On Perseverance & Trolling
Posted in Blogosphere on | 5 minutes | 104 Comments →
Well, well! A post about trolling from he who’s been labeled a troll! No, this isn’t going to be another boring argument about why I think so-and-so is mistaken in labeling me a troll. Nope, not today.
I’m still waiting on something in the mail that relates to the next post I need to write. So, today’s quick post is going to clarify that yes, I still think trolling is generally a disruptive activity that tends to obscure clear resolution of intelligent debate. However, this post will also clarify my position that – depending on the actual motives of the person labeled the troll – trolling can also be an effective strategy that can actually promote clear resolution of intelligent debate.
The scene – as it often is – was once again SI‘s, and the subject matter once again Gideon. Now, I’m really left scratching my head as to why on Earth SI dedicates posts to insulting Gideon, then complains about Gideon’s persistent responses. But nevermind that for now; I’ll probably never understand sadism.
I think we all know when, where and why trolling can disrupt the resolution of arguments: it’s the online equivalent of a fist-fight. When things get too heated, and cherished opinions too challenged, human beings universally tend to clam up and go on the offensive. We’ve all seen this happen countless times in the blogosphere, and real life.
Yet, of many undeniable facts found in the ancient wisdom, one that’s pretty much undeniably undeniable is the fact that perseverance furthers. By this token, I’d like to explain when, where and why trolling can assist the resolution of intellectual stalemates.
It’s a plain fact that regardless of pretense, some people either do not or cannot defend their beliefs rationally, and these people will always tend to reach for an irrational strategy once the going gets tough. I’ve been at this point before, and it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating to ask somebody a series of questions that – if they would only answer honestly – would seemingly elucidate the flaw in their own reasoning. To be clear, I’m equally sure others have had this experience with me; I’d be an arrogant fool to assume I’ve never misunderstood somebody, or expressed an argument of mine sloppily such that it leaves a legitimate opening for attack. It happens. We’re fallible creatures, but the fact that we’re fallible creatures doesn’t mean we should never re-examine our beliefs.
So, when, where and why is trolling beneficial?
I opine that in situations where there is only a pretense of rationalism, trolling can be beneficial, because it can disturb the complacency of intellectual stalemates. For example, we’ve been at an intellectual stalemate at SI’s blog for some time now, ever since SI demonstrated that he’s not really as open to evidence as he’d have us believe. I also believe that SI’s blog expresses only a pretense of rationalism, and I say this not to insult SI or his commenters, but because I believe it’s the honest truth: SI needs to address the anomalous evidence he dismisses.
So again, when, where and why is trolling beneficial?
In certain situations where there is intellectual stalemate, trolling can be beneficial, and here’s what I mean: though he practically invited the guy to do as he does, SI is clearly tired of Gideon. It’s showing. It’s obvious. SI wants to get rid of Gideon so bad that SI is now apparently willing to stop writing entire posts denigrating Gideon. SI’s now at an impasse: he can ban Gideon and deal with criticism, moderate everyone’s comments and deal with criticism, or finally man up and lead by example by exemplifying the type of behavior he now wants to enforce.
IOW, SI is now apparently willing to change his own strategy by committing himself to the pursuit of clear reason:
There only so much of Gideon one can stomach, and frankly, I just
regurgitated. My next post, I have decided, will be moderated on an ad hoc basis. That means if the comment is not responsive to a previous comment, or the post, or involves purely insults and ad hominems (like Gideon’s comment above), I will modify and/or delete it.
-SI, Spanish Inquisitor
IOW, nobody’s laughing anymore, eh!? Whereas before it was apparently always okay for SI, Philly, John Evo, jim and others to use ad hominem arguments and voluminous personal insults against theists, after a few months of Gideon, now there seems to be the faint beat of a different tune! While it was apparently always okay for SI, Philly, John Evo, jim and others to do that which they decry from Gideon, now SI wants to “get serious” he implies! Whereas before, they’d invite you to supply your evidence for your beliefs then just mock you endlessly over it, now apparently there’s going to be an actual standard that everyone has to adhere to! I’m nothing less than enthralled, and will do everything in my part to assure equal application of the rules.
Personally, I wish SI would have had this “change of heart” six months ago! I can’t wait to (possibly) get some clean shots in! I’ve wanted nothing more than for SI to be able to make his points without resorting to getting everyone’s emotions riled up by calling me,
A big fat black hole of bullshit sucking in everyone who comes into contact with [me].
-SI, to cl
So often in life, we get no less than what we give. That’s exactly why I’ve been enjoying watching Gideon go off at SI’s. It’s karmic retribution at its finest.
So yes: we all know that trolling can disrupt reasonable resolution of intelligent debate. However, what some of us might not have realized is that trolling can also motivate bloggers to tighten their own slack. To return to the fist-fight analogy: sometimes we get so tired of slugging that we’re willing to try talking again.
Bobaloo
says...I spent the last 4 years learning how to avoid “trolling” in my philological work. In my mind once the troll attacks the philosophical examination dies. I’ve learned that you cannot convince people of something that they do not want to believe, it only draws the noose even around reasoning tighter . The only way to convince someone something is to cogently and soundly provide a clear argument that may or may not succeed, but the success is relative to the one who wrote the argument. If it works, great, awesome! If not who cares, its more about the process and what you learned from it than the results it brings about. Don’t get me wrong Im not an argumentative nihilist, I just think that arguments are best settled with pure logic, not rhetoric.
cl
says...See, that’s normally the case. In fact, I say that’s an inviolable formula when – and only when – the person labeled as a troll has a genuine desire to avoid reasoned debate. Yet, that’s not the case here. In this case, Gideon is more than willing to participate in reasoned discussion with the people I mentioned in the OP. To summarize the theist experience at SI’s, what’s been happening over the past six months is that we have a certain group of shouters, a bunch of people who like to talk big and taunt others to make points, and along comes this dood Gideon who will have none of it and takes no prisoners! With some of the wittiest invective I’ve ever heard, he’s literally out-shouted the shouters! I think the effect was so strong that reason might actually be able to proceed, IF and only if SI keeps to his new rules.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not endorsing or condoning every word Gideon says. I definitely think he crosses the line at times, and I’ve let him know. But I’ve never seen a funnier way to shut down a bunch of shouters who think they know it all, not in my 2+ years of blogging. Hilarious! They tired of him such that the regulars even stay afar. If SI stays true, this is either the beginning of *actual debate* at his blog, or a temporary stop on a never-ending escapade of hand-waving and insult.
I agree completely. Yet, it’s not always easy to tell the difference who’s who, is it? In this case, if SI holds to his word about cleaning up his blog threads, well… we’ll see what’s really going on soon enough.
I agree, but when you present a clear and cogent argument and you simply get called a “douche” or just ignored, dismissed and denied, clearly there’s a problem on the other interlocutors, wouldn’t you say? Gideon just amplified that sort of behavior to an absurd level, caused a near ‘freakin riot and shut the whole damn show down. Amazing!
See I agree with you, but let’s talk reality: return to the fist-fight analogy. You know how it goes; you knock the daylights out of each other until you get tired, then try talking again. Same thing going on over at SI’s. Personally, I think if we can sustain a decent discussion over there, it won’t take long to see who’s arguments unravel.
Not to mention the moral of, “Gee, if I don’t want trolls at my site maybe I shouldn’t dedicate entire posts to insulting the people I claim are trolls?” I mean, come on!
cl
says...I mean, just click here, and scroll down to the idiot of the week! Tell me you wouldn’t burst out laughing!
Gideon
says...SI is already buckling under his bosses’influence. He’s editing my comments as I text. I fully expected he would, because he doesn’t have the balls to stand up to Philly & Co.
He’s doing what even the least of the least in Bloggerland rarely resort to, with this tactic. He’s a sorry excuse for a man to resort to such measures. Now, he’s achieved what every enemy of free speech and expression detests, which is a totalitarian mindset. His boss, Philly Chief, is an expert at that sort of thing, though at least he just silences his detractors through IP/email moderation. SI is proving to be an even bigger coward than I thought by actually changing the comment text!
No comments will be safe, now. So much for any blogger integrity existing in the ranks of infidels.
No surprise, though. SI’s a butt-licker and a coward.
Gideon
says...That should say:
“What every lover of free speech and expression detests…”
Been a long day…
cl
says...Don’t cave in Gideon; just hold him to his word. I think you’ve got yourself in a most fine position to prove who’s really who, if you want. I’m right there with you. I really believe that if SI’s willing to clear all the BS out of the way, we’ll see who’s got the stronger arguments over there.
Like I said, I’ve been at SI’s and been the target of many an insult and berating from him, Philly, Evo, and the others. It’s just utter hilarity to watch it handed back to them times ten. Let SI modify your comments made in jest; you and I know no standard is too low. However, on his next post, comply by the rules 100% and shut his arguments down with reason. That’s gonna be my strategy, as it’s typically always been. Sure, every once in a while we have some fun over there, but I’ve given SI honest arguments. He and his boy Philly treat them about as seriously as they treat your bombs. Of course.
I honestly don’t think SI & Co. can hang with their own rules, but we’ll see what happens.
Gideon
says...He’s not that important to me, cl. “Caving in” as you call it, requires a certain level of investment in the whole issue. I’ve never given them or anyone any indication I’m there for the duration. I stay as long as it suits me, then I’m gone.
I’m not saying I’m leaving, but, I’ve been around the block too many times to see these guys ever think of changing their policy. If one of them ever did, the others would be on him like wolves. Their mockery of you… myself… is hardened and sincere. Like you’ve pointed out, yourself, they enjoy being assholes. So do I, at times!
Simply put, I don’t treat these morons the same as I would others on other blogs. I figured these guys out at Day One. They’re simply reject former Christians, with a hate on for God and the church, mostly the latter. People love to hate. These ones are no exception.
Some of them are milking obsessions about the church that originated in childhood. It’s ingrained in their psyche. Anyway, it’s not a big deal with me. They can believe what they want. As a Christian, I only have to tell what I know, not convert anyone. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job.
Mine is signing-off for the night!
Later…
jim
says...Hm, is this how you rationalize your own trolling to yourself, then? An interesting display of mental gymnastics, I must say.
Meanwhile, your buddy Gideon is now advocating the murder of homosexuals across the board. You down with that, home fry?
jim
says...P.S.:
“IOW, nobody’s laughing anymore, eh!? Whereas before it was apparently always okay for SI, Philly, John Evo, jim and others to use ad hominem arguments and voluminous personal insults against theists, after a few months of Gideon, now there seems to be the faint beat of a different tune! While it was apparently always okay for SI, Philly, John Evo, jim and others to do that which they decry from Gideon, now SI wants to “get serious” he implies! Whereas before, they’d invite you to
supply your evidence for your beliefs then just mock you endlessly over it, now apparently there’s going to be an actual standard that everyone has to adhere to! I’m nothing less than enthralled, and will do everything in my part to assure equal application of the rules.”
As always, your comparisons between the above named and Gideon are superficial and specious. And the reason so many get fed up with you is because you’re basically dishonest, and engender the kinds of negative reactions you so ostensibly decry, but not-so-secretly foster, and cherish. You are transparent.
Gideon
says...Well, well, SI and Philly’s little butt-lick has been making the rounds, I see! Didn’t take you long, did it, Jimmy? This is how a bitter ex-Christian operates, cl. Dealt with many of ’em, and they’re all the same. I had a feeling he’d be off on a mission, and here he is!
Make sure you check out his blog, too. We don’t want him to have gone to all of the trouble he has for naught! He’s got a full page devoted to me. It had to have taken him a while, but, when you’ve got no other purpose in life but to cause trouble, I guess it’s not a problem.
So, you’re going to ensure that SI’s standards are met, eh, troll? Business as usual, then. That’s always been your mission, hasn’t it? He’s been on mine and anyone’s ass that’s ever bothered to comment there. A bitter, burned-out wreck of a man that couldn’t restrain his unholy passions, and was forced to leave the church.
Well, SI will support anything this waste of skin does, cl, you can bet on it. You should know by now it’s pointless trying to work with that bunch. I’m banned and couldn’t care less. These freaks are all nuts, anyway, and I have better things to do. They can have their little clique, for what it’s worth.
Jimbo is unhinged, you can tell by his maniacal obsession with stalking and razzing people. He’s been laying low, waiting for his chance. He has no other purpose in life but to cause trouble, it’s his idea of compensation for his wasted life. I’ve poked sharp sticks into him at every chance, because I know he’s a write-off, anyway, but, even that gets boring after awhile.
He’s one sick puppy. Handle accordingly.
Gideon
says...Now read the truth.
John Morales
says...Gideon, I’ve read enough of you here and the above-mentioned links.
Bah.
D
says...I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics; it doesn’t matter who wins, you’re still retarded.
You boys and your authoritarian dick-waving. I thought it was funny at first, but really – what’s the point now? I’m just not sure what’s being accomplished here. I mean, I’ve engaged in some pretty intense haranguing, myself, but Gideon’s truthiness just kinda takes the cake.
I mean, think about it, Gideon: do you honestly believe that any couple of chicks, or couple of dudes, wants to get married by an unwilling priest, minister, rabbi, or imam? Faithful gays are decent human beings just like you or me, they hang out with people they like who also like them, and they want people they know and love at these ceremonies to the one. If I ever get married, anyone who thinks what I do, think, or like is wrong can quite frankly keep all the physical and ideological distance they’d like.
We don’t need people going along with our song and dance and telling us that it’s morally righteous or God’s way or what-have-you. We just want to be able to enter the exact same contractual agreements with the ones we love. Love is older than your religion, buddy. People have been pairing off since before we were even human. You can’t stop it, and you don’t need to approve. But I’m downright puzzled as to what good you think this accomplishes, and what evil you think it prevents?
What good things do you accomplish by preventing gays from marrying that could not also be accomplished in a world where gays are allowed the full marriage rights that straights enjoy? And what evil has happened in places where gay marriage is allowed that has not happened in places where it is being prevented? For my part, I think that making life on Earth as good as possible for as many as possible is more important than all the unknowable shit that so many people seem to go on about so fervently. I just don’t get it – what good are you doing? How is the world a better place for your existence when you list a persons’s differences as insults, Gideon? Do you really think your deity will be proud of you for the way you speak of other people who, I should think you would agree, were made with the same degree of care and attention as you yourself?
Or, to put it briefly: even if you’ve won an argument on the internet, so what? What does it mean, what does it matter, if you’ve merely made an enemy and not a friend? If you’ve hardened a heart, rather than softened one, what good has been done? Shouldn’t your faith make you more patient, more kind, more tolerant, more loving? I don’t get it. What’s better about being you that makes being jim such a bad thing? Where does your way of doing things turn out better, and how do you know that?
Gideon
says...You’re absolutely right, D, there is no point arguing with an atheist. You, like all the rest, only see what you want to see.
Jimbo, here, FROM DAY ONE has made it his mission in life to scuttle any civil attempt I’ve made to debate you infidels. I’m not going to waste my time gathering links to prove to you what is always ignored, but, cl and others know I’m telling the truth. Expecting other atheists to understand my position is fruitless, because they’ve all got each other’s backs.
As for my “dick-waving”, Jimbo does that better than most, but, that is always overlooked, too.
And, you’re ignoring (again) the FACT that homosexuals HAVE and DO try and coerce heterosexuals to *gag* ‘marry’ them or otherwise facilitate them. HERE! Now… ignore that! There was also a recent case in B.C., (Canada) where a government official lost his job because two fags insisted that he do their dirty deed for them, against his religious views, even though there were other officials willing to do it!
Oh… and D? I really don’t care what fags do to themselves, each other, or what happens to them after. It’s when they try and force me or anyone else that does not want to pander to their perverse will is when I get hostile. It’s when they leave their cooties all over public property for me to pick up, THAT’S when I get angry! And, when I have to PAY for THEIR hospital and drug therapy, I get a little ticked! I’ve also had a lot of experience dealing with the GLBT Mafia, in my many years blogging. Girl, these are NOT nice people! They are IF you agree with them, but, just try NOT agreeing with them!
So, if they stay the hell away from me and my rights, everything’s just hunky-dory. Fair enough?
Anyway, I’ve probably wasted my time talking to you, but, the reality is what you don’t want to see. I’ll save you some time, just believe everything that Jimbo says, he’s always right… just ask him!
jim
says...D: I’ve had it up to HERE with the expression ‘authoritarian dick waving’. Next time I catch any of you ‘girls’ arguing, I’m calling you on your ‘maternalistic vagina barking’. :)
Gideon:
“‘ll save you some time, just believe everything that Jimbo says, he’s always right… just ask him!”
I’m not sure, but I do believe you’ve gone and proved there’s a god. Good show! (and yes, I am).
jim
says...cl:
And dude, seriously…your O.P? Unadulterated, self-serving horseshit. Like the James Michener version of your justification for sock puppetry over at Daylight Atheism. Man, you are WADING in it! Talk about a pretense of rationalism. Cake thief!
Gideon
says...Hey, I thought we’d seen the last of your ugly face, Jimmy? (Nice of you to provide your photo, too. I can use it as an avatar on some ‘other’ sites I peruse! ;-)
Yeah, you told me you weren’t coming around, anymore. Oh, well… another lie from you is just normal conversation in your book, right?
‘maternalistic vagina barking’. :)
And THAT is your idea of sensible conduct, D? O-kay…
Jim, go and check out my
past comment to you over at the fag’s place… it’s all for you, buddy! I want you to study it very closely. I know it has special significance for you. Your dad would be proud, sport!
Now, brush your teeth, and head back over to SI’s, ’cause Philly’s needing servicing, I’m thinking!
cl… don’t worry. I’m not going to be encouraging the lunatic to rut on your turf. This is my last jerk of his chain, here. Besides, given his history of drug and alcohol abuse, he might try to off himself, again.
I hope he videos it if he does… make a good comedy flick!
jim
says...Gideon:
“Yeah, you told me you weren’t coming around, anymore. Oh, well… another lie from you is just normal conversation in your book, right?”
Of course, I was referring to your own blog, on which I made the original statement. Duh! As for equating my occasional naughty speak with your repugnant and ever-pedantic excesses, I always expect the less than honest or authentic responses from you. Same with cl (though to be fair, much less puerile when taken as a whole). You’ll do anything to win an argument you lost a long time ago. You guys might want to think about changing teams.
Gideon
says...What’s that, Jimmy? Sorry… I was studying up on my German. (German women, that is! LOL!) You know any German, Herr Jimmy?
Anyway, there’s no team, Jimbo, only that mangy, scruffy pack of wolves you run with at Philly & Co. cl does his thing, I do mine. You seem to need an audience for everything you do and say, so do the others. There isn’t one of you that can function apart from the others. In your case, I’d wager it’s childhood trauma, and other things. You probably lost a favorite pet… or a parent. Who knows. Who cares?
Winning arguments is something insecure people dwell on, Jim. I can go around with you, then go out for coffee and tell my buds all about this goof I know on the Internet, and how excitable he is. “You shouldn’t torment dumb animals!” they chide me. We all laugh! Oh, well. Again, who cares?
Well, some of us have to work for a living, so g’nite, Jimmy. Be a good boy. Don’t have any kids or anything!
auf Wiedersehen, Schweinhundt!
>:D
The Tofu
says...“With some of the wittiest invective I’ve ever heard…”
You think fat jokes are witty invective?
jim
says...“cl… don’t worry. I’m not going to be encouraging the lunatic to rut on your turf. This is my last jerk of his chain, here.”
See how easy this is? You actually do what you falsely accuse me of doing. Also, the fact that you’re going through my blogs with a fine toothed comb now, memorizing all my personal information, sockpuppeting on my blog…all this speaks against you’re feigned casualness regarding these interchanges. Looks to me like you’re smitten in a big way.
“Winning arguments is something insecure people dwell on, Jim.”
I agree. And yet you keep trying, and trying, and trying, and…
cl
says...jim,
The key characteristic of trolling is aversion to resolution of arguments. That’s not what motivates me, but I realize you believe so.
I’ve addressed that on your blog.
I realize that’s what you believe, but I would challenge you to provide some evidence for your claims. I’ll also note that to date, you have been completely unable to provide any evidence for your claims of dishonesty. Rather – like many others – you simply form your own conclusions and treat them as truth. Not much I can do about that.
Ah, yes, I secretly love getting my character assassinated by atheists, and I secretly cherish their preference for insult over intelligence! I guess my gig’s up!
Of course; that’s what you say about whatever I do. I can’t win with you. I wish you could stay on topic though: this post was about the fact that things often come full circle, and that those who fist-fight sometimes get so tired they’re willing to talk again. If you disagree with that, I don’t care.
No jim; you often do the same things Gideon often does, just with a little more restraint, and with different cuss words and insults. And, like Gideon, you too can do better. Hit me when you’re ready; I’ve got some interesting posts in the works.
cl
says...Gideon,
I strongly disagree with the spirit of humor you approach suicide with, and I really struggle to see how an indwelt Christian could say those things, including your remarks about gay people. Not that you need to justify yourself to me or anything, and not that I’m judging you, ‘cuz I got my own weaknesses. I just feel the need to (once again) state that I don’t approve of such comments, because as we know, some people only see what they want to see.
Well, it might be pointless trying to change anyone who doesn’t want to change, but still I disagree. Even when people misread and deny my arguments with no reason all the while insulting me, I’m practicing.
He could just as easily say the same about us or anyone else, and yours here is the same sort of strategy they use: oft-repeated assertions of character perception. I love you Gideon, but I’m uninterested in your opinions of these guys, or homosexuals. OTOH, I’m always interested in the apprehension of arguments. I’d rather watch you prove what I believe in my heart – that you can defend yourself with logic and reason – rather than watch you prove what they believe in their hearts – which is that you’re a walking contradiction at best. Time will tell.
I agree that atheists like jim, SI, PhillyChief, ildi, and That Other Guy only see what they want to see, but if that’s what you think about D, you’re dead wrong. I’ve had exactly the type of productive discussions with D that I seek with those aforementioned atheists.
That, however, is true. I’m sure this feeling you’re having is related to the fact that those atheists (almost always) just get each other’s backs as opposed to argue for truth. A doctrine defended by strict adherence to party lines all the way; that’s what atheism has apparently become for some people.
I don’t think that’s a waste of time at all. Rather, it’s called supporting one’s position with evidence, as opposed to more naked assertion. Of course they always have each other’s backs, but that just means you need to come even more correct. Don’t just stoop to their level by attacking character; empty their ammunition.
Don’t forget PhillyChief; he’s always right, too.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with that sentiment, and many times I’ve challenged “the pack” to argue for themselves. To no avail, of course.
Why would I worry? Encourage him all you want; I know how to get rid of him: all you have to do is ask him to form an intelligent and/or cogent argument that justifies his accusations and vitriol, and he’s off like a prom dress.
cl
says...D,
The point for me was to establish an electronic trail demonstrating the fact that certain atheists prefer insult to intelligent resolution of disagreement. That’s been well-established, I think, and now that SI’s resorted to censorship and moderation, the time I’m willing to put in there will be severely limited. We have some good stuff going on over here – some positive and stimulating discussion. I’d rather allocate the energy that was spent at SI’s to focusing on that.
I couldn’t tell if that paragraph had any inference to me. If so, let me know, and I’ll respond.
cl
says...You’re all free to carry on as you wish here. No censorship or moderation will ensue. However, I’m not that interested in this post or thread. I was interested in what I thought was going to happen at SI’s, but what I thought was going to happen is not what happened.
I made my point in the OP: things often come full circle. Inability to resolve reasonable discussion can often entail a fist-fight, and inability to resolve fist-fights can often entail willingness to retry reasonable discussion.
That’s it. Whoever disagrees with that has a hard case to prove, IMO.
D
says...I couldn’t agree more. As for your question above, I think I may have inadvertently proven Gideon’s point; I was just yelling at him, it wasn’t directed at you. Whoops!
For the record, Gideon, I stand corrected. Your link convinced me, there are some real shits on all sides. People are fuck-ups to the one. I’ve got some other thoughts on that article, but they’re mainly of a nitpicking nature and I don’t really care that much at this point. I will say that separation of church and state means that the state shouldn’t tell the church what to do with its property (mumble mumble asterisk mumble mumble can’t break other laws mumble mumble et cetera). I’ve also talked with jim about his maternalistic vagina barking comment. He was cracking wise, and I didn’t get it. Oh, well. Maybe he should have emboldened the emoticon or something.
cl
says...Gideon,
See what I mean about D? Even though we’re theists and she’s atheist, she’s one of us in the sense that she’s not controlled by Team Scarlet A. She’s a freethinker, whereas others tend to cheerlead and conform. It’s probably about the same pattern in any sphere of human expression: maybe 70-80 percent that you could call “the masses” and the remainders are the freethinkers. SI’s is rare in that at his place, it’s a 100% cheerleading and conformity. Though I’m sure it’s actually happened, I’ve not once seen an atheist disagree with another atheist on SI’s site. Amongst the atheists who comment there, it’s all backpatting and herd-mentality.
Sorry D, not tyrin’ to make you blush, just wanted to shine the spotlight on what I think is pretty good expression of the spirit of freethought on your part. You and ‘ole Gideon get along now, ya hear? :) :)
D
says...I don’t know if Gideon and I will ever be friends, but I hope that we can at least be frustrated by each other in peace. He did make me laugh, though, so that was nice.
Man, I didn’t blush when I was reading that, but now I am, trying to type something back. Umm… let’s see… I totally am a cheerleader and a conformist, I just lead different cheers and conform to different things. OK, blushing gone, problem solved!
Thank you for the kind words.
Gideon
says...“I don’t know if Gideon and I will ever be friends, but I hope that we can at least be frustrated by each other in peace. He did make me laugh, though, so that was nice.”
So, I’m not totally without charm, then, am I, D?
;-)
D
says...Oh, of course you’re not totally without charm, Gideon! You’re a mixed bag, just like everyone else. If I may be so bold – and please understand that I mean what I’m about to say in the best of all possible ways – you strike me as a respectable bigot. The “bigot” part really, really frustrates me – but the “respectable” part is all the more jarring for it. Hmm…
Here, let me see what you think of this: suppose that we wrote laws to the effect that any adult could marry any number of other adults so long as they paid the legal fees for having the contracts drafted up and so forth, and making it illegal for a politician to make his or her religion known because we as a nation decide that religion needs to stop affecting politics so much, and everyone in public starts saying that “law” and “morality” are overlapping but non-identical fields of thought. I’m going to stop at three, because now I can’t stop thinking of changes – but what would you think of such a place? I’m curious.
Gideon
says...“…you strike me as a respectable bigot.”
You mean like Archie Bunker?
Seriously, your first question deals with bigamists, whom, I have no issues with. As long as they pay their own way and leave me out of it, I don’t care what they do. The same goes for homosexuals, except that what they do is more offensive in the sight of God. I would hope for their sakes that they would abstain.
I’m not interested in any politician or his religion. I’m of the theocratic mind. I believe in a world run by God, and NOT ministers and priests. Man isn’t intelligent or sophisticated enough, in his current state, to govern himself.
Morality is based upon God’s law, and vice verse. The law is the very character of God. The Decalogue was merely God’s character revealed in written form. It has always been in existence as He, for it is He. I cannot envision any place in this universe that doesn’t or cannot incorporate God’s law. It would cease to exist.
Does that answer your question, D?
D
says...It does answer my question, but I still don’t understand, so I have more questions (you prove more interesting by the day! You’ll have to pardon me, I didn’t think you’d be so thoughtful). If you have time, I’d like to know what you think. Oh, and Archie Bunker is well before my time.
You say that Man lacks the capacity for self-governance. I’d agree, in the sense that there are a great many monstrous people. How does your world run by God work? When people disagree, how should these disputes be resolved?
You said that you can’t envision any way for God’s law to be inapplicable, and I’d like to propose just one such way and see what you think of that. I just imagined an entire ecosystem composed of forms based on one genome alone, which fill every niche and cranny on their planet through pheromone-controlled metamorphosis. Whenever some imbalance comes up, the oldest members of the sentient stage go to metamorphose into whatever is needed. For some, their brains develop into stages where they compulsively sing beautiful songs about whatever scientific principle is asked of them, through pnemonics that are hardwired into their neural architecture (i.e. their brains are programmed by their genes specifically to do this). They’re self-aware and volitional beings, but they get the most pleasure in life from doing whatever is needed of them, and so they invariably do that. There is the occasional accident, but other than that there is no violence of any kind and everyone has everything they need. They can only reproduce in huge orgies, several dozen at a time, because they need the air to get thick enough with this-or-that hormone or it’s impossible for them to get their rocks off. They have no concept of a creator, they simply concentrate on living their lives and having as much fun as they can. They evolved entirely organically, as a matter of pure chance – they just got very, very lucky. However many times the dice would need to be rolled for that to come up, that’s how it happened.
I’m curious what you think God would have to say about such a place. I’m not trying to prove anything here, I just want to know how you’d size it up.
Gideon
says...What you’re describing is the naturalist’s view of creation, which is something I rejected around about Archie Bunker’s
time. D, if you can envision something so fanciful as what you just described to me, you shouldn’t have any trouble envisioning the concept of a deity. Step back and think about the scenario you’ve presented;
Ascribing any amount of time to inert matter somehow imbuing and innervating itself would be like expecting to win the lottery without ever buying a ticket! And, initially, that’s all you have in the pre-singularity paradigm, is pure, unadulterated matter. To say that this ‘stuff’ carried any sort of life-potential with it through it’s genesis, is tantamount to stacking the deck, and, you need a card sharp to stack a deck, it doesn’t stack itself. If an organism or particle carries any life-potential within itself, it necessitates there being a programmer, simple as that!
You can roll dice forever, you’ll never roll a 13. It’s simply beyond the bounds of physical and theoretical reality. And, even if that were possible, and you could produce a life form of even the most elemental structure, it’s entire existence would be immediately subject to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things, essentially, tend toward destruction. That law is something that even atheists cannot deny, though they question the existence of God. Our primordial organism would not survive it’s immediate environment long enough to develop the awareness needed to anticipate future environmental changes necessitating evolution or adaptation.
Now, I’m using a little philosophical reasoning, there, and atheists don’t consider that a science. Nevertheless, just as algebra enables a higher understanding of probabilities over standard mathematics, a philosophical view can surmount the problems with not having an actual evolutionary model to observe.
Emotions are a perk that isn’t needed in the raw survival scenario. There are countless life forms in existence that function very well without having sentience or the ability to brood, cry, laugh or love. Emotions simply aren’t needed for the program as described by Abiogenesis. Even God didn’t imbue every thing He created with emotions, and, to expect that something so complex as an emotional creature could somehow come about through blind chance, having first had to overcome the aforementioned scenario of merely surviving in a post-singularity environment, is something that approaches a level of needing faith far exceeding that which is required by God of His adherents! Yet, atheists say they aren’t religious?
For something like the above to happen, I would at least counsel the aspiring infidel to AT LEAST attach a few TRILLION more years to their genesis theory, billions of years just don’t make the grade!
D, you are telling me how it all happened, according to the explanations that naturalist scientists have reasoned it out. In other words, you are going on faith that they have it right. My faith doesn’t allow for the enormous obstacles standing in the path of their reasoning. While I can’t describe God or His workings to you, in the detail you might require, I would ask that you think about what fallible human beings are asking you to believe, very carefully! Compare that with what you see in everyday life, with your own admission of the imperfection that defines our society and the characters of those leading out in it.
Ask yourself if you’re not as religious as any Christian.
D
says...Well, Gideon, I’m unsure how to proceed from here. I see two main options: we could go about fisking each other’s comments, as cl and I are wont to do; we could take it one step at a time, also. I guess there’s the third option of e-mail, as well.
You wrote quite a bit, and I have a whole lot to say about it. I guess what I’m asking here is whether you have a particular format preference – I’m not going to lie, I want to know what you’ll be most likely to respond to. I want to keep this conversation going. So, if you have a preference, please let me know! If not, then let me know and I’ll give the matter some thought and respond as I see fit some time Thursday evening. Is that agreeable to you?
Gideon
says...This blog is just fine for talk, if that’s okay with our esteemed host, D.
cl
says...Fine with me. As I’ve said before, though organization is always nice, I don’t whine about verbosity, or “thread derailment” or any of the other things that seem to trouble many “freethinking” bloggers. Carry along friends.
D
says...All righty, then. I suppose I’ll just lay out a brief rebuttal to the points I take exception with, and then provide clarification at your request.
Of course I can imagine a deity; however, I can imagine lots of things, and what I’m looking for is a rational way to believe.
You can win the lottery without buying a ticket if somebody gives you one, and you can roll a thirteen on a twenty-sided die. What I was talking about, however, was more like rolling a trillion six-sided dice, and every single one of them coming up 1. Mind-bogglingly unlikely, but possible.
There is no “stuff” of life that imbues living organisms. It’s all base matter. Heroes in labcoats have shown in painstaking detail how elements and electricity spontaneously form amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), how self-replicating molecules can self-assemble from their constituent parts, and how irreducible complexity can arise naturally. Mass-energy is the only thing we can find in the Universe; we’re made of it, and it’s all around us.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t mean what you think it means. Just so you know, I have no degree, but I did theoretical physics research for my University for a year, and even made a discovery (it got ganked for a paper-in-progress, I received no credit for it, so I threw a fit and left the program – I was only 18, I made many mistakes in my youth). That doesn’t mean you need to take my word for it, I’m saying that I can explain what entropy is all about to you in whatever level of detail you’d like.
Your account of non-theistic faith is precisely backwards. At least, the story you told is the opposite of how I came to lose my faith. I saw a whole bunch of evidence, I couldn’t talk myself out of it, and I had to drop my faith because I couldn’t honestly say that the supernatural stuff I believed made any sense at all.
And fine, let’s allow trillions of years: then what? Happy, civil organisms that have no concept of gods or sacrifices or monogamy seem about as far away from God’s laws as can be. I’m saying, “suppose that happened on its own: then what?” You seem to be refusing to suppose that it happened, simply stating that you don’t want to think that way.
As for me being religious, please define what you mean by “as religious as any Christian.” I used to be a Christian, you know, and I implicitly trusted my mother, my fellow believers, and my idea of God. I had faith. Now I walk in doubt. I read science journal articles. I question my own beliefs as much as I can. I bounce ideas off of my friends and ask them to criticize me, and if I can’t defend my viewpoint, I abandon it on the spot.
I also think you don’t understand how peer review works. If you can poke a hole, however tiny, into an established theory, you can make a career out of that. And if anyone can poke a hole in your paper, you’ll be a laughingstock for putting forth a bunch of hooey. In a way, the scientific world is more cut-throat than any economy, because scientists very rarely are able to create wealth with their work; most scientists do what they do for the sake of solving interesting problems, and that makes it very difficult to secure resources for the purpose of what many believe to be nothing more than navel-gazing and making shit up. Actual science is about as far from that as it gets.
I imagine we disagree quite a bit on at least most of the foregoing. So, where would you like to start? Each of these is a large and hairy issue (rationality, probability, evolution, physics, epistemology, ethics, psychology, and peer review, in order), subjects on which volumes have been written. I’m all for running the whole gauntlet, but let’s please take it one step at a time and give each subject its rightful due.
I hope you’re having a great day! Talk to you soon.
Gideon
says...Faith in that which is unseen is not irrational, D. I’m thinking that you exercise faith in the unseen every day. If you drive a car, you have faith in unseen engineers’ ability to design an engine block that won’t obliterate itself under the tremendous stresses that occur within any internal combustion engine. At even nominal power settings, the internal components, i.e. pistons, rods, valves operate beyond the eye’s ability to follow. Those components, though many are now constructed of lightweight alloys like aluminum, have sufficient weight to easily kill you if they happened to break loose from their confinement. If you’ve ever seen a catastrophic failure, as I have, it’s reminiscent of a miniature volcanic eruption! It does happen, though rare.
I once witnessed a motorcyclist revving up his high-performance “crotch rocket” at a competition, when the cylinder wall gave way. The piston blew off his left hand,
when it came flying out at over 12,000 rpm. Just for comparison, your family sedan probably never exceeds 3000 rpm under normal use. Also, how many inches do you think you are from death every time you meet another motorist on the highway? I’ll bet that doesn’t stop you from driving, though! You have faith in the other guy’s ability to keep from running into you. I’m a professional driver, and I was run down by a drunk passing four cars in a line at once, in his pick-up truck, with me on my vintage Kawasaki, hitting me head-on. I flew 200 feet on impact, with the bike landing on top of me, my left leg hanging by shreds of skin, among other problems. Do you imagine that I don’t exercise faith, now, when I travel the highways? I heard the word “miracle” attributed to my survival more times than I ever did in all my Bible-thumping days, uttered by Christians and non-Christians alike.
That doesn’t even touch what I’ve seen in over thirty years driving transports all over North America. There aren’t many atheists in my league, D. However, in sticking with what can be observed, myself and other “miracles” aside, your obvious knowledge of various scientific terms and procedures, I assume, is also backed by some experience witnessing these procedures? I have to admit that I have to take on ‘faith’ what scientists tell me, because, I don’t have a lab or even a lab coat to wear in that lab to perform these experiments, myself. I tend to doubt when other scientists, equally as qualified, disagree with their colleague’s findings, particularly with regard to origins. I could link you to some sites that offer alternate opinions by scientists… of course, they would be Christian scientists, many of them converted simply because they couldn’t find any basis in fact for Evolution, but, if you’re unwilling to let any personal bias throw you, it might be an illuminating experience. One site that you might find interesting, Dr. Robert Gange, is an exceptionally good researcher and speaker, (I’ve heard him in person) and was very influential in my conversion. He was an agnostic, like I was, that couldn’t refute the evidence that God has left in abundance for anyone to see.
About you claims regarding spontaneous generation… even if that were true, and not just modern-day fallacious alchemy being performed, those processes would still have to form from some elemental base. How did that base arrive, and, from where? Then, what instigated the changes to take place? Overall, when and where did matter come from… and why?
What (or Who) prompts nothing to suddenly become something?
cl
says...Nice. Just popping in to say I’m enjoying the conversation between you two, and that’s it’s interesting to see it leading back to Aristotle’s argument for the Unmoved Mover, which is what John and myself are bantering about.
Thank you both for proving my point that when you remove those who only wish to snipe, productive dialog often ensues.
Gideon: how out-of-place would the conversation you’re having with D be at SI’s? LOL!
Gideon
says...SI is a meeting place for ego-stroking and Christian-bashing morons, nothing more. If I feel like a good fight, I know that there will be some kind of inflammatory bullshit posted there to accommodate my pugilistic mood. Otherwise, I see no useful purpose for the place. Besides, it’s obvious that Philly Chief rules the roost, there, and I don’t tolerate fat pseudo-Indian morons very far, or their manic-depressive, nihilistic attack dogs, aka Jimbo Crawford.
Anyway, I think I gave D a bad link on Dr. Gange. I can’t get it to work, so she could try this one if she can’t get it to work.
John Morales
says...You seem to apply the term ‘faith’ to beliefs that are not knowledge; this is imprecise when addressing epistemology, though adequate for ordinary conversation.
(I will use “faith” to represent the colloquial and ambiguous version below)
There is a distinction between belief and faith.
Belief = cognitive content held as true.
Faith = unjustifiable belief.
Specifically:
or
In neither case do I have faith, I have justified belief. If the justified belief is true in fact, then it is also knowledge.
That said, in the second case I most certainly assume people in boxes (cars to you) will do the stupidest things.
So, yeah, I have “faith” (provisional belief, well justified) that the engine will run and not explode.
But no, I don’t have “faith” in the other person’s ability. I have “faith” that I’m careful enough, savvy enough and skilled enough to only rarely need to rely on a car driver doing the right thing.
I’ve never had a car license, been riding road bikes for 32 years. Three weeks ago, a roo decided to hop into my path and got collected at around 130Kph.
Cost me $1400 to fix my fairing, but I came best off (didn’t even drop it).
You got a far worse deal, no doubt. Though I’ve had my share of, um, interesting incidents. :)
Do you imagine that I do exercise faith, now, when I travel?
You may call it faith, but it’s not the same thing as what I call faith; it’s justified belief.
If you use ‘faith’ so loosely, it loses any (ahem) potency. I could say “I have faith I shan’t trip, fall down and crack my skull when I next get up from my chair to get a drink”, but the quality of sentiment it conveys is in no sense analogous to the sentiment “I have faith God is real” expresses.
cl has chided me for saying that, were I to believe, I’d find the belief believable though I could adduce no compelling evidence.
Interesting that it’s a pretty good functional description of faith.
What it boils down to is, you have faith and are proud of it, I have none and am proud of it.
Gideon
says...Morales, I’ve ridden bikes for as long as you have, maybe longer. And, though there are no “roos” around my parts, I assure you we’ve got the size equivalent and then some. Also, I’ve had and seen my share of “interesting” incidents on the road AND elsewhere. It’s the ‘elsewhere’ that I could refer to that would throw some speculation into your rather clinical and machine-like perspectives on life and it’s experiences, however, you sound to me like the kind of person that could argue himself out of free-fall into a canyon with no parachute, so I sense it would be futile.
However, your experience with the “roo” cost you a few dollars out of your pocket, where it cost me substantially more than that. I’ve also seen many accidents where people did not come away from them except in plastic buckets and body bags. I could easily have been one of those. Do I base my Christian belief upon this incident, alone? Of course not! I was merely giving another perspective on what constitutes faith. You can call it whatever you please. You’re not the first atheist I’ve heard use the term “reason” though I would call it “speculation”, as a lot of atheist philosophy is built upon speculation about things they can’t or couldn’t possibly have observed, first-hand.
I, on the other hand, have seen things happen, first-hand, that your ‘science’ wouldn’t explain. It obviously hasn’t happened to you, yet, but, the day will come, my friend, I assure you, when something will happen that your self-assured “reason” won’t have any explanation for.
Proud of my faith? That’s a contradiction. I’m not proud of anything that I never accomplished on my own merit. Jesus Christ accomplished whatever was required for me to have faith, any Bible student could tell you that. Atheists take pride in their non-belief, yes, I know. With no other God or goddess to worship, naturally they turn to self and it’s accomplishments. It even became a national law in 18th Century France, to worship “Reason” as a deity. The church was kicked out, and the nation fell into two years of political corruption and moral ruin such as it had never before seen or encountered. You know, Morales, it’s becoming like that again, here, in North America. With atheists and infidels trouping around calling for the worship of logic and reason over religious morals, we’ll soon have our own version of what happened to France in the 1700’s.
Yes, it’s true that faith represents an abstract form of reason, but, it sometimes takes a higher form of math to deduce a problem. Sometimes, an algebraic equation is what is needed to not only solve a problem, but, to define the problem in the first place.
What it all boils down to, is I have enough factual evidence in what I observe in the natural world to base my convictions upon. I’m not guessing anything. I don’t like guessing, though
it is oftentimes necessary in my work. For instance, just what IS that moron weaving all over the road in front of me for? Is he stoned, drunk, or did he just drop his cellphone while arguing with his wife, teenager, or his stockbroker? At the same time, I’m plotting his most probable trajectory when he inevitably loses control, and my possible escape routes, (one of those, of course, given my superior size and weight, is right THROUGH his dumb ass!) while trying to maintain control over a 70 tonne rig careering down the highway. You think you have control of your bike at the best of times. Buddy, THAT is an illusion! You NEVER have control, not in the total sense of the term. That control can be taken from you at any time.
It’s like that in life, too. The atheist thinks he/she has control. Like I said, the day is coming when you will see just how much control you really have. The ‘reason’ you employ is just as faith-based as mine, only my faith is in the One that cannot err. Yours is based upon the reason of fallible human beings. Not a good bet in the game of life, John.
And, traveling 130 kph on a bike is asking for trouble in any scenario. I was doing a modest 100 when I got “collected”. I guess your superior reasoning power saved your ass. Maybe you could write that formula down for me, so I won’t have to spend another ten months in rehab, learning to walk again. I kept my leg… barely… thanks for asking, but, it sure isn’t what it was.
Maybe that formula of yours would help the general situation of the world right now, too, and we wouldn’t have the problems in society that we do. Oh… I forgot, it’s because of Christians we have those problems!
I gotta get me some of that superior reasoning shit!
;-)
John Morales
says...Please re-read the comment; the word ‘reason’ is not used even once — I talked about the word ‘faith’ and its meaning.
You personally might repudiate that sentiment, fine; but I have certainly met many who explicitly were proud of their faith. It is evidently not a contradiction, by factual counter-example.
If so, then (by the converse) evidently Jesus Christ failed to accomplish whatever was required for me to have faith.
I speak for myself, not for atheists generically.
I note you use the term ‘worship’ in a sloppy fashion; I like myself despite my flaws, yes (don’t you, likewise? :) ) but I hardly “worship” myself.
You seem to think the need to worship is some sort of universal human attribute; I do not have religious proclivities.
Hyperbole and mischaracterisation.
Seriously, a modern War in the Vendée is nigh?
Indeed, which is why I explicitly qualified my justified belief.
Surely you’re not saying I have no control?
No more so than anyone else has control, and only to the degree one can have control, but we certainly don’t think a supernatural thing is controlling everything, like theists do.
You are wilfully confused, since I’ve already addressed belief and faith and yet you persist.
I note again that you introduced the term “reason”.
Not where I live, obviously, at least in my estimation.
Fishing for sympathy?
Perhaps you should try to walk before you run. :)
John Morales
says...My sympathetic nervous system seems to be quite functional, thank you.
You perceive my perspective on life differently to I; I assure you my mind is a ferment of emotion no less than yours.
I am human no less than you.
Gideon
says...Yeah… I figured as much.
You atheists are all the same. You have to agree with them or you’ll get nowhere. There isn’t anything you can say to them that will satisfy them, because, simply, they don’t want to be satisfied or agreeable.
Well, I don’t agree… and, I don’t care, Morales. Your conceit and arrogance bore the hell outta me, I see it so often. As far as I’m concerned, you’re only a milder version of Jimbo Crawford. You think you have it scored, but, there is a lot you don’t know, and, quite frankly, never will know.
Anyway, it’s your life. If you want to travel 130 or 230 kph through the outback or through residential areas, I couldn’t care less. The last guy I saw that tried that was laying on the pavement with his right leg draped over his right shoulder and half his face missing. I wonder how many ft/lbs energy a roo has when it strikes a fairing at that speed?
So, good luck with the riding, and the religion. Whatever you do, don’t analyze anything too close, you don’t want to ruin that dream world you’ve made for yourself.
Vaya Con Darwin!
John Morales
says...A risible opinion; other than lacking belief in deities, atheists span the human spectrum in other attributes.
Your shallow and blustery defensiveness as a consequence of your impotence at argument doesn’t surprise me, I see it so often.
Thus you respond?
What you apparently don’t care about is intellectual honesty.
No need to wonder.
Kinetic energy E = ½mv²
Foot-pound is a unit of torque, not of energy, by the way.
John Morales
says...You think I’m the one arrogating, or indulging in conceit?
Projection.
cl
says...I’ll take these:
No you didn’t; you simply redefined them in terms favorable to your own position:
Belief = cognitive content held as true.
Faith = unjustifiable belief.
As do theists.
You can agree or disagree with him, but in my opinion, Gideon is not impotent at arguing. He just doesn’t have patience for certain types of arguers.
Man, is this like the stock claim for atheists or what? Any time there’s a disagreement, we get “Oh, X must not be intellectually honest,” where X = whoever embraces a different conclusion than the atheist in question.
I really cannot get my head around it. Can’t we get past the level where we call other people “dishonest” because they think differently?
Gideon
says...cl, this goof imagines himself some kind of intellectual, thinking that smart retorts like quoting mathematical formulas calculating energy in answer to a rhetorical question is actually revealing some form of rudimentary intelligence on his part. Fact is, it only reveals the dull wit behind the twit.
And, “by the way”, moron, Ft/lbs ENERGY applies to ballistics! What, do you go around saying that a 7.62 mm Nato cartridge produces 2800 Ft/lbs TORQUE when it hits it’s target, idiot? But, then, I guess you do your roo hunting with bikes, don’t you, not with firearms?
His type like to twist words and focus on irrelevancies in diction just to try and get a rise out of their opponents. They do this, because, they have no other recourse due to their lack of knowledge and evidence to back their arguments. This punk is like the others over at SI. They have no investment in truth, so they can act like asses and think there will be no repercussions.
Infidels come in all flavors, but this guy doesn’t even use (have) any imagination! His childish sentence-by-sentence critique, used in a pathetic attempt at looking scholarly, then twisting their meaning to suit his agenda of mockery, is OLD HAT standard procedure over at SI. Even that fat dummy Philly Chief uses that tired old trick. Funny how infidels ‘think’ alike, isn’t it?
No, Moron-ales, I don’t care. You mean nothing to me. You argue for the purpose of arguing, that’s all. You think you’re the all-wise one, and we’re here to learn from the master.
It sometimes bothers me, cl, that I might actually enjoy seeing those smug toothy grins of theirs wiped off their arrogant faces when the Lord returns. I’m afraid I just might get some twisted satisfaction in seeing these morons shit their drawers when Christ says to them: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Weeping and gnashing of teeth, I think, won’t come close to describing how these infidels will react when they see they’ve blown the biggest chance in their entire useless lives! Oh well… I guess “reason” was better than truth and faith. Anyway, I guess they’ll have what they always wanted. Death.
Some choice!
Gideon
says...LMAO!
The Commanding General of The Moron Brigade, does it again!
Watching Ben Stein reduce him to a quivering mass was a hoot, but, this is the icing on the cake!
I love watching the arrogant fall. Take note, Moron-ales!
John Morales
says...Your rhetorical posture is ridiculous.
You’re a true Christian.
John Morales
says...I stand corrected, foot-pound is indeed used as a unit of energy, and I was unfamiliar with it.
John Morales
says...Your endorsement is noted but not seconded.
Gideon’s intellectual dishonesty is apparent, but if you wish to call it “thinking differently” be my guest.
John Morales
says...Yes I did.
Gideon wrote “Faith in that which is unseen is not irrational, D. I’m thinking that you exercise faith in the unseen every day. If you drive a car, you have faith in unseen engineers’ ability […]”, implying that religious faith is similar to everyday rational beliefs.
I noted otherwise.
Gideon
says...Moron-ales, YOUR “intellectual honesty” is only a key-tap away from Google or Wikipedia, so don’t be laying the “I’m the only intelligent guy around here” bullshit on us, okay? Guys like you provide rounds of amusement for those that really do have a handle on reality, so, why make it easy for us?
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think the potential for intelligence is there, but, that monstrous ego of yours keeps it from developing.
Also, if you want to play the quoting thingie…
“There is a distinction between belief and faith.
Belief = cognitive content held as true.
Faith = unjustifiable belief.”
(Your words to me that initiated all of this.) Your god, Richard Dawkins, in that video link I provided in my last comment, essentially disagrees with your statement. Now, don’t go and have a cow or commit hara kiri, I’m sure with just the right amount of grovelling and penance, you could be reinstated in the evolution cult. That’s where you belong, son, Christianity is definitely not your speed. You’d only be frustrated having all those Christian morons asking you dumb questions, like, how do you get something from nothing, (the Abiogenesis theory) and, why don’t we see evolution happening NOW, and, where is this “missing link” that stays missing, etc, etc, etc?
Now, Dawkins says it’s okay to believe in the existence of an event or person that you never actually witnessed or saw for yourself. It’s also okay to think that alien or other outside intelligences may have had something to do with our origin. BUT… it wasn’t Yahweh! It would HAVE to have been anyone or anything else than Yahweh! It’s important that all aspiring and full-patch infidels remember that fundamental belief for membership in his exclusive club!
Get with the program, Moron-ales, you’re falling behind! The master race doesn’t suffer tardy infidels for very long, you know!
Heil Dawkins!
cl
says...@ Gideon,
I hunt roos with psychokinetic powers that nobody can understand or see but me! Falsify that! And, I don’t say that “fisking” (sentence-by-sentence) critique is always necessarily a pretense to intellectualism. For the record, I think John’s probably a cool guy. I think that’s probably the case with most of these folks we banter with online; if we had gotten to know them under secular circumstances, we’d probably all be chums. But when our only exposure to people is online argumentation about the world’s most heated topics, well.. it’s easy get stuck in that box. I agree with you that most of the time, John just picks at words, and I’m also put off by the ten-dollar words and mere dismissals, but hey – that’s blogging.
It sometimes bothers me that you feel that way. I get that everybody’s responsible for their own choices, but I’m more worried about God saying that to me, and not that such is any expression of doubt. The feeling I get if I envision what you’ve envisioned is, “That’s what I was trying to say.” My goal now is to say that better, to make my position as clear, attractive and reasonable as possible – and that stands regardless of the relative ability or inability of any commenters.
@ John,
Congratulations. You’ve got Gideon on a roll! Personally, to avoid redundancy, I think you guys should switch things up with an abrupt change to “More Tales of Horror and Depravity from the World’s Highways” as the subject matter of your discussion, but that’s just me. ;)
When I said you “redefined [faith and belief] in terms favorable to your own position” I was correct. You used a neutral definition of belief that is more or less in accord with the average dictionary, then used a disparaging definition of faith that is really not in accord with the average dictionary. By average dictionary I refer to the top three records returned upon a Google search for faith.
Confirming what I knew intuitively, faith is not “unjustifiable belief” either in everyday usage or religious usage; rather, much like the faith we have in a spouse, both in Scripture and in practice religious faith is argued to be quite justifiable. Of course, this doesn’t mean there aren’t believers unconcerned with justifying their faith, and you are free to agree or disagree on whether faith is in fact justifiable – and I get that you disagree – but if you’re gonna argue for purity of language then be pure with language. Faith is not “unjustifiable belief;” such is an atheist’s biased pronouncement of faith. Thus, my claim that you “redefined [faith and belief] in terms favorable to your own position” stands.
And when Gideon says,
That’s something you should give more thought to, methinks. For example, here (first comment), and in that other thread. In the former, your only remark was correct my use of the word incredulous. In the latter, we went over 100 comments only to come down to you saying you think I use ‘potency’ in an incorrect context. You don’t explain the import of that claim to the overall argument, you don’t address the main premises or supporting statements, you just re-assert your own personal dissatisfaction with the argument, and that’s where it sits. I asked you to explain the import of your grievances, i.e. why you think they mitigate my conclusion, and so far, nothing. Instead, you correct my use of incredulous in a different post. Not that I don’t mind attention to language, and actually your attention to language is a good thing; but good things improperly applied don’t advance anything.
Now, unlike Gideon, I won’t claim to know why you do this, but that you do it is really beyond dispute.
Gideon
says...Yo, cl, don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that “fisking” is a bad thing. I, myself, tend to memorize a person’s comments, then answer them, point-by-point, which, I suppose, is a more abstract approach to the same end. I suspected you’d bring this up, and, I was going to reword my comment, but, I was tired and wanting to put this idiot behind me for the day, so I left it.
What irks me is his motive for using it. He obviously likes to nit-pick. That’s fine with me, as long as I know the game rules before I start into the play. Like with D… she wants to debate, I’ll debate. Moron-ales wants to compare dick sizes, I’ll do that, too. I’m very accommodating, that way. Whatever a person or a troll wants, they’ll usually get it.
I know the game rules, now, so if he still wants to play, I’ll play his game. If not, I’m willing to adapt. It’s possible for me to accept someone’s disagreement with my views, especially if it’s not delivered on the point of a sword. A word of advice for John… don’t bring a sword to a gunfight. I’ll keep mine holstered if he keeps his sheathed.
Beyond that, I have no control over events.
John Morales
says...I’m not surprised you fail to see the distinction between honesty and intelligence or between intellectual and intellect any more than you do so between justified belief and religious faith.
It’s not a game, it’s a technique allowing me to respond to salient points explicitly. The granularity of my quotes depends largely on my interlocutor’s comment, so if someone posts a paragraph containing four assertions and two purported inferences, I will address each one.
Belief. Faith.
What I addressed the different types of belief, but the context is epistemological — the quality of different categories of belief and their basis is highly relevant.
Sigh. Prof. Dawkins is not a deity, but a famous biologist who is also well-known as an atheist, and atheists are godless.
I was an atheist for decades before I’d even heard of him.
Nothing is sacred. There are no holy atheist texts.
Nonetheless, he has written: Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. (Is Science a Religion?).
I note your continued attempts to tar atheists with a religious brush.
Again, the insinuation that science is religious in nature and that I supposedly require something to worship.
Given what I’ve previously written on the topic, this is sophistry (a.k.a. intellectually dishonest).
As for religion, I was brought up Catholic in Spain in the 1960’s. It was “my speed” until I left behind such childish things, at around the time of my puberty.
Oh dear. You might wish to peruse talk.origins, every canard you raise is addressed.
Why do you conflate evolutionary biology and atheism?¹
John Morales
says...Oops, blockquote failure. Luckily, it’s quite clear where the missing close tag goes… :)
John Morales
says...It’s not a pissing contest, even if you see it as one.
If you see it as a game, the rules always were cl’s comment policy (as shown on the right-hand bar); it is not my place to choose such and I make it a rule to abide by comment policy wherever I comment.
You could actually consider what I wrote, rather than how you perceive it was written.
I much prefer to discuss ideas, but you might have noticed I address slurs too.
John Morales
says...Either you made an bloop (much as I did earlier with the blockquote failure) or you were unaware that it was erroneous; I’d’ve thought you’d appreciate it being pointed out to you.
I had nothing else to say regarding the post, hence I said nothing else.
Because in comment #4 I directly and explicitly addressed the post topic, and you dismissed it.
After discussion, you accepted it but said it was useless.
Then the thread digressed until you ended up challenging me to address your own Aritotelean first-mover argument.
I did try to walk away from the digression, you might note if you re-read the thread.
It’s not — for I dispute it.
I neither do it nor do I (re-reading) do I see that I have; if anyone has, it’s Gideon.
cl
says...@ Gideon,
I agree. I’ve seen it happen. I often feel like I’m conversing with Niles Crane. No matter what we say, he’s got a word that “outwits” us, but it rarely ever has to do with the meat of the OP, and I don’t see why we can’t just drop the pretense and discuss ideas. Do they have the TV show Frasier where you live?
@ John,
Will every whiner online please stop with the “so-and-so” or “such-and-such” is “intellectually dishonest.” Such claims cannot be sustained by pure assertion and they’re really annoying. It doesn’t do anything to just claim that the other guy must be “intellectually dishonest.”
Of course, because the other option – that you might be wrong – is simply not an option. You did redefine faith and belief in a way that favors your own position. Faith can be unjustified, as can belief, but faith is not equivalent to unjustified belief and you only reveal the perceived superiority of your own worldview when you argue otherwise.
I don’t know how else to say this John, but you also make slurs under the pretense of discussing ideas, and I fully expect you to say something like, “I do no such thing…”
That you apparently couldn’t find anything more substantive to offer besides a pedantic objection is exactly the point. Comment however you wish, but at this stage in the game, I need somebody to bounce ideas off of, not a manuscript editor.
That’s not why the thread grew over 100 comments; what you allude to here took place over the course of 20 comments.
Exactly: you enabled the digression when you decided to go head-to-head with Ned and you consistently ignored my hints to move the discussion to the thread on Aristotle’s argument until about the fifth time I asked you. That’s not “trying to walk away from the digression.” I’m not saying digression is bad; I’m saying starting a big ol’ digression that comes to nothing is a waste of everybody’s time, and without the proper support, that’s what your challenge of my version of Aristotle’s argument amounts to. After 100 comments, you still offer no sound rebuttal. The “meat” of your response to my version of Aristotle’s argument is that you think I use ‘potency’ incorrectly. IOW, nit-picking. I asked you to show the import of this nit-picking to the argument, or to demonstrate how it in any way mitigates my conclusion, and you’ve not addressed that.
John, “it” in those sentences refers to pedantry which does not advance the topics delineated in the OP. That you do “that” is beyond dispute, even by your own admission: “I had nothing else to say regarding the post, hence I said nothing else.” IOW, “I had nothing else to say,” except for nit-picking over words which relates zero to any substantive arguments in the OP.
Surely you’re not going to argue that I’m just making that up, right?
Gideon
says...“I often feel I’m conversing with Niles Crane.”
I’m thinking the pet shop owner in Monty Python’s Dead Parrot sketch.
Okay… Moron-ales;
“I’m not surprised you fail to see the distinction between honesty and intelligence or between intellectual and intellect any more than you do so between justified belief and religious faith.”
You haven’t justified anything, except you’re delusional.
“It’s not a game, it’s a technique allowing me to respond to salient points explicitly. The granularity of my quotes depends largely on my interlocutor’s comment, so if someone posts a paragraph containing four assertions and two purported inferences, I will address each one.”
Couldn’t you have just said that you respond the way you do in a way that most effectively communicates your intent? Who are you trying to impress, Moron-ales? Flowery language doesn’t indicate intelligence so much as personal vanity. In your case, though, I’d say it reflects more of a clinical, impotent demeanor. I’ll bet you’re a riot at funerals!
“Sigh. Prof. Dawkins is not a deity, but a famous biologist who is also well-known as an atheist, and atheists are godless.
I was an atheist for decades before I’d even heard of him.
Nothing is sacred. There are no holy atheist texts.”
I know he’s not a deity, the question is, do you? I think he’s a pompous moron. As for sacredness, you ought to see the veneration Dawkins gets at some of those infidel blogs! Some Christians could learn from that kind of devotion! Also, “The God Delusion” approaches the status with infidels that the Bible enjoys with Christians. I’d rethink that last statement if I were you.
“Nonetheless, he has written: Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.”
Well, he ought to know! His cult is as faith-based as any other I’m aware of!
“Again, the insinuation that science is religious in nature and that I supposedly require something to worship.”
No, actually, I’ve reconsidered that. You have yourself, what more would you want?
“As for religion, I was brought up Catholic in Spain in the 1960’s. It was “my speed” until I left behind such childish things, at around the time of my puberty.”
I was a self-worshiping agnostic growing up in the sixties, until I left such vanity not long after puberty. In your case, though, you might know that the male human mind isn’t fully mature until his mid to late twenties. Ever think you might have been too hasty? Although, I can see why you might have been turned off religion being Catholic, a tradition-based faith.
“Oh dear. You might wish to peruse talk.origins, every canard you raise is addressed.”
I’m sure they are. Like some links to some sites that agree with my statements? Oh yeah, that’s right… I’ve provided some, here, already. You never looked at them. Sauce for the goose.
“Why do you conflate evolutionary biology and atheism?¹”
They’re one and the same, why wouldn’t I? Also, where did you snatch that quip from? (Note the little “?¹” on the end of atheism.) Looks suspiciously like a copy and paste job to me!
I won’t bother with the last comments, they’re just rehashing old questions that have been answered many times over. Also, too many big words for my tiny Christian brain to fathom. Maybe if you swore a little…
Later, infidels and cl!
John Morales
says...Gideon,
Your purported Christianity is a symptom, not a cause; your lexical shortcomings are personal, not faith-based.
—
cl,
It may be annoying, but the truth often is, and I don’t find either you or Gideon to exactly hold back from opining about my posts or motives.
But then, you’ve already admitted your hypocrisy to me in the past.
I forgive you.
John Morales
says...Has it occurred to you that this may, in fact, be how I normally express myself in written media?
Most people get over it pretty quickly, you however evince a misperception that I’m somehow putting on an act for you.
I admit that, as my interlocutor’s posts get more personal and confrontational, I tend to adopt a more formal demeanor.
I’ve in the past been more formal with cl than I am here with you.
I see the issue at hand is your continual innuendo intended to imply that atheism is some sort of religion, that justified beliefs are the same as religious
faith, and that somehow I am in denial about being religious.
I have just now repeated what I’ve earlier said. Take notice, because if your next post makes includes similar claims, I shall again note it.
You could exhibit some intellectual honesty and address what I actually wrote, without assuming I’m flat-out lying or deluded. Or not, your choice.
John Morales
says...[meta]
If I can try to re-rail the thread, #38 Gideon responded to D whereupon I took exception to the contentions therein and thus began this digression.
If you’re still reading, D, perhaps you can resume that conversation and I can shut up.
I’m more than happy to leave this here, so I shan’t post more unless directly addressed.
Over and… out? :)
cl
says...Your accusations about Gideon are your own assertions, John, just as his accusations about you are his own assertions. Unless you have the ability to read minds, neither of you know who’s being intellectually dishonest or not, so why not spare the accusations?
Opining about posts or questioning motives is one type of thing; I don’t accuse others of intellectual dishonesty because I have no idea why people say what they say and making unfounded accusations is for the birds.
Right, with the implication being, “cl’s been way more personal and confrontational than Gideon here,” and that would be incorrect. John, even at our worst at DD’s, I never resorted to accusation or name-calling, but hey, thanks for throwing me under the bus. I guess I should just be glad for this rare glimpse into your real opinion of me?
He addressed what you wrote John, as did I: you redefined faith in a way that implies the intellectual superiority of those who imagine they reject it. That we disagree with you doesn’t mean we’ve not addressed what you said, or that we’re intellectually dishonest.
If you’re so concerned about addressing the things that are written here, why don’t you address my response to you re potency?
If not, knock yourselves out with your ego / accusational contest.
Gideon
says...“Has it occurred to you that this may, in fact, be how I normally express myself in written media?”
Not for a second. What I’ve noticed, though, is your tendency to get flowery when you’re being pressed. That tells me you’re intimidated into trying to intimidate me with your idea of superior elocution, hoping I’ll be impressed and drag my hairy knuckles off to sulk somewhere.
And, I’m not “implying” anything when I state emphatically that atheism is a religon, no less a cult. Be sure on this, Morales, I’m calling you on your definitions. Any atheist I’ve talked with has always accepted evolution as the probable means of origins, so they are not neutral like they are. I don’t believe there is such an animal as an atheist, which is why I use the term “infidel”.
The requirements for a faith-based belief system are all there. You have your beliefs, your prophets, and, you worship on the basis of not having all of the observable evidence before you. The latter requires faith not only in the existence of that evidence, but, also, in the testimony of your prophets that say it’s so.
If you mean by intellectual honesty that I’m trying to give you the impression that I know it all, then you’re wrong, again. I am honest with you, however, in my opinion of those that like to put on airs. I can smell one of those a mile off. Nevertheless, it adds spice to life having to deal with the arrogant and egocentric. Truthfully, I sometimes get a kick out of being labeled that, myself! I especially love it when trolls run around in circles, psychoanalyzing me!
I have nothing personal against you, Morales. Just picture me as the big hairy bug in your Nivea Cream! The dose of reality in your dreamworld of Darwinism and other spurious pursuits of truth.
Gideon
says...*Sigh*
This is what happens when I compute before I’ve had my morning java!
That SHOULD have read:
” Any atheist I’ve talked with has always accepted evolution as the probable means of origins, so they are not neutral like they SAY THEY are.”
And…
” You have your DOCTRINE, your prophets, and, you worship on the basis of not having all of the observable evidence before you.”
Getting sloppy in my old age!
;-)
D
says...Not always, true – but sometimes. If I have faith that dogs have eight legs and breathe fire, I would call that pretty damned irrational. Or just a very private definition for the word “dog.”
Gideon, my first experiences with engine-powered vehicles happened before I was able to form coherent memories. When I was that young, my whole world revolved around trusting those weirdos who told me how everything worked and called themselves “mom” and “dad.” But gradually, as I came to understand them, I realized that even though they lived their own messed-up lives and made mistakes, they still loved me. As for engines, well, when something works upwards of 99.5% of the time, you don’t really need faith to tell you that it won’t explode when you have statistics on your side. Or a father who worked for Yamaha and explained combustion engines to you when you were six.
But then, I guess that depends on what we mean by “faith,” then, doesn’t it? Faith, like love, or happiness, or even God, means a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people. Faith sometimes means the hope for things unseen; sometimes, faith simply means implicit trust; and sometimes, faith means a belief held without or despite reason and/or evidence. Interestingly, “belief held without or despite reason and/or evidence” is one accepted definition of “delusion,” but the DSM specifically excludes religious beliefs from the category of “delusions.” I wonder why that is?
Anyway, it’s only that third definition of faith that I have a problem with, and even then only when it gets in the way of other people’s lives or playing the civilization game. I don’t have a problem with hope or trust, and I do have those things in my own little way. But I temper my optimism with realism, more or less following the maxim, “Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the boring.” I also trust my parents, my siblings, my roommates, and my friends. In these ways, I have faith. But when it comes to holding beliefs without or despite good reasons, I deliberately eschew this sort of faith. I am an advocate for freedom of conscience, so I think people should be allowed to think what they want, but I don’t want to think “whatever I want,” I want to think “what is reasonable.”
This means that, as cl has concluded, I am just plain incapable of believing in a generic magical sky-daddy, the namby-pamby higher power that lots of people believe in. I need a specific god to start believing again, one that has this-and-that traits and thus-and-so properties, and this god needs to be testable – which means that I need to be able to repeatedly verify that it exists and what its intentions are. Otherwise, I’m not believing in anything except my own idea of whatever, which I don’t trust.
So that’s my standard for belief. I need a foil, so to speak, that I can test my own mind against until I can satisfy my curiosity and doubts. I can’t just have well-thought-out coherence, I need demonstrable correspondence. What about you? What theory of truth fuels your supernatural commitments? What would have to happen for you to drop your faith? What kinds of experiences would you need to have to make belief in God strike you as irrational?
(As for Gange, I skimmed some of that stuff, and it’s great coherence! But I see no demonstrated correspondence, so if you’d care to point me at a particular chapter where he lays out an experiment that he performed and I can repeat to falsify, oh, his whole thing, then I’d love to go look at it. If not, then all he’s got is a nice story. Entities cannot be argued or defined into existence, The End – we need to actually find particular ones to believe in them reasonably, which is the same reason it’s irrational for physicists to believe in gravitons at this point.)
Gideon
says...“This means that, as cl has concluded, I am just plain incapable of believing in a generic magical sky-daddy, the namby-pamby higher power that lots of people believe in. I need a specific god to start believing
again, one that has this-and-that traits and thus-and-so properties, and this god needs to be testable – which means that I need to be able to repeatedly verify that it exists and what its intentions are. Otherwise, I’m not believing in anything except my own idea of whatever, which I don’t trust.”
Ahhh… the rebelliousness of youth. Were you one of those kids that pretty well got whatever she wanted, when she wanted it? Going by the age you gave for yourself, I’d say there’s a good chance of that being the case. The eighties and nineties were the time for that. The Outcome Based Educational (OBE) system implemented then and employed today, teaches students that they are all special, and there are nor can be any losers or failures, which is why students are not kept back when they fail to reach certain academic standards. Of course, the drawback to this is when they ‘graduate’ and find themselves out in a world that basically and very effectively teaches the opposite of OBE philosophy.
I’m digressing a little, but, my point is that the Word of God never implies that we are deserving of anything, nor are we owed any “proof” of anything other than that which God has revealed according to His benevolent grace and infinite wisdom. Now, I realize that is going to grate on those that are used to having things their way, however, there are other examples in nature that I could use that illustrate how little our imagined needs and expectations actually mean in the grand scheme of things.
Even in biblical times, there were those Missourians that had to be shown. The Lord, Himself, remarked that it was only an evil and adulterous people that looked for signs, and they would be accommodated but only sparingly. Do you have kids, D? Even if you don’t, do you think they should have everything they want just when they want it? Do you imagine it would be any different with a “sky-daddy” and His earthly brood, the latter always demanding this, demanding that? If you were “Sky-Daddy”, would you give the little jerks all they wanted, when they wanted it? I’m not being sarcastic, here, that is a serious question to you.
I say jerks, because, we’re all self-oriented, self-centered people that treat each other badly and sometimes not so bad, especially if it will get us something we want. We war among ourselves and hate each other for the differences in our beliefs, cultures, color, etc, and yet we demand that Sky-Daddy snap to when we deem it convenient to give Him a couple of minutes of our time? Girl, (and this is no put-down) you haven’t lived long enough to understand the import of what you’ve commented to me. I know, because, I was once where you are.
It’s never been about US. True, the gospel is FOR us, for our help and salvation, BUT, it isn’t ABOUT us! Life on Earth, today, under man’s government is, indeed, about what we can do for ourselves. The, along comes God and upsets everything by explaining to us that there isn’t anything that we can do for ourselves, and, that even believing in Him is something that His Spirit must do for us, through us. We are, in out fallen nature, alienated from God in every sense. So, I’m not telling you that you are in any way something aberrant in this world, in fact, you fit very naturally into it. But, for the world TO COME, we must be changed or reconfigured to be able to exist there.
The Bible is a book of prophecy, that is, there is much that is yet to happen. Be patient, D, you are going to get those answers you seek… and then some! My fear for you is that you will not be prepared for the shock having not done the preliminary work of trusting in a Spirit-led life. I’m not saying it’s impossible for you to experience last-minute salvation like the thief on the cross, but, there will be a time when grace will not be available. The Second Advent will be too late for those that have not already sealed their faith. This is the knowledge that believers carry with them into forums like these, dealing with mockers and scoffers that, as Christ so aptly put while dying on the cross, “realize not what they do.”
So, if you were to just for a moment see how I see your situation, you’d realize that time isn’t a luxury you have. You don’t know how long you have to live, and, should you die tomorrow, you won’t have any further opportunity for grace to work in your behalf. You’ll stand before judgment on your own merit, without Christ’s intercession, and be lost for eternity as a result.
I never made the rules. I came into this world not of my own choosing or will. The rules were already established when I appeared on the scene. I’m merely telling you what was told to me and those before me. It makes sense that there be rules, even the infidel concedes that rules of nature govern how we live. It also makes sense that God abides by His own rules, and, that only He can override them.
If you think yourself hard done by for not having all of the answers you want, whenever you want them, stop and think how you might feel if you knew in advance how you or someone else were going to die and when. Maybe it wouldn’t be an ‘easy’ death, either. How would that knowledge effect your life in the meantime? If you had faith, how would it effect that faith?
The way I look at it, if God has the power to create all that we know and don’t know, (and, there’s a lot of that!) then He must have wisdom that far exceeds anything that we could ever possess. If He decides to withhold something from us, then, by that reasoning, I figure it’s in my best interest not to know. Faith is a virtue, and God does expect us to exercise faith even when He is fully able to comply with our demands. Not because He can’t do what we want Him to do, but because He’s raising kids, and, you don’t raise kids by giving them everything they demand. The world will only laugh at you, and kick your sorry ass if you expect it to cater to your every whim! So, why do you demand of God what you wouldn’t dare ask of the world?
Well, I’ve never given anyone the idea that I can prove ONE HUNDRED PERCENT what I say is true. If someone says I have, they’re lying their asses off. Even Christ couldn’t convince everyone, so why should I think I can? Robert Gange is a much more formidable arguer than I. Hearing him in person is better than text, but, it’s been years since I’ve seen him. There are others like him. D, there is nothing you can’t do if you really want to do it. There is also nothing that can be withheld from you if you really want to learn. Use your imagination. You know how to type and use a search engine, use them! You’ll never have a better opportunity than now. I spent my pre-Internet years haunting libraries and waiting for weeks on end to get books they didn’t have. You have no excuse. Everything you need is right at your fingertips.
It’s what you’ll have to do if you want to really get to the bottom of things. If you’re satisfied where you are, we’re done here, at least as far as any religious discussion is concerned. There is nothing you can show me that will change my mind that God exists. Every time I engage one of you infidels, I only become more convinced I’m right. I sense that with many of you, as well. I mainly like to expose faulty logic when I engage some commenters, but, I’m never certain I’ll change their mind. In fact, I’m often sure that I won’t change their mind.
John Morales
says...I figured.
Not any more, no.
You’re both stupid and dishonest, to write that without an indication of sarcasm or satire. I’ve stated full well that I have no religion, no religious faith, and no belief in dualism.
I’ve already noted you project.
I here quote some samples from you to or about me. There are plenty more.
— begin —
I gotta get me some of that superior reasoning shit!
Your conceit and arrogance bore the hell outta me, I see it so often. As far as I’m concerned, you’re only a milder version of Jimbo Crawford. You think you have it scored, but, there is a lot you don’t know, and, quite frankly, never will know.
So, good luck with the riding, and the religion. Whatever you do, don’t analyze anything too close, you don’t want to ruin that dream world you’ve made for yourself.
cl, this goof imagines himself some kind of intellectual, thinking that smart retorts like quoting mathematical formulas calculating energy in answer to a rhetorical question is actually revealing some form of rudimentary intelligence on his part. Fact is, it only reveals the dull wit behind the twit.
And, “by the way”, moron, Ft/lbs ENERGY applies to ballistics! What, do you go around saying that a 7.62 mm Nato cartridge produces 2800 Ft/lbs TORQUE when it hits it’s target, idiot? But, then, I guess you do your roo hunting with bikes, don’t you, not with firearms?
His type like to twist words and focus on irrelevancies in diction just to try and get a rise out of their opponents. They do this, because, they have no other recourse due to their lack
of knowledge and evidence to back their arguments. This punk is like the others over at SI. They have no investment in truth, so they can act like asses and think there will be no repercussions.
Infidels come in all flavors, but this guy doesn’t even use (have) any imagination! His childish sentence-by-sentence critique, used in a pathetic attempt at looking scholarly, then twisting their meaning to suit his agenda of mockery, is OLD HAT standard procedure over at SI.
No, Moron-ales, I don’t care. You mean nothing to me. You argue for the purpose of arguing, that’s all. You think you’re the all-wise one, and we’re here to learn from the master.
Also, where did you snatch that quip from? (Note the little “?¹” on the end of atheism.) Looks suspiciously like a copy and paste job to me!
— end —
I know what you are.
You are, of course, no more and no less a dose of reality than any other event; reality is all there is.
You don’t find it arrogant that you utterly ignore what I’ve stated of my beliefs, and instead forcefully assert otherwise. The ostensible implication is that I am being dishonest of my expression of belief.
—
[meta]
I’ve already referred to the innuendo; apparently cl doesn’t consider such to be a de facto allegation of dishonesty. I, on the other hand, do.
—
¹ Clearly, Gideon is unaware of the use of HTML entities. No, Gideon, I scrupulously indicate when I’m quoting.
Gideon
says...Moron-ales, I’ve never been anything else than honest with you about how phony I know you are. Why would I lie? Do you imagine that I get paid to converse with idiots like you? And, your pathetic attempt to gain sympathy from cl or anyone else here, I find laughable! cl, in particular, has already stated his opinion about me, and D can think what she likes. I don’t pander to anyone or anyone’s idea of how I should handle people like you. I don’t have to even be here, nor do you, for that matter, so quit your whining, son!
Why don’t you go for a walk and clear your head?
Don’t get hit by any motorboats!
LOL!
Gideon
says...Oh, and Moron-ales? Knowing your fascination with nit-picking and compiling and analyzing other’s comments to death, you might like to tell me the message I’ve concealed, just for you, within the body of my last comment.
Maybe you still have your decoder ring you got as a prize in Cracker Jack when you were a little guy? It might help you with this one.
Happy hunting!
;-)
D
says...Gideon,
Your guesses about my upbringing, while not entirely unreasonable, register a “laughable” on the accuracy scale (it goes from zero to uproarious). Let me see if I can tell you a little bit about myself, without entirely derailing the conversation.
I was born in California to loving parents in a nice neighborhood. We attended a Tenrikyo temple near a coastal overlook. I went to a Montessori preschool where I was told that I couldn’t color flowers “blank” and then go play with toys, I had to pick a color and color it nicely with everybody else. So my parents sent me to a different kindergarten where I was told a bunch of weird ideas about Jesus and crackers and wine. Things actually started out more or less how you supposed, but then we moved to Illinois and my life turned upside-down. There were signs, my codependent father just shut them out because he didn’t want to see them, and she was happy. He came home one day to have me shoved into his arms for a diaper change, and then I spoke my first words: “fuck” and “bullshit.” His own brothers pointed out that I’d cry for him, but not for my mother.
My mother is bipolar and pathologically unable to admit wrongdoing. This means that she can’t submit herself to psychological therapy (because that would entail admitting she’s got fixing to do), and she lives as a leech these days, hopping from religious community to religious community, changing her beliefs to match her surroundings, selling them on her sob story about an abusive husband who stole her ingrate babies from her and left her penniless. She is a manipulative social chameleon and a liar who saps the goodwill of others until they get sick of her, then she picks up and moves on. I look like her, while my younger brother resembles our father. I have a “thing” for accountability and transparency, and so while my brother turned out to be the loyal little mama’s boy that my father could never be for her, I was a constant nagging doubt at her fastidiously maintained illusion of her well-meaning blamelessness. While we grew up, he was “the good child” and I was “the bad child” whenever my father wasn’t around – when I would try to tell him what happened, our stories conflicted so much that my father didn’t know what to do. When your wife and your firstborn tell opposite accounts of what’s supposed to be the same event, who do you side with? If you weren’t there, how can you tell what’s right? Rather than check, rather than investigate, rather than do the hard work of sorting out fact from fiction, he did nothing for a very long time, and got used to the idea that I’d make things up because I was jealous of my brother’s preferential treatment for being the youngest and cutest. He didn’t even suspend judgment, he caved to my mother.
While dad was at the office, my mother would go job-hunting with my brother in tow, leaving me (a first-grader at the time) locked out of a big, warm house in the middle of the Northern Illinois winter when I got home from school. Someone eventually called the cops after weeks of this, and a police officer found me huddling in our basement window well when there were about two feet of snow on the ground. My father had no idea what was going on until the police told him, because I just dealt with it. I was used to being ignored. The following year, the divorce started. To make a very long story shorter, things got way worse from there, with my father winning custody when I started the fourth grade, after my mother was brought up on criminal abuse charges (which, due to her unstable mind, she was acquitted of for being incapable of knowing how much harm she was doing in “overdisciplining” us). Keep in mind the time here: a father winning custody from a mother was almost unheard of in the early nineties, and it took bruises and welts from ribs to knees on both my six-year-old brother and me for her to be declared an unfit parent by the court. I had to learn at a young age that strangers are usually nice back, if you’re nice first – but it’s the people you trust the most, paradoxically, who can cause you the greatest harm. I realized how screwed up I was when I visited a shrink with my father in high school, told the dozen or so crazy things I could remember my mother doing, and then watched my father explain to me, sobbing, that all those things I remembered had happened on a single day when I was in second grade, right before he was kicked out of the house. I had fragmented and mixed up my memories of one day, blocking everything else out, and that’s pretty much all I remembered of my childhood at the time.
One of the things my mother would do was to abjectly refuse to repeat herself, and then expect me to do as she said anyway. I don’t remember specific instances, I only know the pattern. If I told her I didn’t hear her, she’d say I needed to pay more attention, then wait for me to comply with the unheard order. When I’d sigh and roll my eyes and walk away, she’d beat me. You know what the hilarious part is? I have listening problems, and she refused to acknowledge that. I don’t mean that I’m hard of hearing, I can detect very quiet sounds; I mean that I sometimes utterly fail to interpret spoken words as anything other than incoherent noise, so I sometimes need to ask people to repeat themselves because I hear but do not understand (I don’t think it’s dyslexia, but I do often transpose letters between words, for example reading “survey crew ahead” as “screwy curve ahead”). This is not something I can help, but my mother refused to accept that this was anything other than willful disobedience on my part. I refused to play her stupid fucking guessing game, and she refused to acknowledge that that’s what it was.
I no longer directly remember anything before the fifth grade (my brother has the opposite problem: memories keep resurfacing, causing him no end of cognitive dissonance), with what I do know being reconstructed from police reports and court documents from a box my father keeps in his attic these days. I “know facts,” I don’t “have memories.” I am currently trying to reestablish some manner of working relationship with my mother, because I think I can help her come to terms with her life before she dies. Like me, she is a profoundly damaged individual, the child of a raging alcoholic father and a mother who didn’t know what to do but run from him; the difference is that I decided that the cycle of insanity stops with me, I decided to put myself back together again, and I decided that I would not pass along all this hurt and anguish to anyone else. I learned a great many things during this process, and I’m still working on it to this day, I’m still learning.
At any rate, I hope you can understand that I am not a spoiled,
naive child. I had to grow up very fast once the shit started hitting the fan, and my intellect developed as a defense mechanism. My emotional development suffered for it, and in the fifth grade, my father had me put through a battery of tests which determined that I had the intellectual skills of a college freshman, but the emotional skills of a four-year-old because I couldn’t afford to feel things. It took me years to even start undoing that damage, and it feels like a second puberty. I was also raised in a wide variety of religious traditions at different times, I’ve lived under foster care, and I was always “the new kid” wherever I went (I never went to the same school for more than a year until 5th/6th grade, but was then transferred out of the district for 7th/8th for a gifted program).
I’m typically reluctant to talk about my life because it doesn’t matter. It reminds me of my mother, bragging to her new religious pals of all the heartbreak she’s been through, and blah blah blah. It’s a likely story, after all: deadbeat dads are a dime a dozen, but it just so happens that the status quo is almost exactly the opposite of the true story in my case. I’m not ashamed of it, and if you want to know more, then I have no problem talking about it (it’s therapeutic, in fact). But how I grew up is, quite frankly, immaterial to the brute fact that there are a million and ten religions, and we can’t distinguish them without testing them. Whether with evidence or argumentation, we need a way to tell the bullshit from the truth. I have studied many religions – I’ve taken several college courses on them, and used those as starting points for my own personal studies – and they all look the same when you take a good, long stare at what’s around. Your particular traditions, whatever they happen to be, enjoy no privileged place historically, metaphysically, epistemologically, or empirically. Generic warm & fuzzy faith in an almighty creator is fine and dandy, but remember that if you believe the wrong things about the wrong ones, then you go to Hell (according to some). And if there is no Hell, then it doesn’t matter anyway.
So, starting from zero, I need to know how I can select the right religion, and have well-reasoned confidence (as opposed to empty hubris and wishful thinking) that I’ve chosen the right one, and I need this confidence to compare favorably to, say, the fact of X-rays. Or the germ theory of disease. Or the COBE mission. It has to start from zero, and it has to take into account that we have evidence of historical antecedents to every extant religious tradition – even the ancient Hebrews stole their gods from someone else, and yes, the ancient Hebrews were polytheists before they were monotheists – their YHWH is a mere bastardization of previous gods. We need evidence to decide questions – even on the supernatural – otherwise any old schmuck can come in and say, “Hey, I’ve got the One Truth of the Universe, and you have to listen to me, or God’s gonna kick the shit outta you!” Distinguish yourself from that guy, and you’ve got my ear. In short, demonstrate correspondence, or all you’ve got is a nice story. I’m not interested in a nice story to swallow whole, I need to distinguish fact from fiction, and I need to be able to find new facts with the ideas you feed me.
So let’s take it from the top, shall we? Please explain why I should believe in your idea of god, and not any other, based on more than the say-so of long-dead and maybe-nonexistent prophets (because every religion has that much, so you need more to stand out). Remember that I have to be able to solve this before I die, otherwise I will be unable to learn from my mistake. And if I have to get lucky and pick the right one for no good reason (i.e. “without evidence”), then please explain what warped theory of justice makes it OK for God to condemn people to eternal torture for failing a fucking guessing game. Because if we can’t get evidence, that’s exactly what life is: show me the hard evidence, or admit that you want me to play a stupid fucking guessing game. Your pick: if there’s evidence, you can show it; if there’s no evidence, then it’s a guessing game and you need to own up to that to stay intellectually honest with yourself. There’s no third option, there either is evidence or there is not. So which is it?
TL;DR version: Please explain to me why I should think your faith is any more than the smug imagining that you’ve won the ultimate guessing game.
cl
says...I really want to hear Gideon’s take on your comment, but here’s a quick response:
This is of no value; any evidence Gideon or myself provided could just be denied or interpreted as evidence for some other hypothesis. That was the whole point of this post.
As for me, nowadays I refuse to play the “show me the evidence” game with skeptics. It’s useless and futile mental masturbation without clearly delineated, firmly cemented goalposts, which I’ve yet to see from any atheist. And believe me, I’ve tried for as long as two months with one atheist to get clearly delineated, firmly cemented goalposts regarding what is and is not evidence for God. It always comes down to subjective terms, e.g. “something that’s not ambiguous.” Or – for a more recent example – your own definition of “more reasonable” before you clarified. No offense, but even your clarified version is pretty much worthless in establishing learly delineated, firmly cemented goalposts.
If you can provide learly delineated, firmly cemented goalposts, I might be willing to play the “evidence for God” game once again. Maybe.
D
says...Reality is ambiguous, buddy. Or, in lolspeak, “confounding variables r confounding.” Are you gonna whine about how sinners are stubborn, or do the hard work of ministering after the lost sheep regardless? I guess that when it comes to evidence, I’m interested in seeing what you’ve got. And I don’t mean stories you can tell me – I mean evidence I can go out and get on my own, fresh and shiny and new. I need an experiment I can perform, with a hypothesis and predictions and all that fancy sciency stuff. Whenever I’ve laid out my criteria, what I’ve heard is that I can’t test God in this or that way, so I share your frustrations. Let’s see what we can hash out, and try to meet in the middle, shall we? I’ll go first.
I’d settle for an experiment like Elijah performed with the prophets of Baal. If you can get something to happen through prayer that I just can’t get to happen at all – in other words, if you show me the magic – then I’ll convert. We’ll need to sort out together what we’ll do, though, and we’ll need to do it several times so that I know it’s not a fluke and so that I can rule out the possibility that you’re cheating. Hell, any miracle as performed in the Bible – the Sun standing still in the sky (I’ve watched it move by measuring the changes of shadows before, it’s pretty easy to see when you know how to look), parting a sea, a dude living in some critter’s belly for three days, staves turning into snakes, rivers turning to blood (actual blood with erythrocytes & shit, not that namby-pamby iron compound bullshit that could be explained by any old earthquake), loaves & fishy business, even a direct manifestation with fingers through the holes (let’s just say three times, and I’ll call that enough to say I’m not hallucinating – nothing special about three, I’m just drawing my line in the sand there). I could keep going, if you like. If God can do miracles, then a really cheap way for him to show me he exists is to do a few miracles for me. But tales of miracles are just that: tales of miracles. They’re a dime a dozen and I don’t put any stock in ’em.
Unless you think doing magic for each and every person is too much work for God. I mean, he only created the whole damn Universe, I bet that would leave him tuckered out for a while. How long, do you think?
Ultimately, what this comes down to seems to be a mis-match on standards for proof of facts. I’m not asking for proof of this or that historical idea, I’m asking for proof that God exists right now and how I can get it, whether or not the Bible is true or any of that shit. The way an experiment works is that you set up hoops for reality to jump through, and then see whether it jumps through the hoops or not, and then you see what you can read out of that. If God’s just going to refuse to jump through any hoops at all, ever, then I really don’t give a shit any more. This is what I mean by “hiding God,” it’s a deity that refuses to play along with us. Any god could do that, so I’ve got no way to tell which god is the right one to believe in, and we’re back to the guessing game. That kind of holier-than-thou attitude, even if correct, just strikes me as unworthy of worship. I think a deity worthy of worship would be secure enough to not be jealous, to abide sinners, and to let people do as they please without bombing their
cities into oblivion or destroying their language or flooding the whole damn world (and we see how well those attempts worked). But such a deity would never have kicked Lucifer out from Heaven for trying to usurp the throne. Such a deity would have laughed at Lucy and gotten on with his day. I mean, seriously, what possible threat could anyone pose to the Almighty King of the Universe? What would be the point in him getting upset at anything at all? It just seems so… petty. Trifling. Stupid. Mundane and not-at-all-awesome.
A brief note on Gideon’s bit about kids: I don’t have kids of my own, but my father’s second marriage produced a younger brother and sister for me who I continue to play a part in raising. I can’t give them everything they want – but I sure would, if I could. I’m their official favorite sibling, and you know why? It’s funny – it’s ‘cuz I make myself a continuously known presence. I have patience with them, I show them kindness, and while I am firm at times, I am never mean and I do them no harm. These things strike me as exemplary behavior, and I don’t see why God shouldn’t be the prime example of embodying such virtues all the time (which precludes wrath – don’t just destroy evil, that’s only a half-solution. Fix it! Make it better!). I lead them by example, living as I think they ought to live, not just telling them what to do and expecting them to obey ‘cuz I’m mightier than they are. I eventually would like to teach them everything I know, not to make them exactly like me, but so that they can make their own judgments. I want to make them into capable, responsible adults and then see what they do when they’re free on their own. And if God is all-powerful, I simply see no reason for him to not take the same approach. If he really wants the best for us, he can just give it to us, whether we like him or not, whether we believe in him or not, whether we care about him at all or not, whether we want it or not. It’s no cost to him, if he’s really the Almighty King of the Universe.
But back to evidence/proof, it’s very simple: explain to me what hoops I can get reality to jump through that will demonstrate God (this will probably involve telling me what hoops God will deign to jump through). The burden of proof is on you here, buddy; I don’t believe anything when it comes to what gods/godlings/demigods/whatever exist, and you’re saying I ought to believe something. Why? Why should I buy that?
D
says...Ooh! I just came up with another thing. Anything you can do by invoking the name of Jesus that someone else can’t do by invoking the name of Baal. That would also be some great proof. But it’s gotta be the Jesus figure versus an expert in whatever’s being attempted. And since this is a competition that could in principle be thrown, we’ll make it best of… seventeen?
Doesn’t matter whether it’s chess, typing speed, jumping jacks in an hour, you name it. If you can do more by invoking Jesus’ name than anyone else (of my choosing) can do in Baal’s name nine times, I would totally convert. Is that a fair deal?
D
says...Oh, wait, I’m excluding “recruit followers,” ‘cuz of self-selection bias. It’s gotta be something that doesn’t involve other people, it’s gotta be a personal competition between you and my competitor of choice. Forgot to include that.
Gideon
says...cl, regarding that conversation over at Herr SI’s blog… he is practicing his moderation thingie again, and some of my comments aren’t getting posted at all. I won’t be commenting over there, anymore, so I’ll answer your comment here.
I didn’t take my usual precaution, when commenting on a blog dictator’s site, of saving my comment in a screen shot to verify what I really said, so I’ll tell you here that after I corrected SI on a few mistakes he made in interpreting my previous comments, I then went on to illustrate their own hypocrisy in judging God by the actions of Christians – in the sense that it is God or His message that is flawed. I may not be a shining example of Christianity, but, it doesn’t throw the deity or His message into doubt as much as it would if it were I that were the author of the message. Darwin, however, IS the author of much of atheist dogma, therefore, he must assume more responsibility for the veracity of his message.
I don’t disagree that there are many who do judge God and His message from the actions of Christians. All I’m saying is that is a personal thing, it doesn’t reflect on the logic or cogency of the message. It also reflects a certain superfluousness on the part of the observer to base their judgments on the actions of one or a few. I actually do not base my judgment of Abiogenesis on just Darwin’s erratic behavior, alone. I only pointed out these things to show the infidels their flawed and biased thinking with regard to Christians, i.e. myself, in past encounters.
I’ve had it with that idiot and his gang of idiots, and when I can’t get my comments posted at all, never mind edited for content, it’s not worth my bother talking with them.
Now… D…
That’s quite a story. First off, as I’ve always maintained, there is no absolute 100% “proof” I can give you about God’s existence that will make you happy. Unfortunately, (yes, it pisses me off that God doesn’t sit up on command for me, sometimes, when I think I need Him to) faith is a very important component of the Christian experience. God deliberately withholds certain things from us, and, I can safely deduce from what scripture says in that regard that it has to do with sharpening our dulled perceptions to the evidences around us that He has provided. Sure, what you ask is only natural, that He show Himself. In an unguarded moment, I have done the same, reasoning that it would sure show those infidels how wrong they are! I guess you’re smart enough to see the implications, there. It’s really about ME and what I want!
Your history I know is true. I’ve dealt with many like yourself. You couldn’t make up stuff like that if it weren’t true. Nevertheless, as you, yourself, admit, you have been damaged… physically and psychologically. Perhaps to the extent that you cannot interpret things without a certain amount of bias. I had the benefit of growing up in an age of relative prosperity. People were happier, overall, without all of the concerns and outright paranoia that modern society deals with now. My family was not dysfunctional like yours. This probably gave me an advantage that I may still enjoy, today. The advantage of not having a lot of emotional baggage to lug around, enabling me to make better choices and decisions unfettered by perceived or unperceived biases.
I DO wish I could give you the miracles you would like. That’s an illogical statement, nevertheless, I want you to have what I know is the best life possible. You don’t have the investment in years that I do. You haven’t seen what I have. You haven’t been where I have. I cannot go into details on a public forum, maybe I’ll have to email you, sometime, and tell you things that I have seen that confounds science. They are simply too personal for me to relate in front of the retinue of mockers and scoffers that I know follow me around. Suffice to say that there are many experiences withheld from the audience of infidel scoffers, simply because they are so damned sure they are the superior intellect quoting their so-called “science” as their proof for belief. I used science to bring me to where I am, today. The very same science these fools say proves my beliefs are impossible!
After over thirty years of active study and debate, I am increasingly weary of debating anyone over anything. Some days I would like to just leave this all behind and “live and let live.” Time will be the ultimate undeniable factor in all of this. The only trouble is, for some of us, it will also prove our condemnation. Yours and others seeming antipathy for simplicity of understanding is not a hard and fast rule for guidance in proper interpretation. The theory (and it’s only a theory, nothing has been proven 100%) of evolution requires no more intellectual acumen than it does to accept theism. Thus, it is as much a faith-based system as Christianity. Perhaps you would like to show me point zero in time where the universe exploded into existence – show me that it WASN’T God that did it, that matter just ‘happened’ all by itself? Show me the proof, and I’ll leave quietly. Show me how nothing at all suddenly ‘becomes’ something… all on it’s non-existent own.
Maybe you should focus less on where you would like God to be, and consider where possibly He has been in your life? Are there absolutely no blessings in your life? How do you know that God isn’t trying to reach you, NOW… through the words of an old trucker and/or cl? We’ve all been where you are now, and none of us are born knowing how to run. You have to learn to walk, first. Think about it. What good would it do to talk quantum physics with a baby? You might get spit up on for your trouble… otherwise…
I have no doubt God is watching you, waiting. You’re dealing with a deity, girl. You aren’t going to think like Him, act like him, or understand His motives. Not without His help.
Try losing some attitude… and one way
is to stay away from “stinkin’-thinkin'” That’s all you’ll find in the infidel community.
Later…
Gideon
says...I once heard Bob Gange’s remark to a group he was lecturing to, when asked why God didn’t perform miracles on demand. Why he, being a Christian, doesn’t bring lightning or fire down from Heaven, right then and there, to conclusively prove his belief.
He answered, “Because, then, all you’d have is the Bob Gange Lightning Cult.”
;-)
John Morales
says...Bob’s is a feeble excuse.
Matthew 17:19-20.
Acts 2:43.
Acts 5:12.
Are there cults of the apostles, then? ;)
Gideon
says...Moron-ales, why don’t you devote at least half of the energy you expend making an ass out of yourself toward studying things in context?
Here’s another little task for you, son… read Matthew 4 in it’s entirety, with special emphasis on verse 4. How’s that other little project I gave you coming along?
Is the ‘superior’ mind stumped?
Gideon
says...That’s E-N-E-R-G-Y… not T-O-R-Q-U-E, by the way.
:)
cl
says...Gideon,
I had that feeling… oh well, right? You tried. Getting to it – excepting my aforementioned confusion regarding the way you relate abiogenesis and Darwin, I agree with everything you said in your comment to me here.
I couldn’t agree more that their thinking is flawed and biased in that regard.
***************
Don’t be such a tease! Share some of these things with us, or, at least CC me on the email – I’m interested.
I’m the same way. I started with the “less convincing” things I’ve seen or heard about, as a sort of “litmus test” for skepticism.
John Morales
says...Yes, I know. Energy is scalar, torque is a vector, though they are dimensionally equivalent.
I’ve already acknowledged foot-pounds is evidently a unit used for both; I’ve been brought up on the metric system and the respective units are the joule and the newton-meter.
John Morales
says...:)
I’m not especially smart, I’m only somewhat above average.
Also, I’ve already told you that it’s not a pissing contest, even if you see it as one.
Your apparent insecurity is not my problem.
D
says...Gideon,
I thank you for the kind words. Your honesty about wanting to shut us atheists up with a demonstration is admirable, but strikes me as slightly misplaced. I’m not looking for 100% proof, as I outlined above, and neither am I interested in stories of miracles. The only thing that can convince me is things that I can do to satisfy myself that believing in God is the most reasonable approach to take (or the most parsimonious explanation, or however you want to put it).
Everyone’s got bias, and I admit freely that I have plenty of my own. As I’m sure you noticed, I have an aversion to high stakes guessing games from the way I was raised (but I do so love low stakes guessing games!). Now, I’m very happy for your “normal-ish” upbringing, so please don’t misconstrue what I’m about to say; but your pining after the “good old days” strikes me as nothing more than starry-eyed nostalgia. I simply can’t accept the idea that the days of the Cold War, anti-miscegenation laws, and ‘fifties housewife bullshit (my favorite!) are better than what we’ve got today. Every single part of life is better today than it was fifty years ago: medicine is better, consumer technology is better, access to information is better, social justice is better, we continue to make progress in every area of our lives. The only thing I can think of that would be lacking these days is a false sense of security. This is no loss, but a gain, because false senses of security are, hey, false. While you may be free of my particular brand of bias, you still have your own (at least in the 2a sense, though I don’t see how any other of those definitions applies here at all). I’m also interested to find out what exactly you mean by “better choices and decisions” – better than what, precisely? And how do you know?
Also, please remember that I don’t think that science has “disproven” your idea of God. But neither has it disproven ideas of Vishnu, Kali, Thor, Odin, Baal, El (the Canaanite El, from before he got morphed into the Hebrew YHWH), Ahura Mazda, Ahriman, and so on and so forth. I only use science to believe in things, and even then only in demonstrable concretes like the interesting properties of the range of electromagnetic radiation we call “X-rays” and shit like that. What you have to remember, though, is that your brand of faith is not the only one competing for my attention. So again we come back to why: why should I believe you rather than any old schmuck?
The great thing about this is that we don’t need to debate anything at all, all you have to do is tell me what I can do to find God. And at the end of the day, we’ll still be living and letting live, I should hope. But if you can give me pretty much anything that works as well as, say, taking an X-ray photograph to show a fracture in a bone, then I’ll be totally satisfied. It’s just got to be something I can do whenever I like (or at least a great many times, should I come under the impression that I messed up at some point in the process). Oh, and it also has to point towards your God and also rule out the other gods, demigods, godlings, etc. of all the other religions that we both agree are false.
I’ll concede that merely believing in any proposition is no more or less interesting than merely believing in any other; however, I’m not after a mere what to believe. What I’m after is why to believe. I need to be able to understand how I can get from observations of the external world, however tenuous and fundamentally inconclusive, to a belief in X, Y, or Z. As I’ve said before, answers alone are meaningless – understanding is everything. As for showing how something can come from nothing… have you never heard of vacuum fluctuation? We’ve got a whole load of crazy math that shows rather handily that the world is a very strange place, indeed. Now, it’s still not 100% (nothing ever is, there’s no such thing as a sure bet), but if you’ve got the head for some number crunching, I’d be happy to explain the reasons we have for telling ourselves these mathematical stories. (Hint: they mainly revolve around delivering near-unbelievably accurate predictions with crazy-sophisticated experiments – it’s really awesome stuff!)
Almost done! I’ve decided to indulge my whim and point out that you’re asking someone who’s asked you “why, why, why” to stop thinking – and again, I ask, “why?” Why should I? This is where I am, and you need to show me how to get to where you are, but not to other supernatural commitments by mistake. You need to give me a reason somewhere. If God really created me with this insatiably curious intellect, then he knows what will satisfy it, and quite frankly, I think it’s up to him at that point. I fail to see how I’m in any way at fault for behaving according to the way he made
me, if he did in fact make me. So unless God turns me into a thoughtless drooling twit, this is where you’ve got to meet me. Or where God’s got to meet me. Do you think God thinks a lot? (Honest question, I just now thought of it.)
Finally, Gange’s Lightning Cult is an excellent illustration of the fundamentally ambiguous nature of reality, and why we need a whole mess of proof to believe in something, not just one big thing to solve it once and for all. (That literally never happens, because no single thing can possibly solve any question once and for all.)
cl
says...D,
In general, I’ve given our discussions loads of hours of thought over the past day. I’m still not sure about what I think is the best way to proceed, either… [sit tight] I also owe you a response from yesterday that I forgot to proofread this morning.
Side question: when was the last time you prayed with sincerity, and what was it about?
As I have several times this past week, I’ll take you to task EVERY time you assert “more reasonable” or “more parsimonious” without clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts. All your slippery definitions do is encourage a mess: the skeptic – or the believer – can always draw a line in the sand and say, “That’s not the most reasonable approach,” and then we’re right back to the futility of subjective criteria.
This one’s a tangent, but – So. Not. True. Let me know if you really need counterexamples here.
John Morales
says...I don’t have an issue with D here, I understand what is meant.
‘more reasonable’ → more in accordance with reason.
‘more parsimonious’ → exhibiting more parsimony.
The irony is palpable.
Gideon
says...D, again, I ask you… are you satisfied with what you have in life? Are you happy being an infidel? If you are, I’m fine with that. However, I’m getting mixed messages, here.
You start off by saying you don’t need 100% proof of anything from me. You finish off with a plea for a reason why you should believe what I believe. Which is it?
Also, it’s pretty arrogant of you to tell me how things were in a time you weren’t even alive. I may not be able to give you 100% evidence for God’s existence or how He used quantum forces to create reality, but I’m well qualified to speak of times that I lived in and observed first-hand. There are a lot of factors you are not even aware of that were not considered in your final assessment regarding which times were better than the other. That’s a whole other story, however.
Suffice to say for now that your knowledge and subsequent judgment of history is patterned on the same criteria you employ in your assessment of Christianity. You are, by virtue of your youth and inexperience, forced to rely on the opinion and even rhetoric of others more senior than yourself, many of those sadly misinformed. Time allows one to gather enough experience to be able to say with a certain amount of authority that they have considered all available possibilities. Yet, here you are not thirty years of age and telling me how things were 50 years ago!
I looked at your science link. I’ve heard of this before… thirty years ago. It’s not new science. Isaac Asimov wrote many papers on virtual particles (Einstein speculated about those in the Forties!) and mu mesons, tachyons, etc. They are doing what they did then… speculating. They admit as much. Again, it all boils down to what you want to believe. If it’s more convenient for you to believe in evolution, you will. It’s not convenient for me, as ceaseless speculation doesn’t offer me any satisfaction. Christianity offers the only logical explanation: We exist because it was planned that way. Exactly how it was pulled off, I can’t say, but, it makes the most sense. Perhaps when your mind is fully mature, you’ll realize that everything isn’t as cut and dried as you think. You might even have to resort (God forbid!) to philosophy to explain what endless speculation never comes close to achieving. Philosophy is the algebra of the sciences. It is sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things, with it’s ability to transcend the physical and intellectual obstacles presented by problems that cannot be solved by direct observation.
All I can offer you is the contentment of knowing that there is a reason for everything that is and that happens. I don’t believe in chance or luck, at least not in any significant sense of the term. How you achieve that is by getting over yourself… it’s not now, nor has it ever been about you (or me) or what’s convenient for us, it’s about God and what He is trying to do. It so happens at this moment He is trying to save us from ourselves.
I watched an excellent series of vids featuring a debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath, a theology professor. It was a non-confrontational debate that you might find interesting. I learned that Dawkins (although he was clearly restraining himself at certain points) is capable of carrying on a conversation without taking cheap pot-shots at God and Christians. I also found some of McGrath’s answers insufficient and easily expanded. All things considered, it was one of the better examples of how a debate should go.
Find it here. Note: It is the rough version of the original telecast, so there are breaks in their dialogue, crew remarks, etc.
Later…
Gideon
says...“I’m not especially smart, I’m only somewhat above average.”
No argument from me, there, Moron-ales. So, why would I have any insecurities around you?
Don’t you have chores to do, sonny?
John Morales
says...Why would you have insecurity about reality, and buy into wishful thinking? :)
No, I don’t know why you exhibit such, though I suspect that intellectual cowardice as the basis for your intellectual dishonesty; however, humans are very complicated.
What do you think I’m doing right now? ;)
I’m laying down evidence of how a self-professed Christian interacts with me; so far, your qualities of humility, charity, forgiveness, mercy and love are exemplary.
D
says...@ cl: The last time I prayed was to anyone or anything for a miracle. It was addressed to whatever was out there – I promised my soul to whatever or whoever would just come up and take it by showing itself to me. Neeless to say, there was no God, no Devil, no angel or demon, no pixie or leprechaun or Baba Yaga or anything. Ever. I consider this an open offer, but nothing’s happened. Nothing. No supernatural critters have shown up to claim my soul. Obviously, all this shows is that supernatural critters, if they exist, don’t show up just because I offer my soul as bait.
We can take each other to task on the flimsiness of our whatevers until the Sun goes out. I’m not interested in doing that, I’m interested in something dialectical. It involves give and take. It’s more like a conversation, and less like asking you to kick a goal. Tell me what you can do, what you can show me, or what I can find out for myself; then we can work to agreement together on what kind of experiment I can perform, what the results will mean depending on how it goes, and so forth; then I perform it and we discuss the results. I’m willing to go this far for anything that is part of my model of reality that you are not convinced of; if you think I should add things to that model, then I’m curious as to why you’re… well, pussing out because it’s hard and I won’t just give you something cheap for you to weasel your way through. Words are ambiguous, cl, which is why we need to work things out dialectically to understand what we mean. Remember: understanding is what I’m after, not mere answers. That’s why the give and take is so important to me, and that’s why I’m here at all.
Please! Provide counterexamples, but know that by “better” I mean something tangible and “less awful” or “improved.” Maybe that will clear things up, maybe not. So, OK, what have you got?
@ John: I don’t
think cl understands that we’re all a mess. We’re messy. I’m just trying to sort things out neatly, and when I can’t, I’m content to leave it as a mess until I see a way to organize it. So far, this has meant dropping a whole lot of beliefs and looking stuff up one at a time, more or less in the order I come across it. Maybe that’s not for everyone, I guess.
@ Gideon: What do you mean by “satisfied” and “happy?” My father taught me that happiness is a state of affairs, while contentment is a state of mind. Tenrikyo monks have a practice called hinokishin, wherein they try to cultivate an attitude of contentment in mundane or uncomfortable tasks, such as cleaning public toilets. The idea is that being able to find joy in even the least joyful parts of everyday life will help one to better appreciate other joys around. I do this sort of thing, and it works so far.
I don’t need 100% proof, but that’s different from not needing any proof at all. No proof is ever 100%, because nothing can ever rule out the possibility that I might be wrong right now. So how about 99.5%? Can you give me 99.5% proof? It’s not 100%, but I think it’s a good place to start. Does that help clarify my meaning?
The point about quantum stuff is that it doesn’t require God. To the best of our ability to tell, so far, this is just what reality does on its own. If that’s what you mean by God, then fine, I’ll concede that the physical laws of the Universe are real. But that doesn’t establish Heaven, Hell, sin, souls, etc.; only the physical laws of the Universe which I already believe in anyway. As Carl Sagan put it:
As for the past, fine, tell me what you think was better. Not just for you and your particular values, I mean better in terms of fostering human happiness. What sucks now that didn’t suck back then? What was awesome back then that we don’t have any more? I’ll bet we probably have radically different ideas of what “good” and “bad” are, but I’m willing to hear you out.
Are you saying that Christianity satisfies you just because it gives you a final answer? Any religion can give you that, pal. I could even make up some stuff on the spot that’s just as good an explanation as Christianity. This is why answers alone are meaningless: anyone can make up a coherent story that’s consistent with the known facts, so who cares? I know that everything isn’t as cut and dried as you presume to know that I think, and this is why I walk in doubt. On what basis do you justify placing all your certainty chips on God, though? (If you even in fact do that, you might not for all I know.)
I accept that there is a causal reason for everything that I observe with my physical eyes at the macro scale – but I’m not sure that there are reasons for things like quantum events, and I’m not sure how far back causality goes.
And again, if God wants to save me from myself, then he knows me and he knows what it will take, and he can do it at any time he likes. I’m OK with walking in doubt for now, but if God decides that needs to change, then he knows what he needs to do. I’m sick of waiting on him, though, so I just stopped and got on with my life. If God wants to pick things back up with me, well, that’s gonna take at least a little effort on his part. If I’m really worth so much to him as a lost sheep, I don’t see why he’d mind jumping through, say, six or seven hoops just to get my soul back. I mean, really, it’s not that much to ask of someone who knows everything and can do anything, right?
At the end of the day, though, I’m just not a faithful person. I mean, I’m trusting and hopeful and stuff, but I’ve spent the last, oh, ten or twelve years of my life going through and excising a whole bunch of beliefs that didn’t stack up with what I could see. Some things, like the Mpemba effect, have gone back and forth. That’s humbling, but I still need the back and forth, the give and take, to believe in something. Everything else is suspended.
Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out later. For now, I have to get out another chapter of The Quantum Mechanic before I leave for work. Have a great day!
D
says...Oh, maybe this will be a better way of saying what I want from you cl: I want your help and suggestions in laying out my firmly delineated goalposts, or whatever you want to call it. That’s why I’ve been non-specific so far. I’m willing to take some suggestions, if you’ve got them. Now, yeah, I may reject this or that particular thing, but c’mon – we gotta start somewhere, right? I just don’t really have any beliefs or ideas about the supernatural any more, and I’m a bit out of practice. I’m not trying to be petulant, I’m trying to do something more like asking for a helping hand. Is that clearer?
Gideon
says...Well, D, I suppose you have a point where our respective opinions of what constitutes the ideal society are. Myself, I saw the Fifties and Sixties as an era of simplicity without all of the rabid registration, political-correctness, internationalism, globalism, environmentalism, New Ageism, cynicism, clinicalism, (my word describing the dispassionately analytic and unemotionally technical interaction between professionals and/or the public) militarism, atheism, ugly ‘cars’, college grads that can’t spell or punctuate, (the result of Outcome Based Education) and other things that will only serve to derail this discussion…
So, if you think that the society we have today impresses me, you’re sorely mistaken. You equate technical prowess with advancement. I can show you where having all of those modern conveniences you laud has only increased the level of dissatisfaction and hopelessness than what there was, say, 35-40 years ago. I, personally, can tell you that my profession is not what it was when I started. Under-trained drivers pushed out onto the road just to meet the ridiculous schedules that pander to more and more people demanding more and more to offset their unrealistic expectations in life. Substandard, lightweight vehicles (cheaply made) to address fantasies about “global warming” (changed to “Climate Change” as they realize that people aren’t buying into the bullshit like they used to) and the supposed ‘need’ to “save the planet”, and the overall dumb-ass mentality of the modern motorist (like Moron-ales) that thinks speed is the answer to everything, throwing caution to the wind in the futile hope that technology will bail their/his dumb ass out of any predicament they cause themselves… if you think I view this as progress, you’re wrong.
And, don’t talk to me about our wonderful medical system that thrives on manufactured viruses and diseases, propped up by the money-grubbing pharmaceuticals and their MD salesmen. My GP opens his desk drawer to show me the latest line of products he’s expected to push for that particular month… you fucking call THAT progress? The medical profession is just another big business tailored to benefit the wealthy. Shit, we’d never heard of all these fucking diseases we have now back then. That’s because they didn’t exist! They’ve all just suddenly ‘popped up’ coincidentally along with certain globalist agendas… one of those concerning population control.
Oh, and forgive me if I don’t cream over Carl Sagan’s OPINION on Christianity, or his condescending comment that he’d believe in a God that fully supported his infidel philosophy. I guess being around the block a couple of times has hardened me, but, anytime an infidel tries telling me evolution is simply reality and that I’d better accept it, just makes me laugh! I can get better dogma than that in certain Catholic or fundamentalist circles!
At least you admit that you’d like God to jump through hoops for you. Well, He won’t, D. I can save you a lot of anxiety waiting for that to happen. He never jumped through any of mine, so I’m damned sure He won’t sit up on command for you, either. As I futilely tried to explain to Moron-ales, God has already done that for all of us – through the sacrifice of His son. Also, the ‘miracle’ of understanding is contained in the revealed word of God, i.e. scripture. cl also had it right when he mentioned prayer… do you do either one or both? Try that first, before you go demanding the Creator of the cosmos to pull a rabbit out of His hat for you.
You’re certainly a product of your time, girl, I’ll give you that! I’m not gloating, either, ’cause it was my generation that somehow fucked up to produce the self-oriented, self-centered mindset that prevails today.
I guess we just didn’t know when we had it good.
Gideon
says...“…so far, your qualities of humility, charity, forgiveness, mercy and love are exemplary.”
Thanks, Moron-ales! Might I say the same about your intellectual prowess, as well?
cl
says...I understand what I think is “in more accordance with reason” and “exhibiting more parsimony,” too. That’s exactly the problem: the lack of clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts.
You sure seem fond of pointing fingers, John, but nobody else seemed to have any problems with my definitions in the Unmoved Mover discussion. You could always give the argument sound address instead of merely reasserting your opinion that the terms are insufficiently clear. Or, we could talk some more about roos.
cl
says...“Can’t we all just get along?” [/OVERUSED CLICHE]
*******
In general, Gideon has a strong point here:
Not just a “reason,” Gideon, but “repeatable, reliable experiments.” I submit that “repeatable, reliable experiments” are essentially considered tentative proofs for any given experimental hypothesis. IOW, we accept as tentatively proven that which we can reliably repeat, e.g. that electrons are negatively charged, subatomic particles. It’s beginning to seem to me that D’s rejection of the “100% proof trope” may be less than literal.
I wholeheartedly agree.
While I’m pretty sure you meant that in the context of D’s assertions regarding how life was 50 years ago, I’d disagree in the context of D’s estimations of Christianity: like any of us, D can most certainly rely on her own mental faculties with which she’s been endowed.
But Gideon, you know that your opinion is essentially worthless in those who demand more than opinion to be persuaded, right?
If D’s assertions about life before she was born were arrogant, isn’t this equally arrogant, or at least headed that direction? By that token, what if our minds aren’t “fully mature?” You say you’re fifty-ish? Perhaps when you’re sixty you’ll realize everything isn’t as cut and dried as you think? Perhaps the same will happen to me?
I can vouch for that contentment, and further add that it in no way requires shutting down my intelligence or losing my sense of wonder and awe at the universe.
D,
Noted about the prayer thing, and thank you. Next questions: was that the only time you prayed? How often did you pray before that, and what were the nature of the requests? Have you ever read the Bible cover to cover? If not, how much of it have you read with the specific goal of ascertaining the intended message?
Of course, but such is arguably as unproductive as proceeding without clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts.
That’s exactly why I want clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts before we proceed: because every other time I’ve proceeded without them, nothing was seemingly accomplished except argument and the making of enemies, neither of which are my goal with you – or anyone. I’m not “pussing out,” I’m saying we need clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts. If you think your “experiment” is sufficient, perhaps we should discuss why I disagree. Let me know.
Yes. That was very helpful. Along these lines of clarifying criteria, what did you think of today’s post?
To John, you said,
Hey! That’s not nice! I most certainly do understand that we’re all a mess, else, how could I be any kind of Christian? The foundational claim of my belief system is that without God we are indeed all a mess. My “messy” comment was intended in the exclusive context of proving clearly delineated criteria and firmly cemented goalposts, not as implication that any particular person is a mess, and another not. K?
In that regard you also value Christian living as described in the Bible, particularly the Pauline letters.
Honestly, I find your request for “repeatable, reliable experiment” to be flawed, and I think we should discuss that.
How do you know?
Methodological naturalism ensures that this is so, which makes it rather useless when questioning the supernatural.
Gideon
says...I don’t think I’m being arrogant in stating the obvious, cl. One cannot suppose to have more knowledge not having been there than someone who has been there. For infidels to place so much emphasis upon demonstrable evidence for believing anything, they should at least be consistent. Being “fifty-ish” I would naturally know more than her about that era.
I’m not putting her down intellectually or otherwise, only setting the record straight.
D
says...@ Gideon: Wow! OK, you set me straight once again! I’m all about registration, just because I think the law is something we humans need to sort out our insoluble disputes. But then the law needs to be as permissive as possible to accommodate all the shapes, sizes, and flavors that humans come to be. But I will agree that political correctness, New Age bullshit, ugly automobile designs, and the general illiteracy of most of my contemporaries are all backsteps from your era. Point taken!
I do indeed laud technical prowess as progress; however, I think that individuals are responsible for their own satisfaction. You can’t give me satisfaction, and I can’t give you satisfaction. It’s something we have to find as individuals, and we’re responsible to ourselves for it. For my own part, I find satisfaction in a simple life: I own no car because it’s more of a hassle than it’s worth (though the electric Jeep Renegade may change that); I pay my bills and buy my groceries and a toy or two per paycheck, then give to charity; I try to weigh the happiness of those I care about as equal to my own; and I try to confer what wisdom I have been able to find to others in a manner that they will be able to accept. Sometimes I screw up, and that sucks. But now I think I understand better why you refer to a “good ol’ days,” and I see that as less of a pejorative term.
For what it’s worth, one of my first-ever A papers in college was on technology and human happiness. It’s in need of some updating which I doubt I’ll ever actually do, but if you’re interested, I’d be happy to e-mail it to you for your thoughts on it.
As for disease, please know that the etymology of “disease” is “dis-ease.” The easier life gets, the more finicky our ease becomes. I see the hardships of my own upbringing as, paradoxically, a net positive effect because they’ve taught me perspective. I also have written a bit on modern medicine and its real-world effects, and I’d like to know your thoughts on that. But please know that, for now, I think your thoughts (as you’ve spelled them out) are an oversimplification. I’m also open to the idea that I may be wrong on that.
What do you think is meant by “evolution?” Evolution is simply the change of allele frequencies in a population over time; that is a brute fact, for the simple reason that the extant dodo gene used to be something, and now it’s nothing (their allele frequences absolutely changed over time – their evolutionary path, as it happens, was towards extinction). The idea that humans are apes
descended from other apes (and cousins all to modern apes) is called “common descent,” and the mechanism by which evolution kinda-sorta-but-not-really “chooses” its path is the principle of natural selection. It’s all been summed up as “the non-random survival of randomly replicating variables,” but even then, the definitions of “random” and “variable” are a matter for debate. So-framed, what are your thoughts on these terms?
As for the hoops, I appreciate your commendation of my honesty, but I still don’t think you understand what I mean by “jumping through hoops.” All relationships boil down to the give-and-take of jumping through hoops, and when I say that God refuses to jump through my hoops, I simply mean that he refuses to engage in an active, current, dialectical relationship with me. For example, if my father left my mother before I was born, but she told me that I’d better believe my father was Bill Gates or Bill Gates would come beat the shit out of me, I think I’d be justified in doubting whether Bill Gates was really my dad. Mutatis mutandis for God – it’s not so much that I don’t think any god is possible, but that I don’t know which one to believe in, so I don’t believe in any of ’em. That’s the only way I know so far to avoid believing in a wrong one.
@ cl: You’ve hit my nail on its head. I’m after tentatively provable stuff. I only endorse tentatively provable ideas. If you’ve got some tentatively provable gods/souls/whatevers, then I’d love to hear about ’em! I’m just going to question and attempt to falsify them, s’all. If they can’t stand up to that, I don’t know why they’re worth believing in the first place.
Also, your questioning of Gideon’s faculties (and, I assume, your own by extension) is commendable. This is why I’m all about dialogue and challenge, and also why I’m doing this here rather than on DA. Nothing against them – I happen to think they’re right (so far, to the best of my ability to tell, etc.) – but I want discourse.
As for your direct questions – I’m getting tired but still wanna do this, so if you’re not satisfied, I’m more than willing to start over and try again later. All you gotta do is ask. That said:
1. I’ve prayed many times. I prayed to God for guidance when my mother told me that angels found my homework in the dumpster and told her about it. I also prayed that my mother would stop making me write sentences that she kept piling on day after day until I could do nothing else but write and write and write. I prayed that she’d stop beating me, and that my father would get custody of my brother and myself. I also prayed that God would give me a rare drop (as it happens, the Chaos Blade in FFT) on my next attempt. All of these prayers came true.
2. I have read the Bible cover-to-cover. I find the book of Ecclesiastes to be the most honest one, and the rest to be varying degrees of hogwash and genocidal insanity. The barbarism of Leviticus, the warmongering of Joshua, I could go on.
3a. (On goalposts) Right, and this is why I think we need to work on this together. We come from different places, so let’s start over together and work from there. I’m game if you are, but I’m not gonna do all the work and then just ask you to give me a simple answer. I want to work together with you to achieve mutual understanding. Or is that too Humanistic for you?
3b. (On enmity) I don’t want to make you an enemy, either! So let’s just go and trust each other. I already trust that you’ll deal with me in good argumentative faith, but I need you to extend some of the same to me. Let’s work on our goalposts together. What do you think some reasonable ones for me would be?
4. What I meant with my comment to John was that I think we are different on what it is to be a mess. Mabye I’m wrong on that. The fact that it’s central to your brand of Christianity gives me pause for thought, though. This is why I want your help planting my goalposts: I think mine are too strict as-is, and I want your help showing me where I ought to plant them and why that’s better.
5. (Re: Paul) Look, there’s wisdom in the Bible. I freely acknowledge that. The problem is that there’s a whole lot of other shit, too.
6. (Re: Proof) Yes, let’s discuss! Please take the lead, though, because you’re the believer and I’m the seeker here.
7. (Re: quantum stuff & methodological naturalism) What I’m interested in finding out is what reality does on its own. For God to show himself to me, I’ll need to know what reality does on its own as well as how God is able to defy it. Or determine it, for that matter. One of my goalposts has been a holy text with a machine code for the Universe, but there ain’t none (so far, to the best of my ability to tell, etc.). So I suspend my belief.
@ Gideon once more! Yeah, you’ve got more firsthand knowledge of your era than I do. However, that also makes you more psychologically predisposed to prefer that era to the one in which I formed my own expectations for how society ought to be. How even the footing is here is a matter for debate; what I’m saying is that we need to hash it all out. That in mind, thanks very much for laying out some of your concerns. As I hope you’ll see, you’ve changed my mind some. But know that I see automobile design as a purely aesthetic value, not an ethical one (though I do so pine for them classics!).
John Morales
says...I was around during the 1960’s (not the 50’s) and well remember the Age of Aquarius.
I well recall the attitude of older people regarding these changes. I remember mini-skirts and discotheques. I remember being amazed that my grandma hadn’t had TV or radio in her youth.
I recall watching the first human set foot on the Moon, “live” on TV. <sigh>
—
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.
D
says...Ain’t that the truth! I was really just admitting that I was glossing over the high points, though. I guess there’s really no “fixing” anything, you can only trade one set of complications for another.
Also, I half-way hate you for introducing me to that site. I’ve known about it, I’ve just never been there. And now I’m like sixteen flavors of insecure about my book. Seriously. CAN’T. STOP. READING.
Gideon
says...“I do indeed laud technical prowess as progress; however, I think that individuals are responsible for their own satisfaction. You can’t give me satisfaction, and I can’t give you satisfaction. It’s something we have to find as individuals…”
That’s what I’ve thought from the beginning of all this. You’re right, I am, indeed, satisfied in what I know, and, I’m pretty sure you are content with what you know. As long as you’re happy, that’s fine.
I do prefer simplicity over complexity, and am more than happy to let God run the universe and lead out or step back in and from the minds and consciences of all others.
On to the next course.