Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

[wynn]

If one can cut one's self some slack, one should also extend the same magnanimity to others. Of course many times we don't, but this is due to an inflated sense of self importance, etc

False limiting of options.

When I see a person express anger, contempt, hatred, this, to me, is a sign that said person is not at ease with themselves and their place in the world, and therefore, can be assumed not to be particularly advanced, what to speak of enlightened.

I really don't think that a person who actually knows God would ever be angry or hateful or indulge in any other negative emotion or thought process.

 

[The Marquis]

Inactionable criticism is criticism that cannot be acted upon: name-calling and generalizations are prime examples.

"You are a fool."
"You are a rascal."
"You should be more intelligent."
"You are jaundiced."
"You have no faith."

While some of these things may be true, lashing out at a person with such accusations doesn't help them to change.
It's simply an expression of the accuser's aggressiveness and desire to get the upper hand over the other person.

All true, Wynn, up until the last point. There may be a certain element of wanting to get the upper hand, but never discount the fact that, sometimes, one is simply expressing an opinion.
Fact is, most people aren't going to change. You can sit here all night, wear your fingers down to the bone, and you aren't going to make a damned bit of difference to anyone.

One might, indeed, consider that aggressiveness is also that person who will sit here for year after year posting the same opinion in spite of years of counter-opinion.
The only real difference is that there are some forms of aggression which are tolerable, in that they are completely ineffective and don't hurt anyone. Like I alluded to before; LG is exactly that type of poster who can make a salient point and then completely fail to understand the wider perspective of it. Specifically, how it might apply to himself. More generally, a wasted mind.

Constructive criticism is also inactionable, when the target of that constructive criticism fails to acknowledge it.
In that case, name calling is exactly as effective as any other tactic.

Knowing that, there isn't anything more to do. Absorb it. And if you're in the mood, call him an idiot. He is, after all... you just don't want to discard your own ideals in acting upon your instincts.

End fact is, that as soon as "humanity" begins to see itself as being more important than a religion, it chooses for itself a set of ideals under which it prefers to live.
Unfortunately, those very ideals are the one thing allowing religion to survive longer than it really should. When your values include tolerance, you find yourself being forced to act outside your interests. You tolerate.

 

[The Marquis]

When I see a person express anger, contempt, hatred, this, to me, is a sign that said person is not at ease with themselves and their place in the world, and therefore, can be assumed not to be particularly advanced, what to speak of enlightened.

To reinforce: Those are your values coming to the fore.

Have you ever considered that you prefer to see it that way?

 

[lightgigantic]

All true, Wynn, up until the last point. There may be a certain element of wanting to get the upper hand, but never discount the fact that, sometimes, one is simply expressing an opinion.
Fact is, most people aren't going to change. You can sit here all night, wear your fingers down to the bone, and you aren't going to make a damned bit of difference to anyone.

One might, indeed, consider that aggressiveness is also that person who will sit here for year after year posting the same opinion in spite of years of counter-opinion.
The only real difference is that there are some forms of aggression which are tolerable, in that they are completely ineffective and don't hurt anyone. Like I alluded to before; LG is exactly that type of poster who can make a salient point and then completely fail to understand the wider perspective of it. Specifically, how it might apply to himself. More generally, a wasted mind.

Constructive criticism is also inactionable, when the target of that constructive criticism fails to acknowledge it.
In that case, name calling is exactly as effective as any other tactic.

Knowing that, there isn't anything more to do. Absorb it. And if you're in the mood, call him an idiot. He is, after all... you just don't want to discard your own ideals in acting upon your instincts.

End fact is, that as soon as "humanity" begins to see itself as being more important than a religion, it chooses for itself a set of ideals under which it prefers to live.
Unfortunately, those very ideals are the one thing allowing religion to survive longer than it really should. When your values include tolerance, you find yourself being forced to act outside your interests. You tolerate.

will the irony never end?

 

[lightgigantic]

False limiting of options.

When I see a person express anger, contempt, hatred, this, to me, is a sign that said person is not at ease with themselves and their place in the world, and therefore, can be assumed not to be particularly advanced, what to speak of enlightened.

I really don't think that a person who actually knows God would ever be angry or hateful or indulge in any other negative emotion or thought process.

so for instance, if one ever encountered you in a state of anger or whatever that would be sufficient to discount anything you ever said about buddhism?

 

[The Marquis]

will the irony never end?

Short answer? No.

The only odd thing about your post being, I thought that was my point.
A fact easily discernible, should one take take the time to read and understand. Another of my points was that, obviously, and in spite of ample opportunity, you don't. As evidenced here even after you've had it pointed out to you.

Now... bible boy. What you got? Seriously,. Hit me with something I don't know. Show me more.

Or just carry on being what you are. Inflatable punch clown.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

When I see a person express anger, contempt, hatred, this, to me, is a sign that said person is not at ease with themselves and their place in the world, and therefore, can be assumed not to be particularly advanced, what to speak of enlightened.

Now that you have diagnosed yourself, what are you going to do about it?

jan.

 

[The Marquis]

Hey, that's my game, bitch. Get your own.

 

[wynn]

To reinforce: Those are your values coming to the fore.

Have you ever considered that you prefer to see it that way?

Sure. I am also willing to accept a refutation of my stance, should someone provide a good one.

All true, Wynn, up until the last point. There may be a certain element of wanting to get the upper hand, but never discount the fact that, sometimes, one is simply expressing an opinion.

When that opinion is consistently being conveyed in an aggressive manner, one cannot but allow for the possibility that this aggressiveness is precisely what was intended to be conveyed.

 

[wynn]

wynn,



Now that you have diagnosed yourself, what are you going to do about it?

jan.

Aren't you a lovely person, as usual.

 

[wynn]

so for instance, if one ever encountered you in a state of anger or whatever that would be sufficient to discount anything you ever said about buddhism?

It would be sufficient to discount me as any kind of authority on Buddhism.
And it's not like I ever wanted to be acknowledged as an authority on Buddhism to begin with.


Unlike theists, who generally do want to be considered authorities on theism. And if someone refuses to acknowledge the theists as such, those theists call them names, ridicule them, sometimes, they even pick up stones and throw them at people, and other times, they kill them.

And given this aggressiveness of theists, I have to include the possibility that this is precisely what they wish to convey.


And talking about an "inflated sense of self-importance":

If one can cut one's self some slack, one should also extend the same magnanimity to others. Of course many times we don't, but this is due to an inflated sense of self importance, etc

It's theists who tend to have that inflated sense of self-importance: as they walk around with a chip on their shoulder and consider themselves entitled that everyone would consider them authority on theism, and that everyone should subject themselves to the theists.

 

[The Marquis]

Sure. I am also willing to accept a refutation of my stance, should someone provide a good one.

I already have.
Another drawback of this medium is that one has no input other than words on a page.
Without actually knowing me, you can never be certain that what I'm saying is what is.
With regard to humans, everything is always far more complicated than it appears on the surface. All we have to go on here is the outward expression of what lies within.

 

[wynn]

I already have.

Except that I don't subscribe to the same ontology as you.
If I did, then, sure, I would consider your stance superior.
But I think your ontology (which you have, so far, only implied) is lacking, as it takes for granted things that are yet to be shown.

Elaborate: What is the self? What does it consist of? How does it exist?

Another drawback of this medium is that one has no input other than words on a page.
Without actually knowing me, you can never be certain that what I'm saying is what is.
With regard to humans, everything is always far more complicated than it appears on the surface. All we have to go on here is the outward expression of what lies within.

Are you suggesting that your appearance, tone of voice, physical actions etc. are supposed to convince me of the veracity of your philosophical stance?

 

[The Marquis]

Except that I don't subscribe to the same ontology as you.
If I did, then, sure, I would consider your stance superior.
But I think your ontology (which you have, so far, only implied) is lacking, as it takes for granted things that are yet to be shown.

That, in itself, is fine.
I find it lacking myself. I, among so many others, do not know what it is I believe... the caveat here is that I am quite sure of those things in which I do not believe.

Elaborate: What is the self? What does it consist of? How does it exist?

What am I, a god?
I don't know. I do, however, enjoy poking fun at those who presume they do.

Are you suggesting that your appearance, tone of voice, physical actions etc. are supposed to convince me of the veracity of your philosophical stance?

Well of course they are. A very significant percentage of human communication is non-verbal.

 

[wynn]

That, in itself, is fine.
I find it lacking myself. I, among so many others, do not know what it is I believe... the caveat here is that I am quite sure of those things in which I do not believe.

What am I, a god?
I don't know. I do, however, enjoy poking fun at those who presume they do.

Then you have not refuted my stance.

Well of course they are. A very significant percentage of human communication is non-verbal.

Your appearance, tone of voice, physical actions etc. won't convince me of the veracity of your philosophical stance, but they may add to it, things that you might not intend, or that aren't exactly flattering.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aren't you a lovely person, as usual.

I've no idea what your beef is.

jan.

 

[The Marquis]

I do believe, Wynn, that the entire point of this conversation was that no is going to be able to refute your stance, if you believe enough in what you think.
I said "I already have", because, in my opinion, I did.

Now imagine the stereotypical black woman doing the chicken head move and clicking her fingers, and saying "oh, snap!".
That's all anyone is.

 

[wynn]

I've no idea what your beef is.

Of course you don't. As usual. And when I tell you, you don't listen.

I do believe, Wynn, that the entire point of this conversation was that no is going to be able to refute your stance, if you believe enough in what you think.
I said "I already have", because, in my opinion, I did.

Now imagine the stereotypical black woman doing the chicken head move and clicking her fingers, and saying "oh, snap!".
That's all anyone is.

I have more faith in philosophy than that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

So when someone doesn't agree with you, you think they don't listen?

Also, why act with such toxicity to someone who (you percieve) doesn't listen, or even, agree, with you?

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Short answer? No.

The only odd thing about your post being, I thought that was my point.

The thing is that I think you made the point (and continue to make the same point) in a manner you didn't anticipate ...

:shrug: