| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Mithradates position is to deny any unifying themes of Christianity so he can at once dodge any criticism leveled against the mode of thought as a whole.
"Yes, other Christians may think that way; but, there are others--many many many others--so nothing you can say can ever apply to my version of the slippery fish."
Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Nonsectarian religious principles do not necessarily equate to "nonsectarian religions".
Regulated restrictions on intoxication, illicit sex, gambling, abortion, and unnecessary killing of animals, trees - or any form of life - are examples of religious principles followed (to varying degrees) by all major religions and are generally held to be in the public interest.
|
You mean common sense. Not "nonsectarian religious principles".
| RTeacher wrote: |
The biggest threat posed by placing too much trust in science - unguided by spiritual values but very advanced in biogenetic engineering - is environmental disasters (such as unleashing uncontrolled viruses and wiping out ecologically vital species...) |
Those things aren't a result of too much trust in science. Science doesn't cause disasters. People misusing science may do so, but no more than some religious zealot misusing religion. Both are a form of power and both can be used irresponsibly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point is that they are complemetary.
Morality isn't derived from a vacuum - and evolutionary "survival of the fittest" is not a good ethical foundation.
It's pretty clear (to me) that material science can not understand life without appreciating a spiritual dimension - it can't be reduced to just the "pushes and pulls" of atoms and molecules.
Spirituality - the pure distilled essence of all religion - is required to guide material progress in a way that's not unnecessarily harmful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is the ultimate dream and faith of the Athiest; One day all our questions will be answered and our problems will be solved due to the progress of science. I always found it somewhat ignorant myself.
It is similar to many Christians blissfull ignorance in awaiting an impending Armageddon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
| . . . . faith of the Athiest . . . |
There is no such thing. This is as close as it gets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
| See, here I used a single word, universal. You ascribed a strictly geographic meaning to it, as if I meant to speak of the scope and penetration of Christianity worldwide. But I meant the word in a somewhat different sense. |
I think the problem is that you mean all your words in a different sense. 'Death' for you means 'exile' and 'exile' in turn can mean 'military occupation by a foreign force', 'desertion' and 'feelings of abandoment'. You try to stretch the meanings of words so far that in the end they lose all meaning. This of course is very convenient for you in that you can always claim that your argument has not been refuted by saying that what you said is not actually what you meant (I defy you to find any dictionary that assigns the meanings to 'death' and 'exile' that you have ascribed to them...but there again no doubt you find dictionaries to be too
literal and anti-intellectual). |
Well, in most old literature you find a good mix of literal and non-literal terms. OE had a lot of this for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenning
Gilgamesh was .67 god and .33 human, the bull he and Enkidu wrestled apparently represented mankind's struggle against famine, etc. etc. Since there's no religion related to the epic anymore, even non-religious people have no problem in interpreting the symbolism there (because there's no threat from it anymore I assume), but books from existing religions get interpreted literally and simplistically. |
At least let him play fair. If Kuros is using an established system of word substitution he should identify which one it is. Do you know? More to the point, if you had been asked to define 'exile' would you have given the meanings 'military occupation by a foreign force', 'desertion' and 'feelings of abandonment'? |
I just saw this. This is preposterous. I did not define exile with those following terms. I merely said there were themes of exile during Jesus' death. You may see me as obfuscating, I see you as playing literalist shell-games where you try to pin criticisms based on your willful and deliberate misunderstandings.
At any rate, I agree with the poster above who claimed that militant atheism is its own kind of faith. And I have no love for any militant creeds, although the reason I bother debating with the anti-theists is that presumably they are supposed to accept reason. And then there are the tactics that Grimalkin has employed here . . .
Last edited by Kuros on Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
That is the ultimate dream and faith of the Athiest; One day all our questions will be answered and our problems will be solved due to the progress of science. I always found it somewhat ignorant myself.
It is similar to many Christians blissfull ignorance in awaiting an impending Armageddon. |
While I agree that science probably cannot solve all our problems at least they are trying rather than simply "awaiting an impending armageddon".
Of course, not all Christians are simply waiting for armageddon and some scientists are not making progress; however, I'm willing to bet there are far more of the former than the latter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
Mithradates position is to deny any unifying themes of Christianity so he can at once dodge any criticism leveled against the mode of thought as a whole.
"Yes, other Christians may think that way; but, there are others--many many many others--so nothing you can say can ever apply to my version of the slippery fish."
Right? |
No, because I have no desire to protect the whole of Christianity. The worst parts of the religion deserve all the criticism they get. It's painfully obvious though that there is no one unified religion there, and likely never will:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/world/europe/24church.html
The geopolitical knowledge alone (some branches supported the war in Iraq, others didn't for example) is worth understanding the differences between its various branches. In addition, it's even worth it for your average Dawkins/Hitchens atheist to understand the differences between the branches in order to be able to go after the parts you like the least and not waste your effort on branches that prefer to leave others alone. Once again I'm giving atheists some stellar advice here.
In the same way I have no desire to attack atheism as a whole. Absolutely nothing wrong with not believing in any one religion.
Reality itself is a slippery fish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thematrixiam
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I once saw jesus in my toilet. I had to flush him though because he smelled bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| grimalkin wrote: |
At least let him play fair. If Kuros is using an established system of word substitution he should identify which one it is. Do you know? More to the point, if you had been asked to define 'exile' would you have given the meanings 'military occupation by a foreign force', 'desertion' and 'feelings of abandonment'? |
I just saw this. This is preposterous. I did not define exile with those following terms. I merely said there were themes of exile during Jesus' death. You may see me as obfuscating, I see you as playing literalist shell-games where you try to pin criticisms based on your willful and deliberate misunderstandings.
At any rate, I agree with the poster above who claimed that militant atheism is its own kind of faith. And I have no love for any militant creeds, although the reason I bother debating with the anti-theists is that presumably they are supposed to accept reason. And then there are the tactics that Grimalkin has employed here . . . |
I suppose I should just be happy that you do actually read my posts....even if it is after you've already replied to them.
Still I'm going to ask anyway....
In what way does the Roman occupation have the 'theme' of exile unless it is actually a form of exile?
In what way does the disciples' desertion of Jesus have the 'theme' of exile unless it is actually a form of exile?
In what way do the Jesus' feelings of abandonment have the 'theme' of exile unless they actually a form of exile?
And don't think that I haven't noticed that you have done your usual trick of 'Oh that's not what I mean' without actually trying to clarify what you do mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mithradates Done Wroted:
| Quote: |
| Once again I'm giving atheists some stellar advice here. |
Why would you want to do this?
| Quote: |
| In the same way I have no desire to attack atheism as a whole. |
Is there a good atheism?
| Quote: |
| Absolutely nothing wrong with not believing in any one religion. |
But is there something with believing in one? Or in the wrong way?
| Quote: |
| Reality itself is a slippery fish. |
Slipperier yet is the mind which judges reality. How do we guard against the defects of the mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
Mithradates Done Wroted:
| Quote: |
| Once again I'm giving atheists some stellar advice here. |
Why would you want to do this? |
Why not? The very fact that you're asking this is a bit odd. Are we supposed to be enemies?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| In the same way I have no desire to attack atheism as a whole. |
Is there a good atheism? |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Absolutely nothing wrong with not believing in any one religion. |
But is there something with believing in one? Or in the wrong way? |
Believing in one - no. In the wrong way - yes. That's the bit about understanding something by its fruits/results.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Reality itself is a slippery fish. |
Slipperier yet is the mind which judges reality. How do we guard against the defects of the mind? |
Constant vigilance and continued questioning of everything we know.
In more concrete terms, that means a lot of discussion and trying to understand those that we don't agree with. Not necessarily agreeing with them but knowing how it is they've come to believe what they believe. With some it's best to quit while you're ahead though. Not everybody can be reasoned with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
Okay, that's an honest question. I wouldn't call it an 'argument that prevented me from becoming an atheist' but remember Dawkins' "we're just like you except that we worship one less god"? Militant atheism/anti-theism seems to me to be like theism (at it's best now, mind you - I'm thinking C.S. Lewis, Tolkien here) minus one branch of knowledge. Only a few atheists (and these are the ones that I respect the most) have been able to get beyond a really simplistic interpretation of religion. A biblical studies prof at the university where I'm from for example is apparently a really strong atheist. That's definitely the minority though. Never really looked at atheism and thought man, I really want what they have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you think that debate alone is sufficient for guarding against the defects of the mind? This was the mind-set before modernism. Then, Galileo ushered in the new paradigm when he used empirical method.
This is still at the heart of the debate now. Is the empirical method sufficient? Does revelation trump empirical evidence? Vice-versa?
I think the only way to guard against the defects of mind is to put empirical methodology at the center of our epistemological systems, and thus marginalize the epistemology of revelation.
Remember, for example, that what seems obvious to the speculative mind can be quickly negated--and therefore corrected--by the empirical method. Take for example the proposition that, Heavy objects fall faster than light ones. A simple experiment performed by Galileo negated that common sense view.
What, then, about a proposition which holds that there exists a creator? It makes sense to so many. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
