|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 3, 2015 9:54:13 GMT 10
You can't fix stupid by adding more stupid ... plus interest. How true, good to see you acknowledging the stupidity of those who heap abuse upon Slarti. "Stupidity is a small car heading toward a brick wall, and everyone is arguing over where they're going to sit."
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 3, 2015 12:21:52 GMT 10
BTW ... I can understand the attraction of "eternal life" ... I can't. Imagine living for ever and ever and ever and ever. You'd end up going completely nuts (ie...GAGA) putting up with religious nutters and righties throughout century after century, millennium after millennium, et al. Oblivion blots out all of that bullshit when you reach the end of your lifespan.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2015 6:26:37 GMT 10
BTW ... I can understand the attraction of "eternal life" ... I can't. Imagine living for ever and ever and ever and ever. You'd end up going completely nuts (ie...GAGA) putting up with religious nutters and righties throughout century after century, millennium after millennium, et al. Oblivion blots out all of that bullshit when you reach the end of your lifespan. Eternity or no... With that mindset, I suppose it works out that you won't have to endure eternity in the same place.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2015 6:37:25 GMT 10
The idea that Humans are an image of a creator being is, in my opinion, just an expression of the enormous ego of Human beings. I agree with you about Human ego, but you are blind sighted by your own worldview. What of the ego of atheists who by denouncing something so superior to themselves, inflate their ego; giving themselves a false sense of superiority?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 5, 2015 6:59:45 GMT 10
BTW ... I can understand the attraction of "eternal life" ... I can't. Imagine living for ever and ever and ever and ever. You'd end up going completely nuts (ie...GAGA) putting up with religious nutters and righties throughout century after century, millennium after millennium, et al. Oblivion blots out all of that bullshit when you reach the end of your lifespan. I won't get into the philosophical implications of KTJs boring assumption that a notional life hereafter will be like this one. To be honest I haven't a clue what happens once we die. If there's nothing after death the implications are as profound as there would be if religious people were right about death being the Great Gateway. And if one of the self-described "atheists" on the board (and yes KTJ I'm looking at you!) wants to scoff about "profound" I can cite any number of very distinguished atheist philosophers who defend their atheism precisely on the grounds that a godless universe is an absurd universe and the great moral and philosophical challenge for a sentient species like humans who have achieved self-awareness and are aware of their mortality is to deal with this absurdity. Camus, for example, and Hitchens agrees, would argue that religious people deny this absurdity and that religious faith is an elaborate structure within which the basic absurdity of the universe can be denied. Camus argues that atheism involves embracing the fundamental absurdity of the universe and accepting that the point of life is life itself. "The thing is to live!" says Camus. Who's right? Wrong question! Nobody here, and that includes me, is able to give the final, ultimate, Nobel Prize winning answer to life's Big Questions and it's hubris to claim that you can. But it’s the last sentence in KTJs post that strikes me because of what it says about KTJ. Life a bit of a burden to you, KTJ? Looking forward to the Great Oblivion as a release from life's "bullshit"? That’s kinda sad! It's certainly not an atheist statement! Every atheist writer I've read has enthusiastically endorsed the principle that the point of Life is to Live! And the flip side of that is the promise made by Jesus in John 10:10 that "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." So atheists and religious people alike (except for Daesh who use their religion as a vehicle to embrace death) are all into living. You should get out more, KTJ!!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 5, 2015 8:59:33 GMT 10
The idea that Humans are an image of a creator being is, in my opinion, just an expression of the enormous ego of Human beings. I agree with you about Human ego, but you are blind sighted by your own worldview. What of the ego of atheists who by denouncing something so superior to themselves, inflate their ego; giving themselves a false sense of superiority? Something so superior that no one can prove its existence? Something so superior that it has hundreds of versions and only exists in the minds of its followers?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 0:46:30 GMT 10
I agree with you about Human ego, but you are blind sighted by your own worldview. What of the ego of atheists who by denouncing something so superior to themselves, inflate their ego; giving themselves a false sense of superiority? The opposite is the case. Atheists see themselves as being NOT superior. Theists see themselves as "special", "chosen". Your argument begs the question that your "creator being" exists. My argument begs the question that a "creator being" does not exist. Neither of us will ever be able to tell the other "told you so" ... 'Chosen' implies it was God who does the choosing, not us. Jesus gave a great metaphor he advised that, when we go to a feast, that we sit in the seats on the outer edge of the room rather than at the head table. That way, if we sit at the head table and we're asked to get up and take a lesser seat to make room for someone else, we'll look and feel like fools, but, if we take a seat towards the back, and we're called up to sit at the head table, then we'll be publicly honored. If we aren't called up, at least we won't be publicly embarrassed. Humility is one of the first lessons of the gospel, and Christians ought to practice it. What standard holds for an atheist who's opinion on the 'rightness' of arrogance depends on society's lowest common denominator?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 4:26:41 GMT 10
Theists see themselves as "special", "chosen". There is nothing arrogant about one beggar, telling another, where to find food. Christians are sinners, saved by Grace. We aren't 'special', we're 'changed'. Humility is when you submit to another's moral authority. Arrogance is justifying your own morality, based on how you feel. Humility is 'others/God' focused. Arrogance is 'me' focused.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 4:42:09 GMT 10
Neither of us will ever be able to tell the other "told you so" ... When the time for words is over, I won't need to.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 7:33:36 GMT 10
I agree with you about Human ego, but you are blind sighted by your own worldview. What of the ego of atheists who by denouncing something so superior to themselves, inflate their ego; giving themselves a false sense of superiority? Something so superior that no one can prove its existence? Something so superior that it has hundreds of versions and only exists in the minds of its followers? 1. "Proof" is not a requisite for existence. 2. The multiplicity of wrong answers doesn't dismiss the likelihood of a correct one. 3. And the statement 'existing only in the minds', is only your opinion masquerading as fact.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 8:29:58 GMT 10
One thing to agree on ... life's too short for bad wine True enough. A "motherhood" statement which is neither atheist nor religious. Chanelling Karl Marx? That would be a useful starting point for an atheist argument if you were a convincing Marxist. But Yorick with great respect you, comrade, are no Marxist! This is the "vale of tears" argument. Socialism has always responded to that by claiming that heaven is an illusion and in any case you have to die to get there, and that if workers unite & throw off their chains they won't have to wait until they're dead to experience heaven. I once saw a Soviet-era anti-religion poster showing how in Tsarist times priests prayed for rain to help the "muzhiks" or peasant farmers. The next frame showed happy peasants harvesting abundant crops with sprinklers spraying water in the background. The caption, translated into English, reads "Under socialism, without God, we irrigate!" It's a clever argument for the gullible and it worked for a while. It also lies in that it covers up the horrors perpetrated during Stalin's forced collectivisation of peasant farm holdings in the 1930s. I agree that religion can offer "soft soap" and the Tsarist era religious obscurantism of village priests (remember where Rasputin came from!) gave Soviet-era anti-religion propaganda lots of easy low-hanging fruit to pluck. But subsequent history, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, has exposed Marxist atheism (you opened the door to bringing up Marx) as the "god" that failed. But back to your "vale of tears". You can't really criticise religion for that, Yorick, since for nearly all of human history human life has been a vale of tears. I mean, maaate, you're not going to hold up our privileged, pampered, want-for-nothing Western middle class consumer society existence as the norm for the 7.3 billion human beings who currently pullulate on this planet. Are you?? So if religion has been framing human life for most of human history as a vale of tears it's been doing nothing more than telling the truth, hasn't it? You know better than to come out with such simplistic nonsense, Yorick. How many years has this argy bargy been going on with you so-called "atheists" boring us shitless with your simplistic fundamentalism? Is it really all you've got? Is that it? It's not going to get any better? I mean, with Matt back it's going to sink back down into the abyss with his mantras and slogans (what will he be this time? A hindu transsexual?) and where Matt is, Skippy can't be far behind. It'll get back to their hard core voodoo obscurantism which will force us all to become "allies" in the face of their snake oil. So while I still have the opportunity I'll point out that while I don't disrespect atheism, neither do I disrespect religious belief. It's all about life's Big Questions and I have always thought that the Big Questions are more important than the Big Answers.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 9:51:46 GMT 10
Wait... Matt is back?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 6, 2015 10:05:25 GMT 10
Something so superior that no one can prove its existence? Something so superior that it has hundreds of versions and only exists in the minds of its followers? 1. "Proof" is not a requisite for existence. 2. The multiplicity of wrong answers doesn't dismiss the likelihood of a correct one. 3. And the statement 'existing only in the minds', is only your opinion masquerading as fact. Please feel free to prove my opinion incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 10:26:28 GMT 10
<sigh>
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Dec 6, 2015 10:33:57 GMT 10
Most people are afraid of dying, so way back someone called Jesus told us when we died and if we had led fairly good lives we would go to a place called heaven and be reunited with those we loved who had died before us and have a lovely eternal life. This message is a kindness, it reduces the fear of dying, a message we can believe or disbelieve, it is our choice,
If we have fulfilled our purpose in life by procreating, passing on our genes and knowledge, and if this continues through all the generations of humans, then yes we have achieved a sort of immortality, an immortality which will last until the end of human life.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 10:40:10 GMT 10
... as "Transmatt"! I'm betting that this time he's back as a cross-dressing transsexual and will announce that ever since he got in touch with his inner female (and this came to him in a private epiphany, the nature of which I shudder to imagine so let's not go there!) he went through a period of identity searching and decided to embrace his inner female through a deft bit of surgery. So a bit of snippety snip and voilà! Transmatt! Of course the snipped bits will eventually grow back and in his next iteration Matt will be Gaymatt. I leave the rest to your imagination!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 10:56:15 GMT 10
1. "Proof" is not a requisite for existence. 2. The multiplicity of wrong answers doesn't dismiss the likelihood of a correct one. 3. And the statement 'existing only in the minds', is only your opinion masquerading as fact. Please feel free to prove my opinion incorrect. If it's your opinion, I put it to you to do the convincing. I'm not responsible for what you believe; neither am I responsible for how you believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 10:59:57 GMT 10
As for Occam's ... every reply he makes begs the question about there actually existing a "creator being". Fair enough, he is the result of decades of religious conditioning, where he cannot envisage the non-existence of his god. Just like Pim. You assume much. How do you know I'm not the first of my family? Your belief that we live in a godless universe, is also the product of circular reasoning, friend. We just have different starting points.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 11:09:08 GMT 10
Yorick, I'm on holiday here in an eco tourism resort near Tura Beach slightly north of Merimbula. Mind you, with my lifestyle as a Western middle class self-funded retiree, life is one permanent holiday, but there you go! Anyway I shouldn't spend any more time online when there are walks to be enjoyed, beaches to explore, wildlife to get to know etc etc. The only reason I'm online right now is that we're catching up with a load of laundry before we do any of those things. But it seems to me that in your polarised binary way one is either a fundamentalist atheist or a fundamentalist biblical literalist Christian. No other paradigm is possible and if one is postulated it's rejected and the person postulating it (the postulant?) is abused as a fraud!
I'm not going to condemn Occam or disrespect him just because he posts on religious topics on the Religion Board! If I've taken to responding to the paleo-atheism of you and slarti in a more robust (but not personal) fashion it's because it's become repetitive to the point of being coma-inducing. So give us a break. Either give up trying to "prove" whatever you're trying to prove, because you and slarti will never convert Occam or me to your paleo-atheism, or lift your game and tell us something interesting!!!
PS: re. Sonex's post. Now there speaks a reasonable person!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 6, 2015 11:41:57 GMT 10
Please feel free to prove my opinion incorrect. If it's your opinion, I put it to you to do the convincing. I'm not responsible for what you believe; neither am I responsible for how you believe it. I am 100% comfortable with what I said, you oppose it, it is up to you to point out my error, if there is one.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2015 12:20:42 GMT 10
If it's your opinion, I put it to you to do the convincing. I'm not responsible for what you believe; neither am I responsible for how you believe it. I am 100% comfortable with what I said, you oppose it, it is up to you to point out my error, if there is one.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 13:15:39 GMT 10
Meanwhile back at the thread topic "Who was telling us that atheism was declining?" I must confess I don't know the answer to that question. Who DID tell us that atheism was declining? Whoever it was, that's about as crazy brave as those who would have us believe that religious faith is declining.
Here's what I know: I know that there are 7.3 billion human beings on the planet and that they are born, live a life, and die. That life might be long, prosperous and happy or nasty, brutish, short and marked by poverty. Or it could be somewhere else along that spectrum. We on this board - Occam, Yorick, slarti, KTJ, myself ... undoubtedly are situated on the "long and prosperous" end. I think "long & prosperous" comes to about a billion humans. Which is a lot of people I agree but set against a total human population of 7.3 billion it's a mere 14% (slightly less but let's not quibble) of the total. So we're hardly typical. Let’s say that 86% of humanity live lives that we privileged 14% would find are marked by hardship, poor health and a shorter lifespan. They wouldn't feel they had much in common with us privileged 14% but if they thought they had a slight chance of getting a bit of the action they imagine we take for granted as part of our everyday life they'd go for it and who can blame them.
But here's what the 86% have in common with the 14%. They're born into a culture which gives them a language, a world view and - importantly for threads on the Religion Board - a cosmic outlook and perspective. It's one that they perceive and express not just through the rational mind but through the ego, the id and any other primal Freudian urge you'd care to name. Whenever I go to a shopping mall anywhere in Australia I can see it at work. We of the privileged 14% worship Mammon and shopping malls are the temples within which this worship takes place. We are all devotees. No one is exempt. As for the other 86% they also live in a spiritual/cosmic universe of some type. I observed in Bali how temple worship played a huge role in the lives of every Balinese. I've often heard the phrase "materially poor but spiritually rich". Australian Aborigines have observed of whitefellas that they've got "no Dreaming", and the remark has been made with pity. Their tragedy is that in too many cases whitefella Mammon-worship has robbed blackfellas of their "Dreaming" while at the same time denying them access to that Mammon-worship. But returning to the bigger picture, all 7.3 billion human beings belong to a culture and for the vast majority there'sa spiritual dimension that is at the heart of that culture.
Note that I haven't referred to organised religion. Are mainstream Christian religions in crisis with declining attendances? Definitely! The child abuse horror is the most appalling facet of what is probably the most profound spiritual crisis that mainstream Christianity has faced since the Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago. But does that mean spirituality is dead and atheism is rampant? Not at all. I don't think you can conclude that in the slightest. It's a crazy brave assertion to make.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 6, 2015 13:46:37 GMT 10
I am 100% comfortable with what I said, you oppose it, it is up to you to point out my error, if there is one. So no error, just slogans.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 21:22:41 GMT 10
Still on this crap? I geddit!! You reckon you're some kind of atheist. Fine!! Here's what I don't get: why the missionary zeal? Occam should know by now that he's not going to get anywhere with the missionary stuff with you guys. Let's face it, if he still thinks (assuming he ever did) that he's going to make any headway with you guys then he's as thick as two planks and you know as well as I do that Occam is no simpleton. So what makes you think that you're going to make any headway with him? I believe the answer to that is that you don't. So what's the deal?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2015 22:25:40 GMT 10
Where's the fraud? It's a fair question that I pose. 1. I acknowledged your right to be whatever you claim to be. You wanna say you're some kinda "atheist"? Cool!! (Fraud?? ) 2. I acknowledged that Occam will never succeed in budging you from that position. (Fraud?? ) 3. I put to you the reasonable proposition that you for your part will also never succeed in budging Occam from his religious beliefs. (Fraud?? ) 4. I then asked why the missionary zeal? Why do you keep trying? (Fraud?? ) 5. Finally I put to you the entirely uncontroversial syllogism that since (a) you're not dumb and (b) Occam's not dumb, what's the deal? Fair questions! You might want to avoid answering them by bleating a mantra but the questions stand.
|
|