Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.

Quote from: string on 2014-02-19, 10:18:34

So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.

Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time  (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.

Quote from: string on 2014-02-19, 10:18:34

We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.

The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.

It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.

The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.

Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.

You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.[/i]
Putting out a theory for discussion and refutation - great, but you seem to be claiming that you are the only person with a rational opinion? Tell me you did not mean that please!

Quote from: string on 2014-02-19, 10:18:34

But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.

The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.
Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).

Quote from: string on 2014-02-19, 10:18:34

Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.

Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too. Mankind has unpleasant traits according to what we judge him by, and it's not just religion which focusses that.

Quote from: string on 2014-02-20, 09:28:10

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 23:51:58

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.

I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.

Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.

I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.

Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.

Well, if you put it like that. I'm not sure if I agree that the implosion should be so disastrous in the specific context, but I might be wrong. In any case, both approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Some people might respond better to Harris' approach, others to yours.

By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer.

I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )

Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time  (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.

Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).

That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too.

On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition.

By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!

This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.

Somebody's pooped on it.

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Quote from: Josh on 2014-02-20, 21:23:18

Somebody's pooped on it.

Probably you. No reason for change a thread's tittle, you poop in all threads.

And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.

Why has the thread's tittle changed?

The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2013-11-30, 21:34:16

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

And yet the "believers" do things like pass laws make it legal to discriminate based on religion, like they just did in Arizona. You have it a little backwards. The heat certain types of Christians feel is blowback from the shit they do.

Or, to be fair, in some case from shit that others do in their name.
Poor believers, being forced to acknowledge the fact that unbelievers exist and (these days) have (almost) the same rights as they do. Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.

Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-02-19, 14:59:51

I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )

I wonder, to what extent could people without such life experiences understand their acquired wisdom without having gone through something similar themselves?

Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy.