The Western Mind with Blinders

Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
The Western Mind with Blinders

It is fascinating to me that this entire web site and the atheist movement in specific seem to from the standpoint of understanding religious traditions be  philosophically or theologically,christologically,metaphysically ,ontologically simple minded.

Imagine Dr Dawkins for instance who knowledge of religion would get him a D in most upper division Religious studies classes still he waxes on and on about a subject he has a superficial knowledge of. Yet when critics of Darwinism come forward he has no problem labeling them "morons" or Pig ignorant".. Your "Rational Response  squad has a rather self serving and self congratulatory name for itself. Who my Friends judges your rationality? I am not a theist but please remove the log from you eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from theirs

You are aware I hope that religion or spirituality is not confined to theism. Ever heard of Buddhism or Taosim or Jainism? Also was constitute the term God is a very different thing in many theologies and in fact some are in effect trans-personal,and mystical. Meister Eckhart once said the God you can speak of is not God. Dogen Zenji the founder of the Soto tradition of Japanese Zen said to study Buddhism is to study yourself,to study your self is to forget yourself. Likewise anther teacher said do not slander the sky by looking a through a pipe,and if you wish to know the truth then cease to cherish your own opinions.

 

Materialism  is a meta-physic a concept a linguistic convention,there is no proof consciousness supervenes into physicalism. Nor that min dis the mere grinding of neural process's. In fact e even if you think the mind and brain are the same ,you have the problem of axion and synaptic interfaces at the subatomic level where time and space and the quantum enigma exist.

The Battle of atheism and theism is like the the two blind men describing an elephant and a tree trunk or a serpent because one grasps the trunk and the other the leg. Skeptics are not skeptical but true believers in the materialist paradigm unwilling to accept that there is no such thing as natural law that is as much an anthropomorphic overlay as God the creator is. Scientism is as metaphysically bound and emotionally irrational as any religious tradition.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Posted with all the grace

Posted with all the grace ane elegance of a drive-by shooting.

 

And once again, this person will not post again because he does not actually have a point to make.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
As a Zen Buddhist aren't you

As a Zen Buddhist aren't you supposed to be focusing your attention inward instead of telling everyone else how simple minded they are?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Posted with all the grace ane elegance of a drive-by shooting.

 

And once again, this person will not post again because he does not actually have a point to make.

My point is quite smple and self evident claims to being Rational as opposed to another being irrational should be examined critcally. People who use scatological langauge are usually either in the process of expressing pain or shock or they are linguistically challenged. The essense of my arguemnet is on witohut expertise can not adeqately criticize a subject they ARE Only superficially knowledgable.

Philosopher CJ Ducase : 


"But the fact that, in so far as it has actually been the attitude of scientists, they have accomplished wonders; and that these wonders have given magical prestige to the very words, Science, and Scientist - this fact does not at all guarantee that when a man who is by profession a scientist speaks, what he says always represents one of the fruits of scientific investigation. For scientists are men and usually have their share of the typical human frailties. They do park some of these outside the doors of their laboratories, for inside, of course, they either live up to the demands of the scientific attitude as characterized above, or they achieve little. But outside they are as prone as other men to pride of profession and of position; and the prestige with which the name, Scientist, has come to endow them in the public eye easily provides for many of them an irresistible temptation to pontificate concerning various questions which fall outside their professional competence, but about which naive outsiders nevertheless respectfully ask them to speak because they are known as Scientists, and Scientists, by definition, are persons who know! The oracular role which this flattering deference invites them to play leads them almost fatally to assume on such occasions that their utterances have authority; for the idea a person harbors of himself is largely determined by the picture of him which others hold out to him."


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:As a Zen

Gauche wrote:

As a Zen Buddhist aren't you supposed to be focusing your attention inward instead of telling everyone else how simple minded they are?

NO,inward and outward are wave form and particulate.

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:My point is

Zenshin wrote:

My point is quite smple and self evident claims to being Rational as opposed to another being irrational should be examined critcally. People who use scatological langauge are usually either in the process of expressing pain or shock or they are linguistically challenged. The essense of my arguemnet is on witohut expertise can not adeqately criticize a subject they ARE Only superficially knowledgable.

 

 

Oooooh.... i get it

 

Only catholic priests can challenge catholisism

only mormons v moromonism

buddhists v buddhism

 

 

We're defeated guys, his logic checks out...

 

Oh wait... >.>

What Would Kharn Do?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum, I

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

I don't think Mr. Dawkins would fare well in any course on religion either, but based on what you've written in your OP, you'd probably fail some classes in philosophy, writing composition, neuroscience, Quantum Dynamics, and cosmology yourself. Congratulations, you've already shown yourself to be ten times as arrogant as Mr. Dawkins on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. What were you saying about splinters, logs, planks, and specks? Oh, that's right:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:The essense of

Zenshin wrote:

The essense of my arguemnet is on witohut expertise can not adeqately criticize a subject they ARE Only superficially knowledgable.

I think everyone here agrees with that claim. What other arguments do you have?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:Gauche

Zenshin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

As a Zen Buddhist aren't you supposed to be focusing your attention inward instead of telling everyone else how simple minded they are?

NO,inward and outward are wave form and particulate.

 

No that is a species arguement one can critisize a subject if one  has a solid knowledge of it. One does not have to share a belief system with somone to study their philosophical or religious beliefs sufficently to make intelligent remarks about them.

 I am not a monotheist, but I have read extensively in Christian theology, Judaic thought the Talmud, several Muslim philosophers.  The fact is the average Christian particular the born-again Christian is probably more ignorant of their tradition than the average atheist.  Most of them don't even know their Calvinists or who John Calvin was.  But there are myriads of traditions and Christianity and Orthodox Roman Catholic Protestant, Christianity without gods such as Unitarians.

The very statement that religion and theism are one and the same exhibits a lack of understanding of the varieties of religious traditions.  I was accused of being a drive-by, but in actuality I gave a specific argument, people didn't want to hear it, but it was relatively lucid.  There is an entire field of study known as religious studies and you might be surprised to learn that probably the majority of professors in those areas are not necessarily believers in any of the particular traditions.  My best friend speaks six languages taught religious studies for 35 years, has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the major religious traditions it is not a particular believer in any of them.

So I am in no way saying that one has to be a Mormon to criticize Mormonism nor a Zen Buddhist to criticize and Buddhism, but if you don't know the foundations of the tradition and can not  speak with intelligent well educated arguments against them and you carry little weight.  I see the need for critical thinking in all areas, and true skepticism, which is a skeptical of current scientific theory as it is of religions is important

I guess maybe what I need is an education from the people here as to why they think that their belief system that the reason of God, which by the way I adhere to drives them to form an organization to convince others of this?  You see to me consumerism and the culture  of vulgarityand violence, lack of literacy, and instant gratification are far more of a direct threat to human survival than religion is.

 

Well that enough it is not my job to rain on someones parade but it was interesting discussing this with you all.

 

i

 


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

I don't think Mr. Dawkins would fare well in any course on religion either, but based on what you've written in your OP, you'd probably fail some classes in philosophy, writing composition, neuroscience, Quantum Dynamics, and cosmology yourself. Congratulations, you've already shown yourself to be ten times as arrogant as Mr. Dawkins on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. What were you saying about splinters, logs, planks, and specks? Oh, that's right:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42

 

I never failed a philosophy course and I do have a BA in Philosophy. I do not type well because I have nerve damage in both my arms,and I use a voice recognition software. Dawkins would do fine in a Religion class as long as he did not write a paper without doing the research first.  I am moderately conversant  with several of those subjects. The fact that he appears to be unaware of the reality of people who consider themselves Christian without  a belief in God is an indication of his lack of study.I have read the Churchlands,Dennet et all,has Dawkins read Harnacks History of the Dogma,Tillich,Duns Scotus. 


 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah, my apologies then.

Ah, my apologies then.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Zenshin

butterbattle wrote:

Zenshin wrote:

The essense of my arguemnet is on witohut expertise can not adeqately criticize a subject they ARE Only superficially knowledgable.

I think everyone here agrees with that claim. What other arguments do you have?

I think it would be more productive to call yourself something less inflamitory. Perhaps just Atheism and Critical thinking. or Logic squad. It is rarional to believe in God but not logical if you get my drift


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I don't like

Personally, I don't like some of the subtitles and captions in the forum, particularly, "Believe in God? We can fix that." and "THEIST POSTS WILL BE DESTROYED!" Technically, I don't disagree with any of it, but it's not very conducive to a good discussion, so to speak. I can't count the number of times theists have come in here complaining about the cat with the gun or how they're being discriminated against.

Zenshin wrote:

I think it would be more productive to call yourself something less inflamitory. Perhaps just Atheism and Critical thinking. or Logic squad. It is rarional to believe in God but not logical if you get my drift

I'm not sure if I get your drift. 

Plus, I like the alliteration. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:I never failed

Zenshin wrote:
I never failed a philosophy course and I do have a BA in Philosophy. I do not type well because I have nerve damage in both my arms,and I use a voice recognition software. ....

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm supposed to believe you are endowed with the resources and facilities of Steven Hawkings, and your intent is to bless everyone with you highly valuable time and modest suggestions!

Actually, I think you are simply Modulating your version of manipulation of loyal Borgets. Testing and reenforcing their identification with "the group". Did I mention I kmow you're full of shit, as well?

Bugger off.


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Zenshin wrote:I

treat2 wrote:
Zenshin wrote:
I never failed a philosophy course and I do have a BA in Philosophy. I do not type well because I have nerve damage in both my arms,and I use a voice recognition software. ....
Blah, blah, blah. I'm supposed to believe you are endowed with the resources and facilities of Steven Hawkings, and your intent is to bless everyone with you highly valuable time and modest suggestions! Actually, I think you are simply Modulating your version of manipulation of loyal Borgets. Testing and reenforcing their identification with "the group". Did I mention I kmow you're full of shit, as well? Bugger off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Zenshin
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:treat2

Zenshin wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Zenshin wrote:
I never failed a philosophy course and I do have a BA in Philosophy. I do not type well because I have nerve damage in both my arms,and I use a voice recognition software. ....
Blah, blah, blah. I'm supposed to believe you are endowed with the resources and facilities of Steven Hawkings, and your intent is to bless everyone with you highly valuable time and modest suggestions! Actually, I think you are simply Modulating your version of manipulation of loyal Borgets. Testing and reenforcing their identification with "the group". Did I mention I kmow you're full of shit, as well? Bugger off.

Too much for you Laddie ,shit seems to be the major part of the vocab here.What as bunch of fecaloid trogs

bye

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
The quote function is really

The quote function is really easy to use.  I imagine it's easy to use even with voice recognition software and limp arms.  Come back when you've ingested some foetuses.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:Imagine Dr

Zenshin wrote:
Imagine Dr Dawkins for instance who knowledge of religion would get him a D in most upper division Religious studies classes still he waxes on and on about a subject he has a superficial knowledge of.

I must comment on this, since it is one of the most common so called "responses" to Dawkins and indeed anyone else who dares to criticize people's religious beliefs. (I am paraphrasing someone here). Yes indeed, how dare he dismiss the Emperor's new clothes? How dare he say they don't exist?! Hasn't he read the beautiful new book Systematic New Clothesology by famous New Clotheslogian X, where the author describes the intricate details of the New Clothes, such as the Color, Material and how perfectly the different parts are held together by New Thread?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:Zenshin

Zenshin wrote:

Zenshin wrote:

treat2 wrote:
Zenshin wrote:
I never failed a philosophy course and I do have a BA in Philosophy. I do not type well because I have nerve damage in both my arms,and I use a voice recognition software. ....
Blah, blah, blah. I'm supposed to believe you are endowed with the resources and facilities of Steven Hawkings, and your intent is to bless everyone with you highly valuable time and modest suggestions! Actually, I think you are simply Modulating your version of manipulation of loyal Borgets. Testing and reenforcing their identification with "the group". Did I mention I kmow you're full of shit, as well? Bugger off.

 

Too much for you Laddie ,shit seems to be the major part of the vocab here.What as bunch of fecaloid trogs

bye

Just FYI, Zenshin, Treat isn't really what you'd call representative of the level of discussion that happens here. He is intentionally short and unpleasant by his own admission. I'd encourage you to just skip this comment if you're looking for a level-headed conversation, there is plenty of it around.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Zenshin wrote:The Battle of

Zenshin wrote:

The Battle of atheism and theism is like the the two blind men describing an elephant and a tree trunk or a serpent because one grasps the trunk and the other the leg.

 

I'd say that it's more like a blind, drunk, crack-addled, syphilitic spastic (the theist) and a college professor (the atheist) attempting to describe an elephant. No matter what the Prof says, the theist will say "That's not what I sense. It takes a leap of faith!" or some other twaddle.

 

Oh, and....." or a serpent because one grasps the trunk and the other the leg." Z, what kind of snakes do you have in your neck of the woods?

 

 

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Yup. What's worse is that

Yup.

What's worse is that Eloise just broke my Bullshitometer!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Oh,

Abu Lahab wrote:

Oh, and....." or a serpent because one grasps the trunk and the other the leg." Z, what kind of snakes do you have in your neck of the woods?

Not trying to be annoying, but I believe it's a reference to an old fable.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'd just like to say that

 I'd just like to say that it amuses me everytime a Christian complains about my cat.

To think, the people who put statues of a naked guy nailed to two pieces of wood, bleeding to death, with a crown of big thorns digging into his skull, and a big hole in his side...

they're upset about my cute little kitty and his repeating BB gun.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism