UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Christian dogma


1/31/12 3:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 887
Granpa - People have been murdering, torturing, persecuting other people from the beginning of time solely because of the ignorance brought about by religious thinking. You cannot, in all sincerity, possibly deny this. And though I cannot provide that number (for obvious reasons), I am quite confident that if you were to add that up, it would dwarf the number of people killed by any one or group who claimed to be atheist.


LOL @ this gem. Congratulations Granpa, you've managed to make angryinch look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison, and that is no small task. Do you even read what you are writing?
1/31/12 6:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Granpa
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/29/06
Posts: 13502
inlikeflynn - 
Granpa - People have been murdering, torturing, persecuting other people from the beginning of time solely because of the ignorance brought about by religious thinking. You cannot, in all sincerity, possibly deny this. And though I cannot provide that number (for obvious reasons), I am quite confident that if you were to add that up, it would dwarf the number of people killed by any one or group who claimed to be atheist.


LOL @ this gem. Congratulations Granpa, you've managed to make angryinch look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison, and that is no small task. Do you even read what you are writing?


Resolving to personal insults when you can't intelligently argue something. What a surprise.
1/31/12 6:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Granpa
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/29/06
Posts: 13503
Grakman - It seems more extraordinary to me, given life itself, to claim that there is no Creator, rather than it's opposite. The nature of the evidence for God itself may be debated, but there is certainly no lack of it. <img src="/images/phone/apple.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


Why is that? And what is this evidence for god you Christians like to brag about so much? What is that evidence? Which god? (2nd time I ask this in this thread alone)
1/31/12 6:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 889
Granpa - 
inlikeflynn - 
Granpa - People have been murdering, torturing, persecuting other people from the beginning of time solely because of the ignorance brought about by religious thinking. You cannot, in all sincerity, possibly deny this. And though I cannot provide that number (for obvious reasons), I am quite confident that if you were to add that up, it would dwarf the number of people killed by any one or group who claimed to be atheist.


LOL @ this gem. Congratulations Granpa, you've managed to make angryinch look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison, and that is no small task. Do you even read what you are writing?


Resolving to personal insults when you can't intelligently argue something. What a surprise.


What am I supposed to intelligently argue here, your concrete assertion that "since the beginning of time people have been killing each other soley as the result of religious thinking"? And you know this how? Can you point me to the time machine you used to go back and observe this or the written historical accounts you've read, which somehow existed before recorded history? How about we discuss the number of people killed because of religion, which admittedly, you have no idea how many there were, but gosh darnit, your confidence is a good substitute for empirical data, right? Certainly more compelling than the sources that The Stewed Owl provided.
1/31/12 8:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Granpa
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/29/06
Posts: 13509
inlikeflynn - 
Granpa - 
inlikeflynn - 
Granpa - People have been murdering, torturing, persecuting other people from the beginning of time solely because of the ignorance brought about by religious thinking. You cannot, in all sincerity, possibly deny this. And though I cannot provide that number (for obvious reasons), I am quite confident that if you were to add that up, it would dwarf the number of people killed by any one or group who claimed to be atheist.


LOL @ this gem. Congratulations Granpa, you've managed to make angryinch look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison, and that is no small task. Do you even read what you are writing?


Resolving to personal insults when you can't intelligently argue something. What a surprise.


What am I supposed to intelligently argue here, your concrete assertion that "since the beginning of time people have been killing each other soley as the result of religious thinking"? And you know this how? Can you point me to the time machine you used to go back and observe this or the written historical accounts you've read, which somehow existed before recorded history? How about we discuss the number of people killed because of religion, which admittedly, you have no idea how many there were, but gosh darnit, your confidence is a good substitute for empirical data, right? Certainly more compelling than the sources that The Stewed Owl provided.


Luckily, we have this thing nowadays called historical evidence that paints a clear picture on religious, ritualistic sacrifices, the genocide and persecution of people solely because they worshiped a different god, and all manner of atrocities committed in the name of some unfounded religious belief.

I suggest you pick up a history book.
1/31/12 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/31/12 8:34 PM
Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 26995
 So Granpa you claim that atheists consider all life to be precious and don't believe humans are any more important than any other life form.  So do atheists refuse to take advantage of any medical advances (including veterinary) the involved animal testing?  After all, medicine and a whole lot of other scientific advances are based on the assumption that it is okay to use animals for testing if it is done for the benefit of humans.  I was not aware that atheists essentially abstained from modern medicine and any other technologies developed from the testing of animals.

Also, if you were driving down the road and there was a baby on one side and a squirrel on the other and you had to hit one, how do you choose given that humans are no more significant than any other life forms.  Would your answer change if you found out the baby was a Mormon?
  
1/31/12 8:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 26996
Granpa - 
RoidsGracie - 
Granpa - 


The things I mentioned come from an understanding of the world around us and how it really functions. Which is the opposite of a lot of religions that still deny evolution for example. It may not be a direct result of atheism (there is no law that states one must be educated if one chooses to be an atheist after all), but when you look at the progress we have made as species to abolish things like slavery, these have been a direct result of secular thinking, not religious thinking. Religion encourages the separation of our species. It puts unnecessary labels on people. Why would anyone want that if not to satisfy their own ego?


 The example I gave also comes from an understanding of the world. Seeing the universe as a battlefield where all living beings are at constant war against each other for mere survival and the chance of reproducing is surely another point of view that can be derived from truth of evolution. The point i was trying to make is that  I think you were making an error by thinking that knowing more the universe necessarily leads to a greater appreciation of life and to moral goodness. In fact, I believe it was the Nobel physicist Steve Weinberg who said (paraphased) "The more we learn about the universe, the more pointless it seems".


You make a very good point. I can't argue with that. However, the way I and many atheists see it is, what is better: To try and understand the universe on it's own terms, and make lemonade out of lemons as it were, or to accept the barbaric damaging teachings of primitive ignorant, fearful cultures simply because some of those teachings make us feel better about our place in the universe?

 You aren't seeing the universe "on its own terms" based on anything you have written on this page.  You are extracting meaning from the universe that is based on metaphysical assumptions.  The universe can't produce any human meaning either way.  That is why it is just as easy to argue that the universe tells us life is not significant given the fact that most of it is already dead and all of it will be dead soon enough.  

If by barbaric damaging teachings of the primitive ignorant you mean Bertrand Russel I don't think that is a fair appraisal of what he wrote.  


1/31/12 9:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Granpa
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/29/06
Posts: 13516
Ridgeback - 
Granpa - 
RoidsGracie - 
Granpa - 


The things I mentioned come from an understanding of the world around us and how it really functions. Which is the opposite of a lot of religions that still deny evolution for example. It may not be a direct result of atheism (there is no law that states one must be educated if one chooses to be an atheist after all), but when you look at the progress we have made as species to abolish things like slavery, these have been a direct result of secular thinking, not religious thinking. Religion encourages the separation of our species. It puts unnecessary labels on people. Why would anyone want that if not to satisfy their own ego?


 The example I gave also comes from an understanding of the world. Seeing the universe as a battlefield where all living beings are at constant war against each other for mere survival and the chance of reproducing is surely another point of view that can be derived from truth of evolution. The point i was trying to make is that  I think you were making an error by thinking that knowing more the universe necessarily leads to a greater appreciation of life and to moral goodness. In fact, I believe it was the Nobel physicist Steve Weinberg who said (paraphased) "The more we learn about the universe, the more pointless it seems".


You make a very good point. I can't argue with that. However, the way I and many atheists see it is, what is better: To try and understand the universe on it's own terms, and make lemonade out of lemons as it were, or to accept the barbaric damaging teachings of primitive ignorant, fearful cultures simply because some of those teachings make us feel better about our place in the universe?

 You aren't seeing the universe "on its own terms" based on anything you have written on this page.  You are extracting meaning from the universe that is based on metaphysical assumptions.  The universe can't produce any human meaning either way.  That is why it is just as easy to argue that the universe tells us life is not significant given the fact that most of it is already dead and all of it will be dead soon enough.  

If by barbaric damaging teachings of the primitive ignorant you mean Bertrand Russel I don't think that is a fair appraisal of what he wrote.  

<br type="_moz" />


That is YOUR OPINION Ridgeback, there is nothing factual about anything you just stated. If you want a better idea of how an atheist derives meaning and worth without the need to believe in gods or superstitions, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r6w2M50_Xdk

That person can articulate it much better than I can. There is no need for the metaphysical. The physical is wondrous enough as it is.
1/31/12 9:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27000
 Why can't you must make your own arguments granpa?  Why do you keep directing me to your church's literature corner?
1/31/12 9:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27001
 And for the record, I didn't state that an atheist doesn't know how to derive meaning and worth without becoming a theists or deist.  You waste half your time on arguments I never made.  I did say that any meaning or worth they come up with for human existence will be based in unprovable metaphysical assumptions, which is nothing more than stating some very basic facts about ontology and epistemology.  While it may be a tactic for an atheist to claim that he is merely seeing the universe as it is, the universe is powerless to assign meaning or worth to anything.  
1/31/12 10:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Granpa
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/29/06
Posts: 13519
Ridgeback -  And for the record, I didn't state that an atheist doesn't know how to derive meaning and worth without becoming a theists or deist.  You waste half your time on arguments I never made.  I did say that any meaning or worth they come up with for human existence will be based in unprovable metaphysical assumptions, which is nothing more than stating some very basic facts about ontology and epistemology.  While it may be a tactic for an atheist to claim that he is merely seeing the universe as it is, the universe is powerless to assign meaning or worth to anything.  


Yes I know what your argument is and it is quite simply wrong. I direct you to someone else's take on the matter because you can't seem to understand that there is no metaphysics involved in understanding the wonder of our universe AS IT IS and our existence on this planet AS IT IS. I don't have to believe that there is intrinsic purpose in life, I operate WITH PURPOSE in life.

There is nothing metaphysical in understanding that we are made of star stuff. That billions of years ago, a star died so we may live. That a little squirrel like creature managed to survive a global catastrophe which allowed mammals to evolve into the dominant species on earth. I am here because my genes survived through it all, and through this evolution I am able to appreciate all that has come before me and look forward to all that will come after. There is wonder in the natural world and the natural process that absolutely dwarfs the ideas propagated by some bronze age thinkers.

Again, metaphysics, superstitions, god.. just not needed. If YOU need to believe in the supernatural to draw meaning to your life that's fine, but I am not like you.
1/31/12 10:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27005
  There is nothing metaphysical in understanding that we are made of star stuff. That billions of years ago, a star died so we may live. That a little squirrel like creature managed to survive a global catastrophe which allowed mammals to evolve into the dominant species on earth. I am here because my genes survived through it all, and through this evolution I am able to appreciate all that has come before me and look forward to all that will come after. There is wonder in the natural world and the natural process that absolutely dwarfs the ideas propagated by some bronze age thinkers. 


Fr. Coyne, the Vatican's chief astronomer, makes a very similiar argument for theism.  After all, it was atheists who resisted the idea of the Big Bang and tried to argue that the universe was so vast and life so rare that it can't be considered important.  Now it appears that the size of the universe and the age of the universe and all those stages that it went through were essential for life to exist.  

You are engaging in teleology and won't even acknowledge it. In simple terms you don't understand enough basic philosophy to see where the problem is.  Basically all I see is a fundamentalist Christian who moved laterally into fundamentalist atheism.  The same basic trust in authorities, the same simplistic black and white view of reality, and the same low level of education permeating every post.  
1/31/12 10:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7939
Granpa: First off, you attribute too much to Christianity. Slavery was though of as perverse by the Jains in India thousands of years before Christ was ever born, and that's just one example of many cultures who where vehemently opposed to slavery that pre-dated Christianity.


First off, you shouldn’t look to a New-Age quasi-atheist like Sam Harris for your historical research, granpa.

The Jains did not find slavery perverse “thousands of years before Christ was ever born”. The Money Quote from Sam Harris’s book upon which you are relying is:

"Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: 'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.'" (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 22-23).

Now, this is just a negative imperative - don’t do bad things. It doesn’t really compare with what Christ taught - “"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12).”

There is another problem with your claim:

Mahavira, AKA Vardhamana, who was the founder of Jainism, only lived about 500 or 600 years before Christ (599 to 527 B.C., or some scholars say, 549–477 B.C.), not “thousands of years.” (unless you include his 26 earlier incarnations, that is). Jainism did exist before Mahavira (he basically took the existing religion which Tirthankara Parshva started and reformed its tenets to better jibe with then-current trends). We have no information that Tirthankara Parshva was anti-slavery.

So did Mahavira really say slavery was a really bad thing, as Sam Harris and Granpa claim, either a thousand years or 500 - 600 years before Christ?

We don’t know, despite what Sam Harris’s New Age gurus taught him. The problem is that the Agara Sutras were passed orally and were modified heavily as they passed from sage to sage (unlike the Christian texts, which permit cross-referencing due to single-source transmission). Most scholars put their composition as late as the 3rd Century B.C. They weren’t recorded in writing until, oh, about a thousand years later - well into the Christian era of 500 A.D., when Christianity’s anti-slavery ethic had begun to penetrate into eastern culture...
1/31/12 10:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
666 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/31/12 10:32 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8723
Ridge -- Is "looking forward" to things "engaging in teleology"?

I don't think so. And I think I have enough "basic philosophy" background. (Maybe you're talking about something else?) It looks to me like you're bullying, actually.
1/31/12 10:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7940
Okay, now could you give me an _actual_ example of a culture “violently opposed to slavery that pre-dated Christianity”? And by “violently opposed,” I presume you mean “advocating and conducting actions designed to free slaves, probably at some personal cost”?

The early Christian Church certainly did. Well before the time the Jain sutras were being transcribed, St. Augustine was leading his parish in Africa in direct-action missions to rescue poor people who had been seized by slaves. St. Augustine’s parish stormed slaver ships and pulled the slaves out of the slaver’s custody at considerable risk to their own life and liberty. St. Augustine used the Roman court system to try to free slaves legally. He interviewed freed slaves and transcribed the interview reports to let other know what was happening and how the slave trade worked, and used church funds and donations from parish members to buy slaves’ freedom. St. Patrick demanded that pagan kings stop taking people as slaves, and denounced slavery as evil. Gregory of Nissa (335 - 394) publicly denounced slavery as an evil (“If man is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?”). St. John Chrysostom [345 A.D. - 407 A.D.], the Patriarch of Constantinople, said "Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of extravagance, of insatiable greediness".

Secondly, there were many Christians who were part of the abolitionist movement yes, but there were many more who would defend slavery citing biblical text and verse. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views. This again, points to the religious cherry-picking that has always existed because, as much as god tried, it's clear he wasn't very good at communicating his point across ... or maybe he just enjoys the chaos and confusion.


Do bad people misuse holy scripture to justify their own evil? Without a doubt, even as atheists misuse and misquote scripture to try to denigrate the faith of others. And yet, numerous Christian tracts and pamphlets (most available on the Internet) successfully defended the Abolition movement against the claims of those misusing them by correctly quoting and interpreting scripture. And guess what? Our side won. The Truth will set you free, as a famous Christian minister once said.


1/31/12 10:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7941
What about the millions of people of all ages slaughtered because people thought doing so would ensure that their crops would grow that season?


I accept the responsibility for these heinous acts on behalf of all Christians everywhere, Granpa.

Religion encourages the separation of our species. It puts unnecessary labels on people. Why would anyone want that if not to satisfy their own ego?


There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Ridgeback, I understand (and so do you) that life is precious because I live, because I love, because I feel compassion. I do not have to attribute those qualities to the existence of a supernatural being watching over my every step. As a matter of fact, to think so would make your compassion, your love, your kindness insincere. It would imply that if god wasn't looking over your shoulder, you would be a selfish, murderous bastard.


I’ll never understand why atheists think that is a good or even rational argument. I am often a selfish bastard even though I know God is looking over my shoulder. I might well wind up in Hell due to my sins, yet still feel that my duty is to follow God’s command to my best ability even if I knew I had a ticket on that Hell-Bound Train. I try to do my best, primarily due to my love for my Creator, not the fear of punishment.

When you look at the evidence from the animal kingdom, especially our primate cousins, (of which none has read the bible or any other religious text), you will find that compassion, and caring for other creatures even of different species, is intrinsic. And the degree of this seems to correlate directly with the aptitude of the creature, meaning that the more intelligent the creature is, the more likely he is to exhibit these qualities.


Are you on - Never mind.

Our primate cousins regularly rape, murder, bully, and torture members of their own species. Dolphins, reputedly also highly intelligent, do the same thing. Have you ever even taken a biology class?
1/31/12 10:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7942
I am referring to the persecution of the Jews and people deemed as witches and warlocks during the Inquisitions.


I think you are confusing the purposes of the Inquisitions, which were largely devoted to heresy, not witchcraft.

Furthermore I will repeat what I've already said, atheism, the lack of belief in the supernatural, has NEVER, EVER, been a motivating factor for murder. The idea that Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. thought "well I don't believe in god so I'm going to go exterminate the Jews" is just plain retarded and YOU KNOW IT.


Atheism was an intrinsic element of most of the totalitarian states of the 20th century, which murdered people of faith (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, Muslim) with wild abandon, because belief and devotion to God prevented the ruled from submitting to the total authority of the state and the atheist leader. The hatred those atheists felt for believers, as well the lack of moral constraints (or even the affirmative duty to the atheist state) against the murder of believers under the atheist system, can certainly be imputed to atheism. It also allowed them to commit genocide against those not necessary to the state, such as the infirm, the unborn, the contrary, or the “retarded” (as you put it), as the logical imperatives of atheism, shorn of the bourgeois sentimentalism of 20th century moral positivism (with which you, and Sam Harris, seem to be enthralled), do not include the recognition of others as equal in the eyes of God. Christians may fail in the regard of treating others as they wish to be treated. In atheism, that’s not a failure - such a concept does not even make sense in the context of a system devoted to a negation.

Simply affirming your prejudices does not make them true, granpa.

And if you try and argue that belief in god prevents people from committing crimes, I have some very eye opening statistics that will shut your argument down quite quickly.

Here's a reading assignment for you if you choose to continue to adhere to this false idea:



Utter horseshit. I’ll address it in a separate post, if you’d like.
1/31/12 10:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
TheStewedOwl
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/8/02
Posts: 7943
Ali: The other is that -- again, I think -- pretty much everybody agrees that "superstition is bad"; which leaves the argument about whether religion is a subset of superstition, or something else altogether


Ali, how would you define “superstition” in this context?

Ali: One is the issue of theodicy, which is what the video linked is primarily about. Whether the problems are "surmountable" (as TSO said) and have been "surmounted," and whether one needs to have an advanced degree in theology in order to feel satisfied about that remain an open questions.


I’ve discussed this at length on this forum in the past to a standstill, and I think it’s doubtful that either committed Christians or committed atheists will respect the conclusions the other group has reached, as they each begin with different conceptual frameworks. If one accepts the likelihood of a God and a hereafter, the problem of suffering is resolved, and may even increase one's faith and reliance on God; if one does not admit to that likelihood, the objections raised by the problem of suffering cannot be answered, and further hardens the disbeliever’s philosophical stance. Without going into the (admittedly complex) arguments that, say Plantinga makes for a theodicy, we can simply observe that the vast majority of people are believers; that certainly the vast majority of those believers have almost certainly pondered this issue in the past; and as they remain believers, they also consider the problem surmountable, for one of any number of reasons. One could object that the vast majority of people are stupid, but I doubt that.

If a person of faith does not hold to the Christian conception of God, the problem of suffering / evil is not really effective as an argument against God, of course. The argument does not apply to a deist conception, or to a Buddhist, perhaps, or to a Manichean - if one believes there is a “Good” god and an “Evil” god of roughly equal power, the argument is resolved. Suffering is the Bad god's fault.

So, while the Argument from Suffering can be used by the atheist as an argument against the Christian God, one then has to hit the Anselmian Pause Button, as it is not very effective as an all-purpose argument against Theism.
1/31/12 10:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27006
Ali - Ridge -- Is "looking forward" to things "engaging in teleology"?

I don't think so. And I think I have enough "basic philosophy" background. (Maybe you're talking about something else?) It looks to me like you're bullying, actually.

What role do you want to play here Ali?  You are starting to come across as a stalker.

 And "bully" is only another way of calling granpa an idiot.
1/31/12 10:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
666 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/31/12 11:11 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8724
Thanks TSO -- I don't think I want to define it, because of the second clause "which leaves the argument..." etc. I was just trying to get the discussion somewhere towards what I think (without a careful review of the video, again) was the original post's purpose. There has been lots of tangential things and a whole lot of pugnacity which I didn't find interesting.

And if you've posted at length on theodicy, then I understand your not wanting to rehearse it. I haven't read the history of your posts.

The whole "vast majority" argument is not satisfying to me in any way, without any claims to "stupidity" of a majority -- there's always a regression to the mean with "stupidity" or "intelligence", so no point in arguing about the majority in these terms. There's LOTS of things that could be incorrect that are majority opinion, without being "stupid". Lots and lots of very smart people have said things I disagree with, and I'm completely certain you'd say the same.

"If one accepts the likelihood of a God and hereafter, the problem of suffering is resolved...." maybe. There are all the usual formal arguments about omnipotence and omnibenevolence being incompatible with suffering, no? Anyway, the question (of God and a hereafter) does go away if you accept the likelihood of a God and hereafter.

Anyway, I'm not going to be a big participant in the fights. Maybe I was out of line in trying to refocus the thread -- there have been so many tangential arguments and insults throughout that I found it frustrating and hard to follow.
1/31/12 10:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
666 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8725
I"m the stalker Ridgeback? I had the same thought about you. I'm not a fan, in any case, so you can relax.
1/31/12 11:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27009
Ali - I"m the stalker Ridgeback? I had the same thought about you. I'm not a fan, in any case, so you can relax.

 Actually there are several examples of you not particularly engaging in a conversation, but rather sniping at particular things I write as if your job is to make corrections but otherwise be a passive bystander.

And if you are not going to be a "big participant" please don't be a small one.
2/1/12 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
666 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02/01/12 12:04 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8726
I don't think my "job is to make corrections" -- I don't have a "job" here at all. I do challenge some of the things you write, and sometimes you actually do clarify or even correct yourself. (Thanks for that).

You certainly participate more than I do, but you're projecting on the "stalking" attribution.

Why not be a "small" participant? Especially in the fighting. I know an MMA forum is more likely to attract a more pugnacious sort. I'm really not one of them. I have limits on time, and I have chronic pain and some nerve damage that make lengthy posts more burdensome than they were a few years back. Besides, you are incredibly unwelcoming of "small" participation, I have no reason to think you'd be happier with it "big". And I try to focus on the occasional "thing" so it's not all covered over with pomposity, or bluster. This is not "sniping" by the way... I DO think you have higher academic standards than most people who post here, and than most people in general, and I think you're on an unearnedly high horse with them.

All that said -- I read your posts because you are educated in a tradition which I respect more than most, and you have come up with some references for which I've been grateful.

So, is "looking forward" to things "engaging in teleology"? ... (Maybe you're talking about something else?)
2/1/12 12:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 27015
Yes I am talking about something else. Reread granpa's post to find his assumption of teleology inherent in the universe.  

I assume you agree that the universe is powerless to assign meaning or worth to anything?
2/1/12 12:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
666 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02/01/12 12:19 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 8727
I don't think "the universe" has a mind to or agency to assign anything. So yeah, I agree. [I'm not sure what assumptions are embedded in the formulation "powerless to assign meaning or worth". It's not particularly a way I would put it].

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.