RootsBooster Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Did I not post yesterday that the difference between Teeny and me was that she disbelieves 2499 religions and I disbelieve 2500? If so, I've either lost that post, or it was removed for some reason. I think it's quite a funny joke, and thought provoking in a small way. Post #70, old chap. It's not that early, wake up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Just to add, I am all for secularist if it paints the picture as you mention- but show me where this has worked. It's working right here right now, where you've got an atheist arguing with a muslim in a nominally christian country where neither of them have to live in fear of persecution by the state for airing their views. If we were in a country dominated by one religion this type of discourse would not be the norm. Look at the gulf states, or India if you want a non muslim example, which at the moment is being taken over by the Hindu taliban who are riding roughshod over India's longstanding secularism. If I were in Bangladesh and said the things I do online I might well get beaten to death by some of your coreligionists, and the police would hardly bother to investigate. All religious people want secularism when they're in the minority, unless they're idiots, because otherwise they're screwed. Also, there's your answer as to why atheists tend to want secularism, because we're minorities everywhere. ---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 15:25 ---------- Also, when we see the world exclusively through the lens of rationality; it's like going for a walk in the countryside, but never looking up from the map which shows the path you are walking on. I tend to go more with the douglas Adams quote: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" I can rationally enjoy all the beautiful things I experience in the world. Just because I can't explain them all fully doesn't mean they're magic. Also, I'm reminded of a story told by Richard Feynman, who would strongly disagree with you and call you 'nutty'. “I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.” Edited December 10, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Hmm, his travel plans seem to have been curtailed as a result of his cunning plan with both Jordan and Israel saying thanks but no thanks to a visit. When Bibi Netanyahu is saying your policies are a bit harsh on the muslims, you probably want to have another look at them lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Hopefully bringing us closer to true secularism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christian-country-and-should-stop-acting-as-if-it-is-says-judge.html? Feeling brave this eve sb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I tend to go more with the douglas Adams quote: Good for you! "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" That would be a straw-man my friend. I never talked about any requirement to believe things. I can rationally enjoy all the beautiful things I experience in the world. Just because I can't explain them all fully doesn't mean they're magic. What is this magic you're talking about? I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Also, I'm reminded of a story told by Richard Feynman, who would strongly disagree with you and call you 'nutty'. Would he? I'm not so sure. However, were that it true, that he would; are you making an appeal to authority? Are you saying, because some famous dude would think I'm 'nutty' that that in itself discredits my statement; without any need for you to try and discredit it through debate? Keep at it though, maybe you'll get a full set! “I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.” Yes yes yes. His position is entirely understandable; if he want's to turn up here in person to debate this text with me; I'm happy to debate it with him (assuming he's still living?). As this is not something you've wrote yourself Jimmy, I won't debate it with you. I'd rather debate your own original thoughts and material, with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) That would be a straw-man my friend. I never talked about any requirement to believe things.Not really, more a counter to your 'taking a walk and never gazing up from the map' thing. I thought both of them were nice illustrative ways of articulating opposing alternative viewpoints. Both of them are equally built on straw though. You said that rationalism is reductive, to the point where one's experience of the world through a rationalistic lens might as well be the same as looking at a map. Which is of course nonsense. Would he? I'm not so sure. However, were that it true, that he would; are you making an appeal to authority? Let me stop you there, because no I absolutely am not. I just liked the thought of it. As this is not something you've wrote yourself Jimmy, I won't debate it with you. I'd rather debate your own original thoughts and material, with you.My own original thoughts are pretty much exactly the same as those articulated in that story, he put it a lot better than I could, that's why I quoted him. That story came to mind as I was composing my response and was better than what I'd come up with. He is dead though, so if you really are only willing to ever discuss those words with their author (a bizarre position if you ask me) then you're in trouble. Edited December 10, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 My own original thoughts are pretty much exactly the same as those articulated in that story, he put it a lot better than I could, that's why I quoted him. That story came to mind as I was composing my response and was better than what I'd come up with. He is dead though, so if you really are only willing to ever discuss those words with their author (a bizarre position if you ask me) then you're in trouble. Yep. I googled and noticed he's dead. It's just that; I'd much prefer for you (or anyone else) to articulate your own unique perspective, in your own words. It just feels a whole lot more honest and genuine; even if we don't see eye to eye (which is perfectly fine). You said that rationalism is reductive, to the point where one's experience of the world through a rationalistic lens might as well be the same as looking at a map. Which is of course nonsense. You're paraphrasing of course; but I don't think it's a million miles away from how I see things. As I see it... There is nothing to stop a person being rational, AND, experiencing beauty. It's not one or the other; people are not artists or scientists; people are people and we have different ways in which we process the make sense of the world around us. Rationalism is the domain of science. It is using our minds in a certain way; naming and categorising everything, logical deduction, extrapolation, working things out. It is one particular way of using our minds, and it's a really good thing. However; in my experience, it's not the full picture (of a person). Somethings cannot be rendered down, reduced to words. For example; do you love your mom? Can you give a rational answer to that question? Maybe you can explain it in terms that describe the physical process of your being, atoms doing their thing etc, but that explanation won't really get in to the experiential nitty gritty of the feeling. It's just like a dry photo-copy of it. By the way, just because I'm saying there's more to people than what we can know through the rational lens / process; that doesn't mean I condone religion filling that void. That's a whole other ball game; and (as I see it) there's a lot wrong with religion; which I could go on and on with. It seems somewhat dishonest and not genuine; a person should speak their own (understanding of) reality; rather than just parrot someone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Post #70, old chap. It's not that early, wake up! Must have been short on coffee, couldn't find it! ---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 20:53 ---------- We could certainly talk rationally about love, about why it exists in an evolutionary sense, about what it achieves in a social sense, about how it works in the brain in a chemical sense. Ultimately it's a question with a simple and subjective answer though, to simply answer the question doesn't require an in depth understanding of brain chemistry or why we are social animals. But so what? Rationality is about explaining things, not experiencing them, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Britain is a Christian country. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/01/church-of-england-collapse-strengthens-the-case-for-a-secular-uk http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/01/bishop-ball--questions-for-lord-carey ---------- Post added 22-01-2016 at 05:01 ---------- ...but sadly absolute power corrupts ! You must believe that your god must be absolutely corrupt! ---------- Post added 22-01-2016 at 05:08 ---------- .......Sorry but prayer can change things! it can change the heart!.......people have a mind of their own and will carry on regardless! but the heart is different!......it's where love springs from, otherwise known as God,but the mind has a weak defense and can let in the devil otherwise known as the other side of the coin to love! Hearts play football in Scotland or pump blood. Nothing more. Edited January 22, 2016 by redwhine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Even America- would you call that 'united'. It reeks of racism. If the unpleasant smell of racism bothers you then the secular countries of the world are much better places to live than those where religion remains a dominant force. See here. Religions preach all sorts of discrimination and uses threat to coerce people into compliance. Secularism preaches nothing, cannot be misinterpreted and does not coerce people into holding a particular view or behaving in a certain way. Secularism encourages free thought and religions discourages it. Religions suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts