|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2006 : 06:17:13 [Permalink]
|
| Preferences are not "psychological needs." What is the difference? How do you tell? |
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
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 11:13:42 [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?" 
How to address a specific post is answered in this post.
Also, check out other HOWTOs in the Q & A section.
quote:
My problem is with the sheer workload of trying to interject commentary on a point by point basis. Did that make any sense?
It made sense. But it is the preferred quoting style... to go the extra mile for the benefit of the reader shows respect for them and gives them fewer excuses not to read your post. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 12:15:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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.
RTFM. Doh! 
Okay. I deserved that. |
--------------------------------------------------
- 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 04/20/2006 12:16:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 21:16:51 [Permalink]
|
dglas wrote:
quote:
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.
Even if they claim to be about the natural world? Look, if someone insists that those concepts apply to the natural world, and that it is evident, and they have no evidence, that falls squarely and clearly into the category of having unsupported beliefs regarding the natural world.
quote:
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.)
You lost me there. I believe all people should be counted, not just the “public world of the dominant classes”. There's pretty damn good evidence and lack of evidence showing that most people don't think very much about the personal beliefs that might make up their worldview in the first place. Most people, at least in their actions, care more about their livelihood and interpersonal relationships, and social status than they do about genuine beliefs, and most people who engage in religious ritual have done so for social purposes. And all those people do matter.
quote:
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.
Val said it wasn't universal, and it isn't. You say it is a presupposition of “one major category of religions”, but which category? You imply it is ones that incorporate the idea of a Messiah or “savior”, but then you go on to very narrowly define all the terms and therefore imply that one particular interpretation of these religious concepts is the only one. That is just plain ignorant, and I think Val's response to it shows exactly how it is ignorant. What are you reading or who are you talking to develop your understanding of Christianity?
quote:
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.
And here you are just nitpicking. We come up with labels and categories for the sake of being able to discuss things more easily. Yes, it distorts the reality an |
"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 - 04/20/2006 : 21:35:22 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
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.
You are going to take some peoples' motivations and use them to defame the entire group? I would also point out that smoking is always detrimental to one's health. It is guaranteed to be materially destructive. But being part of a religious community is often not destructive, and in fact, is often helpful to the community at large. Just because some religious communities encourage destructive behaviors is not a reason to defame them all. You also make a judgment here with your “special club that is going to Heaven”. I'm friends with a heck of a lot of religious people, and none of them are self righteous, none of them think they are superior to nonreligious folks, and none of them (except one cousin who got taken in by fundies) believe only Christians go to heaven. I've point blank asked lots of them, and on the radio last week Rev. Coffin talked about atheists having salvation through their acts of love for their fellow mankind.
quote:
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.
Preach on, brother, preach on! But seriously, all you've given here is a hodgebodge of amateur philosophy and psychology. I suppose I need to be cured of my illusions too because I'm a fine artist, and my very career causes me to reaffirm human worth and dignity through an otherwise pointless activity. I suppose I should have stuck to the straight reality of interior design. No thanks, it has no soul.
quote:
I apologize if I called you a moron, but I don't think I did.
I don't think you did either. Who said that? The only “moron” I though was when I called the members of the Philly and LA Rational Response “morons” for their “War against Easter” actions.
quote:
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.
Yeah right. Your own words speak for themselves:
quote:
You called someone a moron in order to falsely build yourself up by tearing someone down.
My calling them morons had nothing to do with my own self esteem. That is an assumption you made, and an insulting one |
"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 - 04/21/2006 : 00:09:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are going to take some peoples' motivations and use them to defame the entire group?
I wonder if there is just too much in this thread for you to go through, as you are not responding at all like someone who has read anything that I've said. I haven't "defamed" anyone, and I certainly haven't "defamed" an entire group. You're reading something into something that isn't there. |
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 - 04/21/2006 : 21:20:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknoxquote:
dglas wrote:
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.
Even if they claim to be about the natural world? Look, if someone insists that those concepts apply to the natural world, and that it is evident, and they have no evidence, that falls squarely and clearly into the category of having unsupported beliefs regarding the natural world.
Not necessarily. Terms like the ones I listed, and that are often the heart and soul of discriminatory practices, are evaluational (oft times normative terms) that admit neither to verification nor refutation. Now, yes, many have tried to link normative/evaluational terms to objective reality - invariably with unequivocal failure (the is-ought barrier is alive and well). But we must be careful not to assume that because reality does not verify something that it, because of this, contradicts with it - remember that phrase? By using "unsupported" you actually gave me the point that these terms are not about the real world. "Unsupported" is neither "contradicted" nor "refuted."
Now one can then ask whether the claim (that these are claims about the natural world) is itself supported by the evidence, in which case we get a big fat "no," (simply on the basis that they do not admit of verification/refutation) but that is a metalevel consideration and is a different proposition than X is "superior" to Y. The unfortunate truth is that reality has absolutely nothing to offer about evaluational claims like X is superior/better than Y.
C'mon, Marf. You already know this. Skeptics use this all the time with respect to mystical claims about ley lines and chi manipulation, and other bunk. You just don't want to apply it to religious belief - as if religious belief were somehow immune to examination. It isn't.
Allow me to demonstrate. Coal is better than slate. On the surface (so to speak) we may think we are talking about a property "betterness" of slate and coal, but a closer consideration leads us to the conclusion that "better" is not a property of either coal or slate. We're talkng about something else. The craftier one will then suggest that coal is better becvause it burns as a fuel while slate doesn't (or not as efficiently). Again the claim that admits of verification is the "burns as a fuel" part, not the "betterness." A claim to betterness does not contradict with reality, nor does reality support the claim. The claim is not about reality; it's about the evaluator.
Back to the point. Evaluational claims and other claims (like mystical or spiritual ones) that do not contradict with nor coincide with reality can be quite dangerous.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknoxquote:
dglas wrote:
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.)
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 22:29:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Atheist is a term that implies a negation (A-) of an existing belief (theist).
Actually, the Greek A- prefix means "without," and not "opposed to." Just like the word "agnostic" literally means "without spiritual knowledge," not "the opposite of spiritual knowledge." The original meaning of the ancient Greek word from which "atheist" derives is simply "without gods," not "believing there is no god" (a meaning which came later).quote:
I make no claims about the existence of God, because the concept is meaningless to me.
Right, you're an agnostic atheist.quote:
Can you even hear what you sound like here? You don't like the fact that I don't want to call myself an atheist (for reasons you may or may not understand), but you are prepared to try to force that term on me anyway. Thankyou for proving my point. I have never claimed myself to be an atheist, but you are perfectly happy to select a meaning for it which precludes any possibiliites but the polar extreme-dichotomous one you want to enforce. How very dogmatic.
How very interesting. Marf selects the broadest meaning of the word "atheist," and you demand that she should instead apply the narrowest, because (apparently) of your personal political views about the baggage associated with the word in question.
Well, guess what? If you talk to religious people about your views, nine times out of ten they're going to think you're an atheist whether you call yourself one or not. And if you express your views about the lack of a god-concept to atheists, they're mostly going to think you're an atheist, also.
Accepting that other people are going to slap labels on you that you might not like - whether they do so dogmatically or not - is about the only way you're going to be able to start to reach an understanding with other people, regardless of their beliefs. Getting all twitchy about it and going on a counter-attack (though Marf was a bit hostile, as well) isn't going to do a damn thing for you.
Of course, my preferred term is "anuminous," but you're not going to find me getting cheesed off when people say "oh, you're an atheist" after I explain it to them.quote:
Of course, there is always the possibility of an "I don't know," right? No? Nevermind.
Actually, the broad sense of "atheist" (which Marf tried to use) includes "I don't know." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 22:47:15 [Permalink]
|
Possibly, but the important thing is: Did I do better with the quoting stuff this time... 
For me it's not really about politics, Dave. It's more about the way the language covertly works. I guess I didn't get that across well. Maybe in another thread some other time... |
--------------------------------------------------
- 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 04/21/2006 22:51:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 23:01:08 [Permalink]
|
After further reflection, I'd like to further clarify the A- prefix, by pointing out that we have the word "amoral," which describes an something done without regard to morality, and "immoral," which describes something done contrary to the morals in question.
While we don't have "imtheist" (uck), we do have "antitheist." Not all atheists are antitheists. And not all atheists are agnostics (but all agnostics are athiests, strictly speaking).
It seems to me that your real gripe, dglas, is with those who (religous or areligious) have decided that all atheists are antitheists (or worse, that all atheists are Satan worshippers - Bwahahaha!). Rather than argue with a fellow atheist about her word choice, wouldn't it be more productive to try to counter-educate those who've fallen for the popular (and narrow) meaning of the word?
Not that it's easy. 20 years ago I was in the hospital for a week, sharing a room with a strict Baptist. One night, as I was reading, the guy's kids (about my age at the time) came over and tried to engage me in some general chit-chat. "What are you reading?" one asked. "An H.P. Lovecraft novel," I replied. "Oh, are you a Satanist?" she asked. That staggered me for a moment - as the idea that only a Satanist would read Lovecraft bounced around my brain for a while, rejected by all logic centers - but I did manage to get "no" out before her brother changed the subject (to what, I don't remember). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 23:10:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dglas
Possibly, but the important thing is: Did I do better with the quoting stuff this time...
Indeed!quote:
For me it's not really about politics, Dave. It's more about the way the language covertly works. I guess I didn't get that across well.
Well, no, that's precisely what I meant by the "politics" of it. It's a political goal of many fundamentalist theists to have their bretheren think of atheists as being wholly opposed to God. It has to be the responsibility of the agnostics and the atheists (and the agnostic atheists) to take the meanings of the words back, 'cause nobody else is going to do it for us (and a movement like the "Brights" seemed doomed to failure from the start due to meaning confusion, also - though I think "anuminists" has more promise). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 23:24:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, the broad sense of "atheist" (which Marf tried to use) includes "I don't know."
So I can be an Agnostic and Atheist both at the same time. - sort of like being from Trinidad and Tobago or form Newfoundland and Labrador |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 08:49:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave, Thanks for all the lengthy clarification about the word "atheist". Saved me the trouble. One thing, however: It is my understanding that while most agnostics are atheists (under the broad definition, of course), some some agnostics are theists or spiritualists. They are people who believe they don't and cannot know about gods or spiritual matters, but they believe something like that exists.
Skeptic is a funny term too, at least when we're talking about a religious or philosophical skeptic. In the extreme, they'd be a pure agnostic. But many skeptics, like Val don't take it to an extreme, they just always leave a little room for their doubts. So I guess that'd be the same thing as being an agnostic believer.
I think one of the roots of the argument I've been having here is the difference between belief and knowledge. Fundamentalists regard their religious beliefs as something greater than the knowledge we obtain through empiricism. The liberal or Humanisitic people of faith that I keep defending put knowledge through empiricism above religious faith.
I suppose another common difference between these two groups of faithfuls is that fundies tend to have much more specific and rigid beliefs, while Humanistic believers tend to have much more vague and flexible spiritual concepts. I wonder if the corrolation between those two characteristics are related; if perhaps having specific beliefs (such as "all nonChristians go to hell") makes one more likely to put that belief before evidence or logic to the contrary, but more vague beliefs (like "God is an Inner Light, a guiding force in each and every person") cause one to champion reason whenever and wherever it can be applied. Or maybe the cause and effect relationship goes in the reverse. Who knows. |
"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 04/22/2006 08:50:12 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 09:52:04 [Permalink]
|
dglas, I re-read my posts to you, and Dave's right, I am getting a little hostile. Sorry if my tone started to put you on the defense, or make you uncomfortable, or whatever. I tend to get pretty aggressive in debates, but I assure you, it is never meant to be personal.
quote:
Not necessarily. Terms like the ones I listed, and that are often the heart and soul of discriminatory practices, are evaluational (oft times normative terms) that admit neither to verification nor refutation. Now, yes, many have tried to link normative/evaluational terms to objective reality - invariably with unequivocal failure (the is-ought barrier is alive and well). But we must be careful not to assume that because reality does not verify something that it, because of this, contradicts with it - remember that phrase? By using "unsupported" you actually gave me the point that these terms are not about the real world. "Unsupported" is neither "contradicted" nor "refuted."
OK, we're clearly having a misunderstanding here. So I'm going to explain what I see as the difference using examples, so I'm more clear. Daniel Dennet just wrote a book called Breaking the Spell, and it is all about how religion is beginning to be explained through totally natural processes. He predicts that eventually, every aspect of religious belief will have a totally naturalistic explanation. Now, if indeed the scientific evidence for those explanation is strong and apparent, anyone who denies them on religious grounds possesses what I would agree are “dangerous beliefs” or beliefs that are an assault on reality. Another example could be the flood story from the Bible. People who claim it is literally true are dangerous and denying plain reality. However, some religious people believe God works through natural world. Such people would accept a naturalistic explanation for religion, but still believe that God planned it that way. And the same people may regard the Bible as a “Holy” book, but believe the flood story is a fable. One of my religious cousins the other day said that his most recent spiritual experience was watching some show on Discovery that detailed possible naturalistic explanations of the plagues of Egypt from the story of Moses.
In this age of reason, a goodly number of religious people do not accept true miracles. They have changed the definition of miracle to mean something natural that puts us into a state of awe or bliss: (Ex: “Every child born is a miracle!” or “Sunsets are miracles!”) They've interpreted the “faith” and being saved “through Christ” of the New Testament as being connected to love for one's fellow humans and acting on that love. (Ex: Rev. Coffin) They've started regarding God as a force so grand and mysterious that they don't attribute any specific characteristics to Him (Ex:Quakers), and some have even question the literal Christ (Ex: Bishop John Spong). And none such beliefs contradict anything we know about the natural world through empiricism, so in my judgment, they are not dangerous beliefs, and often, are very enriching beliefs for the individuals that adopt them. (I'm not saying everyone would be enriched by religious belief, just that some are.)
quote:
The unfortunate truth is that reality has absolutely nothing to offer about evaluational claims like X is superior/better than Y.
Did I deny this?
quote:
C'mon, Marf. You already know this. Skeptics use this all the time with respect to mystical claims about ley lin |
"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 04/22/2006 09:58:44 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 15:13:29 [Permalink]
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
