Toward the heart of the dispute, if not the issues themselves
Give me clear example of what you would consider worthy and unworthy of judgement, and I'll tell you if I can separate the two
I'll take a note from you and say that
this has been covered. Here, I'll even cover it again: read the following section of my prior post as a cohesive body:
Is it symptomatic of atheists to play with definitions? I don't think so; this is your own difficulty, Adam.
To put it very specifically:
• Proposition: I will say, however, that there are some individuals who deserve nothing good at all from anyone.
• Response: Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God ....
• Rebuttal: Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other.
There is quite the difference between the judgment that one deserves nothing good at all from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place. Tell me, Adam, is there a reason you cannot separate the two? Or is it simply more convenient?
After all, the judgment you have proposed in your most recent response in this topic is very different from the judgment you passed in another topic recently when you wrote,
quote:
From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.
I mean, you won't judge a man like Ashcroft because of his political assertions or his actions in public office, but you would judge him based on the fact that he's religious? Perhaps such judgment is acceptable Down Under, but in the United States, we're working hard to progress past such small-minded attitudes.
What, do you think the subject changes when you see text in a blocked quotation? Thus, to summarize,
there is quite a difference between the idea that one deserves nothing good from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place.
However, understanding that the separation is not yet clear to you, as evinced by your request for examples, I might ask you, especially in terms of the
prisons debate, what a man like Randall Adams, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death deserves? (Understood in advance are what you have explained of your sentiments on capital punishment. Thus, we might look to the conviction itself, set aside the death penalty, and ask what Adams deserves, in your opinion.)
Well, I don't like Bush being in office either.
Your direct answer lies in that topic. And yes, blanket assumptions such as you have posited constitute bigotry, and I consider bigotry among the most greedy and small-minded subjectivities contributing to action.
If one pursues and accepts public office, one's own agendas should be of secondary importance to the good of the state and the people as a whole. It should be considered an altruistic service, to work for the people, rather than trying to get into office so you can force your beliefs down their throats. Put nice and simple for you: If you want to work for the people, your own agenda becomes less important than the good of the people.
Electoral college aside, tell that to the voters.
That the clear majority of American presidents have had Chrisian associations is telling. I agree that one should think more in terms of the public's good than the good of one's assesment of one's own soul, but such is the way of humanity. To the other, if Gore had not taken religion to the level of political grandstanding, many of the Green voters who dissented from the Democratic party would not have done so; and in Florida, where Michael Moore notes threefold greater turnout at a Green event than a Democratic event (got that via e-mail last night from an old subscription to a newsletter in a forgotten box), perhaps some of those Greens would have fallen behind Gore and helped raise the popularly-elected president to the Executive.
Is that sentence of yours not bashing? Again, I can not help the images in your head. Please show me an example of my bigotry
Perhaps the irritation conveyed in the sentence might lend toward notions of bashing, but it does, in fact, reflect reality.
Bashing is your term for your Wiccan topic, and I have, indeed, pointed out your bigotry in your call for prohibiting Christians (and other religious folk) from holding public office.
I suggest you choose your words more carefully then, rather than continually suggest I misinterpret phrases such as "You're full of shit".
Tell me,
Adam, when you read a novel, do you stop and argue with each sentence as if it is a disparate entity? Or are you capable of carrying one sentence and its essence into the next, so that by the end of the book you have read a novel instead of several-thousand individual sentences? That's part of your misinterpretation in these forums. As to being full of shit, well? The specific distinction being that inquiries and even bashings of Christianity taking place in these forums center around comparisons 'twixt the advertised result and the real result, and attempts by posters to figure out why such a discrepancy exists. Certes, some posters bash Christianity without cause within the forums, but what importance does Wiccan theology play in your life? Why examine it except because
Tiassa and
Asguard mentioned it peripherally in another topic and
Adam feels like bashing something? This is, as you've noted, a posting board for opinions, and even the harsh opinions are reactionary to
something. To what specific aspect of Wicca are you reacting? On what do you base your need to bash? Your general bigotry against all people religious, as expressed in another topic and reinforced in the present topic? Fine. At least then we know. And we will address the topic accordingly.
As for my refined literary tastes, I think I've mentioned before that I prefer to read plain old fiction, good stories. Swashbucklers and space rangers. I am far more interested in developing my own thoughts than in quoting the thoughts of others. On the subject of reading and such, have you ever read Sabatini's Scaramouche? Definitely one of my favourites.
Can't say I've read Sabatini. But that you're far more interested in developing your own thoughts than in "quoting the thoughts of others" ... well, we can look at that a couple of ways.
• It seems you're attempting to exclude the thoughts of others by that standard. This indicates a lack of sympathy to the human condition and an arrogant regard for one's own station in the human endeavor.
• You are, in fact, considering other people's thoughts, even with the space rangers. You are considering, at the very least, the rights and wrongs of the story-world. That is, the raising of a protagonist to that status indicates a certain number of things. The hero is worthy of being a hero, the quest worthy of being a quest. That these ideas are not considered more broadly in the story is indicative of their rigidity. What principles are established
a priori in any given story? I would, in fact, recommend Steven Brust's
Taltos novels as wonderful swords-and-sorcery novels, but judging solely by your repeated preference for action, the fact that Brust crams a good deal of reflection and philosophy into each of the 220-or-so page novels tells me that you wouldn't enjoy them. Bradbury's
Something Wicked This Way Comes? Way too much extemporizing on issues of good and evil, but only if I consider what you've offered of your literary tastes.
Fine. The natural state, as you say, does progress through time. If you'll notice, however, that paragraph you singled out has no actual point.
Wow, I need to start diagramming sentences and paragraphs for you?
• The natural state of atheism exists for a short period.
• The "natural state" is transitory.
• Thus, at the beginnings of knowledge, when superstition governs considerations of the data set, superstition becomes the "natural state".
• What happens from there is a continuing process depending on each individual.
• Not all issues of human recognition resolve into knowledge.
• These superstitions often persist.
• Where in that active process would you like to fix the natural state?
• Apparently at birth, in ignorance, unable to walk, run, or provide food for yourself.
• Being that you had not recognized the transitional aspect of the "natural state", I could only conclude that you never experienced the superstitious phase of human intellectual development, e.g. the monster under the bed, the visceral reality of nightmares, &c.
Again, I would not like to fix (either way) the natural state. I'm quite happy with it as it is. As previously described, and changing.
Yet you reject notions of superstition, and have offered broader considerations of superstition, but do not speak of superstition in your own life. It is a guarded response. Thus, are you then rejecting your temporal fixing of the natural state?
You make assumptions like that in every paragraph
Well, I figure if you
had experienced a superstitious emotional response, you wouldn't be afraid to enter it into consideration. As the atheist has no evidence of God, so have I no evidence of superstition in your life at any point.
Again, should I post a thread labelled "Adam's Beliefs" a week after I start using a message board, or after three weeks, or two months? When is the appropriate time? Please consult your internet etiquette rules book and let me know.
If it suits you, do so. After all, you'd be following in
TruthSeeker's footsteps, of a sort.
But by and large,
You know zero on the subject of Adam was quite the hilarious response. Perhaps it does, in fact, tie into your literary tastes. Perhaps the concept of inferring your beliefs from the positions you state is foreign to you; we wouldn't know. But you tell us, by your posts, more than I think you intend to. At least, your responses, such as the above-cited frustration about an
Adam's Beliefs topic, show that you don't think you're giving us anything that has to do with
Adam. Are you intentionally misrepresenting yourself, then?
We know that
Adam doesn't like to dwell on other people's perspectives, as demonstrated by your repetition of your literary standard. We know that
Adam holds religion as a standard against accepting humans, as demonstrated by your bigotry against political inclusion. We know that
Adam is either unwilling or unable to recognize identity-politics, as demonstrated by your omission of native American identity issues as related to Celtic identity issues. That is, we know these things unless
Adam is misrepresenting himself.
Then please make the relevent point, and I shall respond if you wish. Don't just mention them in passing, but make the point
How many times would you like me to make the point? And you did, in fact, skip right past those points. Please refer to your
Wicca Stuff topic, my post entitled "The story so far", your response entitled "Good grief, Charlie Brown", and my response entitled "It's an interesting position, Adam". It's all right in there.
I have to admit, though, I like your take on it:
... and I shall respond if you wish.
To take another term from you: Piffle. You didn't then, and insofar as I can tell, it was because you preferred to make a point that only holds if history has no relationship with itself.[qoute]I will present a third option. You tend to ramble. A lot. You can run several paragraphs without saying anything. Some people like the sound of their own voice (or the look of their typed words in this medium). You rarely make points, but rather talk and talk and talk and then claim everyone else lacks points. Try, for once, just clearly stating your points, with reason[/quote]Yes, minimalism is exactly what communication needs.
Maybe the phenomenon has missed you Down Under, but we call it
sound-bite philosophy, referring to witty quips given by politicians to make them seem pointed and intelligent on the evening news. Bush or Gore? Dukakis or Bush? Clinton or Bush? Clinton or Dole? Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr,
ad nauseam.
I could, simply, counter with a quip:
• You seem to justify quite a bit.
(e.g. concrete boxes on up to rooms; clarification of prison classifications; elaborations on anti-religious bigotry in the public sphere, &c.)
First, about presuming the worst in people. I try expect the worst and hope for the best from people. I always get something i the middle. If people are bad, well, it's not too great a shock, since I viewed bad behaviour as a possibility. If people are good, I get a nice surprise. All in all it works out quite well for me.
To the heart of the matter: what works out best for you. Goodness is a nice surprise. I think we see just learned much about
Adam.
(short enough for you?)
What do I doubt? Let's take Bush for example. I doubt he desires only the good of his state and its people. Or rather, I suspect he desires only good for them, but a good the way he sees it based in his religious background. Maybe he sees it as good that all religions but christianity be expunged from the USA. Just a possibility. Doubt means questions, and questions mean vigilance and security.
Doubt=questions=vigilance and security. Very generalized. But the specifics of individuals don't matter to you?
(short enough for you?)
As for the fundamental nature of human beings, please define what you think it is for me. As for myself, I believe in the good and the bad that humans can do. I believe most of us reside in the middle somewhere.
People are people. And that includes me and you.
(short enough for you?)
That's the way the world works. There's always a bigger fish.
So of all the "natural" circumstances humans opt out of, bloodthirsty competition among the herd shouldn't be one of them?
(short enough for you?)
What doubts do I have about myself? This is not your business, I'm sorry. But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside world
So you never apply your doubts about other people to yourself?
We learn yet even more about
Adam.
(short enough for you?)
Again, please clearly point out my bigotry.
This has been covered, repeatedly.
(short enough for you?)
There may indeed be all manner of supernatural things going on
Hint from one who spends more time getting close to the "supernatural":
There is no supernatural.
(I would elaborate, but you've already complained about my rambling, so I'll leave it to you to raise what issues I would have otherwise covered here.)
Without any evidence one way or another, there is no reason to accept either side as absoltue truth.
Again, agnostic? Or should I look ahead, and stop picking individual sentences out of the larger whole? After all, you have, actually, addressed the point.
Agnosticism? No, it doesn't fit. Some of my dictionaries mention it as specifically being a philosophy revolving around man's inability to know (the christian) god. The other half say it is man's inability to know anything save via observable phenomena. Both ideas I discount. The former because it simply does not apply to an atheist. The latter because we have imagination and deductive reasoning ability.
So
Adam would rather have the
label of atheism, and thus challenge the definitions of words? What are your dictionaries,
Adam? I do believe I posted mine. But I'll remind you of one of those definitions specifically:
Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.
Now, aren't you the one who was insisting on older definitions of words?
Pagan comes to mind.
So is it that you're
unwilling or
unable to read my posts before responding to them?
thanx,
Tiassa
