putting religion in it's proper place

[Greatest I am]

Wow. You didn't even get it right for one word. That's pretty remarkably off-point.

Do I even need to point out to you that Atheists don't believe in "Eve"? So "Eve" cannot form any part of their explanation of Evil.

Irrelevant.

Hardly.

You said you'd speak for Atheists. You didn't.

I'm not asking you what you think, therefore; I'm asking Atheists what they think. It was an act of purest optimism on my part to have taken you seriously when you said you'd try to speak for them in the first place. It was maybe too optimistic.

Yet you did not refute my evolution notions and irrelevantly focus on the first line of what I posted.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

Irrelevant.

Hardly.

You said you'd speak for Atheists. You didn't.

I'm not asking you what you think, therefore; I'm asking Atheists what they think. It was an act of purest optimism on my part to have taken you seriously when you said you'd try to speak for them in the first place. It was maybe too optimistic.

Yet you did not refute my evolution notions and irrelevantly focus on the first line of what I posted.

I asked you for what I wanted, and didn't get it. You were unresponsive to the request, even though you claimed you were responding. So you were just off topic, and I'm happy to move on. I'll let the Atheists speak for themselves; it's clear you're no help.

[Scott Mayers]

...

How can you 'hate' what doesn't exist?

We aren't going to gain ground on this. I don't know who Dan Brown is and so references to him (as though maybe you think I was some follower) means nothing to me.



Tell me how you differentiate whether a child swinging a toy sword is striking a real, but invisible, monster from one who is just playing pretend?

And now ask yourself if you were to observe me telling you that you cannot rule out the child as striking a real monster and that this is obviously MORE rational to assume than that he could possibly be just pretending.

What then are all the possible things about me that you could rationally infer? Of those possibilities, which one is most likely true about me given what you know of me by experience in our discussions?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, would you please say what in your opinion "believe in Eve" means?

For instance, to me the phrase sounds like a piece of poetry, perhaps the theme of inconstancy among ladies.

Believe in Eve, Son, at your peril.

For me Eve's proper name was Beryl.

Beryl betrayed me, going feral,

And tempting me to act immoral.

[attofishpi]

Hi Belinda - was it you that stated you had formally studied psychology or psychiatry?

[Belinda]

Hi Belinda - was it you that stated you had formally studied psychology or psychiatry?

Hi Attofishpi , I never studied psychiatry and psychology hardly at all.

[attofishpi]

Hi Belinda - was it you that stated you had formally studied psychology or psychiatry?

Hi Attofishpi , I never studied psychiatry and psychology hardly at all.

Ah, was it personal interest or institutional?

[Immanuel Can]

...

How can you 'hate' what doesn't exist?

Well, that's assumptive. "Hating" is an attitude, and so you can have it toward anything you DO believe exists. I don't believe that the "god" DL believes in and hates exists either. It doesn't stop her/him from directing her/his hatred in that direction, though.

I don't know who Dan Brown is

He's the author of the novel "The DaVinci Code," and the most famous popularizer of the version of history you were reciting. He's even got his rather silly books made into movies, staring major stars and playing in the box office. However, the most remarkable feature of that version of alleged history is how little of it is actually historically true. But it did make a top-selling fiction, and a lot of people have mistaken it for some kind of truthful account.

If you're not getting the version of events about Gnostics from Brown, it's got to be from Baigent or one of the other various historical pseudo-historical novels in that genre, I would guess. I say that because it seems to me that it's unlikely you made it up or discovered it by yourself; I've seen this kind of legend before, as has anybody who knows Dan Brown et al.

But if you say you don't know any of those guys, and that you got it from somewhere else, of course I'll believe you. Why shouldn't I? Those stories are around.

Tell me how you differentiate whether a child swinging a toy sword is striking a real, but invisible, monster from one who is just playing pretend?

The presence of the monster. If such exists, there will be evidence it does.

Your point was...?

And now ask yourself if you were to observe me telling you that you cannot rule out the child as striking a real monster and that this is obviously MORE rational to assume than that he could possibly be just pretending.

I have no idea who would argue that way. I certainly wouldn't.

What then are all the possible things about me that you could rationally infer? Of those possibilities, which one is most likely true about me given what you know of me by experience in our discussions?

I could infer (without certainty, of course), you're male, you're human, your name is Scott Mayers, you can type, you have a computer, you're a fairly reasonable person, you are at least a little interested in the topics here, you're skeptical of faith...and all those seem reasonable for me to believe, at least until further notice. They could be wrong -- you could actually be a woman of faith playing devil's advocate with the help of a typist, but I don't find that the most reasonable supposition.

There are probably other things I could guess at with lesser degrees of certainty. What's the point, though?

[Scott Mayers]

Tell me how you differentiate whether a child swinging a toy sword is striking a real, but invisible, monster from one who is just playing pretend?

The presence of the monster. If such exists, there will be evidence it does.
...

So what is 'evidence' to you that would prove the possible existence of a monster AND why would/should you even invest the time to even question whether the possible monster COULD exist in the first place?

And now ask yourself if you were to observe me telling you that you cannot rule out the child as striking a real monster and that this is obviously MORE rational to assume than that he could possibly be just pretending.

I have no idea who would argue that way. I certainly wouldn't.

So you don't do things like close your eyes, place your hands together, and whisper wishes to something you call a 'lord' with the hope of it to manifest them for you or your loved ones,.. all the while, assuming it real and not merely pretend?

You don't have familiarity with thinking that some particular book is able to hold the magical property of self-proving it contents matter is literally real reflexively?


Did you ever read, "The Monster at the End of this Book?" If you did, were your sincerly scared to change the page for fear that there might truly be a monster there? Did the image of Grover placing up bricks to prevent you from turning the page at one point make you go seek some hammer and chisel so that you could use that to pry open the next page?

These questions are asking of you to step outside of your bubble to look at how I or other non-theists would look at this. While it is clear that there is SOME value in the pretense, the question is to how you expect others to transfer the appearance of pretense to be literally misplaced with the added doubt of those who doubt it by default. Would you find it odd if I showed you the book, flipped to the page where the brick wall was drawn and then said, "see, we've come to a brick wall and now watch me as I change the page....voila!...I proved that you CAN tear down a brick wall with a single finger! This proves that all real brick walls are less real than this one!"

Compare: "The bible is true because it is authored by God, whom you have to read to determine this, and references things that are MORE real than NOT for saying so, even if what it says appears to be different than what you experience."

What then are all the possible things about me that you could rationally infer? Of those possibilities, which one is most likely true about me given what you know of me by experience in our discussions?

I could infer (without certainty, of course), you're male, you're human, your name is Scott Mayers, you can type, you have a computer, you're a fairly reasonable person, you are at least a little interested in the topics here, you're skeptical of faith...and all those seem reasonable for me to believe, at least until further notice. They could be wrong -- you could actually be a woman of faith playing devil's advocate with the help of a typist, but I don't find that the most reasonable supposition.

There are probably other things I could guess at with lesser degrees of certainty. What's the point, though?

I meant for you to respond to the question about my mentality on the condition that I believed it reasonable to expect the kid swinging his toy sword was more likely to BE a real monster than not. That is, I told you that the kid WAS swinging at a real monster and is the more rational assumption to default to than to doubt that the kid was just playing.

I am trying to get you to step outside of yourself to see how I or the atheist in general interprets your defense of religion in kind. (And I am only pretending realitstically that you are possibly being sincere here and not just pulling my leg like the kid who might merely be enjoying the attention he's getting by continuing to deny that he is pretending in fact.)

[Immanuel Can]

So what is 'evidence' to you that would prove the possible existence of a monster AND why would/should you even invest the time to even question whether the possible monster COULD exist in the first place?

I think, Scott, this is a case of you weaving an analogy of some kind...the point of which really remains obscure to me.

So I'm not in the business of monsters, nor think anyone else is. Perhaps you've be best to speak plainly?

Did you ever read, "The Monster at the End of this Book?"

No...as I said, I have no interest in monsters.

Maybe you should just say what you're trying to say.

...how I or other non-theists would look at this.

I'm very familiar with that. Again, maybe you should just make your point.

Compare: "The bible is true because it is authored by God, whom you have to read to determine this, and references things that are MORE real than NOT for saying so, even if what it says appears to be different than what you experience."

Who are you quoting here? It's not me. I never said this. So what, exactly are you trying to say here?

What then are all the possible things about me that you could rationally infer? Of those possibilities, which one is most likely true about me given what you know of me by experience in our discussions?

I could infer (without certainty, of course), you're male, you're human, your name is Scott Mayers, you can type, you have a computer, you're a fairly reasonable person, you are at least a little interested in the topics here, you're skeptical of faith...and all those seem reasonable for me to believe, at least until further notice. They could be wrong -- you could actually be a woman of faith playing devil's advocate with the help of a typist, but I don't find that the most reasonable supposition.

There are probably other things I could guess at with lesser degrees of certainty. What's the point, though?

I meant for you to respond to the question about my mentality ...

How am I to judge your "mentality," Scott? Do you mean you want me to comment on something you wrote? Because you know I've never met you personally...and certainly don't have enough knowledge to comment on your "mentality."

I can, however, take issue with some things you wrote. That's fair game.

[attofishpi]

.

"Should be?" "Should be?"

But it isn't, and historically, never has been. Common usage is entirely against that "should."

Now, there must be some reason why you think it "should" go that way, despite it never having done so. So why do you think "evil" cannot possibly be a noun (contrary to what usage says) and "should" only be an adjective?

Because my good chap, I learned in primary school that a noun is a: person, place or thing. NOT an attribute of a person a place or a thing.

"A person, place or thing, or idea," if your primary school taught you correctly. Abstract nouns are also nouns, you see. But that's not the point. The point is that your primary school should have taught you also that "evil" can be a noun. You might not like that, but it's how it is.

So I just wanted to know why, contrary to Oxford, contrary to common usage, you felt so determined to make "evil" merely an adjective; and I offered you an opportunity to expand on that as necessary.

Interested in explaining? Or not?

Sorry, I forgot.

I have a widgleywoggley - it's also a noun for obvious reasons that you provided for a noun - it is an idea.

[Scott Mayers]

So what is 'evidence' to you that would prove the possible existence of a monster AND why would/should you even invest the time to even question whether the possible monster COULD exist in the first place?

I think, Scott, this is a case of you weaving an analogy of some kind...the point of which really remains obscure to me.

So I'm not in the business of monsters, nor think anyone else is. Perhaps you've be best to speak plainly?

Did you ever read, "The Monster at the End of this Book?"

No...as I said, I have no interest in monsters.

Maybe you should just say what you're trying to say.

...how I or other non-theists would look at this.

I'm very familiar with that. Again, maybe you should just make your point.

Compare: "The bible is true because it is authored by God, whom you have to read to determine this, and references things that are MORE real than NOT for saying so, even if what it says appears to be different than what you experience."

Who are you quoting here? It's not me. I never said this. So what, exactly are you trying to say here?

I could infer (without certainty, of course), you're male, you're human, your name is Scott Mayers, you can type, you have a computer, you're a fairly reasonable person, you are at least a little interested in the topics here, you're skeptical of faith...and all those seem reasonable for me to believe, at least until further notice. They could be wrong -- you could actually be a woman of faith playing devil's advocate with the help of a typist, but I don't find that the most reasonable supposition.

There are probably other things I could guess at with lesser degrees of certainty. What's the point, though?

I meant for you to respond to the question about my mentality ...

How am I to judge your "mentality," Scott? Do you mean you want me to comment on something you wrote? Because you know I've never met you personally...and certainly don't have enough knowledge to comment on your "mentality."

I can, however, take issue with some things you wrote. That's fair game.

The underlined-bolded-blue statements I emphasized tells me that you are resisting any willingness or possibly lack an ability to connect the analogies I'm using to help you understand the perspective of the athiest of the religious persons such as yourself. I think you 'get' what I'm presenting but may either need time to let it sink in on your own time and place OR that I am unable to effectively argue by whatever limits of capacity I have to do so. Either way, your apparent concern here indicates that you are not going to acknowledge any model of comparison. This is an issue of either you not being able (or possibly not willing) to put yourself into my shoes, so to speak, in a literal way.

I can understand that this may be impossible to acknowledge without affecting how one's psychological reflection of themselves. As such I don't want to take away your comfort in belief given it may be destructive. I had experience with affecting some persons close to me this way AS they were dying (but didn't tell me). We ended up cutting off contact in a somewhat understandable agreement when I discovered a couple years after that she had a horrible final year. She was strongly Evangelical and so my approach to prove something effectively using her own good capcity to reason in 'apologetics', probably contributed to her suffering.

I'm at a loss given the emotions of humans is more relevant than the 'truth' in practice. I'm more likely to just piss you off and make another person distance themselves from anything else I have to say. So I'll just leave this be. All I can say is that I do not think that the religious person's views are a fault given it coevolves with our motivational drive needed for consciousness. I too cannot evade the significance of emotions even though I am relatively 'skilled' at being isolated without getting depressed on the state of "nihilism" that many fear about when considering athiesm. Even most atheists I know still cannot divorce their 'belief' in some form of absolute morals. [See Michael Shermer and his "Can you be good without God?" discussions.] This is the same issue that created problems with Communism given the fact that IF the present athiest presumes some future "paradise" on Earth, that becomes a religion IF the present people have to 'sacrifice' for a progeny. I mean why would anyone without children or other loved ones think it alright to sacrifice their own life for some future that they could never be a part of?

[Belinda]

Scott Mayers wrote:

Even most atheists I know still cannot divorce their 'belief' in some form of absolute morals.

I guess the most common basis of morality is humans are social animals.

Even social animals form packs and herds where the laws are largely genetic and are maintained by power hierarchies. I say " largely genetic" however there is plentiful evidence that some species learn behaviours and can also transmit these learned behaviours to offspring.E.g. the songs of the chaffinch.


The degree to which humans learn behaviours and can transmit these cultured behaviours to offspring far outdistances what other species can do (as far as we know). Cultured behaviours among humans persist through generations but can also revolve to their opposites over the course of one month.

We know about ourselves and can alter much of our behaviour at will. Therefore there is no rational need to posit a supernatural source for morality.

Christianity in its most developed forms is universalist that's to say all men and all natural things are good. Pragmatically this is religion that can console and inspire with the desire to seek the good and abhor absence of good. When the good becomes codified it is tainted with idolatry and political wilfulness. 'Morality' within religiosity varies in degree of liberal and authoritarian. I guess atheists who " cannot divorce their 'belief' in some form of absolute morals" are at the liberal end of the liberal----authoritarian spectrum.

[Immanuel Can]

Because my good chap, I learned in primary school that a noun is a: person, place or thing. NOT an attribute of a person a place or a thing.

"A person, place or thing, or idea," if your primary school taught you correctly. Abstract nouns are also nouns, you see. But that's not the point. The point is that your primary school should have taught you also that "evil" can be a noun. You might not like that, but it's how it is.

So I just wanted to know why, contrary to Oxford, contrary to common usage, you felt so determined to make "evil" merely an adjective; and I offered you an opportunity to expand on that as necessary.

Interested in explaining? Or not?

Sorry, I forgot.

I have a widgleywoggley - it's also a noun for obvious reasons that you provided for a noun - it is an idea.

You don't know what an abstract noun is? Let me help you, then.

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/ ... act-nouns/.

[Immanuel Can]

The underlined-bolded-blue statements I emphasized tells me that you are resisting any willingness or possibly lack an ability to connect the analogies I'm using to help you understand the perspective of the athiest of the religious persons such as yourself.

You're quite right. I'm not detecting any connection between the analogies you're attempting to draw, and any salient point. And I think it's because you are assuming I think things I don't think, or that "religious people" you may have encountered all think in the way you're trying to describe in the analogy. But I assure you, they do not...and I do not...so the analogy is not working well for me.

That's why I invite you to speak plainly. The analogy is firing very wide of the mark I think you want it to hit. It's not helping me see your real-world position...it's obscuring it to me.

Either way, your apparent concern here indicates that you are not going to acknowledge any model of comparison.

Not at all. I'm happy to refer to an apt analogy.

But I suggest the analogy as given isn't helping us understand each other.

This is an issue of either you not being able (or possibly not willing) to put yourself into my shoes, so to speak, in a literal way.

Not at all. I get where you're coming from, I think...but you need a better analogy; or better still, just to say your point without obscuring it by way of an analogy.

I'm open to hearing and discussing your view. I'm not inclined, though, to certify for you an analogy that imports to the conversation elements I regard as incorrect. That would be to mislead you...and I wouldn't want to do that.

I had experience with affecting some persons close to me this way AS they were dying (but didn't tell me). We ended up cutting off contact in a somewhat understandable agreement when I discovered a couple years after that she had a horrible final year. She was strongly Evangelical and so my approach to prove something effectively using her own good capcity to reason in 'apologetics', probably contributed to her suffering.

Ah, this is much better! Just say what's on your mind...no analogy, just the facts.

Tell me more about this incident. I would be very interested in how it affected your view of Evangelicals...what kind was she, by the way? Some Evangelicals are inclined to be rather mystical and experiential, and others are inclined to be more factual and data focused, so it will help me to know.

I'm more likely to just piss you off and make another person distance themselves from anything else I have to say.

Heh. Not even a bit. I'm quite happy to talk to you, Scott...and not one bit "pissed off." I think these are important questions, and I'm happy to talk about them.

I too cannot evade the significance of emotions even though I am relatively 'skilled' at being isolated without getting depressed on the state of "nihilism" that many fear about when considering athiesm. Even most atheists I know still cannot divorce their 'belief' in some form of absolute morals. [See Michael Shermer and his "Can you be good without God?" discussions.] This is the same issue that created problems with Communism given the fact that IF the present athiest presumes some future "paradise" on Earth, that becomes a religion IF the present people have to 'sacrifice' for a progeny. I mean why would anyone without children or other loved ones think it alright to sacrifice their own life for some future that they could never be a part of?

See, this is why I like talking to you, Scott. You're an honest Atheist. You see what the problems are, you speak of them accurately, and you raise the honest questions...so why wouldn't I want to talk to you?

I find the analogy unhelpful to understanding you. But I find your frank description of the situation with the "persons close to me" very relevant. And I want to understand what it is you're actually experiencing. Is it really surprising, therefore, if an honest description turns out to be more helpful than a vague and somewhat tangled analogy?

I would say not.