug* I'll try to reduce amount though. I'll be less ass in the future. Hehe, okay, slam me, I deserve it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Happy Commerce Day! (Reconciliation and also irrelevance)

    Really, I didn't think the "Duh" was that harsh. I was generally thinking, "Well, Duh, I'm not counting myself among atheists." Two odd things about this site: people frequently think I'm a woman, though that trend has declined over the last several months; and for some reason people seem to think I'm an atheist. As such, I often directly proclaim myself to not be an atheist.

    However, I shall consider it a lesson learned on my part; you have my apologies.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (PS--A note to all: As an iMac user who generally writes these posts in my Text Editor, I'm puzzled by the lack of a "Select All"--e.g. Command-A for iMacs--shortcut in Windows. I'm presently writing in the Notepad, and the only ways to select all the text for copy and paste is to click the mouse at least twice. A "CTRL + ___" shortcut would be useful, but frankly I can't remember ever having it in the Notepad. It just seems a massive waste of RAM to use Word. Oh, wait, there's also the Word Pad ... um ... I just don't see why it has to be this way. It's easier for everybody if your text editor ... oh, never mind. Happy Commerce Day to all.)
     
  8. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    Re: Happy Commerce Day! (Reconciliation and also irrelevance)

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    (PS--A note to all: As an iMac user who generally writes these posts in my Text Editor, I'm puzzled by the lack of a "Select All"--e.g. Command-A for iMacs--shortcut in Windows. I'm presently writing in the Notepad, and the only ways to select all the text for copy and paste is to click the mouse at least twice. A "CTRL + ___" shortcut would be useful, but frankly I can't remember ever having it in the Notepad. It just seems a massive waste of RAM to use Word. Oh, wait, there's also the Word Pad ... um ... I just don't see why it has to be this way. It's easier for everybody if your text editor ... oh, never mind. Happy Commerce Day to all.)
    *

    I use Macs preferntially, too, but I think that CTRL+SHIFT+END might work.


    Oh, and HCD to you, too.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Kudos, Tony1

    I thought it worth mentioning that your 34th Street joke (in the amazingly old "False Christians" topic) was a good one. Given how critical I am of your presence here, I thought it worth the moment to point out that a benign, general witticism like that is much more appreciable than the insulting, irrelevant stuff we've argued about in the past.

    As to the CTRL+SHIFT+END--I'll be goddamned, if you'll pardon the expression.

    Nonetheless, one must still do that from the exact beginning of a post (or end, if CTRL+SHIFT+HOME works; I forgot to check).

    I'm glad it works; it'll be helpful in general when I'm stuck on a Windows hunk. But what I like about COMMAND+A on a Mac is that you can do it from anywhere in the document.

    thanx much,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    You seem to be in an unusually good mood today, tiassa.

    At the risk of blasting it, you might want to check whether you were the one introducing the insulting irrelevancy.
    As I recall, you simply left yourself wide open for a lot of easy stuff.

    Anyhoo, yeah, the key combo only works from the beginning and the other combo only works from the end.
     
  11. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Tiassa:

    Try CTRL+A

    ~Raithere
     
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Tiassa and Tony1 getting along.....it's a sign of the end times, I'm sure.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Well, you know

    Nah. It won't blow it apart. But I am still waiting for your explanation of why God chose to make "non-Christians" (e.g. Catholics) the primary guardian of the word of Christ for 1,500 years; that is, after all, a very important consideration when we stop to think about whether or not Catholics are Christians. I had always hoped for a substantive answer from you on that one, but instead I got the insulting irrelevancy.

    But I understand; this is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it: at least you aren't out raping babies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But ... but ... that's never worked in the Notepad.

    Oh, heavens. Hang on for just a sec--

    Nope. Farging thing just honks at me. (Bloody sound effects!)

    Ah, well ... I guess I can waste the RAM if CTRL+A is that important to me. But it always seemed a waste to have to use Word for these purposes.
    Mayhaps. But Americans have been rushing toward Apocalypse for the last 5 or 6 years, so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

    In the meantime, as I have no inherent hatred of anyone, it would seem ridiculous to just pick up my fight with T1 where we left off. Anyone is capable of change. Maybe I'll finally get those substantive answers I was hoping for, and then you can really start thinking about whether or not to stage a deathbed conversion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Tiassa,

    Maybe you can enlighten me. You seem lucid. You mentioned that most "athiests" (when it really applies to agnostics too I believe) argue against the assumptions. Why is it then, that you believe (and feel free to point me to where you already said it) that it is reasonable to accept the assumptions neccessary for christianity (or whatever applies to you) to be logical? It seems like presumption to me. Presumption on that level earnestly kind of sickens me to my core (only partially, nothing personal I assure you). Can you compel me to at least not be sick about it?

    Thanks,

    Wes
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Aiming for the short form

    Wes--

    First, my apologies for the delay. This is, in fact, the first internet terminal I've seen in over a week. I intend to give you a better answer over the long run, but a try for the short form seems in order.
    Ever had that experience where you're standing and looking at a painting, a sculpture, a something that moves you inexplicably, and then your father/brother/spouse/best friend comes by and dismissively waves a hand at it, "It's shite," they say, and you're left wondering how they could resolve everything you're looking at so quickly.

    For instance, Salvador Dali's painting of the crucifixion. It's stunning. It's breathtaking. It's trippy. And I first learned Dali, as a kid, from the cover of Anthrax's Persistence of Time album (or some similar title). And yet I know people who don't like that painting not because the clocks look like cheez-whiz, but because Dali painted the crucifixion.

    Ever seen Boticcelli's Man of Sorrows? It's one of my favorite paintings ever. It shows Christ, looking out at the viewer, looking absolutely dejected. The caption for the painting should be, "Well, that just went spanking brilliant, eh?" And I know people who let their prejudices against things Christian ruin their taste for this wholly ironic and utterly beautiful painting. As a counterpoint: In Seattle, we have a statue of V. I. Lenin. I mean, come on ... a statue of Lenin?

    Yet the statue is of immesurable value to us. On the one hand, the Fremont Urban Neighborhood Council (FUNC) rejected a proposition to put an ATM in the base of the statue; no matter how funny people thought it would be to have a statue of Lenin with cash coming out of his ass, it was a bad location for an ATM. In history, though, the statue is curious, and is known for being one of few surviving works of art from Lenin's time which was critical of the dictator. It is merely a statue of Lenin standing in front of an abstract background that could be either flames or rifles; it depicts Lenin as a scourge, as a man of destruction. And yet people are still upset because there's a bloody statue of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin at the Center of the Universe (local designation).

    We might also look to famed exorcist/evangelist Bob Larson, who wrote books in the late 1980s and early 1990s about the horror of rock and roll. He objected to Anthrax's "Misery Loves Company" because ... well, apparently he didn't know it was a heavy-metal rehash of Stephen King's Misery. It would do good to read the liner notes before such complaints. He objected to Dio's "All the Fools Sailed Away", going so far as to ellipse all of the secondary comparisons in a lyrical dualism in order to present merely the negative half of the equation. Larson was looking at the idea of "Proclaimed Christian" and "Inherently Other Than Christian", so that even positive ideologies were evil because they did not ally themselves openly to Christ. In other words, people were criticized by an alleged Christian for not doing what Christ warned people not to do (something about hypocrites and proclaiming loudly on the streetcorner; it's somewhere in Matthew).

    Thus: Do you see how there exist issues beyond the term of argument? When we stop to argue the diverse details of, say, Baptists, Catholics, and Episcopalians, for instance, we generally argue those diverse points, thus repeating debates unnecessarily (as a general point not limited in any way to Sciforums). There is a level among theists which atheists match. When you strip away all else and say, "What do you believe and why?" there comes a moment when the atheist must examine what is built on faith. This should not be problematic, it's just that many people, because of the focus Christianity has demanded, have come to think of faith as something quite limited to a modern-Christian phenomenon.

    Thus, it's art: I don't have to be a Christian to appreciate the stylized beauty and fascinating morbidity of Dali's rendering of the crucifixion. I need not be a Christian to endure a poignant sympathetic response to Boticcelli's dejected Christ. I need not be a Satanist to appreciate the lyrics of Ronnie James Dio. (I never thought I'd ever have to utter that phrase.)

    Likewise, I need not be a Catholic to appreciate the stylized and fascinatingly morbid lyricism of Catholicism.

    Ever see Last House on the Left? Or Closet Land?

    Pornography? Hardly. Distasteful? It's arguable. But both can evoke legitimate emotional responses. I need not be a woman to appreciate Toad the Wet Sprocket's "Hold Her Down":
    What, in the end, is the reason that we look at one's religion in any sense whatsoever? Because it somehow affects us. Understanding how that effect comes to be involves understanding the nature of the source of the effect. Religions affect humans as no other ideas do. I've mentioned to Raithere before: What difference does it make in Seattle if I tell you that Tully's is "better" coffee than Starbuck's? In terms of your caffeine addiction, it makes no difference whatsoever. But what about the difference between the "Baptist God" and the "Lutheran God" and the "Islamic God"? These ideas affect the criteria by which people make moral and ethical decisions. It does well enough to scream how the persecutors came to lead the destitute to the executioner's star, and how "morally-upstanding" people could get their jollies by horsewhipping naked women in a cart in winter (New England 18th century) or buying the sexual services of a ten year-old girl (cf. Lysander Spooner: "Vices Are Not Crimes--A Vindication of Moral Liberty"), but when one steps into the logical construction, sees the limitations of what is acceptable, it becomes like a numbers game. Only a certain few results are acceptable.

    As such, it does well enough to not only argue about the results but to consider the formulae. Catholicism is quite logical within its bounds, as we've mentioned before. Now, to object to the presumption of God is a little foolhardy, to be honest. As I said, there comes a point when an atheist must stand on faith. I have a great appreciation for those atheists who are nearly mystical for their realizations that, objectively, no matter how much they learn, it only constitutes the merest fraction of what information is available to them, and available in potential. It would do the surgeons well, then, to actually enter the organism for a look-see, and understand the devices which create the puzzling results. You and I might find the Baptist explanation of God particularly amusing, for instance, but it really is helpful to pay attention and respect someone who is explaining that idea. After a while, it becomes like zoology. You can almost predict behaviors, and at that point, the marvelous diversity of life loses some of its luster, but you do get some comfort in exchange.

    I would like to ask a question of our atheists: How many times have you gone to a church website--and I mean the BIG church, e.g. the Lutheran Church of America as opposed to "Sunny Corners Lutheran Church Website"--and gone through the doctrinal assertions of the sect. Most of what I know about Baptists, for instance, comes via my run-ins with the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm told there are cooler Baptists, but I've never met any of that other persuasion (Northern?) But even I, for all my animosity toward the SBC have not managed to read its doctrinal statements. We know that "Christians" take "The Word" and "mangle it all to hell". And we know that within certain sects (e.g. SBC, SDA, Missouri Synod, &c.) we find higher concentrations of ... difficult relations. Now why is this? I have, for instance, a copy of an SDA publication called "Answers to Objections". It's a great book. But it's written as a Sabbatarian response to Sunday-worshipping Christians. In other words, it's preaching to the half-converted. This does not prevent me from understanding its words and therefore some of the values of the church. Nor does it make their ilk any less annoying, but that's my own deficit of patience to work out.

    All of this adding up to the simple issue of why any of us wish to engage these ideas at all. I, for one, have a great fascination with human conduct, and find Christianity and Capitalism to be twin spectres of doubt, two wolves in sheep's clothing. If I ever intend to understand this twisted culture I'm born and raised in, I must examine its devices. Principal among these are Christianity and Capitalism. In the long run, perhaps my knowledge will lighten my living burden as well as others; perhaps the knowledge I gain along the way will allow me to reduce or avoid conflicts, thus ensuring not only my own security, but reducing my contribution to the insecurity of others. The common opposite, to the point of being a Sciforums dualism, is to come here to rip on what things we don't like. What lies between is its own issue and up to each.

    When I was an atheist, I ran out of words. Why? Because things must be objective, just like the fundamental demand of the anti-identification. It serves well enough sometimes to look someone in the eye and say, "Such is God." Why? Because it is what they believe, and if my politic is of greater concern to me than their wellbeing, then perhaps I should not be about such service at all. I should mention that I have, indeed, had the stake of a human life apparently in my hands at such moments, so a reasonable answer was needed in order to prevent a suicide. I must have done okay, but I sold my atheism on that day to say the least. Because I could say, "It is as God wills," or, "That's just life, honey," and be equally accurate. One notion will have a greater effect than the other.

    I found the way to win the fight against Christianity is to not fight at all. Let them fight. Let the Muslims fight. Let the Jews fight. Whoever is smart enough to work around that will make it through to the other side, and then we can see what the sum total of the remaining religions equals.

    When your relative, dying as such, looks up from the deathbed and says, "I am sad to leave you all, but I trust myself to God because I love you all," do you counteract that mustering against fear by saying something like, "Aw, Gran'ma, that Jesus stuff is just hooey!" or do you just nod and accept the weight of what has been said? There comes a point in cultural diversity where, if one chooses to truly argue that point, then Gran'ma might as well be speaking French to the Chinese.

    There are times in life when humans have the opportunity to address their own perception of the great mysteries underlying the living endeavor. How they choose to do so is up to them.

    As I've mentioned before, one needs to get off the Abramic route before certain aspects of the God-idea become apparent. The Abramic religions are specifically designed to preclude recognition of certain factors.

    Sufism is a good out; it's tied to Abramism through Islam, and has similar traits to oriental religions in its philosophic outlook. What makes Sufism amusing in this sense is that if you can tell me or anyone else what "God" equals to a Sufi, you're wrong. So it's a little corner of Abramism that can prepare a person for what exists outside of it. To stick with the western for a moment, it's why I recommend Crowley; The Book of Lies is an astounding little peek inside the Western mind. And with Crowley, you have the comfort of knowing he was insane.

    - Chinese Music
    - The HIMOG

    Nonetheless, it is Crowley who reminds us of a fundamental issue. Think of how you describe something. Now read those first lines to HIMOG again:
    Think especially about the red rose. The rest is rhetoric.

    We describe things according to what we perceive of them, not according to what they actually are.

    I don't object to the painting of the crucifixion just because I don't believe in Jesus. I can have a moment's catharsis through a Robert McCammon novel, why not from Bible stories? I need not have everlasting faith in Jesus in order to look at Boticcelli's painting of Christ and want to say, "I know, dude, I know." I know enough about what a man can do that I need not be a woman to have a visceral response to an idea, and who is going to claim that the Toad song "glorifies" rape?

    So much for the short form. Whoops.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. doom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    513
    Ok,
    i lose a toothbrush and i cannot find it anywhere,i then decide to blame the loss on a green goblin,
    i cannot see the green goblin,feel it or even know of its existance,im just told that the green goblin steals stuff
    and thats the only indication it exists,
    when i finnally find the item i then believe a superior to the green goblin suggested i have the item back,
    i have both faith that the goblin steals items,plus
    i refuse to believe i just misplaced the items from human error
    or consequence.

    I cannot see a green goblin but have been shown how it can exist,i cant see it,i only know the effects of how things go missing.

    Santa claus,we are told is the unseen being which is the reason we get presents under the tree,the only time we realise he didnt do it is when it is revealed there was no santa at all,just like no green goblin.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Goblins and goobers and purple polka-dotted elves

    But why would you make that decision? What factors compel you to blame the green goblin?
    Who tells you this?
    How does the green goblin relate to other issues of cause and effect?
    Is this the limit of your interaction with the green goblin?
    What other factors have you considered?
    Perhaps then you could reproduce the act of showing us how it can exist.
    Why do the examples so frequently have to do with giving and taking away? Santa Claus gives. The Easter Bunny gives. The Tooth Fairy and Green Goblin taketh away.

    Now ...

    - What factors compel you to blame the green goblin? Is it just hearsay? Or have you had some experience which makes you consider the reality of the green goblin? In other words, at this point, you are the only person asserting the green goblin. When one asserts God, it is usually the culmination of acquired behavior through the social and familial devices. Furthermore, at present, the Green Goblin only seems to affect property. Incubi and Succubi only seemed to affect men and women in a sexual nature. Wile E. Coyote seems only able to eat leather boots and scrawny birds. While we must sometimes look to a reduction of a concept in order to get a grasp on the concept, I submit that at this point, the expectation of the goblin's nature far outpaces the motivation of those expectations.

    - Who tells you this? Among religious folk, most get their religion from their family or their community. To take an "exception", we might look at my own self, who took from family and community the sense that there is a sense of first cause upon which we base values such as harmony, integrity, peace, &c. However, I do remember someone telling me that Satan wanted me to enter a blood pact with a 15 year-old prodigy. Lacking any other issues to consider, though, the offer might as well have been to sleep with the 15 year-old prodigy. However, having in my heritage an awareness of religion, God, and ideas like good and evil, the implications of what I was being asked were clear. Were I a lifetime atheist or witch, such an offer would have seemed foreign at least, if not downright laughable.

    - How does the goblin relate to other issues of cause and effect? Have you any evidence, or even proclamations to share, from this infamous goblin, which indicates other conditions of cause and effect? Perhaps the Goblin is really the one responsible for the 9/11 atrocity. Perhaps it's really the goblin responsible for the economic atrocities starving millions and leaving two billion human beings without clean drinking water. Perhaps it's really the green goblin responsible for suicide bombings in Israel, and missile attacks in the Palestine. You never know, y'know.

    - Is this the limit of your interaction with the green goblin? See the point above. Is stealing your keys or your jockstrap the only interaction you have with the goblin?

    - What other factors have you considered? After all, it could be the Purple Polka Dotted Elf of Ne'ermore.

    - Perhaps then you could reproduce the act of showing us how it can exist If you've been shown how the Green Goblin could exist, perhaps you'd share your sources with us. Then we can all understand how the goblin could exist, which would help the frame of reference nearly immesurably.

    - Why do the examples so frequently have to do with giving and taking away? It always worries me that such ideas reflect the primary concerns of the people asking about such examples. People's ideas of God give comfort and strength, offer rebuke, point to wisdom, point away from wisdom ....

    I refer you again to the aforementioned Crowley vomitus: A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not.

    Seems to me your Green Goblin is neither.

    Hopefully some enjoyable conundra.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. doom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    513
    Ok ok,forget it,forget i ever said anything,right now ive got a choice between argue with you or sink down the six pack of beers in my fridge....

    hmmnn let me see,
    i vote for the beers bye bye

    :m: <-----yeah prolly need lots o that too
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Re: Aiming for the short form

    Thank you Tiassa, for your response. You are an interesting read for sure. I very much enjoyed the post.


    For the sake of argument, sure. Close enough.
    I'm assuming all that you've said in the last bit is correct, your knowledge seems impressive.
    I understand completely. I can name my assumptions clearly, though they include subjective interpretation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    1) I exist.
    2) Reality is real.
    3) My consciousness is connected to reality.
    4) It is good to be good.
    5) Reason is reasonable.
    6) I can use my consciousness to employ reason.

    Some shit like that. My faith is in those six items... maybe a few other things like emotional truths. For instance "my subjective emotions are real to me" though I'm sure that's not phrased properly but I think you might see my point. In my opinion are simple and elegant. I really should try to formalize that whole list sometime, that was off the top of my head so pardon. It is far more reasonable to assume them of their subjective nature. They are practical and for the first two at least, quite practical. I choose the third and fourth due to my empathetic perception, and the fifth and sixth because I cannot analyze data unless I believe myself capable of doing so. Regardless, it might be a somewhat shoddy list, but I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say.
    I like your approach. You have an insightfull way of looking at things, for sure.
    Indeed, I'm a staunch agnostic and took the class "history of medieval monastacism" somewhat by accident (attempting to fill a cluster). It was a bitchen class. WOW. Those crazy monks!
    Nope, but you seem to have good taste so I would imagine they are entertaining.
    I haven't seen them, but definately.
    I think the question is WHY does one adapt religion ever?... but I'll go along with you for now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It only affects me by pissing me off.
    Cool point, I think I see where you're going but I think it's too far. I think it affects you mostly because you love those who taught it to you or you have a deeply personal relationship with it somehow. You say it is art and can therefore provides such a relationship, but to me when the first thing you do is stipulate your assumptions, you're dealing with science. Well, at least a scientificish approach. I'd say more precisely, REASON. That is part of my motivation in placing my faith (i.e. a correct assumption) in reason .
    Hmm, that is quite arguable but I'll yield the point for now.
    "Better" is a subjective judgment by nature. If I say "which is better?" I have to be asking someone.
    Unless of course one of them has the really good super awesome kickass mega-caffeine. Then there'd be a HUGE difference. hehe.
    God and coffee. Sounds like a poem or something. Maybe an album name.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Well, you are quite an impressive thinker and communicator in my opinion. Interesting points. I disagree strongly however, and see that you're looking at science from the wrong end. The exciting end is before the numbers... calculus and higher math is so beautiful. I don't comprehend it well, but to me, it is art and logic unified. The beauty to me is trying to find your way in the dark with only your mind and senses to guide you, having the pride to press on. Creating languages to describe this dark... shedding light. The beauty to me, is discovering the universe from the inside out. You can be nothing, or you can have lived. What a beautiful thing it is to have lived - as long as that's how you see it anyway.

    Sorry, got on a rant.
    I realize you say it is art, but it sounds suspiciously like unreasonable circular reasoning to me. I agree that it is neccessary, I just disagree because to me, your details do not yield productive results (I might call them poetic though).
    It's the journey that's the thing right? Facts are just ways to attempt to relate to one another in a sophisticated way right? Something like that. They may or may not exist, that is the nature of subjectivity. By being conscious, I can never say for absolute certain that I exist because I can never see if I'm inside the balloon. Who is to say where the layers stop? Trickery upon trickery could be upon us and we might be none the wiser. I say "okay". I begin an earnest attempt to decribe my existence and then realize that to the best of my knowledge "I exist, and so does this other stuff". That is the most accurate you can be. The rest is faith. Faith that you're not just full of shit. I'm actually quite amused at the idea that it could be some dirty trick. I find that to be an interesting facet of consciousness actually, that in order to seek objectivity I can never say anything for sure... that just gives me a chuckle.

    I hope that didn't sound like I'm a crackhead.

    *hides the crack pipe*
    Another good point. I like the way your brain works. It's impressive. Pretty clean.

    Hehe, I've never thought to do that, but honestly I'm far too lazy and cocky about my analysis.
    Ah, you're a lazy bastard too. Nice to meet you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Teasing of course.
    Okay so maybe you're not a lazy bastard. Still nice to meet you, but I can't relate to you now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Good point, but be carefull! Dem sumbitches can be slippery!
    I think if you are truly selfish, others benefit inherently. In other words, if I care about me, I have to care about you such that you might care about me. This is not shallow, this is the economic exchange of emotions that benefits all of humanity. It is quite elegant in it's simplicity and SO powerfull in ability to motivate.

    Knowledge comes at a price, as does anything. I'll elaborate some other time, but I'd assume you'd agree?
    Indeed.
    (sorry but I can't resist) Hey, don't blame me.

    (I'm just kidding)
    I think by your argument above you've implie what I believe to be true: Nothing is objective in an absolute sense, you can merely attempt to make objective observations. The moment you make your observation, you become subjective. If you're lucky, you'll still be able to communicate with the other humans. Subjectivity is difficult to shunt together (literally combining multiple perspectives is impossible since at the point of combination the subjectivity becomes collective, oh hmm... is that a new topic? I tend to be tangential, please bear with me) due to it's nature.
    I think there are a multitude of reasonable answers. It is actually, in this case, a relative term since once is likely in an unreasonable frame of mind if suicide is seeming like the way to go. I've talked someone down from a full blown 1 a day intensely insane panic attack. She tried to commit suicide like once a week. She was full on mental and I calmed her down with truth and understanding and didn't mention god once.
    I understand and find you noble in your intent, it is just downright sweet that you cared that much... that you empathy was so strong. I think that ultimatley though, when searching for truth, emotional reactions sometimes short circuit the journey, resulting in unreasonable circular logic due to emotional trauma. Mind you, I mean no disrespect whatsoever and do admire your investment in others... it's just well, I already said it.
    Hmm. I think you are avoiding something there... the truth is, words will do nothing if not from the "heart" so to speak. If say "it is as god wills" but like, all sarcastic like, my heart has offended the ill. It is how you are able to communicate the fact that you love that person or care about them or can relate to them that will comfort them in their time of despair, unless of course. If they are christian or a doubting athiest or prone to the idea of god they will certainly respond to "it is as god wills" better because it is something they relate to.
    That sounds defeatist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Maybe subversive. Regardless you align yourself thusly, but for what.... submission?
    I'm sorry but I'm not quite following you on this point... if it is important please clarify for me.
    Why bring trauma to one you love? There is no sense in debating someone who you love who is dying and says something about god. It is polite I think to entertain whatever beliefs someon has as they are dying. Entertain her notions such that she is comforted. I do not mean to sound crass, I'm simply stating my analysis. It's not always pretty, but I think there is something slightly more that bullshit to what I'm saying... hehe, if nothing else, at least to me.
    Indeed.
    I'm ignorant of what you speak. I'm not particularly interested unless it really has bearing on negating my trash talking.
    Hehe, I don't know about that either.
    Ah, but I think that is spin. I think that we call a rose red when it reflects red light. The rose is exactly red by definition.
    As we've discussed, it is impossible to state them as they actually are with 100% confidence, but it IS possible to have faith that what you see is real. It also follows that you should make sure that what you claim to see is real before claiming you've seen something real.
    You're allright man. Right on.
    I haven't heard the song.
    No doubt man, you're killing me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Took me like two godddamn hours to post this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You long-winded bastard. Thanks!

    Kind of fun, though exhausting.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    This & that

    Largely, yes. I wouldn't even bother to argue the semantics at that point if I was drunk.
    Ohhh ... tell me about it.
    Same reason one speaks any given language: learned behavior. However, we do need to look at the reasons we examine the religions of others, for as you note:
    It seems that this is a good enough reason for you. And, judging by the behavior of others around this site, it's a fairly common sentiment to varying degrees of severity.

    But it's reason enough.

    Does it piss you off because you're a selfish bastard and it gets in your way? There are generally better reasons, but that one's fair, and other speculation gets too complicated for the moment. But there you have it.

    (As an irrelevant editorial note, such seems a good enough reason for a war--because he pisses us off ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    How deep should I pile the rhetoric? I do strive for a universal love, but let's be reasonable. And of course Christianity damaged me somewhat. And if I'm going to understand that damage, I must understand the nature of its cause.
    "Reason" is an excellent point. We can spill out our presuppositions while discussing Charles Dickens, but it doesn't make our literary waxings necessarily scientific. Understanding the presuppositions of Christianity is, as a functional necessity, no different than understanding the presuppositions of modernism or cubism. If you know what you're looking for, it's easier to find it. If you know what you're looking at, it will tend to make more sense.

    And when it makes enough sense, then you can figure out what to do about it.
    Hardly. I'm one of the ones who wants to get off this rock and spend a few million generations getting to know the Universe more intimately. More accurately, what I was referring to is that when you step into the logical construction of something like Christianity, there are only so many possible results. Higher math is one thing, but Christianity does not require "higher math" in metaphysics. Christianity is more like doing mazes with crayons on the back of a Pizza Hut menu. Once you put the stylus to the page, there are only so many ways to make it through the maze. Christianity on a flow chart would be vast, but fairly simple to follow.
    It happens. Don't let me stop you.
    Well, Catholicism is almost entirely built on a limited number of presuppositions. I suppose the frustration goes a little like this:

    ? Atheist Joe and Catholic Jim are shooting the breeze.
    ? Joe asks Jim about the homosexual vote coming up
    ? Jim responds that while the Old Testament is pretty clear about gay sex, he is a Christian, and is therefore moved to forgiveness and trust in God.
    ? Joe thinks about it for a moment, nods, and says, "But there is no God, you git."

    What I'm after is that the conclusions based on God--the actual important result that affects conduct--and the routes undertaken to get to those conclusions somehow become inconsequential while folks get hung up arguing about God.

    Jim indicates that his belief in God will not incite him to limit someone's civil rights for sex habits, and Joe bashes God. When I see that pattern in a discussion, it tells me that God is more important to Joe than Joe will let on. It also tells me something about the degree of identification. It tells me that Joe's sense of personal identification is of higher priority than his associate's actual sentiments.

    It's just that I've seen this process push people back from the brink of spiritual liberation, when the perception of hostility drives them from open questioning of the faith back into rote.

    At Sciforums I sometimes think the biggest inhibitor to my own communication with Christians is the presence of atheists. I can't help what one or another of the faith will choose for fixation, but it sometimes stuns me how someone will ignore the issue to chase after God.
    Depends on what you call productive and what results you expect. That's yours to elaborate or not, as you will.
    That's part of it. Suffice to say that the journey takes place for a reason.
    Not just to one another, but from one (the self) to all things (the Universe).
    Well ... you know ... (hides the bong)
    A matter of definitions close enough to my perception that I would agree. The problematic issue, though, is one of human diversity. The Rede is more specific than Thelema. But it seems that if you think about Thelema carefully, the bases are inherently covered:

    ? An' it harm none, do what thou will. (Rede)
    ? Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law. (Thelema)

    You can see where something like Thelema would get you into trouble, right? But it seems that "harm none" is an important part of protecting and advancing the self. In the end, it's kind of like the Golden Rules compared:

    ? Do unto others as you would have done unto you. (Jesus)
    ? Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. (Hillel)

    The Rede prevents you from harming even yourself; Thelema "allows" one to destroy their own self if they so choose, but the only way to do what thou will is to protect your ability to do it.

    As a side note, I point to the interventionist 80s. But it's a way-out side note.

    End story on this point, it matters how you perceive "selfish", but I'm happy to admit that one of the reasons I want schools funded and poverty addressed is so that there will be less people wanting to rob me for whatever.
    Nah, can't blame you. It's a natural symptom of atheism. (And, well ... I couldn't resist, either ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    Indeed. And here's another brain-twister: By the time you perceive an event, it is history. There is no real-time perception. We might say that a bank robbery, in total, is going on for two minutes and certainly you're perceiving. But when the gunshot goes off, by the time you know it, it has happened. By the time you perceive the teller has died, it has happened. Time passes while the signals travel. Miniscule amounts of time, but events are history nonetheless.

    Drink on it a few times. Things get weird when you do.
    My quest for objectivity shattered my communicative abilities. It's a long rehabilitation, and I've found out that communication is something so reviled in society that many people I know would prefer that my communicative skills never return.

    I just hope nobody has to die before I snap back into reality.
    Many of Sciforums' readers smiled ironically at that.

    Subjectivity is an inescapable fact of human nature; it is a foundation stone of human nature.
    I tend to think that makes it a little easier, but I haven't had to play that way for a few years. I tell you ... Jesus only complicated that situation.

    And one of these days ... I'll get that scoundrel Jesus ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Exactly. Otherwise I should order my Moo Goo Gai Platter in Greek.
    Not entirely. I'm a pacifist by nature and declaration, however if people are determined to fight ....

    I would prefer, however, that all future wars be conducted in Antarctica. Thus, two armies composed entirely of volunteers might go forth and slaughter themselves senseless without heavy civilian damage. Who needs the ice shelf?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then I would be Muslim ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Natural selection. Let them fight. The smart ones will survive, and they can come live in peace with the rest of us with no hard feelings whatsoever.

    The Sufis assert that there exist a core of ideas fundamental to human existence, and these, by my interpretation, become what we call God. Enumerating those ideas is a little more difficult than speaking of them in theory. But if you stop to dwell on mortality and death, and on infinity, and on the "why" of human existence, what these ideas inspire in us emotionally lend to that core. The rest--the trappings, the bells, the incense, the hymns and scriptures of folk heros--is merely the balance of "religion" as compared to the identification of God.

    To put it into more atheistic terms: there is a purpose to life, whether or not we know what it is. What people do with that idea is entirely their own ....

    As such, recognizing the idea of a purpose of life would be, for our rhetorical purposes, the idea of God, while deciding that saving the trees is the right thing to do and dedicating your life (and the processes thereof) to that right thing is, of a sort, religion. And then you get into the sectarian crap: are you a tree-hugger? A lobbyist? A militant tree-spiker?

    God represents an idea. That idea is, essentially, God. Anything beyond that is religion.
    Would it seem unnecessary if I countered with, "What about managing real human communication in those moments?" Of course, that rare moment might be included in entertainment or comfort, but it's one possibility.
    Abram, Abramic, Abramism--a term describing the common religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which trace their lineage to Abram (Abraham).

    Much of Sciforums theist/atheist debate pertains to Abramic ideas. Most American pop-headline religious issues concern some form of Abramism. Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions fall outside the paradigm, though Orthodox Hinduism carries a heavy influence from British protestantism.

    Think of the things people often complain about in religion. Many of these elements can be found inside the Abramic paradigm. But what does who around here know of Native American shamanism, African shamanism, and so forth? The fundamental outlook on the Universe is somewhat different outside the Abramic paradigm. Some people would wonder why we discuss God in this manner at all; it seems undignified, of all ironies.
    Exactly. It's not a spin, but a twist. Look at the rose: what you see is what is reflected, or, if we might use a more personalized verb, refused. What actually goes into the rose are other colors.

    We call a rose red because we identify it according to what it refuses, according to what is not actually present in the thing itself. We identify it symptomatically, not essentially.
    I find this curious because while we cannot see anything with 100% confidence as such, it also seems vastly important to bear this in mind at any given time. I have a joke I use with my friends, "If I ever say I know what I'm doing, go ahead and worry." (Unfortunately, it's too subtle for some, but that's a bit of a sidebar.)
    To what degree? You cannot prove to me that you exist. My perception of you does not prove my existence because I cannot prove that I exist to perceive you. We can establish the fact that I perceive you, and you me, but we cannot establish that either one of us exists.
    Of those references you haven't seen or heard, well, they obviously come with my recommendation, but aside from that, they only serve as examples for comparison, and you seem to get the trend of comparison going on.

    What's really embarrassing, though, is that I can't find an image of the Botticelli I refer to. The nearest I'm getting is Petrus Christus. It's been years since I've actually seen the painting. It's an oval, as I recall ... hmm ... searching, searching.

    Ugh.

    Oh, well.
    I'm glad you enjoyed yourself. Strangely, my wind tends to annoy people.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: This & that

    Interesting reading, guys. It's late and I'm wiped so I have just two quick comments.

    1. I knew you two would wind up having something interesting to say to each other.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    2. Re:

    There is, of course, another common scenario (more common in my experience):

    Joe asks Jim about the homosexual vote coming up.
    Jim says that homosexuals should not have any rights.
    Joe asks why.
    Jim responds with "Homosexuality is a sin against God."
    Joe asks why.
    Jim responds with "The Bible says so."

    In which case, God simply becomes the catch-all answer. No thought necessary.

    ~Raithere
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The problem, then, seems to be

    Do atheists--individually or collectively--have any real clue what they expect of people?

    What, in the end, is the value of it? The abstraction thus proposes that it must simply be to get some satisfaction out of needling people.

    For instance:

    - It is my hope that, when I should resort to engaging Jim regarding issues that tread on grounds religious, I might have some benefit to offer my fellow human being.

    - It might be that this benefit can only be achieved through the extension of my influence. I might try to show Jim a different way of looking at God's arrangement of things, shake up the paradigm.

    - Engaging someone on a human level like this seems much more worth my time than simply writing them off for a belief in a silly God. If I wrote off everyone with a lunatic view of the Universe, there would be nobody to talk to.

    - I'm very aware of the conditions you propose, Raithere, but the fact remains that at some point we have to deal with them. By our conduct we might contribute to the ease or difficulty of those dealings. Christians, when riled, will resort to murder. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, so I see no reason to play that game. But at some point we must deal with these people outside our own fantasies and outside the Sciforums world, and if we continually write them off as unimportant then we get to keep going to war here and there for stupid reasons while being unable to treat our neighbors decently.

    - Do you realize what it means that these people believe what they're saying? You can't just haul their whole Universe out from under them and expect them to be happy. Such a result would not be human. If you write them off as "No thought necessary," then they will continue to fester and grow.

    This is what I don't get about atheism. For all the wonderful ideas and the advancement of thought that is supposed to come with liberation from religious bondage ... I'm still waiting.

    I didn't find it in my life, and I don't find it in others. I'll raise a glass to the real strategy, though: Reinforce the delusional!

    It just doesn't make sense.

    In fact, it makes so little sense that I will write your post up to the hour, and hope that you do the same with this.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    :m:

    *yawn*

    *thanks raithere*

    *says "tiassa you are tooooo much"*

    :m:

    I don't think I can make any more sense today. <- *giggles at shoddy late night brain dead folly of sensibility*

    I believe there is an interesting exchange to come for sure. I have a lot of ideas on both of your posts.... it will be interesting to see what comes of it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2003

Share This Page