Superstition, Luck and Vodoo

[rs7]

Originally posted by FasterPussycat
[Bi don't agree. "tearing down the deep beliefs of others" can also be interpreted as discussion, debate and detailed exploration of the issues. this is "of no benefit to any of us"?? no way do i agree with this. ANY insight gained from all this might help us get some leverage on all this complexity, and this is worth the effort imo. (whether that issue be "god" or trading).

furthermore, if your beliefs get torn down then those beliefs were on shaky ground to begin with. and who wants to live their lives on shaky grounds? not me! [/B]

FPC...first off, let me say that overall, I actually agree with most of what you have said here. It is just a matter, for me, of is this appropriate forum?
Also, "trying to tear down,..etc" is very different from "tearing down"...you quote me somewhat out of context.
"discussion, debate, and detailed exploration"....never said it was of "no benefit"....if my remarks were construed that way, I apologize. My objection is really to the disparagement of other's beliefs, that they are entitled to whether we agree or disagree. We can argue, we can agree to disagree. I just see no sense in many of the statements that seem only to be intended to insult and agitate. I agree with you that "ANY insight gained"...etc., can be constructive. My point was only that somehow this has gotten beyond that, and that it has gotten personal in too many instances. A good debater can argue either side of an issue. That is not what has been going on here.
Maybe I am at a big advantage and therefore cannot get as passionate about some of these issues.....because I really don't care. I mentioned before that I was widowed very young. That changes one's perspective. I have made and lost a lot of money over the years as well. I saw my son lose his mom when he was too young to handle it and too old to forget it. I have found love again and re-created my life. Was there a divine plan? Was I master of my own destiny? Was it luck (good or bad)? I don't know. I just make the best of the hand I am dealt. I will debate any issue you care just for the exercise of the mind. But I don't see slamming someones beliefs as debate. I see it as hurtful intent.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by rs7

We can argue, we can agree to disagree. I just see no sense in many of the statements that seem only to be intended to insult and agitate. I agree with you that "ANY insight gained"...etc., can be constructive. My point was only that somehow this has gotten beyond that, and that it has gotten personal in too many instances. A good debater can argue either side of an issue. That is not what has been going on here.

Maybe I am at a big advantage and therefore cannot get as passionate about some of these issues.....because I really don't care.

I will debate any issue you care just for the exercise of the mind. But I don't see slamming someones beliefs as debate. I see it as hurtful intent.

Excellent points rs7.

Let me state for the record it has never been my goal to make anyone care who does not, I am very pragmatic at heart and have no interest in pursuing the impossible. I figured folks not into this debate would just shrug and pass it by.

I even tried to check out of this thread a ways back but returned when the insults made me furious enough to resume.

I think there is a significant difference between holding a belief that angers others simply by nature of the belief itself, versus going out of your way to intentionally anger others with inflammatory words. I have not sought to intentionally anger anyone here (least of all you Commisso).

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by darkhorse





I even tried to check out of this thread a ways back but returned when the insults made me furious enough to resume.

I think there is a significant difference between holding a belief that angers others simply by nature of the belief itself, versus going out of your way to intentionally anger others with inflammatory words. I have not sought to intentionally anger anyone here (least of all you Commisso).

Darkhouse...I greatly admire your restraint....I loved the "I don't hate you" post.

Conversely, I was offended by the "kill me now.I hate your mother" bit that was posted here recently by GG. I was ashamed of myself for laughing when I read it. And the weird thing is, I agree with his basic premise...I just am offended in how it was presented...

Dark, though we come from different places on what this thread has evolved to be about, I respect not only your beliefs, but your way of defending them. Reasonable, rational, and (mostly) even-tempered.
So I find myself in a position of agreeing with many of those whose beliefs I do not hold as my own, and resenting the arguments of those with whom I share many beliefs.

It really is all about respect and tolerance. The lack of these counters all else. I would have a much higher regard to one who worships a sea shell and tolerates those who don't than I would for an ordained man of the cloth that does not tolerate those who do not hold the same beliefs......and obviously there are WAY TOO MANY of these in today's world!

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by stu

dark, the definition of arrogance: Having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance of overbearing pride

definition of truth : A fact which has been verified.
A true statement which has the quality of being accurate and shown to be without error.

You have the first
No one can know they have the second, unless they have the first

logical positivism: A philosophical movement that arose from the Vienna Circle in the 1920s. Influenced by Mach and Wittgenstein, it insisted that philosophy should be scientific, regarding it as an analytical (rather than a speculative) activity (see analytic philosophy), the purpose of which was clarification of thought. Any assertion claiming to be factual (i.e. excluding the axioms of logic or mathematics) has meaning only if its truth (or falsity) can be empirically tested. Metaphysical propositions and those of aesthetics and religion are consequently meaningless, since it is impossible to say how they can be verified. A secondary goal of logical positivism was the analysis and unification of scientific terminology. After the Nazi invasion of Austria, members of the Circle emigrated to Britain and the USA, where the movement continued to be influential.


Stu:

This is getting old, how about something new? By defining truth only as that which can be tested and verified, you stake your claim as a logical positivist. I am not a logical positivist because I believe we can discover truths beyond that which can be empirically tested, and that drawing the line at what we can see is a false distinction. You are in one camp, I am in another. Fine and dandy. This is covered ground.

Re inventing God: I have not invented any God, rather it is society at large who has a mostly false conception of God (fuzziness in action here). It is possible for someone to have so many erroneous attachments to the root idea that the root idea is essentially lost. I am sure you hold a number of interesting assumptions regarding Christianity and what intelligent Christians believe. If you and I were to have a long chat, you would soon discover that the vast majority of those assumptions are likely incorrect.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by rs7


It really is all about respect and tolerance. The lack of these counters all else. I would have a much higher regard to one who worships a sea shell and tolerates those who don't than I would for an ordained man of the cloth that does not tolerate those who do not hold the same beliefs......

Let me admit here that I owe an apology to faster, in my anger I was overly harsh in that post and perhaps should have said so before this.

I agree rs7, respect and tolerance are critical, and to that list I would add consistency. My beliefs lead me to share because I consider them so vitally important. If I kept my mouth shut believing as I do, I would be doing a disservice to my fellow man from an internal perspective, whether my fellow man agrees with said beliefs or not. I don't ask for agreement but only respect for the idea that I just might be an intelligent person who looks at things differently and not a fruit loop. The search is worthy of effort, that is the main point I would like to get across.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko

since i do not know for sure (nobody does), i will not say i'm 100% right..if i do, i'm just kidding to ruffle feathers. but i would bet anything on it. i'll say this right here, right now to show you how bogus i think religion is:

jesus, since you know everything and listen to everyone's prayers (yeah right) send me to hell when i die. in fact, send me there quick!! don't let me live a long life! i want to go to hell, not heaven. do not forgive me for my sins and don't ever forgive me for saying this...i hate you and your mother! lol

see, i don't care....there is no heaven or hell...it's all a bunch of nonsense..what's funny is how seriously you (not necessarily you chasinfla) religious people believe what is so obviously bogus. the bible has so many holes in it, yet you all still make up excuses and reword things to make it make sense. for example, tell me right now you believe noah's ark and the adam & eve story? how about satan himself? the ONLY description of satan is of a dragon with 11 (i forget the ridiculous number) heads!! surely, you don't believe that! those are clearly so bogus!! if you agree that it's nonsense too, why do you believe the rest of it? i'll tell you why..cuz you were probably raised religiously as a kid. just like a dog that gets beat its whole life, it'll probably be vicious as an adult.

i'll end my argument with this point...and I LOVE THIS STORY!!! you religous people should love this!

giordano bruno believed the earth was round, not flat. he believed the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around like the bible says. well guess what, THE CHURCHES BURNED HIM TO DEATH!!!!!!!! and he was right too!!!!!!!! sorry to be blunt, but religion is for brainwashed f*ck!ng idiots. lol sorry, i'm not saying every religious person here is an idiot, but when it comes to religion, yes, you are...sorry to break it to you. anyway, here's a link to the story about giordano bruno: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/giordanobruno.html

respond if you want, but quite frankly, i don't care.

I just reread this after rs7's mention, i think i skipped over it before. I am replying even though you don't care. I do appreciate the comic relief, this thread was getting depressingly heavy. Your shot gave me a chance to chuckle.

Gekko: My iq is slightly higher than my shoe size.
Do you think I haven't heard all your warmed over slings before? Don't you think I have given every one of them consideration, not just for five minutes but for months or more? I've talked with atheists who have literally written books making a case against God. I've gone up against doctoral theses, hoping, yes hoping to find a challenge. And you know what? They got nothin'. You got nothin'. You clearly think you do, but trust me you do not.

Read my lips: I...am....intelligent. And not just marginally intelligent. Dispute my beliefs, fine, but don't dispute that fact. Read my posts on this board. Not just on God but on everything. Go to my amazon review page. Challenge me directly on any point you want. Obviously I can't respond to flames but if you want to get deep, we can get deep my friend. Maybe deeper than you have ever been.

'Christians are dumb' just doesn't fly. Maybe the Christians you have met in the past are dumb. Maybe the Christians you have read about or seen on TV are dumb. But jumping to the conclusion that all Christians are thusly dumb is like a buy and holder assuming all daytraders are wacko losers like Mark Barton.

Just one black swan wrecks the claim. Here I am baby.

You can't end your argument because you never started it. Here I am, spending years trying to sort out what I believe in an intelligent way, and you sort it out for me in thirty seconds? 'Hey there dark, I know you have spent hundreds of hours in research and thought, but let me lay it out for you in five seconds, the bible is full of holes and you're a big dummy.'

I have answers for every single one of your questions. Long, thoughtful drawn out ones that will really make you sit down and think. Answers that are the result of significant thought and research. But I won't go to the trouble of posting them because you didn't really want answers (and this thread is too long anyway). You wanted to check in, leave a big resentment turd on my desk, and check out. That's cool, it's a free world.

No harm no foul amigo

 

[stu]

you are right there dark, this is getting old.

You exhibit all the shortcomings you accuse other contributors of.

You try to win/prove the argument with floods of diatribe, followed by a weak attempt to patronise

According to your post we, (as well as Christians by some of your weird logic ) now have to understand that we do not know what your God is, but if we have a long chit chat, you will be magnananimous enough to explain it.

You lose darkhorse

Superstition, Luck & Voodoo

 

[darkhorse]

So this is about winning and losing, stu?

You are a logical positivist. That is not an insult, it's a statement of fact based on the undeniable observation that your belief structure conforms to logical positivism.

I did not say I have secret beliefs that I am hiding, I was directly responding to your one liner post asking if I've invented my own God. I have not. You try to set me up by asking a question, then framing my reasonable response as being something it is not.

'Diatribe' is defined as 'a bitter, abusive denunciation.'

Funny stu but with your talk of winning and losing and insulting buzzwords, that sounds like exactly what you have been offering all along.....

 

[stu]

problem is dark we speak a different language using the same words
definition of diatribe: as A Thunderouse verbal attack.

you pervert meaning of truth to suit your concept.

 

[darkhorse]

And by the way stu, yes you are correct that one on one conversations can be slightly more effective methods of communication than generic message board posts. Is this a surprise?

And yes if someone holds basic assumptions regarding what I believe and would like to clarify or test them, or if someone simply wants to know more about what I believe in general, then I will be 'magnanimous' enough to chat with them. I didn't know explaining one's self was a pompous act. Or was it just another attempt on your part to cast me in a bad light because you don't like what I have to say. Nahhh, that can't be it....

Care to reload and try again?