Christopher Hitchens
21 December 2011, 10:58 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand me some evidence to justify changing it.... I'm not inflexible, its just all the available proof leads me to my current position. Without proof you just have dreams
Last edited by warrenm2; 21 December 2011 at 11:00 PM.
21 December 2011, 11:09 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 December 2011, 11:11 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious 
Trouble is, you may well be widely read, but you seem to have learnt nothing, your thinking muddled, your reasoning non-existent and dull verbiage merely vainglorius attempts to make up for your lack of coherent argument.
I'm not sure if you put yourself in the category of "progressive thinkers", but if it helps, you come across as a pompous windbag, rather than anyone of any understanding.
My reasoning is straightforward (on theism), there is no evidence for any type of God. None, Nada, Niente . There is plenty of evidence for mental illness, hallucination and delusion. Common religions explain nothing about the world, but say plenty about their proponents. There is nothing to be gained on intricate discussion on the merits of one fairy story over another, how one fabrication and plagarised fantasy can be tweaked by the tortuous invention of yet more unbelievable drivel. All fantasy whether it be the Bible, Koran, Harry Potter or the flying spaghetti monster have equal basis.
If you want to quote other peoples ideas, dont just name drop like a little boy trying to impress teacher, try using them correctly and appropriately. Christopher Hitchens (of who I hold tremendous respect and is after all the topic of this thread) would do so to illuminate his audience with the validity of his argument, rather than to puff up his own self-importance.
To summarise, all religious experience is a psychological phenomena, best dealt with by a mental health professional, and you sir, are an ***
Merry Christmas
Trouble is, you may well be widely read, but you seem to have learnt nothing, your thinking muddled, your reasoning non-existent and dull verbiage merely vainglorius attempts to make up for your lack of coherent argument.
I'm not sure if you put yourself in the category of "progressive thinkers", but if it helps, you come across as a pompous windbag, rather than anyone of any understanding.
My reasoning is straightforward (on theism), there is no evidence for any type of God. None, Nada, Niente . There is plenty of evidence for mental illness, hallucination and delusion. Common religions explain nothing about the world, but say plenty about their proponents. There is nothing to be gained on intricate discussion on the merits of one fairy story over another, how one fabrication and plagarised fantasy can be tweaked by the tortuous invention of yet more unbelievable drivel. All fantasy whether it be the Bible, Koran, Harry Potter or the flying spaghetti monster have equal basis.
If you want to quote other peoples ideas, dont just name drop like a little boy trying to impress teacher, try using them correctly and appropriately. Christopher Hitchens (of who I hold tremendous respect and is after all the topic of this thread) would do so to illuminate his audience with the validity of his argument, rather than to puff up his own self-importance.
To summarise, all religious experience is a psychological phenomena, best dealt with by a mental health professional, and you sir, are an ***
Merry Christmas
Now, have you read Hegel? Spinoza, perhaps? As soon as you've grasped the God-concept to which I'm referring we can have a meaningful discussion. Why not try asking questions instead of mustering-up some Dawkins inspired attack? You swing the Earth a trinket at your wrist as if you have my measure; convinced of your assessment. Well, you don't have my measure, and your assessment is wrong. You absolutely have to be able to make a distinction between theism and speculative theosophy - if you cannot or are not prepared to do that, we can learn nothing from one another.
Last edited by JTaylor; 21 December 2011 at 11:37 PM.
21 December 2011, 11:34 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just giving more of the same is not going to tempt me I'm afraid, and linguistically nuanced slicing of a pile of crap just leaves me feeling dirty rather than enlightened, because its still a pile of crap. Plus the fact I do not accept those terms, so I guess we'll both have to be ignorant of the glories of each others thoughts. And you know what they say about arguing on the internet....
21 December 2011, 11:44 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just giving more of the same is not going to tempt me I'm afraid, and linguistically nuanced slicing of a pile of crap just leaves me feeling dirty rather than enlightened, because its still a pile of crap. Plus the fact I do not accept those terms, so I guess we'll both have to be ignorant of the glories of each others thoughts. And you know what they say about arguing on the internet....
22 December 2011, 10:34 AM
#36
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but much of the exchanges in this thread brings to mind this clip, especially the comment from 15 seconds in! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swkmd-5SHZI
Go easy on that fart sniffing!
Merry xmas all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swkmd-5SHZI
Go easy on that fart sniffing!
Merry xmas all!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 22 December 2011 at 10:37 AM.
22 December 2011, 12:03 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally found that the fables and symbolism and parables and allegory of my youth gave a point of ethical reference that in no way diminished my capacity for free inquiry. The Christian culture of the flavour described by Cameron isn't the stuff of theocracy and blind faith. I think Dawkins is just protecting his turf.
Generally speaking, not everyone is capable to understand the poetic notion of God and the Godliness in the religions. Focusing on the UK and Christianity, I think there would be about 3% like you in the UK to understand it with the point of view you are offering. Evidently, as you know
, most will read everything literally and either argue inanely over something that they don't understand, or "follow it like a Bible".Postscript: I may be wrong on that 3%. It may need reducing to 1.5% or less. Shame but possible.<shrugs>
22 December 2011, 03:01 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I asked Warren if he'd read Hegel was that the latter, and this is a very crude interpretation, talked of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. An example would be totalitarianism (thesis)-libertarianism/anarchy (antithesis)-liberal-democracy (synthesis). In other words, to arrive at truth (oneness, the absolute, Geist, spirit, God) one needs to begin at one extreme, then explore the contradictions and fallacies within it, then formulate the opposite extreme and repeat the process until one arrives at the ark that bridges the gap. In simple terms, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. God (of the kind useful to the man in the street) is to be found somewhere between fundamental theism and fundamental anti-theism. God as synthesis, perhaps. Smells good, yes?
22 December 2011, 04:39 PM
#40
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I asked Warren if he'd read Hegel was that the latter, and this is a very crude interpretation, talked of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. An example would be totalitarianism (thesis)-libertarianism/anarchy (antithesis)-liberal-democracy (synthesis). In other words, to arrive at truth (oneness, the absolute, Geist, spirit, God) one needs to begin at one extreme, then explore the contradictions and fallacies within it, then formulate the opposite extreme and repeat the process until one arrives at the ark that bridges the gap. In simple terms, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. God (of the kind useful to the man in the street) is to be found somewhere between fundamental theism and fundamental anti-theism. God as synthesis, perhaps. Smells good, yes?
When it comes to religion, he is as misguided as the religious fundamentalists. Both deal in absolutes; it's inherently good/it's inherently bad, You're either in/out etc....
The truth is that religion is a tool of humanity; like any other tool it's neither inherently good or bad - it's all down to the way it is utilised. Dogmatism, whatever context it occurs in, is rarely conducieve with seeing the bigger picture and formulating a balanced overview of an issue. Whether a "moderate person" can ever truely see each end of the 'degree of religious orientation continuum' is open to debate.....
What I do know is that any of us had a really worthwhile contribution to make on this issue, we'd not be wasting our time on SN!
Excuse me, I seem to have suddenly developed a case of verbal flatulence!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 22 December 2011 at 04:43 PM.
22 December 2011, 04:42 PM
#41
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2011, 04:45 PM
#42
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point! I must admit, I think I prefer the post on ladies bottoms! Hard to be verbose on such subject matter - the drool tends to interfer with the operation of the keyboard!
Well, that and it's also hard to type and w*nk at the same time! 
I must admit, I think I prefer the post on ladies bottoms! Hard to be verbose on such subject matter - the drool tends to interfer with the operation of the keyboard! Well, that and it's also hard to type and w*nk at the same time!
22 December 2011, 05:04 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck convincing Dawkings of that one, mate!
When it comes to religion, he is as misguided as the religious fundamentalists. Both deal in absolutes; it's inherently good/it's inherently bad, You're either in/out etc....
The truth is that religion is a tool of humanity; like any other tool it's neither inherently good or bad - it's all down to the way it is utilised. Dogmatism, whatever context it occurs in, is rarely conducieve with seeing the bigger picture and formulating a balanced overview of an issue. Whether a "moderate person" can ever truely see each end of the 'degree of religious orientation continuum' is open to debate.....
What I do know is that any of us had a really worthwhile contribution to make on this issue, we'd not be wasting our time on SN!
Excuse me, I seem to have suddenly developed a case of verbal flatulence!
When it comes to religion, he is as misguided as the religious fundamentalists. Both deal in absolutes; it's inherently good/it's inherently bad, You're either in/out etc....
The truth is that religion is a tool of humanity; like any other tool it's neither inherently good or bad - it's all down to the way it is utilised. Dogmatism, whatever context it occurs in, is rarely conducieve with seeing the bigger picture and formulating a balanced overview of an issue. Whether a "moderate person" can ever truely see each end of the 'degree of religious orientation continuum' is open to debate.....
What I do know is that any of us had a really worthwhile contribution to make on this issue, we'd not be wasting our time on SN!
Excuse me, I seem to have suddenly developed a case of verbal flatulence!
Last edited by JTaylor; 22 December 2011 at 05:23 PM.
22 December 2011, 05:39 PM
#44
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He doesn't need convincing, he's read Kant and Hegel et al. and virtually coined the notion of memetics. He simply refuses to entertain the idea of or engage in a conversation around positive 'spirituality' because it doesn't contribute towards the pushback against theism. Additionally, he can't acknowledge a Hegellian God, because the theists will misappropriate his sentiments a few decades after his death as they did with Einstein (who was talking about the God of Spinoza). When you reason it through, Dawkins' positon is the most rational and logical to assume where your raison d'être is inflict as much damage as possible to superstition. He's one end of the dialectic. Sam Harris is beginning to find some centre ground.
. I just question the need to contrive an anti-theist movement because such endeavours invariably start to imitate the characteristics of that which they seek to undermine and are quickly contaminated by those ill-equipped to engage with the movement or those who adopt it and manipulate it for their own ends.Interesting times we live in: we have religion imitating science (Creationism) and science imitating religion (the militant atheists).
"Isms in my opinion are not good - I quote john Lennon: I dont believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me" Ferris Bueller
I really need to get laid!!!
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 22 December 2011 at 05:44 PM.
22 December 2011, 05:52 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My raison d'être??? Hardly . I just question the need to contrive an anti-theist movement because such endeavours invariably start to imitate the characteristics of that which they seek to undermine and are quickly contaminated by those ill-equipped to engage with the movement or those who adopt it and manipulate it for their own ends.
Interesting times we live in: we have religion imitating science (Creationism) and science imitating religion (the militant atheists).
"Isms in my opinion are not good - I quote john Lennon: I dont believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me" Ferris Bueller
I really need to get laid!!!
. I just question the need to contrive an anti-theist movement because such endeavours invariably start to imitate the characteristics of that which they seek to undermine and are quickly contaminated by those ill-equipped to engage with the movement or those who adopt it and manipulate it for their own ends.Interesting times we live in: we have religion imitating science (Creationism) and science imitating religion (the militant atheists).
"Isms in my opinion are not good - I quote john Lennon: I dont believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me" Ferris Bueller
I really need to get laid!!!
Last edited by JTaylor; 22 December 2011 at 05:58 PM.
22 December 2011, 06:02 PM
#46
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just uncomfortable with the idea of people thinking I cared more about this stuff than....oh, I dunno ladies bottoms!
22 December 2011, 06:22 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2011, 07:50 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
The reason I asked Warren if he'd read Hegel was that the latter, and this is a very crude interpretation, talked of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. An example would be totalitarianism (thesis)-libertarianism/anarchy (antithesis)-liberal-democracy (synthesis). In other words, to arrive at truth (oneness, the absolute, Geist, spirit, God) one needs to begin at one extreme, then explore the contradictions and fallacies within it, then formulate the opposite extreme and repeat the process until one arrives at the ark that bridges the gap. In simple terms, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. God (of the kind useful to the man in the street) is to be found somewhere between fundamental theism and fundamental anti-theism. God as synthesis, perhaps. Smells good, yes?
thesis - The Gnomes at the end of the garden come alive at night when no one is looking
antithesis - you're talking bollox
synthesis - well no one can be 100% sure either way, so i will "believe" anyway
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 22 December 2011 at 07:55 PM.
22 December 2011, 08:13 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
23 December 2011, 12:25 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 December 2011, 01:37 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT's synthesis: Well, no one can be 100% sure either way, but applying reason, logic and rational thought, one can be so close to an objective certainty that the gnomes at the end of the garden do not come alive at night that the suggestion they do qualifies as bollócks - an objective truth. However, if one imagines the gnomes as symbolising the great unknown or as an allegorical device for explaining how the subconscious stirs while we sleep, but cannot be independently observed; if the garden is the Universe and the gnomes the hidden hand at play, out of sight of man and so forth....... When one speculates about the story subjectively one derives meaning from it - subjective truth. Thus:
Thesis: Objective truth.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:
Thesis: God is defined as a conceptual, omniscient narrator, can be arrived at via reason alone and bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective.
Antithesis: God is defined and accepted as gnomes who pop in and out of existence and live at the end of the garden, they exist only within the mind of people who arrived at their belief through blind faith or mental illness or knowledge of virtual particles that has not yet been made public.
Synthesis: Ignosticism (with an I, not an A).
Thesis: Objective truth.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:
Thesis: God is defined as a conceptual, omniscient narrator, can be arrived at via reason alone and bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective.
Antithesis: God is defined and accepted as gnomes who pop in and out of existence and live at the end of the garden, they exist only within the mind of people who arrived at their belief through blind faith or mental illness or knowledge of virtual particles that has not yet been made public.
Synthesis: Ignosticism (with an I, not an A).
Last edited by JTaylor; 23 December 2011 at 06:13 PM.
23 December 2011, 04:31 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:
Hence what I was saying about physicists in that thread the other day: they think they can know everything about everything using their science as the medium. These people are not stupid, but it's like they're blinded by their own discipline, even though they obviously achieve a lot that is helpful in practical terms!
But their bold statements about why we're here are a bit annoying. It's almost like they reckon they're on to the meaning of life.
23 December 2011, 05:05 PM
#53
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT's synthesis: Well, no one can be 100% sure either way, but applying reason, logic and rational thought, one can be so close to an objective certainty that the gnomes at the end of the garden do not exist (let alone come alive at night) that it qualifies as bollócks - an objective truth. However, if one imagines the gnomes as symbolising the great unknown or as an allegorical device for explaining how the subconscious stirs while we sleep, but cannot be independently observed; if the garden is the Universe and the gnomes the hidden hand at play, out of sight of man and so forth....... When one speculates about the story subjectively one derives meaning from it - subjective truth. Thus:
Thesis: Objective truth.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:
Thesis: God is defined as a conceptual, omniscient narrator, can be arrived at via reason alone and bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective.
Antithesis: God is defined and accepted as gnomes who pop in and out of existence and live at the end of the garden, they exist only within the mind of people who arrived at their belief through blind faith or mental illness or knowledge of virtual particles that has not yet been made public.
Synthesis: Ignosticism (with an I, not an A).
Thesis: Objective truth.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God. Thus:
Thesis: God is defined as a conceptual, omniscient narrator, can be arrived at via reason alone and bridges the gap between the subjective and the objective.
Antithesis: God is defined and accepted as gnomes who pop in and out of existence and live at the end of the garden, they exist only within the mind of people who arrived at their belief through blind faith or mental illness or knowledge of virtual particles that has not yet been made public.
Synthesis: Ignosticism (with an I, not an A).
23 December 2011, 05:19 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 December 2011, 06:04 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems all wrong, especially around your applied definitions and understanding of "thesis". Have you ever undertaken a dissertation? as that forms the basics of what you are trying to achieve above... but it seems a bit mixed up with some fancy words thrown in for good order..... not rubbishing it, I just don't recognise the construct!
23 December 2011, 08:10 PM
#56
Thesis: Objective truth.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God.
Antithesis: Subjective truth.
Synthesis: There is a tension and interplay between objective truth and subjective truth where two truths are in opposition. To relieve the resultant cognitive dissonance there is a need for a single perspective that can be applied to both events - a God's eye view. As such the ultimate truth, the word, is neither with the object or the subject, but with God.
23 December 2011, 08:28 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get that bit. The absolute truth just is.
Hence what I was saying about physicists in that thread the other day: they think they can know everything about everything using their science as the medium. These people are not stupid, but it's like they're blinded by their own discipline, even though they obviously achieve a lot that is helpful in practical terms!
But their bold statements about why we're here are a bit annoying. It's almost like they reckon they're on to the meaning of life.
Hence what I was saying about physicists in that thread the other day: they think they can know everything about everything using their science as the medium. These people are not stupid, but it's like they're blinded by their own discipline, even though they obviously achieve a lot that is helpful in practical terms!
But their bold statements about why we're here are a bit annoying. It's almost like they reckon they're on to the meaning of life.
23 December 2011, 08:57 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
It's Scientism. I held the position for a while, but it was ultimately unsatisfying. I found it didn't speak to the soul, didn't allow for an interpretation of life or God in a theosophical sense, ignored the subjective and the speculative. Dogmatic. Ultra-material. I take no issue with the unweaving of the rainbow, but science doesn't like being subordinate to God.
23 December 2011, 09:41 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An "omniscient narrator" describes the space between the subject and the object where a conflicting truth resides within each. "God's eye view" still works in that sense, and is distinct from the theistic, literal God being postulated. That there are two God-concepts in play is indeed unfortunate and thanks for pointing that out.