The Question That Will Stump Paisley

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
The Question That Will Stump Paisley

Why is there a god rather than no god? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
And why did "he" only

And why did "he" only populate one planet in the entire universe with life.

While we are asking questions.. =)

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Better off talking to a

Better off talking to a wall...


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Awelton85 wrote:Better off

Awelton85 wrote:

Better off talking to a wall...

You mean screaming at a wall?!


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There is a god

 

because daniel dennett said there was not.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Why is there a god rather than no god?

And how do you know if it has even shown itself to humans?

KSMB wrote:
You mean screaming at a wall?!

I always love hearing Minor Threat. Punk rock at some of it's finest!

Here's another that I think some people will like, and MANY will not. Oh well, that's life.

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/leftover_crack/atheist_anthem.html

And yes, I know they use some religious symbols, it's all for shock factor.

"Hey man, you know they're ain't no such thing as leftover crack!" Them, sound clip at end of song. Good shit.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Why is

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:"We say "God

Paisley wrote:

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

 

Oh, so we agree then that god is meaningless.  Good.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

 

and HERE'S THE OLD IRRITATING FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD.  scientists (most of whom, btw, are perfectly comfortable with admitting we don't have--nor can we have--any knowledge of anything prior to the big bang) are constantly confronted by irritating theists with the old toddlers' refrain "why?  whyyyy?  WHYYYYY?"  while, on the other hand, theists stop with god (read: naked assertion), flat-out deny there was anything prior (read: second naked assertion), and, when questioned, give answers of varying eloquence that all boil down to "fuck you!  nobody can know that!  god is too inconceivable for us to know that!  you should believe it because someone 3,000 years ago said so!"

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I really do commend you

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane

I mean, it's been months and months, and Paisley has put forward the exact same argument over and over and over, and gotten the full range of articulate, well reasoned, and logically sound responses.  Clearly, something is gumming up the works, but what do you armchair psychologists think it is?

I'm not asking this question flippantly.  I've spent several months reading about the psychology of belief and trying to remember what I felt like when I was a believer.  It seems to me that it's crucially important for us -- humans, that is -- to understand the mechanics of stubbornly ingrained irrational beliefs.  If the issue is one of emotion, then we're barking up the wrong tree by pummeling the believer with facts.  If it's indoctrination, then something akin to psychotherapy is in order.  If it's bat-shit insanity, then you stamp a warning label on him and ask that sane people please not worry too much about what he says.

In fact, it seems to me that the only time facts and education work is when the believer wants to learn, and that's not very often.

 

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I go for 'stubborn', with

 I go for 'stubborn', with a hint of (1).

Oh, and OT, Hamby, nice to see you around again - it seems I haven't come across your posts for a while until recently.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I really

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane

 

 

 

The second one most definetly and possibly the first one thrown in.

 

I say this because I also got caught up in the "why something rather than nothing" and I wasn't uneducated and I'm [arguably] intelligent.

 

 

What broke me out of that line of though is my study of psychology, not physics.

 

Through the study of psychology I learned that I was rationalizing, falling to cognitive bias and that broke it better than any counter argument/evidence because I would just rationalize the counter evidence away. 

 

But then again I don't know Paisley's educational backround and will hazard a guess that it isn't spectacular. The second one could stop him from doing the first one, because the more "studying" he does, the more he'll re-enforce his bias because he'll just pick whatever data is convient and disregard the data that isn't.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Awelton85 wrote:Better off

Awelton85 wrote:

Better off talking to a wall...

Why are you insulting walls?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Doing something over and

Doing something over and over and expecting a different result = insanity.


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

And yet you reject evolution because you don't believe that it properly explains how consciousness developed(actually, it is conceivable that it was a side-effect of intelligence and problem-solving skills), yet you think it is perfectly justified to give God a much bigger "free pass"?

 

What a joke.

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit wrote: I really

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane

I mean, it's been months and months, and Paisley has put forward the exact same argument over and over and over, and gotten the full range of articulate, well reasoned, and logically sound responses.  Clearly, something is gumming up the works, but what do you armchair psychologists think it is?

I'm not asking this question flippantly.  I've spent several months reading about the psychology of belief and trying to remember what I felt like when I was a believer.  It seems to me that it's crucially important for us -- humans, that is -- to understand the mechanics of stubbornly ingrained irrational beliefs.  If the issue is one of emotion, then we're barking up the wrong tree by pummeling the believer with facts.  If it's indoctrination, then something akin to psychotherapy is in order.  If it's bat-shit insanity, then you stamp a warning label on him and ask that sane people please not worry too much about what he says.

In fact, it seems to me that the only time facts and education work is when the believer wants to learn, and that's not very often.

 

Considering I have met well educated theists, whom outside the issue of god belief, I like, I'd say it is more along the lines of falling for the basic appeal to emotion, then back pedaling to prop up what one "feels" to be real.

It isn't one thing but a combo of many things that go into a person clinging to the patently absurd. The only way these people can be freed from this is the willingness of self introspection where they allow others outside their own bias, with no horse in the race, to kick the tires.

Instead what most people do is go with unproven "feelings" and "tradition" "appeal to popularity".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

ACIM? Why does it figure that you'd fall for such obvious quackery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I really

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane 

2) plus one too many courses in philosophy, too early in the morning before coffee after working the night shift at Mc'Ds

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane 

2) plus one too many courses in philosophy, too early in the morning before coffee after working the night shift at Mc'Ds

Not sure what that was supposed to mean, but there is nothing wrong with an honest job. I think the banks and car companies and home loan assholes have more to be ashamed of than a fry cook.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane 

2) plus one too many courses in philosophy, too early in the morning before coffee after working the night shift at Mc'Ds

Not sure what that was supposed to mean, but there is nothing wrong with an honest job. I think the banks and car companies and home loan assholes have more to be ashamed of than a fry cook.

What jobs do philosopy majors usually find after college?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: 1) Too

Hambydammit wrote:

 

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane

 

I haven't read enough of paisley's posts to know, but if he/she's anything like my mom its a little 3 mixed with alote of unlisted option 5.

 

5)-Too in love with their religion and the feeling it gives them to think at all rationally about anything that could potential ruin their "vision". 

 

Their brain is simply not capable and has set powerful mental blocks they can no longer control.  Logic and rational thinking means nothing to my mom, any argument put forth is immidiatly dismissed by her mental blocks that just loop her position in circles you can't pin it down, she'll just move on to something else, or shut down get away from you and re-afirm herself with the same circular logic.   


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane 

2) plus one too many courses in philosophy, too early in the morning before coffee after working the night shift at Mc'Ds

Not sure what that was supposed to mean, but there is nothing wrong with an honest job. I think the banks and car companies and home loan assholes have more to be ashamed of than a fry cook.

What jobs do philosopy majors usually find after college?

Doesn't matter. An educated fry cook is better than a redneck CEO who only knows how to make money and knows nothing about history or life.

Making money is one aspect of life, but it it is not the only aspect or the most important aspect in all contexts.

My boss(not the son, but the father) is a nice guy. But all he is good at is making money. I wouldn't trade places with him if it meant not knowing what infinite regress was.

I would not trade my education as poor as I am for the knowledge I have just to live in a mansion.

Labels mean nothing. Some people get lucky and some people don't. I don't fault people who have more than me. But I do fault them for thinking material things are more important than education.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You must be joking, Pais.

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

 

No wonder you try to pin our arses to a single, banal concept.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Doesn't

Brian37 wrote:

Doesn't matter. An educated fry cook is better than a redneck CEO who only knows how to make money and knows nothing about history or life.

 

I would argue that you need to be educated to be a CEO.  Not necessarily formally, but you don't just 'happen' into a position as a CEO.  It requires a skill set like any other job, but for the most part is considerably more demanding.  I would also think 'redneck CEO' is an oxymoron.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:5)-Too in love with

 

Quote:
5)-Too in love with their religion and the feeling it gives them to think at all rationally about anything that could potential ruin their "vision".

Yeah.  That's a good one.  That's a really good one, actually.  It also made me think of another one:

6) So emotionally attached to "being right" / So afraid of "being wrong" that the belief becomes compartmentalized against the possibility of being wrong.

 

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

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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
 zarathustra wrote:Why is

 

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

What follows is Paisley's painful struggle to weasel out of a trap that he initially sets up for himself. His response amounts to nothing more than unintelligible babbling. It is truly pathetic.

Paisley wrote:

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless." 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:"We say "God is,"

 

Quote:
"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

I've known a lot of relatively intelligent people who've gotten really hung up on postmodern bullshit like this.  I don't know because I've never been one of those people, but I suspect it feels very emotionally satisfying to "get it" when some poetic mumbo-jumbo or another trips a switch in our brains and gives us a rush of endorphins.  There have been several times in my life when I thought I had just stumbled on some profound realization or another, and it turned out I was just plain wrong.  But let me tell you... when I thought I had just solved a major problem, I felt really, really, really good.  I have to imagine that some people latch onto that feeling and simply refuse to not "get it" anymore.

 

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

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: 1) Too

Hambydammit wrote:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane

 

Quote:
5)-Too in love with their religion and the feeling it gives them to think at all rationally about anything that could potential ruin their "vision".

Yeah.  That's a good one.  That's a really good one, actually.  It also made me think of another one:

6) So emotionally attached to "being right" / So afraid of "being wrong" that the belief becomes compartmentalized against the possibility of being wrong.

 

Off hand, and perhaps wrongly, I would say options 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are all variations on self-justification.  I include 1 as self-justification, because the ignorance is almost always deliberate.  "Don't teach me anything that will poke a hole in my beliefs!"  Likewise, indoctrination often contains a dollop of self-delusion so as to better fit in with the group.

Paisley, to my mind, is "all of the above" including insane.  If I had to pick the most likely, "4. Legitimately clinically insane".  Someone really needs to adjust his meds.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Off hand, and

 

Quote:
Off hand, and perhaps wrongly, I would say options 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are all variations on self-justification.

I don't think it's wrong.  From a therapeutic point of view, it's helpful to know which variety of self-justification is dominant though.  I think in the end, almost any stubborn belief will ferret out to self-justification.  It's almost tautological.  In other words, "I" always believe "MY" reasons for believing something are good.  Whether the belief is true or not, the self justification for a belief pretty much has to exist.

A friend of mine made a comment on my blog today about the most common facilitator of logical fallacies -- the deeply ingrained aversion to being wrong.  It's ironic, really.  As rationally driven creatures, we want very badly to know the truth, which is the same as being right.  But when we invest ourselves heavily in being right, we reduce our ability to objectively consider the evidence, thus reducing the chance of being right.

 

 

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

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


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 I really do commend you folks for trying to engage Paisley in real discussion.  For at least a year now, I've found myself utterly incapable of arguing with a theist.  

I do have a question for the group, though.  Honestly, which of these do you think describes Paisley most accurately:

1) Too uneducated/unintelligent to understand his mistakes

2) Too stubborn/egocentric to admit his mistakes to himself

3) Too brainwashed/indoctrinated to see his mistakes

4) Legitimately clinically insane 

2) plus one too many courses in philosophy, too early in the morning before coffee after working the night shift at Mc'Ds

Not sure what that was supposed to mean, but there is nothing wrong with an honest job. I think the banks and car companies and home loan assholes have more to be ashamed of than a fry cook.

What jobs do philosopy majors usually find after college?

I became a network engineer.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Off hand, and perhaps wrongly, I would say options 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are all variations on self-justification.

I don't think it's wrong.  From a therapeutic point of view, it's helpful to know which variety of self-justification is dominant though.  I think in the end, almost any stubborn belief will ferret out to self-justification.  It's almost tautological.  In other words, "I" always believe "MY" reasons for believing something are good.  Whether the belief is true or not, the self justification for a belief pretty much has to exist.

If I were feeling like bothering with therapy for Mr. Paisley, I might worry about where he was coming from.  As it is, it seems to me he is so far down the hole of self-justification, I'm not going to bother with him.

Hambydammit wrote:

A friend of mine made a comment on my blog today about the most common facilitator of logical fallacies -- the deeply ingrained aversion to being wrong.  It's ironic, really.  As rationally driven creatures, we want very badly to know the truth, which is the same as being right.  But when we invest ourselves heavily in being right, we reduce our ability to objectively consider the evidence, thus reducing the chance of being right.

I think it depends on how you go about being right.  If one's self-worth is tied up in the question, then, yes, you can be pretty blind to evidence that goes against your stated position.  If your self-worth is not involved, then you can be aware of any tendency to self-justification and open to evidence that may prove you wrong. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
D33PPURPLE wrote:And yet you

D33PPURPLE wrote:

And yet you reject evolution because you don't believe that it properly explains how consciousness developed(actually, it is conceivable that it was a side-effect of intelligence and problem-solving skills), yet you think it is perfectly justified to give God a much bigger "free pass"?

What a joke.

I never stated that I reject evolution. Where is that coming form?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:D33PPURPLE

Paisley wrote:

D33PPURPLE wrote:

And yet you reject evolution because you don't believe that it properly explains how consciousness developed(actually, it is conceivable that it was a side-effect of intelligence and problem-solving skills), yet you think it is perfectly justified to give God a much bigger "free pass"?

What a joke.

I never stated that I reject evolution. Where is that coming form?

 

How do you accept evolution, which would automatically make you deny the story of Adam and Eve. 

If you accept a&e as some sort of parable, and then other things from the same book as fact, then isn't that a little bit backward?

When does taking the Bible and making it fit into your own worldview stop?  What if i took the Bible as completely parables... no historical figures at all.  I just took the lessons it gave and applied them to my life... how christian does that make me?  A little christian?  Not christian at all?

Books are either fiction or non-fiction.  You can't separate some things as fact and others as fable based on what you want to believe. 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:"We

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

I've known a lot of relatively intelligent people who've gotten really hung up on postmodern bullshit like this.  I don't know because I've never been one of those people, but I suspect it feels very emotionally satisfying to "get it" when some poetic mumbo-jumbo or another trips a switch in our brains and gives us a rush of endorphins.  There have been several times in my life when I thought I had just stumbled on some profound realization or another, and it turned out I was just plain wrong.  But let me tell you... when I thought I had just solved a major problem, I felt really, really, really good.  I have to imagine that some people latch onto that feeling and simply refuse to not "get it" anymore. 

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
rdklep8 wrote:Paisley

rdklep8 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I never stated that I reject evolution. Where is that coming from?

 

How do you accept evolution, which would automatically make you deny the story of Adam and Eve. 

If you accept a&e as some sort of parable, and then other things from the same book as fact, then isn't that a little bit backward?

When does taking the Bible and making it fit into your own worldview stop?  What if i took the Bible as completely parables... no historical figures at all.  I just took the lessons it gave and applied them to my life... how christian does that make me?  A little christian?  Not christian at all?

Books are either fiction or non-fiction.  You can't separate some things as fact and others as fable based on what you want to believe. 

You're making too many false assumptions here. I'm a mystic, not a biblical literalist.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:It is

Paisley wrote:

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain.

 

i "got it" plenty of times when i was younger.  i "got it" the first time i ever read the bible, then again the first time i read the quran, then again when i read meister eckhart, then again when i read chuang tzu, then again when i read shankara, then again when i read thomas merton, then again when i listened to astral weeks for the first time, ditto veedon fleece.  look at all that mess of gobbledy gook--none of it agrees with the other unless we reduce all of them to utter shadows of themselves (ok, we can leave van morrison intact).

then i REALLY got it the day i finally realised, "hey...this is all very poetic stuff...and funny how i always 'get it' when the weather's really pretty, or i just saw a beautiful woman, or i had a second or third beer, or a really stout water pipe."  i always "got it" because i was feeling really fucking good, which made it very easy for me to ignore troublesome things, like contradictions or ugly stuff in the bible when i was a hardcore christian, or glaring discrepancies between the religious traditions when i was in my pluralistic phase.  i found that the grunt of the rhenish mystics, the atman, wu-wei, etc., etc., were all nothing more than the delicious tripping of my own biochemicals.  i say "nothing more" only from the religious perspective, because in reality that for me was the most beautiful of all possibilities.

as a matter of fact, i'm "getting it" now as i'm reading rumi and the hasidic legends.  except now i'm equipped to know what "it" is: myself, without any mumbo-jumbo other than that incredible and perpetually unfolding mystery that biology gives us.  i honestly can't understand why that's not good enough for some people.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice honest self-stuff there

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain.

 

i "got it" plenty of times when i was younger.  i "got it" the first time i ever read the bible, then again the first time i read the quran, then again when i read meister eckhart, then again when i read chuang tzu, then again when i read shankara, then again when i read thomas merton, then again when i listened to astral weeks for the first time, ditto veedon fleece.  look at all that mess of gobbledy gook--none of it agrees with the other unless we reduce all of them to utter shadows of themselves (ok, we can leave van morrison intact).

then i REALLY got it the day i finally realised, "hey...this is all very poetic stuff...and funny how i always 'get it' when the weather's really pretty, or i just saw a beautiful woman, or i had a second or third beer, or a really stout water pipe."  i always "got it" because i was feeling really fucking good, which made it very easy for me to ignore troublesome things, like contradictions or ugly stuff in the bible when i was a hardcore christian, or glaring discrepancies between the religious traditions when i was in my pluralistic phase.  i found that the grunt of the rhenish mystics, the atman, wu-wei, etc., etc., were all nothing more than the delicious tripping of my own biochemicals.  i say "nothing more" only from the religious perspective, because in reality that for me was the most beautiful of all possibilities.

as a matter of fact, i'm "getting it" now as i'm reading rumi and the hasidic legends.  except now i'm equipped to know what "it" is: myself, without any mumbo-jumbo other than that incredible and perpetually unfolding mystery that biology gives us.  i honestly can't understand why that's not good enough for some people.

 

 

you, two. I know what you're talking about iwb - strong feelings play cognitive bias like a pipe organ in a cathedral.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It is emotionally

 

Quote:
It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain

Interesting.  I said there were times I thought I had "gotten it" but been wrong.  I didn't even address whether or not I had ever thought I "got it" and been right.  It seems like you might have a problem with basic comprehension skills.

 

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

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Paisley

Hambydammit wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain

Interesting.  I said there were times I thought I had "gotten it" but been wrong.  I didn't even address whether or not I had ever thought I "got it" and been right.  It seems like you might have a problem with basic comprehension skills. 

Whatever you "got" (or didn't get) is presently causing you to go ballistic. That much is clear.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Hambydammit

Paisley wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain

Interesting.  I said there were times I thought I had "gotten it" but been wrong.  I didn't even address whether or not I had ever thought I "got it" and been right.  It seems like you might have a problem with basic comprehension skills. 

Whatever you "got" (or didn't get) is presently causing you to go ballistic. That much is clear.

 

 

If Hamby's response means he's going ballistic, your responses to us must mean you've left the solar system

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Whatever you "got"

 

Quote:
Whatever you "got" (or didn't get) is presently causing you to go ballistic. That much is clear.

Ballistic?

Interesting.  You really do seem to have some issues with taking words off of a screen and interpreting their meaning based on ordinary definitions.  I think I understand better why religious mumbo jumbo confuses you so much.  

If you were the empirical type, I'd suggest that you go through my posts in the past and acquaint yourself with what it looks like when I go ballistic.  Since it's you, I'll assume that my thoughts will be so garbled by the time they reach your cerebral cortex that I might as well have written nothing at all.

 

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

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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
 Paisley wrote:It is

 

Paisley wrote:

It is emotionally satisfying to "get it." That's what it's all about. I'm sorry you never experienced an "aha" moment in your life. I feel your pain

It is hard to believe that you "get it" given how often you backtrack, obfuscate and dodge.

If you actually "get it" this time around, perhaps you'd care to answer the question.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:It is hard

zarathustra wrote:

It is hard to believe that you "get it" given how often you backtrack, obfuscate and dodge.

If you actually "get it" this time around, perhaps you'd care to answer the question.

I did answer the question.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

It is hard to believe that you "get it" given how often you backtrack, obfuscate and dodge.

If you actually "get it" this time around, perhaps you'd care to answer the question.

I did answer the question.

...or *did* I?  Dun-Dun-DUUUUNNN!!!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I did answer

Paisley wrote:

I did answer the question.

 

Paisley wrote:

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)

 

Paisley, just so you understand what this means to folks with normal reading comprehension skills, you are saying that the words 'God is' are meaningless as knowledge.  You agree with most here, and disagree with yourself.  Congratulations. 


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I did answer the question.

 

Paisley wrote:

"We say "God is and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless

(source: A Course in Miracles)

 

Paisley, just so you understand what this means to folks with normal reading comprehension skills, you are saying that the words 'God is' are meaningless as knowledge.  You agree with most here, and disagree with yourself.  Congratulations. 

For those who don't understand Paisley's wonderful answer, here I have translated it point by point:

What Paisley Said:         God    is   ...we cease to speak...    ...for in that knowledge....

What it actually means:  God   =  -Blank, no answer given-      ( I really have no clue)

Impeccable logic!

 

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I did answer

Paisley wrote:

I did answer the question.

 

You did not answer the question.  

You simply said "god is".  This fails to explain 

Quote:
Why is there a god rather than no god

 

Hopefully you can do better than this.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'm a mystic,

Paisley wrote:

I'm a mystic, not a biblical literalist.

 

you know, paisley, i have more than a passing familiarity with the phenomenon of mysticism myself.  i did my senior thesis work on the possible connections between rhenish mysticism as typified by eckhart, tauler, suso, et al. and the parzival of von eschenbach.  as a theist, i aspired to be a mystic (i never would have had the temerity to call myself one), and ultimately perhaps it was mysticism that led me to atheism.  (please don't start underlining, just listen; i don't give a damn if there's some parallel you can draw with denett here.  honestly, i've never read any of his work and i'd never even heard of the man until you mentioned him.  i've never read dawkins either.  or hitchens.  probably never will.  i don't like pop authors.)

anyway, what i'm driving at is that i've never read of a single committed mystic in any tradition who enjoyed ideological nitpicking, and certainly i've never read of one who actually sought out such trivial debates in order to stroke their egos.  true, there have been prophets (and it's debatable whether one can automatically identify prophets with mystics, by nm) who confronted authorities, particularly religious authorities, with revelations, but all you seem to be doing is quibbling over semantics in an effort to flex your intellectual muscles.  every mystic i've ever encountered--eckhart, tauler, julian of norwich, rumi, omar khayyam, chuang tzu, basho, shankara, sri ramakrishna, ramana maharshi, swedenborg, the baal shem tov, nahman of bratslav, francis of assisi, takuan soho, abraham miguel cardozo, etc., etc.--would have avoided such intellectual sparring like the plague, perhaps even to the point of fleeing it (or, in the case of zen monks like takuan, slapping you in the face).

i don't know what your idea of mysticism is, nor do i care, but i highly doubt you're studying under any guide or master or guru or spiritual director, because i'd be willing to bet they'd put a stop to this if they knew about it.  i recall one of leonard cohen's poems where he talks about roshi, his zen master, finding some correspondence between cohen and a famous rabbi discussing spiritual matters (not necessarily even debating, mind you, just discussing).  roshi immediately ordered cohen to break off the correspondence and write a letter apologizing to the rabbi for showing off.  i just think there's quite a discrepancy here, that's all.

anyway, as far as i'm concerned, i've only met one real mystic in my entire life, and it was in this forum.  it was the late (and dearly missed) i am god as you, and despite all his theistic euphemisms, he was by his own admission a committed atheist.

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i don't know

iwbiek wrote:

i don't know what your idea of mysticism is

Merriam-Webster defines the term as follows:

Quote:

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek wrote:i

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i don't know what your idea of mysticism is

Merriam-Webster defines the term as follows:

Quote:

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

Yeah, your own personal brain fart. 

The terminally deluded, who just know their mind is infallibly able to know when they are perceiving direct truth...

Such hubris. Such over-weening pride in their ability to access true truth, and know that their direct perception is the 'real thing'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
oh,

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i don't know what your idea of mysticism is

Merriam-Webster defines the term as follows:

Quote:

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

 

Now I get it...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck