Of course it has. We are not aliens in this Universe!
The vicious circle of religion.
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Of course it has. We are not aliens in this Universe!
No it doesnt. Unless you physically manipulate something, the facts and observations of the universe are completely independant of those would learn or think about them. They, as Jan puts it, just 'are', careless about us unless we interact with them, not by making observations but by producing causal changes. Until you can go to jupiter and change its weather systems, the great red spot is totally independent of us.
Then we don't exist; or we are completely irrelevant in every respect, including as far as we ourselves and the people we interact with are concerned.
Jan,
Oh hi. Almost missed that.
I was thinking you might take a shot at it, but I see you are passing the buck, so I will pick it up:
Aaqucnaona gave a value statement about religion: unnecessary but acceptable in moderation. From this we conclude that a reference was made to the harm of religious extremism. That’s fair and not only reasonable but generally accepted as fact. (High-five to Aaqucnaona :cheers: ).
Your reply, that Stalin must have felt the same way is fallacious, because Stalin was the extremist. Stalin massacred millions of human beings in the most painful and vicious manner conceivable. Let’s put this in perspective since in your prior discussion with me you were expressing compassion for animal life:
Multiply this by several hundred thousand and you get the scope of his atrocities. Of course you already know this, but as we all are prone to our counterfeit nature, that’s offered in adjustment.
Furthermore, casting Stalin in the light of atheism, commits the specific fallacy I had in mind, cherry-picking. You are cherry-picking in avoidance of his causal characteristics (despotism, megalomania, psychopathy), and you are cherry-picking him from among millions of typical moderate people. In other words, why not say Carl Sagan must have felt the same way? Because you wanted to complete a link between atheism and atrocity, or, in other words, to impugn atheism for Stalin’s atrocity. This commits the fallacy of guilt by association. Fallacy compounded.
I would have given you a 100 on the quiz if you’d said cherry-picking, plus 50 bonus points for noticing the guilt by association. You could have redeemed these points in future (should the spirit move you) discussions with me
.
Of course if you like we can level the playing field by agreeing to avoid fallacy altogether, and to remind one another when it occurs.
Or, on my vegetarian menu, I have an alternative plan: no rant, blame or bluster, just an insightful conversation into some of the ideas you have advanced which have eluded me by virtue of my unfamiliarity with your use of terms.
Or you can get the free cup of water at the drive-through and resume whatever you were doing...
AI
Jan Ardena said:
Oh hi. Almost missed that.
I was thinking you might take a shot at it, but I see you are passing the buck, so I will pick it up:
Aaqucnaona gave a value statement about religion: unnecessary but acceptable in moderation. From this we conclude that a reference was made to the harm of religious extremism. That’s fair and not only reasonable but generally accepted as fact. (High-five to Aaqucnaona :cheers: ).
Your reply, that Stalin must have felt the same way is fallacious, because Stalin was the extremist. Stalin massacred millions of human beings in the most painful and vicious manner conceivable. Let’s put this in perspective since in your prior discussion with me you were expressing compassion for animal life:
Multiply this by several hundred thousand and you get the scope of his atrocities. Of course you already know this, but as we all are prone to our counterfeit nature, that’s offered in adjustment.
Furthermore, casting Stalin in the light of atheism, commits the specific fallacy I had in mind, cherry-picking. You are cherry-picking in avoidance of his causal characteristics (despotism, megalomania, psychopathy), and you are cherry-picking him from among millions of typical moderate people. In other words, why not say Carl Sagan must have felt the same way? Because you wanted to complete a link between atheism and atrocity, or, in other words, to impugn atheism for Stalin’s atrocity. This commits the fallacy of guilt by association. Fallacy compounded.
I would have given you a 100 on the quiz if you’d said cherry-picking, plus 50 bonus points for noticing the guilt by association. You could have redeemed these points in future (should the spirit move you) discussions with me
. Of course if you like we can level the playing field by agreeing to avoid fallacy altogether, and to remind one another when it occurs.
Or, on my vegetarian menu, I have an alternative plan: no rant, blame or bluster, just an insightful conversation into some of the ideas you have advanced which have eluded me by virtue of my unfamiliarity with your use of terms.
Or you can get the free cup of water at the drive-through and resume whatever you were doing...
AI
See, I hadn't even considered that. I notice a lot of people here do that, along with exaggerating and just talking though their tailfeathers.
You have managed to keep a lively dialogue going - good work.
I would interpret aaqucnaona's remarks to mean yes, we are irrelevant to the cosmos, but no, we not are irrelevant to the world of another human being. This would be compatible with secular humanism, which is common among atheists, whether they profess it or not.
Thanks. You see how the discussion went from semantics to vegetarianism to belief in god to discription of truth. It was fine till the last part but then she gave this definition of truth:
Truth IS.
Which is as helpful as saying I live on earth when someone asks for your address. And she hasn't even replied or clarified it yet. Well I think she may be busy with the holiday season or something,
So Happy Holidays, AI and Jan and anyone else who reads this!
Jan,
He said...
Aaquc.. said:
But he must have felt the same way none the less, which lead to his extremism.
Because of how he felt. I'm quite sure he felt the same way at some point of his evolution.
Nice try, but of course you're hopelessly wrong.
I'm show Aaqu.. the extreme of his thinking, in a bid to get him to think about his statements rather than jump in blindfolded. IOW, there's hope for him yet.
Probably because Sagan's hatred was not as obvious as Starlins.
There is a link between atheism and atrocity, or are you in denial.
If one is an atheist, and develops a hatred for religion, God, etc, and seeks
to remove the world of such things and thought processes, then his atheism is the motivator.
jan.
aaqucnaona,
I'm quite disappointed at your attitude toward me as I am taking the time
to try and explain my thinking to you as clearly as possible.
I think I'll stop now as you seem to be taking the piss.
jan.
I'm quite disappointed at your attitude toward me as I am taking the time
to try and explain my thinking to you as clearly as possible.
I think I'll stop now as you seem to be taking the piss.
jan.
I have only read the last couple of pages of this thread, yet I think the point that Jan may be trying to make is that the universe and all it contains are the only verifiable facts. We can measure and define them as much as we choose, yet the perspective of the observer is ever distorted by the vantage point and no two observers will ever arrive at precisely the same determination when one gets down to the quantum degree of measurement.
Math is a human construct and so we can artificially assign a mandatory answer that all will arrive at if they come to it by the same path.
In the world and the universe, all objects are traveling a slightly different trajectory.
Have I messed up the dialogue beyond all salvage?
Merry Christmas everyone.
Oh come on jan, I was joking. Which is why I said, for a "on offense" kinda bufffer:
I amn't taking the piss and if I gave that impression, I honestly apologise.
Please, lets resume this conversation.
eace:
In the world and the universe, all objects are traveling a slightly different trajectory.
Have I messed up the dialogue beyond all salvage?
Merry Christmas everyone.
Same to you! I'm wondering if you put antlers on any of your more tolerant Equus sapiens (so named for their demonstrated skills). It could be symbolic of the antithesis of animal sacrifice (discussed above) to crown a pet with a suitable adornment, not of course as an act of idolatry or even in acknowledgment of hedonism, but as a sort of half-comical, half-profound recognition of our bond and interdependence with all the beasties on board this spaceship, especially the characters with idiosynchrosies and personality that have us wrapped around their little...uh...ungulate processes?
Just to spur such a thought is about as far as you can get from messing up the dialogue. In fact, I find an immediate antidote to the premise of the vicious cycle of religion. In particular, I like what you said at the top. It sounds almost poetic. This could be put to a melody, and (if I were head bull moose of the Klondike for a day) incorporated into a world song for secular humanism. I like the rhythm, it's not at all contrived:
in the world (da-da-DUM)
and the universe (d-d-DAH-da-da)
all objects (DAH-d-da)
are traveling (DAH-d-d-da)
in a slightly diff'rent (d-d-DAH-da-d-d)
trajectory (d-DAH-da-d)
Food for thought. and the universe (d-d-DAH-da-da)
all objects (DAH-d-da)
are traveling (DAH-d-d-da)
in a slightly diff'rent (d-d-DAH-da-d-d)
trajectory (d-DAH-da-d)
I like it.
jan,
How does atheism lead to murder, particularly the wholesale slaughter of millions?
Here you see religion takes a back seat in the Soviet priority to crush capitalism.
But he [Stalin] must have felt the same way [about religion] none the less, which lead to his extremism...[and committed atrocities against humanity]
Because of how he felt. I'm quite sure he felt the same way at some point of his evolution.
How does atheism lead to murder, particularly the wholesale slaughter of millions?
What is extreme about Aaqucnaona’s thinking? Blindfolds contradict the expressed eagerness to learn and debate. Hope, you mean, for adopting a theist creed?
You mean Carl “billions and billions of stars” Sagan compares to Josef “millions and millions of corpses” Stalin? What hatred are you referring to? You don’t like Sagan? He was so affable.
The link you seem to be referring to is state atheism, and the slaughter that accompanied a wide program of totalitarianism, of which atheism and religious persecution were the subordinate, not dominant, elements. To say otherwise is to deny history.
The specific example you address--state atheism and genocide in Russia-- begins not with a hatred of God, but of the power and influence of the (Catholic, later Orthodox) church over the working class, and the insinuation of this concept into Marxism in its theory of class struggle and the ideological war against capitalism. Marx, and the Russian tyrants who rode his coattails, were concerned with the effect of religion on society, not theology in a vacuum as you presume. Consider, in light of your assumptions, these remarks from Lenin:
Here you see religion takes a back seat in the Soviet priority to crush capitalism.
Thank you Aqueous for taking the baton for now. Say a dozen posts and then I will join into the discussion. Till then, Jan and AI, battle away!
Ps. Jan, its not an extrimist position. My position is this [I have already sai this]:
Convince me! I am ready to believe but until someone is able to convince me I will not accept the claim, is that an extremist position?
Ps. Jan, its not an extrimist position. My position is this [I have already sai this]:
Convince me! I am ready to believe but until someone is able to convince me I will not accept the claim, is that an extremist position?
Oh dear. You want to be brainwashed?
Now then, wynn. Which side are you on exactly? You debate atheists but think my being open to theism is brainwashing?
I rarely take sides, if ever.
You said:
It's the desire to become convinced by others that is the desire to be brainwashed.
Do you not think that sound, sane, valuable and viable personal conviction ought to come from personal experience and realization, and that the claims of other people should play only a minor role in the process of you becoming convinced?
No, once I have sceptically scrutinized all the claims made to me, any of those who make it past my logical filter for woo woo gets a temporary beilief status. I think you are way to sceptical, not even believing this we ought to once we have evidence for them. Personal experience and realisation doesn't get you anywhere. I say, get to know as many people you can and check their beliefs, if you find good ones, incorporate them and ignore all the bad ones. Its a much better way than the one you suggest.
Observably so.
Some others would seem to be jaded.
Others yet, of such fixed mind that concrete seems as marshmallow.
Just my observations over a number of on-line forums, not targeted to anyone in particular. :bugeye: