|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 04/24/2006 : 01:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
....but the important thing is: Did I do better with the quoting stuff this time...  ...
So far so good. Now we need to teach you about [size=2] 
Look at the menu under "format" (above when you are on the reply screen). Size 2 is normal size. You have to put [size=2] after [quote] and close it before you close the quote. Or, you have to put it after you close the quote and close it before you open another quote.
With a single quote, the reply will automatically be size 2. But beyond that the sizes get confused depending on how many quotes in between replies. I resize quotes which aren't from the forum to size 2 and leave the ones which are from the forum size one. Actually, I hate the feature but @tomic and the other wiser members than myself have some reason for this set up, I'm sure.
Are...are you saying that...that...size matters?  |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 11:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
...
Are...are you saying that...that...size matters?
There is such a thing as too small and too big (ouch) but for the vast middle as Maria says, "It ain't the meat it's the motion."
We now return you to your Easter programming.... |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 04/24/2006 11:03:43 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 00:32:41 [Permalink]
|
dglas, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how non-fundamentalist religious beliefs which do not conflict with science such as these: quote:
1. People have souls, and when they die, their soul either enters a new living being or reaches its final state as it dissolves into a spiritual collective.
2. Or how about this one: God is an Inner Light inside each and every human being.
3. Or how about this one: There is one God, and Jesus represents that God in the form of Messiah, but Jesus is a symbolic character, the Bible is merely a record of faith that must be interpreted in historical context rather than applied literally to modern times. Heaven and hell exist, but what they are literally is completely a mystery, as is the nature of God Himself. And the Christian faith is only one way to connect with spiritual truth.
are dangerous. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 04:04:29 [Permalink]
|
Contrast all that with this statement:
Life is so good as it is, I don't need souls and "inner lights" and Messiahs and battles between good and evil and torturing people in Hells and Heavens for eternity. Life is good. Or more correctly, life is what it is. Decide to enjoy it for what it is, neither good nor bad.
See the difference? Do you think people with these beliefs don't affect public policy? Not only that, they affect how you and I think. Even as atheists we still have vestiges of these ideas. Many of us still think in terms of life being a constant battle of Good vs Evil. Again, I'm not sure we can completely 24 hours a day be free of them, but we can recognize these false beliefs in a lack of self-worth, in a fear of reality, and let them go as we find them. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/30/2006 04:21:35 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 09:54:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
dglas, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how non-fundamentalist religious beliefs which do not conflict with science such as these: quote:
1. People have souls, and when they die, their soul either enters a new living being or reaches its final state as it dissolves into a spiritual collective.
2. Or how about this one: God is an Inner Light inside each and every human being.
3. Or how about this one: There is one God, and Jesus represents that God in the form of Messiah, but Jesus is a symbolic character, the Bible is merely a record of faith that must be interpreted in historical context rather than applied literally to modern times. Heaven and hell exist, but what they are literally is completely a mystery, as is the nature of God Himself. And the Christian faith is only one way to connect with spiritual truth.
are dangerous.
Sorry, Marf. got tied up in work and some other matters. That's also why I can only attend Wednesday night chat sessions for now. I assumed you'd be happy getting the last word, because it is clear we are not going to make any headway. Your private realm is not subject to public negotiation.
#1 - Devalues human life and de-emphasizes the human state of existence. Makes it easier to rationalize becoming a suicide bomber, more specifically to see oneself as right for becoming so. As I have been known to say, it takes a moral nihilist to say that murder isn't Wrong; it takes a moral absolutist to say that murder is Right. It is much easier to justify inflicting harm or even death (and accepting harm or even death) if one sees the current state of existence as less meaningful than the afterlife or even if one assumes there is an afterlife - whatever the stipulated definition of it is. Does any mindset get more harmful than this?
Alternatively, we can get rid of after-life notions and strive for better lives for ourselves and others in real concrete ways. We can value the people around us - not as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves, rather than undergo desperate metaphysical contortions after it's too late.
#2 - Vague and meaningless. With that kind of stipulation, anyone can stipulate anything about anything - which, of course, is part of the problem with religious understandings of belief. That statement has no content. That's entirely private realm stuff and does not admit to discussion in the public realm. Our understanding of the world is a negotiated thing, Marf - that means public realm. To adopt something so vague and meaningless is to remove oneself from the negotiating process (at best) or an attempt to undermine the negotiations in the public realm (at worst). Hence, harmful.
Alternatively, we can place our trust in humanity, as dangerous as that can be, and strive to make ouselves worthy of others putting their trust in us. Entirely private realms are tantalizing because it means no risk of rejection. If you want to go confess your crimes to a tree, feel free, but it wasn't the tree you harmed and the tree won't condemn you for them. Go figure.
#3 - Inefficacy-think. Philosophies are tools for humans, Marf, not Truths. This, for all those who want to disdain philosophy, is what philosophy can contribute to the skeptical effort. Placing anything in the mystical/spiritual realm places it outside the realm of understanding, which means we are handcuffed with respect to trying to work with it - unless, of course, one accepts blind acceptance as "working with it." And make no mistake, it is a choice. Science, and any other efficacious exploratory methods, will assume that we can understand, manipulate, even control the subject matter. This leads to progress i.e. more choices. Shaking rattles, tossing virgins into volcanos and prayers for recovery are not efficacious methods, even if they provide the illusion of efficacy to those "acting" in such a way, in exactly the same way that watered-down water, chi manipulation and other alternative non-evidence based "therapies" are not efficacious methods. All it does is put us under the spell of people who claim to have special access to mystical realms. The Dark Ages are 40+ generations of incredibly horrifying testimony to the harm of inefficacy-think. We must never let it happen again.
Alernatively, we can strive for philosophies and methods that enable us to better the lives of ourselves and others in real, concrete ways - not just cheap, fluffy, metaphysical band-aids. To do so we must adopt tools, not Truths.
We are social animals, Marf. We negotiate our understandings of the world, ourselves and each other. Our understanding supervenes on our existence; it can empower us, or it can limit us. Just as in monetary negotiations, there are factors that can be put on the table that expedite the process or hinder it. An attitude of "I won't discuss this because it is my personal, private realm and you can't touch it" is another way of negotiating in, dare I say it, bad faith. We have choices in what we bring to the table. We can bring ideas that empower humanity and that create choices. That is the choice I will make and this is why I see ID as so incredibly dangerous and harmful. It is an attempt to redefine one of the most efficacious tools we have ever developed - something whole orders of magnitude more powerful than anything that has come before: science. It is an attempt to redefine it to include the mystical; to introduce the element of inefficacy-think - to enslave it, to hobble it.
When it comes down to it, skepticism is about taking the inefficacy-think off the table. And this is why I will not even consider a God-gene until there is overwhelming evidence to support it. It is just another dodge into inefficacy - an attempt to justify giving up before even trying.
I assume, at this point, you are beginning to understand the rift between you and I. You seem to think that there is a difference in kind between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist beliefs. Aside from the disposition of the non-fundamentalist to take their beliefs into a private realm (for the moment) the only difference is a matter of degree. The underlying problems are systemic.
To say that people cannot change their beliefs is ridiculous and virulent in the extreme. If that is the case, discussions are without potential. I will not subscribe to that kind of helplessness based merely on a desire by some to make their beliefs unassailable with a cheap rhetorical ploy. That private-realm understanding of belief is helplessness in a most concentrated form. It is the worst of all possible case scenarios.
Just as a scientist must maintain that margin for error with any theory, people must maintain that margin for error in their understanding of themselves and the world. That's what being a skeptic is. And it is the only philosophy that provides room for growth becaue it is the only philosophy that maintains room for change. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 11:15:49 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
Contrast all that with this statement:
Life is so good as it is, I don't need souls and "inner lights" and Messiahs and battles between good and evil and torturing people in Hells and Heavens for eternity. Life is good. Or more correctly, life is what it is. Decide to enjoy it for what it is, neither good nor bad.
See the difference?
No, I don't see the difference. I think you have a sort of tunnel vision when it comes to how people believe in and experience spiritual matters. You seem convinced that they all can't deal with life as it is and so they have to make up fantasies for life to be good for them. I'm sure the sad and pathetic way you've described these beliefs and experiences is true for many people, but certainly not all.
In a way, you have succumbed to the very thing you criticize because you are seeing all religious peoples' belief on a gradation scale between good and bad instead of being able to see them as simply different ways of expressing the same overwhelming feelings that we all experience about the grandeur and mystery of life and the universe itself. You are putting a value judgment on transcendence that not everyone uses.
Gorgo wrote: quote:
Do you think people with these beliefs don't affect public policy?
Yeah, they do, and I thank my lucky stars they do. Martin Luther King helped make progress for civil rights, preached love and equality for all people, worked with people of other faiths, and publicly supported church-state separation. Rev. William Sloan Coffin became famous for his civil rights and anti-war activism, and also spoke out against the religious right in the 80's. I've mentioned my Methodist friend who was a missionary in Argentina, where she NEVER tried to convert anyone, but instead taught orphans. There are such missionaries doing good work all over the world and country. Oh, and those “inner light” people – those are Quakers. Quakers often take action to stop war. They also don't see themselves as above any other religious or nonreligious body. The Quaker schools in my area have an equal-opportunity hiring policy, and the Quakers in Philly saved the Catholic Church in center city 3 times back in the day when protestants were percetuting Catholics. If I did believe in a higher power, I'd convert to Quakerism. Humanistic religious folks may disagree with me on cosmology, are my ethical and political allies.
quote:
Not only that, they affect how you and I think. Even as atheists we still have vestiges of these ideas. Many of us still think in terms of life being a constant battle of Good vs Evil. Again, I'm not sure we can completely 24 hours a day be free of them, but we can recognize these false beliefs in a lack of self-worth, in a fear of reality, and let them go as we find them.
Again, your tunnel vision applies. While what you say is true regarding the Western heritage of the Christian mindset, you forget that the process of letting go of such rubbish started over 100 years ago at the dawn of the modern era. Even though many Christians hold on to dangerous beliefs from the past, most Christians in modernized countries have allowed their theology to progress, some without even realizing it until they're forced to voice what they really think in a conversation.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 11:58:29 [Permalink]
|
dglas wrote: quote:
Sorry, Marf. got tied up in work and some other matters.
No, you are not allowed to have a life outside SFN. ;-)
quote:
#1 - Devalues human life and de-emphasizes the human state of existence. Makes it easier to rationalize becoming a suicide bomber, more specifically to see oneself as right for becoming so. As I have been known to say, it takes a moral nihilist to say that murder isn't Wrong; it takes a moral absolutist to say that murder is Right. It is much easier to justify inflicting harm or even death (and accepting harm or even death) if one sees the current state of existence as less meaningful than the afterlife or even if one assumes there is an afterlife - whatever the stipulated definition of it is. Does any mindset get more harmful than this?
You give beliefs way too much credit. Many atheists died willingly for their beliefs and freedom to voice their beliefs in the past. Giordano Bruno is one of the most famous examples. People think that believing in an afterlife makes people more willing to die, but when we look at reality, that simply isn't true. One's natural personality, upbringing, and quality of life much more affect one's ability to commit suicide. Hell, some religious folks would say that being an atheist makes suicide easier because what could be more painless than nothingness?
As for reincarnation devaluing life or de-emphasizing the human state of existence – how? That sounds a lot to me like religious people who say atheism devalues life by believing it is finite. What happens before and after a human beings life doesn't have to diminish that life one iota. It might for some people, but that is not guaranteed by that belief.
And as for capitalized Wrong and Right – again, you get into philosophical concepts that don't really affect most peoples' choices. Most people do not sit and contemplate whether morality is objective or subjective with tendencies based on common experiences. Most people use the words “right” and “wrong” to describe how they feel about a situation. If you pressed them on whether they meant the capitalized or lower-case right or wrong, a lot of people would get annoyed or confused, and even if you got an answer out of them, the fact that they'd never thought about it previously means that that answer isn't especially telling. In anthropological studies of the Khoi San – a small group of people that are in the process of undergoing drastic cultural change due to trade with more technologically advanced Africans, anthropologists found that the Khoi San people would espouse their old values and beliefs even if they were clearly not living those beliefs any longer. This can be directly applied to people in modernized countries today. Many, when pressed on the issue, will still defend old values, but they don't live them. And then if you point out that they are living them, they will get sheepish and admit they are doing something “wrong”, but then they'll keep on doing it anyway. Are they ethically weak, or has our culture just not caught up in its rhetoric regarding values to describe what we actually believe?
quote:
#2 - Vague and meaningless. With that kind of stipulation, anyone can stipulate anything about anything - which, of course, is part of the problem with religious understandings of belief. That statement has no content. That's entirely private realm stuff and does not admit to discussion in the public realm. Our understanding of the world is a |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/30/2006 11:59:21 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2006 : 18:00:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, I don't see the difference. I think you have a sort of tunnel vision when it comes to how people believe in and experience spiritual matters.
Yes, I forgot, religious people - which means, by your definition, people who are inclined to have skin and to often grow hair - are perfect, and never have irrational or unproductive ideas.
I apologize that my tunnel vision causes you to ignore the evidence and the words on the page and go off on tangents that have nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that everything Martin Luther King did was evil and you'd know it if you would take the time to pay attention to what someone else is saying, rather than the ghosts in your own head. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 05/01/2006 02:05:55 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 00:17:18 [Permalink]
|
Hehehe.
So now I am a "blatant friggin' ignorant totalitarianist purveyor of armchair-philosopher horseshit" Hot damn! I'm moving up in the world! I am unclear on one thing though. Is horseshit a class better or worse than bullshit or are they roughly equivalent? I wouldn't want to be accused of misinterpreting your claims about me.
If you didn't want to hear my views, why did you ask for them? Figured the newbie would be easy to take apart at the seams and now frustrated because it is not so easy as it seems? Yes, believe it or not, I have given some of these topics some thought, in my "armchair philosopher" way. And BTW, if something is true, it doesn't matter who says it or even why, it is still true.
Marf. Every step of the way, you have presented challenges and I have met them - one for one. You asked for beliefs that do not conflict with the natural world that are dangerous. I gave you several. You selected 3 custom-chosen examples and challenged me to indicate how they are harmful. I have done so, in excrutiating detail. Now you respond, with shrill bluster and name calling. Shrillness doesn't win disputes, Marf. And, more importantly, shrillness also does not advance the subject matter.
What is plain to me is that your desire to defend private realms has led you to stipulating definitions of fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist that automatically class all the bad stuff with column A and all the good stuff with column B. If anyone points out a bad thing, you automatically class it in column A - as a reflex action and then shrilly defend that with whatever rhetorical straws you can clutch at. I am suggesting that the bad stuff is, in part, a consequence of the common grounds that column A AND column B both share. Your stipulation shifts and changes as a matter of convenience depending upon whether you think the topic at hand lauds or condemns. Interestingly (and ironically) enough, that is precisely the kind of fluid mental behaviour that I am concerned with. The arguments I wield against religious beliefs are the same arguments wielded against alternative "medicine," ghost channeling and other miscellaneous anonymous fluffy mystical nonsense. The difference is only a matter of scale. Oh, and the fact that you don't like the comparison.
Oh, wait. Since the source of this post is an "armchair philosopher," you can dismiss it out of hand. I guess there's not much point in trying to discuss anything with you, so....
There is a signature used by a member of the SFN that perhaps you would be wise to consider. That SFN member's username is Marfknox.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 01:56:20 [Permalink]
|
| Quakerism is itself often quite totalitarian I'm told. It gives the illusion of going within and doing what the voice within tells us, but then we have what is called "Eldering," which can mean something quite different. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
