RE: High there
September 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2013 at 5:28 pm by Father Herman.)
where's the kudo function? I like this one.
H
I think by now we've pretty much completed the preliminary segment of the initial portion of my first introductory piece.
I’ll summarize things with a few comments.
Re: DEFENSIVE STRATEGY
Your defensive strategy is way overdone: clichés, stereotypes, insults, crudity … name-calling (of all things!); … the “Poe Principle,” the “Dance of the Liar.”
If you can’t dismiss someone as a “fundie,” I'm sure you can dismiss them for pushing “liberal theology.”
You're well protected! I don’t think there's a thought in the world that can bust through all these barriers. Which ones have I missed? Doesn’t matter: all that stuff is worthless.
And really, you don’t need it. You may find you enjoy thinking, once you get used to it. The grab bag of wisecracks and clichés is irrelevant. Skrap the krap.
I understand its function, of course. Its function is to confuse, to unfit the mind for reason. With the reasoning faculty disabled, the atheist’s last remaining lifeline is severed, and atheism becomes invincible.
I understand: these are entertainment forums: they’re not for serious thought; but we're going to try anyway.
And these are atheist forums. If thought discourages atheism, then atheism must discourage thought. That makes it a challenge. Fine.
We live at a unique juncture in the history of our kind. This is an optimum moment to abandon this whole meaningless defensive arsenal. Atheism is dying. So if you're committed to atheism, (“for better or worse”) now’s the time to seize the day.
Just ignore anyone who scoffs at you for trying to act like an intelligent human person.
Re: APOPHAENIA
[ link to Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia]
It's not just a matter of abnormal psychology: the human mind naturally seeks meaning, and looks for patterns. You can’t have thinking without it.
But this raises a question: How do we know (first) when the patterns we find are really inherent in the object we're contemplating, (second) when they’re being imposed by mental processes that may be quite reasonable, and (third) when we've become captive to runaway processes without reason?
The article you linked gives realistic examples of religious apophaenia. I'm confident that we'll find many in these forums who would extend the application beyond the realm of the real.
Re: THE “DANCE OF THE LIAR”
But: name-calling, of all things! That really is for children and politicians!
Actually it was, I believe, Ivy who perpetrated the first insult. I was surprised to find YOU, Apophenia, following her lead. I hope the nose-ring doesn’t hurt too much.
If there’s something you don’t understand, try a question. You can’t enter high school calling—perhaps still thinking—that anyone you don’t understand is a “liar.”
Your first post made you sound like a human being. This one puts you back in the “Ivy League.”
Re: CUTE-OHS
1 to: Freedomfromfallacy, who wrote: “You may learn something if you can stomach the strong drink you'll be offered here.” Good. I expect to learn quite a bit. As for the “strong drink:” I take it you mean all the insults &c &c. To me all that stuff is like rain on a paperboy: doesn’t mean a thing.
2 to: Psykhronic (post 13) for most incoherent post so far.
3 to: pocaracas (post 24) a Nobel Prize for perfecting cluelessness (“The poe is strong on this one.”). I like your pseudonyn, by the way. Trips nicely on the tongue.
Why the hell do you need a pseudonym?
4 To: Mister Agenda (post 26) for an eminently sane post.
5 to: Ivy! (post 33) Introductory eloquence included insults, crudity, and name-calling (of all things). Ivy managed to work all three into a single post of less than 200 words! There must be a prize for that!
6 to: ITChick (post 35) for loving Clara Bow.
7 to: whateverist (post 43) for a very nice post.
8 to: Apophenia (post 45) for a very civil, very human post. Most impressive.
9 to: Stimbo (post 52) for starting a train of thought.
10 to: Culo Dreaming (post 53) for tongue-in-cheekidity.
11 to: the Captain with the Stupidest of all Possible Names (post 56) for looking forward to my future threads.
12 A second for pocaracas! (post 57) for attempting to think. If something good exists, you should believe that it exists just because it exists. No other reason is relevant.
But “good” may be a typo for “God.” The wrong question is the one you asked: “Why can't I come to know God from my own unbiased research?” The right question is “can I come to know God from my own unbiased research?”
You can.
Culo (post 58): the limitation of my online time is a blessing. It gives us time to think.
Thinking rocks.
(Lots of Cute-ohs here! I'm impressed!)
13 to: whateverist (post 59). Good one. Bring this up later on. (Don’t expect me to keep track of all this shit.)
14 to: Stimbo! (post 60) for not liking my tone. Sorry! I missed this post at first. My tone tends to be fairly vigorous. Sorry! If you don’t like it, don’t read my posts.
But you look like you're interested in thinking, so I'm thinking you better stick with me.
15 to: Culo dreaming (post 62) for offering “known to be” and “demonstrably true.” This is something we can work with.
16 to: Apophenia for the second time! (post 65) for managing to completely reverse a good impression. Name-calling, of all things! Ha! Make it magnificent!
Ok: To use atheist terminology, “you fucked up.” Fine. But you’ve got a mind. Let’s take advantage of it.
17 to: Zen Badger (post 69) for “regale us with … your version of reality.” No hurry. Little by little.
So I think we've pretty much wrapped up the First Part of “Part One: Introduction.” Now it's time to move on to the Second Part of “Introduction: Part One.”
The End. And Glory be to God.
Father Herman
We'll get to all of these ... but ... one at a time, I'm afraid. Maybe we'll start with these.
the ende and glory to God
H
H
I think by now we've pretty much completed the preliminary segment of the initial portion of my first introductory piece.
I’ll summarize things with a few comments.
Re: DEFENSIVE STRATEGY
Your defensive strategy is way overdone: clichés, stereotypes, insults, crudity … name-calling (of all things!); … the “Poe Principle,” the “Dance of the Liar.”
If you can’t dismiss someone as a “fundie,” I'm sure you can dismiss them for pushing “liberal theology.”
You're well protected! I don’t think there's a thought in the world that can bust through all these barriers. Which ones have I missed? Doesn’t matter: all that stuff is worthless.
And really, you don’t need it. You may find you enjoy thinking, once you get used to it. The grab bag of wisecracks and clichés is irrelevant. Skrap the krap.
I understand its function, of course. Its function is to confuse, to unfit the mind for reason. With the reasoning faculty disabled, the atheist’s last remaining lifeline is severed, and atheism becomes invincible.
I understand: these are entertainment forums: they’re not for serious thought; but we're going to try anyway.
And these are atheist forums. If thought discourages atheism, then atheism must discourage thought. That makes it a challenge. Fine.
We live at a unique juncture in the history of our kind. This is an optimum moment to abandon this whole meaningless defensive arsenal. Atheism is dying. So if you're committed to atheism, (“for better or worse”) now’s the time to seize the day.
Just ignore anyone who scoffs at you for trying to act like an intelligent human person.
Re: APOPHAENIA
[ link to Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia]
It's not just a matter of abnormal psychology: the human mind naturally seeks meaning, and looks for patterns. You can’t have thinking without it.
But this raises a question: How do we know (first) when the patterns we find are really inherent in the object we're contemplating, (second) when they’re being imposed by mental processes that may be quite reasonable, and (third) when we've become captive to runaway processes without reason?
The article you linked gives realistic examples of religious apophaenia. I'm confident that we'll find many in these forums who would extend the application beyond the realm of the real.
Re: THE “DANCE OF THE LIAR”
But: name-calling, of all things! That really is for children and politicians!
Actually it was, I believe, Ivy who perpetrated the first insult. I was surprised to find YOU, Apophenia, following her lead. I hope the nose-ring doesn’t hurt too much.
If there’s something you don’t understand, try a question. You can’t enter high school calling—perhaps still thinking—that anyone you don’t understand is a “liar.”
Your first post made you sound like a human being. This one puts you back in the “Ivy League.”
Re: CUTE-OHS
1 to: Freedomfromfallacy, who wrote: “You may learn something if you can stomach the strong drink you'll be offered here.” Good. I expect to learn quite a bit. As for the “strong drink:” I take it you mean all the insults &c &c. To me all that stuff is like rain on a paperboy: doesn’t mean a thing.
2 to: Psykhronic (post 13) for most incoherent post so far.
3 to: pocaracas (post 24) a Nobel Prize for perfecting cluelessness (“The poe is strong on this one.”). I like your pseudonyn, by the way. Trips nicely on the tongue.
Why the hell do you need a pseudonym?
4 To: Mister Agenda (post 26) for an eminently sane post.
5 to: Ivy! (post 33) Introductory eloquence included insults, crudity, and name-calling (of all things). Ivy managed to work all three into a single post of less than 200 words! There must be a prize for that!
6 to: ITChick (post 35) for loving Clara Bow.
7 to: whateverist (post 43) for a very nice post.
8 to: Apophenia (post 45) for a very civil, very human post. Most impressive.
9 to: Stimbo (post 52) for starting a train of thought.
10 to: Culo Dreaming (post 53) for tongue-in-cheekidity.
11 to: the Captain with the Stupidest of all Possible Names (post 56) for looking forward to my future threads.
12 A second for pocaracas! (post 57) for attempting to think. If something good exists, you should believe that it exists just because it exists. No other reason is relevant.
But “good” may be a typo for “God.” The wrong question is the one you asked: “Why can't I come to know God from my own unbiased research?” The right question is “can I come to know God from my own unbiased research?”
You can.
Culo (post 58): the limitation of my online time is a blessing. It gives us time to think.
Thinking rocks.
(Lots of Cute-ohs here! I'm impressed!)
13 to: whateverist (post 59). Good one. Bring this up later on. (Don’t expect me to keep track of all this shit.)
14 to: Stimbo! (post 60) for not liking my tone. Sorry! I missed this post at first. My tone tends to be fairly vigorous. Sorry! If you don’t like it, don’t read my posts.
But you look like you're interested in thinking, so I'm thinking you better stick with me.
15 to: Culo dreaming (post 62) for offering “known to be” and “demonstrably true.” This is something we can work with.
16 to: Apophenia for the second time! (post 65) for managing to completely reverse a good impression. Name-calling, of all things! Ha! Make it magnificent!
Ok: To use atheist terminology, “you fucked up.” Fine. But you’ve got a mind. Let’s take advantage of it.
17 to: Zen Badger (post 69) for “regale us with … your version of reality.” No hurry. Little by little.
So I think we've pretty much wrapped up the First Part of “Part One: Introduction.” Now it's time to move on to the Second Part of “Introduction: Part One.”
The End. And Glory be to God.
Father Herman
(September 3, 2013 at 5:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote:(September 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Father Herman Wrote: Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists?
I'm curious to see this. Please present it.
(September 3, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Father Herman Wrote: We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.
What exactly should a modern atheist be asking for?
We'll get to all of these ... but ... one at a time, I'm afraid. Maybe we'll start with these.
the ende and glory to God
H
