Why are you not a Christian

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Asher


The irony here is this is great example of spoon-fed bull**** from a philosopher.

Tell me, is my opinion that philosophy is a useless part of universities today common? Seems to me whenever we discuss this I'm the only one of that opinion, though Agathon's presence has been swaying people into my favour -- your posts help, too.

I am the ultimate cause for my reasons. As for "patterns of truth", I think you're confusing that with a much simpler concept of "consistency".

If you think my arguments exhibit very common paradigms and patterns of truth, then break down two arguments for me:
- Philosophy is a useless part of universities (and you know very well all my reasons for this)
- Firefox is better than Internet Explorer

Which patterns do these follow? What's the genealogy? The last one alone easily disproves this bull****.

And the fact that we're wasting time arguing about it -- especially now that you're descending into the territory of pseudointellectual bull**** philosophical terms -- just serves as another salvo for the first point.

I wanna say this

Firefox is better than IE

Asher is one of the few Tech Gurus we have the privilege of being in the midst of.


Asher is of a high entertainment value when pawning da masses

While i am no one to point fingers, I hope one day Asher accepts Christ as Savior, only because I dont want him to perish.

That being stated, ya'll dont pull the chain of Asher and he wont spank yo hiney

(and call me to put my super citizen super hero suit on and defend his right to be who he is, a special member of our honored society)

[Asher]

GT: You and Sloww are far and away my favourite Christians. I think you both exemplify the spirit of the good parts of Christianity more than others here.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Asher
GT: You and Sloww are far and away my favourite Christians. I think you both exemplify the spirit of the good parts of Christianity more than others here.

Your the man Brother!

I have a list of folks, if ever possible, I would be honored to sit down with and have supper or dinner with, I love knowledge and feel you have lots to offer, me, I just am an old country boy who has seen life from a slightly darker side and enjoy listening to great speakers!

Wear 'em out Asher

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
GT: You and Sloww are far and away my favourite Christians. I think you both exemplify the spirit of the good parts of Christianity more than others here.

Oh, burn in hell you bloody heathen!

[Asher]

When I think of Apolyton Christians, you never come to mind, DaShi. That's not a bad thing.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I would not try to post here and tell anyone they are wrong and will burn in Hell, although that is what God's word says, whomever shall not call upon the Christ or Messiah, shall perish and live in the everlasting lake of fire.

With all due respect, but you just did. And it is this very kind of message which puts any thinking person right off...it smacks of a scam.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
When I think of Apolyton Christians, you never come to mind, DaShi. That's not a bad thing.

Good then.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


The irony here is this is great example of spoon-fed bull**** from a philosopher.

Tell me, is my opinion that philosophy is a useless part of universities today common? Seems to me whenever we discuss this I'm the only one of that opinion, though Agathon's presence has been swaying people into my favour -- your posts help, too.

It's quite common, really. Being a filosofy student, I hear it all the time. It's not much common on Apolyton because people here tend to much more literate and educated than the average.

I am the ultimate cause for my reasons. As for "patterns of truth", I think you're confusing that with a much simpler concept of "consistency".

You're obviously not. If you knew more about the history of ideas, you'd know where you come from.

If you think my arguments exhibit very common paradigms and patterns of truth, then break down two arguments for me:
- Philosophy is a useless part of universities (and you know very well all my reasons for this)
- Firefox is better than Internet Explorer

Which patterns do these follow? What's the genealogy? The last one alone easily disproves this bull****.

The first one is easily traced back to a certain conception of scientificity and a form of empirical materialism.
The second one I don't know, but it doesn't matter, because it's a very specific judgement based on very practical criteria.

And the fact that we're wasting time arguing about it -- especially now that you're descending into the territory of pseudointellectual bull**** philosophical terms -- just serves as another salvo for the first point.

You're actually a very good example of what "thinking" looks like without philosophy.

Tell me, Boris -- are you religious?

I used to be strongly atheist, but after reading more religious texts, I realized that most reasons atheists give is BS based on ignorance of said texts. I just tend to appreciate intelligence and originality in general, and there's plenty to be found in religious thought.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871
Even if you can shut them down with the power of your mind alone, what's especially disturbing is that you attribute to them some supernatural significance for which Buddhist teachings can be thanked, rather than a mere confluence of biochemical reactions taking place in your brain. If that's not faith, I don't know what is, and yet out the other side of your mouth you claim Buddhism is the absence of faith. I'd like to see you try to resolve that contradiction.

It's because Buddhist teachings taught me how to do that, or at least, allowed me to learn faster, I had already learned how to control a lot of emotions by myself, Buddhist teaching accelerated that learning significantly.

Where is the faith there? Buddhism is a "How To" guide for that kind of thing, you don't need faith in a "How To" guide, you merely need trust it enough to follow it.

So what is trust?

Lets say, a student goes to university. He decides that one of his professors is an idiot and refuses to believe what that professor says "If I hear that fool say it, then it must be wrong!". Of course he fails that course.
Another student decides that the professor is his idol, and practically memorizes everything he says! If he heard the professor say it, it must be true! He does poorly in that course, but doesn't fail.
And the third student, takes a balanced approach. One which allows doubt and skepticism in moderation. He assumes that the professor is sincere, but does not assume that the communication process is infallible nor learning automatic, so he goes through a process to ensure he thoroughly understands what the professor is trying to communicate. He thinks "Yes, this professor is an excellent teacher, but I do need to do my own thinking, and it is helpful for me to verify what I hear him say, to ensure I am understanding correctly"

The Buddhist attitude towards the Buddha, needs to be that of the third student. Trusting that the Buddha is an excellent teacher and sincere in his teachings, but not trusting the communication process itself, not believing learning to be automatic.

And how does one come to trust the Buddha? The same way as one comes to trust anything, really. And the Buddha knew a lot about building trust, that's why Buddhist Monks have so many rules. Why is there a rule which says a Monk may not be alone with a Lady? Because then, as long as Monks follow that rule, no-one can ever suspect a Monk of banging a lady - and the existence of the rule sends a warning to the Monks - that if you DO break this rule, you must assume you will be suspected of having sex.

When you come to understand the sheer integrity and wisdom of the Buddha, it's not hard to trust him as a teacher. To say; Damn, no other religious teacher has even come close to having that much foresight and designing such an excellent teaching framework.
But of course the most important thing, is to see that some of the Buddha's teachings work, or have already worked, for you. In my case, it was seeing what had already worked, some of the things I'd already done and had benefited me, turned out to be recommended by the Buddha. So I could very easily see the wisdom in his teachings.


Finally. Why call oneself a Buddhist? If the Buddha is merely a teacher and not an idol?

That just comes down to what is most important. For instance, until about 6 months ago, I would probably have said the most important thing, was that I was a Programmer. Now to me, the most important thing, is that I'm a Buddhist. Nowhere does faith come into it... I didn't need faith to call myself a Programmer, I don't need faith to call myself a Buddhist. Buddhism is simply the most important thing to me. It makes me happy to be a Programmer, but it makes me even happier to be a Buddhist!

Aside from the fact that what you've said so far indicates at least a modicum of faith, it's especially silly that you sit here making logical arguments while at the same time claim your belief system involves a disregard of logic, inference, and reason.

There is a difference between a disregard for logic, and recognizing the limitations of logic. Logic is not all-powerful.

For instance, you may have noticed this game called Politics. In a two party system, all people use roughly the same process of logic, inference and reason, to decide which party to back.

And on average, 50% choose one party, and 50% choose the other party.

How can that be, if the same process of logic, inference and reason is used by all people?

If you think about that; it will reveal some of the limitations of logic, inference and reason. While it can be used to make decisions, it does not arrive at truths.

No matter how much your conscious mind might deliberately delude itself into thinking it's free of logic & inference, your subconscious is constantly banging out thousands of computations a minute that are strictly logical.

There is a difference between recognizing the limitations of logic, and believing or wanting oneself to be free of logic.

Hell, right now as an experiment just look at your computer screen, then reach out and touch it.

Why? Then I would have to clean the fingerprint off.

To think that your conscious mind can somehow transcend the very real biological limitations that evolution left us with is truly the height of vanity.

What is your idea of transcending then? It really is more, recognizing the limitations and unsatisfactoriness of. For example, someone may look at a girl and think "Wow! That girl has a perfect body!", they are obviously being deluded by their lust-driven monkey-brain, the girl's body is as imperfect as every other body.
The someone's mind, could then generate this idea of the girl being perfect in every way, and then pursue and perhaps date her, and then there will be the slow and painful process of understanding that the girl is not in fact, perfect, that she does not in fact, live up to expectations of being perfectly satisfactory, because the expectations were unreasonable, rooted in delusion.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


With all due respect, but you just did. And it is this very kind of message which puts any thinking person right off...it smacks of a scam.

Well, thanks for thje "all due respect" but want to share, those are not my words. (yes my typed post sir, but not the author of those words.

My point in posting that, was in fact, to share I have been wrong by coming in and BAM on the table slamming my fist and spouting this when in fact, milk and honey go further than choking on the meat of the word.

My point sir is to share Love not a spirit of clashing, but the way God's love is intended, tempered with humility and love, happiness and joy, good will.

I am not dilluting God word, couldnt if I tried, but merely sharing how I feel God would want his word shared.

As also stated, I do feel ashamed when I make mistakes, not that God makes you feel this way, I, Bruce, feel this way because I want all to not be hurt or left out.

God's Word is not a scam, please forgive me or anyone else who lacks proper communication skills to share His word correctly.

God's Word is not contradictory in nature, it is pure and it is everlasting.

I dont ever look down upon any Poly Poster, what I do is pray.

Prayer is not be slamming you PH, heck, I cant ever think of ever feeling cross about or toward you. I have never in my heart felt I am or was or will be better than you sir. I am told not to be a respector of man, however, I do look upon my fellow man with the appreciation for the talents, skill and wisdom that is possessed. Those whom are good stewards are to be commended.

When I have you or anyone else in prayer, it is not a mumbo jumbo of incantations or burning incense and humming or seeing visions, although God may have this available to someone else. I personally have never experienced it.

I have seen and personally experienced Gods mercy.

If a person has not, I fully understand why what I am saying could be construed as nonsense.

I,as previously stated, brought forth harm to those in the know, until I saw what God has for me.

My apologies for putting in a way as to perhaps be offensive, not for quoting God;s word, but if it came across as confrontational.

Bruce

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's quite common, really. Being a filosofy student, I hear it all the time. It's not much common on Apolyton because people here tend to much more literate and educated than the average.

You're obviously not. If you knew more about the history of ideas, you'd know where you come from.


You're actually a very good example of what "thinking" looks like without philosophy.

This is precisely why I think philosophy is a bad influence at universities. It leads to intellectual elitism and lack of original ideas, which is amazing because it's supposed to do the opposite. It's an old boys club of people who circle jerk about how intelligent they are and how much better thinkers they are to the general public. It's a joke, and as the philosophy posters on Apolyton have proven time and time again, it's as far as you can get from the truth.

This is the result of your philosophy education. You're not smarter than me, you're not wiser than me, you're not a better debater than me. Yet, you think you are because you took a series of courses at a school that taught you how elite you really are as a thinker. It's deception.

The first one is easily traced back to a certain conception of scientificity and a form of empirical materialism.

Not true at all. That's just your perception because you want to dismiss the ideas contrary to yours because they are not of a "philosophical" mind. Here's what's possibly earth shattering for you: everybody is a philosopher. Everybody has a philosophy they follow, whether it be their own or someone they studied in school. The difference between you and me, is you're the kind that studies philosophers in school and then use that to form your opinions. I like to think for my own, to blaze my own trail...to be an original thinker. That's why I find your position so amusing.

The second one I don't know, but it doesn't matter, because it's a very specific judgement based on very practical criteria.

All of my criteria are practical. I'm a practical person. I thought it was quite obvious, really. That's why I eschew open source advocates for putting philosophy ahead of pragmatism. That's why I also eschew proprietary source advocates for putting philosophy ahead of pragmatism. This is the perfect example of why I am an original thinker and not one to go with the flow, and you couldn't answer it because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't think you understand me or my arguments, as your brief description here clearly illustrates. I think the fact that you dismiss them as such is precisely because you as religious, but your faith is in philosophical education. I don't think you, nor your contemporaries here like Agathon, can stand a chance in any kind of debate that touches on apparently complex issues like "practicality", which is precisely why we're at odds with eachother.

I'm an original thinker that thrives on the practical, you're a me-too thinker that thrives on the theoretical. Just because you don't understand my arguments or where they come from doesn't give you the right to dismiss them as unoriginal. The very fact that a lot of people here claim me to be anti-Apple -- yet I own an iPod and MBP shows me not to be following a rigid line of thinking. Same thing with people here claiming I'm a MS shill -- yet I staunchly advocate Firefox. If you took the time to actually read and comprehend what I say, you'll see there isn't any kind of overarching pattern. I approach each situation differently, evaluate it, and form an opinion on it. Sometimes they go well together (eg, I prefer Xbox 360 & Windows Vista), sometimes they don't (I prefer Windows Vista & Firefox).

Long story short -- this is another perfect example of an elitist philosophy student trying to display superiority of thought, when a careful analysis shows the opposite to be true.

[Fake Boris]

Asher - I'll answer your complaints by showing you how your original assesments are wrong.

Originally posted by Asher
- It's nonsensical

I'd really like to know what you mean by that. There's so much "sense" to be found in religious beliefs that I don't know where to start. What's non-sensical about Moses' laws, or Christ's teaching ? What's nonsensical about grouping together and singing psalms ?

- The beliefs change over time

Here we have a great example of a certain philosophical conception of truth based on eternity. Do you know where it comes from ?

- The beliefs are fundamentally exclusionary and mean-spirited

Not if you look at them within their contexts, wich is the point of modern theology.

- It's a classic case of cult by rule of fear of the unknown

This is the basis of certainty, to expugnate the fear of the unknown by making things known. The scientific method does not evade this tendency. Ask yourself this question : has science made us fearless ?

- It's time-consuming

So what ?

- It's boring

That's your plebeian opinion. Understanding cultures and their evolution is mightily interesting.

- It lends itself a bit too well to Groupthink

You must be unaware then of the incredible scope and variety of theological ideas then.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Asher - I'll answer your complaints by showing you how your original assesments are wrong.

I'd really like to know what you mean by that. There's so much "sense" to be found in religious beliefs that I don't know where to start. What's non-sensical about Moses' laws, or Christ's teaching ? What's nonsensical about grouping together and singing psalms ?

If you think Noah's Ark, walking on water, etc. makes sense, that's your own business. I disagree.

Here we have a great example of a certain philosophical conception of truth based on eternity. Do you know where it comes from ?

New testament vs old testament. Google it.

Not if you look at them within their contexts, wich is the point of modern theology.

Stoning people and murder is never not mean-spirited.

This is the basis of certainty, to expugnate the fear of the unknown by making things known. The scientific method does not evade this tendency. Ask yourself this question : has science made us fearless ?

Why do you waste our time? This has nothing to do with science. It also doesn't change the fact that religions do operate on fear of the unknown. That's fundamental, and undeniable.

Is this an example of your original thinking, in that it's a response unrelated to the question?

So what ?

- It's boring

That's your plebeian opinion.

Are you this dense? The whole point was to ask why we are not Christian. I gave out in a stream-of-consciousness style why I am not. That's one of my reasons. I honestly can't believe you are doing this -- acting like this is some rigorous academic argument, when ALL it is is my opinion.

You must be unaware then of the incredible scope and variety of theological ideas then.

When you make **** up, it's easy to have incredible scope in ideas. Unfortunately for you, you show you do not comprehend the argument. I'm referring to the followers, not the theologians / inventors of crap.

I do appreciate you taking the time to prove my opinion of philosophers right yet again, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does everybody assume that a boundless limitless omnipotent and omniscient being would have any meaningful sense of scale. We wouldn't be insignificant to such a being, everything would be insignificant to such a being. Either it would care about absolutely nothing and just sorta pass eternity in an empty meditative trance or, being omniscient, it would care about everything and being omnipotent have no difficulty micromanaging everything.

Good question. And yet do not men care greatly about the things that they make even though they not match him in stature?

We are his creation, he has made us. He has always been concerned for his creation, of which we are a part.

The real question is why? Why would he choose to do so?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
For instance, you may have noticed this game called Politics. In a two party system, all people use roughly the same process of logic, inference and reason, to decide which party to back.

And on average, 50% choose one party, and 50% choose the other party.

How can that be, if the same process of logic, inference and reason is used by all people?

If you think about that; it will reveal some of the limitations of logic, inference and reason. While it can be used to make decisions, it does not arrive at truths.

You're leaving out values.