Kyu,
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
