Here’s a girl “exposing” atheism and evolution. She says, for instance, that evolution isn’t true because “it hasn’t been observed.”
This would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad.
The ironic thing is she says, “We have to look at where the evidence falls. We have to look at the options that are most rational.”
She then gives the argument from design. Sigh.
lots of attitude and no clue. school is broken. someone has abused her mind.
My favorite part is when she tells ex-atheists to stop being irrational and stop being led by blind faith.
Very, very sad to see an education system fail so much.
She likes the argument from ignorance.
I’m sorry. I really want to believe this is Poe’s Law in action.
Confirmation bias. Don’t be too hard on her. She’s only human.
I really didn’t care to listen to the whole thing, sorry. But I agree, ironic, the things she is saying. Do people listen to themselves speak…ever?
Well maybe if she played back the video to herself she would just be saying, “AMEN SISTER!”
Yeah……sigh…
Well, by that logic she must probably believe cars, fast food and babies just appear by the grace of God, since she probably hasn’t actually OBSERVED them being created. Don’t pay any attention to the fact that they exist, and had to have come from somewhere. If she didn’t OBSERVE them being created, she can’t very well be expected to BELIEVE in them, can she?
I don’t know what’s worst: her supposed logic, or her T-shirt.
It wouldn’t bother me so much, except that Greta Christina has just pointed out that the arguments of the ‘higher level’ apologists aren’t much better. They’re just more literate versions of the same thing.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/01/the-big-guns-greta-answers-the-theologians.html#comments
There you go Daniel, take a teenager girl with no formal training in biology or philosophy and put her on blast. Real cool, man. Real cool. I really liked this blog for a while. I found it to be an honest look at faith from a very interesting perspective. I find myself checking in on it less and less, now, as I realize it has become a shallow vehicle for taking jabs at people rather than seriously deliberating over ideas. I am a believer, with a philosophy degree. I am constantly wrestling with the implications of my faith and the possibility that I may be clinging to something that is absurd. I don’t know what the intention of this blog is, but I get the impression that it is to demonstrate the life outside of theism as a true, rational, and better way of life (especially, to a believer who may be becoming skeptical concerning his or her own faith). If that is, in fact, the intentions of this blog then it has failed me terribly.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt your stroking of each others egos. You can get back to your circle jerk, now.
Wade:
And theological websites aren’t circle-jerks? Religion isn’t a big circle-jerk?
A christian girl tells the entire Internet about how atheism is false, but an atheist website can’t also tell the entire Internet that this particular girls is, in fact, wrong?
If faith can’t handle being mocked, not even a little bit, it’s not very faithful, is it?
@Wade: I’m not the one who put her up on youtube. Obviously someone put her in front of a crowd and uploaded it unto youtube to preach to the heathen atheists. I’m just helping them reach their demographic a little better. They should thank me.
I don’t mind people mocking Christianity. In fact, I do it quite often. The Church is a very “fractured vessel” to borrow a religio-centric term. (case in point: check out the “ex-masturbator” T-shirts from the website of the ministry referenced in the video. Now that’s worthy of a good jab.)
All I’m saying is that this “online community” is not what I thought it was when I first started reading Daniel’s blog. There is no place for educated differing opinions here. I don’t belong here.
Actually, Wade, I think this is a great place for “educated differing opinions.” Obviously you don’t agree this girl has an “educated differing opinion” and I don’t either. So we agree there.
We’re always asking believers to provide evidence or, since we’ve never been able to get any of that, at least a persuasive argument. If you want to do that, more power to you. It will make the conversation here even better.
And yes, that t-shirt will be getting a jab next! So much material, so little time…
@Daniel: My point is, you choose to post video’s form people like this girl and Ray Comfort and ignore valid analytical arguments from people like Wittgenstein and Richard Swinburne. If you’re going to “take on” the absurdity of Christendom…. in the words of YHWH to Job, “Brace yourself like a man” and at least start by debunking someone like Chesterton and work your way up. Right now, all I see is children stopping on lizards, pretending to be dragon slayers. Again, it’s your blog, and you do what you want, all I’m saying is that it is not what I used to believe it was. Again, I don’t belong here.
“Obviously someone put her in front of a crowd and uploaded it unto youtube to preach to the heathen atheists. I’m just helping them reach their demographic a little better. They should thank me.”
This is what I’m saying. By posting this, you have become her. Her target is “heathen atheists”. I assume you’re target (though I don’t believe you have an agenda) would be educated, free thinking Christians. By posting this video here, her “target audience” has been turned off, and consequently, so has yours.
And in reference to providing a “persuasive argument” I have. And to your credit, you gave me an opportunity to post it here and I thought it opened up a great discussion. But it was a hastily put together, stream of consciousness piece that (although it expressed some thoughts I have) it is hardly a serious work. Since then, I have seen few and fewer good discussions and more and more pandering.
All apologies for my candor.
Wade,
I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically. Since you are the one who is struggling with faith and you are the one who thinks that Chesterton, Wittgenstein and Swinburne have important arguments concerning theism, please post some. Then we won’t be swatting at fleas. I’m sure many would like the opportunity to engage.
Wade:
“All I’m saying is that this “online community” is not what I thought it was when I first started reading Daniel’s blog. There is no place for educated differing opinions here. I don’t belong here.”
@Wade: Well then you shouldn’t come here anymore. Why aggravate yourself?
I disagree with your assertion about “differing opinions” though. I’ve been following this blog for a while now, and almost every comment thread involves allegedly intelligent believers offering “differing opinions.” Problem is, we see the same opinions over and over again, without any evidence backing them. The video is just another – admittedly less articulate than some – version of the same unfounded “opinions” we see here all the time.
I don’t think you are saying there’s “no room for differing opinion” but, rather, that we refuse to say those opinions have merit. You want us to accept opinions based on faith as equally viable with those based on evaluation of actual evidence.
You are going to have a long wait.
The fact is that there are tons of “Christian” people who are not well informed, but decide to voice their opinion when they shouldn’t. The same goes for non-Christians/ atheists.
If I wanted to start a blog that pointed out all of the silly arguments that atheists had, I would have a huge amount of material to work with.
I agree with Wade that there is too much poking fun and not enough serious debate going on here. All it seems that is going on here is that atheists read this blog and strengthen their faith in atheism by looking at things that falsely represent the other side! I have seen many blog entries here that I cannot even begin to explain how off track from the truth they are, and I’m not even the most well-educated person.
Lastly, I find it funny that the only “unsuitable” comments that get deleted off here are the ones written by people who don’t agree with your blog entries. But There is plenty of needless mockery and bullying towards “Christians” and certain people in the videos.
The school system in the US seems to really fail …
@Adam
1. You should start that blog then. After all, the answer to speech you disagree with is more speech.
2. Atheism is not faith. (I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand)
3. Please give us your run-down on the entries that are “off track from the truth,” along with your well reasoned arguments supporting the “truth.”
@Adam: “Lastly, I find it funny that the only “unsuitable” comments that get deleted off here are the ones written by people who don’t agree with your blog entries. ”
What comments might that be? Any examples? No?
I had never — NEVER — deleted a comment simply because someone disagreed with me. Notice your own comment hasn’t been removed.
The only reason I’ve deleted comments is because they are overly offensive. I don’t know where you got this idea, but if someone said they got deleted here because they disagreed with me, they flat out lied.
* * *
Now, as a general note: I realize I have many posts making fun of stupid Christians and am “swatting at flies.” But I enjoy those posts. And most of us have to deal with “stupid Christians” on a regular basis, not ivory-tower theologians or educated laymen. So we can have a laugh together.
And frankly, I don’t want to have a boring blog. Sure, I could tackle philosophers every day, but I’d lose almost all my readers and would gain a few boring philosophy majors who would bitch and complain about semantics.
No thanks.
I do aim to have a balance, though. I think I’ve written some thoughtful essays, and I continue to work on more of them. If you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, please comment or send me a guest post. I’m happy to post thoughtful and well-written guest posts.
The only impact on my faith from reading this blog, is my increasing lack of faith.
The people I see in these kinds of debates are smart atheists along with stupid atheists who think they are smart, and smart theists along with stupid theists who continually try to justify their stupidity with faith.
I’d love to read, and participate, in more in-depth debates on religion, but I’m not going to stop having fun reading funny things about people who I think are stupid and funny because of that. If someone doesn’t like me laughing at them, then they are welcome to make fun of me in return. They can not, and will not ever, stop me from laughing at them, faith or no faith.
@Wade
It’s been a while, but have you not seen the debates Daniel has posted between atheists like Sam Harris and Hitchens with various prominent theologians? They are clearly far from the “lizards” that you call these not so educated easy targets.
Are you upset at the posting of this video, simply because of what you speculate the reason for its posting to be? Or is there a more valid reason, like specific language used in the post above? To me, from the language, it sounds to me like Daniel posted this video because he believes it is sad that such a grand mis-understanding of things can so easily spread to those that may not be as educated, and therefore don’t (or can’t) realize that their arguments and lines of reasoning are so false and damaging to other aspects of their lives.
This is just one of the concerns that a lot of us atheists have with society and our culture as we know it, that this happens to easily, and it’s helpful to be reminded of it so as to “fuel our fire” to make sure this topic of skepticism remains open and ever-changing.
It would be easy for us atheists to keep our atheism to ourselves, as we are the minority. But a growing number of us feel that it is important to make sure that more and more people are free thinkers, and are not bound by their indoctrination or societal pressures to believe in the unbelievable.
We encourage you to stick around. If you do not like some of the comments on particular posts, you can ignore them, and only address the ones that interest you. Do not judge the author of a blog on its comments that you disagree with. Keep in mind that what Martin said is very true. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to check out some believer blogs, and try to compare the comments with the mind of a skeptic. I’m confident you will witness the same “circle jerk” atmosphere that you believe is happening here.
One last point, go back and read all of the comments before yours. Do any of them use language like “DAMN she’s stupid!” or “Religious people are retarded”. No, and I have never read anything like that on this blog. I’m sure you could on others.
There’s a fine line however between dissent and dissent for dissent’s sake.
To be fair, just because there’s a majority (so far) who expressed opinion against the video doesn’t mean dissenting opinion isn’t tolerated.
@Adam
Yes, Adam, do you recall any specific times where you read a comment, and then later it wasn’t there? I have never seen this happen, and I read almost every word that everyone says on this blog, even the posts with hundreds of comments (except that one about abortion, with almost 1,000 comments!).
Hey guys, keeping up with comments via blackberry while out doing some work. Just wanted to say thanga and I am very encouraged and I for one have never experienced any undue censorship here. In fact, Daniel has been more than hospitable, even when I throw around terms like “circle jerk”. I like where this is going. Will post a couple of ideas when I get back home. Thanks for renewing my hope in UF. Sorry about my tactless display of frustration. Though I stand by the contents,I realize I was generalizing a bit much.
Ignorance is bliss.
As the wise George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
Imagine that, another creationist plagiarist.
Wade:
Rather than being just another stereotypical concern troll, why don’t you dazzle us with your well-reasoned and wholly original philosophical arguments and/or empirical evidence for the existence of a god?
Oh and it would be nice if you could also offer up an explanation as to why your god is the one and only correct god, and not Ba’al, Osiris-Dionysus, Zeus, Thor, Cthulhu, Apollo, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Wade,
Thanks for your patience with us. I know that it is getting under your skin that this blog isn’t dealing with Wittgenstein and other theologians, but here’s a blog that would be excellent for you:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
You specifically expressed an interest in wanting to see someone attempt to “debunk” arguments about Christianity. Well, I think “Debunking Christianity” would be a good place to start.
As far as this blog goes, I think our purpose can be summed up by the title “Unreasonable Faith”. However, as you may have noticed, reasonable dissent is strongly encouraged here, even if Adam has a differing opinion about it (which, you may note, is visible right now.)
We even have tremendously high amounts of unreasonable dissent, and even unreasonable agreement. I’ve seen people say pretty much everything on this blog.
Wade, if you want to fit in here, all you need to do is be patient with us. If you make a positive claim, then please don’t expect us to believe your claim unless you have evidence for it. If you make an argument, and one of us criticizes a part of it, it would be nice if you could acknowledge that. I’m sure you are a decent and intelligent person, but we have lots of problems with theists who constantly move the goalposts, avoid acknowledging our points that we’ve made, and just flat out deceive us sometimes.
Usually, people come in here and say things like “I have enough evidence to believe in god” or “My faith is entirely logical and/or rational” and then by the time they leave, they end up saying things like “I believe because I have faith” and “you can’t really know the nature of god” when earlier they had specifically made precise, specific claims about the nature of their god and had also claimed that belief was rational, and then they go and say that no claims can ever be tested or characteristics can ever be known and that faith not rationality is at the heart of their beliefs: that is, some just commit a total flip-flop.
So before you begin, if we ever seem frustrated, this is part of the reason why.
Am I the only one who thinks that she presented her ideas in a much more clearly thought-out way than most professional apologists? Her initial assertions were incorrect, but not wildly so. There were all things that one might assume just by observing the world on a macro level, without the education to delve any deeper. From there, her steps were (mostly, with a few ghastly exceptions) logical. Someone just fed her the wrong information – but she’s clearly a really smart person. Were our positions reversed, I think I’d call her a “lost soul.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if we see her showing up on the atheist blogosphere in a couple years – maybe once she’s gone to college and taken an intro to biology or geology course.
And Wade – I don’t see anyone making fun of her. If anything, people are talking about her IDEAS, and how terrible it is that someone so young is so misguided. The problem with this video is not her personally, but that so many young people have been told so many lies about the world around them. We can argue all day with professional theologians, but their religion is rarely the same as that of the masses. And for many of us, it is the religion of the masses that is of concern to us.
I, for one, didn’t find the girl on the video to be stupid. She appears to me to be an intelligent, self-confident person. However, her knowledge and experience seem to have been severely limited. She seems not to have been exposed to the reasons why her arguments are so vapid. How very sad that both her church and her school have failed this potentially bright person.
Almost any reasonably adept debater would have thoroughly debunked the girl’s line of reasoning, but she seems never to have heard any of it. That is sad, because she is now easily mocked and left to twist in the winds of ignorance. Shouldn’t she at least be prepared with the reasons atheists have shown this reasoning to be baseless? Why has her church or her school not done some better preparation with this obviously articulate person? This is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know the answer.
I agree with a bit of de-delusionalizing, she could be great on our team. She reminds me alot of myself in high school. I agree in a decade, it’s quite likely she’ll be starting an atheist blog of her own. :)
> I am constantly wrestling with the implications of my faith and the possibility that I may be clinging to something that is absurd.<
Wade, you are clinging to something that is absurd – not to mention contradictory. The reality of reality is that there is no god, there was never a Jesus, nor talking snakes, smelly Arks, virgin births, etc. Daniel Florian figured it out, Darwin figured it out. Why can’t you?
Unless you’re having fun as a troll – which certainly seems possible – I feel sorry for you. For you are are unable to let go of a belief system that you know makes no sense. To help assuage that knowledge, you’ve turned into a crabby cry-baby, blaming the messengers instead of coping with the unequivocal message: what you believed – until now – is a bunch of hooey.
“Why has her church or her school not done some better preparation with this obviously articulate person?”
It’s because politicians control what gets taught in public schools.
Case in point:
The Texas board of eduction has appointed three supporters of intelligent design (out of a total of six advisors) to advise them about Texas science standards.
Oh I do love this blog.
I’m laughing so hard, I’ll have to go urinate now…
.. coz God’s been observed?
@ Wade
Being an atheist, it’s hard to find too many people I disagree with on blogs written by atheists. If I can find an intelligent person to talk to who disagrees with me, it seems likely that at least one of us will learn something. I like teaching and learning, so you seem like a good person to ask – do you know of any good blogs written by thoughtful theists? Or forums where I can find some intelligent dissent? I like http://www.philosophyforums.com for a lot of this kind of discussion, but I’d like to know about any others as well.
@ Grimalkin
I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes, I thought she laid out her ideas very well. So much so that I’d like to have a back-and-forth conversation with her.
Check out this guy:
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/the-fallacy-of-scientific-naturalism/#comment-98
He ACTUALLY SAYS “Ruling out the supernatural as a solution a priori is unscientific.”
Good grief! Someone help me take this dude down!
@ Wade
“There you go Daniel, take a teenager girl with no formal training in biology or philosophy and put her on blast. Real cool, man”
Why is this always the response in this situation? Constantly bombarded by woolly thinking I am expected to accept that people like this have a valid point and a “reasonable” standpoint. I am expected to respect their argument despite the fact that they don’t respect mine even enough to research and understand it. If she is speaking the truth, as the “amen-ers” in the video would have us believe, then it’s uplifting that one so young should have seen the light. If she is wrong then it’s MY fault for decrying her ignorance. How, exactly, is this a fair basis for rational and balanced argument?
@ Ira — the only thing irrational about that guy is he cites the supernatural as beyond nature and beyond knowledge–and still claims that he falls within the realm scientific argument.
I wonder if this girl has ever heard of the term, “Straw Man.”
And, we didn’t come from apes…
Ignorance at its best.
Wade, I have yet to find one of those ‘serious’ theological arguments that wasn’t either an argument from incredulity, a variation on pascal’s wager, or an appeal to authority.
If you post one that isn’t, I will buy you a beer.
In the meantime, concern trolls are boring.
@Ira364
Well it would be rather ironic if after years of ‘scientific’ research they said they had some good news and some bad news. This good news was that they had discovered god but the bad news was they had backed the wrong horse as it turned out his name is allah.
“Does any scientist have any proof of this happening?” Can these people even do any of their research?
@FreelanceGuru
Do any research – you are joking aren’t you? The whole ID style of arguments is never presenting any of the own evidence yet concentrate on attacking existing theories with half baked ideas and then claiming that because say evolution doesn’t explain everything absolutely perfectly then god must have done it. Probably the best example of this is evolution doesn’t explain how life began — which is a bit like saying Einstein was wrong because none of his theories explained how to make the perfect English Breakfast. The second great ‘attack’ is assuming that any question to which the answer is we don’t know means that god must have done it.
Research on the other hand would actually require some evidence and testable theories to be put forward … never going to happen unless you count the god exists so let’s start from there shall we.
So I tried to comment on KSCG’s blog and he deleted my comments! I had links to both the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I guess it was just TOO much to hope that a creationist would ACTUALLY READ real scholarly material on the subject of evolution. Shock and surprise!!!
@Ira364
… and you’re surprised by this how?
@Ira364
I just looked at the kscg blog. What an annoying blog owner! The way he addresses his readers and commenters. Very pompous.
I think the thing that annoys me the most about fundamentalists is their anti-intellectual approach to the bible (read: any one can read and understand the literal word of god without so much as a history lesson to put it into context). Then they turn around and attack academic fields they know nothing about (read: anyone can do science! It’s easy! More implications… anyone can perform surgery! anyone can do theoretical physics! It’s easy!)
Argh!
Just the absolute height of stupidity!
And now I’m not just snarky, I’m pissed.
The website I mentioned above not only deleted MY criticisms (which involved links to very reputable scholarly websites for the purpose of engaging in a real debate about the issues) but also every one else’s and REPLACED it with an agreeing opinion. Sorry, but I lost my temper:
“One Response to “The Fallacy of Scientific Naturalism”
John Andrew said
February 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I agree with Sirius! In fact, I have been writing about similar issues in posts entitled The Psychology of Mass Delusions, A Far More Interesting Question, Intelligent Design vs. Stultifying Naturalistic Coercion, and What Darwin Got Wrong. Take a look! Go to http://andj4613.wordpress.com.
lra364 said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 1, 2009 at 11:59 pm
WOW you are soooooooo sick! You just erased valid justifiable points and replaced then with an agreeing point! You are incapable of engaging anyone on a scholastic level because YOU ARE WRONG AND CAN’T EVEN DEFEND YOURSELF RATIONALLY!!! Your are SERIOUSLY PATHETIC because you continue to lead the blind even though you are blind yourself. You refuse to engage in a real DEBATE because you are DELUSIONAL!
You said I called you dumb and declared that you go away. You just declared that I go away because you are ignorant. How ironic.
SAD, VERY VERY SAD!
lra364 said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2009 at 12:01 am
NO WONDER SCIENCE LAUGHS AT IGNORANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU. YOU REFUSE TO ENGAGE IN THE REAL LITERATURE!!!
lra364 said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2009 at 12:09 am
Third time’s a charm? READ THE LITERATURE YOU IGNORANT, DOGMATIC HYPOCRITE!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
If not, then continue in your IGNORANCE! What do I care? (Just stay away from public school SCIENCE classrooms and quit violating our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!!)
You are a HUGE disappointment!
lra364 said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2009 at 12:22 am
AND I might add that you are as bad as the Islamic theists/terrorists who tell us that America is the devil because they want to blow themselves up to get 72 virgins! YOU ARE NO APOLOGIST! You won’t even RATIONALLY defend yourself! You are a facist! You are an OPRESSOR of your people! You won’t even expose them to the ACTUAL LITERATURE so that they may CRITICALLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
Is it the tithing? Do you need money? Are you afraid that critical thinking might put you out of a job?
JUST DISGUSTING!”
Perhaps I was a bit harsh? I dunno. Fascism is pretty bad.
@Ira364
The blog which is in agreement is even funnier or worrying — here’s a “good” quote:
“One thing most would agree on is that fascist governments repress free speech, and have little or no regard for human rights. Germans had to agree with the party line: “Ya, dose dirty Jews, they should be taught a lesson.”, they might say when in the presence of uniformed troopers, even while privately they had nothing against most Jews, and actually despised the Nazis. Well, that’s what’s happening today in our institutions of higher learning. Rights? You have the right to keep your mouth shut, and when we want you to speak, we’ll tell you what to say.”
Can anyone spot the flaws in this?
Jabster-
Hahahahahahahaha! *wiping tear from eye*
The idiocy never ceases!
Adding yet another name to the list of expendables…
And yes, that t-shirt will be getting a jab next!…
Give us the short list: Christian evangelists who do not claim to be former atheists.
I know I’m coming late to this game, but I fear many on this comment thread are just feeding a concern troll in Wade.
I find it telling that Wade’s tactic is to try and guilt people into setting aside any standards for discourse to and give irrational, unsupported ideas a leg up, just because it would be mean to do otherwise. Science is not a game of Super Smash Brothers with your younger, less-skilled siblings. Letting up and giving them a chance to stay in the race is not appropriate in this regard.
Wade, from your other comments on other threads, I know you to be intelligent and at least moderately well-read, but I also believe you to be a troll. Here’s what I think has happened to frustrate you, Wade. You would like us to acknowledge your learned opinions on subjects, but contrary to these expectations, you’ve been rebuffed and with arguments that you’ve had little or no relevant rejoinder to. Seeing that you cannot achieve the regard you desire through reasoned discourse, you now approach the point of “taking your ball and going home”. But, your ego will not allow you to simply retire from the field quietly. No, you must first let it be known that it was we who were unable to rise your level, and that’s the real reason you’re leaving, not the fact that you couldn’t deal with us not throwing the game so you could feel good about your ideas.
If I’ve mischaracterized you above, Wade, I apologize. But, I and many others tire of care trolls very quickly. Either leave, or come up with something to talk about that is of greater substance. You’re boring.
Regarding the video, Daniel, I don’t disagree with your posting it at all. The ideas coming out of that young woman’s mouth were drivel. It is always worth exposing the real wages of theism to the light of day. Don’t allow it to constantly hide behind articulate and intentionally obfuscatory apologetics. Show it’s effects on real minds, impressionable minds, minds clearly yearning for understanding of the world around them, but merely without the experience or education to help them distinguish between different qualities of evidence. This is among the most heinous of theism’s crimes, and the efforts of some commenters to tell you to shut up and stop exposing it say volumes about their own desires to gloss over the unsavory consequences of their preferred delusions.
@ Baka
“I find it telling that Wade’s tactic is to try and guilt people into setting aside any standards for discourse to and give irrational, unsupported ideas a leg up.”
I’m not sure where I proposed we should give the idea “a leg up.” I was just bring attention to the fact that if you are trying to refute an idea, a teenaged girl giving her misinformed opinion about that idea is probably not the best place to start.
“Wade, from your other comments on other threads, I know you to be intelligent and at least moderately well-read, but I also believe you to be a troll. Here’s what I think has happened to frustrate you, Wade. You would like us to acknowledge your learned opinions on subjects, but contrary to these expectations, you’ve been rebuffed and with arguments that you’ve had little or no relevant rejoinder to. Seeing that you cannot achieve the regard you desire through reasoned discourse, you now approach the point of “taking your ball and going home”. But, your ego will not allow you to simply retire from the field quietly. No, you must first let it be known that it was we who were unable to rise your level, and that’s the real reason you’re leaving, not the fact that you couldn’t deal with us not throwing the game so you could feel good about your ideas.”
Yeah, this is pretty much, true. I’m an ass.
“If I’ve mischaracterized you above, Wade, I apologize. But, I and many others tire of care trolls very quickly. Either leave, or come up with something to talk about that is of greater substance. You’re boring.”
All apologies for being boring.
“…the efforts of some commenters to tell you to shut up and stop exposing it say volumes about their own desires to gloss over the unsavory consequences of their preferred delusions.”
I never told Daniel to “shut up”. I just said that over the last few months, I’ve begun to realize that this bored isn’t what I thought it was. I rushed to judgement a little bit, and made a post that was devoid of tact, and later apologized.
Here is my point in summation:
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High with shotguns and tech nines and started mowing down every kid in their path, all the while wearing T-shirts that said “natural selection” on them. If these two would have presented a misinformed presentation on Darwinian Evolution would it in anyway undermine the validity of the theory? No. It would just be two tragically confused kids who made a terrible decision, rationalizing their ideology. Would it be right to put this in the face of atheists and say, “look who you are, and what people like you do”? No, because this has no bearing on the ideology, it’s just an ad hominem argument.
The truth is there are people on each side of this argument that aren’t the most informed. If you think there aren’t a load of Nietzschite teenagers on youtube, spewing out irrational drivel about atheistic eschatology, then you need to remove your blinders. However, putting them and their ideas on a platform to mock leads away from authentic discourse and toward misinformed polarization.
Wade,
The problem is, many of the “professional” defenders of Christianity have little more knowledge of science than the girl in this video.
That is the sad and pathetic reality. That is part of the reason why some of the commenters are harping on this: we are disappointed that so many people are often mis-educated and ill-informed.
I am disappointed that people are misinformed about Nietzsche, but until people start trying to teach Nietzsche instead of science in our classrooms, threaten others with eternal torture for not believing the words of Nietzsche, and preventing homosexuals from acceptance based on the word of Nietzsche, then my disappointment will continue to remain inequally distributed, skewed towards the side of the Christian fundamentalists who have so much influence in American life.
Most “professional” defenders of Chrstianity are idiots. Ravi Zacharias is a pretty educated, informed guy. Other than him, there is not a popular Christian apologist that doesn’t cause bile to jump into my throat. But the validity of an idea, has nothing to do with the people who are presenting it, regardless of how good or bad they may be.
I feel like I’m forever caught in the middle. Atheists think the Fundamentalist are taking over, Fundamentalist think the Atheist are taking over. All the while, everyone wallows in ignorance pointing blame at the other and not doing a damned thing about it.
I don’t know you, so I’m asking without assumption…
If you are worried about the state of education in our society, do you…
Teach or volunteer at a local high school?
Do you mentor kids?
Do you help out with after school programs?
If you truly “are disappointed that so many people are often mis-educated and ill-informed.” What are you doing to correct this problem, other than posting on a blog read mostly by people who share your opinion? Please don’t take offense to this question, I’m not assuming you aren’t doing anything, I just believe we need to ask ourselves these questions, often. If you can answer that question to yourself, satisfactorily, then that is wonderful, I congratulate you. The world needs more people like you. However, if you can’t answer that question in a manner that you feel comfortable with, then by all means, stop whining about how the Fundies are ruining everything and go out there and make your world a better place.
@Daniel florien:
This is what you wrote in response to my comment earlier:
“What comments might that be? Any examples? No?
I had never — NEVER — deleted a comment simply because someone disagreed with me. Notice your own comment hasn’t been removed.
The only reason I’ve deleted comments is because they are overly offensive. I don’t know where you got this idea, but if someone said they got deleted here because they disagreed with me, they flat out lied.”
This is what you wrote to my email after you deleted one of my comments:
“You’re welcome to comment, just don’t be a jerk. I’ve deleted this comment,
but you’re welcome to try again.”
……and all my comment said was “who’s angry, the guy in the video or you?”. Does that sound overly offensive to you? So if you did that to me, (deleted my comment) then you must have done that to other comments as well. I DO see more offensive comments that have been left on here that are just not directed towards you.
@Wade,
I will take your question about whether those of us that bemoan the miseducation that at face value. I happen to teach university biology labs. I make money to pay my bills and tuition in college by being a TA for my department. I’m currently working towards my PhD in biology, and my field of study is evolutionary biology. Mind you, I mention this only because you asked if we were doing anything to try and fix the problems we see, not to attempt to win points via an argument from authority. PhD students are just as capable of being wrong as laypersons or PhDs. But, I do know a few things about the subject and I do make efforts to educate folks in this regard … in fact I intend to devote my career to educating people about it and furthering knowledge in the field.
However, I do not agree with your implication that if someone recognizes that science education in this country is broken, they must necessarily engage in science education or be open to charges of hiding on atheist-friendly blogs and preaching only to the choir. First of all, I know many of the people in this blog spend no small amount of time on other, less-friendly fora. Just because they also comment here does not mean this is the only place they comment.
Second, doing what Daniel is doing counts as educating the public. Don’t you think the video of this young woman was meant to evangelize about her beliefs? Of course. Mockery of the video and providing a forum where the problems in her arguments may be discussed is just as much of a blow for science education as a lecture. If there were not blogs like Daniel’s, databases like talk.origins, and atheist/evolutionist video-makers on YouTube counteracting these efforts by the ignorant (e.g. Thunderf00t), there’d be little opposition to their lies available to anyone seeking information.
Lastly, this blog is also meant to provide a community for atheists where they can find like-minded folk and grouse about the problems and annoyances we all encounter. That means there will be some folks here that recognize the need for better education, but simply don’t have the talent for or desire to educate. This is not a bad thing. I can recognize that political changes may be needed while not wanting to become a politician myself. If those non-educators want to come here to encounter rational discussions and sympathetic folks who may share some of their experiences, there’s no reason to demean them for doing so.
@Wade, one more point …
You said, “I feel like I’m forever caught in the middle. Atheists think the Fundamentalist are taking over, Fundamentalist think the Atheist are taking over. All the while, everyone wallows in ignorance pointing blame at the other and not doing a damned thing about it.”
Just because there are two opinions about something does not mean that the reasonable position is to split the difference and take up a position in between. In this case, it’s pretty clear that theists are in the vast majority, while atheists are in the minority. Also, the claims theists make about the consequences of atheism (e.g. increased crime, teen pregnancy, fascism, etc.) are demonstrably false, and the data are often indicative of the opposite conclusion. Meanwhile, the claims of most of the atheists I’m aware of about the consequences of theism (e.g. ignorance of basic facts about biology and sexuality, and tendencies to base governmental policies on these ignorant opinions) tend to be more defensible. At the very least, they seem to have much less of a tendency to be easily shown to be false by a simply review of the facts.
@Baka
“However, I do not agree with your implication that if someone recognizes that science education in this country is broken, they must necessarily engage in science education”
You read to much into that. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone should necessarily engage in science education, only that they do something; go out on a limb an invest in someone else’s life and equip them to make their own informed decisions. This could happen in thousands of different ways. I’m not sure how it got pigeon-holed into science education.
Thanks for your candor. However, I don’t agree with the polarization. I think the “us vs. them” mentality that so many are subscribing to, is far more threatening to society than any theistic or atheistic ideologies.
Also, I believe you responded to a post that was meant for Teleprompter. My post in response to yours is found directly below your original post. If you have already read it and just decided to respond to the other, that’s cool. I just didn’t want you to miss anything in the sequence of conversation.
@Wade,
I read your response to me, but felt that Teleprompter made most of the points in response that I would have (e.g. his point about the relative influence of Nietzschean fundamentalists vs. Christian fundamentalists in American society).
Having re-read your response, the only other thing I want to comment on is your Columbine analogy. I agree in part. Tarnishing faith by ONLY engaging in ad hominem attacks against the faithful would be unworthy. But, there are two caveats one should keep in mind. First of all, this blog’s title is “Unreasonable Faith”, and in addition to thoughtful discussions about a former theist’s discovery of what it is to be an atheist, it has always also been a showcase of the unreasonable things people do in the name of their faith. Sometimes, that means talking about horrific stories of tragic outcomes in which people die because of their faith or the faith of others. Other times, it involves simply pointing and laughing at an obviously stupid or ill-informed person who is so blinded by their faith that they are closed to any possibility that they may have been misinformed.
Second, claiming that the Columbine murderers were atheists and, therefore, that atheism leads to murder is an logically fallacious use of an ad hominem. True. But, this is only because it can be readily shown that the majority of atheists, and especially the most vociferous and evangelical among them (those whose opinions are most readily accessible) not consistently found to be murderers. However, on the subject of Intelligent Design, or even on the broader subject of evangelical Christianity, we can take a rather large sample of the vociferous proponents from television, politics, the internets, and literature … and much more often than not, these folks turn out to be laughable, willfully ignorant, poorly educated, dupes that wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it bit them in their ass (at least, in the areas of thought that touch on their irrational beliefs … compartmentalization can achieve much).
This is not to say there aren’t exceptions to the rule, but they are just that: exceptions. And just like the exceptional atheists, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the fact that they are exceptional precludes their exceptionality from being generalized to the larger group. The case of Eric and Dylan is not generalizable to the statement that most atheists are murderers. The case of the occasional reasonable(ish) person of faith is also not generalizable to support that most persons of faith are reasonable.
I don’t know if I made any sense in this post, because I’m nodding off at the keyboard. I’ll re-read it in the morning and apologize if it came out as gibberish. Goodnight, Wade, wherever you are.
“The case of the occasional reasonable(ish) person of faith is also not generalizable to support that most persons of faith are reasonable.”
I really believe that most people of faith are reasonable people, they live their life in a reasonable response to an existential experience that many are not be able to adequately articulate. I also believe that the mouth of a Christian is inversely proportional to the intellect. I am a member of a traditional, mainline Christian denomination. I believe that if you sat down and talked to everyone in the congregation, you’d find the majority to be reasonable level headed people. The problem is that reasonable level headed people don’t carry bullhorns. Loudmouth idiots do. Thus, the perception is that the majority of Christians are loudmouth idiots. Are you an ex-Christian as well? If so were you a member of a church congregation? What denomination? Did you find most of the people in your congregation unreasonable or irrational?
> All the while, everyone wallows in ignorance pointing blame at the other and not doing a damned thing about it.<
Wade, those are generalizations that no one should take seriously. Perhaps you wallow in ignorance and perhaps you point the blame at others and perhaps you’re not doing a damned thing about it (what is “it” by the way? Wallowing, ignorance, pointing out blame?). However you does not equal everyone, though you claim it and believe it to be so.
When Christians claims zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem after their god was crucified, they believe something on faith, and are ignorant of the way reality operates.
If Muslims believe a white horse carried their champion to heaven, they too believe on faith, not knowledge.
When people of the Jewish faith claim their ancestors wandered en masse in the desert for 40 years, they are ignorant of what actually occured in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.
People who believe anything based on faith alone are operating out of ignorance of reality. If what they believe on faith happens to coincide with reality, that’s what it is, a coincidence.
Faith has nothing to do with reality. If you ask people who have thought about their faith, they will admit that.
As a friend of mine, a physician and Christian, put it to me a while ago, “For me, no evidence is required.” Unfortunately, she had to add, “For you, no evidence is enough.” Wrong. I need at least some evidence to believe something. Faith alone usually doesn’t cut it with me.
As another acquaintance said, “Without faith, even against evidence, what’s the point of believing?” I would say “What’s the point of faith if it makes us willing to believe anything, from talking snakes in the OT to demon-possessed swine in the NT.
If you are like my friends, Wade, rather than just trolling, then you have a serious disconnect about the nature of reality. Oh, I’m sure you know how to flush a toilet, drive a car, flip a switch to turn on a light. You understand the basic principles behind those actions.
When it comes to “Where did I come from, what is the meaning of my life,” you turn off the light and retreat to faith. Like my friends, you are unwilling to face up to reality and demonstrate it here.
@Adam Gagne: I forgot about that. I looked it up and your comment, which I assume was directed at me, originally said “who is the angry one, the guy on the TV, or you??”
Now you are right that I’ve let more offensive comments slip through. But on that day I found your comment insulting and uncalled for.
So I have another rule: comments that I find personally insulting may be deleted at my discretion.
@Dave,
That was very luminous. You are right, I have a total disconnect with the real world, and so do your friends. When the going gets tough we just retreat to faith, and it’s all better. As a believer, I don’t recognize the implications of my own faith. I go about each day in ignorant bliss. I never live “in the daily terror of eternity” as TS Eliot put it. I never struggle with the existential dilemma of knowing something to be true, yet not being able to fully grasp the understanding of it, intellectually. I have spent, literally, a fifth of my life and an irresponsible amount of student loan debt wrestling with the questions you pose. However, since I have formed a different view point in light of my study and experience, then it is obvious that I’m “just totally unwilling to face up to reality.”
And as far as me not doing a “damned thing about it.” That is a question that I must pose only to myself before my God. I’m not going to sit here and list off a bunch of things I may or may not do to make the world around me a better place, but I will say that many times I am satisfied with my response to this question, and yet there are sometimes when I am not. However, this is a motivating force behind my life, and an answer to your previously posed questions about meaning and origin.
@ Wade
If your belief gives you meaning, why should any of us care?
I feel that it would be arrogant for anyone to try and remove that meaning. Besides, you are the ultimate and really the only relevant authority on what you believe.
I don’t know if there is a god or gods. The evidence of which I am aware indicates to me that the Biblical god in all likelihood does not exist.
However, my ideas do not have meaning for anyone other than myself, unless I can provide solid evidence, arguments, or logic for what I believe, and then what I provide is still subject to individual interpretation and scrutiny.
We all struggle with our beliefs and our sense of meaning.
The circumstance that we have come to different conclusions should not inherently imply anything positive or negative about either of us.
Now, I freely admit that there is more merit to some arguments and positions than others, but without an extended and elaborate discussion of these factors, we must defer from judging the opinions of others.
I will readily judge a YEC though, because I know the arguments and the positions. Though I would try to refrain from insulting remarks, it is difficult to see how someone would come to such a position other than by a deficiency in reasoning, experience, or intelligence.
However, I think both of us cannot admit that the “god” debates are not in the same territory. There are some things which we can know, but there are also many things which we may never know or never can know.
I am inclined to believe that atheists will never be able to conclusively prove that the generic “god” does not exist. I can’t foretell this, but it seems that there are too many obstacles and unknowns to justify such a belief.
Furthermore, I believe that I am fully justified to not believe in the god of the Bible, the god of the Qur’an, the god of Joseph Smith, the god of Scientology, and many other gods which we know of now.
In all likelihood, I cannot disprove the existence of these gods. But there are things of which I know now which to me make it highly unlikely that any of these gods would exist.
Is evolution true? Then I cannot take the Bible literally.
Is the Biblical revelation, and more importantly, the interpretation of Biblical revelation, inconsistent?
Then I cannot take the Bible (or most forms of Christianity) seriously.
Is the mind a product of the brain? Then I see no reason why I should believe in the concept of the “soul”.
A metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is more or less fine until I start to doubt the coherency of Christian dogma. But the incoherency is more or less defensible or avoidable until I doubt the existence of the “soul”.
Then I must proceed in doubting the premises of Christianity, due to this continually evolving set of circumstances.
If, once I begin to doubt the premises of Christianity, I cannot defend them, nor convince myself of their meaning or relevance or application or even existence, then I cannot in good faith profess Christianity as my religion, and then I feel compelled to move on to something else.
I am not here to insult or denigrate you. In fact, much of the time I have no idea of what you’re talking about, so I really have no good reason to do such a hypocritical and nonsensical thing to you.
I just want to express my beliefs, my experiences, and my struggles. I want to illuminate the discussions of religion and faith and skepticism. I want to contribute to our knowledge. I want to engage others in intelligent, calm, rational argument.
I am sure that you want the very same things that I do.
@ Wade
*I meant to say:
“both of us can admit that the “god” debates are not in the same territory”
@Teleprompter…
Bravo! Well put.
Tele, I have to ask… Dave suggests that the majority of thiests have a disconnect with reality. I believe that most theists merely have a different perspective on reality, in light of some personal, existential experience. What do you think?
Wade,
“Tele, I have to ask… Dave suggests that the majority of thiests have a disconnect with reality. I believe that most theists merely have a different perspective on reality, in light of some personal, existential experience. What do you think?”
Actually, I was just thinking about this the other day. Dan Barker has suggested that certain people have varying predispositions for the mystical or the spiritual.
For some people, “god” is reality – god exists for them, and for them, he is indeed real. That is not necessarily a disconnect from reality — if for some people the mystical is as plain as daylight, then for them it can be compared to our perception of say, free will.
Most of us are pretty sure that we have free will, but there are a lot who think we only have partial free will, and some of us are even total determinists.
I think these patterns are thought are mirrored in the approach to religion/mysticism: most of us are inclined to believe in the supernatural, for whatever reasons we may have, whether psychological, cultural, etc.
Some of us are “spiritual but not religious” like John C is, if you’ve seen his posts on a few threads. Some of us are more accurately “religious but not spiritual” — like a lot of people who say that they’re Christian or Jewish, etc. but rarely worship and only nominally think about and participate in their religion.
Some people really do have a “spiritual” sense but don’t believe in any particular religion, like Sam Harris.
I know a few friends (this is purely anecdotal) who rejected Christianity but still felt in touch with their “mystical sense” and became neo-pagan or polytheist/pantheist.
It seems from the way our psychology and perhaps our society has formed, that some people have a real need for religion or spirituality or mysticism in some variety.
There are a few people whom I would say are definitely “disconnected from reality” because of their religion — probably most fundamentalists fit into this category: Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and Christian. Anyone who believes that Earth came on the scene in the last 10,000 years is, in my opinion, definitely “disconnected from reality”.
If religion is true, science should not be a problem, because any hypothetical creator would have to be responsible for science. So if one’s views on religion are not compatible with science that has been well-established, then I would say that there is a disconnect.
However, one cannot say that “the majority of theists have a disconnect with reality”. Perhaps a substantial number do — but such a bold generalization does not seem supportable, and frankly, it’s not my style. So I guess I am disagreeing with Dave on this issue.
It’s also sort of a personal thing for me, since I used to be a theist up until the past six months. I only de-converted around last autumn.
I wouldn’t say that I was disconnected with reality as a theist. I always thought that science and religion had separate areas of exploration, faith versus religion fit a nice dichotomy for me.
The subject which drove my doubts the most was not incompatibility with science, but the essential nature of world religions and then the nature of Christianity itself.
I definitely think that science disproves a literal interpretation of the Bible. That doesn’t seem to be too much of a problem, because I feel in my readings of the Genesis account that the people who wrote it did take it more or less metaphorically. However, I have no way of knowing. I also have no way of knowing whether Paul was speaking in metaphor when he said “death through Adam, life through Christ”.
If Paul wasn’t taking the account metaphorically, I doubt that I could take his words seriously, in light of what we now know about human origins: common descent of all animals including humans from “lower” life forms, origination of humans in Africa not Mesopotamia, etc.
One of the problems for Christianity, I feel, is that the Christian religion has a much different spiritual element than the Jewish one. I’m not sure if I can describe the differences I perceive adequately in this space, but it seems that the two belief systems have very different concepts of how people interact with the divine, how society relates to the divine, etc. It seems as if they had very different ideas about spirituality.
Anyway, I should get off this tangent and return to your point. Yes, I believe that many theists have a different perspective of reality, but for me, this cannot be used as evidence for their beliefs. If I experienced this, it would probably be good enough for me, but as you remember from my last post in this thread, my personal ideas are fundamentally irrelevant to others unless I can substantiate them with facts, arguments, logic, etc.
So while your spirituality may suit you perfectly well, it can’t help me unless I have a similar basis for it myself.
I am reticent about spiritual experiences because I realize that they have a certainly tendency to lead in all sorts of confusing, chaotic, conflicting directions.
Buddha’s experiences, Guru Nanak’s experiences, Jesus’ experiences, Gandhi’s experiences, your experiences, etc….I’m not doubting that you didn’t feel something that wasn’t “real” to you.
But that doesn’t mean that it could ever be real for anyone else, or that your feelings wouldn’t be real to other people in an entirely different way.
I believe that this spirituality is an inner component of our psychology, and that each of us interpret this differently due to cultural and environmental influences. Some of us also feel this urge more strongly than others do.
Just because I believe that spirituality comes from inside of us, instead of from some external creator force, does not mean that I casually disregard it or see it as unnecessary to our lives.
There are many emotions and such within our minds that we feel, which may or may not be necessarily “true”, but that we almost all acknowledge as perfectly valid feelings, such as love, anger, fear, etc.
Just because anger comes from within us and not from Satan doesn’t mean that it’s irrelevant. The same parallel applies to spirituality: just because it may not come from any source but ourselves by no means implies that it is not a relevant or a useful experience.
I just perceive spirituality as one more emotion we encounter in our existence, just as we experience fear, love, hope, anger, happiness, and many other feelings.
For me, spirituality is a perfectly valid feeling, but I have acknowledged that spirituality probably comes from within us, and also that each of us is especially prone to use confirmation bias to mold the perceptions we have of our internal spirituality so they conform to our culture’s external sense of religious piety.
I have nothing against your sense of spirituality. The decision as to whether your spirituality is satisfied by your religion is up to you alone.
