On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan >>> enough, >> >> >> Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some of >> my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things would be even better if >> they were just more diphlesadory in a refungent sort of way. >> >> >>> > with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist connotations, >>> including racial overtones, like correcting others for sharing and >>> communicating in "your" language "properly". >>> >> >> Mr. Cowboy, may I make a humble suggestion, before you honor us with >> another of your patented stream of consciousness word salads try waiting 5 >> minutes and then read what you've written aloud to yourself. If you had >> done that I don't think you would have hit the "send" button and sent the >> ASCII sequence quoted above to the list. >> > > Humble? You're giving snobby English lessons to people with spell checkers > to distract still avoiding topic. PfffGC > > > You are right. Eventually all this is distracting talk, to avoid the real > thing, like why he stops in step 3. > > What I try to understand, is why he does that. Is it fear of > understanding, or fear of not understanding. is because he has a (blind) > faith in physicalism? (He pretended that this is not the case). > > I try to understand why human can be so anti-rational on the fundamental > questions. > I question whether his arguments represent merely the other side of rather literal Christian cultural coin, where it is o.k. to be patronizing in using psychological trick like talking down to people about politeness and cultural etiquette etc. And this is ugly since it presupposes sense of superiority instead of clash or exchange of ideas/questions of people who see eye to eye. A culture that, in what we call the "west", is firmly planted on Christian models of family, politics, work, sexuality, decency etc. He declares that he is not Christian, and that atheism is not equivalent with or part of the culture it refers to in negation. It would be somewhat consistent to expect then, that an atheist rejects and distances themselves from institutions of family, marriage, ethics, decency, lifestyles etc. derived from Christian background. But he denies. And yet he uses the device of publicly shaming, i.e. PGC should feel bad that he is not versed enough in the dominant culture's high class etiquette of verbal exchange and therefore be shamed into silence/confession, which is medieval form of exercising control that many, not only the Christian, religions used to stop questions and intimidate. My guess for now is that even merely invoking these questions exposes a rigid atheist/religious taboo. Even when there is so much overlap in other area of science and chance to meet others with fascinating diversity and views on such forum on the internet, invoking the fundamental questions even with strong atheists, results in them judging you for breaking one of their commandments, like any religion that speaks from authority, rather than from question. My point is, atheism practiced in this view, although fashionable in science today, is a disguised Trojan horse of Christian values. Like doubting Thomas, that is "inside the brackets" of the book. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
