More Religious Nutters

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon


So you admit you are irrational?

Game over.

I think it was admitted pages ago when his posts took on a personal tone.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you admit you are irrational?

Game over.

No, I admit that I have no respect for philosophy, or at least not for your brand of it, and resent your attempts to make me use it.

ORD: It wasn't too bad, but I'd vary sentence structure next time, or use a different one altogether. The repeated "[person X][hyperbolic claim about his intentions]" structure reminded me of a campaign smear ad. Dunno if you have those in Canada, they typically go: "Elok voted against the Smith-Johnson Act to feed war orphans. Elok has promised positions in his cabinet to prominent NAMBLA members. Elok is the wrong choice for our country. PaidForByOmniRexDraconisForPresident." Or was that similarity intentional? If so, it was a much better joke

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

No, I admit that I have no respect for philosophy, or at least not for your brand of it, and resent your attempts to make me use it.

I'm not pushing any particular philosophical idea on you. I'm just asking you to make use of your rational faculty.

Since you seem incapable of doing so, there's no point listening to you, since you are no better in this respect than a vegetable.

[Elok]

Aggie, you've been a philosopher too long. Normal, sane people, when you say "the sky is blue," do not immediately turn around and ask what you mean by "is." "Do you mean that the proposition of the sky, or what we perceive as the sky, has a necessary attribute of 'is-ness,' so to speak, or only that the concept of the sky causes you to be impressed with a feeling of 'is?' Are you referring to 'is' as an abstract concept independent of any objective truth, or 'is qua is?' Can is-ness be known empirically, or analytically, or both? Is is-ness my business?"

No, a normal person responds, "So it is, what's your point," because he understands "the sky is blue" to mean that the sky is blue. He understands this because he has seen the sky, it is in fact blue as far as he can determine, and he is used to living in the real world. All the hypothetical constructs have rotted your brain, like a marathon session of reality TV. Escape, while/if you still can.

[Perfection]

You're not making obvious claims like "the sky is blue", which I'm sure Aga wouldn't have a problem with (well, except the fact that the majority of the time it isn't blue). You're making claims about the structure of the mind and how we sense things, which certainly demands a lot of discussion (including annoying semantic crap) to fully flesh out into a coherant viewpoint.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Originally posted by Elok

ORD: It wasn't too bad, but I'd vary sentence structure next time, or use a different one altogether. The repeated "[person X][hyperbolic claim about his intentions]" structure reminded me of a campaign smear ad. Dunno if you have those in Canada, they typically go: "Elok voted against the Smith-Johnson Act to feed war orphans. Elok has promised positions in his cabinet to prominent NAMBLA members. Elok is the wrong choice for our country. PaidForByOmniRexDraconisForPresident." Or was that similarity intentional? If so, it was a much better joke

You're right; it does read like that.

I wasn't emulating those ads, but the rhetorical style was deliberate. I actually considered tightening the structure to be exactly the same, and removing one - triplets are good, the fourth was just overkill.

As for the hyperbole, and choosing you as my "strawman" - that was also deliberate. You are not the personification of my disgust with religious nuttery, Elok. But for here, for now, you will do.

[Wezil]

LONDON (AP) — The beast of the Book of Revelation intruded into the banter of the House of Commons on Thursday when a motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England was numbered 666.

The last book of the Bible says 666 is the number of a beast that “had two horns like a lamb, and ... spake as a dragon,” and that “doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.”

“It is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number,” said Bob Russell, a Liberal Democrat lawmaker.

“It looks as though God or the devil have been moving in mysterious ways,” he said.

The motion simply states: “That this House calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England” — in other words ending its status as the country’s legally established, official faith.

Such motions rarely result in any action, but are used by members to publicize issues. Other members may sign the motion as an indication of support.

By Thursday afternoon, the number of the signers was three.

The Church of England, created by King Henry VIII’s breach with Rome, is the legally established faith in England. The monarch, by law, is obliged to be a member, and has the title of Supreme Governor of the church.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/01/11/4768112-ap.html

[Wezil]

dp

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wezil

Pol Pot and Chevies are both REAL.

Pol Pot hasn't been real for a while.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
You're not making obvious claims like "the sky is blue", which I'm sure Aga wouldn't have a problem with (well, except the fact that the majority of the time it isn't blue). You're making claims about the structure of the mind and how we sense things, which certainly demands a lot of discussion (including annoying semantic crap) to fully flesh out into a coherant viewpoint.

The problem arose when I started saying what is essentially self-evident, at least to me: that the brain takes all its cues from the senses. No, fear and the concept of numbers do not exist outside of the mind, but you are afraid of something, and often for good reason, while numbers obviously refer to reality in a definite way or we would not bother going through the hell of math classes. You say three plus three is six, and you can prove it: take three apples, add another three apples to the pile, and count 'em--six! Hallucinations do not refer to anything real, but take on the jumbled forms and attributes of known entities, as do dreams.

That's obvious and simple to me, but Agathon wants an explanation in terms of exterior cognates and operating thetans, and before I know it even I don't know WTF I'm talking about. When that happens, you know something's wrong, very wrong. The purpose of jargon is to allow rapid discussion of complex information, at least according to linguists. When jargon impedes thought and communication instead of helping it, the jargon has to go.

ORD: I'm sorry I can't return the favor, as others in this thread have a better claim than you to Ultimate Bigoted Atheist. But I wish you the best of luck in the future, and thank you for bringing humor back to the thread.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok
That's obvious and simple to me, but Agathon wants an explanation in terms of exterior cognates and operating thetans, and before I know it even I don't know WTF I'm talking about. When that happens, you know something's wrong, very wrong. The purpose of jargon is to allow rapid discussion of complex information, at least according to linguists. When jargon impedes thought and communication instead of helping it, the jargon has to go.

Well, I think Aga doesn't explain jargon enough, but I don't think you should dismiss him simply becasue of that. When I don't understand something generally I ask, "WTF are you talkin' 'bout d00d" or some other thing.

And really, this terminology is pretty helpful because everyday words are sloppy and have multiple meanings. It just carries an annoying learning curve.

Originally posted by Elok
The problem arose when I started saying what is essentially self-evident, at least to me: that the brain takes all its cues from the senses. No, fear and the concept of numbers do not exist outside of the mind, but you are afraid of something, and often for good reason, while numbers obviously refer to reality in a definite way or we would not bother going through the hell of math classes. You say three plus three is six, and you can prove it: take three apples, add another three apples to the pile, and count 'em--six! Hallucinations do not refer to anything real, but take on the jumbled forms and attributes of known entities, as do dreams.

Well, I don't think it's self-evident and actually believe it to be false. Certainly you are correct that many cues come from external sources, but you shouldn't make the jump that all are without carefully looking for counterexamples.

Consider puberty. I didn't start desiring girls because of any external sense, rather because my brain itself changed.

Another one is dreams, while their content certainly is influenced by what we've previously sensed, what exactly we dream, when we dream, how long we dream, and the order of events in what we dream by-and-large aren't.

One final one is inspiration. You could be staring at your navel for a half hour attempting to solve some problem. Your sense data isn't changing but when you arrive at some solution your emotions change from say puzzlement to elation.

So in short, it's not just sense data that matters, there is internal stuff in the brain that play an important role too. Thus the assumption that religious experience must be exertnal sense instead of the actions of internal brain stuff is a pretty poor one.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah.

Then again, I am a Davidsonian pragmatist, so I don't think it makes any sense to say that most of our beliefs are false.

How do you justify being a Davidsonian pragmatist?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You actually may get somewhere when you question a philosophy.

really? where have the questions gotten anybody lately?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Geronimo


How do you justify being a Davidsonian pragmatist?

More importantly, WTF is a Davidsonian pragmatist?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


really? where have the questions gotten anybody lately?

Well, there are some philosophers that have been discredited not so long ago - especially those with a Pol Pot'ish viewpoint - I admit that they were questioned in a uhm very nonphilosophical way, but still