An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (church, Revelation, atheist)

[TRANSPONDER]

It's interesting compare this idea of respect or not with Nate's 'logic or not'. reference in a post or not.

Respect is a social convention based on human social instinct.

Logic is more of a law, like mathematics. Of course even with these changes are being made. I suggest myself that Tuo quoque fallacy is NOT a fallacy when used to counter a claim to the high moral ground. But, by and large you are either arguing logically or you are not.

The 'respect' thing isn't like logic. It is in fact a bit of a logical fallacy, very much part of the "Oh you are so wude, so I win the argument" argument. Yes, while someone who did not treat me with a certain respect is not someone I would want to marry my son or daughter or both, it does not of itself invalidate their argument, so it is a fallacy to try to use the 'respect' argument here to invalidate the arguments of the atheists' side.

I won't go into the playing of the 'respect' card in a more pernicious way by theism which, when you look at it, is all part of the efforts to shut atheism up, and that is the thin end of blasphemy law.

So while we may out of politeness concede a strictly correct point, in the way concession can be made in a job to "respect" the religious views of a person, or we may out of consideration for a person be a bit mild and accommodating in pointing op flaws in (for instance ) a cockamamie theist hypothesis, because we want to keep things sweet, it is NOT a right; it is a concession. It is effectively mercy over justice. Which is good, but is a abrogation of justice out of empathy for a fellow human, but it is NOT a right they can demand, much less a rhetorical trick to silence the opposition by pretending they are not having that Right respected.

Thus they cannot insist on it or take it for granted and indeed if they try to abuse it - like trying to shut atheists up by playing the 'you are so wude' (respect) card, they can expect to have the concession revoked, and get the full crutch -kicking that impartial justice and unveering adherence to the facts of the matter demands.

Odd, in fact that I just came here to pick up a quote to use in a post on apologetics that I thought might be handy in A/A, because while many lessons have been learned about the dirty tricks of Theist apologetis (not least in the very useful "Rhetoric" thread) but I feel the need for one of those 'refresher' course. And here I am talking about that "werry subjick".

So let's try it here.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I maintain that I HAVE debunked you repeatedly from our first encounter in the Matrix/Plantinga thread where I pointed out that your use of Imperfect human perception was invalid because science was designed to get around that and does produce valid results. This is simple and doesn't need a Phd, but you use your certificate -waving to try to steamroller a point you can't refute.

You DO irrationally maintain that despite your lack of sufficient knowledge even to know what the real issues are. Your description of my view as that of "imperfect human perception" is a straw man version of my explanation of the many limitations of human perception that are not remotely controversial. My screen name is not waving my certificate. It is designed to convey my dual perspective and background of science and mindfulness. I have always presented the details of my knowledge with anyone who presented as knowledgeable and could sustain a conversation about the issues. I did not just wave my credentials.

Thereafter there was a first cause debate where I pointed out that your dismissal of the way logicians assign the burden of proof to the claimant, your sneering at Occams razor (because it was inconvenient for you) with the stock theist claim that it was a human convention (I debunked that with a practical example in the bush and rock mind -experiment) and your attempt to debunk the materialist default (mainly by using the philosophical definition of naturalism rather than the scientific and practical use) showed up the fallacy of your argument and your logic and also why - you took God as an a priori on faith, and this buggered all your erudition from the start.

I don't know where you get these ideas from, Arq. I do not credit the First Cause argument and I did not dismiss the burden of proof claim. Ockham's razor is NOT universally true so presenting an example where it might apply is irrelevant. The materialist default can NOT account for the phenomenon of consciousness and subjectivity. There is no separation between the philosophical definition of naturalism and science. I repeatedly said my certainty about the existence of God is based on my personal EXPERIENCE, not faith. I do not try to convince anyone to accept that.

Again, this is simple and anyone can see it without needing a course in Nano-physics. Except you, because you could be the model for the statue the American Humanist government ( ) will have to put up: "The Universal Theist" with eyes screwed shut, fingers jammed in ears, and mouth wide open, repeating Faith-based mantras.

I am uncertain exactly what you think is simple or what is the product of simplemindedness. You have always had difficulty separating my scientific views from my beliefs and my adoption of the Christ narrative as the ultimate expression of the spiritual fossil template because you do not believe there is a God influencing our minds. My experience tells me otherwise.

I haven't even mentioned the endless deprecation and sneering I got from you as I humbly struggled to grasp the details of the various disciplines that you referenced to support your thesis (you are very erudite, I never denied that) but you obfuscated rather than explained and it was Gaylenwoof who did the explaining that you should have done, and I have got to say that it was a qualisoup vid.on Substance dualism that finally got me to grasp qualia.

And while I had to throw up my hands at Gaylen's assertion (or so I recall) that philosophy proves that not only can material-physicalism not explain qualia now, it never can (though I recall that he denies that he ever said that) , or that Chalmer's zombies prove dualism because a zombie without human mental faculties is logically possible but a zombie without arms or legs isn't, and finally philosphical ideas about the nature of "red' by people who not only did not know what colour actually was, but appeared to ignore the infinite gradation of it, rather rendering a colour principle to the realm of mythology, and I said "I bow to your expertise, but I cannot buy your conclusions. Here I stand; I can do no other", it pointed up Mystic's use of substance dualism as handy evidence for a Universal consciousness Aka "God".

I apologize for any appearance of sneering or deprecation I might have demonstrated. You presented as a strident and dismissive adversary based on your "concrete" understanding of our reality. I did try to explain using analogies to what you did know but that backfired and I accept that I failed. I acknowledge that Gaylen is a truly gifted explainer and I am not.

But the point is that your universal Field went down the tube in the course of this debate because of animal consciousness (in the course of my supporting the idea of an evolved consciousness along with evolved life) which raised the question of -if it's all the Universal Field (aka God), why aren't animals as smart as us? ( I won't even comment on the expected 'That's your concrete thinking again, Arq" (1). But in fact it's faith-based theory cobbled together from bits of philosophy, science (or non -science..I'll be getting to that ) and religion as convenient without much regard for whether they work together, make sense or are even true.

My universal field has not gone down any tube for any reason let alone animal consciousness. It has nothing to do with why animals are not as smart as we are. That is a non-sequitur. I always keep the science separate from my beliefs involving the Christ narrative and the spiritual template, something you seem loath to do.

But the fact is that you tacitly admitted that I was right by revising your theory from a universal field to individual clumps of it for each human (The 'gnatswarm theory" as I call it) without crediting me, of course, or even admitting that you'd done it. Your response to this, as in all my debunks, is silence - then denial and deprecation.

::Sigh:: I have no idea how you determine what I tacitly admit or not. I have not revised my theory at any point, Arq. I have no clue what you mean by clumps or why you seek credit for it. The fact that you change your understanding of some aspect of it when I clarify something you misunderstood does NOT mean I revised it!

I'm only doing this because you have gone for my throat here in no uncertain manner and frankly deserve no mercy.

I am saddened that you feel the need to vent about your perceived grievances but you simply need to stop pretending you have debunked anything about my Synthesis since you have no clue even what the real issues are.

Your claim to science support was debunked when you had to claim..or admit, rather... that your science wasn't the science we all know and use but a mysterious unknown (to anyone but you) "Science" for which the known science is used by you as an analogy or signpost. I may reveal that I may not be a scientist but I have emails from some who are and the term 'fraud" was used.

You have the relationship between my analogies and the science completely reversed. I do not use the science as analogy. I use analogy to what you CAN understand to illustrate principles operating in the science you do NOT understand. I can't believe you are using anonymous sources to impune my credibility, Arq, but I do understand that you feel you are unfairly represented by my dismissal of your "debunks." I have and will continue to engage with any scientist on the details and specifics of the science I use in my Synthesis. So far none have been able to "debunk" my knowledge though my extrapolations, of course, remain hypotheses.

This should embarrass anyone with intellectual integrity into a hands- up posture, but you continue to ignore it, deny everything and (as we see here) occasionally damn me with faint praise while stamping on my face. So you are asking for what you are getting.

It is not faint praise. You have a fine mind and your efforts interpreting the Bible show real insight.

I may only mention the 'Revelation' thread where you made it clear that you regarded divine revelation into the head as more reliable than mere validated science, and the excuse for your fossil spiritual record (what I call the learning curve theory) has its lessons out of order was (as I recall) an analogy of various counties in different locations, which sounds as footling an excuse as I have heard.

I have never claimed that "divine revelation into the head" is more reliable than mere validated science. I don't know where you come up with these assertions, Arq. Your chronological and linear thinking regarding the spiritual fossil record is simply misguided. Our ancient ancestors organized their recordings by the significance of events, not their chronology.

In short, you HAVE been debunked, repeatedly, and simply ignore it in a way that bespeaks a personal hubris (one of your favourite projections ) of staggering proportions, and you tend to deal with opposition by sneering and deprecation such as you did by pointing up my lack of certificates.

But you don't need certificates to point up, old mate, what is wrong with your theory and with your thinking, and your certificate -waving is good old attempts to blind with science.
You have been sussed and debunked before, and by no means just by me, but by every poster you engaged with (2), and are debunked here, and nobody will need a phd in anything to see it quite clear and plain.

Don't blame me - you started it

(1) in case any didn't know, I used to be Arequipa, but was Transponder long before that.

(2) other than your irritating disciple Gldnrule, and broken -record Arach, who is well on the way to being the third, and you are welcome to both of them, and Gaylen, who seems just to enjoy discussing philosophy of which you obviously have considerable knowledge.

Okay, you force me to say it, the unbelievable ignorance and inflated pretense of qualification to evaluate posts and posters on material you have no clue about takes hubris to uncharted heights. Seek help.

[TRANSPONDER]

The story goes that a conductor was rehearsing the orchestra and dealing with volume, expression, phrasing and the Horn player said in response to a request the tune go This way: "I'm sorry, maestro. It can't be played that way."

"Is zat (1) so? Please pass me your instrument."and he played the tune as he wanted.

This was to show that musicians sometimes forget that a conductor also might be an expert of one or more instruments, but also (and this is the point of the parable) that someone 'trying it on' can expect to be made to look a fool or dishonest. Couldn't that horn player play it that way? He has no business in a symphony orchestra if he can't. Was he just being bloody - minded? It looks very much like it, and he deserved to be made to look a fool in front of everyone.

The musician was banking on the conductor not knowing enough to be able to refute him. And this is a very popular apologetic.

I recall a particular blatant attempt to play it by a politician being grilled by a newscaster "Excuse me sir, are you a lawyer?" snapped the politician.

This is a ploy often used by certificate -wavers, and is in fact a very Theist -think (as I showed politics uses it extensively, which is why it stinks) ploy.

Of course it SOUNDS right because - amusingly enough, theists themselves often get accused of not knowing what they are talking about. But Theism as usual seems to get the whole thing back to front. They effectively appeal to Authority - even when it's wrong. Because Newton or Einstein believed in a god (or sounded like it at least) does NOT mean that their views on Order in the universe or the book of Daniel is necessarily correct, never mind beyond challenge.

At the same time, they can dismiss the entire corpus of scientific knowledge as mere human opinion when it suits them. But while double standards is a fallacy to look out for, it isn't the subject here. It is that you don't have to be an expert to argue a point, but it helps.

One atheist poster of videos seems to have been Stung by a remark that 'Anyone can become an expert by looking stuff up on the Internet". He needn't have been, because nobody can be an expert in everything (just as no conductor could be a virtuoso in Every instrument) and thus a Phd in astrophysics may be utterly ignorant of Near eastern archaeology. In fact she or he would have to look stuff up on the internet like anyone else.

"Everything I said about Arq, is true based on his own expressed lack of knowledge".

My lack of knowledge is not really relevant as nobody knows everything and even in an area where they may be an expert (or at least have bought an authority -giving certificate from a creationist degree -mill) that doesn't not mean that someone without the expertise cannot debate effectively.

In fact in my previous job, I had to construct counter cases on all manner of subjects and the internet was invaluable in this. I learned very quickly that if a case can be made from understanding the basics from reading Wiki (and while it is not Authoritative, it is Very useful and further authoritative check can be made if needed) arguing the nano -details is often not necessary.

The basic fact that the nativity does not work is unaffected by dickering about when Herod actually died or why Josephus apparently has a High Priest reappointed. This is mere irrelevant detail and at best interesting background and at worst an attempt to muddy the waters, draw a red herring across the trail, confuse the issue and in fact try to win by cheating. Certificate -waving is also a cheat as in the water -muddying effect of Quantum -Woo where not knowing anything for sure is supposed to make Faith -claims look more credible.

It's all Bad argument, fallacy, Theist rhetorical apologetic cheating and dirty tricks. We should learn to look out for them and not be bamboozled by them.

(1)I don't know whether he was Austrian, French or Russian, they all say "Zat" anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You DO irrationally maintain that despite your lack of sufficient knowledge even to know what the real issues are. Your description of my view as that of "imperfect human perception" is a straw man version of my explanation of the many limitations of human perception that are not remotely controversial. My screen name is not waving my certificate. It is designed to convey my dual perspective and background of science and mindfulness. I have always presented the details of my knowledge with anyone who presented as knowledgeable and could sustain a conversation about the issues. I did not just wave my credentials.
I don't know where you get these ideas from, Arq. I do not credit the First Cause argument and I did not dismiss the burden of proof claim. Ockham's razor is NOT universally true so presenting an example where it might apply is irrelevant. The materialist default can NOT account for the phenomenon of consciousness and subjectivity. There is no separation between the philosophical definition of naturalism and science. I repeatedly said my certainty about the existence of God is based on my personal EXPERIENCE, not faith. I do not try to convince anyone to accept that.
I am uncertain exactly what you think is simple or what is the product of simplemindedness. You have always had difficulty separating my scientific views from my beliefs and my adoption of the Christ narrative as the ultimate expression of the spiritual fossil template because you do not believe there is a God influencing our minds. My experience tells me otherwise.
I apologize for any appearance of sneering or deprecation I might have demonstrated. You presented as a strident and dismissive adversary based on your "concrete" understanding of our reality. I did try to explain using analogies to what you did know but that backfired and I accept that I failed. I acknowledge that Gaylen is a truly gifted explainer and I am not. My universal field has not gone down any tube for any reason let alone animal consciousness. It has nothing to do with why animals are not as smart as we are. That is a non-sequitur. I always keep the science separate from my beliefs involving the Christ narrative and the spiritual template, something you seem loath to do. ::Sigh:: I have no idea how you determine what I tacitly admit or not. I have not revised my theory at any point, Arq. I have no clue what you mean by clumps or why you seek credit for it. The fact that you change your understanding of some aspect of it when I clarify something you misunderstood does NOT mean I revised it! I am saddened that you feel the need to vent about your perceived grievances but you simply need to stop pretending you have debunked anything about my Synthesis since you have no clue even what the real issues are.You have the relationship between my analogies and the science completely reversed. I do not use the science as analogy. I use analogy to what you CAN understand to illustrate principles operating in the science you do NOT understand. I can't believe you are using anonymous sources to impune my credibility, Arq, but I do understand that you feel you are unfairly represented by my dismissal of your "debunks." I have and will continue to engage with any scientist on the details and specifics of the science I use in my Synthesis. So far none have been able to "debunk" my knowledge though my extrapolations, of course, remain hypotheses. It is not faint praise. You have a fine mind and your efforts interpreting the Bible show real insight. I have never claimed that "divine revelation into the head" is more reliable than mere validated science. I don't know where you come up with these assertions, Arq. Your chronological and linear thinking regarding the spiritual fossil record is simply misguided. Our ancient ancestors organized their recordings by the significance of events, not their chronology.Okay, you force me to say it, the unbelievable ignorance and inflated pretense of qualification to evaluate posts and posters on material you have no clue about takes hubris to uncharted heights. Seek help.

I don't know old son whether I need respond to this mix of denial and evasion (1). In fact I have better things to do than debunk your Beliefs, because others can do so for themselves, and they are not a problem for atheism anyway.

So I'll just say that I am describing what has happened in discussion and if what I have said that you have said is wrong, you can easily explain here what your theory really says (or at least, says now). You have posted your synthesis (which is a lot of waffle -claims with little substance - as OTHERS have noted - not just me) but in later discussion there was an avoidance of explanation and just evasion, denial, sneering and claims of superior expertise and it took months or years of posts before I finally got an idea of what your theory actually was.

It wasn't that you couldn't explain well - you evaded doing so. You perhaps rely on me not being able to quote the posts to substantiate those points where I debunked your argument, but I am well aware of how you'd deny and wriggle even if I did. So I am simply going to leave my post as a list of debunkings to substantiate my claim. It puts you in the position of denial of the fact, not me.

And if anyone needs to seek help (that was a lowest of low blows old mate ), it is the one maintaining a crackpot hypothesis and engaging in self -delusion and attempts to bamboozle others. Eg. , your 'science' was claimed by you as science we all ought to understand, and denied that it wasn't. And eventually had to reluctantly admit it wasn't and THEN referred to it as an analogy of some other unknown science. This happened, despite your denial and evasion. It was clear to be seen and debunks you utterly. The claim that you haven't been debunked by any scientists is simply denial and the familiar forgetting that it happened and hoping everyone else has, and denying it anyway. Your wriggling is evident here. Whatever the exact science the 'analogy' science was indicting the scientist (or mathematician) posters who showed it was wrong (after you tried to present it as the science we all use) showed that the science it 'indicated' was not what non - scientists didn't know about - it was a science that existed only in your own head, and you didn't begin by saying 'this is an analogy' - you initially tried to deny it.

I'd hate to have a mind as leaky as that.

It is quite clearly the very familiar problem of starting with Godfaith and rummaging around for evidence to support it and fiddling it (like the science and logic and the evolution of religion and damn near every subject you reference) to make it fit. And you DID appeal to first cause in validating God as an a priori in an argument reversing burden of proof on atheism, and saying that infinite regression was absurd (so a first cause must be assumed). You DID that, and to deny it or pretend you said something else discredits you, not me. This is very basic stuff that you were getting wrong and to demand masters' degrees in it before you will accept that you are wrong discredits you, again and again.

(1) for just one example, even if it was true that your screen name is not intended to claim some kind of authority (it is at the very least ingenuous of you to pretend that you don't know how it looks) , it is beside the point. You wave your certificated expertise at me in efforts to buy the argument with authority. You're not the only one. We will recall the bod appealing to church fathers and Bible authorities when in fact his argument didn't work on the very basis (though he denied the wight of evidence in favour of hypothetical explanations out of thin air).

And I am not interested in apologies for a thousand example of sneering an mocking (remember "Snarl, snarl" and the headslaps? I do even if you don't) . It is what you do and will continue to do, and it is irrelevant other than as a ploy to try to intimidate people into accepting your claims without daring to argue. I'd have hated to be in your class.

Do I need to point out the sidestepping of the very simple validation of Occam's razor and instead making a plonking denialist claim refuted before it is made? Or is it perhaps some semantic trick (it doesn't come into the category of universal truths). All the usual wriggling and evasion dressed up in patronising lecturing.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pre p s. Ain't this fun, folks? I tried to find a vidclip of two huge, shaggy prehistoric beasts butting heads, but you will have to imagine it...

Despite saying I don't need to respond I find I do, because your rejoinders are so breathtakingly dishonest

"Your description of my view as that of "imperfect human perception" is a straw man version of my explanation of the many limitations of human perception that are not remotely controversial."

This is so blatantly an evasion of the point, a semantic cheat (saying the same thing in different words and pretending that makes them different) and your own strawman - I don't deny human imperfection and delusions. I accept them. I argue that the science method is designed to minimize that (1). Now, whether you accept that or not is not the point, it is that you blatantly misrepresented my point and then claimed that I misrepresented yours.

This is not something that was in a post months or years ago, but here, where everyone can see it. This again is very basic stuff that doesn't require a lot of expertise to see that you are doing it wrong.

and here:
"::Sigh:: I have no idea how you determine what I tacitly admit or not."

It ought to be clear (as they say) to the meanest intellect. That putting a theory, having an objection made and then changing the theory to overcome the objection, is 'tacit admission' that the objection was right. Again, (whether you accept the point or not) here is an example of you not so much being able to support your case, but not even being able to be honest.

Thus all your expertise is little more than a ploy to buy the argument with claimed authority, but it is at the basics level that anyone with a couple of brain -cells can see (if it is pointed out to them - your supercilious persiflage can camouflage that and I suspect is intended to) that you are wrong. Is it any wonder that your phd cuts no ice with me, nor after this exchange, I suspect, with anyone else.

"I am saddened that you feel the need to vent about your perceived grievances" This exhibition of martyred sainthood after you stomped on my face might have been passed over, but your sly attempt to represent my debunking you as invalid because I am supposedly filled with angry bias towards you, will by now fool nobody and just add to the list of debunks you have added here to the ones (that you deny) of the past.
As I said - I don't care, and I only cite them as an example of your rhetoric to try to win the argument by intimidation, not to try to play the injured martyr as you do.

(1) the point being in case your memory has let you down again, that because human knowledge is unreliable, divine revelation is to be taken as more reliable (Matrix's argument was that religious instinct evolved to enable humans to access divinely revealed truth because human instinct only ensured survival, it was not evolved to impart truth).

