Page 2 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

10 May 2011, 10:09 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Some atheists feel persecuted and just want to troll christians to get a rise.

Some white christians feel like their faith is persecuted too, for some reason. It must be rough to be in the overwhelming majority in your culture.


\I would not know. A white Baptist in the Bible belt might be. An unsocialized thinking Christian data oriented linguist in a major liberal university is NOT even a member of a favored minority.

In any culture I have lived in - I will not speak for yours - Christians are a minority - and it is safer to remain in the closet. Life fell apart after I came out.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2011, 10:16 pm

Philologos wrote:
I see it is my duty to raise the standard or at least the availability of religious discussion, to correct clear and obvious misstatements of fact and point to the proper usage of vocabulary, and to deny egregious stinkers [among whom I have as yet had no cause to include you] the dubious delight of seeing my backside - which sounds bad but you will know what I mean.

Except, how is it really that low? Just curious. I mean, you might say that I "misrepresent God", but how do you separate a misrepresentation from a rhetorical reframing, or even a conclusion based upon considerations I haven't put forward in all details.

I don't think I provide any misrepresentations, and actually, I see your promotion of skeptical theism as a major step backwards.

Also.... what determines "proper usage"?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 May 2011, 10:24 pm

@Philologos

I can understand merely "correcting the facts" to an extent, but given the nature of contentious topics some of the said facts are bound to be contentious or the context objected to (I do believe in "solid facts", but I also believe that "facts" and "contentious things people can have an opinion on" are at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum). Also, some of the times people you either defend or statements you make are not just factual corrections (leejosepho has demanded that atheists "explain how I quit drinking" and then backpeddled when it came to rejecting various proposed explanations, I believe you defended him there if memory serves me correctly).

As for the election results, they are disastrous.

  • With a majority, Harper cana pass all sorts of crazy bills either cutting relatively in expensive programs that help the poor, create a Canadian military-industrial-prison complex, make Ottawa a black box (international observers have noted that he's government has obstructed Freedom of Information Act requests), and end public financing for parties.
  • As the NDP strives for the corporate centre to gain access to former Liberal donors, the social democratic element in the party will be diluted.
  • As the NDP is a major party now, it will see no reason to advocate for electoral reform (The Manitoba NDP, which benefits from centre-left stategic voting, doesn't support electoral reform and hasn't attempted it after a decade in government). Given the potential long-term realignment, a Two Party system will emerge and the NDP will become like New Labour or America's Old Democrats - a party that screws the base.
  • Winning in Quebec may mean that the NDP stops focusing on the West (it's birthplace) and starts trying to win over old Liberals in Eastern Canada. Without eating into Harper's Western Base (and, yes, there are vulnerable Conservative seats in the West - especially if the NDP gets out traditionally non-voting low-income Canadians and Aboriginal Canadians).


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2011, 10:34 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
I can understand merely "correcting the facts" to an extent, but given the nature of contentious topics some of the said facts are bound to be contentious or the context objected to (I do believe in "solid facts", but I also believe that "facts" and "contentious things people can have an opinion on" are at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum). Also, some of the times people you either defend or statements you make are not just factual corrections (leejosepho has demanded that atheists "explain how I quit drinking" and then backpeddled when it came to rejecting various proposed explanations, I believe you defended him there if memory serves me correctly).

I hope he doesn't mind, but.... honestly, my personal opinion of philologos's engagement here is that he is a "team player", in that this isn't a matter of correction, or of methodological engagement, but rather, philologos backs the person who he agrees with in conclusions. Given that philologos is a theist who is mostly interested in religious topics, this means that he backs the theist when in a dispute between theism and it's rejection, regardless of the point or kind of point made. Given that philologos has never presented, nor seems to care for clear principles of epistemology/methodology in his approach, and given that theism is the major variable I see of predictive value(not even maintaining his skepticism), this... really is my feeling on the matter.

Note: It's a guess. It can be wrong. I've just noticed this trend.

Additional note: This is nothing to say about Philologos hating non-theists, or thinking poorly of their intellect, or anything of that nature, but... claims to a neutral fact-checking don't seem to be the real purpose here. This seems particularly true given that philologos *does* put forward a philosophical framework, one mostly centered around skepticism and little else. (Which makes me think of him as a team player, as he's not siding with skeptics, he's siding with many non-skeptical theists)



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 May 2011, 10:39 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I hope he doesn't mind, but.... honestly, my personal opinion of philologos's engagement here is that he is a "team player", in that this isn't a matter of correction, or of methodological engagement, but rather, philologos backs the person who he agrees with in conclusions. Given that philologos is a theist who is mostly interested in religious topics, this means that he backs the theist when in a dispute between theism and it's rejection, regardless of the point or kind of point made. Given that philologos has never presented, nor seems to care for clear principles of epistemology/methodology in his approach, and given that theism is the major variable I see of predictive value(not even maintaining his skepticism), this... really is my feeling on the matter.

Note: It's a guess. It can be wrong. I've just noticed this trend.

Additional note: This is nothing to say about Philologos hating non-theists, or thinking poorly of their intellect, or anything of that nature, but... claims to a neutral fact-checking don't seem to be the real purpose here. This seems particularly true given that philologos *does* put forward a philosophical framework, one mostly centered around skepticism and little else. (Which makes me think of him as a team player, as he's not siding with skeptics, he's siding with many non-skeptical theists)


I'd say he has many of the habits of Postmodernist Lit Crits. There seems to be a lot of similarity in his method of arguing to a neo-Marxist lit crit who rails against the "New Atheists" like Terry Eagleton or Chris Hedges. Especially the certitude of impartiality and the proclivity to state out facts without being clear on what one's framework is.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 10:46 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
(leejosepho has demanded that atheists "explain how I quit drinking" and then backpeddled when it came to rejecting various proposed explanations ...)

Oh no! I have listened to every alternative suggested and have then shown how each had already failed me. I certainly cannot prove my recovery actually came from "God", of course, but I have at least shown the facts of my own matter in relation to this:

"If a mere code of morals or a better philosophy of life were sufficient to overcome alcoholism, many of us would have recovered long ago. But we found that such codes and philosophies did not save us, no matter how much we tried. We could wish to be moral, we could wish to be philosophically comforted, in fact, we could will these things with all our might, but the needed power wasn't there. Our human resources, as marshalled by the will, were not sufficient; they failed utterly." (pages 44-45)

So then, and even though I have no problem agreeing with the facts about how things psychological and so on actually can and do happen within our brains without need of/for any "God", as such, I am still waiting for someone/anyone to show me any viable alternative to "God" in at least the case of my own permanent recovery.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 May 2011, 10:54 pm

leejosepho wrote:
So then, and even though I have no problem agreeing with the facts about how things psychological and so on actually can and do happen within our brains without need of/for any "God", as such, I am still waiting for someone/anyone to show me any viable alternative to "God" in at least my own case.


The concept of a higher power - if you believe in it, and especially if you believe it to have supernatural power - that allows you to externalize the process without the biases you have against your own abilities.

Believing that you can do something in no way guarantees that you can do it, but believing that you can't guarantees that you can't.

The "God" concept allows you to abdicate the responsibility to believe in yourself.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2011, 10:55 pm

leejosepho wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
(leejosepho has demanded that atheists "explain how I quit drinking" and then backpeddled when it came to rejecting various proposed explanations ...)

Oh no! I have listened to every alternative suggested and have then shown how each had already failed me. I certainly cannot prove my recovery actually came from "God", of course, but I have at least shown the facts of my own matter in relation to this:

"If a mere code of morals or a better philosophy of life were sufficient to overcome alcoholism, many of us would have recovered long ago. But we found that such codes and philosophies did not save us, no matter how much we tried. We could wish to be moral, we could wish to be philosophically comforted, in fact, we could will these things with all our might, but the needed power wasn't there. Our human resources, as marshalled by the will, were not sufficient; they failed utterly." (pages 44-45)

So then, and even though I have no problem agreeing with the facts about how things psychological and so on actually can and do happen within our brains without need of/for any "God", as such, I am still waiting for someone/anyone to show me any viable alternative to "God" in at least the case of my own permanent recovery.

Right, basically leejosepho doesn't really evaluate the proposed explanations. He doesn't even really seem to engage them, and I think his entire proposal is a con. Possibly not an intentional con, but leejosepho, because he doesn't really evaluate the other proposals on fair grounds, rejects them, while still continually asserting that the real issue is that the proposals are failures. I would doubt that even if we had a neurologist/psychologist/addiction expert, their scientifically literate and informed account would be accepted, perhaps on grounds like "I didn't activate neurons X, Y, and Z. I trusted God." the inanity of which seems clear.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:13 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
So then, and even though I have no problem agreeing with the facts about how things psychological and so on actually can and do happen within our brains without need of/for any "God", as such, I am still waiting for someone/anyone to show me any viable alternative to "God" in at least my own case.

The concept of a higher power - if you believe in it, and especially if you believe it to have supernatural power - that allows you to externalize the process without the biases you have against your own abilities.

I understand that, and I do not disagree.

blauSamstag wrote:
Believing that you can do something in no way guarantees that you can do it, but believing that you can't guarantees that you can't.

Same response.

blauSamstag wrote:
The "God" concept allows you to abdicate the responsibility to believe in yourself.

Same response again ...

... and now here is the real-life situation within which I found (or at least perceived) myself headed toward an early grave:

"For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it - this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish."
(page 34)

Without meaning to put you on the spot at any specifically-personal level, what might you have suggested to me at that time?

Note: In response to anything you might say, I am going to present actual facts.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:33 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
... I would doubt that even if we had a neurologist/psychologist/addiction expert, their scientifically literate and informed account would be accepted, perhaps on grounds like "I didn't activate neurons X, Y, and Z. I trusted God." the inanity of which seems clear.

Not true.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 May 2011, 11:41 pm

leejosepho wrote:

... and now here is the real-life situation within which I found (or at least perceived) myself headed toward an early grave:

"For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it - this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish."
(page 34)

Without meaning to put you on the spot at any specifically-personal level, what might you have suggested to me at that time?

Note: In response to anything you might say, I am going to present actual facts.


I'm not saying it doesn't work.

I'm saying that it's easier to embrace an irrational belief than it is to let go of an irrational belief that you have already embraced.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

10 May 2011, 11:47 pm

MP, AG:

Egad!

First I am called a New Ager ! !! !! Then I am labelled a Team Player!! !! !! !! !. Then I am associated with Postmod Lit Crit!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

Calling Lord Cornwallis! The World HAS turned upside down.

Well, youse guys at least did not bring out the New Age thing.

Team Player: This is scheduled to be discussed in the post I would be writing now if I had not read THAT. Here and now let me say:

In the case of AG and leejosepho: Closed reading - since you bring in Lit Crit - might suggest that I do NOT defend one and attack the other. Rather, I BELIEVE I tried - if obviously unsuccssfully - to suggest that their exchanged had become bogged down in faulty communication to which each contributed.

Further: while I will applaud or support a point with which I agree, and while I find certain topics much more interesting than others, I do NOT kneejerk support the Christian over the Muslim, the theist over the atheist, the conservative over the pinko. I will stick my oar in to protest wrong facts, bad usage, shaky syllogism stacks.

Now, there is this grain of truth here: I am more likely to critique one of you than Crucifer Robin [fiction], who is postulated to be a tea party Creation Scientist. Why? NOT because I support Crucifer Robin, who is an obtuse boor with offensive tenets and no reasoning capacity.

You two, even where we disagree, and there are many such places, are alert and alive, and even if you zing into debate mode you tend to have your ears on. I can and will talk to such, and if I feel AG is dead wrong about his take on Job, I can say so.

Crucifer Robin - and his atheist counterpart GodIsTheKoolAidOfThePeople, there is not much to choose between them - don't even hear when someone agrees with them, they just hiss and diss and don't know syllogisms from syllabub. I learned a long time not to talk to such - pearls before swine applies.

So if AG is arguing with Crucifer Robin and decimating his points, great. But if I feel AG is misdefining Origenism - which I do not expect you to - I will correct that. I would expect as much from you. But if Crucifer Robin says "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" [a song I NEVER understood], I will not correct him, even though the Bible alone is in my opinion not an adequate basis for the statement, and although so far as I can find, though God so loved the world and Christ died for my sins, I cannot see where the Bible SAYS Jesus lovs me.

If you know the citation, tell me.

Not out of favoritism, but because some people it is a waste of time talking.

As for Postmod Lit Crit. I did not really get what the shared feature was supposed to be, and I never really got [though lit types have tried to explain] the point of Post Mod Lit Crit.


I never could do any recognizable form of Lit Crit.

Any perceived similarity is going to be superficial and purely coincidental - what I have received about them I am totally out of sympathy with.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

11 May 2011, 12:10 am

blauSamstag wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
... and now here is the real-life situation within which I found (or at least perceived) myself headed toward an early grave:

"For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it - this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish."
(page 34)

Without meaning to put you on the spot at any specifically-personal level, what might you have suggested to me at that time?

Note: In response to anything you might say, I am going to present actual facts.

I'm not saying it doesn't work.

I hope I had not given you any impression I had assumed you might say otherwise.

blauSamstag wrote:
I'm saying that it's easier to embrace an irrational belief than it is to let go of an irrational belief that you have already embraced.

Agreed, 100%!

In this particular case, however, and this might take a moment to detail ...

1) Looking back, I now see I had been embracing (during my drinking) the irrational "Praying to 'Jesus' for relief" belief;
2) In spite of that, I still had an absolutely horrible time even but only thinking of letting go of that (since I yet had nowhere else to turn);
3) The thought of embracing even yet another irrational (ineffective) "belief" of whatever kind caused me to be even yet more horrified (having absolutely no hope at all);
4) The thought of "God" being anywhere near anything like "A.A." sounded absolutely preposterous to me;
5) A couple of loud-mouthed, seemingly arrogant, vain and rather vulgar-sounding people there in that old-school-A.A. meeting hall essentially said what I much later came to comprehend/perceive (take your pick) as a very simple and Scriptural "Taste and see";
6) It worked.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Last edited by leejosepho on 11 May 2011, 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 May 2011, 12:20 am

Philologos wrote:
In the case of AG and leejosepho: Closed reading - since you bring in Lit Crit - might suggest that I do NOT defend one and attack the other. Rather, I BELIEVE I tried - if obviously unsuccssfully - to suggest that their exchanged had become bogged down in faulty communication to which each contributed.

Ok, but nothing I see promotes that. Instead, you seemed to promote some form of relativism, as the "miscommunication" is shared with almost everybody reading leejosepho.

Quote:
Further: while I will applaud or support a point with which I agree, and while I find certain topics much more interesting than others, I do NOT kneejerk support the Christian over the Muslim, the theist over the atheist, the conservative over the pinko. I will stick my oar in to protest wrong facts, bad usage, shaky syllogism stacks.

I've seen the things you are willing to support.

In any case, I don't see much favoring the idea that you protest the clearly wrong, as half of the time you intervene, this point is contestable, and it generally favors the kind of perspective of one side over the other.

Quote:
So if AG is arguing with Crucifer Robin and decimating his points, great. But if I feel AG is misdefining Origenism - which I do not expect you to - I will correct that. I would expect as much from you. But if Crucifer Robin says "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" [a song I NEVER understood], I will not correct him, even though the Bible alone is in my opinion not an adequate basis for the statement, and although so far as I can find, though God so loved the world and Christ died for my sins, I cannot see where the Bible SAYS Jesus lovs me.

The inference that Jesus loves you is Biblically justifiable. If man is morally obligated to love his neighbor, his neighbor includes everybody regardless of how Samaritan they are, and Jesus is a man who fulfills all of his moral obligations, then he would have to love you. Even further, if one accepts standard trinitarian theology, then comments referring to God would apply to Jesus as a matter of logic in a number of instances.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

11 May 2011, 12:22 am

MP and AG:

Your submissions are very helpful to me [not that the others are not interesting but your answewrs help me toward some sort of surrogate comprehension.

Late high school and undergraduate days I fell in with a group of fellow weirdos [of different styles and levels, but all fringe in high school society]. Several of them were not only politically active [mostly democrat, it being a college town, but a couple republican] but also members of the debate team.

Politics is to me as alioen as debate, whichis as alioen as playing football. WHY would anyone play football? American, that is; I can make some sense of soccer. Why would you debate? How can you be interested in politics? Still, they were interested [not in football, though]. Your responses match much of what I saw then, and that is helpful.

One thing is, I have almost no team play instinct. My wife, while used to me and understanding, occasionally complains about that. In childhood most play was solitary, usually involving sorting. As a student given a joint assignment or class project, I could do what the leader tolsd me to do, or I could work on my segment alone. As faculty, forget team teaching, and a couple attempts at writing collaborative papers were abysmal failures.

AG has noted that whereas he looks to see where the consensus may be I ignore comsensus. Frankly, I would hardly ever have tried to publish if it had not been a job prerequisite.

So I THINK that at least for you two - not necessarily for all - debate is a serious thing because of team./ group aspects. And for me, nearly every game I play [including Smear, really my wf's game] I play against my own record, not my opponent.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 May 2011, 12:25 am

Philologos wrote:
team./ group aspects.

Proper word may be "social". After all, debating is often not a team sport. I might have agreement, but I might not.