There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

«‹›6 »

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

D1Sergo posted:

Religious people have a lot in common with Anime fans. They get together each week to hear tales of heroes and villains and to discuss how those stories relate to their lives, they are inspired by their fandom to create art and literature exalting those stories and characters, and people find strength from being engaged with those stories and those communities that share those stories. Fascinatingly similar, religion and Anime.

That's actually a really good metaphor considering the point BrandorKP just brought up. Kyrie, troll or not, is the fan obsessed with canon, creating wired structures and performing mental gymnastics to trying to bring their stories into 'real life', whereas brandor is saying that subtext actually matters more.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 17:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 12:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

America isn't a judeo-christian nation, and in fact, states that are based on religion tend to be really loving lovely.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 03:37

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

CommieGIR posted:

....yeaaaaaaaahhhhh, I don't think you REALLY understand Humanism and the purpose of the FFRF other than classifying 'Stop picking on God unless you are willing to also go after what I view as false idols'

Brandor is right: 'reason' functions to these atheists in exactly the same way as 'god' does to a canonical thiest. Forget about metaphysical arguments for the moment, how is the word 'god' used by a canonical (or maybe stereotypical) believer? It's a signifier not of an external entity, but something inside the believers' head. "This offends god" should just be read as "this offends me". "God does not approve" = "I do not approve". The external nature of 'god' is simply a projection of the believers' own ideas onto reality, hence why proof or disproof of it's existence isn't necessary. A Believer is able to maintain a psychological distance from their own ideas of reality, a 'simple observer' of themselves. That's an amazing device to deflect criticism, you essentially get to act humble even when maintaining your own superiority.

That's basically what kyrie has been doing the entire thread, you may have noticed! The humility he expresses is a farce in the face of the firm belief that all the people He Likes will do well, and all the Nations He Likes are in no trouble at all (And any problems they may have are simply because they simply didn't reflect his own beliefs). That is, history obeys his whims and not it's own laws, indifferent to every 1 of the 7 billion people which inhabit it.

Thing is, the same logic works if you replace 'god' with 'reason', or 'markets'. "We must spread Reason in society" is functionally identical to "We must spread God in society" in the speaker's mind. What is being referred to is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with anything outside the speaker's own head.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 19, 2014

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 17:43

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I define myself to be right, ergo i am right :rolleyes:

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 16:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Anything that acts with a purpose can be judged, morally. The demand to not judge a fictional God on the basis of morality is essentially admitting that you can't defend their actions, so you have to retreat to absurdities. "Well, you see, it's above morality/logic/whatever. What does 'above' mean here? Oh, don't worry about that, all you have to know is that your objections aren't valid, because I said they aren't."

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 18:57

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

But that's an absurd objection, even fictional characters can be judged! You use your imagination, or more formally, you just suppose for the sake of argument. How is that controversial?

Like, I don't even know fully how to respond to this. Are you seriously taking issue with the simple process of taking a supposition?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 21, 2014

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 19:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

And Sakarja, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you or whatever, but just to return to your objection, you bring up the idea of having a 'right and standard' to judge. Do you understand that that's not actually an intellectual defense? The idea of a 'right to judge' isn't an intellectual idea, it's a political idea. The reality of the 'divine right of kinds' wasn't that kings couldn't theoretically be judged, but that they didn't want to be, so they made up this idea that they were 'above' judgement. It doesn't actually hold water intellectually, it's a pure expression of political power: Actually Exiting Doublethink (a la 1984), if you want to put it like that.

Do you understand, then, how it's really troubling to mount that as a defense? Because, in order to accept your argument, your opponent must relinquish their 'right' to independent thought and morality. That, to me, is really hosed up.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 21, 2014

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 19:39

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

So I noticed you carefully dropped your 'fake' objection entirely, and rolled it into your 'rights' objection. That is, as I take it, this objection:

Sakarja posted:

or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even.

Is no longer valid, correct? Okay, good.

Now if you want me to give you a full understanding of what an intellectual objection is, I'm afraid I can't. But there's no need for this socratic bullshit: you know what it is. In any other situation, anyone with a brain would notice. "You're too arrogant to question!" Is not an objection based on fact, it is a transparent attempt to dodge the issue. By making the demand for me not to judge, you are demanding that I give up my 'right' to independent thought and independent morality. That demand cannot logically provide evidence, it cannot substantiate anything, it is a thought-terminating cliche.

Every human being, as a subjective entity, has a morality and can therefore judge. To deny a person this is to turn them from a thinking, feeling subject, into an inanimate object. To not judge 'god' is to be lobotomized when it comes to discussions of 'god'.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 21, 2014

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 21:58

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

The idea that you need a 'right' to question or judge something is what is itself broken, I thought I made that clear. It's literal thought control. Do you understand how disturbing the idea is free thought can be denied because of 'rights'?

Like, every subject is going to have their own subjectivity. Different subjectivities can clash, that's normal. There are no categorical differences between them and, wait for it, there doesn't have to be. We, as members of a society, can communally enforce our common subjectivity between us and call it 'law'. That's it, there's nothing other than that, there's no such thing as a 'super subjectivity' that trumps others, because a subject only cares about their own subjectivity. My 'right' to free thought does not have to be granted to me, it is not some kind of commodity or property. Every single thinking subject must make their own judgements, in order to be a subject and not an object. So, nothing is 'above' judgement, not Kings and not God.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Nov 22, 2014

# ¿ Nov 22, 2014 07:59

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

You don't need a position to judge. Positions are necessary for a judgement to be respected by a group of people, but again, that's political. As a subject, each person has the capability to reach their own judgements - no 'position' required. Like, you brought up this line of conversation because you said you didn't like how atheists discuss the issue: why is a position is necessary for that? And why does whatever you're judging have to be 'accountable'? In discussions on countries here on Something Awful, nothing said on this forum will ever Bring Any Country Into Account. Are those discussion 'invalid'? And mate, everyone has a standard. Everyone judges everything else by their own standard. You can disagree with someone else's standard, but you can't very well deny that they have one.

To demand that you need A Right to judge, A Position to judge, and the ability to bring whatever you're judging to Account is honestly really dystopian: you're denying people their own perspectives and subjectivity simply because they lack power. That's tyranny apologia right there. And I think this brings me to something I've always thought, that religion has always been a metaphor for society. So societies with rigid hierarchies have that same hierarchy embedded into their religion. So the idea that God is unaccountable is functionally a mechanism for social control. It's a mental device to justify tyranny.

So I say, gently caress that poo poo. If god exists and is a fascist, then it's necessary to murder god. I say that both because I mean it, and that it applies to the metaphorical God as much as the metaphysical one: 'God' as metaphor, as an ideological instrument of justifying dictatorship, must be rended limb from limb, so that it can never be put back together again.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Nov 23, 2014

# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 05:18

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

I have no 'position' relative to you, I cannot force your or bring you to account over any reply you make. But okay, you acknowledge that it's not necessary to 'bring to account' to judge. You even admit that it's possible to form an opinion, a judgement even, without needing a 'right'. Just to remind you here, here is your original post on the subject:

Sakarja posted:

I disagree. Most of the time the problem is that atheists judge God as if He was at once real and fake. They acknowledge His "crimes" but ignore everything else. This approach is obviously absurd. Either you acknowledge God's existence, in which case you have no right and no standard by wich to judge Him; or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even.

So if it's possible to come to a judgement without a 'right' being granted, how is that a valid objection to any atheist argument? Doesn't your argument become a total non sequitur? In the case of 'standards', you even acknowledge that everyone has a standard to judge, but do you understand why I brought up that everyone has a standard? Because that's the standard you can use to judge God. But you, again, commit special pleading for a special category. That does not logically follow. It's another non sequitur.

See, you complain about not finding any common ground, but here's my viewpoint. You say you need a 'right' and (special) 'standard' to judge. I make my responses. Your response to those responses is to just to steadfastly restate that a 'right' and (special) 'standard' is needed to judge. Does that sound convincing to you?

And I'm not even sure what you actually want here. You misinterpret my little musing as some kind of foundation stone of my argument here: it's not, I'm presupposing that what religious people say about god is true for the sake of this argument, 'god as metaphor' is a personal tangent - exposition for 'flavor' if you like. But why would you make the interpretation you did? I've already stated my case, repeatedly. Where's yours?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 25, 2014

# ¿ Nov 24, 2014 02:39

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Nintendo Kid posted:

Just wondering but what would people consider believing that say the Christian god exists but is inaccurately described? Because a whole bunch of people seem to believe no gods exist because, say, the Christian god would be evil if it existed. As if actually being what the people who wanted you to believe in it said it is is required to exist.

I don't think anyone is saying that though, that evil implies non-existence. Though some people believe the equally absurd converse, that existence is guaranteed because of goodness or some such other bullshit, but again, I don't think anyone itt would take that seriously.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 24, 2014

# ¿ Nov 24, 2014 02:45

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

You interpret me-saying-you-saying it was literally impossible to say 'god is evil', but that's wrong: people can, of course, say something illogical, yet logic is still a valid objection. Why? Because, presumably, human beings value logic. There was a mistake in the formation of their own values onto a judgment. But you admit that a 'right' is not necessary for the formation of a judgment: that's more than just saying that 'people can say wrong things', because that lack of a necessity applies to the right judgments as well, ones that are consistent with their own standards (you'd have to argue that needing a 'right' is a human standard, which as I've made it clear with tyranny-talk, it's not, it's in fact inhuman to demand a right).

So if it's not needed in the formation of a judgment, then where is a 'right' needed? (That's not a rhetorical question btw, and neither were the ones in your second quote of me).

As with standards, the onus is on you to show how 'god' logically must have different standards applied to it, the onus is not on me to agree that god is needing special treatment. That's what special pleading is, it's not some obscure rule of Debate Club or whatever, it's you not showing your working.

And as I said before, I'm assuming a theist god for the sake of this discussion.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 25, 2014

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 02:34

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

Talking about 'salvation' is really dodgy (and even the christian idea of salvation is iffy), but it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else, right?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Nov 25, 2014

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 17:09

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Language is arbitrary, the definition of 'grass' is arbitrary, the exact boundaries of forums poster Miltank is arbitrary (your bodies' cells do continuously replace themselves after all). I think when most people talk about nature, they just mean something not man-made, so it exists in as much as any other category exists.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 17:19

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BrandorKP posted:

But you're assuming that that alternative must also be grounded in faith, and that seems kind of misguided. It is possible to be irreligious and retain 'faith', but your claiming it is necessary - I don't agree with that.

In an abstract sense, no action is rational or can be justified without some kind of trust, sure, but as people in a context of 'the world', we are compelled to act. No action can be rationalized without some kind of trust, but they need not be committed with rationalization: you do, or you die. You don't have 'faith' in pragmatism, either it works and you're fine, or it doesn't and you're screwed. Parsimony, follows then from pragmatism: you go with that's simpler, because it's the only game in town. If in general the more complex case is more likely to be true, you can't get anywhere because you have no way to navigate between competing complexities.

Now of course the mistake here is to treat Reason etc as just another kind of entity, so then Does God Exist -> transforms to -> Do Numbers Exist. You're right that the logic of faith is similar, but I don't think that that logic must always apply.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 25, 2014

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 18:56

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

Do you understand why I'm asking you questions? It's because I'm trying to get you to make your case, make an argument that we can talk about, rather than just have it as 'you need a right' ie- claim and counter-claim. Okay, if you dispute an assumption, if you think it's loaded, then dispute it, but make your case. It's not enough to say "you're misinterpreting me", and then be silent as to the point behind the questions. Where exactly is a 'right' necessary in the logic of a 'judgement'? Is that abstract enough to answer, and if not, why not?

And I'm not going to make your case for you on, for example, standards. If you believe that omniscience and omnipotence must necessarily imply a special standard of moral judgement, you must say why. It does not logically follow that omni-whatever gives you a free pass on moral judgment, any more than being blue or tall, or it at least does not immediately follow. You must fill in the gaps, if they can be filled.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Nov 26, 2014

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 11:49

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Honestly this exchange of Being Offended that god is insulted or whatever is very strange, considering that most theism (by its own admission) bases itself purely on faith. "The Being I believe in without evidence and that I don't really don't necessarily have to believe in to think or do anything, will gently caress YOU UP BOY if you call it a bitch". It's not enough to posit, abstractly, it's existence or history or whatever. You have to, as an act of faith, believe in it the agency of an organized crime boss.

This is what I have faith in! This is what is sacred to me! I, as an act of pure faith, devote myself to something that I can never be sure exists, but that I'm pretty sure acts just like that disturbed kid who burns ants with magnifying glasses. How romantic, to have that devotion! Oh, the drama!

rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Nov 26, 2014

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 12:22

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

So to review, you believe a judgement requires a 'law' between the two subjects (judge and defendant), and as the the arbiter of the 'ultimate law', you can't judge 'god'. Correct? There are two problems I have with that. The first problem I'm having, as you guess, is I think you're metaphysicalizing law (or 'gods law' or whatever) as a 'thing' that exists in the universe. I cannot accept that, not at face value at least. Values and judgements exists from the perspective of a subject, they are not an object in the universe. 'Law' is an agreement between subjects, but again does not exist as an object. The second problem is the way you're treating this law: it automatically supersedes any other law. It is an 'ultimate' law right? But I can't interpret that as anything other than you're own judgement. You (and supposing god) believe in it's 'ultimate' nature, but what does that matter to anyone else?

But okay, you believe both of these to be so. An argument takes premises, and results in a conclusion. Construct an argument, with premises of that are purely descriptive, that result in a normative conclusion. If this 'ultimate law' is truly an object, this should be possible. If, on the other hand, it's not possible, then that would bring into question your objection, no?

Your talk on standards again is similar: law as object, god creates all objects, so has control. But what follows is a little different, so I'll take it on its own terms: Criticism of god on the subject's own terms use their own understanding, if you believe that understanding is incorrect (angry sky man as opposed to god) then by all means, talk about that understanding on a case by case basis. But that does not imply a lack of standards. Secondly, as for the strange nature, I'm not really seeing how 'evil' and 'laziness' conflict. Though I suppose something that seeks evil at every turn cannot be lazy, I still think it's valid to call something evil based on its actions without worrying about the, uh, lost opportunity costs of pure evil.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2014 08:06

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Guys, BrandorKP is a good poster, but if you don't like him then don't just hurl abuse or whatever, that's dumb. At the very least, kyrie's thinking is way more questionable than brandor's.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2014 14:08

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

But see, I don't think it's not my, uh, individualistic atheism that therefore results in myself rejecting objective law. I'm not really sure where the 'individualism' comes into play (as opposed to collectivism, or...?), but you could still conceivably believe in a diety, even an omnipotent and omniscient one, without having to grant it some power to dictate an objective morality. A double-omni-mitt-romney could no more make a morality objective than make 2+2=5. That little challenge to construct a normative argument from descriptive assumptions was basically a reference to hume's is-ought problem. Because, here's the catch, Even if you prove that god is real, and that he's always going to be a self-appointed judge, you can't prove that any agent should morally follow those laws: that following those laws must be good. "God will gently caress you up if you don't follow them", if you could prove that, proves that god has power, but that's not the same as goodness.

And I seriously encourage you to try, to try and construct that prescriptive conclusion from descriptive premises, because your failure will be enlightening. I honestly think it should be something everyone tries at least once. You'll see what I mean when I say that goodness cannot exist without a subjectivity. But if you don't believe me then by all means try. Will make good fodder at the very least.

Now if you think god presented is a strawman, than that's kind of something that has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Well if that's your experience then so be it, but it's obviously not a universal objection to discussion of god being evil. However I'll totally grant you the possibility of a straw-god in these kind of arguments but, of course, I believe an informed debate is possible.

And the objection on apathy: Well I totally grant you than a being whose values are what we would called 'absolute evil', that actively seeks evil, could never be apathetic, but I don't think it's necessary to go that far to call something 'evil', it just has to be worse relative to whatever we hold as the limit of acceptable. So it may value committing what we would call evil in some cases, but not in others. I guess it's more of a question of magnitude, if you want to think of it like that.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2014 11:42

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

Well when we talk about objective morality, we don't simply mean taking a morality and simply calling it 'objective', nor can we really say that because one morality is able of being enforced by brute strength over another, the the former is 'objective'. Not without assuming that might makes right, which is itself a moral position. No, you saying that ultimately all acts must be judged by this ultimate morality, and that that is inescapable. It's not adequate enough to say (as I have) that it is simply the subjective morality of the 'god' subject, supposing it exists, and therefore it is valid to reject it. Otherwise, what's the point, right? But the only way that's possible is if the the 'ultimate morality' is descriptive, that certain acts must logically be 'wrong' or 'bad', and that is the domain of objective logic. So I totally say that Hume's law still applies here, and the status of 'creator' grants no ability to disregard that. I cannot 'create' a mathematics that has 2+2 = 5 without violating the previous understandings of '2', addition and '5'. Similarly, creating an subject does not mean that you can call your own subjectivity 'objective', because that would violate what it for something to be 'subjective' or 'objective'.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2014 12:10

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

But it's not explicitly a 'modern secular' view though. Like, you seem to believe that the is-ought is simply a kind of rule of debate, which we stick to out of courtesy or whatever, or because you believe in a certain viewpoint. It's not, it's more profound than that, it's a truth about the world outside your own head. Just as 'it is cloudy before it rains, it rained -> it was cloudy' must be true if its assumptions are true, you cannot simply escape hume's law by assuming it's just about debate. It's result is saying that a prescription cannot be true without assuming another prescription is true.

There is no final truth, or 'essence' of morality, which you can start from. You're only going to end up with an endless chain of prescriptions. "Why should I follow god's law" "Because it is the ultimate morality" "why is it ultimate morality" "Because he created anything" "Why should being a creator matter" etc, etc. You can't end that chain, there is no logical way to prove that you must do something - there is no objective morality. The instance you accept a prescription as a 'valid starting point' of the logical chain, is the instance you assume a subjectivity. That you, personally, think that the created must obey its creator (if the creator is all-powerful) is your starting point, of your subjectivity.

When people debate about morality, it's always assuming a common understanding, a common set of standards, which you can refer to. But there is nothing mythical about those standards, nor about that commonality, all it means is that a debate can take place.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 08:39

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

This really is the essence of the objection. I think people care about this more than any "lack of proof" issue with God.

The thread went to 'god is immoral' because you didn't care about proof of existence: you explicitly rejected comparisons to the Spaghetti Monster because 'more people believed in god'. How could anyone have a serious debate on existence if that is what you think, that existence is based on popular opinion? How could informed debate occur if you thought that non-sequitur was in any way valid?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Dec 1, 2014

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 08:40

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

steinrokkan posted:

I don't think you actually understand what point the FSM is trying to show: it's not about irrelevant particularities, it's about justified belief & truth. Arguments for god have been attempted on these grounds - all have failed.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Dec 1, 2014

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 09:08

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

steinrokkan posted:

Explain how any of this is relevant to the question of existence.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 1, 2014

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 09:34

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

steinrokkan posted:

Nothing you have said has been a substantive response to the questions you have been asked, nor relevant to that original quote you have of me. I do not believe you have understood my or other parties' replies.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 14:26

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

Well I'm not an expert on hume either, but I cannot accept this framing it as something simply about conversations or debate, as you steadfastly do. The little syllogism wasn't meant to patronize, as to analogize. The point was the it wasn't 'just' a statement about debating or 'reasonable conversation', but about truth or knowledge: if this is true, then this also must be true. The inability to create an objective morality is similar. All we have let are subjects.

Now your objection to this was that this contradicts what I said I'd done earlier, which was to assume a theist god. Why should these constraints apply to a double-omni god? Isn't that unfair? Nope, because it's not about 'power'. An all powerful god could not make 2+2=5, because that demand itself is not well defined! You may as well ask if god can widget-gibble-the-gunt-nazzle, it makes just as much sense, it's not internally consist. So even an all powerful god couldn't make an objective morality, because it just can't be done: the demand does not make sense in the face of the gap. That many theists demand that he could doesn't mean anything to me, even their god would be unable to do what they demand of him.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 06:11

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The most important words ever written in human history would have been the first words, because from them came writing itself (so probably some sumerian poem or whatever). But even if you use 'influence' as a standard of important, there's are way more important texts for the creation of the modern world - euclid's elements, decartes' discourse, artistotles ethics, etc. By contrast, there's nothing really 'Christian' about the modern world any more than there simply being a lot of christians - if they were zoroastrian instead of christian, would anything important have changed?

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Dec 2, 2014

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 10:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

Of course, Descartes was himself a very religious person, but that's not relevant. There are many great thinkers in any religion you care to look at, would they be dumber if they followed another religion? I doubt it, and I'd hardly call the modern world a creation of christianity. It's the result of changes in modes of production, advancements in knowledge and philosophy, etc. Christianity is just a religion, it's not 'responsible' for any of that. Advancement of science and philosophy, however, now that's different. You can't have any of what we know without it, hence stuff like elements is actually much more influential. More people read the bible, and more people may even claim the bible is 'the most important', but it as a text just isn't that important.

Now you of course believe the opposite, that christianity alone is uniquely gifted or whatever, but this belief does not survive contact with reality. Greatness doesn't correlate with religion, the ancient greeks were not hamstrung by their lack of christianity, they in fact achieved great things in their time. China remained the most advanced nation in history, without any monotheistic religion, for a very long time. What gods any of them prayed to ultimately never mattered. It's material conditions that dominates history, claims of the Unique Awesomeness of X Religion are just ways to make yourself feel better.

Rodatose posted:

I can't read this as anything but the inverse or what kyrie has been saying, and it's wrong for the same reasons.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 2, 2014

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 12:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Ahh, so this is the payoff. I was wondering why you bothered to create this thread, but now I see. Act stubbornly, refuse to engage honestly, and then claim the moral high ground when your opponents get frustrated. Yes kyrie, clearly you're the better party here, replies like this:

Kyrie eleison posted:

Allow me to cut through the confusion once again.

Do not try to prove the existence of the deity, or claim that belief in him is rational, or empirical. One interacts with Him only through the spiritual. Any other attempt at discovering him borders on blasphemy. His presence is observed through spiritual experience, and is obvious to people whose hearts are open to the spiritual. Those who do not experience the deity have had their hearts hardened by Him, and should pray that he reveal Himself to them.

Do not doubt the deity's will, and do not judge Him. Do not try to claim that His will merely aligns with what is good, as if to suggest that good is something outside the deity. The deity is goodness itself. There is no separation. Anything the deity does is good by definition.

If you willingly contest the deity, then you display foolish hubris, and commit mortal sin, and invite his full punishment.

Is this acceptably clear?

are totally rational arguments that do not invite mocking, ant not at all arrogant and hubristic calls for anti-intellectualism in a debate subforum.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 04:43

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

It's not a call for anti-intellectualism, it's explaining to you the proper conception of the deity. I understand it might not be a view you are familiar with, or comfortable with, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Seriously arguing that 'the proper conception of a diety' is immune to critical examination or intellectual debate is literal anti-intellectualism. It's hand-waving away objections because you know you can't reason against them on their own terms.

I mean, if you deny debate or discussion on the topic of god as valid (blasphemous, even), then what's the point of a DnD thread? What is there to debate or discuss?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:01

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

I didn't argue either of those things? I said you can't prove His existence through reason or empiricism, and that all attempts were futile and missing the point. I am still very much interested in discussing the nature of the deity, particularly w/r/t traditional Christian teaching. I don't think anything I have said would suggest otherwise, rather, it's very clear I am interested in discussing it intellectually from my posts in this thread.

But that's what anti-intellectualism is! If your own belief on something that exists outside of your head is, by your own admission, based on nothing but how you feel about it, then you're denying reason entirely. What is there to intellectually argue or discuss? You're contradicting even your own stated goal here: if god is 'discovered' through how you feel, then what is the point of discussions about nature? Either you 'feel' it's nature or you don't! After all, 'one interacts only spiritually', right?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:20

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

Oh, so your gambit is to define all spiritualism as "anti-intellectualism." Yeah... very intellectual.

You were the one who said that reason and empiricism weren't useful, that the only interaction is spiritual. You yourself excluded rational or empirical claims from spirituality. You painted yourself into a corner, and now your desperately trying to claw your way out.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

From claims of proof of the existence of the deity, yes. Reason is upheld strongly by the Church. (You can't say the same about post-modern philosophy, by the way). And it is also said that having faith is "rational". But reason is not the way to prove the existence of God. That God exists is taken for granted by those who feel His presence.

But that's not 'intellectual'! If you think it's just a matter of feeling/'not-feeling, then what purpose does debate serve? None! You keep dodging the objection, pretending it never happened isn't going to work here. You can't redefine 'faith' as rational to get out of it either.

That you think this response is germane demonstrates that you are incapable of mounting a good defense. That you think you've been able to make anyone else but yourself look the fool is laughable. You're not doing a great job defending Christianity here, mate.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Dec 8, 2014

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 06:28

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie, please quote which of your arguments here are 'competent' defense of of your own beliefs, so that they can be exposed as the bullshit non-sequiturs you usually resort to.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 06:33

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Zodium posted:

I don't think either thread has much to do with anything else outside of D&D, let alone society as whole. Kyrie participated in the problematic thread and created this thread for basically the same reason: he's a stubborn ideologue 'waging a war'. Same with Miltank, who's basically just here to cheerlead. But 'the war' doesn't exist outside of SA, and there's no real battlefield - in spite of how thoroughly kyrie has been owned, nothing can compel him to change his closed mind. There's no 'battle' to be won in an environment where you can't force anyone to do anything.

edit: like I'd be extremely suspicious of anyone arguing that society is becoming more polarized (let alone if they base it on posts on the debate and discussion subforum of a comedy website), simply because that's not really how opinions get distributed. It should follow a normal distribution, like everything else, so when it shifts the center must shift. Of course any one side is going to want to trump up the number of people who believe in it's letter or spirit. Or you may get people who follow marginal beliefs that were once popular, but which society has moved on from, making a lot of noise because they lose the validation that comes with majority support. So on whatever issue you look at, you're always going to get a perception of polarization regardless of whether or not that's the case.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 8, 2014

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 14:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Torka posted:

It's possible. I grew up in a religious vacuum with parents who never really spoke with me about the issue either way, and in a secular country with no noticeable religious presence in public schooling, so I was atheist by default rather than as the result of an active decision.

It's not that I believe I don't have a spiritual side, in fact I would characterise myself as having intense spiritual needs, it's just that I can't see any way to satisfy them in reality as is without dishonesty. Every way I observe other people try to seems either totally subjective ("I create my own meaning") and therefore frivolous, or beautiful and satisfying but implausible (Christianity).

It's harder for me to empathise with fellow atheists who think atheism is good news than with believers. I yearn for it to be true; the idea of a thoughtful atheist who has never wept for the nonexistence of God is very difficult for me to understand.

You want a objective meaning to be true. Why? Why does it have to exist? You know it cannot exist. But you don't need an objective meaning to give your own life and actions meaning. An objective meaning, even if it were to exist, isn't some 'super-meaning' that is automatically better than subjective meaning - that belief is itself subjective. You can't escape subjectivity. In fact, meaning makes no sense outside of it.

The stereotypical miserable atheist that kyrie says he experienced, and that you say atheists must experience, is an incomplete atheism, because it hasn't actually accepted the way the world is. It's the 'depression' stage in the 5 stage model of loss. To not get past that stage, accept reality for how it really is and not how you want it to be, is to fail to grow a backbone. You retreat back to what is comfortable, instead of what is real. Religious belief founded on wishful thinking is immaturity, plain and simple.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Dec 12, 2014

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 07:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Torka posted:

I can't really agree that to be "complete" atheism has to include being happy that atheism is true or preferring that it be true. That's called anti-theism.

You're still not getting it. The word I used was 'acceptance'. It's accepting that your preferences have no metaphysical or truth value outside of your own head. Whether or not that induces depression is entirely up to your own ability (or inability) to come to terms with what you cannot control.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 12, 2014

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 08:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 12:52

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Kyrie eleison posted:

Does this sort of "radical adherence to reality" have any commonality to you with simply being closed-minded? How do you know that your reality is the final reality?

Let's say you are introduced to a new ideology which differs from the one you currently subscribe to. Do you approach it with complete skepticism, and thereby reject it and those who discuss it, or do you try to consider the possibility it might be true?

You're going to have to explain further how it's close-mindedness, because I'm not seeing it. Wouldn't holding onto the idea that your beliefs or preferences matter make you more stubborn?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 10:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

«‹›6 »