That of course cropped up again in the 'revelation' thread, and at least you don't deny that you said that.
It's a poor show when I have to explain your own theory to you after you had consistently avoided explaining it to me.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

The bold part.
It looks good in books but light years away from being pragmatic.

Yes, there are powerless, unfortunate and needy among us, who need more of our help on humanitarian grounds rather than this hot air from the mouth: "respect and love".

Otherwise, try diminishing all courts, all law enforcement and free all convicted killers, rapists, pedophiles, thugs and thieves from all prison facilities. And then use that " respect: a concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation. tool to see if you can fix it all?

And this is why this "love jazz" not always a synonym to God. God rewards on one hand but God could also "punish" and punish really bad. Where would you fit "loving God" in there? God is simply Just. You do good, he will do good to you. You do bad to others and be arrogant about it? well, tough poop!! There are consequences. This is how it works. Not only in theological realms but also in our own societies too.

It just doesn't work and it wont work with this jazz of love and love and respect and love and respect and love. There will ALWAYS be among us, who need stick rather than carrots- That's just the way humans are.

Let me repeat, this love jazz or "respect: a concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation" is piece of crock. It doesn't really work all the time.

Not to worry, I already knew you had not and would not think it through. Now IF any one person's benefit could actually BE considered in isolation, you might make sense, but you really ought to know better than that. Try to parse out what "consideration of the best interests of EVERYONE in any situation" actually means.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It's interesting compare this idea of respect or not with Nate's 'logic or not'. reference in a post or not.

Respect is a social convention based on human social instinct.

Logic is more of a law, like mathematics. Of course even with these changes are being made. I suggest myself that Tuo quoque fallacy is NOT a fallacy when used to counter a claim to the high moral ground. But, by and large you are either arguing logically or you are not.

The 'respect' thing isn't like logic. It is in fact a bit of a logical fallacy, very much part of the "Oh you are so wude, so I win the argument" argument. Yes, while someone who did not treat me with a certain respect is not someone I would want to marry my son or daughter or both, it does not of itself invalidate their argument, so it is a fallacy to try to use the 'respect' argument here to invalidate the arguments of the atheists' side.

I won't go into the playing of the 'respect' card in a more pernicious way by theism which, when you look at it, is all part of the efforts to shut atheism up, and that is the thin end of blasphemy law.

So while we may out of politeness concede a strictly correct point, in the way concession can be made in a job to "respect" the religious views of a person, or we may out of consideration for a person be a bit mild and accommodating in pointing op flaws in (for instance ) a cockamamie theist hypothesis, because we want to keep things sweet, it is NOT a right; it is a concession. It is effectively mercy over justice. Which is good, but is a abrogation of justice out of empathy for a fellow human, but it is NOT a right they can demand, much less a rhetorical trick to silence the opposition by pretending they are not having that Right respected.

Thus they cannot insist on it or take it for granted and indeed if they try to abuse it - like trying to shut atheists up by playing the 'you are so wude' (respect) card, they can expect to have the concession revoked, and get the full crutch -kicking that impartial justice and unveering adherence to the facts of the matter demands.

....

The reason it is a danger to society and a danger to others when a person or an ideology or a group takes the stance "respect is a crock" is because they give themselves license to mistreat others. The word "thug" comes to mind.

They see themselves outside the law. Because "respect is a crock" rather disturbingly indicates and encompasses no respect for the law either. As in the laws don't apply to them. As in anything goes. All manner of violence and atrocities become justified to the extremist.

It is the stuff of fanatics. And fanatics are dangerous. They are dangerous because they are irrational and extreme. Extremists and fanatics are disconnected from a healthy reality. They are missing healthy reality checks

[TRANSPONDER]

I can only speak for myself here, but what I see is an equivocation. Yes, atheists like everyone (I'd hope to include majjority religious people here) woud subscribe to treating people with respect.

But applying that to ideas, especially in the sense of not being free to raise criticism and objections to them, and most especially if they are claiming some sort of religious privilege under 'Respect', that is a crock.
Questioning and considering everything is freedom of speech and thought. Censoring it under the "respect" Act is second cousin to Blasphemy laws.

Free (and preferably amicable and respectful discussion - but that is an ideal we don't get in such an emotive area) examination of any claims and ideas is no threat to humanity or its' welfare - only to those idea that cannot stand up under scrutiny and have to be protected from question, if not by Blasphemy laws, then by the emotional blackmail of causing offence to the believers.

That is not conducive to human and social welfare, and should not be linked through equivocation to common human social empathy.

Originally Posted by nateswift

Not to worry, I already knew you had not and would not think it through. Now IF any one person's benefit could actually BE considered in isolation, you might make sense, but you really ought to know better than that. Try to parse out what "consideration of the best interests of EVERYONE in any situation" actually means.

We at least see where our mate is coming from. He has bitten the bullet and instead of the pink gooey God is love that is intended to gunge over the not very loving aspects and is little more than shutting the eyes, fingers in ears and humming "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam" He has opted for the "Big Boss" apologetic: "Ok, so God is tough and punishes the wicked (unless they belong to his band of special snowflakes, and they they are forgiven unless they have really gone off the rails and then they first need to do a bit of Public Repentance) and there's nothing you can do about it." option.

I'm very glad that I don't believe in either of the options.

[Tzaphkiel]

It's not about trying to shut anyone up or silence their voice or exclude them from contributing to discussion.

But their own behaviors can remove them and disqualify them from "rational discourse."

If a person wants their views to be taken seriously, then they seek to present and interact as a credible source. If they make wild irrational statements like "respect is a crock" or "all religion is false and insane beliefs" or "there is no free will" or "worst person on earth wasted lifetime" or "too dumb to understand my brilliance" then they consign themselves to the fanatic fringe.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The materialist default can NOT account for the phenomenon of consciousness and subjectivity.

This, as you know, is a point on which you and I mostly agree. Insofar as materialism defines the fundamental stuff of reality in terms of objectively measurable properties, it - for profoundly logical reasons - can never fully explain the subjective aspects of experience. I say that you and I "mostly" agree because I do allow for a somewhat broader conception of "physicalism" in which we can accept "dual-aspect theory" - allowing the subjective aspects of reality to be fundamental - i.e., "brute facts". But then you and I part company (I think?) when I insist (as implied by dual-aspect theory) that there are no subjective properties that are not subjective aspects of a physical system. Thus I reject any ontology that allows thoughts or feelings to float around that are not the subjective aspects of a physical system. Thoughts or feeling that are not the mental properties of a physical system would be "non-physical" and I'm basically saying that I do not believe in non-physical things (for lots of various reasons that I have tried to explain in lots of threads here in C-D).

In light of some recent posts about critical thinking, I'd like to take a moment to tie these ideas together.

Do people who believe in non-physical things necessarily expose themselves as lacking critical thinking skills? No! Personally, I don't think their arguments in favor of non-physical entities is as strong as my arguments against them, but this doesn't mean they are being completely illogical or uncritical.

Could I someday change my mind and accept the existence of non-physical entities or properties? Yes! But here is a crucial point: Unless they prove logically that there must be non-physical stuff, then I will probably never believe with certainty that that non-physical stuff exists. In other words, I might someday come to believe that non-physical stuff exists, but I probably won't believe it with certainty - unless, of course, my conversion was based on a realization that the existence of non-physical stuff is logically provable. I'm elaborating on this point because I want to relate all of this to my #1 criteria for critical thinking (see post #2626). I currently feel with high confidence that non-physical entities do not exist, but I'm still open to arguments and evidence. I could still change my mind.

Can I be certain about my belief in the subjective aspects of reality? Yes, but certain subtle distinctions are required: I mostly accept Descartes' proof (concluding with "I think, therefore I am") because of a logical issue: For self-referential reasons, the thought "I don't exist" is, in itself, proof that the thought exists and thus the claim "I don't exist" is logically self-refuting. (There's a bit of wiggle room concerning the nature of the "I", but I'll skip over that for the sake of brevity.) So I feel certain that the contents of my immediate experience exist, and I feel certain that they are in some sense "mine". But the concept of subjectivity implies that these immediate experiences are only "mine". Here things get a bit more messy, and that is how Arq and others (E.g., "eliminative materialists" like Daniel Dennett, Paul Churchland, etc.) can claim that materialism is still a logical possibility. I believe with 99.999% certainty that materialism is wrong, but I have not yet been able to prove, with certainty, that materialism is logically impossible, so I can't say, with certainty, that I will never become a materialist.