Ethical question for our atheists

[Tiassa]

Speechless isn't quite the right word, obviously

It is only huge if you see it through a theist's eyes. Looked at from an atheistic position it isn't.

I'm so ... disappointed.

Can I leave it at that?

People assume that because atheism is the opposite of theism that it is symmetrical in scope and in properties. It ain't. Just because theists have a big ass collection of values in common, it doesn't follow that atheists do.

May I kindly ask, sir, who the hell ever said it was that way?

What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe. That's well and fine.

What you choose to express is what you choose to express. That's well and fine.

But I find it quite ironic that someone should act exactly like those he criticizes. Such as the empty, religious-sounding constructs of principles we've been seeing from our atheists at Sciforums. If atheism is worth asserting, it is worth examining. If you cannot do so with the same objectivity demanded of religion--e.g. proof of asserted derivatives of cause--that's technically your own problem. However, insofar as one would choose to express an idea, it is especially their own problem when the lack of integrity associated to the idea is noticed.

Now, I'm not talking about proof of God. There is no valid counter-assertion for comparison. I agree with the objective lack of evidence for God. But God serves in the religious arena as justification for a good many values. Value for value, an atheist cannot provide any better objective justification for the value than a theist holding God as the justification.

Most atheists at Sciforums seem happy with the small atheistic assertion. Methinks they expect too little of their own idea.

I think it's important to bear this in mind.

Atheism doesn't specify where you get the new values and worldview from, so you are going to get a collection of very different values when you group these people together.

Yes, but none of those will provide any better justification for the values than, say, the diverse interpretations of the Christian Bible.

If you make any generalisations about them, some will go "Hey! WTF?".

That's the danger of common associations, and one of the reasons I have no religion in specific. While on the one hand, I cannot reconcile myself to any of the various paradigms I've encountered to my satisfaction, to the other I simply cannot stand to be represented by those people. It's why it's so entertaining to me to watch an atheist project Christianity or any other single religious paradigm onto the whole of theism in order to insult li'l ol' me.

Only if you are theistic. And if you are still theistic then logically it doesn't affect your worldview at all.

Sorry. Silly me. I haven't gotten used to this seemingly selfish attitude so common to our atheists. Oh, wait, I know why. See, this inherent lack of sympathy in atheists is one of the things I complained about in atheism, and one of the things our atheists called me out for. I was told that I had no idea what I was talking about, that I was making stuff up. Yet take a look around.

Selfish and internalized, indeed. However, I can see how an atheist might find that a good thing.

Because they are unfair to christians as well. Besides, real unfairness only happens when oneself is the subject.

My point exactly. However I did miscalculate the effect that point would have. I had presumed the lack of human sympathy in that perspective to (A) be apparent, and (B) seem to be a bad thing.

See, this inherent lack of sympathy is one of the things I experienced as an atheist, and one of the reasons I grew beyond atheism. Strangely, many of Sciforums' atheists took me to task for my observations of atheism. They said I had no idea what I was talking about, that I was making stuff up.

I must have been

What I meant was that the universe is generally indifferent to our beliefs. If we complain that there isn't a God then the universe isn't going to say "Oh, you poor baby. Here, let me fix that so you don't have to think disquieting thoughts."

Yep. I can agree with that.

Now, extrapolate a little bit. Don't worry, we're not going beyond conceivable reality.

Some people think this is reason to be selfish. Now, selfishness isn't a bad thing inherently. But it does seem that if we consider the idea of people thinking of each other this way--that nobody's going to say, Here, let me help you--well, isn't that one of the big reasons we have wars?

Because in essence, you can't expect anyone to cooperate, and you are best-advised to expect everyone to compete.

And I say this as gently as I can: But this is how we choose it to be.

I couldn't stand to be that selfish. It nearly killed me trying to be.

The only reason anyone needs to think that way is because the other guy is. Well, probably. We think. Er ...

But the other guy only needs to think that way because the one guy is. Er ... damn.

Seems kinda spotty, doesn't it?

Now, why don't we have the objective people provide an objective solution.

And as politely as I can, I will shortcut the process: Since both the one and the other choose to think that way, the solution would be for them both to either cease to choose to think that way, or to actively choose to cease thinking that way.

What am I supposed to say? That these are bad people? No, they're not. But neither am I Jesus Christ. I can't just lay on the hands and make a promise and suddenly everything's alright. Believe me, if I was God I would have either fixed this a long time ago or else gotten it right the first time. But as a human being there is nothing I can do for people who choose decay and destruction. And since the principle relies solely on itself, I do find it macabre, to say the least, in its frequency among atheists.

The irony hurts so much it's sweet.

OK ... correction. I'm not particularly disappointed. It's more to say I'm impressed. I hate it when narrow-minded Christian bigots are right. But I have to take my hat off to them. Once upon a time I was one of Sciforums' most strident defenders of atheism. I'm not sure what happened, because my position on atheism hasn't changed much. My opinion of atheists in general has declined, but I won't hold the idea at fault for human failures. But I look at the selfishness expressed by a couple of atheists in this topic, and while my condemnation of it is limited but sharp (it still has the possibility of validity; I cannot denounce it altogether) ... I look at this selfishness and it's what I told the narrow-minded Christian bigot accusers wouldn't happen.

So I suppose there's that--the ego blow. Don't worry about that, though; I'm used to it. Like I said to GIL in another topic--I am the anti-prophet. Literally, you can almost set your watch by it.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

RE: Then why are we so pissed about 9/11?

Just to answer that specific question... the US is the most
dominant society on the planet. 9/11 was a direct challenge to
our dominance (regardless of the many reasons the hi-jackers
had for what they did). That is what pissed us off... a little yappy
dog challenging the big dog by biting and drawing blood.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Tiassa,
To your original question-

You are confusing the defense of an individual's own beliefs with a lack of fairness.

Would you really expect someone to defend another person's beliefs as vehemently as their own? Of course not. People are biased.

So, I do not see it being an issue of 'fairness' or 'integrity'. What you are seeing is a basic human condition that is present in everyone, regardless of their beliefs.

-fc

 

[Tiassa]

CrunchyCat & fadingCaptain

Just to answer that specific question... the US is the most
dominant society on the planet. 9/11 was a direct challenge to
our dominance (regardless of the many reasons the hi-jackers
had for what they did). That is what pissed us off... a little yappy
dog challenging the big dog by biting and drawing blood.

Seems about right. Just because we're in a bad mood, we go to war? I've learned to not expect anything more from my neighbors, but the least I can do is hope.

You are confusing the defense of an individual's own beliefs with a lack of fairness.

I think it goes beyond that. The selfishness people are advocating is part of what our present enemies find wrong with us. It absolutely annoys me when someone like Bin Laden has a point. Oh, well. The Christians say "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It's a nice principle, I admit, but one which humans seem unprepared to accept. However, "Hate the man, ignore the reasons" seems much more palatable.

Personally I find this egocentric position some of our atheists describing quite sick in the sense that it may well be a mental illness. I have much to consider if that be the case.

Would you really expect someone to defend another person's beliefs as vehemently as their own? Of course not. People are biased.

Seems to me bias is at least partially a result of apathy, which process is lauded by the selfish perspective. People are biased because they're too lazy to choose anything else.

So, I do not see it being an issue of 'fairness' or 'integrity'. What you are seeing is a basic human condition that is present in everyone, regardless of their beliefs.

The issue is fairness and integrity because (A) fairness is something people choose to believe in, and (B) integrity is something people choose to operate without.

It's not entirely sentimental. It's also a matter of simple logic. People say they want certain things while they work toward other things.

Take for instance the person I am now calling the second most-intelligent person in my acquaintance. The best education money could buy could not change his chosen perspective. People aren't worth much to him, and he's brilliant at showing it. I don't mind, for instance, that he is on the wartime bandwagon. That he can't express any better reason than clonishly repeating what the Bush administration tells him (he's a Condi Rice fan for reasons of alma mater) is discouraging. Here's the thing: he says he wants a peaceful world. But when it comes to human suffering, this person who, for the statistical record, refuses to claim atheism but mocks all gods and religions, has chosen to agree with the selfish mode I find so distasteful. Why is this problematic? Because he, who wants peace, chooses a paradigm which doctrinally demands the necessity of warfare. So it's not sentimental frustration; rather, I'm frustrated by the simple stupidity that if we do the opposite enough we'll finally get what we're after. And yes, we will, when we've killed everyone who disagrees with us.

This "basic human condition" is part of the sickness that compelled me to reject atheism. While I do see the value of demanding an objective basis, I found it particularly hypocritical and counterproductive to demand that standard for only one fraction of my living experience--e.g. religion. How can I ask for objectivity when the basis of my request for objectivity is rooted in subjectivity? It seemed a matter of integrity to me, although I do see how a very careful effort to ignore all conflicts of paradigm could have worked me around that moment.

I'm starting to believe people are atheists because they are too confused by, therefore afraid of, and thus hostile toward ideas which are larger than they are. You'll notice that the ideas which are equally subjective but which provide subjective wealth (e.g. nations and economy) in the immediate sense are accepted while subjective ideas with less-immediate and less-definitive benefits (e.g. God & religion) are rejected. It's a fine, fine greed. It is one of the highest and most refined expressions of humanity at its lowest.

Two-bit dishonesty in a three-penny opera.

People did choose to be this way. People can choose to be otherwise. If you say, "But I didn't choose this, it was taught me," you're still focusing on yourself too much.

Whether you chose it or it was taught to you doesn't matter. If you can see that it's wrong, and you choose to support it, such is your own issue.

Part of it is a matter of respect. I need to be able to respect atheists on some level in order to discuss anything with them. This seems true enough of any two-party process, does it not? What, aside from conflict and disrespect, can be accomplished if two parties attempting to consciously engage in a proccess (e.g. debate) choose at the outset to not respect each other?

This selfish attitude belies any assertion that an atheist who holds such a perspective can debate respectfully. Because that "respect" is merely a pretense as they serve themselves to a higher cause not enumerated in the debate. Which, in the end, sounds kind of like a religion, doesn't it?

For instance, I'm very interested in Xev's answer to my question. Can she promise herself that she will always be in control of such factors as she has asserted?

So if I find Xev hurt alongside the road and refuse her any assistance, it would be because she has chosen to decline that assistance. I'm happy to leave someone in their suffering if it's truly what they wish, but ... Well, okay, these days my conscience pings me, but my conscience is also learning that these people, like murder victims, rape victims, domestic abuse victims, and others, choose their suffering.

Oh, does that last seem cold? Sorry, I was still in the context of the selfish. Demarcation ... demarcation ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Tiassa

BY CC:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to answer that specific question... the US is the most
dominant society on the planet. 9/11 was a direct challenge to
our dominance (regardless of the many reasons the hi-jackers
had for what they did). That is what pissed us off... a little yappy
dog challenging the big dog by biting and drawing blood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY Tiassa:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems about right. Just because we're in a bad mood, we go to war? I've learned to not expect anything more from my neighbors, but the least I can do is hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you're on top of the hill you have to swat down (and make
examples of) anyone who tries knock you off. Hope is a nice thing
but survival and dominance are the reality.

 

[Tiassa]

Crunchy Cat

When you're on top of the hill you have to swat down (and make
examples of) anyone who tries knock you off. Hope is a nice thing
but survival and dominance are the reality.

This is only because we choose it to be that way. King of the Hill is a choice if you're smart enough. Like this current War on Terror; I find it ironic (especially in light of the Bush Sr. topics about atheists) that some of° our atheists would support the present Holy War so enthusiastically.

But the primary point is that playing King of the Hill is a choice. It is a child's game played by adults with lethal consequences, all because this is what we choose.

I might note a simple point: What obliges you to participate in this game of King of the Hill?

If we seek subjective answers, there are many. If we seek objective, substantial answers, there are none. Participation in this ugly game is a choice.

thanx,
Tiassa

Note on edit:

° some of: I inserted this after the fact, namely for GIL's benefit.

 

[fadingCaptain]

It absolutely annoys me when someone like Bin Laden has a point.

What point is that?

"Hate the sin, love the sinner."

The sin and sinner are the same. Your are holding on to those old christian values you were taught as a child...Our actions and decisions are part of who we are...

People are biased because they're too lazy to choose anything else.

'Bias' wasn't a good word for me to use...I meant people have conviction.

The issue is fairness and integrity because (A) fairness is something people choose to believe in, and (B) integrity is something people choose to operate without.

What kind of actions from an atheist would lead you to believe they were acting with fairness and integrity?

People say they want certain things while they work toward other things.

Sometimes the path to an intended goal is very twisty indeed. I say this because I grapple with issues such as what to do with Iraq also. I would expand but we may be getting off-topic..

Oh, does that last seem cold?

Yeah, that did seem cold. Are you sure they choose their suffering?

How can I ask for objectivity when the basis of my request for objectivity is rooted in subjectivity?

I see no problem in subjectively requesting for objectivity. That was a tongue twister heh. Seriously though, just because you ask for objectivity for one thing doesn't mean everything has to be objective. When I have an opinion on art I know it is subjective. Why would I look for objectivity in determining the value of art?

One other quick thought: In my experience, discussion on internet message boards tends to quickly fall into one extreme position versus another...unlike when talking to someone face to face There is no finding of common ground, no admission of lack of knowledge, no compromise. This can represent a certain group or ideal falsely. What I am saying is maybe alot of these atheists you think are entirely too ego-centric are not so much at all but seem so due to the nature of these boards. Maybe.

-fc

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Tiassa

King of the Hill is the most common 'choice' because its natural.
Put any 2 animals (humans included) together for a month and
you will note that one is more dominant than the other. The more
dominant animal reaps the benefits of dominance of course and
may enjoy various successes as a result (reprodutive success
for example). The choice not to 'play' King of the Hill can lead
to even worse consequences than war (remember the ol' Indian
Trail of Tears?).

 

[Tiassa]

Manifest Destiny

The choice not to 'play' King of the Hill can lead
to even worse consequences than war (remember the ol' Indian
Trail of Tears?).

Ummmm ....

Two words:

Manifest Destiny.

In the meantime, can I ask why people stress about the IRA? Or even groups more sinister like Al Qaeda? GOP? They're just playing along like, apparently, they should.

I just don't think people realize that they are advocating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence merely because they believe it to be the "easy" path. On the one hand, it's merely a matter of stupidity. But I tend to think this stupidity is symptomatic of a greater illness.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Tiassa

One word: 'REALITY'

People will stress about anything that challanges their dominance,
whether it be Al Qaeda or the neighbor next door.

It's true that many people have no clue about how their actions
keep various cycles of violence alive, but so what? Being a part of
such a cycle is natural (whether it's an easy or stupid path in your
opinion).

Don't take this next part personally, I am only stating it for
exemplification. I have seen you asserting dominance throughout
many threads in the forums and I have no doubt that many
people want to kick your ass as a result. I would bet that a few
of these folks would actually follow through given the opportunity.
So, your actions put you in the midst of a violence cycle, and
unlike a Twinkie its quite natural.

 

[Tiassa]

Natural?

It's true that many people have no clue about how their actions
keep various cycles of violence alive, but so what?

Well, is ignorance really bliss? Does ignorance excuse people for inappropriate words or actions?

We can choose to accept things as they are, or we can choose to try to change them.

Being a part of such a cycle is natural

Ever see a feminist sociologist accuse fruit flies of "rape"?

What feels most natural to humans in some occasions is what we call "rape". Do the facts that we are compelled to mate and that consent is a social convention license the "natural" cycle of sexuality?

Don't take this next part personally, I am only stating it for
exemplification. I have seen you asserting dominance throughout
many threads in the forums and I have no doubt that many
people want to kick your ass as a result. I would bet that a few
of these folks would actually follow through given the opportunity.
So, your actions put you in the midst of a violence cycle, and
unlike a Twinkie its quite natural.

I won't take it personally. I've been threatened a few times. Anyone who wants to come out to Seattle and kick my ass is more than welcome to. But as violence is "natural", so is ignorance. We humans are not even capable of sustaining ourselves at birth.

Do we really want to rely on limited notions of what is or isn't natural?

Cruelty and idiocy are much easier if we convince ourselves that it's the only way things can be.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

As Natural as dirt

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, is ignorance really bliss? Does ignorance excuse people for inappropriate words or actions?

We can choose to accept things as they are, or we can choose to try to change them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For some it's bliss I suppose. The concept of 'Inappropriate' is
man made. It's a personal and/or societal opinion, so the answer
you are looking for is strictly within the context of opinion.

You can't change behaviors that are hard coded in your DNA (at
least not without serious drugs ). You can; however, control
them according to the societal opinion of what is appropriate.
The most popular way to do this is through laws and law
enforcement.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever see a feminist sociologist accuse fruit flies of "rape"?

What feels most natural to humans in some occasions is what we call "rape". Do the facts that we are compelled to mate and that consent is a social convention license the "natural" cycle of sexuality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be laughing my ass off if I did . Consent, rape,
monogomy, polyagmy, ... it's all natural. Most (if not all) animals
on the planet partake in these sexual behaviors. Humans are
no different in this respect (other than we try to control these
behaviors according to societal opinion).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we really want to rely on limited notions of what is or isn't natural?

Cruelty and idiocy are much easier if we convince ourselves that it's the only way things can be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would prefer to rely on observable/factual notions of what is
and is not natural. Whether these notions are limited or not
is a matter of opinion.

Regarding cruelty and idiocy, we'll I am sure society will opine
what level of either is acceptable and make some laws to control
them as a result.

Thanks,

-CC

P.S. You're fun to discuss this stuff with but please-o-please don't
respond with a 10-page essay . My mere-mortalness can't
endure that.

 

[ThatJerk]

Ethical question for our atheists
A very simple inquiry:

• Many people take issue with my presentation of atheism. These are usually atheists.
• Strangely, I've noticed that I am still more severe in my criticisms and generalizations toward Christianity.
• I noticed that the atheists don't particularly care.
• Furthermore, I've noticed that some of our atheists will exploit those abusive passages.

What's the deal here?

I'm finding that I'm almost alone here in supporting you, Tiassa. You made a (sadly) brief appearence in my thread, and I found your post to be VERY intelligent and accurate. I still had some issue with a couple of points, but it was largely because your points (while true) weren't quite what I was dealing with then and there.

I am equally impressed with other posts of yours elsewhere. They can be hard to wade through sometimes, but they are always thorough and consistently have many relevant points. My ONLY criticism is that you can come off as being incredibly haughty and self-assured in your own humility, which I can tell rubs some people the wrong way even if they largely agree with you in principle.

But to answer your questions:

1. Many atheists either simply don't understand the religious mindset, or do but don't really care or are tired of being nice about it (like me). I suspect that some have a hard time telling who's side you're on, or think you're trying to straddle the fence. To quote Curious George: "If you aren't with us you're against us."
Perhaps, they feel that you poo-poo them even in agreeing with them, and just can't STAND being talked down at (even if you aren't necessarily doing so).

Or I could be wrong on all counts. Who knows what's going on in people's heads?

2. To the untrained reader, you're posts seem ambiguous at best, as your sharp criticisms and generalisations don't particularly stick out at all times. See the C. G. quote above... I think that attitude sums up the typical American mindset quite nicely.

3. This one ties into number two. They either don't notice, or choose not to notice in favour of nailing you for being 'wishy-washy'.

4. Those that do notice how nasty you can be are smart enough to see a good arguement when it bites them in the ass, even if they don't necessarily like the manner in which it was presented (or, if they're really petty, just don't like the person).

I just find it highly amusing how people generally want "fair" to be to their own best interests. A little bit of consistency--daresay "integrity" would help.

Many people think anything that contravenes their own best-interests or opinions isn't 'fair', no matter how correct or realistic it may be. They rarely see beyond their own wounded ego in favour of lashing out at some supposed slight against them. But you knew that already.

 

[Chromatose]

Re: Tiassa

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
The winner of course... and Christianity is kind of the winner of modern
religions (most points -aka followers-).

Say what?

There are only a few hundred million Christians compared to somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 million Hindus, and about that many or more Muslims. There are even several hundred million more Bhudists than Christians!

Just a small point.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Interesting... but if thats true then I stand corrected , and if not
then feel free to stare these poor little smilies in the eye:



Dontcha love em?

 

[Tiassa]

fadingCaptain

What point is that?

Well, one of the things that really annoys fundamentalist Muslims about the United States is how shallow and self-centered we Americans are as individuals. Because, for instance, we endorse by our vote the American policy of supporting Israel, and furthermore for our contributions to the likes of Saddam Hussein and other tyrants in the Islamic world, Islamic terrorists feel equally-justified in the "eye for an eye", "strike back until aggression ceases" tactic of killing civilians by, oh, say, flying airplanes into skyscrapers. There is a protest slogan that reads, "A hijacked 757 is a poor man's F-16". Well, Bin Laden himself may have achieved billionaire status, but the idea generally holds true.

The defense of beliefs is one thing, but denying cruelty in the face of its very expression is another entirely.

The sin and sinner are the same. Your are holding on to those old christian values you were taught as a child...Our actions and decisions are part of who we are...

I was reflecting on those values. In case you didn't notice, I juxtaposed it against another idea: However, "Hate the man, ignore the reasons" seems much more palatable.

Hatred comes from fear. If people continue to base their associations in fear, we cannot steer clear of hateful acts.

What kind of actions from an atheist would lead you to believe they were acting with fairness and integrity?

On that note, what reason have I to respect the atheistic position as valid whatsoever? For 'tis true, there is no evidence to suggest that atheism bears any advantage in its implementation. To the other, I suppose I do owe an apology around. I've found lately that it is an insult at Sciforums to presume anyone to be intelligent. Especially in the Religion forum. As I recently advised another poster on the same point: I shan't make that mistake again. I just wonder how broadly I should apply this presumption of a lack of integrity.

And given that an atheist, merely twelve hours ago appealed to me to "be considerate", I think issues of fairness still bear some importance around here. The sad thing is that people have generally made a joke out of fairness for the very reasons I find myself so repulsed by in this topic.

Sometimes the path to an intended goal is very twisty indeed. I say this because I grapple with issues such as what to do with Iraq also.

On a sphere it's well enough to say that I can go from Seattle to New York by going west, but there's something to be said for sailing off toward Alpha Centauri when trying to get to Tokyo. Sisyphus is one thing, but in this case the tragedy of it is that he's trying to get the boulder to the bottom of the hill. In the larger view, people want peace and prosperity, yet their very ideas on how to get there objectively lead to conflict and deprivation. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that humanity is undergoing a mass learning process, but learning more and more these days seems anathema.

Yeah, that did seem cold. Are you sure they choose their suffering?

Myself, no. But this is a fair conclusion of such an ethical construct as I am examining. As Xev wrote on 11.11.02:

Tiassa's "K" didn't take care of herself. She was punished for this error.
Xev takes care of herself. She doesn't get too close to or depend on anyone, and only helps others when she's willing to accept the consequences.

Thus, Xev never deals with more pain than she can bear.

This is life. There's really no place for weakness in this world, and the person who respects my weakness does me a disservice.

Now, I won't even stop on the funny point about an atheist saying someone was "punished". The irony is sweet, but not worth further comment.

And it's fair enough if Xev wishes to presume that she or anyone else can be fully in control of such factors as she has considered. As I noted then: Life being what it is, can you promise yourself that you will always be in control of that? As for the victims of such pains? Their own weakness invited their misery. As Xev notes, to respect one's weaknesses does them a disservice. What is it, aside from weakness, that a serial rapist or killer exploits?

Yes it's cold. That's why I brought it up. Like I said, I was still thinking in context.

Seriously though, just because you ask for objectivity for one thing doesn't mean everything has to be objective. When I have an opinion on art I know it is subjective. Why would I look for objectivity in determining the value of art?

I agree entirely. But there is a difference between entertaining and good. Whether or not I like a song is subjective. Whether or not the Britney Spears can sing is objective. For instance, I was flipping through the stations and was transfixed for a few minutes by the E! channel, which was showing a macabre bio on Tonya Harding. I caught a few seconds of a concert she gave with the "Golden Blades" singing group. Most of the people booed. This might have been subjective, since many were booing before they started singing. There were a few people cheering, though. Perhaps they were touched by Tonya's tribulations, her attempt at recovery and new grace. Whatever. This was definitely subjective. However, objectively, there is no way to establish that Tonya Harding can sing. The objective evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite. She wasn't hitting her notes, period. There is no question about that. (Believe me, I just listened to The Squirrels doing "Lean On Me". They didn't hit their notes, either, but that was the point. Subjective, I like it. Objective, the singing is horrible.)

Paintings? Frankly, I have a quiet affection for Michael Cannetti and Ty Wilson, two mainstays of the 1980s at INprints, Deck the Halls, and other such stores. Their fame, incidentally, came about in the wake of Nagel, when anything simple and suggestive was considered good. Do I like it? Yes, generally. Is it "good"? Well, there's no real technique to judge. Compared to Picasso or Wyeth or Innes or Van Gogh, it sucks.

But the problem is that ideas of God affect the very survival of the species. On the simplest level, religions assert moral codes that affect how humans get along together--e.g. to the benefit or detriment of themselves, each other, and, by proxy, the species. In rejecting God for lack of objective evidence, one is by proxy rejecting those justifications for morality based on God for lack of objective support. It would seem, however, that this objectivity is a subjective demand. That is, where a religious person would use God as justification for morality or ethic, there is a matching ethic which does not use God as the justification.

• e.g.--Thou shall not kill; we might say, "Because God says so" and chuckle at the feeble reason, but what objective reason can anyone else come up with? I agree that there are better subjective reasons, but the primary assertion involves a lack of objective evidence, reason, or support.)

Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical at least to install subjective devices where one has deliberately cleared subjective devices because they are subjective? (Not quite a tongue-twister, but still ....)

In my experience, discussion on internet message boards tends to quickly fall into one extreme position versus another...unlike when talking to someone face to face

I agree and find it tragic.

There is no finding of common ground, no admission of lack of knowledge, no compromise.

I've never understood what's so hard about it.

This can represent a certain group or ideal falsely

It seems, though, that this is the concern of those who choose a common identity. I'm well aware that theism breeds a certain amount of lunacy. But I would be more understanding of such criticism if people could stick to the concept. After all, if someone's pissed at me because I'm a theist, and their problem comes because they're frustrated with a Christian-derived concept, quite technically, they're barking up the wrong tree. In that case, the consistency with which I encounter the issue seems to fairly represent atheism, at least in the Sciforums context. There is deviation, to be sure, but this is to be expected; atheism cannot be uniformly represented that poorly. No paradigm is perfectly consistent in its results.

What I am saying is maybe alot of these atheists you think are entirely too ego-centric are not so much at all but seem so due to the nature of these boards. Maybe.

It's a possibility. But I might offend someone by respecting it. I'm not being sarcastic; it seriously feels like people are grievously insulted when I presume them to be intelligent. The irony of that is rather bitter, unfortunately.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Crunchy Cat--I don't know; there's something to be said for covering the bases

The concept of 'Inappropriate' is
man made. It's a personal and/or societal opinion, so the answer
you are looking for is strictly within the context of opinion.

So is the concept of ignorance but I got a better answer out of you on that: For some it's bliss I suppose.

However, of man-made concepts: we are human.

You can't change behaviors that are hard coded in your DNA (at
least not without serious drugs ).

Would you say in general, then that stupidity should be a protected condition, as it is apparently genetic? Think about it in terms of being American: the laws generally won't hold you responsible for what you don't understand.

You can; however, control
them according to the societal opinion of what is appropriate.
The most popular way to do this is through laws and law
enforcement.

Sounds like a fallacy. Using pretense to suppress behaviors we are apparently, as you have noted, genetically predisposed to. No wonder it doesn't work.

So, should humans merely exist? Or should they learn and grow? What does objective consideration of the living phenomenon tell you about that?

I would be laughing my ass off if I did . Consent, rape,
monogomy, polyagmy, ... it's all natural. Most (if not all) animals
on the planet partake in these sexual behaviors. Humans are
no different in this respect (other than we try to control these
behaviors according to societal opinion).

You mean the suppression of our genetically-coded behavior? Artificial suppression of our natural condition?

Incidentally, the article was hilarious.

However, you didn't answer the issue.

Do the facts that we are compelled to mate and that consent is a social convention license the "natural" cycle of sexuality?

Regarding cruelty and idiocy, we'll I am sure society will opine
what level of either is acceptable and make some laws to control
them as a result.

What something equals to people is subjective. What it actually is is a little more objective. For instance, cruelty and idiocy. We might opine what level of either is acceptable, but it doesn't change the fact that it is cruelty and idiocy.

Cruel idiots, technically, are quite dangerous to human perpetuity.

You're fun to discuss this stuff with but please-o-please don't
respond with a 10-page essay . My mere-mortalness can't
endure that.

There is a lack of evidence to suggest this is a good idea. You write what you have to. Some concepts are quick, others are not. How many posts and how much information would you like to go through to reach the same place? We can, theoretically, do it in ten pages, or we can spread it out over multiple posts and run the risk of the same content requiring 100 posts to transmit. Either way, there is a certain amount of information that must be accounted for in order to consider the issues in the appropriate context. If it takes ten pages, it takes ten pages. But here's my problem: While it's not intended as a condemnation, what am I supposed to think when people tell me they can't handle the information we're discussing? I do understand the weight of it, and while I do understand the mere condition of mortality, I'm particularly touchy about this point because of the number of people I've apparently insulted by presuming them intelligent. I mean, there are people at Sciforums who are angry at me because they want very badly to give me empty, smartassed responses but can't because they haven't the intellectual capacity, apparently, to consider the information in the topic. You'll notice them if you look; it's rather quite sick in its humorousness. However, I am trying to be understanding. It's mostly a matter of How bad can people around here screw it up? and trying to limit those digressions. I think it worked, judging by the number of silly posts people direct at me. So sorry for the length of this part of the post, but that's the way it goes this time. I tell people, with varying degrees of sincerity, to do their best. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell people. And, sadly, I'm sure that if I did, it would still confuse them because it's too long. I'll elaborate on that point elsewhere at some time in the near future, but I have to do a little more reading; I may have found my example.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Walker]

Oh, silly me. I presumed you intelligent. Forgive me for such an inappropriate assumption. I shall not make that mistake again.

Very Christlike. What ever happened to turning the other cheek? This is just one example of our lovely representatives of the Christian faith. It's this kind of "witnessing" that's made me decide to become a Christian...it's the only faith I'm aware of that permits people to say shit like this to each other. I'm SOLD.

 

[Tiassa]

Walker

Very Christlike. What ever happened to turning the other cheek?

I wonder the same thing.

This is just one example of our lovely representatives of the Christian faith

Are you sure you're in the right topic? Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any Christians around yet.

It's this kind of "witnessing" that's made me decide to become a Christian...it's the only faith I'm aware of that permits people to say shit like this to each other.

Well, that answers my question.

I'm SOLD.

Yes, you were, before you were born. I'm quite sure though that you, as a Christian, already knew that.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Walker]

I can't be blamed if you failed to see the sarcasm about my conversion to the Christian faith.