Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1080383 Posts in 71498 Topics- by 19054 Members - Latest Member: trombonejb
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Religion Matters: Take 3  (Read 39186 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #820 on: Sep 11, 2017, 08:01PM »

This is the full version (obviously extensively edited after Ronkny's initial response).
 
Sorry for the extensive quoting, but I've found it's useful where the context is very likely to be lost.
 
Reply moved from the Read Da Book topic:
 
Dave, it's not a lack of confidence of the compellingness of the Christian faith, but a lack of confidence in the sinful hearts of those who once professed to believe it, but turn away.  Jeremiah 17:9 says that the heart is deceitful above all things.  From a Christian POV it is not at all surprising that some turn away, not because the faith isn't attractive-- although there are "unattractive" parts such as the fact that believers will be persecuted, scorned etc-- but because the deceitful natural human heart wrongly believes that the other options seem better or easier, etc.  We humans are not starting from a neutral POV, but a  POV that is naturally biased against the truth of God and only God's grace can change our hearts, enlighten our minds, etc. so that the true compelling beauty of God's truth-- and it really is compelling in the end-- will be seen in its full beauty. The culpable sin is that the natural human rejects such truth that really is compelling and our not finding it so is our own sinful faults.
 
Remember that Jesus spoke about the narrow path vs. the wide path.  He spoke about men loving darkness rather than light, etc.  Christians are not at all surprised when many prefer their own futile self-deceptions over the truth.  Those of of who know that we only believe the truth because of divine grace enlightening us, don't gloat over this, but actually are saddened and pray for those who reject the truth because apart from divine intervention we would be just as blind to the truth.
Exactly. Perceived arrogance of believers by non believers is actually arrogance itself. IMO
But is that just a satisfying notion, or can you flesh it out and explain the epistemic basis behind why you think that?
Simple. You don't know what you don't know and neither do I. To act like you do is arrogant. We have faith and you guys have,"Prove it." Capisce'?
So you humbly accept the knowledge provided by faith that you wouldn't otherwise have, and for others to fail to accept that same faith (by which they would of course have the same knowledge rather than having to accept their uncertainty), is arrogant.
 --
Please pardon the arrogance of my uncertainty which imposes upon me the burden of personal responsibility for ensuring I really do know what I claim to know and thus raises a question here, but why do so many citing faith as the basis for their certainty disagree so much with the certainties your faith provides you with? How do you ferret that out? Or do you just rest on your faith-based certainty and leave it there?
You glossed over the key words.
No, you're just seeing what you want to see, and what you see as corrections on your part are actually confirmations.
 
Now, since this is a discussion I'm not going to just leave it at that claim. Next you'll find the explanation as to why I think that's the case. Because this is a discussion forum rather than just a choose up sides and hurl empty slogans and opinions at each other forum. This isn't a Trump campaign in here (not to suggest you're a Trump fan--I kinda doubt that's the case--you were a fan of a far more rational and far more qualified and far more competent candidate, because of which who had no chance of being nominated by the current GOP).
 
I have faith. I do not have all the knowledge And I don't pretend that I do.
Right. No one argued or even implied in any way, shape or form that you claim to be omniscient (that's what having "all the knowledge" means. As I posted you claim to have "the knowledge provided by faith that you wouldn't otherwise have".
 
Or are you saying you don't claim to know God exists (the specific claim at issue)?
 
You guys have no faith and also don't have all the knowledge yet you pretend to know there is no God. Because you don't really know. You can't. And neither can I. Hence faith vs knowledge
You also claim, as I posted, that "for others to fail to accept that same faith is arrogant".
 
Also, do you not claim that those who have faith (or True Faith at least) must come to more or less the same position on God that you do (i.e. faith, true faith, makes Christians)?
 
 --
 
One actual issue I see here is that despite repeated corrections you still choose to believe atheism is about claiming to know there are no gods (and you're using an extreme, ad hoc standard for knowing) rather than the fact that theism and atheism are specifically about belief, while gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge (specifically whether we can or can't know certain things, usually and in this case that being whether or not any gods exist). Of course it's very hard to argue the actual position of most atheists is arrogant, and that's just not satisfying, or affirming.
 
My personal claim (tentative and not required by atheism) is that a god people actually worship (or at least believe in and/or revere), rather than a god constructed for apologetics, is an incoherent concept, with the possible exception of deism.
You are always off to a bad start in a conversation when you start with an analysis.(ie No, you see what you want to see.) No. I see exactly what's there.
I believe God exists. I don't know if he exists. faith.
I'm a bit skeptical of that claim, but I hope it's accurate. It indicates integrity.
 
So I'm saying I don't know and you guys are saying you know there is no God.  That's arrogance.
That's a bit hasty. As I said, my position is that any god anyone would worship or revere is conceptually incoherent, with the possible exception of deism (and I should add the potential that I've just missed something, though it would almost certainly have to be something very, very few have thought of). That certainly favors the conclusion that there aren't any gods, but not inherently (that is my personal position though). But that's only even arguably arrogant if you presume a pretty extreme special standard regarding claims of knowledge regarding theism or atheism. In most cases of claims of knowledge the expectation of certainty isn't anywhere near this level. So this is imposing a burden of doubt rather than its benefit. That's just human, but it's also a functional objectivity problem, rhetorically/argumentatively speaking.
 
Also, do you not claim that those who have faith (or True Faith at least) must come to more or less the same position on God that you do (i.e. faith, true faith, makes Christians)?
No.
 
Ask Bill if he knows there is no God.
He speaks from me no more than I speak for him.
 
You don't think Christopher Hitchens was arrogant? He was very arrogant.
He's much more misunderstood than he was arrogant, but I can't argue he wasn't either. What most believers are really on about with Hitchens is that he was extremely outspoken and extremely rhetorically hostile to Christianity--he liked to argue and he was an iconoclast. Very few can prevent a high degree of perceptual distortion in such a case.
 
I believe its very satisfying for militant atheists to see Christmas music banned from schools. Removal of creche's, etc. They celebrate it.
Yup ... they do, kinda by definition.
 
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity"
I don't see any wiggle room there.
Awesome ...
 
It's quite clear you're seeing what you want to see in that text.
 
You somehow see both of the senses described as inherently coexisting, and you manage to ignore the sense the author uses, which is the former rather than the latter (the lack of belief rather than a claim of knowledge), giving the benefit of the doubt in his mind I expect (he/she is probably pretty honest in his/her thinking).
 
Otherwise you couldn't come to the conclusion you do--no wiggle room, having taken the false position that atheism is a claim of certainty (it can be, but it's not inherently or generally). It's quite obvious in the text, however, that it's saying there are two basic ways of seeing atheism, and that the author recognizes the broader sense of the term is valid and can't be ignored.
 
Your own citation states quite clearly that your position is too narrow, but that doesn't work for you so you don't see it. You only see words and contexts that say what you want them to say. In fact you manage to see what does work for you even though it's on a more or less 180ļ different trajectory than the citation you actually use to support what you think, basically turning the citation into a Rorschach (and a reading skills where invested) test.
 
This is a pattern, and a pretty problematic one ( ... well, it's problematic if you're interested in actually understanding rather than affirming your own sentiments and presumptions, or in genuine discussion anyway). I think this is also pretty clearly why you have such issues with analysis--if people actually consider what you write very carefully at all it quite often quite often doesn't work out very well for you, particularly regarding religious subject matter.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11324

View Profile
« Reply #821 on: Sep 11, 2017, 08:21PM »


Awesome ...
 
It's quite clear you're seeing what you want to see in that text.
 
You somehow see both of the senses described as inherently coexisting, and you manage to ignore the sense the author uses, which is the former rather than the latter (the lack of belief rather than a claim of knowledge), giving the benefit of the doubt in his mind I expect (he/she is probably pretty honest in his/her thinking).
 
Otherwise you couldn't come to the conclusion you do--no wiggle room, having taken the false position that atheism is a claim of certainty (it can be, but it's not inherently or generally). It's quite obvious in the text, however, that it's saying there are two basic ways of seeing atheism, and that the author recognizes the broader sense of the term is valid and can't be ignored.
 
Your own citation states quite clearly that your position is too narrow, but that doesn't work for you so you don't see it. You only see words and contexts that say what you want them to say. In fact you manage to see what does work for you even though it's on a more or less 180ļ different trajectory than the citation you actually use to support what you think, basically turning the citation into a Rorschach (and a reading skills where invested) test.
 
This is a pattern, and a pretty problematic one ( ... well, it's problematic if you're interested in actually understanding rather than affirming your own sentiments and presumptions, or in genuine discussion anyway). I think this is also pretty clearly why you have such issues with analysis--if people actually consider what you write very carefully at all it quite often quite often doesn't work out very well for you, particularly regarding religious subject matter.
Sigh.  You haven't learned. Analyzing and telling people what they are really thinking is just batshit crazy and annoying. It's why hardly anyone responds to you. Why is that so hard to understand?  Knock it the **** off.  You could rewrite your retort and I may respond.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #822 on: Sep 11, 2017, 08:32PM »

Sigh.  You haven't learned.
And that's clearly not an arrogant comment ... it's humbly as well as highly presumptuously condescending.
 
Analyze ng and telling po we Ople what they are really thinking is just batshit crazy.
Just deciphered that ... no, analyzing and explaining why someone's rhetoric is misguided and/or misread and/or just flat out wrong isn't crazy (and neither is it telling people what they're thinking, although many reasoning errors, especially patterns of reasoning errors, do tip off the reasoner's hand). It can certainly upset the one whose careless thinking has been explained though, particularly when it's obvious and easy to explain ... all the more when it's frequently so.
 
It's why hardly anyone responds to you.
You're pretty talented at seeing what you want to see.
 
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because I'm not talented at seeing what you want to see.
 
You could rewrite your retort and if respond.
TheWhoWhatNow?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11324

View Profile
« Reply #823 on: Sep 11, 2017, 08:43PM »

And that's clearly not an arrogant comment ... it's humbly as well as highly presumptuously condescending.
 Just deciphered that ... no, analyzing and explaining why someone's rhetoric is misguided and/or misread and/or just flat out wrong isn't crazy (and neither is it telling people what they're thinking, although many reasoning errors, especially patterns of reasoning errors, do tip off the reasoner's hand). It can certainly upset the one whose careless thinking has been explained though, particularly when it's obvious and easy to explain ... all the more when it's frequently so.
 You're pretty talented at seeing what you want to see.
 Because I'm not talented at seeing what you want to see.
 TheWhoWhatNow?
i edited it.  Try again.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #824 on: Sep 11, 2017, 09:09PM »

You could rewrite your retort and I may respond.

Deal ... heh.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #825 on: Sep 14, 2017, 02:57PM »

In other news scientists prove that water is wet, pain hurts, and denial (personal or institutional) is not the most effective means of managing personal demons ...
 
This one's sure to be a shocker! Well, at least to anyone who hasn't heard of biology or psychology, or who's in denial about it, perhaps for specific special cases.
 
It may arguably be revisiting old news in terms of numbers, but as amazing as it is it's also important research in terms of social responsibility ... and in the fact it actually needed to be done to lend the results some authority.
 
 --
 
But it's just fake news of course. How many will take the Trump Defense (which will be equally credible and meaningful as it is when he does it)? That's likely to become a standard rough measure of integrity if we manage to learn anything from these absurd twists and turns of reality we're seeing so much of right now. The Donald is destined to become the poster boy of depravity litmus tests. Though I guess that's about as challenging a "prediction" as prophesying that Tom Brady might make it into the NFL Hall of Fame one day ... or that Paul Reubens might not.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #826 on: Sep 18, 2017, 04:34PM »

Certainly looks like good news for social progress, but is the author's take sound?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11324

View Profile
« Reply #827 on: Sep 18, 2017, 07:51PM »

wow! Letís celebrate!
Social progress?  Maybe to you and your ilk. It actually has nothing to do with atheism being more popular.  Itís actually due to a decline in morals and morality. And technology. And pure laziness.
No. Itís no progress.
These are the militant atheists I have talked about on here incessantly. The author is so giddy that Christianity (as Islam grows)  is on the decline. His one dimensional thinking on Christianity is telling.  Heís an idiot. 
What a mensch.
« Last Edit: Sep 19, 2017, 07:43AM by ronkny » Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #828 on: Sep 19, 2017, 03:13PM »

From one of the many interesting links off of that story:
 
   Good!
 
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: