Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Adele Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

I REALLY wish that Atheists would just give it a rest...

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:30:47 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Michael Altarriba:

<<It must also be noted that many wish to go with what makes them feel the most satisfied, the most guided, the most certain even when we *do* have knowledge, and even when that knowledge directly contradicts the beliefs they have chosen.>>

It could be, of course, argued that we *always* go with "what makes [us] feel the most satisfied, the most guided, the most certain"... it just so happens that in most cases following the knowledge we *do* have provides those feelings for us (besides being practical, of course) :)

<<And, worst of all, some of them wish to force the rest of us to act as if we shared their beliefs, even when we don't.>>

True that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:31:42 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
Stan Furman sez:
But it isn't *you* who is going to church and performs all those rituals, so it isn't up to you to qualify that behavior as reasonable or not. :)
=====
"Reasonable," in as far as it means "supportable by valid logical argument" is independent of my judgement, or that of my neighbor. That there is no logical _reason_ for him to perform these rituals is really an objective assessment that anyone would come to through application of logical techniques.

What remains, then, is to decide if what he does is acceptable, even though it may not be reasonable -- and since his life impacts my through proximity, that -is- a judgement for me to make.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:32:30 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
"- I think in case when reason is suspended, emotional attractiveness is the only other criteria we are capable of using."

But alot of times, the need to having to resort to any criteria to make any decisions is not necessary. It's OK to just say "we don't know yet", when we don't. I don't know yet if parallel universes exist. But so what? It doesn't keep me from living and making decisions for my life. I don't have to have all ultimate knowledge, all ultimate values, and have them be immutable and eternal for all time, to figure out that I am hungry and want to make myself a quick afternoon snack.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:35:33 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Ataraxia:

<<Why should we find what we OUGHT to do?>>

Because living = doing, so "not doing" is not an option.

I don't think the rest of your post was addressed to me as I said nothing about god, religions, or any of that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:40:16 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
So what if there is no "ought"? Only what we most cleverly and imaginatively can come up with?

"Nowadays, to say that we are clever animals is not to say something philosophical and pessimistic but something political and hopeful - namely, if we can work together, we can make ourselves into whatever we are clever and courageous enough to imagine ourselves becoming. This is to set aside Kant's question "What is man?" and to substitute the question "What sort of world can we best creatively prepare for our great grandchildren?" "
-Richard Rorty

"... our maturation has consisted in the gradual realization that, if we can rely on one another, we need not rely on anything else. In religious terms, this is the thesis that God is just a projection of the best, and sometimes the worst, of humanity. In philosophical terms, it is the thesis that anything that talk of objectivity can do to make our practices intelligible can be done equally well by talk of intersubjectivity."
-Richard Rorty

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:41:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2012 2:46:03 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
Stan Furman sez:
Exactly. Of course what is completely logical in that new and richer logical system (metasystem) may seem very illogical for one still looking from within the original one...
======
Some things may seem illogical in the original system because it lacks some of the axiomatic richness of the new system. But really, that's irrelevant, since the purpose for constructing the new system in the first place was to answer questions which resulted in paradox in the original system.

Special relativity theory allows for the solution to questions that were paradoxical from the perspective of Newtonian mechanics, but as long as those questions aren't asked, Newtonian mechanics is quite adequate for the speeds we see in day to day life. The old systemn exists within the new; the new system reasonably answers those questions not reasonably answerable in the old system. In neither case has it been necessary to abandon reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:42:08 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr H:

<<"Reasonable," in as far as it means "supportable by valid logical argument" is independent of my judgement, or that of my neighbor.>>

Weren't you the one advocating a possibility of each person having their own logical system? Let me check... yeap, that was you:
" - What it suggest is that a richer logical system -- a metasystem -- is called for, which includes the original logical system, plus room for logical treatment of those questions which resulted in paradox in the original system."

<<What remains, then, is to decide if what he does is acceptable, even though it may not be reasonable -- and since his life impacts my through proximity, that -is- a judgement for me to make.>>

Not as far as our constitution is concerned, of course no one can stop you from judging, but as far as what you can DO..., not much, is it (unless you want to give your neighbor the power to force *his* beliefs on you). :))

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:43:52 PM PST
IFeelFree says:
Dr H: At the risk of tossing in a monkey-wrench here, for that explanation to have meaning, you really need to define what you mean by "truth".

IFF: To paraphrase a Zen master, truth is what remains whey you cease cherishing opinions. Even Jesus wouldn't respond when asked "what is truth"? The only thing I would add is that truth requires both knowledge and experience. (That's why science is powerful -- it requires both theory and empirical support.)

Dr H: Considering the chaos that was Fitzgerald's life, I'm guessing that this didn't happen for him too often.

IFF: Fitzgerald descended into alcoholism in middle age, at the same time his wife developed schizophrenia. However, this quote stands on its own merit.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:44:56 PM PST
IFeelFree says:
Dr H: While a lot of skeptics may be atheists, not all of them are. And certainly not all atheists are scientific skeptics.

IFF: Which is why is used the word "most".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:45:27 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
Stan Furman sez:
Because living = doing, so "not doing" is not an option.
======
Wow, here we go into Zen territory: "not doing is a form of doing".

;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:48:02 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Ataraxia:

<<It's OK to just say "we don't know yet", when we don't.>>

It sure is, but people don't have to, do they?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:49:28 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Ataraxia:

<<So what if there is no "ought"? Only what we most cleverly and imaginatively can come up with?>>

And how is that any different from what I am saying?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:50:28 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
"Because living = doing, so "not doing" is not an option."

So it seems like you like to have things dictated to you by some external moral authority with an "ought". The idea that you have to come up with what to do on your own is too scary a concept? This is like the child who wonders what reason they would have for cleaning up their rooms, bathing, and not pulling their little sister's hair, without their parents telling them they "ought" not to do that. It's immature. Grownups who are emotionally mature and responsible can create their own values.

"The very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. "
_Isaiah Berlin

Some of us are realizing all the "ought"s wrapped in religious garb in the past have simply been power-ploys by those clever enough to know how to use such fears and uncertainties for their own personal reasons. And we have found we do much better without someone or other telling us what those "ought"s are.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. "
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:51:21 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr H:

<<In neither case has it been necessary to abandon reason.>>

Except that from within the old system it *looks like* the reason was indeed abandoned.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:51:41 PM PST
Dr H says:
Weren't you the one advocating a possibility of each person having their own logical system? Let me check... yeap, that was you:
======
Nope, it wasn't. Nowhere did I state or suggest that such a meta system would be peculiar to any particular individual. If the system is self-consistent, it is self-consistent for everyone.

------
Not as far as our constitution is concerned,
======
What does that have to do with anything? The Constitution is a legal document, not a metaphysical system. I might take the Constitution into consideration in determining what is -acceptable- (or I might not), but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether anything is -reasonable-.

------
but as far as what you can DO..., not much
======
Oh there are all sorts of things I could do, each with it's own set of consequences. But again, that has nothing to do with what is reasonable, though it would have a lot to do with what might be acceptable.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:52:00 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
"It sure is, but people don't have to, do they? "

If you have a 14-year-old who continues to clean up his room only for the sole reason that that is what he "ought" to do so Santa will bring him presents- well, that can be a source of concern.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:52:37 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr H:

<<Wow, here we go into Zen territory: "not doing is a form of doing".>>

Not bad, huh :))

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:53:53 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
"And how is that any different from what I am saying? "

Because what we come up with have to be logical and practical solutions to real, this-worldly problems. You come up with a practical answer, try it in practice, and see if it works.

I don't see how there is any NEED for an element of a "leap of faith" here.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:55:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 5, 2012 3:03:01 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
IFeelFree sez:
Even Jesus wouldn't respond when asked "what is truth"?
======
It's very convenient indeed when one claims to /have/ the truth, to never actually have to define what that means.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:55:57 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Ataraxia:

<<So it seems like you like to have things dictated to you by some external moral authority with an "ought". The idea that you have to come up with what to do on your own is too scary a concept?>>

Were you reading my posts or just decided to listen to crazy voices in your head??? I have no idea where you came up with all this nonsense, wasn't anything I said for sure (unless you WERE listening to crazy voices, of course).
:)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:56:40 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
"It;s very convenient indeed when one claims to /have/ the truth, to never actually have to define what that means. "

hence my quote earlier:
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing - that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
-Richard Feynman

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:57:20 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
IFeelFree sez:
Which is why is used the word "most".
======
It is not clear to me that your observation is in fact true of a majority of atheists, but if you have some polling data that might suggest such, I'd be interested to look at it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:58:41 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Ataraxia:

<<I don't see how there is any NEED for an element of a "leap of faith" here.>>

Just because *you* don't see it does not mean others don't either.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 2:59:24 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
Well, explain it to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 5, 2012 3:01:28 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr H:

<<Nowhere did I state or suggest that such a meta system would be peculiar to any particular individual. If the system is self-consistent, it is self-consistent for everyone.>>

True, it would be "self-consistent for everyone", everyone willing to accept it ... which might be just one person only. :)

OK, let's leave Constitution out of it for now.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  242
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 28, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions