| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
I've frequently posted on this site regarding my view that the Judeo-Christian tradition has had great benefits to people all over the world. For example, on the top left of this page, it says "We're really blessed in this country to have the Judeo-Christian tradition of wanting to love each other and help each other have better lives and to enjoy life and be good to each other." And in posts such as this, I've stated, "Our beautiful Judeo-Christian culture teaches us to care about each other's feelings."
Commenter Stephen has noted, "I consider faith -- the basis of religion -- to be as much a destroyer of humanity as its counterpart in the physical realm�force." Stephen and I appear to agree on most issues, and so I thought this might be a good opportunity to have some discussion on this important subject. I invited him to a discussion, and he agreed. We both want to have a civil, polite, friendly debate. Readers are invited to participate in the discussion, as long as they maintain this polite, friendly nature of the discussion.
I'm sure good points will be made on both sides. The discussion will take place in the comments section of this post.
#1Vik, the first thing for me to do is to solicit an explicit acknowledgement on your part as to the conditions I set for discussion. Previously I stated the following:
"However, since I recognize reason as the only proper epistemological tool, and reject faith as a means to knowledge, I would therefore require logic and fact rather than faith or assertion to be the only means of argument and source of evidence."
Do you agree to abide by these terms, and do you agree to require the same from other posters to this thread?
#3Hello Gentlemen,
I feel that I created the prelude to this topic in my post regarding Wafa Sultan, so it is possible that you are more concerned about my agreement to the "terms" for conducting this discussion.
I will always be civil, fair, and honest however there is often an underlying rift between the ideology of differing religions. In answering your question I will be respectful of your beliefs and evidence. Let it be openly noted for the record that I personally view the Christian Holy Bible as fact not as faith.
The alternate route to this discussion is to merely quote and discuss history, religion, conditions of the time, and the persons involved. Many notes will point to groups of misguided people that have twisted religions into misguided faith with horrendous results. Many others will point to achievements that would not have been possible with the guidance of religion and the faith of its people.
I assure both of you (Vik and Stephen) that I am not a religious zealot even though I do have undoubting faith in Christ as the Messiah and my Saviour.
How should we proceed?
#4A fateful typo:
Many others will point to achievements that would not have been possible with the guidance of religion and the faith of its people.
Certainly my view is that more has been accomplished in the name of religion than has been harmed. That should have been "without" instead of "with".
#5“However, since I recognize reason as the only proper epistemological tool, and reject faith as a means to knowledge, I would therefore require logic and fact rather than faith or assertion to be the only means of argument and source of evidence.”
Please specify what you refer to by the word, "assertion."
tr.v. as·sert·ed, as·sert·ing, as·serts
1. To state or express positively; affirm: asserted his innocence.
2. To defend or maintain (one's rights, for example).
In discussion, people assert a point of view. I don't see how we can rule out people asserting things.
By faith, do you mean people saying things like, "It says it happened in the Bible, so that's good enough to prove it to me?" I can certainly agree to leave out statements like that.
Faith is the very subject we're discussing. People who feel they have it should be permitted to say why they have it and what it means to them. Otherwise, we're making rules that people who believe in one side of the debate, aren't permitted to discuss their viewpoint.
Vik wrote: "Please specify what you refer to by the word, 'assertion'."
I meant "assert" in the sense of advancing a proposition not based on reason and/or not connected to fact. In other words, assertion as an appeal based on feeling, faith, mysticism, or any other irrational means of cognition unconnected to reality.
vik wrote: "Faith is the very subject we’re discussing. People who feel they have it should be permitted to say why they have it and what it means to them."
Well, personally I have no interest here in reading about and discussing feelings at all, and most certainly not feelings about faith. A person's feelings are irrelevant to a rational argument.
vik wrote: "Otherwise, we’re making rules that people who believe in one side of the debate, aren’t permitted to discuss their viewpoint."
We have not yet reached the point of specifying the topic (which you left to me as my option). I am first setting the ground rules for my participation in any discussion, and those rules would exclude any "belie[f]" or "viewpoint" that is not based on or is not derived from a process of reason.
#7I am first setting the ground rules for my participation in any discussion, and those rules would exclude any “belie[f]” or “viewpoint” that is not based on or is not derived from a process of reason.
How do you wish to define what is "derived from a process of reason"?
#8As a matter of time and the fact that my kid gloves have cut off the circulation to my debating interests I no longer have any desire to discuss this topic.
Where I am from a man can stand his own without rigging the game to ask everyone to "Play by my rules or I'm taking the ball home.". As a Southern Baptist from Oklahoma I know what it is to give as good as I get, and I am always there to face a challenge when a real one exists.
I am now excusing myself from this discussion in the name of fair participation.
Best of luck!
#9David, I hear you. I would like to hear the things you were thinking of talking about. May I create a separate thread for you to post them? It may just be you and me agreeing with each other, but I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
vik wrote: "How do you wish to define what is 'derived from a process of reason'?"
My formal definition of "reason" is that by Ayn Rand, namely "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." [1] What this means, operationally, as a "process of reason," is always tying one's concepts to the starting point of all knowledge -- the facts of reality -- and using only the method of logic [2] to guide one's thinking. Whether the material of thought be simple concepts of entities capable of being defined ostensively, or complex inferences and arguments many times removed from direct perception, one must always be able to reduce one's concepts back to perceptual reality. This is why all appeals to feelings, faith, mystical insight, etc. are of no epistemological value; they attempt to circumvent the rational process to knowledge demanded by the nature and operation of man's consciousness, and by the nature of reality.
[1] Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 22, Signet (Paperback), 1964
[2] A good guide to logical inference is H.W.B. Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, The Paper Tiger, Inc., 2000.
#11David, I hear you. I would like to hear the things you were thinking of talking about. May I create a separate thread for you to post them? It may just be you and me agreeing with each other, but I’d be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
Vik, I have thoughts to share at the right time on many things. My strongest interests are regarding science, technology, business, politics, sociology, psychology, history, theology, paranormal, strange phenomena, and Christianity among other things. Most of it would likely bore you to death or make you wish you hadn't asked.
Honestly I think the main thing that I am stuck on right now is the world situation and how it really relates to history and religions that most people do not understand well enough to fully grasp.
In summary my view of Mr. Muhammad, and Allah "the rock" of Mecca is that they are outcasts of Christianity and the Jewish people. The Middle East today is full of the heathen people of Ishmael, the son of Hagar and Abraham. They created their own religion known as Islam to spite a God that allowed them to be cast out and they have worshipped that idol to this day.
The result is a world with two major religions that are directly incompatible from inception. There is not much else to say other than many innocent people have been caught in the crossfire through the centuries.
Who's fault is it? Muhammad's for writing lies and teaching them to his people as Allah's words through the Qu'ran. Muhammad's for inciting and invoking violence among his people. Satan's for deceiving Abraham into laying with his hand maiden, Hagar, instead of having faith in God that his wife Sarah would bear a child.
Is this the status quo view of World events? No, because most people have no clue as to the history of the numerous times that the people of Islam have attacked Jews and Christians repeatedly through the centuries much less the origins of the people and their religions. It is a fact that the Crusades were a series of attacks by Muslims followed by counter attacks from Christians. If this sounds too familiar it is because Osama Bin Laden incited Jihad in the name of modern day Crusades and apparently we Christians are obliged to respond once again to the threat of Islam.
I will follow this soon with a commentary that is more on topic but maybe this will be a good enough start to get things rolling here.
#12Stephen,
Whether the material of thought be simple concepts of entities capable of being defined ostensively, or complex inferences and arguments many times removed from direct perception, one must always be able to reduce one’s concepts back to perceptual reality.
"Ostensively" - "reduce one's concepts back to perceptual reality" - these appear to be terms belonging to the study of Ayn Rand's work. I have no idea what they might refer to. Which is fine, but we can't make rules that are expressed in such terms. We could be having a discussion and you might say something like, "You broke the rules by using a concept that wasn't defined ostensively." I would have no idea what you were talking about. : )
Seriously, let's just have a conversation.
#13David,
Honestly I think the main thing that I am stuck on right now is the world situation and how it really relates to history and religions that most people do not understand well enough to fully grasp.
I agree with you 100%. I was having lunch with a girl yesterday who was telling me how she was totally opposed to war and how Mohammed was a just as much a prophet as Jesus and Moses. She seemed stunned when I informed her that Mohammed had been a warlord, and that it says in the Koran that Muslims are to kill all non-Muslims, or make them into 2nd-class citizens. It's just astonishing how ill-informed many people are.
#14Vik,
I have one favorite source for enlightening information in regard to what cults, including Islam, are undermining a peaceful and healthy world society. You may already know of this site but here is the web address - http://www.saintsalive.com/
Here is an excellent letter about Islam that you may want to link to somewhere on your site to get the word out.
http://www.saintsalive.com/general/islam.htm
ISLAM: ANOTHER GOD? ANOTHER GOSPEL?
I wish that the story you shared of your stunned friend was the exception but instead that seems to be the rule. Most people are ignorant of religions other than their own and world history in general choosing to shun truth and knowledge to guard their blissful ignorance.
#15David, thanks for these links. One quote seems particularly important:
Today, there are over 7,000,000 Muslims in the United States alone. That's more than all the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists combined. An extremely militant proselytizing program is under way in many major cities and in every State university I have visited. The Muslims are going to make the Mormon missionary effort look pale in comparison. As orthodox Christians, we are going to have to be ready to deal with what I believe may be the most aggressive attack on Christianity in its history.
We have to stop letting Islamists into the country -- as I noted today, it's like planting weeds in your own garden. And we're going to have to work very hard to get the ones who are here to assimilate -- or we're going to have to learn to deport people. Because Islamists seek to overthrow the Constitution of the U.S. and replace it with Sharia law. As I noted in a recent post on Wafa Sultan, Wafa says that when Muslims are at her house, and when she is at their houses, they say that they plan to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law. "They are working for that. They don't say it to your face, but they are working for that," said Wafa.
Deportation is not unthinkable. In the 1950's, a million illegal immigrants from Mexico were deported, in what was then called "Operation Wetback."
#16Our immigration process as a whole is out of control and is no longer centered around creating new United States citizens and patriots. Instead we have said here is our land, our business, and our human service feel free to abuse it and then gripe about not getting enough FREE stuff that you did nothing to earn.
I personally support the actions of the Arizona posse in enforcing their own state borders and saying the hell with a federal system that is broken.
As for deporting Muslims I think that Cuba is far enough. As long as they reach dry land somewhere we have fulfilled our moral obligations.
#17What's odd is that the government seems so out of sync with the people. The government just isn't getting it's act together and getting the job done. Congress was designed on purpose to make it difficult for it to make new laws, but with so much going on, its gotten too slow. The world moves faster now too. Does it seem to you like the government is somewhat out of sync with the public, particularly on immigration?
#18What’s odd is that the government seems so out of sync with the people. The government just isn’t getting it’s act together and getting the job done. Congress was designed on purpose to make it difficult for it to make new laws, but with so much going on, its gotten too slow. The world moves faster now too. Does it seem to you like the government is somewhat out of sync with the public, particularly on immigration?
The speed with which our government acts to create new legislation and laws is a two edged sword. If they act too quickly mistakes will be made that could create chaos in the supporting systems (legal, business, human, immigration, etc.). If they act too slowly then costs and excessive damages could be acrued (too many people on human services, inflated medical costs, deflated salaries, etc.)
It is my opinion that currently the United States is subsidizing our workforce with legal and illegal immigrants until we get to bring our troops back home from war. That process has flooded our country with people that will work for less than they should, and a market that makes businesses specifically seek out the least expensive suppliers and workers at the expense of people that have a more legitimate claim to the jobs at a higher salary. We all pay the costs cited above on every cent that we earn when we give our jobs away.
That's at least my two cents of economics and "leveraged" politics, but don't think for a second that I am anything other than an Independant voter at heart. I grew up hearing everything from the Democrats side circa 1950's style from my family, and must agree that for that era it was for the best. Today I could not support the Democrats with a clear conscience on anything as long as liberal activists are leading the party even if it did mean that more money would be put in my pockets. I would rather starve to death on my own conservative Christian morality than to support the group of traitorous scum Democrats offer America as leaders.
vik wrote: "'Ostensively' - 'reduce one’s concepts back to perceptual reality' - these appear to be terms belonging to the study of Ayn Rand’s work. I have no idea what they might refer to. Which is fine ..."
No, it's not "fine." There is no specialized use of words here, and certainly nothing that cannot be simply explained if you just ask. I used "ostensively" in the phrase "defined ostensively." An ostensive definition is just a way of defining a concept by pointing to that which it refers. So, for instance, one might say: "By chair, I mean that" (pointing to a chair).
As to "reduce one's concepts back to perceptual reality": perceptual reality is that which is directly available to our senses, the concrete facts of existence that we directly perceive. A rock, a chair, a tree. Now, reduction is simply the process of following the logical chain of connections from a higher-level concept through the lower-level concepts on which the higher-level concept depends, and ultimately tracing it back to perceptual reality. If our concepts are not tied to the real world, then they are just useless fantasies.
vik wrote: "Seriously, let's just have a conversation."
That's what I am trying to do. But when I deal with those who make faith a portion of their cognitive life, I first need to establish the basis for any rational conversation. I need to make clear the kind of arguments and approaches that are permissible, and make sure that appeals to faith, feelings, mysticism, etc. are not. And, as you are the moderator of this forum, unless you understand this and are able to strictly enforce such rules upon yourself and the other participants, it would be pointless for me to converse.
And, unfortunately, the evolution of this thread is itself a testament to the validity of my concerns. You started this thread specifically to discuss some issues that I raised, and you even explicitly stated "As the host, I would like to leave it to you to further specify the subject you would like to discuss." And, while I was in the process of doing just that, the thread has already deteriorated into a level of discussion for which I have absolutely no interest in participation.
#20Stephen,
And, while I was in the process of doing just that, the thread has already deteriorated into a level of discussion for which I have absolutely no interest in participation.
This shows how the ground rules proposed are impractical. Looking at those ground rules, it seems to me that they call for arguments based on fact and excluding emotion; but here you make what some might consider an emotional statement, saying that the discussion has "deteriorated." You also appear to say that you were in process of participating in this thread, yet you had not posted in this thread in 3 or 4 days. So one might say that again you are making a statement not based on fact. Clearly any attempt to use these ground rules would not work. Any argument any participant disagreed with could be characterized as breaking the rules, resulting in a halt in the discussion, and a conference on the ground rules, which as shown here, are insufficiently specified.
The ground rules proposed belong to the study of Ayn Rand. Requiring them would exclude from the discussion anyone who isn't a student of Ayn Rand. In the case of a debate about faith, that would exclude anyone who didn't already agree with your position on the subject.
#21Stephen wrote:
As to “reduce one’s concepts back to perceptual reality”: perceptual reality is that which is directly available to our senses, the concrete facts of existence that we directly perceive. A rock, a chair, a tree. Now, reduction is simply the process of following the logical chain of connections from a higher-level concept through the lower-level concepts on which the higher-level concept depends, and ultimately tracing it back to perceptual reality. If our concepts are not tied to the real world, then they are just useless fantasies.
By this rule alone we could not discuss anything via this mode of communication because we are not physically present to offer "proof" that is directly available to each of our senses that we all really exist.
#22By this rule alone we could not discuss anything via this mode of communication because we are not physically present to offer “proof” that is directly available to each of our senses that we all really exist.
I think I see where you're going with this. That's a very interesting point.
#23vik wrote: "This shows how the ground rules proposed are impractical. Looking at those ground rules, it seems to me that they call for arguments based on fact and excluding emotion; but here you make what some might consider an emotional statement, saying that the discussion has ‘deteriorated’."
I made an intellectual evaluation, a judgment which I can support in reason and by reference to fact. What I reject, which I have said repeatedly, is any argument based on feelings, faith, mysticism or the like. The only proper method leading towards knowledge, and therefore the only proper means of argument, is the use of reason and the identification of fact. I find nothing “impractical” in that.
Besides, when you characterized my view with your “call for arguments based on fact and excluding emotion,” you introduced an ambiguity. I actually said that arguments must not be based on emotions, but that does not mean that any statement must necessarily exclude emotions.
vik wrote: "You also appear to say that you were in process of participating in this thread, yet you had not posted in this thread in 3 or 4 days. So one might say that again you are making a statement not based on fact."
One might say that, but only if one does not consider the actual facts. The fact of the matter is that when you asked me to join you in discussion, I made quite clear, right here in this post on your own forum, that if you chose to have the discussion on your forum, “that my time away from my prime focus is rather limited, so I could not guarantee timely responses.”
vik wrote: "Clearly any attempt to use these ground rules would not work. Any argument any participant disagreed with could be characterized as breaking the rules, resulting in a halt in the discussion, and a conference on the ground rules, which as shown here, are insufficiently specified."
The “rules” that I demand are essentially that arguments must be based on reason and logic, not feelings and faith, and that the referents of arguments must be the facts of reality, not figments of one’s imagination. What has been ‘shown here” so far is not a fault of these rules being “insufficiently specified,” but rather either a difficulty in grasping the distinction between reason and faith, between fact and fiction, or a reluctance to abide with such a restriction.
vik wrote: "The ground rules proposed belong to the study of Ayn Rand. Requiring them would exclude from the discussion anyone who isn’t a student of Ayn Rand."
Though Ayn Rand was the one philosopher who most consistently and with greatest clarity defended reason, it is insulting to others who do not study Ayn Rand’s philosophy to imply that they are excluded from discussion because they cannot grasp or abide with reason and fact.
vik wrote: "In the case of a debate about faith, that would exclude anyone who didn’t already agree with your position on the subject."
If you mean that a debate would exclude anyone who could not argue based solely on reason and fact, rather than on faith and fantasy, then, yes, I agree. But, then, if the method of argument in debate is something other than reason, then it should not be called a “debate” at all.
#25Stephen,
One might say that, but only if one does not consider the actual facts. The fact of the matter is that when you asked me to join you in discussion, I made quite clear, right here in this post on your own forum, that if you chose to have the discussion on your forum, “that my time away from my prime focus is rather limited, so I could not guarantee timely responses.”
Fine, but if you're gone for 3 or 4 days, no one has any way of knowing if you are still participating.
Anyone might argue that anyone's point of view is not "based solely on reason." And in debate, each person generally does argue that the other person's views are not based on reason.
So the ground rules are impractical. Every participant would necessarily argue that the opposing view is not based on reason.
These ground rules are redundant -- the point of debate is for each side to attempt to convince reasonable observers that his point of view is correct.
You keep saying you want to rule out arguments "based ... on faith" -- but the topic to be discussed is specifically faith. What exactly are you trying to rule out? Can you provide a concrete example?
#26David,
(Following up on post #22). It really is a very good point. One thing I hope to discuss with Stephen, is that I think in the case of faith, the Obectivists (i.e. followers of Ayn Rand) -- with whom I agree on most subjects -- are making the opposite of the mistake they say people of faith are making. I believe they say that people of faith are believing things that science hasn't proven. I think the Obectivists are making the mistake of believing that, just because science hasn't proven something, that means it doesn't exist.
In fact, science is constantly discovering things that are astonishing, and in some cases, things which seem completely impossible. A good example right now is quantum physics. Scientists are identifying some of the rules that seem to apply to things that are quantum-sized; but scientists have no clue whatsoever what could explain the observed behavior of these things. When the study of quantum physics was new, Einstein's first impression was that it could not possibly be:
The joke is on Albert Einstein, who, back in 1935, dreamed up this trick of synchronized atoms - "spooky action at a distance," as he called it - as an example of the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," he, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935.
So, just the fact that science hasn't proven that faith is justified, does not disprove that faith is justified.
#27Written by Vik:
(Following up on post #22). It really is a very good point. One thing I hope to discuss with Stephen, is that I think in the case of faith, the Obectivists (i.e. followers of Ayn Rand)—with whom I agree on most subjects—are making the opposite of the mistake they say people of faith are making. I believe they say that people of faith are believing things that science hasn’t proven. I think the Obectivists are making the mistake of believing that, just because science hasn’t proven something, that means it doesn’t exist.
...
So, just the fact that science hasn’t proven that faith is justified, does not disprove that faith is justified.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response from David:
That is one facet of my elementary statement, which essentially loads a charge into the underlying Randian philosophy that Stephen is wrestling with here.
I took the time to do a five minute study of Randian philosophy and Ayn Rand so that I might understand the direction and background of this philosophy.
I now understand why Dr. Wafa is held in such high esteem by Stephen because she is a modernized Xerox copy of Ayn Rand. However, more unfortunately is that Dr. Wafa is from essentially the same broken conditions that created Rand.
In essence there are only a very few base beliefs for Randians as I have read it.
1) "I" am God
2) "I" have no moral responsibility to anyone.
3) If "I" don't see it, touch it, or smell it myself then it may be a figment of imagination.
4) "I" am more important than anything else in existence and my selfishness will ultimately benefit others.
Since there is nothing more for us to use as "proof" than pixelized characters appearing on our screens we really have no "proof" that anyone posting here is anything more than an intelligently created program unless we witness the composition being produced in person under Rand philosophy.
To go outside of those physical limitations is to accept faith which itself is against Rand philosophy.
Of course I have used a strictly literal translation of the "rules" to create this arguement but it is based upon the "facts" that I have presented to me.
If we assume that each of exists then we may just as easily assume that history books are factual and assume that any god of your choosing is factual as well.
At this point we should all just unplug our computers and haul them to the dump since we have no "proof" of anything that is available on them beyond what we create ourselves or witness being created by our own eyes.
A proof of the creation of water as a molecule of H2O could take weeks under these rules because if anyone demanded it I would have to measure two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen inside a vacuum and then combust it to actually produce water before it would be acceptable within the literal translation at play here. To draw any incremental guideline between the literal and figurative would be just as useless because it would be arbitrarily adjusted by the rule maker to outlaw statements that conflicted his own.
All things considered I view Ayn Rand as a sociopath that was trying to justify her own paranoid actions to the world much as may be the same with Dr. Wafa Sultan.
#28Hey there Vik, I just wanted to say how glad I am to see that Stephen is still actively participating in this discussion.
Noted: Response of silence
#29LOL.
vik wrote: "I invited him to a discussion, and he agreed. We both want to have a civil, polite, friendly debate."
I anticipated some of the gross irrationality that has already been exhibited by posters here, and I attempted to establish some reasonable rules with the expectation that you as moderator would not permit such irrationality as part of the discussion that you invited me to. But, frankly, I did not anticipate, nor did I expect, that you as moderator were capable of such enormous hypocrisy as to permit such uncivil, impolite, and outright insulting remarks as made in this post.
I would imagine if I referred here to Jesus or Moses as being paranoid psychopaths that you might reasonably take that remark as not being "civil" or "polite," but apparently such a standard does not apply to remarks made those on your 'team.' How silly of me to have expected, or, at least, hoped for, not only a modicum of reason but also consistency and a lack of hypocrisy from the faithful. The days of a man like Thomas Aquinas are long gone, and all that is left of the faithful are stunted intellects that act like children cackling in the back of the room.
I leave you with your faithful here; you deserve each other.
#31Well, Stephen, as shown by my article, and by my comments in this thread, I don't agree with David that Ayn Rand or Wafa Sultan are sociopaths.
At the same time, you never joined a debate here on faith. Instead, you wanted to discuss ground rules, and now you leave the thread on the grounds that it isn't civil enough for you.
You were invited to discuss faith; Stephen wanted to discuss Objectivism; and you have refused to discuss either.
You make the accusation that the posters here are uncivil because one of them called Ayn Rand a paranoid sociopath; but you then include far greater incivility in your post: "hypocrisy", "stunted intellects", "children cackling in the back of the room", etc. Your devotion to civility seems to be lip service.
David did not call you personally any names; however, you have certainly called the other participants in this thread various names.
And let's remember how this started. You posted on my site -- a site that celebrates the Judeo-Christian tradition in a quote on the top-left-hand corner of every page: "I consider faith—the basis of religion—to be as much a destroyer of humanity as its counterpart in the physical realm—force." There's very little difference between the phrases, "destroyer of humanity," and "paranoid sociopath." You have little ground to claim that others in this post were less civil than you were.
You were invited to argue in favor of your view, and you declined to do so.
#32I anticipated some of the gross irrationality that has already been exhibited by posters here, and I attempted to establish some reasonable rules with the expectation that you as moderator would not permit such irrationality as part of the discussion that you invited me to. But, frankly, I did not anticipate, nor did I expect, that you as moderator were capable of such enormous hypocrisy as to permit such uncivil, impolite, and outright insulting remarks as made in this post.
I would imagine if I referred here to Jesus or Moses as being paranoid psychopaths that you might reasonably take that remark as not being “civil” or “polite,” but apparently such a standard does not apply to remarks made those on your ‘team.’ How silly of me to have expected, or, at least, hoped for, not only a modicum of reason but also consistency and a lack of hypocrisy from the faithful. The days of a man like Thomas Aquinas are long gone, and all that is left of the faithful are stunted intellects that act like children cackling in the back of the room.
From David to Vik and the other guy:
1) Gross irrationality to the other poster here seems to be defined as all differing views from thier own. That in itself is a public display of arrogance and irrationality.
2) I had never considered the concept that atheistic views such as objectivism or scientism could have a "religion" as such, a god/leader, or even a saint like view of someone because of thier self-centered approach to the world. However that other guy did not provide me with any opportunity to discuss those things and has left me to build my own opinions about those things through independent research. Again this has left the third party with a flailing arguement.
3) There is a huge difference between a "sociopath with paranoid tendencies" and "paranoid psychopaths" in the functional realities of which those psychies are formed. Furthermore, my statement was made as a summary of my professional opinion without access to the subject and it was somewhat unfair and limited in that aspect. It was by no means meant to be an affront or an insult.
4) I have an elementary objection to the proposed ground rules as I have previously voiced my valid concerns. My concerns seems to be echoed in the concerns of Vik, and in the questionable rationale that has been presented here.
#33I thought this link may provide some information for those interested in reviewing the accuracy of my prior statements in regard to psychology and sociology.
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, SOCIOPATHY, AND PSYCHOPATHY
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm
I was fair in my assessment under the rules as presented here and in the studies that I have referenced. It only requires three manifested behaviors at an abnormal level to be classified as having either sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies many of which may be publicly masked. I trust my gut instinct on this as well although that is not allowed by the rules.
Also I stand to the defense of Vik where he was accused of "enormous hypocrisy". Please refer to the factual definition of which it seems the accuser may be the guilty party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning under, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself.
It seems that one needs to arm themselves with wits before setting about making a challenge to the wits of others.
#34Lots of $.50 words being thrown around here, presumably intended to pump already self absorbed egos to even greater heights. On a different note, my favorite comment was:
'Deportation is not unthinkable. In the 1950’s, a million illegal immigrants from Mexico were deported, in what was then called “Operation Wetback.”'
Peace Out
Stephen, thanks for joining in this valuable discussion.
I see the first thing to do, is to further specify what the topic of discussion is. You are discussing "faith," while I am discussing "the Judeo-Christian tradition." These aren't necessarily identical. You might feel that the Judeo-Christian tradition has been good for humanity, while objecting to faith. As the host, I would like to leave it to you to further specify the subject you would like to discuss.