Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Thank you agian for sharing your time and energy. I feel that the tone of this conversation is getting a little less than perfect. I would like to please make clear that I very much respect your ideas and right to them. I have no problem disagreeing with you. I am enjoying this, and hope to maintain a high level of maturity.
Onwards then...
You said "Sorry? You mean you associate with no particular religion?,". The answer is of course, yes. I say what I mean. I believe in god, but I am not associated with ANY religion. I am fond of eastern mysticism and ancient irish culture... But mine is a search for truth, and it was pretty obvious religion is a tool of control, and I am grown-up enough to be in control of my own ideas. I hold most religions to the same light, 4 of the 6 you mentioned are from the same source...
You also said, "not only am I a moral relativist so don't accept there is any specific "right" way to behave but I think it's important to understand and validate your own reason for behaving the way you do. I do that and if you are acting in accordance with the will of another you are not (cannot be),". I agree that there is no 'right' way to behave, that goes with my earlier point. You and I can disagree on what is 'right' showing off our internal separate realities. But what if we try to keep wrong and right on the simplest and most provable scale. Is it 'right' to abuse children? No, I think we can all agree, if we look at the situation as objectively as possible, it is not. Ask a pedorast that, and you will get a different answer, but may we be entitled to call him 'wrong' and us 'right'? Is is ever right to destroy the environment you are an integral part of? There is an underlying 'right' and 'wrong', regardless of our concepts, just as there is a real reality out there. The pattern repeats.
I also don't quite understand the second sentence. Many people can understand and certainly validate the horrible things that they do. I see it every day. I am sure I do it myself. And if you are under the will of another you cannot be morally correct? What if I will you too be happy and fulfilled? Is you happiness then not right?
You followed, "Well you can claim that but the fact remains that no one can support such ideas so therefore I am entitled to reject such ideas and consider them idealistic fairytale hogwash,". This is a fantastic sentence although I don't think my beliefs are idealistic fairytale hogwash. That is almost rude. I understand that they look like that to you, you need not keep reminding me. It does not matter what you think of my beliefs, so try to leave it out of the debate as much as possible. Discuss my arguments, or your own ideas. The burden of proof is not soley on me. Either it is on both or none of us. The term 'no one can support such ideas' is strange, because I can support my ideas. No one can conclusively prove to another my ideas, but that is different that support. And finally, you are "entitled to reject" these ideas. Why? Am I too entitled to reject your ideas?
Oh i skipped one. You said "And the problem with that is what?" about my saying it is incorrect to label belief as a problem. (That's an akward sentance itself) By saying that belief is the problem when going over religious abuse after religious abuse, I think he is not being entirely honest. I am all for reigning in religion, not letting it have the level of control over people and policy. I just stand (seemingly alone) for people that still have a relationship with god, outside of religion. And Dawkins lumps me in with the fanatic jehovah crowd that is very much opposed to my view of a successful world.
You then said,
"I'm sorry but I think you are deluding yourself ... the very fact that you believe in a god without evidence rather implies you ARE believing what you would like to rather than the harsh cold reality of what is. I suspect few on the rational atheist side are fooling themselves with anything, they are simply adherents of science and following where the evidence leads."
Of course you think I am deluding myself. I believe in God only because of the evidence I have seen. My reality is plenty harsh and cold, if that is the judgment. That is the simple argument I was trying to skip over here. I have seen insurmountable evidence of god. Undeniable. Otherwise, I would not believe. But you have seen the same quality of evidence supporting your view, and it is how you arrived at your view. So we can't really argue there, because it is obvious that we would never see eye-to-eye.
Don't think I make my reality fit around god. I know you can't understand it, just as I can't understand why someone wouldn't see what is obviously god right in front of them. That's ok, we can disagree. Like i said, I went the same route as all of you, I just happened to get a different answer... The rational atheists are likely fooling themselves on one count or another. It's just that science does not have all of the answers yet, and evidence is interpretive. What did I say that you asked me to reiterate? All evidence must pass through the veil of interpretive reality. Especially with such a big question as whether or not there are gods, it is now impossible to make the evidence clear one way or another. In fact, some of the things that made me think there was no god have come full circle to be the best examples of god.
You also said,
"And as I say above (and indeed as I have said to you before but you don't quite seem to get) belief that there is no god is, in principle, as illogical as belief that there isn't (although to be fair to the former that there is no evidence is a rather large clue) ... most of us here assume there is no god for the same reason we assume there is no cream cake at the Earth's core, because there is no evidence and because of the problems a creator/miracle-performing/circus-monkey god would cause for science, logic & reason,".
Please don't be dismissive. I made it clear then that I wholly agree with you. I am assuming you didn't mean the double negative. Saying outright (and trying to make others adhere or agree) that there is a god IS as foolish as saying there is not. I agree. I don't know why you think I didn't understand that.
I also already heard the twinkie planet concept. I am moved to say that the evidence is all around us, usually right in front of your nose. There is also none of the problems you theorize, as my god (would have) created science and logic and reason. In fact they are only very similar states-of-mind and schools-of-thought. Please try to understand me, I know you disagree. My god seems unreasonable to you, yes. I aknowledge that. But she is not unreasonable in reality. Outside of your opinion, my beleifs are based on reality and long, long trains of thought. Not the other way around.
Finally you said,
"I agree and believing in fairytale creatures without (and often in spite of the) evidence is one step closer to being one,". That made me laugh. It is funny to me because you are insinuating that I am a little bit of an asshole, but you do it so rudley! It makes it very funny indeed. My gods are not fairytale creatures, please think of a better term if you could. My decisions and beliefs are not in spite of the evidence as I have seen it. They are based on the evidence, it is only that we see such so differently.
Please accept my apologies if any of this seems angry. The internet is a black-hole for nuanced enunciation. Like I said, I hold most people in very high regard, and do not wish to be petty. I am trying to make it clear that I know my beliefs seem silly to you. If we were talking about your beliefs they would seem silly to me. I just like to think I would treat your opinions with a little more care.
Thank you again for your time, it is all we have of real value and it is kind of you to share it with me.
Until next time,
"here we are now, entertain us",
-Pip
You say "You said:" (I say) a lot ... are you aware there is a mechanism for quoting others already? The way you do it where the quote is not separated from your answer is confusing. The quote mechanism is the third little picture box from the right ... highlight your text and click that button (I do it differently but then I'm a techy).
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: I feel that the tone of this conversation is getting a little less than perfect. I would like to please make clear that I very much respect your ideas and right to them. I have no problem disagreeing with you. I am enjoying this, and hope to maintain a high level of maturity.
I respect your right to believe what you wish, what I cannot do is respect ANY belief without it making sense (and I don't mean common), without it being supported by validatable evidence and without it having some degree of "fit" with what is already understood.
When exactly did a lack of maturity equate to forcefully expressed opinion?
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: The answer is of course, yes. I say what I mean. I believe in god, but I am not associated with ANY religion. I am fond of eastern mysticism and ancient irish culture... But mine is a search for truth, and it was pretty obvious religion is a tool of control, and I am grown-up enough to be in control of my own ideas. I hold most religions to the same light, 4 of the 6 you mentioned are from the same source...
Perhaps they are but they have had a considerable amount of time to "evolve" and they are nothing like the same religions any more. In addition these were a mere half-dozen of the thousands upon thousands of religions that humanity has invented. Why should I accept that yours is any different?
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: I agree that there is no 'right' way to behave, that goes with my earlier point. You and I can disagree on what is 'right' showing off our internal separate realities. But what if we try to keep wrong and right on the simplest and most provable scale. Is it 'right' to abuse children? No, I think we can all agree, if we look at the situation as objectively as possible, it is not. Ask a pedorast that, and you will get a different answer, but may we be entitled to call him 'wrong' and us 'right'? Is is ever right to destroy the environment you are an integral part of? There is an underlying 'right' and 'wrong', regardless of our concepts, just as there is a real reality out there. The pattern repeats.
In some cultures child abuse has been seen as OK even fostered (ancient Greek warriors did just that as I recall), it can never be right to me but to them? Then again the most obvious one is that there is a community of paedophiles who quite obviously have no problem with child abuse. Like it or not there are no fixed morals.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: I also don't quite understand the second sentence. Many people can understand and certainly validate the horrible things that they do. I see it every day. I am sure I do it myself. And if you are under the will of another you cannot be morally correct? What if I will you too be happy and fulfilled? Is you happiness then not right?
I would say that if you are under the will of another then no you cannot be sure you are morally correct because you have to trust the morality of that other ... if, of course, you decide which of that others' morals is correct and which are not then you are in reality just deciding for yourself so why not shed that other and just decide?
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: This is a fantastic sentence although I don't think my beliefs are idealistic fairytale hogwash. That is almost rude.
It was intended as contemptuous, dismissive, cynical, superior and more besides. Typically such attitude are considered to be rude ... the real curiosity is why that should be so?
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: It does not matter what you think of my beliefs, so try to leave it out of the debate as much as possible. Discuss my arguments, or your own ideas. The burden of proof is not soley on me. Either it is on both or none of us. The term 'no one can support such ideas' is strange, because I can support my ideas. No one can conclusively prove to another my ideas, but that is different that support.
Objectively no, it doesn't matter; but the fact that you came here apparently to discuss your ideas rather implies you are being less than truthful for someone who wishes to discuss something likely cares about that something and therefore it would indeed matter to them what others say. Let me ask you this ... would it matter to you if I absolutely loved your ideas? I'm betting that as a human (just like me) it would and if it matters that people admire them it stands to reason that it will matter if they don't.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: And finally, you are "entitled to reject" these ideas. Why? Am I too entitled to reject your ideas?
You're entitled to do as you wish but given that all the ideas I advance as real arguments are based on science and things that can be demonstrated and that, whilst I can obviously be wrong, to deny such ideas to the degree that fairytale believers do is quite frankly stupid ... IOW you have the right to be as stupid as you like.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: By saying that belief is the problem when going over religious abuse after religious abuse, I think he is not being entirely honest. I am all for reigning in religion, not letting it have the level of control over people and policy. I just stand (seemingly alone) for people that still have a relationship with god, outside of religion. And Dawkins lumps me in with the fanatic jehovah crowd that is very much opposed to my view of a successful world.
Whilst I (and I suspect Dawkins) respect your right to believe as you wish I cannot respect the belief itself unless it is rational nor, when you bring it into the public domain, will I condone it in any fashion ... like Dawkins I just consider you a part of the problem in the exact same way as he (and I) consider astrology to be part of the problem.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Of course you think I am deluding myself. I believe in God only because of the evidence I have seen. My reality is plenty harsh and cold, if that is the judgment. That is the simple argument I was trying to skip over here. I have seen insurmountable evidence of god. Undeniable. Otherwise, I would not believe. But you have seen the same quality of evidence supporting your view, and it is how you arrived at your view. So we can't really argue there, because it is obvious that we would never see eye-to-eye.
What evidence?
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Don't think I make my reality fit around god. I know you can't understand it, just as I can't understand why someone wouldn't see what is obviously god right in front of them. That's ok, we can disagree. Like i said, I went the same route as all of you, I just happened to get a different answer... The rational atheists are likely fooling themselves on one count or another. It's just that science does not have all of the answers yet, and evidence is interpretive. What did I say that you asked me to reiterate? All evidence must pass through the veil of interpretive reality. Especially with such a big question as whether or not there are gods, it is now impossible to make the evidence clear one way or another. In fact, some of the things that made me think there was no god have come full circle to be the best examples of god.
I cannot (do not) accept you went the same route as me and that science does not have all the answers is firstly to be expected, secondly simply a matter of resolution (the ability to resolve), thirdly confers nothing positive to your views and fourthly means your god is a god of the gaps.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Please don't be dismissive. I made it clear then that I wholly agree with you. I am assuming you didn't mean the double negative. Saying outright (and trying to make others adhere or agree) that there is a god IS as foolish as saying there is not. I agree. I don't know why you think I didn't understand that.
Please don't tell me how to behave.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: I also already heard the twinkie planet concept. I am moved to say that the evidence is all around us, usually right in front of your nose. There is also none of the problems you theorize, as my god (would have) created science and logic and reason. In fact they are only very similar states-of-mind and schools-of-thought. Please try to understand me, I know you disagree. My god seems unreasonable to you, yes. I aknowledge that. But she is not unreasonable in reality. Outside of your opinion, my beleifs are based on reality and long, long trains of thought. Not the other way around.
Again I ask what evidence?
There are HUGE problems with the idea of a creator god because it answers the question, "How did we come to be?" with "God" and by that simple act alone you invalidate all the other answers so far given, you make research pointless ... what are atoms made of? Doesn't matter, God made them. Why did that car crash? Got dun it. Any question ever asked can be answered with "God dun it!" ... it's insanity and illogic unleashed.
ANY god is entirely unreasonable if that god cannot be explained rationally and no creator god, no miracle performing monkey god so far claimed can.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: That made me laugh. It is funny to me because you are insinuating that I am a little bit of an asshole, but you do it so rudley! It makes it very funny indeed. My gods are not fairytale creatures, please think of a better term if you could. My decisions and beliefs are not in spite of the evidence as I have seen it. They are based on the evidence, it is only that we see such so differently.
I am WYSIWYG ... I say it as I see it.
Your gods are, as far as anyone can rationally tell, fairytale creatures.
If there is evidence please reveal it instead of simply claiming you have some.
(April 29, 2009 at 8:15 am)Pippy Wrote: Please accept my apologies if any of this seems angry. The internet is a black-hole for nuanced enunciation. Like I said, I hold most people in very high regard, and do not wish to be petty. I am trying to make it clear that I know my beliefs seem silly to you. If we were talking about your beliefs they would seem silly to me. I just like to think I would treat your opinions with a little more care.
Please do not tell me how to debate, I stand on my own unafraid and unashamed of what I am and what I say ... my opinions are mine and I will express them as I wish. If you wish to attack my beliefs please do so, better "men" than you have tried and failed.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Thank you again for replying. This conversation is slowly going somewhere I don't want to go. I want to discuss, to learn, to think. I don't want to argue (unless it's very constructive arguing) and will not bicker with you over our own supposed superiority.
If I may go point by point now...
Quote:I respect your right to believe what you wish, what I cannot do is respect ANY belief without it making sense (and I don't mean common), without it being supported by validatable evidence and without it having some degree of "fit" with what is already understood.
When exactly did a lack of maturity equate to forcefully expressed opinion?
I hear you, but I am afraid it is not making sense. If you really respected my 'right' to believe, than you would respect my belief. You are not being asked to believe it, just not to treat my beliefs with such disdain. I see you don't like being asked to do anything, but I am only correcting that you do not respect my 'right' to belief. I am trying to tell you that my belief IS based on evidence, but it would waste time to share it with you because the evidence is admittedly interpretative. I don't want to try to make my beliefs validated to you, I don't expect they could be.
Quote:In addition these were a mere half-dozen of the thousands upon thousands of religions that humanity has invented. Why should I accept that yours is any different?
You should please accept mine as different because I am not part of a religion. I have my own very personal beliefs. I am not even in a religion of one, it is not in any way a religion. That is the difference.
Quote:Like it or not there are no fixed morals.
I did and do agree. I am only pointing out that the lack of perfectly fixed morals is not a lack of morals. Right and wrong do very much exist, it is just shades of grey and fully situational. This is a big part of what I meant by personal realities. Something can be literally right to me and honestly wrong to you. Like, say, my beliefs. But neither of us is really correct in that.
Quote:It was intended as contemptuous, dismissive, cynical, superior and more besides. Typically such attitude are considered to be rude ... the real curiosity is why that should be so?
I contend that I don't think you have much over me to be contemptuous about. You can be dismissive, and I fully support cynicism. 'Superior and more' though, come on... You think you are superior to me? You have never met me? That's funny. Yes such attitudes are considered rude, and I don't know where to start explaining why. How does it make you feel when someone is dismissive and acting superior to you? Now assume others feel the same. This is kindergarten stuff. I could be very rude and cynical, I am quite good at it. I just try to act more mature, because it makes everything run smoother, and I enjoy my life more than I did as a rude person. Please understand, you can carry on that way, and I will continue to be as respectful as possible. I am not asking you to not act like that anymore, you have made your response. I (really) respect your 'right' to be an asshole.
Quote:Objectively no, it doesn't matter; but the fact that you came here apparently to discuss your ideas rather implies you are being less than truthful for someone who wishes to discuss something likely cares about that something and therefore it would indeed matter to them what others say. Let me ask you this ... would it matter to you if I absolutely loved your ideas? I'm betting that as a human (just like me) it would and if it matters that people admire them it stands to reason that it will matter if they don't.
Please allow me to reiterate. I have taken all of my rules to their conclusions, and you are right. If you loved my beliefs I would not care. I know it is hard to do, and impossible to do wholly (without losing some part of your humanity). But in the sense of honesty and living in reality, I don't care. Whatever anyone thinks of anything I think or do, does not matter. Good and bad both. Otherwise (only dismissing the bad) I would be delusional.
Quote:You're entitled to do as you wish but given that all the ideas I advance as real arguments are based on science and things that can be demonstrated and that, whilst I can obviously be wrong, to deny such ideas to the degree that fairytale believers do is quite frankly stupid ... IOW you have the right to be as stupid as you like.
I get the impression you're not listening. I am trying to explain, without getting into anything more long-winded at this point, that neither you nor I are 100% correct. Please don't lump me in with all the theists you don't like, start to realize that I am at least much different than the other theists. Your arguments seem demonstrable to you, and science makes it add up. But that is no different than my arguments seeming demonstrable to me and science making it add up. This whole time that is the first point I have been trying to make. That none of us hold all of the answers, so let us discuss and figure them out. Oh and saying I can be as stupid as I like is not constructive. I have also repeated that I hear that you think I am stupid. That dosn't matter to me, but it is taking away from your arguments in my eyes.
Quote:I just consider you a part of the problem in the exact same way as he (and I) consider astrology to be part of the problem.
There is another sentence that made me laugh. I had to re-read it to be sure astrology was the right word. I haven't gotten to that part of his books yet. If you consider me a part of the problem based on the fact that I have beliefs, then I contend sir, you are part of the problem. The question is 'what is the problem'? Let's come at it from here though. Astrology is part of the problem? Charting and mapping the sky? The ancient theological history of the night stars? I don't see it as a problem, it is an inanimate science. But people who treat astrology with too much care, or too much belief are a problem, yes. So the REAL problem is with people and their relationships with things, not necessarily the things themselves. And to call me part of the problem is to enact a very Dawkins-ish assholism. You are not asking me what my morals are. You have not asked what rules I follow. You are not asking if we like the same music. You know nothing about me, and are focusing on (and blurring) my theism. We could very well be on the same side, in the big picture, but you seem to have already made up your mind about me. That is a big problem.
I thought you tried to live in as real a world as possible.
I said it earlier, let us look for places we agree, because we could all disagree and argue all day.
Quote:What evidence?
I am trying to have this conversation to skip all of that. The things that seem like evidence to me, likley do not seem like evidence to you. It will be a long mean argument that will get to the point that we can't see eye to eye about the interpretation of evidence, so lets' just start from there. I see sentience as evidence, unless you can think of a way of evolving something we can't even define. I see the fantastic complexity of life as evidence... But please bear in mind, my god is from the bottom up. I am not referring to the same god the other theists you don't like are talking about. All of the science and evolution theory is part of my god. It seems like an argument we need not have, but we can if you like.
Quote:your god is a god of the gaps.
I understand that theory, and I do not think it is at all fair. If my god only existed in the things that we could not explain, and he got smaller and smaller as we learned more, there would be a problem. But my god gets bigger an bigger for all our knowledge. It is not that genetic code means there can't be god, god could be a name for the thing that made genetic code.
Quote:what are atoms made of? Doesn't matter, God made them. Why did that car crash? Got dun it.
You, I feel, are not talking about the same thing I am here. I get the point that you have a lot of things to say to the theists around you that you don't like, but I am not those people. Of course it matters what atoms are made of, regardless of who made them. The car likely crashed for provable and simple reasons, god is the idea of the thing that made us and momentum. Please understand, I would not follow such a flawed and illogical train-of-thought as you have implied.
Quote:Please don't tell me how to behave.
I was waiting for this one. If I could please get you to look back, I was not at all trying to tell you how to behave. If you thought I was I apologize. I was only, as politely as I can, asking you to not act so rudely. You have said a simple "no" to my request. I will respect that. As you have said, you can act however you see fit.
Quote:Please do not tell me how to debate, I stand on my own unafraid and unashamed of what I am and what I say ... my opinions are mine and I will express them as I wish. If you wish to attack my beliefs please do so, better "men" than you have tried and failed.
Again, please allow me to clarify. I am not telling you how to debate. I am not telling you how to do anything. Please try not to look at it that way (that is a request, not a demand). The last thing I wish to do is 'attack' your 'beliefs'. I have repeated that I want to have a constructive conversation with someone who is smart and mature enough to prove me wrong. When I am proven wrong, to my own satisfaction, I will change my ideas. That is how I assume we all came to our beliefs any ways. I have no time or want to attack you. We are related too closely in my mind. We could talk about your beliefs if you like, it would be interesting. We could share one at a time, taking turns. Or not. Doesn't matter.
Unless I get a startling impression that I am suddenly not arguing with a 2 year old, I think I would like to end this chat Kyu. If your biggest point is 'I can act any way I like, and you can't stop me', then well received. I want to be constructive, but I am spending a lot of time correcting your assumptions of me.
Thank you again for your time. I do value this, and hope it is not causing you any upset.
"I think I know what's wrong here",
-Pip
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]I respect your right to believe what you wish, what I cannot do is respect ANY belief without it making sense (and I don't mean common), without it being supported by validatable evidence and without it having some degree of "fit" with what is already understood.
When exactly did a lack of maturity equate to forcefully expressed opinion?
I hear you, but I am afraid it is not making sense. If you really respected my 'right' to believe, than you would respect my belief. You are not being asked to believe it, just not to treat my beliefs with such disdain.[/quote]
You have the right to believe as you wish.
That "right" is entirely separate from any demand that I respect it.
I therefore have every "right" to think what I will about your beliefs.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: I see you don't like being asked to do anything, but I am only correcting that you do not respect my 'right' to belief. I am trying to tell you that my belief IS based on evidence, but it would waste time to share it with you because the evidence is admittedly interpretative. I don't want to try to make my beliefs validated to you, I don't expect they could be.
Your "evidence" is not evidence in the accepted sense.
"Evidence" that is in your mind or subject to debate can (potentially at least) be dismissed as the product of a deranged mind (I am aware that sounds harsh).
There's a place for people who have invisible friends.
Those with religious beliefs purport to be different but it is hard to rationally understand why.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]In addition these were a mere half-dozen of the thousands upon thousands of religions that humanity has invented. Why should I accept that yours is any different?
You should please accept mine as different because I am not part of a religion. I have my own very personal beliefs. I am not even in a religion of one, it is not in any way a religion. That is the difference.[/quote]
I view theists as distinct from religionists.
It doesn't mean I'm going to respect the belief that there is a god, why should it?
I'm a seasoned debater and have met only one religious person (as it happened he was Catholic) I ever respected ... he was as hard on creationists as I was and I am really, glad I never had to debate him on more moderate religious views as I suspect my respect would have vaporised.
The late Martin Gardener (a theist known in atheist circles) called Martin Gardener was every bit as dismissive of religionists as I, he believed in a god viewing all scripture as being of equal value, non-divine and as useful ways of understanding what he saw as the true god.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]Like it or not there are no fixed morals.
I did and do agree. I am only pointing out that the lack of perfectly fixed morals is not a lack of morals. Right and wrong do very much exist, it is just shades of grey and fully situational. This is a big part of what I meant by personal realities. Something can be literally right to me and honestly wrong to you. Like, say, my beliefs. But neither of us is really correct in that.[/quote]
The available evidence indicates that right and wrong are entirely relative.
We appear to agree, if so that's end of that particular discussion.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]It was intended as contemptuous, dismissive, cynical, superior and more besides. Typically such attitude are considered to be rude ... the real curiosity is why that should be so?
I contend that I don't think you have much over me to be contemptuous about. You can be dismissive, and I fully support cynicism. 'Superior and more' though, come on... You think you are superior to me? You have never met me? That's funny. Yes such attitudes are considered rude, and I don't know where to start explaining why. How does it make you feel when someone is dismissive and acting superior to you? Now assume others feel the same. This is kindergarten stuff. I could be very rude and cynical, I am quite good at it. I just try to act more mature, because it makes everything run smoother, and I enjoy my life more than I did as a rude person. Please understand, you can carry on that way, and I will continue to be as respectful as possible. I am not asking you to not act like that anymore, you have made your response. I (really) respect your 'right' to be an asshole.[/quote]
And I yours to be as foolish as you wish
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]Objectively no, it doesn't matter; but the fact that you came here apparently to discuss your ideas rather implies you are being less than truthful for someone who wishes to discuss something likely cares about that something and therefore it would indeed matter to them what others say. Let me ask you this ... would it matter to you if I absolutely loved your ideas? I'm betting that as a human (just like me) it would and if it matters that people admire them it stands to reason that it will matter if they don't.
Please allow me to reiterate. I have taken all of my rules to their conclusions, and you are right. If you loved my beliefs I would not care. I know it is hard to do, and impossible to do wholly (without losing some part of your humanity). But in the sense of honesty and living in reality, I don't care. Whatever anyone thinks of anything I think or do, does not matter. Good and bad both. Otherwise (only dismissing the bad) I would be delusional.[/quote]
If you don't care then leave.
That's not really an invite to leave it's just that people don't come to this place to discuss these kinds of things unless they care.
Frodo & I strongly disagree on many, many things and we'll often through out dismissive comments but it is quite obvious that both he and I care about religion a great deal even if we are on opposite sides of the coin.
So, if you care so little what people think, leave (go away, depart, vamoose)... I know you won't, I suspect you know you won't.
I'm not trying to be funny or sound callous but that leads me to suspect you are BS'ing more than a little.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]You're entitled to do as you wish but given that all the ideas I advance as real arguments are based on science and things that can be demonstrated and that, whilst I can obviously be wrong, to deny such ideas to the degree that fairytale believers do is quite frankly stupid ... IOW you have the right to be as stupid as you like.
I get the impression you're not listening. I am trying to explain, without getting into anything more long-winded at this point, that neither you nor I are 100% correct.[/quote]
Why do people like you say things like, "You're not listening"?
You say I'm not listening or that I'm angry or that I'm this or that.
I AM listening (reading your post)
I am processing what you say but I AM NOT willing to embrace your POV. Why should I?
I AM NOT angry, I AM listening but the world, our society primarily, is a bad enough place without having to think like a theist.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: Please don't lump me in with all the theists you don't like, start to realize that I am at least much different than the other theists.
You are little if any different from Frodo or Dagda, neither is a regular theist
Frodo is (perhaps) more than Dagda
If you don't mind, I will decide for myself how I view you, how I classify you.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: Your arguments seem demonstrable to you, and science makes it add up. But that is no different than my arguments seeming demonstrable to me and science making it add up. This whole time that is the first point I have been trying to make. That none of us hold all of the answers, so let us discuss and figure them out. Oh and saying I can be as stupid as I like is not constructive. I have also repeated that I hear that you think I am stupid. That dosn't matter to me, but it is taking away from your arguments in my eyes.
When you publish a paper, in a peer-reviewed journal of science, then maybe I'll reconsider.
Until then, if it's all the same to you, I'll stick to science (which demonstrably works).
I will also continue to view your statements with a cynical eye.
Thanks for the offer though.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]I just consider you a part of the problem in the exact same way as he (and I) consider astrology to be part of the problem.
There is another sentence that made me laugh. I had to re-read it to be sure astrology was the right word. I haven't gotten to that part of his books yet. If you consider me a part of the problem based on the fact that I have beliefs, then I contend sir, you are part of the problem. The question is 'what is the problem'? Let's come at it from here though. Astrology is part of the problem? Charting and mapping the sky? The ancient theological history of the night stars? I don't see it as a problem, it is an inanimate science. But people who treat astrology with too much care, or too much belief are a problem, yes. So the REAL problem is with people and their relationships with things, not necessarily the things themselves. And to call me part of the problem is to enact a very Dawkins-ish assholism. You are not asking me what my morals are. You have not asked what rules I follow. You are not asking if we like the same music. You know nothing about me, and are focusing on (and blurring) my theism. We could very well be on the same side, in the big picture, but you seem to have already made up your mind about me. That is a big problem.
I thought you tried to live in as real a world as possible.[/quote]
Whose books?
Astrology is not science (along with many other things that claim to be).
If you think Dawkins is an ass because of the way he behaves you must have lived a very sheltered life.
I do not particularly care which "rules" you follow, if you care that much I'm sure you will tell me (though I thought you didn't care what people thought).
Likewise for your conscience (neither you nor I "possess" morals).
I'm always interested in music ... I'm into nu-metal, symphonic metal and stuff like that.
I concede we could be on the same side though right now it is hard to see why.
I am ALWAYS prepared to change my mind about someone, I just need a reason why ... so far you haven't said anything that makes me think you will provide one.
I live in the real world, not your fantasy one.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: I said it earlier, let us look for places we agree, because we could all disagree and argue all day.
This is an atheist forum, a haven for atheists.
It is a place where it is implicitly accepted that the default view is atheism and anything else extraordinary.
Being brutally honest, I am not over-interested in trying to agree with you nor seeing what makes you tick.
I am more to see if you say anything on the subject of religion that makes sense.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]What evidence?
I am trying to have this conversation to skip all of that. The things that seem like evidence to me, likley do not seem like evidence to you. It will be a long mean argument that will get to the point that we can't see eye to eye about the interpretation of evidence, so lets' just start from there. I see sentience as evidence, unless you can think of a way of evolving something we can't even define. I see the fantastic complexity of life as evidence... But please bear in mind, my god is from the bottom up. I am not referring to the same god the other theists you don't like are talking about. All of the science and evolution theory is part of my god. It seems like an argument we need not have, but we can if you like.[/quote]
I don't accept the claimed existence of ANY gods without validatable evidence.
Yes, sentience is evidence (quite possibly of the action of deity).
At best all it represents is a question unanswered.
That science has not yet explained it is entirely irrelevant.
You appear to be likening your god to nature.
Nature already has a name.
It seems pointless to decide it is something else and call it god.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]your god is a god of the gaps.
I understand that theory, and I do not think it is at all fair. If my god only existed in the things that we could not explain, and he got smaller and smaller as we learned more, there would be a problem. But my god gets bigger an bigger for all our knowledge. It is not that genetic code means there can't be god, god could be a name for the thing that made genetic code.[/quote]
If your god exists within what we know than we would have some evidence of it.
We do not therefore it is (if it exists at all) elsewhere and therefore can be rightly classified as a god of the gaps.
The name of the thing that made the genetic code is evolution (arguably some aspect of abiogenesis).
Neither of those can be rationally claimed to be your god or any other without some kind of evidence (supporting the god bit).
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]what are atoms made of? Doesn't matter, God made them. Why did that car crash? Got dun it.
You, I feel, are not talking about the same thing I am here. I get the point that you have a lot of things to say to the theists around you that you don't like, but I am not those people. Of course it matters what atoms are made of, regardless of who made them. The car likely crashed for provable and simple reasons, god is the idea of the thing that made us and momentum. Please understand, I would not follow such a flawed and illogical train-of-thought as you have implied.[/quote]
I didn't ask, "Who made them!"
As far as is known nobody (no entity) made atoms.
According to standard big bang theory atoms were created about 100th of a second after the big bang.
Basic forces, the forces that angular momentum would be referenced against, came into being earlier still.
You are missing the point.
The point I was making was that IF we accept god as a valid explanation without adequate reason (such as the creator god) we can no longer exclude it as a valid explanation at any time EVER.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]Please don't tell me how to behave.
I was waiting for this one. If I could please get you to look back, I was not at all trying to tell you how to behave. If you thought I was I apologize. I was only, as politely as I can, asking you to not act so rudely. You have said a simple "no" to my request. I will respect that. As you have said, you can act however you see fit.[/quote]
Then we're clear ... I am the sole arbiter of my behaviour.
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]Please do not tell me how to debate, I stand on my own unafraid and unashamed of what I am and what I say ... my opinions are mine and I will express them as I wish. If you wish to attack my beliefs please do so, better "men" than you have tried and failed.
Again, please allow me to clarify. I am not telling you how to debate. I am not telling you how to do anything. Please try not to look at it that way (that is a request, not a demand). The last thing I wish to do is 'attack' your 'beliefs'. I have repeated that I want to have a constructive conversation with someone who is smart and mature enough to prove me wrong. When I am proven wrong, to my own satisfaction, I will change my ideas. That is how I assume we all came to our beliefs any ways. I have no time or want to attack you. We are related too closely in my mind. We could talk about your beliefs if you like, it would be interesting. We could share one at a time, taking turns. Or not. Doesn't matter.[/quote]
I cannot validate your beliefs (right or wrong).
I cannot validate your evidence since it's apparently in your mind and you won't say what it is.
To my mind it all seems rather pointless.
I'm not specifically interested in discussing me (this is a forum for atheists)
Apparently my, "Why I Am An Atheist" article doesn't say why I am (in Frodo-verse).
(April 30, 2009 at 8:18 am)Pippy Wrote: [quote="Kyuuketsuki"]Unless I get a startling impression that I am suddenly not arguing with a 2 year old, I think I would like to end this chat Kyu. If your biggest point is 'I can act any way I like, and you can't stop me', then well received. I want to be constructive, but I am spending a lot of time correcting your assumptions of me.
Male
51
Married
Degree educated.
2 daughters (one at Uni, one at a top grammar for girls)
Senior IT professional
If you think that equates to me being a 2 year old girl then you have a lot more problems than I initially thought.
I've been playing with lists and word macros
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Thank you for replying, and I am quite happy that you are being much more pleasant. I apologize for being snappy, but we have to feel out each others boundaries, yes? I don't know if I quite like the bullet format though. It feels to formal.
Quote:Your "evidence" is not evidence in the accepted sense.
I feel that your 'evidence' for the lack of god would seem unreal or untrue to me as well. I don't really want to talk abot evidence, because I think that it will go no where. I will say 'such-and-such makes me think there is god', and you will say 'poppycock!'. Then you could say 'This is why I think there cannot be god' to which I will reply 'foolery!'. It seems pointless.
Quote:Why do people like you say things like, "You're not listening"?
You say I'm not listening or that I'm angry or that I'm this or that.
I AM listening (reading your post)
I don't mean to be dismissive. I can't speak for 'people like me' as I have yet to meet one. I mean that it appears you are reading my points and disagreeing and arguing without actually internalizing and thinking about the points therein. In fact you are reading my posts TO disagree. You are free too, but that is only what I meant by 'you are not listening,'.
Quote:all scripture as being of equal value, non-divine and as useful ways of understanding what he saw as the true god.
That is well put, and I would have to agree. All scripture is theology and poetry. It all holds the same value. Although, say the babylonian talmud, or the necronomicon hold less relative truth than the tao or the gospel of truth. The prior two are honest, just bad. Evil.
Please let me explain some more. I do care about discussion. I do care about what I think. I do care about sharing what I think, and listening to what others think. As a coping mechanism though, I really, really try not to care what you (other people in general) think. I sometimes get angry for a second when someone does something that offends me, but I try to remind myself that I don't (or shouldn't) care what they think. And I was saying that yes, I do the same for positive reinforcement as I do for the negative. It makes it less fun when a girl says your cute, but I would have flown off the handle at all these idiots around me so viscously entitled to their silly opinions.
I hope I can try to explain that I am not 'BSing more than a little'. I don't really want to leave, although I could. I don't think I should leave, you are not being fair. You don't care one dickens what I think about your beliefs. My not caring about your opinions of me is a defense mechanism. I hear your beliefs (although we aren't discussing them), I just don't instantly take them as more or as valid as my own. I meant I don't care if you don't like me, or how you treat me. I care very much about god and life and my human family. I care about debate and discussion. That is why I am here, not because I want to lay out my (theistic) beliefs (in front of atheists) for validation.
Quote:If you think Dawkins is an ass because of the way he behaves you must have lived a very sheltered life.
I do not particularly care which "rules" you follow, if you care that much I'm sure you will tell me (though I thought you didn't care what people thought).
Likewise for your conscience (neither you nor I "possess" morals).
I'm always interested in music ... I'm into nu-metal, symphonic metal and stuff like that.
I live a very un-sheltered life on purpose. I think Dawkins is an extreme asshole, but please let me broaden the circle. I have met hundreds of thousands of assholes. They are mostly such. I would be happy to tell you about my rules, but I would not care how you mocked them. If anything my morals 'posses' me. I like very similar music (see!?!). I play a lot of music actually. I am not good at math, so I learned music because we all have to learn about a fundamental truth to better understand life. Math and music are not invented, they are interpreted from what is really there.
Quote:I am more to see if you say anything on the subject of religion that makes sense.
I am not talking about religion, I am talking about my own personal god. We could talk about religion, but it would be a very different discussion. I have a deep hatred and disgust for control mechanisms based on lies and fear. It is likely we could agree a lot on religion.
Quote:According to standard big bang theory atoms were created about 100th of a second after the big bang.
Haha, the standard theory of the big bang? Ok, then what happened 100th of a second before the big bang? Something more unbelievable than god, singularity. I am only pointing out that I would never be as foolish as to say 'we don't need to research HOW things work, because I think I know WHY they are there or HOW they were made,'.
Quote:If you think that equates to me being a 2 year old girl then you have a lot more problems than I initially thought.
I regret being so rude, but my point was well made. I didn't say 2-year old girl. I said 2-year old. It is allegorical. I could also have called you an American. It is a state of mind that never progressed past 'me' and 'mine, mine, mine'. It was very rude, and not quite necessary, but like I said I believe the point was made. If I may apologize, and hope you don't think I think your are only 2 (although I don't care one way or another WHAT you think). I only hope you don't from the point of our discussion.
Thank you for sharing, and I really appreciate the slight change in tone in your most recent post. I don't ask to be treated well, only with a scrap of respect. I look forward to talking more.
Off to work (I hate working for the man),
"But I never lost a minute of sleeping",
-Pip
pippy Wrote:g-mark, yes that is the rhetorical answer. Always check why you are doing things, and if it's not out of love, than what is your motivator? I use that quote to square myself up, but thank you for answering it.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote: Thank you for replying, and I am quite happy that you are being much more pleasant. I apologize for being snappy, but we have to feel out each others boundaries, yes? I don't know if I quite like the bullet format though. It feels to formal.
If you're happy fine but I don't really think my stance or attitude has changed.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:Your "evidence" is not evidence in the accepted sense.
I feel that your 'evidence' for the lack of god would seem unreal or untrue to me as well. I don't really want to talk abot evidence, because I think that it will go no where. I will say 'such-and-such makes me think there is god', and you will say 'poppycock!'. Then you could say 'This is why I think there cannot be god' to which I will reply 'foolery!'. It seems pointless.
Reasoned explanations based on evidence are the only explanations that have, to date, been shown to work, to be of value. I can't prove the god in your head is wrong, I can only keep pointing out to you ad nauseum that there is no validatable evidence. So, yes, if you won't tell me what the evidence is then we are at an impasse.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:Why do people like you say things like, "You're not listening"?
You say I'm not listening or that I'm angry or that I'm this or that.
I AM listening (reading your post)
I don't mean to be dismissive. I can't speak for 'people like me' as I have yet to meet one. I mean that it appears you are reading my points and disagreeing and arguing without actually internalizing and thinking about the points therein. In fact you are reading my posts TO disagree. You are free too, but that is only what I meant by 'you are not listening,'.
Then you are wrong, the implications of what you say are wrong ... there is no law, no rule of debate that says I have to think like you (indeed the very idea that I could think that irrationally scares me ... and yes I do believe that belief in gods is irrational) and to take the tack you are taking is little but a dismissive attempt at character assassination.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:all scripture as being of equal value, non-divine and as useful ways of understanding what he saw as the true god.
That is well put, and I would have to agree. All scripture is theology and poetry. It all holds the same value. Although, say the babylonian talmud, or the necronomicon hold less relative truth than the tao or the gospel of truth. The prior two are honest, just bad.
Sigh! This is getting distinctly Frodoish ... and exactly how do you justify that one particular scripture holds more worth than another?
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote: Please let me explain some more. I do care about discussion. I do care about what I think. I do care about sharing what I think, and listening to what others think. As a coping mechanism though, I really, really try not to care what you (other people in general) think. I sometimes get angry for a second when someone does something that offends me, but I try to remind myself that I don't (or shouldn't) care what they think. And I was saying that yes, I do the same for positive reinforcement as I do for the negative. It makes it less fun when a girl says your cute, but I would have flown off the handle at all these idiots around me so viscously entitled to their silly opinions.
IOW you care ... so stop messing about and just accept that it matters as much to you as it does to me that people agree and disagree with what you say.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote: I hope I can try to explain that I am not 'BSing more than a little'. I don't really want to leave, although I could. I don't think I should leave, you are not being fair. You don't care one dickens what I think about your beliefs. My not caring about your opinions of me is a defense mechanism. I hear your beliefs (although we aren't discussing them), I just don't instantly take them as more or as valid as my own. I meant I don't care if you don't like me, or how you treat me. I care very much about god and life and my human family. I care about debate and discussion. That is why I am here, not because I want to lay out my (theistic) beliefs (in front of atheists) for validation.
You're wrong. I care what people think about my views (even you) ... that much must be obvious from the way that I defend them.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:If you think Dawkins is an ass because of the way he behaves you must have lived a very sheltered life.
I do not particularly care which "rules" you follow, if you care that much I'm sure you will tell me (though I thought you didn't care what people thought).
Likewise for your conscience (neither you nor I "possess" morals).
I'm always interested in music ... I'm into nu-metal, symphonic metal and stuff like that.
I live a very un-sheltered life on purpose. I think Dawkins is an extreme asshole, but please let me broaden the circle. I have met hundreds of thousands of assholes. They are mostly such. I would be happy to tell you about my rules, but I would not care how you mocked them. If anything my morals 'posses' me. I like very similar music (see!?!). I play a lot of music actually. I am not good at math, so I learned music because we all have to learn about a fundamental truth to better understand life. Math and music are not invented, they are interpreted from what is really there.
You must have
No, Dawkins, IS NOT an asshole just because you say so, he is ex-Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science and, quite frankly, people don't get given positions such as that when they are "assholes" ... the fact is that you equate "asshole" to someone you don't like or who attitude you don't like and that makes YOU the asshole.
Then tell me.
I'm not good at math either but that doesn't mean I reject it like you do science because you (apparently) aren't good at it.
What fundamental truth would than be then?
Music is human interpretation of sounds that are part of this apparently naturally "evolved" universe. Math is a human method of managing abstract numbers and their relationships or (more precisely I assume) is the science or a group of related sciences that deals with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement (Wordnet).
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:I am more to see if you say anything on the subject of religion that makes sense.
I am not talking about religion, I am talking about my own personal god. We could talk about religion, but it would be a very different discussion. I have a deep hatred and disgust for control mechanisms based on lies and fear. It is likely we could agree a lot on religion.
Hmmmm....
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:According to standard big bang theory atoms were created about 100th of a second after the big bang.
Haha, the standard theory of the big bang? Ok, then what happened 100th of a second before the big bang? Something more unbelievable than god, singularity. I am only pointing out that I would never be as foolish as to say 'we don't need to research HOW things work, because I think I know WHY they are there or HOW they were made,'.
There was no "before" the big bang, time is a property of space and space was created when this universe formed.
(April 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:If you think that equates to me being a 2 year old girl then you have a lot more problems than I initially thought.
I regret being so rude, but my point was well made. I didn't say 2-year old girl. I said 2-year old. It is allegorical. I could also have called you an American. It is a state of mind that never progressed past 'me' and 'mine, mine, mine'. It was very rude, and not quite necessary, but like I said I believe the point was made. If I may apologize, and hope you don't think I think your are only 2 (although I don't care one way or another WHAT you think). I only hope you don't from the point of our discussion.
My mistake on the girl, my apology in turn.
You've be wrong to cal me American.
Apology accepted.
You DO care otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Quote:I do not understand. What is your god?
I understand why I am doing this.
Do you know me?
I did not mention my god. See when leo asked me the same question in my first thread in introductions. I am happy you understand why you are doing this. No, I don't think I know you. Do I?
Then on to Kyu. Good morning. May I ask what your name means, it is very long and full of u's. My online pseudonym is based on a little dog we named after Pippen Took.
Quote:there is no law, no rule of debate that says I have to think like you...and to take the tack you are taking is little but a dismissive attempt at character assassination.
I am not at all asking you to think like me. That would be very foolish. I am asking you not to read what I write and instantly try to disagree. It is hard to ask someone who does not know me to offer any respect, because you have no reason too. If you knew me in my daily life, you would likely be surprised. I think I am much more thorough in my thinking and intelligent that you are giving me credit. Then I would ask you to respect my wild ideas, because you know my simple ideas are usually apt. But we don't have that luxury. Nothing I do, let me please assure you, is a dismissive attempt at 'character assassination'. I don't have any superiority complex, I have no conceivable reason to try to 'assassinate' your 'character'. I am trying to tell you I am not dishonest and petty, but if you want to think I am, I cannot stop you.
Quote:and exactly how do you justify that one particular scripture holds more worth than another?
Well, how do you decide what poetry or mythology holds more worth? Try reading them, compare the Talmud with the gnostic Gospel of Truth. One instructs some very bad and unhealthy things. The other has some great, albeit spoken in code, advice about healthy states-of-mind. I judge the works as I judge any other books. With my head.
Quote:so stop messing about and just accept that it matters as much to you as it does to me that people agree and disagree with what you say
Please allow me to make this point as clearly as possible. It does not matter as much to me as it does to you that people agree or disagree with me. I am not 'messing about', I have too little time to spend my life speaking falsehoods. If you disagree, or think that I am delusional, that is fine. But I am not lying to you. It took years of practice, but I learned to be very good at controlling how other people make me feel. If I needed validation, I would have given up long ago, because for most of my beliefs, I have never been validated. Some art, some music, some books, but few people have said the things I think.
Quote:You're wrong. I care what people think about my views (even you).
Oh, please don't! I get the impression that you have decided you aren't very fond of me at all. So then what value to you is my opinion. In fact, if you think I am such an idiot, for me to disagree with you is validation that you are not like this idiot. I wish I could care what people thought, but it is dangerous and useless to me. If I didn't get the impression I am on the planet of the stupids, may be.
Quote:No, Dawkins, IS NOT an asshole just because you say so, he is ex-Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science and, quite frankly, people don't get given positions such as that when they are "assholes" ... the fact is that you equate "asshole" to someone you don't like or who attitude you don't like and that makes YOU the asshole.
I didn't at all equate an asshole to someone I didn't like. I (decide I) don't like Dawkins, because (I think) he is an asshole, not the other way around. I gave him a fair shake, but his stance left me deeply offended and unimpressed. I made it clear before why I think he is an asshole.
Quote:Then tell me.
Sigh. I see little point, but OK. Very briefly. Don't lie, Don't steal, don't manipulate for benefit, don't take more than you need, don't hurt others... Kind of like Right Thought, Right Action. I made up these rules myself, based on my moral strengths and weaknesses. No one told me them, although I do credit god in a way. (In the sense that god is everything, even me) I try my best to follow my rules. I am not entirely sure why, but it feels VERY important and comes from my 'gut'. I would wish that more people make themselves rules (not my rules), and got away form the mindset that 'it ain't wrong unless I get caught and punished'.
Quote:I'm not good at math either but that doesn't mean I reject it like you do science because you (apparently) aren't good at it
I never said I rejected science. This is what I mean when I say it appears you are not listening. I think I clearly said that science and the scientific method led me to my beliefs. You may have assumed I was lying, because it makes so little sense to you. I only think science (the scientific method) can be used incorrectly, and make incorrect results. Learning about things, out of curiosity and want to understand is very commendable. Learning about things for the need to try to control is dangerous and weak. I think am quite 'good at' science I guess. Doesn't really matter though.
Quote:Music is human interpretation of sounds that are part of this apparently naturally "evolved" universe. Math is a human method of managing abstract numbers and their relationships or (more precisely I assume) is the science or a group of related sciences that deals with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement (Wordnet).
Yes, I understand. I mean that both Math and Music are things that would exist outside of human cognition. We don't invent a musical scale, like we invent a water filter. We only name it, but it's reality is obviously outside of us. Math is harder, but the same. It is abstract, but fundamental. Unless you read a lot of Hawkins, we can try to assume that mathematical truths are the same the whole universe over. They may not be, but what a mind-bender that is. When I learn something, I try to relate it to music. That way I know I am attempting to relate to as fundamental a truth as I (personally) can.
Quote:There was no "before" the big bang, time is a property of space and space was created when this universe formed.
I don't know if you are in a position to tell me what happened at the supposed beginning of the universe. All we have in that realm (much like the argument about god) is theory. Unless, I may be mistaken, and you might have been there to see it.
Quote:You've be wrong to cal me American.
I assume form your slang and that blog link that you are in the UK. I would have called you American in the same sense I called you a 2-year-old. I know you are not 2. It is allegory.
Quote:You DO care otherwise you wouldn't be here.
I have other motivators. I see this is very difficult for you to understand/believe. I don't really care if you continue thinking I care (hehe), but I dislike being misunderstood. Please understand that that is much different from caring what people think, I just hate being misrepresented, because it is likely a failure to communicate effectively on my part. I can try to explain it a thousand different ways, and I can understand your scepticism. I think I would be sceptical of me in your shoes. If I cared, why would I come to an Atheist board to discuss Theism? Unless I am a sadist of some sort.
Thank you again for your time. I see why you call yourself the angry atheist, you have a lot of passion. I commend that. I am still not interested in arguing or fighting. Just respectful debating. May be we just have to 'smell each others butts' and then we can move on to better topics. I look forward to your reply, and now I am going downtown to see if I can find a Mandolin. It seems the perfect transition from guitar to violin. Take care.
"There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line",
-Pip
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote: Then on to Kyu. Good morning. May I ask what your name means, it is very long and full of u's. My online pseudonym is based on a little dog we named after Pippen Took.
Japanese for Vampire.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:there is no law, no rule of debate that says I have to think like you...and to take the tack you are taking is little but a dismissive attempt at character assassination.
I am not at all asking you to think like me. That would be very foolish. I am asking you not to read what I write and instantly try to disagree. It is hard to ask someone who does not know me to offer any respect, because you have no reason too. If you knew me in my daily life, you would likely be surprised. I think I am much more thorough in my thinking and intelligent that you are giving me credit. Then I would ask you to respect my wild ideas, because you know my simple ideas are usually apt. But we don't have that luxury. Nothing I do, let me please assure you, is a dismissive attempt at 'character assassination'. I don't have any superiority complex, I have no conceivable reason to try to 'assassinate' your 'character'. I am trying to tell you I am not dishonest and petty, but if you want to think I am, I cannot stop you.
Whilst I am slightly antagonistic towards you because I haven't liked much of what I've read I do read your stuff and have even agreed with you when it was appropriate. The rest? As to what appears to be a plea that I would like you in real life well ... maybe ... all my friends are atheist and that's a large part of why I like & respect them and I have no online friends but hey ... I suppose it's possible that I might end up liking my first ever theist, online ... you never know.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:and exactly how do you justify that one particular scripture holds more worth than another?
Well, how do you decide what poetry or mythology holds more worth? Try reading them, compare the Talmud with the gnostic Gospel of Truth. One instructs some very bad and unhealthy things. The other has some great, albeit spoken in code, advice about healthy states-of-mind. I judge the works as I judge any other books. With my head.
I'm not asking why you LIKE one more than another, I am asking why one scripture holds more (real/empirical/actual] worth than another ... surely you have a method? You see that's what I want, the how, because I've heard this kind of crud before and in the end it always boils down to one thing ... you like it because you p[prefer it, no rhyme or reason, no logic, no real method, you like it because it holds greater appeal. And what's really interesting is that more often than not it is the religion of their birth or then people with whom they associate most.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:so stop messing about and just accept that it matters as much to you as it does to me that people agree and disagree with what you say
Please allow me to make this point as clearly as possible. It does not matter as much to me as it does to you that people agree or disagree with me. I am not 'messing about', I have too little time to spend my life speaking falsehoods. If you disagree, or think that I am delusional, that is fine. But I am not lying to you. It took years of practice, but I learned to be very good at controlling how other people make me feel. If I needed validation, I would have given up long ago, because for most of my beliefs, I have never been validated. Some art, some music, some books, but few people have said the things I think.
And I believe you are deluding yourself and/or attempting to deceive others ... I don't for one moment believe you are doing it maliciously but I still believe you are doing it. I base it on the fact that I have interacted/debated/discussed with thousands of theists online, and with many, many others very much like you and you might like to think, you’re different but you're really not and those experiences explain a lot of why I am as cynical towards you as I am.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:You're wrong. I care what people think about my views (even you).
Oh, please don't! I get the impression that you have decided you aren't very fond of me at all. So then what value to you is my opinion. In fact, if you think I am such an idiot, for me to disagree with you is validation that you are not like this idiot. I wish I could care what people thought, but it is dangerous and useless to me. If I didn't get the impression I am on the planet of the stupids, may be.
You're right ... it didn’t take me long to get your measure (see above) and , if it's all the same with you, I will continue to believe what I believe about you until such time as you actually demonstrate this lack of care you supposedly have.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:No, Dawkins, IS NOT an asshole just because you say so, he is ex-Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science and, quite frankly, people don't get given positions such as that when they are "assholes" ... the fact is that you equate "asshole" to someone you don't like or who attitude you don't like and that makes YOU the asshole.
I didn't at all equate an asshole to someone I didn't like. I (decide I) don't like Dawkins, because (I think) he is an asshole, not the other way around. I gave him a fair shake, but his stance left me deeply offended and unimpressed. I made it clear before why I think he is an asshole.
In other words you don't like what he says and the way he says it ... well big whoop ... I do and I absolutely believe he has the measure of theism and what you people don't like is his tendency to go for your soft underbelly and hold nothing back. Guy's a genius IMO.
Quote:Then tell me.
Sigh. I see little point, but OK. Very briefly. Don't lie, Don't steal, don't manipulate for benefit, don't take more than you need, don't hurt others... Kind of like Right Thought, Right Action. I made up these rules myself, based on my moral strengths and weaknesses. No one told me them, although I do credit god in a way. (In the sense that god is everything, even me) I try my best to follow my rules. I am not entirely sure why, but it feels VERY important and comes from my 'gut'. I would wish that more people make themselves rules (not my rules), and got away form the mindset that 'it ain't wrong unless I get caught and punished'.
I very much doubt you made them up any more than I did mine, validate them perhaps but "made them up" no.
They are simplistic but not specifically bad.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:I'm not good at math either but that doesn't mean I reject it like you do science because you (apparently) aren't good at it
I never said I rejected science. This is what I mean when I say it appears you are not listening. I think I clearly said that science and the scientific method led me to my beliefs. You may have assumed I was lying, because it makes so little sense to you. I only think science (the scientific method) can be used incorrectly, and make incorrect results. Learning about things, out of curiosity and want to understand is very commendable. Learning about things for the need to try to control is dangerous and weak. I think am quite 'good at' science I guess. Doesn't really matter though.
I know you never said it, I can read between the lines and will you shut up about not listening? I am whether you approve of the way I do things or not I am reading every word you type and thinking about them before I reply.
No one says science can't get it wrong and there is only one reason why the scientific method continues to be used ... as one engineer famously put it, "Because the bridges stay up".
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:Music is human interpretation of sounds that are part of this apparently naturally "evolved" universe. Math is a human method of managing abstract numbers and their relationships or (more precisely I assume) is the science or a group of related sciences that deals with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement (Wordnet).
Yes, I understand. I mean that both Math and Music are things that would exist outside of human cognition. We don't invent a musical scale, like we invent a water filter. We only name it, but it's reality is obviously outside of us. Math is harder, but the same. It is abstract, but fundamental. Unless you read a lot of Hawkins, we can try to assume that mathematical truths are the same the whole universe over. They may not be, but what a mind-bender that is. When I learn something, I try to relate it to music. That way I know I am attempting to relate to as fundamental a truth as I (personally) can.
No, we did invent the musical scales ... it's actually well documented because there is a precise mathematical relationship between each note but it s most certainly a human invention in the exact same way as species are a human invention.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:There was no "before" the big bang, time is a property of space and space was created when this universe formed.
I don't know if you are in a position to tell me what happened at the supposed beginning of the universe. All we have in that realm (much like the argument about god) is theory. Unless, I may be mistaken, and you might have been there to see it.
Oh dear! And in a single sentence any respect for you I ever had or might have had just went whoosh!
Kyu Wrote:Approximately 13½ billion years ago the universe was compressed to the size of an atomic nucleus. This, in lay terminology, was the moment before time and space existed (technically speaking no "before" existed) ... at this "time" the universe was highly ordered, immensely hot and spinning ... it was in the lowest state of entropy the universe has ever been and ever will be again.
The entity, known as a singularity, exploded ... although there is evidence (background radiation and more) there is no way that we mere humans can conceive of the immensity of that explosion, the temperatures involved. Suffice it to say that in the first thousandth of a second the universe expanded from sub-atomic to something just over a thousand metres in width.
The major forces (strong & weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity) didn't exist initially and only in the first fractions of the first second (10-43) did they appear forming themselves into a combined super-force. The first particles began to form photons, positrons, neutrinos and their corresponding anti-particles and most of these were destroyed in the fury around them and it is sobering to consider that the surviving particles (less than 1 in a billion) went on to form the physical universe we know today.
With matter and radiation inseparable (an ionised plasma) the universe expanded until it was 100th second old at which point neutrinos began decaying on a massive scale, allowing for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles and the formation of deuterium (heavy hydrogen). Few of these particles could survive long (a few nanoseconds at best) due to intense bombardment from electrons and the density of the exploding mass means that no light was visible in the "cloud". Finally, during the "epoch of last scattering", the major forces are allowed to exert their unique influences.
At the end of its first second, having cooled to a mere 10 billion degrees, photons and electrons are no longer capable of disintegrating newly formed particles and by the end of the third second, at a billion degrees Kelvin, nucleosynthesis is able to start. Helium nuclei begin to form at a rate that will eventually form our universe with around 25% helium. Thirty minutes later conditions dictated that electron-positron pair annihilation allowed for an increase in the rate of formation of photons and some scientists believe that our universe could not have formed the way it has if it weren't for the fact that the universe contains slightly more electrons than positrons.
Over the next 300,000 years the universe cools to around 10,000 Kelvin, helium nuclei acquire electrons and from helium atoms, hydrogen combines to form lithium. Radiation and matter can now separate and visible light can now be seen.
That's a simple version now ... would you be good enough to tell me what evidence you have to support the existence of, say, your great grandfather given that photos and films can be faked, documents can be forged, artefacts can be placed and lies can be told?
Now ask YOURSELF this simple question, "Am I really so naïve that I believe that we have to see something with out own little twinkies to have evidence that it happened that way?"
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:You've be wrong to cal me American.
I assume form your slang and that blog link that you are in the UK. I would have called you American in the same sense I called you a 2-year-old. I know you are not 2. It is allegory.
Fair enough ... it didn't come across clearly.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote:
Quote:You DO care otherwise you wouldn't be here.
I have other motivators. I see this is very difficult for you to understand/believe. I don't really care if you continue thinking I care (hehe), but I dislike being misunderstood. Please understand that that is much different from caring what people think, I just hate being misrepresented, because it is likely a failure to communicate effectively on my part. I can try to explain it a thousand different ways, and I can understand your scepticism. I think I would be sceptical of me in your shoes. If I cared, why would I come to an Atheist board to discuss Theism? Unless I am a sadist of some sort.
Se above and the very fact that you keep arguing that you don't only adds further evidence that you do.
(May 1, 2009 at 7:50 am)Pippy Wrote: Thank you again for your time. I see why you call yourself the angry atheist, you have a lot of passion. I commend that. I am still not interested in arguing or fighting. Just respectful debating. May be we just have to 'smell each others butts' and then we can move on to better topics. I look forward to your reply, and now I am going downtown to see if I can find a Mandolin. It seems the perfect transition from guitar to violin.
Remember you are in an atheist forum, that here you must prove your view is worthwhile before anyone (except fellow theists) will truly respect it (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 'n all that).
As for smelling your butt ... if you're female, between say 25 and 40 and halfway decent looking yeah sure, I'm up for anything LOL.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
