|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2006 : 17:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
filthy wrote: quote:
Both of my girls ended up more or less agnostic. When they were young, they had school friends that they occasionally went to church services with, and I encouraged this, even though I found out (to my utter horror) that they were taken to a couple of revivals! But I figure: how can someone, especially a child, make up their minds without seeing both sides of the coin, as it were? The questions they asked me, I answered as honestly as I could.
You probably did the best thing – I know sooo many more fanatic atheist types who now have fundamentalist Christian children. Ex: Madelyn Murray O'Hair.
One of my friends is agnostic and her husband is sort of a general spiritualist with no clearly defined theology. They have a baby daughter and have decided to take her to the same liberal Episcopal church the mom attended as a child. That makes sense to me. quote:
Heh, every once in a while, I tell them that "an agnostic is no more than an atheist who lacks the courage if his convictions." And everybody has a lot of fun hollering at me.
I know yer just teasing, but personally I think it takes more courage of conviction to be an agnostic. It's brave to live with the most ultimate kind of uncertainty.
I have decided to take a very moderate approach with my daughter, and try to present as best as I can all sides to certain issues.
And if she asks me what I think, I will tell her directly and truthfully, but I will remind her that no one, including her father, has a stranglehold on the truth.
But I will try to instill in her good critical thinking skills and a desire to investigate and analyze. I secretly hope she becomes a scientist :-) but if not, that's fine too.
I want my daughter, when she becomes old enough to make decisions, to make informed decisions and to be happy with what she chose and the reasons she chose it.
If she decides to be muslim, or atheist, or whatever, I will be okay with it as long as she is happy and made her decision of her own free will. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 03:05:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo wrote: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> You start with the assumption that you're not worth very much, so you have to do certain things to get worth.
quote:
Val never said he starts with the assumption that he isn't worth very much. You have put so many words in his mouth! Think of it this way: my life has the worth that I give it. When more people know, love, and value me, the worth of my life increases. Just because relationships with other people make me have a greater sense of self worth, doesn't mean that without those relationships I think I'm worthless or worth very little.
I'll try again. Tell me why that makes sense to you at all. No, it doesn't necessarily that you think you're worthless, just worth less. No one thinks they're completely worthless unless they're dead. Otherwise, they're at least worth the trouble of eating, sleeping and drinking water. But if you doing something makes you worth more, then that comes from a belief that you get your self-worth from doing things or something outside of yourself. You start with the assumption that you're not worth very much. It's not confined to religion. We all do it. You called someone a moron in order to falsely build yourself up by tearing someone down. Your anger comes from your own view of yourself and your world, and is not based on what happens in the outside world. The point is not that I'm better than a religious person because of it, the point is that I try to recognize those areas where I do it and lose those beliefs. Religion makes those beliefs sacred. He has enshrined his "psychological need" for religion. He has no more of a "need" for religion than I have a "psychological need" for cigarettes. |
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
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 05:23:43 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
It's not confined to religion. We all do it. You called someone a moron in order to falsely build yourself up by tearing someone down.
It is out-of-line to psychoanalyze other people. I think your interpretation about me on this matter is wrong, and I am offended by your presumptuousness regarding my character.quote:
Your anger comes from your own view of yourself and your world, and is not based on what happens in the outside world.The point is not that I'm better than a religious person because of it, the point is that I try to recognize those areas where I do it and lose those beliefs.
Given that there is no such thing as a purely objective point of view on anything, I suppose I could grant you this, but I'd have to add that your quest to rid yourself of such illusions is futile, and in that sense, you may just have created a whole new illusion for yourself. But maybe not, I don't think I have a full grasp on what you are saying. quote:
Religion makes those beliefs sacred. He has enshrined his "psychological need" for religion. He has no more of a "need" for religion than I have a "psychological need" for cigarettes.
See, by comparing what Val (or Martin Luther King, for that matter) has done to a self-destructive and highly addictive behavior like smoking, you have debased it. But the psychological need for religion is part of human nature, and many religious folks would argue that God made it a part of human nature so most people could have some sort of sense of the divine. Now I don't take that interpretation, but I don't think people who do are delusional. Anyway, in regards to "enshrining his 'psychological need' - based on how you've described this, you could just as easily say that people who have sex have enshrined their psychological need for sexual gratification, or that people who have and happily raise children have enshrined their psychological need to be parents. Or that people with close friends have enshrined their psychological need for human love. I mean, what's the difference here? Many people think all of those things are "sacred", or at least as giving their lives greater meaning and worth. I certainly do. Though, again, I don't, and I doubt Val too, start with the assumption that I'm "not worth very much". Those are words that you've once again put in peoples' mouths.
Are you arguing that we're worth the same regardless of our perspectives on life? I mean, we're all worthless from an objective viewpoint, so our own perspectives is all we've got. If we get rid of our subjectiveness, then we really are worthless, and our lives meaningless. |
"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 04/19/2006 05:26:05 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 05:29:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You have constructed an elaborate strawman.
I haven't made up anything. You say you have a psychological "need" for these ideas (not complete or worthwhile without them). You say that you need this mental structure that you've built to approve (worth) of yourself. You've said that you're "lost" (again, looking for something to give you, or life worth) without them.
I made none of it up. These are all your words.
[/quote]
Interesting construct. A psychological need must translate directly into self worth. I'm not buying that load of crap, Gorgo. Again, you accuse me of building something external so that I can approve of myself. You misinterpret the term lost to fit your definition of self worth.
What-the-fuck. I give, Gorgo. You win.
No matter what I say, you will continually apply you bais to the words I use instead of trying to understand the way I am using them. Just like always.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't respond to most of your posts. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:38:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you arguing that we're worth the same regardless of our perspectives on life? I mean, we're all worthless from an objective viewpoint, so our own perspectives is all we've got. If we get rid of our subjectiveness, then we really are worthless, and our lives meaningless.
If we decide to live, then we place certain values on different things. We like certain foods, we enjoy doing certain things. When it becomes a matter of "need", then our own worth is involved. As in, I "need" a cigarette in order to be "cool." "Cool" giving us more worth as a human being, than "non-cool." Or in the case of those who believe in Hell, to take your example, people try to gain self-worth by being in a special club that is going to Heaven.
If we do certain things, we may enjoy life more (and a lot of that is just based on the decision to give up the idea of gaining self-worth) and if we don't, we may not. We may decide to be happy regardless of what happens, as happiness is different than pleasure. Not needing to gain self-worth by doing or being something, we act more completely in a realm that is real. We don't need to act in a world where the illusion of gaining worth is more important than reality itself. You are right, it is futile to think that any of us will ever reach a point where we "get it" and that's it. The difference is recognizing when we do think we need to gain worth, shaking off the need to do that, and looking at reality.
This is a discussion forum. In my mind, a discussion forum is where people can be free to toss out ideas, discuss them, learn from the discussion, and move on with our day. Yes, we all get excited about certain things and we all get too tied up in things, and hopefully, we all try not to be rude, although we all have big egos here, that isn't always achieved. I apologize if I called you a moron, but I don't think I did. I tossed out some ideas about how I think the world works. You don't like them, that's fine. Your decision to be offended is noted, but I think I've made it clear that I'm not attacking anyone, just throwing out ideas, and I've said it's all based on years of careful questioning, personal observation, and yes it's all probably just silly speculation. I've seen people deny it fervently, but as they deny it fervently, they continue to tell me it's true at the same time. What can be done? Throw out these stupid ideas into discussion forums and see what happens and try to learn not to tie up my self-worth in getting anyone convinced that I'm right, and be glad to find out if I'm wrong or if I'm right. Learn that none of it affects my self-worth, just like none of what I say affects yours. If I'm wrong, then take it with the same politeness you've wanted others to take with you when you've been wrong. If I'm rude, then let me know you think I've been rude in the same way you'd want others to tell you when you've been rude. Being offended, that is, making your self-worth dependent on the outcome of this discussion, is something for you to work out, not for me. I can only apologize if the discussion is something that's hard for you to deal with, and keep repeating that I am not out to attack anyone. |
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
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is out-of-line to psychoanalyze other people. I think your interpretation about me on this matter is wrong, and I am offended by your presumptuousness regarding my character.
"Psychoanalysis" is quite a different procedure from making observations and reporting those observations in a discussion forum. If you think what I've said attacks your character, then we have a lack of communication, as I've said repeatedly that I am not out to attack anyone, nor do I think what I've said about anyone here is negative. |
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 04/19/2006 06:48:57 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 09:12:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, you accuse me of building something external so that I can approve of myself. You misinterpret the term lost to fit your definition of self worth.
I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. |
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
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 13:44:28 [Permalink]
|
Since I am not proficient with the quote system yet, I will have to do this the hard way. My apologies for taking so long to reply; I have been preoccupied.
There are two kinds of beliefs that do not contradict with the natural world (using Marfknox's wording).
(1) Beliefs about the natural world which are true; and
(2) Beliefs that are not about the natural world.
If you take a careful look at the examples I provide, you may note that they all have something in common. They don't make reference to the natural world - at least immediately. I think we can fairly, even verifiably, say that there are beliefs that can properly be said to by metaphysical in nature and not subject to natural world verification. Now, Marfknox's challenge, if one recalls, was: (meh!; I'll just quote it.)
"But religious beliefs that do not contradict with the natural world are not dangerous at all. If you think they are, please explain and give examples."
My point in each of these, is that there are claims that do not contradict with the natural world that are in fact quite dangerous.
As such, I am meeting the challenge as presented by Marfknox in the wording she gave. If that is not what she meant, then perhaps a little less ambiguity might have been helpful.
There is a difference between misinterpretation and a straw man on the basis of ambiguity, sir. One is a miscue in communication. The other is an act of rhetorical dishonesty. You, of course, not liking the content of my post, immediately ascribe a straw man argument to me. Straw man is your favourite pet fallacy perhaps (or so it would seem)? Mine is equivocation with argumentum ad hominem as a close runner up. But that's just a matter of personal preference, yes? Our preferences are not claims about the actual properties of the fallacies in question...
Unfortunately, the ideas I list are specifically designed (and not by me) so that they may consistently be taken to extremes. Didn't you ever find it interesting that the prohibitions on murder and suicide are even needed. There's a reason for that, sir.
As for the matter of extremism vs moderation, I will hold religion to its dark history and I will display for all to see (within my poor ability) the basic tenets that have either led, or permitted it to forge that dark history - almost invariably with blood. The difference between an extremist and a moderate is only a matter of degree, not of kind. One might argue, with varying degrees of success, that extremists are moderates due to having their behaviours kept in check. It is just a matter of determining what the check is.
Now, in order to meet Marfknox's challenge, I had to present beliefs that (1) do not contradict with the natural world (2) are dangerous, and (3) I had to link the two.
I think I have done so, for the most part. Perhaps, my points were not to Marknox's intended point. Fair enough. Failures of communication happen. By the same token, your criticism are not to my point. Rather than immediately screaming "Straw Man!!!!!" however, I will give you the benefit of (dare I say it?) the doubt.
Now. About:
"It is clear that beliefs which conflict with the natural world are dangerous. They have led to discrimination against women, racial minorities, gay, and peoples of other ethnicities. They have also led to pseudo-scientific practices that are often damaging to people."
The first sentence seems correct, of course, as far as I now understand it goes, although one could (on a case by case basis) reasonably ask for connections between a belief that contradicts the natural world (in a belief of verifiable/refutable fact kind of way) have "led to" matters of discrimination, etc. I tried to point out that matters of discrimination are not really about natural world claims at all - even if they are phrased or mistaken as such. It is not enough to simply claim that such beliefs do not contradict the natural world - one must be clear that they are not about the natural world at all. Words like inferior, superior, right, wrong, evil, etc. ad nauseum are about attitides, not about the natural world at all - even if the attitudes claim to be about the natural world.
Marknox quite properly points out that she and I are in agreement - more or less. Once again, however, there are beliefs that neither agree nor disagree with the natural world because they are not about the natural world. Of course, I provided examples of these.
Now. About extremism as a minority. Taken as a whole history, moderate religion is a minute portion, a recent development - frankly, it is the minority position, something we've seen as a dominant position in western society for only a very short period of time. (Before someone goes there, I am not interested in the private world of every individual non-ruling class person, but rather with the public world of the dominant classes - don't even ty it: that would be a straw man.) I think it is the rise of science (science is a new phenomenon, too) and skepticism (a forerunner to science, brutally repressed throughout human history) that has brought about moderateness. We are watching now. That aside, however, even to speak of moderates and extremists is interesting. The question is, what kind of doctrine is it that with respect to which both extremism and moderation are consistant. (Wow! That was a clunky sentence! Let's try that again.) Both extremism and moderateness are consistant with the dogma. What does this say about the dogma?
As I commonly say: "It takes a moral nihilist to say that murder isn't Wrong. It takes a moral absolutist to say that murder is Right." Note the capitals. The trick to resolving this little problem is to redefine morality so that it is not a matter of Right and Wrong. Where do we get the original definition? I leave that to your acuity.
Quoth Valiant Dancer:
"Also, the view that people sans gods are intrinsically evil is a radical evangelical fundamentalist position, not a universal religious position."
Umm, it is a basic presupposition of at least one major category of religions, without which the entire house of cards folds. No intrinsic evil means no need for internalized normative systems to control that evil (concience as morality). No intrinsic evil means no inherent need for a saviour. It is a fundamental conception that creates a construct of self that is hurtful and limits our ability to develop as non-evil beings. We create our own monsters this way - a self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, I think that's dangerous.
Quoth Valiant Dancer:
"There are some aspects of religion which fulfills certian needs for the religious person. Most notably psychological needs for connectedness to the universe, mysticism, and ceremony. People who do not have these psychological needs tend to be athiest or become atheist."
I'm not sure psychoanalysis is our business here, but hey, I can play too.
As far as psychological needs are concerned, I really don't think that you and I are different in kind here; it seems most likely that we just interpret and label these needs differently - state them in different forms. Your need for connectivity with the universe is my need to explore and understand; to be in the loop. Your need for ceremony is one form of my need for social connection - we are social animals ..umm, beings, yes? Sports events are ceremonies too. So are concerts and rallies. Your need for mysticism is a form of my need for understanding and efficacy, perhaps even wonder. To say we are different in kind is just another form of descrimination and I would cite that as another example to add to the list. Now, I'm not saying you're discriminating here. I don't think you see it as such, but there is no need for |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/19/2006 14:21:23 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 14:09:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Since I am not proficient with the quote system yet, I will have to do this the hard way.
If you click "reply with quote" (the blue arrow), the previous poster's text will come pre-quoted. Also, the blue forum code link on the left of such replies will link you to further formatting options. You basically had it right. It's just quote and /quote inside brackets, except there isn't any option to place a "=name" to identify the quote. You need to type that part in if it isn't a direct reply.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/19/2006 14:10:48 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 14:12:09 [Permalink]
|
Quoth Marfknox:
"The fact that you and many other atheists can't see the difference between religious folks who are blinded by highly irrational righteousness and religious folks whose beliefs are harmless is what convinces me that if atheists were in the majority, or even if they were simply the people in power, religious folks would be persecuted just as harshly as religious authorities have persecuted other groups. Oh wait, we've already seen that in Russia and China."
To quote Penn Jillette: "Sweet evil Jesus! WHAT?" (PETA episode)
I cannot talk about the underlying belief structure of a social phenomenon without becoming an oppressive totalitarianist? F*ck! What say we reign it is some, okay...?
BTW: I don't agree with everything Penn & Teller have to ..umm.. say, but I do find their Bulls-hit! show very entertaining.  |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/19/2006 14:22:38 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 14:16:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Since I am not proficient with the quote system yet, I will have to do this the hard way.
If you click "reply with quote" (the blue arrow), the previous poster's text will come pre-quoted. Also, the blue forum code link on the left of such replies will link you to further formatting options. You basically had it right. It's just quote and /quote inside brackets, except there isn't any option to place a "=name" to identify the quote. You need to type that part in if it isn't a direct reply.
Hey. Here's a question. How do I post a link to a specific post in one of the SFN forums? You know, so that I don't have to post "the whole damn thing?" 
My problem is with the sheer workload of trying to interject commentary on a point by point basis. Did that make any sense? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/19/2006 14:19:34 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 20:08:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Hey. Here's a question. How do I post a link to a specific post in one of the SFN forums?
I just find it easiest to choose "reply with quote" and then edit out everything except what I'm replying to.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 05:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Quoth Valiant Dancer:
"Also, the view that people sans gods are intrinsically evil is a radical evangelical fundamentalist position, not a universal religious position."
Umm, it is a basic presupposition of at least one major category of religions, without which the entire house of cards folds. No intrinsic evil means no need for internalized normative systems to control that evil (concience as morality). No intrinsic evil means no inherent need for a saviour. It is a fundamental conception that creates a construct of self that is hurtful and limits our ability to develop as non-evil beings. We create our own monsters this way - a self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, I think that's dangerous.
Which major category of religion is that? If you are talking about Judeo-Christians, then I find a fallacy of composition. Judeo-Christian religious documents do not speak of people as intrinsically evil, but prone to impurity. Impurity which can be capitalized on by their concept of an anti-God. The Savior figure was to remove the need for atonement for ritual impurity or moral impurity by animal or plant sacrifice. Impurity does not equate to evil. This belief in ritual impurity and moral impurity is not universal to all religions.
quote:
Quoth Valiant Dancer:
"There are some aspects of religion which fulfills certian needs for the religious person. Most notably psychological needs for connectedness to the universe, mysticism, and ceremony. People who do not have these psychological needs tend to be athiest or become atheist."
I'm not sure psychoanalysis is our business here, but hey, I can play too.
As far as psychological needs are concerned, I really don't think that you and I are different in kind here; it seems most likely that we just interpret and label these needs differently - state them in different forms. Your need for connectivity with the universe is my need to explore and understand; to be in the loop. Your need for ceremony is one form of my need for social connection - we are social animals ..umm, beings, yes? Sports events are ceremonies too. So are concerts and rallies. Your need for mysticism is a form of my need for understanding and efficacy, perhaps even wonder. To say we are different in kind is just another form of descrimination and I would cite that as another example to add to the list. Now, I'm not saying you're discriminating here. I don't think you see it as such, but there is no need for a distinction in kind here.
Humans are different from each other. This is not discriminatory, just recognizing that not all people have the same psychological needs. For instance, asexuals have no psychological need for pairbonding. I fully accept that humans are social animals.
Ceremony is not necessarily a religious service. My use of that particular example was meant to delineate the needs met by the religion I follow, not to indicate that it was the only way to meet those needs.
Mysticism is usually viewed here by atheists as seperate and distinct from a need for wonder. My verbiage was taking that past experience into account. I fail to see how understanding and efficacy is equivocal to mysticism as mysticism stresses embracing the unknowable as devine. I think you have three concepts co-mingled. Two which are tangentally related (understanding and efficacy) and a third which is not(wonder).
Connectedness to the universe is a concept which is not equivocal to connectedness to society or a need to explore. The term refers to more of a mystical connection as part of all life forms being parts of a whole.
quote:
Quoth Valiant Dancer:
"And contrary to Gorgo's contention,[...]"
I made some sort of claim about Gorgo's position? I must have missed it. But, maybe I'm wrong. Please point to it.
I was not implying that you made any claim about Gorgo's position. I was actually addressing Gorgo directly here. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 06:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Hey. Here's a question. How do I post a link to a specific post in one of the SFN forums? You know, so that I don't have to post "the whole damn thing?"
My problem is with the sheer workload of trying to interject commentary on a point by point basis. Did that make any sense?
Hey, dglas, You can find answers to a lot of your questions in the SFN FAQ. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
