Kyu,
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
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