Craig Hogan speculated recently that our universe is actually a hologram, based on “noise” from the GEO600 machine. This is what I think about in terms of “spirituality”.
My spirituality consists largely of a fond respect for the absurdity of our universe: if it is true that our entire universe is a hologram, can we honestly say that it is any stranger than, say, SpongeBob Squarepants living in a giant pineapple under the sea?
We human beings are all spiritual in many different forms: sometimes it is expressed through our love of religion, our love of a career, our love of nature, our love of humor, our love of family, our love of certain traditions, our devotion to patriotism or to sports or to politics.
If Christianity is how you choose to express your sense of spirituality, then so be it.
I have nothing against spirituality. My problems lie with dogma. I have nothing against faith. My problems lie with blind faith.
I just want people to be able to make a knowledgable decision about religion. Organized religion has claimed a place of unquestioned privilege in the realms of spirituality and morality which I strongly feel it has not deserved for much of human history. For me, it is long past time to reclaim morality and spirituality back from the vise grip of organized dogma.
I have no problems with individual religious experiences or even organized religion itself. My main frustration is with the monolithic oppression of dogma — fundamentalism and ignorance devastatingly at work.
*dang, I meant “faith versus science” instead of “faith versus religion”
Yes, you can thank Freud for that one. ;)
>I’m “just totally unwilling to face up to reality.”<
You misquoted me, Wade. Hyperbole is not required.
However, I think this is true about you when it comes to the larger issues. You put your faith in zombies, in a murderous god. You believe in demon possession.
You believe in a series of childlike stories conceived over vast amounts of time by people groping their way, often with the help of metaphors, in a world of mysterious processes they little understood. And as an adult in a world that know operates with the help of the knowledge about those processes, you should know better.
I believe in a rational universe, one not easy to understand, but none the less appears to follow consistent rules.
@ Dave and @ Wade
“However, I think this is true about you when it comes to the larger issues. You put your faith in zombies, in a murderous god. You believe in demon possession.
You believe in a series of childlike stories conceived over vast amounts of time by people groping their way, often with the help of metaphors, in a world of mysterious processes they little understood.”
Wade,
No one can tell you what you specifically believe — but you might want to ask yourself, do I really believe these things? Do I really have confidence in this?
Dave,
Telling people that they believe in zombies isn’t helpful, but it’s your choice. Maybe Wade doesn’t believe in demon possession, but believes in Jesus? Maybe he believes in the New Testament, but not the Old? Of course, I have no way of knowing this — but neither do you, Dave. And that is my point: you don’t know what exactly he believes. Not all Christians are alike.
How would you like if someone said, “you’re an atheist, so therefore you must not have any morals”? What authority would that person have to dictate your beliefs to you?
Likewise, what authority do you have to dictate Wade’s beliefs to him?
> Dave suggests that the majority of thiests have a disconnect with reality. I believe that most theists merely have a different perspective on reality, in light of some personal, existential experience. That is a question that I must pose only to myself before my God.I believe that most theists merely have a different perspective on reality, in light of some personal, existential experience.<
Wade, are you speaking about your personal, existential experience, or are you saying that most theists have personal, existential experiences? Not that it matters. Theists don’t have a “different perspective on reality,” they have a mistaken
perspective of reality. And they do so for a variety of reasons.
OK-
So I just want to ask this question:
This whole bashing of the argument from authority is confusing for me.
If I said, “enzyme A works on chemical reaction B because I have a PhD and I say so,” well that is clearly false.
If some idiot says “the whole of science is wrong because the bible says so,” and I say “you clearly have not looked at the evidence; please educate yourself because you sound extremely ignorant, and I know because I have a graduate degree in science,” and the person retorts that I am making an argument from authority, doesn’t that just sound like a crock to you?
Just curious because this is the argument I keep hearing over and over from fundamentalist, anti-intellectualists who want to re-write science, cuz, you know, they have all the answers from the literal word of god.
Actually the PhD doesn’t make it false or true, it just adds (or detracts) credibility. At the end of the day, the sense of the statement will have to be judged on its own merits.
Arguing by credibility is a logical shortcut, but evidently is a weak way to argue.
>Just curious because this is the argument I keep hearing over and over from fundamentalist, anti-intellectualists<
I think theists come from another direction than rationalists do. Evidence is simply not necessary to them. Theists presume their position is correct irrespective of the evidence. Hence the difficulty for a rational person in proving how absurd and contradictory a belief may be, because a true believer simply won’t accept rational thought.
Suggesting to a theist that their cherished beliefs are even less likely likely to be true than stories about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny falls on deaf ears, because most theists would rather believe what they believe than choose the alternate – that they have to give their own meaning to their lives, and that they are going to die and not be reborn.
Theists can only grudgingly give ground, if at all, because there is a slippery slope they don’t want to start on. They don’t like to change what they believe based on evidence, although they of course want evidence to support what they believe.
Those who try to base their lives on rational thought can change what they believe based on evidence, while a theist can do so only with difficulty.
So a theist doesn’t just reject an appeal to authority. A theist will reject any assertion, even on made from a position based on evidence, if it conflicts with the theist’s particular faith.
>Dave,
>Telling people that they believe in zombies isn’t helpful, but it’s your choice.<
Teleprompter, you’re right. I won’t apologize, though, because it gives me a distinct pleasure to point out to Wade how ridiculous the claims of Christianity are.
Perhaps Wade doesn’t believe in the parting of the Red Sea, doesn’t believe he should kill homosexuals, doesn’t believe Jesus came “not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.” Maybe he doesn’t think it’s necessary to give away all his possession, forget about his family, and drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus, which his god claimed is necessary to be with him after death.
Apparently, though, he does believe there was a flesh and blood Jesus, and more, believes this imaginary construct of the human mind was/is divine. (Do you, Wade?)
It is just as silly to believe there was ever a flesh and blood Jesus as it is to believe that a god would create humans in a way differently than other living things, not to mention implanting these the first humans with language (was it Hebrew?) and knowledge about the world around them not based on experience.
So, Teleprompter, you’re right, I’m being snarky this night, but not without good reason. For Wade to imagine there was a real Jesus, other than inside the minds of humans, or pictured in their artwork, is as silly, and sometimes that belief is dangerous.
It’s just as silly to believe in Jesus as it is to believe Wade’s god created a talking penis – I mean a talking euphemism, er, no I mean a talking snake – to seduce Eve into eating an apple.
@Teleprompter,
I am very much grateful for your perspective. This is why I like to hang out around here, for posts like that. I’m not, so much, interested in the arguments for or against God. And I am definitely not interested in the little boxes that we try t stuff each other into. What I am interested in is discourse like this. Thank you for sharing your ideas. You have have truly given me a new perspective, I am very thankful.
@Dave
“Once you label me, you negate me” — Søren Kierkegaard
Wade wrote:
“Once you label me, you negate me” — Søren Kierkegaard
Which is why I shop willy-nilly in the market, grabbing, uh, I think they are vegetables, I never notice, they’re good for me, though. I like those crunchy things, kind of salty – maybe they are called Pork Rinds, I didn’t read the label.
At the counter are boxes of white things, a couple of inches long – you light one end? I’m kind of addicted to them. What ARE they called. There’s some kind of warning label on the side, but I wouldn’t want to negate those little fire sticks, so I don’t bother reading it.
Wade, we all label.
By the way, can you back up your assertion that Keirkegaard made the above quote – when did he utter it, where did he say it, where did he write it down?
The attribution, Wade, is probably as accurate as your belief in the supernatural.
“There’s some kind of warning label on the side, but I wouldn’t want to negate those little fire sticks, so I don’t bother reading it.”
I see that you are familiar with the fallacy of False Analogy.
“By the way, can you back up your assertion that Keirkegaard made the above quote – when did he utter it, where did he say it, where did he write it down?”
Kierkegaard was a very prolific writer, by all accounts. He left many unpublished manuscripts and personal journals behind. Because many of these have little to no cogent structure, few have been translated into English as complete volumes. However a steady stream of quotes from these untranslated texts have made their way into the English language via biographers, who have included them in their works. Thus, there are many English translated quotes of Kierkegaard’s that have been orphaned of a true “source”. Wittgenstein learned Danish so he could read all of Kierkegaard’s works, and so far as I know, he attributes this saying to Kierkegaard, as well as many biographers. I am not an expert on the movement of Kierkegaard’s writings from Danish to English, but I have studied Kierkegaard at length. If you would like to know more about Kierkegaard, below is a link to an brief introduction I wrote a couple of years ago. It includes a brief biographical history as well as an explanation of his method with particular regard to his pseudonymous works and use of qualitative dialectics.
http://www.filedropper.com/kgaard
Also, here is another link that may be of some value to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8
Quotes from philosophers are actually quite unimpressive. Usually I see them as an indication that it was easier to copy someone else’s words than to phrase a concept in your own way.
I see Dave’s words as an annihilation of that Kierkegaard quote. The quote is clearly wrong, as labelling an item or person or concept does not make that concept any less or more, it does not negate it in any way. Pretty words do not make truth. If the quote is clearly not reflective of reality, it should probably be forgotten as just meaningless philosophical dribble.
“I see Dave’s words as an annihilation of that Kierkegaard quote.”
Invoking a informal fallacy = “annihilation”
I see, I am in the presence of intellectual greatness.
Aor, may I re-direct you to the second link of the post above…
It is quite simple Wade. The words of that quote contradict reality. Therefore the words are incorrect.
This is an important point: quotes don’t prove anything. A quote only has value if it is true, and at that point the person who said the words is irrelevant except for historical purposes. What matters is truth, and if the words lack truth then who cares who said them? Philosophical debates generally wind up being “Soandso said this” which gets rebutted by ‘”yeah but someone else said something else.” Those kinds of conversations are pointless.
Accept it. Labels don’t negate anything. If they did, then we wouldn’t have labels for anything because it would all be negated. Observable reality trumps quoting people.
*palm to forehead*
*shakes head*
Please, do yourself a favor and read a book. I mean this in the sincerest way possible.
*sigh*
I’ve read plenty of books. Sadly, no book in the world will make that quote meaningful. If you wanted to tell someone not to label you, go ahead and do so.
Seriously, what does ‘negate’ even mean in the context of that quote? Did Kurt Cobain get negated when they labelled him a grunge rocker?
“Quit your jibba jabba” – Mr. T
@ Aor and @ Wade
Well, I can *kind of* see where Wade might be going with this.
I would say that though I acknowledge evolution, it would negate me to be labeled as a “Darwinist” because that dogmatic label is mischaracterized and does not represent my true positions.
Now, if the same thing is true for Wade and his religious beliefs, then I see his point in this discussion. Is Kierkgaard (sic?) saying that the label of Christianity is mischaracterized and does not represent his true positions?
Then how else would one say “to label is to negate” is the label is not mischaracterized, misapplied, or misinformed? If the label is accurate, how exactly is it a negation?
That is what Wade and others must judge: is the label accurately describing my beliefs? If that is the case, I see no reason for such a label to be a negation, even in principal.
Is Kierkgaard (sic?) just shifting his beliefs so no one can define him, so that no one can possibly contradict him? What is he defending with that attitude? Please tell me he does actually believe in something?
I’m not trying to level a specific criticism against him; I just want to demonstrate the possible flaw with that line of reasoning.
Either the label is accurate, and thus not a negation, or one is just needlessly shifting the goalposts to evade criticism of one’s true beliefs, by avoiding specification of the exact nature of those beliefs.
@Wade,
I can see that there has been a very great deal of traffic on this thread since I last visited it three nights ago. I don’t know that I’ll be able to catch up at this point, but I do want to make a few points about Wade’s last response to me.
Wade said, “I really believe that most people of faith are reasonable people, they live their life in a reasonable response to an existential experience that many are not be able to adequately articulate.”
I don’t know that I would consider it reasonable to abandon reason when interpreting experience. To believe in talking snakes and death cults doesn’t seem very reasonable to me. Why does it seem reasonable to you? More to the point, I have a reasonable position on the use of brakes in my car, one that is informed by my experience as well as an understanding of the world as it is. I can explain this reasonable position to anyone who is interested and show them evidence whereby I’m pretty sure they’ll come to the same conclusions that I have regarding brakes. I wonder how many people in your very reasonable congregation could show me the evidence and explain the reasoning upon which their very reasonable positions are predicated?
“I also believe that the mouth of a Christian is inversely proportional to the intellect.”
I am inclined to agree with you because it would make me happy to think that the vast, silent majority of Christians really were this ocean of perfectly reasonable folk. But, unfortunately, experience shows that the vast and silent majority, despite being more moderate in their speech in private conversations, are perfectly happy to let the vocal minority set policy and fight their battles for them.
“Are you an ex-Christian as well? If so were you a member of a church congregation? What denomination? Did you find most of the people in your congregation unreasonable or irrational?”
No, not really. I used to describe myself as a “non-denominational Christian” because it made things easier to explain in social situations. Both of my parents were raised in the church (Methodist and Episcopalian), but I was raised only with a vague, wishy-washy sort of all-religions-have-a-piece-of-the-universal-truth sort of religion. I never went to church regularly or was admonished to pray or make any sort of observance beyond the occasional “bow your heads and say grace” at a Thanksgiving dinner hosted by my grandmother. My parents and I did spend about five of my more formative years (ages 9 to almost 13) living in Saudi Arabia and we traveled extensively abroad, a passion for which I sustain as an adult. So, I’ve been exposed to a great deal of religions around the world, and have very distinct memories of living in a real theocracy. It’s something I’m rather firm about avoiding even a pale shadow of here in the states.
>Is Kierkgaard (sic?) just shifting his beliefs so no one can define him, so that no one can possibly contradict him?<
Since Wade appealed to authority by citing an unsourced qoute, the assertion contained within the quote is meaningless.
@ Teleprompter
I believe you have gleaned the essence of what is being said in this quote. Others have somehow misconstrued it as a sort of universal remark, as if it were to say: All labels are negation. But, as you have pointed out, it is an appeal to personal perspective. You are right, Kierkegaard was very afraid of labels, this is why he wrote most of his philosophical works under various pseudonyms, each with a different, and often contradictory viewpoint than the other. As far as your questions pertaining to Kierkegaard’s methodology: I would say that Kgaard did make it incredibly tough for someone to contradict him, as he usually contradicted himself. He would write a book from one perspective under one pseudonym, then write a contrasting work under another pseudonym.
You proposed that labeling may only be negation if the label is misapplied, misinformed, etc. I believe that proper labels also negate. I would say that if you got a call from the county correctional dept. saying a sex offender has moved into your neighbor hood, I’d suspect that would negate any interaction he may have with your kids.
Sometimes, however, label-negation can be both true but still not favorable. As in the post above. Dave labels the quote as an appeal to authority. This is a label that could fit. However, because of such label he has negated the contents of the quote. I would say he has done so at his own peril.
This is also why it is often seen as a sin in philosophy classes to over psychologize a thinker. When people try to deduce how a certain philosophy came about by studying the experiences of that thinkers life and how he reacted to them, the result is usually a trivialization of the idea wrapped around some ad hominem construct. It would be like reading Chuck Palahniuk or David Sedaris books, while subconsciously searching for homosexual innuendo on every page.
All in all, I wasn’t trying to level any syllogistic argument with the quote. I just believe it to be a wise saying by a man who was abundantly more intelligent, gifted, and talented than I. Make what you will of it. Save you (tele), It’s pearls to swine at this point.
Negate has a meaning.
1 : to deny the existence or truth of
2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid
I can label a person I have never met as a stranger. Do they cease to exist? No. Do they become invalid or ineffective? No. They are completely unchanged by my labelling of them.
The quote is simply wrong, no matter who said it or where. A pithy quote is just a quote.
This ‘pearls before swine’ statement doesn’t make the quote any more meaningful. In fact I think it might even make it appear as if Wade would rather use insults than make the slightest effort to analyze that quote rationally.
Wade, if you can find a way to show that quote to be truthful I would appreciate it. Considering how it would require a redefinition of ‘negate’ I think the cards are stacked against you. As is, you are using the word improperly. If you must redefine Negate in order to make that quote meaningful then you are making a mistake.
@Aor
Sometimes words are used in a manner that is not meant to be literal. It’s called speaking metaphorically. I don’t suppose any rational person (Kgaard included) really believes they cease to exist once someone has labeled them or their ideas. The labeled person or idea is not changed or disposed of, rather the perception of the person doing the labeling has become a perception of negation, as you are so well demonstrating for us, here.
As for “pearls to swine” take it as a compliment. If you go back to source of that quote you will realize that the pigs come out on the better end.
Again, it’s just a quote from a guy who is a lot smarter than both of us. Make what you will of it. Dismiss it if you want.
@ Wade
Hmmm…I think the problem with your “sex offender” analogy is that the label probably should negate.
Why shouldn’t some labels, in that sense? “Serial killer”, if valid, or “megalomaniacal dictator”, if valid, would seem to inspire rational negations of a relationships.
Yes, a proper label can negate, but why shouldn’t it?
Yes, I do realize that all labels have the potential to mischaracterize a point of view, by their inconclusiveness or abbreviated summarizing nature.
However, the benefits from a positive label should be worth the sacrifice to a fully comprehensive explanation.
If the definition of the label is clear, then a comprehensive explanation should not be required, if the meaning is already explicit in the communication.
Yes, a positive label can negate: If I tell you that I am not religious, that you would probably not assume that I am a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Scientologist.
But is that negation a problem? No, I don’t see it as a problem – I see it as a benefit.
Why would Kierkegaard (sic?) be so concerned with contradicting himself that he wishes to avoid being characterized entirely?
I realize that he is probably much, much more intelligent than I am, but so is the Uni-Bomber.
I don’t mean that as an insult: I am just saying, sometimes really intelligent people are not fully rational. Please don’t take that the wrong way.
I’m just saying, Kierkegaard could’ve been just a little bit wrong at some point, because he is just as human as the rest of us are.
A proper label is well-defined, and illuminates communication. My question is, why would Kierkegaard want to avoid having his communication be illuminated?
Maybe there’s no “there” “there”? Maybe all of his contradictions are just a giant game of sleight-of-hand? Is that why he doesn’t want to labeled or negated?
@ Wade
I thought “pearls before swine” was a reference encouraging believers to refrain from presenting their convictions before the obstinately unChristian, as it was a waste of time?
“Yes, a proper label can negate, but why shouldn’t it? ”
I don’t remember ever saying that it shouldn’t.
“Why would Kierkegaard (sic?) be so concerned with contradicting himself that he wishes to avoid being characterized entirely?”
Kierkegaard was an interesting guy. He was a genius. I remember reading somewhere that his IQ is estimated to be in the 180 range. Like most geniuses, he’s a little strange. I don’t think he was concerned with contradicting himself, he just had a very unique method that involved delving deeply into every angle of an issue. It’s a method that only a genius could engage himself in. I mean, could you imagine writing a 500 page philosophy text and then going back and writing another 500 page text of counter argument under a different name?!?!
“Maybe there’s no “there” “there”? Maybe all of his contradictions are just a giant game of sleight-of-hand? Is that why he doesn’t want to labeled or negated?”
I would encourage you to read Kierkegaard and draw your own conclusions. I know his cannon is pretty daunting, but an introduction similar to the one I posted above would be a good start followed by a text of his. I would suggest Concluding Unscientific Postscripts to Philosophical Fragments (a mouthful, I know) It was written under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus (which was sort of Kgaard’s rationalist perspective pseudonym).
As for the quote at hand. It was a quote from either an incomplete manuscript or a personal Journal. It is used in regards to Kgaard often because it encompasses his methodology well. He is a thinker who is very hard to label, except as the “thinker who is hard to label”.
As far as “pearls before swine”, you are correct in what you say. It is often used in that context. In this instance, I use it to say this: I have devoted a lot of time to studying the works of Kierkegaard, in that study I have gained perspective that is very valuable to me (ie, a pearl). I have shared that valuable perspective with others here, in the form of this quote. You have taken it, wrestled with it, and really opened your mind up to get a good grasp of it. You may not agree that it is as valuable as I believe it to be, but you have approached as something that could be of value. However there are others, who have dismissed and trampled it with out first approaching it as something of possible value. They have done this out of a need to cling the comfort of their preconceived notions. These would be the swine. But if we read the text, the pigs trample both the pearls and their owner. The pigs win, but they’re still pigs, slop is more valuable than pearls.
@Teleprompter
“pearls before swine” is a insult — basically people are thick, stupid, uncultured etc. so that don’t understand what you are saying or offering. I’m not entirely sure how Wade has decided that it’s not; maybe Kierkegaard has something to say on the subject as he’s much more intelligent and so therefore must be correct on everything.
@Wade
“As far as “pearls before swine”, you are correct in what you say. It is often used in that context. In this instance, I use it to say this:”
If you’re going to insult people please at least be honest about it. You know exactly what the phrase means so don’t try and now say that’s not what you meant.
It was a jab. But not at Tele. I think I made that clear in my last post when I said….
“But if we read the text, the pigs trample both the pearls and their owner. The pigs win, but they’re still pigs, slop is more valuable than pearls.”
@Wade
If the word is being used to mean something other than its literal meaning, then what use is it? You should rephrase it to use words by their proper definition. If a philosopher can’t use words properly what use is anything he says? Rephrase the quote then to make sense. If you label me, you _______ me. Fill in that blank. Use a word that is accurate, neither too narrowly defined or too broadly defined. Find that word that means exactly what you mean.
I don’t care how smart he was. If he says something that is false on its face, by the literal interpretation of the words, then thats it. Truth trumps fame. No amount of brains will ever mean that every word that comes out of someone’s mouth is true. By your own words the man contradicted himself often. It seems to me that a man who would contradict himself so often would be perfectly willing to have his words doubted and examined, because in effect that is what he is doing to himself.
PS. Your pearls before swine comment also has a meaning in our culture. Don’t scramble around pretending otherwise. Honest people don’t need to behave in that way.
@Wade
Where did I say it was directed at Teleprompter?; your insult was directed at Aor and others in this thread implying that they were to stupid to understand what was being put forward by you — that is what pearls before swine means isn’t it? Please don’t try and change what you’ve said as you knew what the phrase meant and it certainly wasn’t meant as a compliment as you’ve later claimed.
@Aor
“If the word is being used to mean something other than its literal meaning, then what use is it? You should rephrase it to use words by their proper definition. If a philosopher can’t use words properly what use is anything he says?”
If a person can’t figure out when when something is written in the metaphorical since rather than the literal since, what use is anything he says?
“By your own words the man contradicted himself often.”
It was part of a precise method, as I have also stated. Read the introduction that was offered to you, then we can have a rational discussion.
“PS. Your pearls before swine comment also has a meaning in our culture. Don’t scramble around pretending otherwise. Honest people don’t need to behave in that way.”
I didn’t scramble it around. It still means the same thing. I was just explaining the context.
@Jabster
Compliment was backhanded and satirical.
@Wade
What is wrong with just admitting what you said instead of trying to claim that you had decided to use the phrase in a way that is totally different to how it’s understood by everybody else? All you have done is made yourself look like a dishonest person — either you think that other people in this thread are too stupid to understand what you’re saying or you said something that you now regret but don’t wish to admit it. The excuses that you have put forward suggest the former.
@Jabster
So, I’m a pretentious ass. This isn’t any sort of new revelation around here. I’m not making excuses. I spelled it out twice. Once when I said, “the pigs win, but they’re still pigs. slop is more valuable than pearls.” Then again when I actually stated that the compliments were backhanded and satirical. Did you not click my second link on the post a few comments back? My jabs have been quite thinly veiled. This is not dishonesty. It is called being tactfully deliberate, although, all tact left a while ago.
People don’t understand what I am trying to say because they have dismissed without consideration, this is ignorance on their part. I don’t think other people in this thread are stupid, but some are ignorant. Ignorance is their choice.
@Wade
I asked you to phrase that quote in a way that makes its meaning clear. If you cannot, then how can we trust that you understand the metaphorical meaning? How can we trust anyone’s version of that metaphorical meaning? If the words have to be interpreted, then are we to trust anyone’s interpretation or only an approved source? How does that differ from relying on a priest to interpret holy writ? Can not all readers interpret the meaning simply with their knowledge of the words involved? Are you wondering if you will find yourself saying that only those who agree with the quote are truly understanding it, and those who do not agree do not understand it? I am. I truly think you are leaning that direction, whether you realize it or not.
So you must have a magic decoder ring that states once and for all exactly which words are to be interpreted literally and which metaphorically in all situations imaginable, right? Or do you only make those claims when the it serves yourself to do so?
Show us that you know the metaphorical meaning of that quote by rephrasing it so that the quote can be interpreted literally. Don’t worry about making it longer in order to increase its accuracy. If you cannot, then how can you be sure that anyone else interprets it the way you do? You see, this is what happens when you remove literal meanings of words from the equation. I expect you to try this. Show us that you can. Often those who find themselves unable to defend a position will declare that the words were not meant to be interpreted literally. I expect you to show that you truly mean ths and aren’t just trying to squirm around.
So the man contradicted himself, as part of a precise method. Excellent! Exactly what I am trying to say. He clearly was open to seeing his beliefs analyzed and evaluated. So much so that he took up the challenge himself. That is not the behavior of a man who expects his words to be accepted uncritically. In fact I think he would be quite pleased to see this quote analyzed by its literal meaning. Do you disagree?
No. You clearly mean it as an insult, and you refuse to accept the consequences of your own words. If you want to insult me, fine. Don’t lie about it. Don’t be a coward and pretend otherwise. I am an adult, I can take your insults. This directly affects your credibility. There should be no reason for you to lie or deceive or scramble around in this way.
Something else that should be mentioned, Wade. Those who respond to criticism by quickly questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them are poor representatives of their position, regardless of the position.
@Aor
Really… if you honestly believe that “…you negate me” means that you literally deny my existence and go on about life believing that I’m not here, then you are beyond help. It would do you well to read Kierkegaard or any other notable philosopher, be it Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Liebniz, Wittgenstein, whoever. But if you’d rather spend your time taking 9 words and turning them into a semantic pissing contest instead of actually taking the time to learn something, then so be it.
I’m sorry you didn’t realize you were being insulted. I’ve made it as clear as I am wiling to make it. If you haven’t picked up on it by now, then you are only insulting yourself.
I never questioned your intelligence, I only assumed your ignorance based on your comments.
Wade, I asked you to answer some questions. Are you going to?
I have a standard approach to interpreting quotes, be they by priest or philosophers or physicists. The words must have meaning. If someone asks for words to be taken as metaphors, then they should be expected to justify that as well as describe exactly what those words mean. People use that ‘well, its metaphorical’ to justify not knowing what they are talking about. Religion and philosophy fall prey to this all the time. I asked you to rephrase it so it made sense, you declined more than one opportunity. Show us what it means, Wade. Use words, by their proper definitions. If you can’t, then admit it. If it turns out you don’t know what he meant, then have the guts to admit that also.
Oh, and I knew perfectly well that you were insulting me. I was questioning how reliable you are because you squirmed around trying to pretend that it wasn’t an insult. You lacked the guts to simply admit it when you got challenged.
So give us the meaning of this quote, Wade. This unsourced quote which may or may not be from Kierkegaard. Give us this metaphorical meaning.
@Wade
If by “pretentious arse” you mean someone who reads a book by someone who is intelligent and then just parrots back sections without understanding them I agree.
If by “pretentious arse” you mean someone who when challenged on what he actual thinks is incapable of doing it then I agree.
If by “pretentious arse” you mean someone who is happy to insult people but then has to lie about it as it doesn’t fit their own self image then I agree.
So if you’re in agreement with above then yep you’re a “pretentious arse”.
Oh and ‘he was intelligent so he must know better than us’ is a really, really poor argument. Maybe you could come up with some of your own thoughts sometime.
@Wade
Now that we’ve got past that point let’s try and get back on topic. As far I could tell your objection to Dave’s comments was that you felt he was ‘labelling’ Christians with attributes and beliefs that you felt were unjustified either generally or to you personally – you comment about “people of faith are reasonable people”. If this is the case then you have a valid point as I don’t believe that Christians as represented in the media or even on this blog can be regarded as representative of Christians. I would even go as far as to say that Christians themselves have as much diversity in their beliefs as a random selection of the population i.e. the label Christian is not good enough on it’s own to determine what someone’s beliefs are. One mistake I do believe you have made is in trying to attribute your own experience of ‘why you believe’ onto Christians as a whole. In my own experience, and this is limited due to the generally private nature of religion in the UK, belief ranges from ‘I just am because that’s how I was raised’, through ‘I’ve thought about it deeply and this is the conclusion I’ve come to’ right up to ‘the Bible should be taken literally’. You could imagine this as almost a circle with lack of thought about religious belief at either end of the spectrum leading to a ‘woolly’ belief or what could best be described as a fundamentalist belief, loudmouth idiots as you referred to them.
So then over to you …
@Jabster
Pretentious ass…. yeah, I agree with all the above.
“Oh and ‘he was intelligent so he must know better than us’ is a really, really poor argument. Maybe you could come up with some of your own thoughts sometime.”
I have said many times that Kierkegaard is a very smart guy, and important thinker, and that his works deserve to be studied. I have never said, Kierkegaard said this and he’s smarter than me so it must be true. I have stated something to the effect of “Kierkegaard said this, he was a smart guy with a valuable perspective, thus it behooves us to take things he wrote into serious consideration. I would say the same about all great philosophers. As for me coming up with some thoughts of my own… I have posted nine words that belong to Kierkegaard, and hundreds that belong to me. Of course my thoughts, like everyone’s, are influenced by my education and experience. So, in an attempt to get under your skin, I’ll quote another great mind. “If I have seen this far, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” — Isaac Newton.
“Christians themselves have as much diversity in their beliefs as a random selection of the population”
Very true… I have seen many people on this blog and elsewhere try to argue that Christianity is a cult. These people are simply misinformed as to the difference between a religion and a cult, but you have hit a very key aspect of that differentiation. A religion contains followers of a central belief, that may contain a multitude of dogmas that vary from sect to denomination, to congregation, to individual. A cult has a stringent dogmatic structure that MUST be followed by the follower. If you found ten Christians or ten Muslims and asked them something as central to belief as the nature of the trinity or the succession of Caliphs, you’d more than likely get at least 3-4 different answers. I don’t think there is anything wrong with using the labels Chrisitan, Muslim, etc. We just need to understand how broad those labels are. When we say Christian we are encapsulating a wide range of personal theologies that span from Barak Obama to Francis Collins to James Dobson to your next-dor neighbor to some snakehandler in Appalachia. This is why a label as narrow and misinformed as Dave’s negates. The label negates the variety and complexity of theologies held by a quarter of the world’s population.
“One mistake I do believe you have made is in trying to attribute your own experience of ‘why you believe’ onto Christians as a whole.”
Well, I have to agree with you, in part. I would qualify that however. I can’t say much of nominal Christians, just as i can’t say much of nominal atheists, or nominal Muslims. Because the truth is, most of these people are just a-religious. If someone says “I’m just an ‘x’ ‘because that’s how I was raised”, or “I’m just an ‘x’ ‘because my mom and dad are ‘x’” then this person is subscribing to a cultural/sociological structure, not a religion. I can’t say much of them, as there is not much to say.
Now, as far as my projection of “why I believe” onto Christians as a whole, I’d say its a fair projection, because all I’ve stated my belief to be is a response to an existential experience. I believe this is true not just for Christians but all religious adherents. I don’t believe anyone “becomes religious” after an intellectual ascent to the objective truth value of a certain religious system. In fact, I believe traditional apologetic works inverse of its intention. People have an existential experience that leads them to belief, then work backwards from there to make sense of it.
@Aor
“Oh, and I knew perfectly well that you were insulting me. I was questioning how reliable you are because you squirmed around trying to pretend that it wasn’t an insult. You lacked the guts to simply admit it when you got challenged.”
Ok, Aor. In my first post I said…
“invoking an informal fallacy = annihilation. I see that I am working with real genius here.
Then I made reference to Tele regarding pearls before swine.
You suggested I was insulting you.
I told you to take it as a compliment, because in the original referenced text the pigs won. (They trampled the guy with the pearls.) This was meant in all sarcasm, as it is obvious that while the pigs trampled the guy with the pears, they are still pigs and have no concept of value. I apologize as I did not realize you were lacking the expository skills to figure that out for yourself.
Tele said he thought the saying “was a reference encouraging believers to refrain from presenting their convictions before the obstinately unChristian, as it was a waste of time”
I said, yes. This is true, but in this instance I am using it in regards to my study of Kgaard, not my religious views. I finished that by saying, “The pigs win, but they’re still pigs, slop is more valuable than pearls.” Now spelling out what I hoped you had gleaned from my last response to you.
Jab misconstrued this as me trying to act as if it wasn’t an insult.
I said it was a jab, but not at Tele. (gee, I wonder who was the intended recipient of that jab)
You then jumped on Jabs bandwagon. Saying that I scrambled around the meaning of the phrase.
To which I responded. “I didn’t scramble it around. It still means the same thing. I was just explaining the context.”
So, I fail to see how I “lacked the guts to admit (that I was insulting you) when I was challenged.”
While I usually try to communicate things without being so brazen I feel like I have to spell this out for you.
Tele = Rational but disagrees with me on certain points
Jabster = Snarky and slightly hostile, still interested in discussion and debate.
Aor = Ignorant, not stupid. More than likely a teenager.
Wade = Pretentious, frustrated, educated, always has to have the last word.
It is painful to have to spell things out to you, Aor. You say “give us the metaphorical meaning, Wade.” I can’t think for you Aor. Study some philosophy and do your own exposition if it means that much to you.
@Wade
Well firstly I don’t suppose you could post some quotes on Newton’s thoughts about alchemy?
“I have seen many people on this blog and elsewhere try to argue that Christianity is a cult.”
I think it’s possible to argue the Christianity isn’t a cult but I also believe it’s possible to argue that it is. In reality Christianity is what it is and certainly contains aspects that people would with associate with a cult. The only possible reason that I regard this is important is cult has negative overtones therefore religions like to separate themselves from the term cult. Of course when someone tries to define cult as a religion that is non-Christian, which one post has stated, then I have a problem. Otherwise I don’t find it relevant except for points scoring.
“Well, I have to agree with you, in part. I would qualify that however. I can’t say much of nominal Christians, just as i can’t say much of nominal atheists, or nominal Muslims. Because the truth is, most of these people are just a-religious. If someone says “I’m just an ‘x’ ‘because that’s how I was raised”, or “I’m just an ‘x’ ‘because my mom and dad are ‘x’” then this person is subscribing to a cultural/sociological structure, not a religion. I can’t say much of them, as there is not much to say.”
This is where I think I’ll have to disagree as I feel you are straying into the ‘they are not a true Christian’ territory. If you wish to define what you believe ‘to subscribe to a religion means’ then please post this as how they get there I find irrelevant. This goes back to what does the term Christian means. I would class it as number of attributes that can be judged against and these attributes are themselves a function of the prevalent culture. This therefore leads to the fact that Christianity as a term is not fixed in either time or a particular culture but continues to evolve.
Wade, I asked you questions. You have had several responses since that point and have not answered those questions. Stop avoiding, stop scrambling around. Just answer the questions. Show us how you interpret this metaphor, and then phrase that so it uses words properly. Do it, or acknowledge that you cannot. No more evasion, just respond openly and honestly. Are you afraid? Are you a coward? Are you simply dishonest? Are you perhaps ignorant of what that quote means and just want to pretend otherwise? Show us what it means.
By the way, I said nothing about scrambling around the meaning of a phrase. I said scrambling around, as in you avoid chances to take a stand and make your points clear. When challenged, you scramble around. You run away from the chance to defend a position. This is a deceptive strategy, as I am sure you are aware. Honest people don’t need to behave that way.
If you want to call me ignorant, then show what I am ignorant of. Show us that you can rephrase that little quote in a way that makes some sort of actual sense, or stop being a whiny brat and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have been challenged multiple times. You can’t seem to respond at all without trying to insult people, simply because they disagree with you. This is a bad sign. I have never heard that those who insist that words have actual meanings were ignorant. Can you find a philosophy professor to back you up on that, or can I just call you a fucking idiot right now for being so out of touch with reality?
No, Wade. This is not how the world works. You were challenged to show that you had an understanding of that quote, and you declined multiple times. At this point the logical conclusion is that you have no idea what you are talking about and just want to shift the responsibility to others. Show us that YOU have an understanding of the quote YOU brought.
PS. I studied philosophy, as little as was required, while on the way to my math and physics degrees. Philosophy students love to parrot quotes. They rarely have any idea what they are talking about. When challenged to clarify the meaning of a quote, they run around hoping someone else will do it for them. Like you.
“Well firstly I don’t suppose you could post some quotes on Newton’s thoughts about alchemy?”
Are you trying to infer that because Newton was also an alchemist, that the quote I referenced should be disregarded. Should the Prinicipia be disregarded? What is everyone’s problem with quotes. Steven Hawking used that quote as the title of one of his books. Therefore, we should disregard the contents of that book?
“but I also believe it’s possible to argue that it is. In reality Christianity is what it is and certainly contains aspects that people would with associate with a cult.”
In any Sociology of Religion class you will find that there are clear differentiations between religions and cults. Save extremist sects, Christianity is not a cult, nor is Islam, nor is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. etc.
“This is where I think I’ll have to disagree as I feel you are straying into the ‘they are not a true Christian’ territory. If you wish to define what you believe ‘to subscribe to a religion means’ then please post this as how they get there I find irrelevant. This goes back to what does the term Christian means. I would class it as number of attributes that can be judged against and these attributes are themselves a function of the prevalent culture. This therefore leads to the fact that Christianity as a term is not fixed in either time or a particular culture but continues to evolve.”
There is a difference between people who practice a religion (ie, identify with the doctrine, creeds, theology, sacraments, and practices, etc. of said religion) and those who subscribe to a religion as a sociological/cultural vehicle. Those who subscribe to a religion out of cultural sensitivity or social pressure don’t necessarily identify with the doctrine, creeds, theology, sacraments, etc. I have met many people like this: people who would mark on a census that they are Christian, they go to church with their families on Christmas and Easter, and they may even be a member of a congregation; yet when involved in an honest conversation concerning the nature of their beliefs they will confess that their religious affiliation holds no real personal importance to them. I’m not going to say that they are not “real Christians” because I feel like that is an abused term. However, I will say that these people are not religious, not that this is a bad thing. It’s just that, for these people, personal religious belief or the denial of that belief isn’t important. So, if religion or the denial of religion is the topic at hand, I don’t see how nominally religious people fit in to this discussion, be they nominally Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever.
“This goes back to what does the term Christian means. I would class it as number of attributes that can be judged against and these attributes are themselves a function of the prevalent culture. This therefore leads to the fact that Christianity as a term is not fixed in either time or a particular culture but continues to evolve.”
I do believe that Christianity (maybe more so than any other religion) can have a cultural definition that is evolving. However, with the topic at hand being religion/denial religious belief, I believe sticking to the understanding of Christianity as a religious belief would help to “un-muddy the waters”. The problem then becomes “how do we define Christianity, as a religion, given all of the personal theologies that exist within ‘christendom’?” I would say as broadly as possible while still being exclusionary at it’s core. This is what the wikipedia entry for Christianity begins with, “a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.” I’d say that is a pretty good summation.
Wade, respond to my questions. Avoidance is obvious, and it doesn’t earn you any respect. At this point only dishonesty can explain your reluctance to explain what this supposed metaphorical quote supposedly metaphorically means. Explain, or we can only conclude that you are being openly deceptive.
Ignoring the questions won’t work. It never does.
You caught me. I was being openly deceitful (I’ll look pass the oxymoron there). It does appear that an insatiable urge to lie and mislead you is my only motivating factor, here. Now that I my avoidance has become obvious, I guess you’ll just have to let Kierkegaard sort it out for you. The folks at your local public library will be more than happy to arrange a meeting between the two of you.
No, Wade. I’m not letting you shift responsibility. You claim that the quote is metaphorical, its time for you to back that up. In your own words, no more bullshit, no more pretending, no more trying to make other people responsible when you won’t accept any responsiblity yourself. Give us the meaning of this quote. The only reason not to is if you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. I think all the readers can see that, how is it going over your head again and again?
Be a man. Either provide some explanation of that quote or admit that you have no idea. You called me ignorant, its time for you to prove it. I’ve been asking you for days, all you do is avoid and try to shift the blame.
So if you have an answer, bring it. If you don’t, then why are you acting like such a douchebag?
The poor dead horse is still being flogged…
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/NinjakZ/dead-horse.gif
God (or FSM) bless you, Daniel and McBlog for stopping the madness.
@Wade
“Are you trying to infer that because Newton was also an alchemist, that the quote I referenced should be disregarded.”
No it was a jovial comment in response to the “he was an intelligent man so…” … maybe I should use similes more often!
“In any Sociology of Religion class you will find that there are clear differentiations between religions and cults.”
As I previous stated religion vs. cult is just a point scoring exercise so I’m really not particularly bothered about what definition someone wishes to use as Christianity is what it is.
“So, if religion or the denial of religion is the topic at hand, I don’t see how nominally religious people fit in to this discussion, be they nominally Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever.”
Well then … like most discussions things take different twists and turns and I find it interesting to see how believers actually perceive their own religious structures. You make a clear distinction between believers who just believe because they do and those for want of a better phrase are “true Christians” – I do agree this is an abused term but can’t think of a better (shorter?) term at the moment! As to religion or the denial of religion it’s not something that I personally think is that interesting to discuss in this type of format. The fact is that nobody is going to change someone’s position in any major way so the only outcome is to reduce the life of your keyboard – in summary it’s like a broken pencil, pointless. That is why I tend to stick to gaining a further understanding of why people believe what they do; topics that are in an easy to digest format that have simply angles that people may not have considered; anyone who claims that they have ‘scientific’ evidence that not only does god exist but it happens to be their god – yes JK Jones and Kemp I’m talking about you.
“This is what the wikipedia entry for Christianity begins with, “a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.” I’d say that is a pretty good summation.”
That’s an interesting definition but the flip side is do you believe that there are cases where someone can follow the above yet you would not regard as a Christian because of other beliefs that they hold i.e. the invalidate the above.
I’ve yet to see an update here from Wade about his unsubstantiated claim attributing a quote to Keirkegaard.
Wade, to you still think the quote comes from an unpublished manuscript or journal? And if that’s so, how would anyone know about the quote?
Or does it come from Wittgenstein: “so far as I know, he attributes this saying to Kierkegaard, as well as many biographers.”
Do you know anymore, and/or can you provide a citation about the quote from a biographer?
Damn. You caught me. I made it up.
>I made it up.<
If only that were true, Wade, you’ve have a great career in the advertising business. ;-)
As a student, though, you’d receive an F for failing to cite your sources, followed by expulsion for subsequently claiming a quote from the Internet was the product of your own fertile imagination.
Please don’t mark that F on my official transcripts, Professor Dave. I’ll have my degree revoked. And if they find out about my sarcastic plagiarism in a blog comment, I may even be retroactively expelled.
Sorry, I don’t want to sift through volumes of Kierkegaard biographies to source a quote for you. I have studied Kierkegaard quite a bit and have good reason to believe the quotation is rightly attributed to him, and even if it is not, considering his method, it can justly be said of him. If you believe it is not, then more power to you, I’m sure that knowledge or lack thereof will lead you to a fruitful and productive life. ‘Til then I am going to correct a mistake I made, and unsubscribe to the comments on this post. If it still bothers you enough to post… Well, have fun talking to yourself.
>Well, have fun talking to yourself<
I’ve always wanted to have the last word.
@ Dave
People who have a gratuitously selfish desire to have the “last word” usually don’t impress me.
/sarcasm
I wrote a message to the people at P4CM about why they’re afraid to let anyone who doesn’t share their views be heard in the comments. Here’s the reply:
—
Subject: Censorship?
Message:
Hello,
A week ago I wrote a comment on the “Exposing and Rising Up Against Atheism” page criticizing the content of the videos. I was not rude, nor disrespectful, but merely highlighting the lack of scientific, even logical, basis of the claims put forth in these videos.
I was a bit disappointed when I noticed that my comment had seemingly been “moderated”, for not apparent reason other than that you didn’t like it. Fine, it’s your site, and you do have the right to remove comments even though they are peaceful and constructive. However, I think it speaks volumes about the way you present your “truth” and the way you handle debate.
Are you really so scared of discussion that you won’t even allow people to post any other opinion on your site? What are the comment forms for, if only those with the “correct” beliefs are allowed to comment?
I would very much appreciate an answer as to why you do not allow people of opposing views to be heard on your site.
Best Regards,
Martin
—
Martin,
I think you’ve already hit on the reason your comment did not appear on our site. I’ll start with the fact that your position is not as iron clad as you presume it to be. There will come a time when your comments and numerous others will be presented and addressed. But we appreciate the latitude to determine that timing for ourselves. When that time comes, we will encourage your vigorous participation. Until then, there are numerous online forums for you to present your views and defend your position other than ours. Thank you for your comments and stay tuned for that coming discussion/debate.
TQ
@Ira
The reason your comments were deleted and/or never approved is because the Creation Letter Project blogsite is an informational portal, not an apologetical or polemical forum.
Also, you were just rude, condescending and shrill.
Work on your approach a bit. Flies. Honey. Vinegar. y’know…
Rev Anthony W Breeden
On behalf of the Creation Letter Project
creationletter.com [aka kcsg.wordpress.com]
NO.
The reason you deleted my comments was because you are unwilling to educate yourself about science.
Your creation letter project is an affront on everything REASONABLE about science. You aren’t concerned with INFORMATION you are concerned with preaching FALSE INFORMATION/ DOGMATIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
To demand that you review the science itself and criticize it on a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL is neither rude, condescending, nor shrill.
It is what is required in order for you to have a CREDIBLE analysis of the material.
But you have an agenda and are unwilling to have an INTELLECTUALLY HONEST discussion about things that YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!