Splinter: The credibility of atheism at Sciforums

[atheroy]

thanks tiassa, you pose some tough questions, valid points, and interesting thoughts.

- Many representing atheism at Sciforums don't give much to consider
- If this lack of thought given to what atheists are saying is something many religionists are guilty, of, can it be said that many atheists don't understand religion because many of them don't give much thought to what religionists are saying and doing? More importantly than the turnabout, can anything be done about this?

yeah, first point i'll agree with, i know i myself do that, i just get easily wound up when my posts or others posts are ignored when they do bring a valid point to a debate.
second point is valid too. for me, i try not to do this, but again it happens. i guess my problem stems from my incidences in the past which causes me to be incredulous of people who associate themselves with christianity and emotional over the subject as well. the huge contradiction in character and the narrow view that was the first instance of christian thought and person that i ran into (perhaps chrashed into would be a better metaphor), sometimes causes me to dismiss what others are saying without proper thought- i reckon everyone's a victim of that at times. i also don't understand the feelings people use as proof of religion when i've not experienced them myself. especially when i'm told that the only reason people can do good is when god is with them and his presence can be felt. i'm good most of the time, basically haven't broken any of the commandments, and have never felt any presence in my whole entire life. i guess it's just hard for me.
that much more so as the biggest christian impact on my life was a negative one- one that did totally contradict the things christian people supposedly aspire to be.

What I cannot understand is the motivation behind an evangelical sense of atheism.

i'm guilty of this too again i think it stems from my incidences in the past with christianity, from the hurt that i've seen my christian mates inflict upon others because they don't rate somehow (they say acceptance is the greatest feeling, yet i never made it into my christian friends group simply because i didn't go to their church)and the idea that religion has caused- and still does cause- a lot of harm to people. it's kind of like what happened to me when i was younger, makes me never want to see that harm inflicted upon others- that would be my main motivating evangelical cause against religion, subconicous though it is, it was a big event that made me who i am today. i still have problems with what happened, i wish they never occured, but as it stands my angst against religion was born by those who forcefully purvey it onto me, and in religious circles these people are championed for their work, something i can never accept.

It seems to me that the world could benefit from a well-conceived atheistic worldview

lol, i would love to someday colate my thoughts and beliefs into one whole, but it would be cheesey by todays standards, and most atheists probably woudn't see eye to eye with me anyway.

I remember once when someone argued that an atheist has no obligation to be objective. Even in their rejection of God.

nah, don't agree. no objectiveness equals no reason. it seems he who you argued with may have been emotionally discontent with god, or not smart enough too debate his own thoughts.

these are just thoughts here- in no particular order:
-i don't know, as a person i've a lot more growing to do, hell, i'm only 18, my whole life is ahead of me. what i've decided now i know is subject to change- so instead of ignoring that change, i go out and find stuff that will perpetually challenge my view of the world. something everyone should do.
-i reckon most atheists don't like being grouped together as most are atheists for different reasons and i know i don't like being grouped with those who you describe Atheism at Sciforums just hasn't been the same since. The standard was lowered, and the minions rushed to enjoy it..
-in the end it all stands with how caring as a people we become. there is way too much hate and ignorance in this world at the mo, when people say we're going to cause our own demise i won't disagree with them- at the head of the worlds strongest nation is a man who went to war with a country on half truths and semi-lies. we're told that he wasn't given all the information, yet in his postion he should've demanded both sides to the debate. the blame is being laid elsewhere when the greatest lesson that could be taught from the shambles that lead up to and caused the iraq war would be for george w bush to accept the guilt- a valuable lesson that many people need to learn- our actions are our own. the extent of damage we do to others is because we failed to do the proper thing in the first place. if we don't learn that we're in deep trouble.

and finally, i've said way too much. if anyone gets to the bottom of this post, kudos to you. sorry for making it long, but so is the trend of this thread i thought not too break it.

cheers. atheroy.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: For Guthrie: the quick summary

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm a human being. I am determined to figure out what exactly that means. That, in and of itself, may be a religion.

:m:,
Tiassa

It seems that the act of finding out it "what it is to be human" is exactly what it means to be human isn't it? Man okay I'll just shutup. You what dude OMFG i just felt like that dude in "mystery men" who kept saying stuff back at people but like, backwards... you know what I mean? Hehe.. man I can't tell if my comment was somewhat insightful or disgustingly formulaic and shallow. Heheheheheh.. oh man I just got a kick out of that, cool!!

 

[mountainhare]

I find it strange when theists say that atheism is a religion. I think the reasoning is that if atheism is a religion, then atheists have no cause to criticise other religions

One flaw is that if atheism IS a religion, then theists would not object to atheism being taught in schools, or even the setting up of atheist schools alongside Catholic schools.

The idea is that atheists are hypocrites for attacking faith when atheism itself is a result of faith. However, the big problem is that ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!

Atheism is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.
There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God".
The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief.

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence.
Apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions.
Eg. If you are a Christian, do you believe the Greek God Zeus does not exist? Or do you not believe in Zeus?
If you are a Christian, do you believe Zeus does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the No Zeus faith!

If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?

If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.
Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise will not make it so.

In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes.

If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith, this is reason.

If atheism is religion, "albino" is a suntan.

P.S I heard a lot of these arguments from someone in a chat room. Seeing as they were such excellent arguments, I saved them Although some original material is in there!

 

[kazakhan]

Some good points mountainhare!
All religions, beliefs, faith etc whatever label you use, IMO seek the answer to the same question which is "Who am I?". I've looked into quite few of the above and having rejected all of it, this what I'm left with! Does anyone agree?

 

[guthrie]

Kazakhan:
"All religions, beliefs, faith etc whatever label you use, IMO seek the answer to the same question which is "Who am I?". I've looked into quite few of the above and having rejected all of it, this what I'm left with! Does anyone agree?"

Well, i tend towards the religion is about not who am i, but why am I?
After all, you think you exist, but then why do you exist?

Tiassa:
"I'm a human being. I am determined to figure out what exactly that means. That, in and of itself, may be a religion."

or more a philosophy. We need to separeate them out a bit more. I would start by considering the spiriual side of religions.


wesmorris:
"You do not yeild to the authoritative argument? It is so powerful! "
sarky.

"No you don't have to make a claim about god to be an athiest. I believe you can reject the question and still consider yourself an atheist (I would reject the question based on the notion that there is no methodology by which to discern a correct answer, or something like that)"

Fair enough. your saying there is no need to consider god at all, which is a reasonable position surely. But then im not sure how this relates to agnosticism, which as far as i know says you cant really comment on god cos you don know about god.

"For instance, what assumptions do you think mathematics is based on? I would say that it's self-defined based on the simplistic notion of dichotomy. All of mathematics can be logically deduced from the concept of resolving the concept of "ALL" contrasted with the concept of "NOTHING". One and zero. From there the rest can be deduced independently."

And then what is its relation to "reality"? Plus dichotomys are soo out of date.

"I mean, it's possible that in either the current assumptions are purely arbitrary but science is a rational tool and religion is an emotional appeal. "

Yeah, i guess so, but at the same time i find it interesting how many religious people try and jsutify it with intellectual logical arguments. If they just said its an emotional thing and left it at that, it would be so much easier. And remember the uncertainty of it all.

"It's really about epistemology, which is why it pisses me off. From my perspective, science is the direct offspring of agnosticism, which is a statement about epistemology, not belief in god(s)."

But then teh religious mind takes its epsitemology from the fact that god exists, whereas science does not make that a starting point. So the two immediately come to blows. However the religious believer in the end is likely to limit their world because of their belief, well in many cases anyways, whereas ideally the scientist/ agnostic doesnt, because they have no ultimate meaning in life to look forwards to, or to base their life on.

"What if you've gotten to the "judged" part? What if you are pretty damned sure of the rules and pretty damned confident in your ability to accurately judge that which is bullshit from that which isn't? At some point you move past prejudice into a knowledgable analysis of X eh?"

Without having read X?

"That still doesn't mean it should be taken seriously, especially regarding scientific endeavors like explaining the origin of the universe or the origin of man."

But to the beliver, the bible explains the origin of the universe, or of man, tehrefore you have to contend with it, even if not take it seriously. Once again, it is the basic assumptions that clash.

"What you're calling agnosticism is probably what a lot of us call "weak atheism", which is what most of the athiests I'm are of on this site endorse."

From the qikipedia:
"The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe the philosophical and theological view that the truth of the unexistence or existence of God, immortality, and the like are inherently unknowable. People can have scientific or real knowledge of phenomena, but when it comes to what lies behind phenomena there can be no evidence that entitles anyone either to deny or affirm anything. "

Compared to atheism;
"It may be taken literally to mean lack of belief in gods ("implicit atheism") or quite often, it may be used to mean that and to additionally layer over that a specific belief in the non-existence of gods ("explicit atheism".) "

But at the same time tehres lots of running around the meaning of the words, etc. So i still hold im an agnostic, by experience. anyone attampting to call me an atheist will be insulted.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by guthrie
Fair enough. your saying there is no need to consider god at all, which is a reasonable position surely. But then im not sure how this relates to agnosticism which as far as i know says you cant really comment on god cos you don know about god.

It relates to agnosticism in that agnosticism is a statement about epistemology. Both the "weak theist" and a "weak aitheism" are agnostic because they are the result of your position on the nature of knowing. If you reject the question "do god(s) exist?" based on the reason that question is moot, the answer rejection is a resultant of agnosticism, rather than agnosticism itself. Logically speaking, there are two possible answers "yes" (theism) or "no" (atheism) because logic only allows something to be true or false. Rejection of the question allows the classifications of theism and atheism to be further delineated by adding "weak" to either describing a tendency to lean either way.

Eh, it's a technicality but there is an interesting tidbit about logical structure in there. Regardless, when I came to sciforums I thought the same thing because it's the popular understanding of the relationship between the words. Man I put up a hell of an argument with a guy about it. I think I ran him off because I was freakin relentless. I was since educated and just try to share. Pardon if my efforts failed to communicate much of value. I'll give you a link to a couple of my fights about this from the way back machine...

This was after having already argued about it for a long long time, but phaedrus couldn't get his point across to me, or I couldn't get his point (I haven't re-read it for a long time). If I remember right, it got ugly in places. I was a newb, what can I say? :

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14286

Here is where I finally caught a clue, I thought this was a GREAT thread, but that's just me.. so.. :

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15732

Originally posted by guthrie

And then what is its relation to "reality"?

Is the abstract not real in a sense? Regardless cannot something of purely abstract nature be true?

Originally posted by guthrie

Plus dichotomys are soo out of date.

Is that 'sarky' too? What does that mean?

Originally posted by guthrie

Yeah, i guess so, but at the same time i find it interesting how many religious people try and jsutify it with intellectual logical arguments.

The deal is that most people only need practical philosophy. They don't need to be able to derive morality from the initial assumptions, they just want answers that let them focus on the other stuff in their life. That's all fine and dandy until the topic comes up, then well.. you know, problems arise.

It is of course as Tiassa mentioned, the same for athiests who argument from authoritative knowledge... my bad if I gave the impression that I didn't agree. Instead, I picked another point about the argument he was presenting which was really not the main point, but I felt it invalidated the argument he was presenting to support his main point. It seems to me he is arguing that religions couldn't be written off as balderdash without an knowing a lot about them.... my point (which I believe I may have failed to make) is that the general athiest contention attacks the assumptions that religions are based on, rather than the religions themselves. Religions may have alternative value in terms of structure and passing of folk-knowledge or whatever, but if its assumptions are shown to be invalid or ridiculous... it can be validly construed as fundamentally ridiculous (and as such optionally written off if there is no motivatoin to pursue it further (and the motivation is obviously purely subjective)) regardless of the additional value it may retain.

Of course every choice has opportunity costs.

Originally posted by guthrie

If they just said its an emotional thing and left it at that, it would be so much easier.

Agreed.

Originally posted by guthrie

And remember the uncertainty of it all.

Do I have to?

Originally posted by guthrie

But then teh religious mind takes its epsitemology from the fact that god exists, whereas science does not make that a starting point. So the two immediately come to blows.

Indeed. I reject theistic eptistemology as authoritative and unethical per my prior post. I'd guess that the brighter theists have excellent counters to my objection. I need to learn more about epistemology and comment further at a later date.

Originally posted by guthrie

However the religious believer in the end is likely to limit their world because of their belief, well in many cases anyways, whereas ideally the scientist/ agnostic doesnt, because they have no ultimate meaning in life to look forwards to, or to base their life on.

Those damned opportunity costs. I'd guess either perspective can be as gratifying as the other if one compensates appropriately.

Originally posted by guthrie

Without having read X?

Yes, an argument based on assumptions can be shown to be invalid if the assumptions are shown to be likewise. I would agree though, that all too often (I do it sometimes) the additional value it offers its patrons is belittled in lieu of self-congratulations at having demonstrated serious flaws in assumptions, or that people aren't even aware of their assumptions, etc. It feels good to flex the mental muscle, even simple arguments are gratifying to weild... so it is done. Often, all the athiest has is hedonism, as such it becomes his Achilles heel eh? We're all guilty in the end I suppose, but to agree with Tiassa's main point, we should surely strive to minimize our habitual violations.

Originally posted by guthrie

So i still hold im an agnostic, by experience. anyone attampting to call me an atheist will be insulted.

Since the horse is long since dead, I should probably stop beating it. See above if you're interested.

 

[GuitarToadster]

So if I believe that we, as humans, were brought here by an alien race and left does this mean I am atheist? I guess so since I don't really think there could be anything called, "A Supreme Being." Furthermore, if there was, why would there only be one? Why not many? Where could that Being come from? Maybe a Super Supreme Being created it? This could go on and on....

I view talks on Religion like trying to discuss the end of the Universe... what would be the end? A brick wall? Don't think so, there could not be an end.

I have always felt that those who need to have a religion were lost souls, people who are in need of help, so to speak. You have been given what you need to live your life, why must you spend your time praying to a God/Being for assistance? You know what is right to do, do it. Don't do otherwise and then attempt to repent for your sins. Don't cry to the clouds above for something unseen to help.

I find many religious people far too hypocritical to enjoy their company. It is too easy for them to sin and then go to church to be saved over and over.

I do not consider myself atheist, more just a realist. Don't believe in floating Angels or Gods or anything I don't see/feel for myself.

 

[Tiassa]

Atheroy

I'm not ignoring you ... rather, as I agree with much of what you're saying, it is a careful set of decisions in responding to your post.

- Is there an issue?
- Do I believe I'm correct?
- Why am I correct?
- Is it really my right?

That, of course, and also my tying myself down in other topics ....

My apologies for the delay ... I'll give it a go soon.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Reconsideration of the atheistic approach

Tiassa:

I’ve been considering my response here for a while for while I disagree with some of your arguments I tend to agree with your conclusions. The typical error, I believe, of atheists is in attempting to counter-argue the primary theistic assumption of god. Not because it is well founded, for as you have pointed out all philosophies are founded upon presumption, but because the more important errors occur later in the various theistic arguments. Rather than attempting to pull up the plant by its root it makes more sense to trim it down to a manageable, or even acceptable, size.

Atheism tends towards a more rational philosophy not because it is firmly grounded in absolute axioms but because it involves a rejection of religious assumptions. In short, it has a tendency to wipe the slate clean of such presumptions and one must reconstruct one’s arguments anew. Granted one must make at least a few new assumptions but these are often much stronger than the religious ones.

I would ask atheists to consider what is truly problematic about religion. IMO, it is not the assumption of god but the assumptions made about god that cause most of the problems. And in order to properly address and ague against these errors it is necessary to understand them.

That being said, atheism is indeed a reaction against theism for if theism didn’t exist there would be no need for a counter position. As such, the primary discussions will continue to be a response to the prevalent and most obviously erroneous theistic assertions. While I feel the same frustration as you do I find it impossible to ignore such things as lobbies to teach creationism in school in order to discuss the fine points of theistic philosophy.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

The longest post in the world

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm not sure, in fact, where this question comes from.

Well, it seemed to me at that time that your argument supporting the point "neither side of the general issue of religion is

free of people who are trained sheep, you athiests accuse theists of doing the same shit you do but you don't see that you're

doing it" was basically that "you can't say it's invalid if you don't know anything about it". Maybe that's a shallow take

on what you were saying, but as I was reading it that's how it seemed you were arguing. As such, I thought I'd point out in

a long winded manner how you're focusing on the details of the argument when it's the assumptions are what athiests are

generally bitching about, so your argument isn't really applicable. That doesn't mean I don't agree with the point, but

regardless the argument isn't applicable. Oh sure, maybe I'm missing something you're implying. I'm sure you can point out

where I missed something about what you were saying.

Originally posted by tiassa

I counterpoint with the simple question of why it merits comment in the first place?

Because of what I was saying above.

Originally posted by tiassa

Theoretically, yes. Two points I haven't had much use for ... well, for quite a while. So not since I recall first meeting

your persona have these come up, so they might seem out of place.

- If angels, ghosts, spirits, &c. are real ... (lots of words) ... of all things.

Okay, but how does that apply exactly? I haven't seen too many claims that "there is NO god", etc. I am perfectly open to

the idea, but extremely skeptical of it due to its intense volatility and incredible power to affect behavior. I'm extremely

skeptical of those who weild it as definate knowledge or basic truth. This brings to question the relevance of religious

authority and the validity of religion as truthful in an objective sense.

Your examples are about infinite possibility, not a specific definition like zues or "the abrahamic god" or generally "the

type of god that a religion is based on". . I guess I'm just trying to say: The reasons existing religious assumptions are

considered relevant in the grand scheme of anything, is basically a result of human egocentrism and lack of comprehension of

the very picture it was conceived to illustrate. Maybe there's some kind of creator, but uh.. evidently he/it/she is beyond

us for now cuz there's nothing but emotional disfunction leading to the path of most human notions that I'm aware of.

Relevant comments on epistemology: IMO the proverbial "you" are the authoritative source of knowledge, but in applying that

knowledge, the only ethical position is to be agnostic. "How can I say what your experience is to you?" Maybe you see part

of the spectrum that I don't. Maybe I see part that you don't. Attempts to claim absoluteness about anything other than the

physical (including biological) are completely unfounded based on lack of context. You can measure my cock, but you cannot

know what it feels like to me. You can speak of your god, but you cannot ethically hold your expectation that I should yeild

to your perception (and vice versa). This is the basis of the atheist objection to religious claims.

The nature of knowing is subjective, so that which can only be claimed subjectively (experiences of god, etc.) can only claim

bearing on a relational basis (can you relate to this?). Attempts to promote objective information are not relational, as

such, some form of objective basis needs to be established to provide a mechanism for determing that which is bullshit from

that which isn't. Logic and reason provide such a basis, IMO, religion does no such thing. Pardon that this is all beside

the point, I just found it to be a relevant supporting argument (and I guess I just like to dicuss this kind of junk with

people who are capable of valid criticism, wait, whom am I asking to pardon me? hehe.. the ramblinator!).

Originally posted by tiassa

True, but one need not look to religion to find that aspect of the human endeavor. Admittedly, it's a staple of religious

thought, but I won't pretend for a moment that anybody is exempt from it. Sorry, but as much as I would like to believe that

a rejection of faith in God on logical grounds leads to logic elsewhere in one's perception and decision-making criteria, it

would be a leap of faith, and one which has already been explained to me by atheists as an unacceptable bigotry against

atheism.At present, it's not possible by proxy of religion's station in humanity. In order to understand humanity, one will

need something beyond a basic understanding of religion. How many words would you need to describe the relationship between

the concept of psychology and the concept of religion as invested in any given individual?

Hehe, nicely put but IMO there's a little difference between assuming that the guy and the quicky mart is going to have a

foreign accent and proclaiming that a vengeful god told a bunch of families to murder their first born sons. It's not

exactly the assumption, but the degree of it. I'd guess that simply assuming the existence of an abrahamic type god is about

as ridiculous as an assumption can get. If in other aspects of their lives they make assumptions to a similar degree I would

be just as critical, even of myself (if I am aware of it).

Originally posted by tiassa

I think you're giving the "holy texts" too much credit in order to have something to aim at. You're making more out of them,

technically, than I am.

Well, maybe there is some miscommunication then. Let me tell you how I see it: You were proclaiming that to argument about

religion you had to know about, then you said "Reading a holy scripture in its entirety is generally a futile action unless

one is prepared to suspend their own prejudices while doing so.". To me you're making a big point about the holy text being

the only way to know about the "valuable information inside it" but disregarding the possiblity that the same information

(e.g. morals, ethics, historical information, etc.) couldn't be garnered eleswhere, then saying that if you DO read the holy

text you have to suspend your prejudices for it to be valuable but you just said you should read it to be able to argue about

it. Seems to me you're implying that "until you open your mind to whatever anyone claims you can't make valid criticisms of

it" which is bullshit. If you don't read the bible and someone tells you "the bible says the earth was made in a single day"

it is a valid criticism to cite scientific evidence to the contrary. Etc. Etc. I saw the story of the tower of babble in a

few different presentations and stories etc from different sources over the years. Then I saw a thing about isolated jews

being captured by the people of babel and the hebrew scribes jotting down their impressions of their first multicultural

experiences when they'd never even known the other cultures existed. Is it valid for me to use my version of anthropological

examination to formulate a reasonable idea of what really happened? Isn't that a rational basis for criticizing the stories

presented as truth by whatever religion claiming that text to be 'holy'? Argh. I'm just saying there are points it seems

like your circumventing for the sake of convenience, which in this case I think invalidates the argument supporting your

point.

Originally posted by tiassa

I'll merely point out that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations appears nowhere at the

Capitalism website, which tries to piece together its coherent frame of reference in

terms of the World According to Ayn Rand. Of course, they've also built Capitalism into something it's not, a full-blown

political platform.

So really your point it that everyone has an agenda? Why is religion worse than a capitalism site that props up Ayn Rand?

Is that what you're driving at? If so, I agree but add that doesn't that mean you're supporting skepticism? If that is the

case then to remain as such, presumptions regarding issue X must be minimal right? Back around again. To me it's the size

of the required presumptions that pre-qualifies the agenda to be promoted.

Originally posted by tiassa

I hope the analogy makes at least a little bit of sense to you.Why would it?You know, most days I have much respect for you.

I'm curious as to why you've wrapped a noose around your brain today.

Dude, a little harsh don't you think?

Originally posted by tiassa

I'll tell you about that recommended reading list: It's nothing more than a starting point.

I just thought you were giving "holy" texts too much credence dude. Maybe I misunderstood you eh?

Originally posted by tiassa

Anything more complicated than those books would confuse most people, who haven't the patience to learn even that

scant amount about the things they bitch about.Hardly. But, like Utopia, a conclusion based on pure reason is an idyll.

I'll be happy to see it happen. And I'll even give it my best shot in life.

YOu don't think we're doing it right now? You accusing me of spewing my very own brand of dogma? Assumptions are all I can

do? No reasoning? Just a conglomoration of bullshit assumptions altering itself to fit the moment? Hehe.. damn me and my

propaganda!

Originally posted by tiassa

but I'm not a psychotherapist, nor have I played one on TV.

But I could have sworn..

Originally posted by tiassa

Performance art, at best.

WHAT? If you claim that "the holy text tells us that jesus died for our sins" and I claim, based soley on that comment

without knowing much detail about the bible that "i don't think jesus really exists" (because i read a book about it), my

criticism isn't valid? That's not performance art dude, that's experience vs. experience. Which is valid? Performance art?

Man, maybe we're just having some kind of communication breakdown.

Originally posted by tiassa

So why do you bother learning from the experience at all?

Why would you think I'm not interested in learning? I just learn much much faster conversationally, it's the way I'm wired.

I'm going to seek that because it's where I perform best.

Originally posted by tiassa

Your personal efficiency can create an impediment for others, which creates distractions for still others yet.

So can yours.

Originally posted by tiassa

Again, that says something about priorities. Again, I'm not a psychotherapist, and have never played one on television.

That's probably good since you don't seem particularly talented in that area. YOu're misreading something or I have

misrepresented something or some combo of both.

Originally posted by tiassa

Didn't work for Ted Bundy. Should it work for you?

What, you're comparing me to Ted Bundy because I hop into an argument that I might not be completely knowledgable about?

What if I have valid input anyway? Happens ALL the time to me, so if that's what you mean, I guess yeah, it works great for

me.

Originally posted by tiassa

To me, why that happens is a fascinating question. Of course, learning about the influential aspects of the human

experience is a higher priority of mine. I understand that this is not so for everybody.

I thought it obvious that we share this interest. I fancy myself somewhat keen on the topic. I'm sure you've noticed.

Originally posted by tiassa

But there's a rich source of comparative information available in that long and seemingly monotonous history. You'll find it

more diverse and puzzling than you give credit.

I read that several times and thought you meant something different each time. Perhaps you can clarify if you think it's

worth it.

Originally posted by tiassa

You keep picking that nit, but ...?I think you're focusing too much on the vulgar popular phenomenon of a religion.

Eh, good point. I do think I was around a lot of religious people for a long time and got myself a defense mechanism, so

pardon. I was just a little annoyed that you seemed toi be indirectly validating people's claim to authoritative knowledge

of things they don't really have ANY knowledge of, it's merely a bullshit illusion. But you're right, I do tend to focus on

the vulgard popular notion of religion... my bad.

Originally posted by tiassa

See, again it's a matter of priorities as far as I can tell. You seem to be willing to complain about what you think is a

problem without caring (A) what the actual circumstances of the event are, or (B) what to do about it.

I was complaining? I don't remember complaining. Goddamn maybe too much :m: I wasn't mad dude, I was just arguing against

you as I seem to enjoy doing. You should know by now that my arguments are always in earnest even though I joke around a

lot. I mean well and you know it. What is it about A and B that you don't think I care about? How would you think that ME

of all people wouldn't care about what the actual circumstances of an event? What event? What the hell? I'm so cornfuzed.

Originally posted by tiassa

How did we get from point A to point M? Well, at some point, we're going to have to think about point B, point C, point D
It's not a problem that you or I don't know. It's a bit problematic, though, that you would rather bitch about the situation

but don't care about the factors contributing to what you complain about. It suggests a lack of understanding of the factors

which form the focus of your inquiry, criticism, complaint ... however you wish to term it.Forgot one:

You seem to be thinking I'm saying something that I didn't think I was saying.

(4) Inapplicable to the first three points because the simple assertion in no way addresses the questions concerning the why

of existence and "life".

Originally posted by tiassa

Your three points are simple distractions.

I don't think so, my point about context. A large part of the emotional need which religions tend to satiate is as such

because of the requirement of consciousness to establish its context. IMO, people generally look to the smarties for such

answers. Until recently (historically speaking), there was little alternative to religion in terms of offering knowledge of

context because there really wasn't much KNOWN. Having some reliable, credible alternative information by which to formulate

a theory as to what might be happening around us forces religions to insist that their information control (cult mentality)

to be intensified or they have to change the "interpretation" to adapt to the new inputs. The point being that religions

evolved from a need to find an understanding of context and now that context can begin to be gratified in other ways. Some

even find god in their science. Eh, I did try to turn this into a religion vs. science thing and I probably shouldn't have.

Got on a roll, pardon. There's so much stuff involved with these here type issues that sometimes it all seems to run

together.

Originally posted by tiassa

By focusing on them at all and asking people to focus on them, you are lending more to the problem than the solution, and

while that may or may not be your intention, it's part of the effect.

I don't see that, it seems I just see the issue completely differently than you do.

Originally posted by tiassa

Okay, but I'm leaving my harshness in place as a demonstrative warning to any who might otherwise take you seriously.

Oh I was serious, but maybe we're not talking about the same things at this point. I think I changed topics like 12 times?

I dunno, this post is so long I'm totally lost at this point.

Originally posted by tiassa

Excellent questions. But I've posted a passage in the past (somewhere) from Emir Ali Khan, which can be found in the topic

post On the nature and purpose of religion. Well, what the

heck? Here, so you don't have to click:I know many people who think they are very logical who offer conclusions which are,

quite frankly, insane. Remember, I'm a leftist by result of my sympathies to my fellow human being, not because I actually

enjoy the role or the label. Many of my fellow leftists think they're perfectly logical, and they're f@cking bonkers.

And God doesn't enter into it at that point.

Boy howdy there's a lot of reasons to be insane. Hehe, hell man, that's another long conversation there eh?

Originally posted by tiassa

Why should they?

My point was more about the subjectivity of truth. I mean, intellect doesn't matter when it comes to thinking you understand

stuff. Generally people understand whatever as well as they do and promote that as truth within whatever scope they can get

away with doing so.

Originally posted by tiassa

Now then ... why would those who are unsure sell themselves to that in which they have little or no confidence? Why would

the agnostic line up at the pulpit.

It was a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by tiassa

aside from, perhaps, a Unitarian pulpit?

what about sufi? no pulpit?

Originally posted by tiassa

Blurple? Tell you what, Wes ... I do, in fact, respect you. So if it makes you feel better I will make the

following declaration publicly:

- You can ignore this topic. It doesn't necessarily apply to you.

I didn't think it did really, but wanted to comment just the same.

Originally posted by tiassa

But you have to be kidding me if you don't notice the number of empty, horsesh@t arguments going on around here that have no

hope of resolution, no real issue to focus on, and act simply as a sounding board for people to pretend--at least--to hate

each other.

Hell man I just thought that was rome, I thought it was in fact due to unnavoidable limitations in the system as specified

with my comments regarding one's ability to discern or investement in the pursuit of truth. Education however, is an

honorable pursuit so I salute your efforts and hope they are fruitfull.

Originally posted by tiassa

I'm sorry you don't like the characterization but when you live up to it ("Don't need to educate myself about that which I

put effort into criticizing!"), well, that's your choice.

Hehe, your summarization of my point doesn't give me much credit brother. I didn't say that. I say it's not impossible to

have valid criticism about something you haven't studied for ten years.. see? It's a little different.

Originally posted by tiassa

But I know that you generally have a decent intention and something of a point, and aren't always out to be Greta Garble.

I'm here size myself up, size others up, learn, teach and interact with people who are willing to talk about what most people

can't seem to talk about.

Originally posted by tiassa

So guess what? You have a free pass, a standing exemption until I choose to openly include you in it. A couple of other

people have figured this out on their own, and generally duck these little excursions of mine.

Hehe, you think I'm some ignorant little bitch? Wow. Dude, I'm not ducking SHIT. I comment if I think I have something to

add. Pardon me if I fail to fear your wrath . LOL

Originally posted by tiassa

Who knows? Perhaps they're interested in what people closer to the focus of my point will say.

I wonder if anyone will actually read this entire post. It's WAY too long. Sorry everyone. I hope you stimulate some

people into thinking. It generally works on me. :bugeye:

Originally posted by tiassa

But seriously, Wes, it's not worth you getting out of sorts. You have a Standing Free Pass, and I'll even

staple it to your c#ck if you want, but I do admit that such a desire would, as much as anything else, speak volumes about

your priorities.Perhaps it's not as rugged and all-purpose as you thought.We all have those days. But just because I have to

take a sh@t doesn't mean I need to do it on your lawn, does it.

Kind words... uh... kind of. I did not think your post directed at me, I just took up the cause when I started finding what

I thought were weak points in your argument. In general I agree with your overall point, I was just in a mood that day and

some of what you said struck me as "okay I gotta comment on that". I'm not and wasn't "out of sorts" besides that it was a

bit of a weird day though. Sorry about your lawn and all. I haven't kept track of where YOU crapped, but I'd swear I've

seen some long-winded crap in a lot of different yards.

*collapses*