its not really nutty imo, because we have all been taught that "god" is superior, we are born sinners, and that we should worship "him" ... what seems more nutty to me is that if "god" created us, then we are part of "god", and therefore should revel in our "godness", and not beg for forgiveness on bended knee while looking outward ...
imc, the greener pasture can be found by forgetting all that you have been taught about "god", and starting over ... wrestle with your own conscience until you find a playmate ... once you have done that, you will have grass stains on your knees, rather than the bruises of worship ... On Dec 28, 2:01 am, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > I sympathize with your sentiment but never the less hope yo don't > abandon this group as I think it would be detrimental to the the over > all diversity of thought in the group. > > Perhaps you could help this group become a greener pasture. > > I have met professed theists that upon deep enough examination I don't > find them to be theist (at least as I understand it) > > In my book you can't be a theist unless you worship. I equate theism > with worship. Is that nutty or what? > > On Dec 27, 4:56 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > be prepared for a long journey ... yawn, im getting tired just > > contemplating it ... > > > On Dec 27, 2:16 am, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I will try again and again to be understood. Also I will try to > > > understand why you think that your epistemology is somehow more > > > tenable or different than mine. Let's see if we can get to the root of > > > our differences. This may take some time. I'd like to fashion a > > > logical progression between us. This will require your objection to > > > any statement I present that isn't deemed by you to be objectively > > > true. > > > > Humans trust. > > > > Humans misplace trust. > > > > Brock is human. > > > > If you agree that all three statements are objectively true I'll > > > continue. > > > > On Dec 26, 11:21 pm, Brock Organ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree that what actually is (Objective reality) is often at > > > > > variance with > > > > > how it's perceived subjectively by individuals. > > > > > > Brock constantly reiterates this. > > > > > It's a fundamental epistemological mistake many make: > > > > > "I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2" > > > > > Well, the objective truth of the statement doesn't matter whether one > > > > does or doesn't so believe. > > > > > "It doesn't make sense to me that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon > > > > River" > > > > > Too bad. He crossed the river even if it doesn't make sense to a > > > > person or group of persons. > > > > > "I find it hard to reconcile "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" with my > > > > own personal understanding" > > > > > Well, don't hold the objective nature of reality hostage to personal > > > > understanding. :) > > > > > This fundamental failure of subjective aesthetic makes its use as an > > > > epistemological basis untenable. Human-centered preference is so > > > > weak, epistemologically speaking, that it fails to offer an objective > > > > basis for rejecting ANY competing claims! > > > > > > My argument is that the only thing we can discuss is how we perceive > > > > > it > > > > > (objective reality) subjectively. > > > > > Not true. For example, it is objectively certain that: > > > > > * 1 + 1 = 2 > > > > * Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river > > > > * Jesus Christ is the Son of God > > > > > And these topics (and others!) are very discuss-able. > > > > > > Where do we get assurance that the way we > > > > > (inescapably subjectively) > > > > > perceive things jibes with what actually is? > > > > > Well, assurance and $1.50 might get one coffee at a truck stop. The > > > > objective nature of reality is independent of humankind's assurance > > > > regarding it. > > > > > > By comparing our subjective assessments with others is the most > > > > > common way. > > > > > Is it an infallible method? NO > > > > > And thus it is an untenable epistemological basis. Sorry, but "good > > > > enough" is not good enough. :) > > > > > > The theist vs atheist contention rests on each of them regarding their > > > > > standards of proof as superior to the other. > > > > > Alternatively, I'll consider that the standard that measures the > > > > standard is the standard. As Bahnsen noted: > > > > > "At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs > > > > there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, > > > > knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which > > > > all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied. Dr. Stein > > > > has such presuppositions, so do I, and so do all of you. And it is > > > > these presuppositions which determine what we accept by ordinary > > > > reasoning all of our reasoning - even about reasoning itself. " > > > > > To be clear, I've articulated previously (on forums like this) that > > > > the objectivity of the standard of proof used to evaluate such claims > > > > is of a fundamental importance. Bahnsen notes that atheist > > > > world-views have a double standard to point out Christian > > > > presuppositions (which Bahnsen acknowledges), but then presume that > > > > the atheistic position is "neutral" or "without" similar > > > > presuppositions. > > > > > I think the point Bahnsen makes is that human-centered (or humanistic) > > > > logic and reason are inadequate, in that they require or presume other > > > > pre-suppositions, which if existential, significantly and notably > > > > limit the ability of "reason and logic" to articulate objective truth: > > > > > "The problem arises when Dr. Stein elsewhere insists that every claim > > > > that someone makes must be treated as a hypothesis which must be > > > > tested by such evidence before accepting it. "There is to be > > > > nothing," he says, "which smacks of begging the question or circular > > > > reasoning." This, I think, is oversimplified thinking and again > > > > misleading, what we might call the Pretended Neutrality fallacy. One > > > > can see this by considering the following quotation from Dr. Stein: > > > > "The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth > > > > or falsity of any statement which claims to be factual." One must > > > > eventually ask Dr. Stein, then, how he proves this statement itself. > > > > That is, how does he prove that logic or reason is the only way to > > > > prove factual statements? > > > > > He is now on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. If he says > > > > that the statement is true by logic or reason, then he is engaging in > > > > circular reasoning; and he's begging the question which he > > > > [supposedly] forbids. If he says that the statement is proven in some > > > > other fashion, then he refutes the statement itself, that logic or > > > > reason is the only way to prove things. Now my point is not to fault > > > > Dr. Stein's commitment to logic or reason, but to observe that it > > > > actually has the nature of a pre commitment or a presupposition. It is > > > > not something that he has proven by empirical experience or logic, > > > > but it is rather that by which he proceeds to prove everything else. > > > > He is not presuppositionally neutral in his approach to factual > > > > questions and disputes." > > > > > So what Bahnsen calls the "The pretended neutrality" fallacy is an > > > > explicit way of showing that the standard by which one measures a > > > > standard is presupposed. And my point is that if such a standard > > > > pre-supposes existential or humanistic premises as first principles, > > > > then even "logic" and "reason" are adversely affected, to the point > > > > that such reasoning effectively is untenable. > > > > > > The atheist however at least > > > > > admits that their standards aren't absolutely reliable in all cases > > > > > and > > > > > should be left open to continuous scrutiny, the theist's delusion is > > > > > that > > > > > they think they have access to an individual that teaches them > > > > > perfectly. > > > > > Well, consider your assessment of the OP's position likely to be a > > > > caricature. But consider more adequately the limitations of what > > > > you've articulated above: If you make such a claim on an absolute > > > > basis your claim is self-refuting; if not, then you simply articulate > > > > a personal (or corporate) preference or sensibility, which as such a > > > > basis lacks the ability to objectively reject any competing claims. > > > > As Roger Scruton put it: > > > > > "In From Descartes to Wittgenstein, Roger Scruton says that > > > > Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept of bad > > > > faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral creed, yet > > > > speak of these concepts as if everyone were bound to abide them. In > > > > chapter 18, he says: "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the > > > > authenticity, which consists in the purely self-made morality, is > > > > unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument, his > > > > recommendation can have no objective force."" > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Criticism > > > > > > Alot of the arguments amount to a claim of personal infallibility. I > > > > > find > > > > > that theism allows this > > > > > Well, it is infallibly true that: > > > > > * 1 + 1 = 2 > > > > * Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river > > > > * Jesus Christ is the Son of God > > > > > But I don't consider that by personally articulating those statements > > > > I've transferred any of their infallibility to my person. Further, I > > > > don't consider one can modify, improve, add to their objective truth > > > > by any human dialectic. Their certainty is not strengthened by my > > > > belief, nor weakened by my disbelief. > > > > > Humanism FAIL. Dialectic FAIL. "It doesn't seem to me that ..." FAIL. > > > > > Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I hold the objective nature of reality > > > > hostage to my understanding of it" > > > > Doctor: "Don't do that" > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Brock
