Am I doing something wrong here?

[Carl G]

I do notice that Trevor likes to sashay into boards where the admins from here have ventured, and heat things up further with his slashing wordsmanship. Self-appointed knight in shining karma, rescuing the damsels -- check that -- damned zealots in distress. This is what, the third in a year? Or, second plus one on his own.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Hehe, all too true. Maybe I should ask before I make life difficult for our moderators on other forums.

[Jamesh]

Trevor, I would continue to do what you are doing on these forums, unless it hurts too much. There is often pain in putting forth views that go against the herd mentality.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Well, yeah, being a punching bag does kinda hurt.

But had I not let myself be a punching bag, I wouldn't have acquired new insight into that passage from Zarathustra that Diebert mentioned. I went back to my books and re-read "On Scholars" and could relate to the experience he had probably had that caused him to write that.

[Jamesh]

I was actually glad to see you there as your presence did give scope for the discussion to take a better direction. However, after I came back overnight to it Trevor had arrived and basically screwed things up further! :) At that point I abandoned any hope of rescuing things and therefore didn't bother to pursue your line of thought.

Thanks, but I must admit it is a little bit sad [as well as a little envigorating after a fews beers] that my ego now relishes this implied acceptance of my viewpoint/desire to get to the nitty gritty. It is experiences like this that make me think non-ego-ness is not a possibility for anyone. Why is it that I still desire the acceptance of you and David??? (rhetorical)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I detect much more humility than egotism in what you write, James. Although perfect egolessness is probably impossible (despite what the wise men say), you are guided far less by your ego than the members of the RD fanclub were. Even their apologies sounded like desperate attempts to gain superiority.

[Unidian]

Ugh...

For the most part, those people are just having some well-intentioned "fun" with all the Dawkins is sexy" banter and so on, although I do personally find it rather putrid. We have to be careful to avoid blaming people for holding differing values when values are entirely causal in nature, imposed on individuals by various internal and external factors. My own values and tendencies cause me to largely agree with Dan that most of those people couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. But if they want to spend their time obliviously going on and on about how attractive some boring old fart is, it's their prerogative.

In this universe, for better or worse, there is an inalienable right to be stupid. In light of cause and effect, nobody can be held "fundamentally" responsible for it - or, alternatively, everyone can, which amounts to exactly the same result.

[Unidian]

The Dawkins board is populated by college types who have not yet learned how to wipe their noses. It is essentially a fan club with a smattering of more serious posters.

That's it in a nutshell. You can't argue with children, and college students of any age are children in every sense of the word. Can you imagine, expecting to be spoon-fed knowledge and understanding? No one who thinks there is any value in that approach beyond vocational concerns is an intellectual adult. As Dan puts it, philosophically speaking, they don't know how to wipe their own noses. And when you argue with children, they drag you into the sandbox and beat you to death with a plastic bucket.

[Katy]

That's it in a nutshell. You can't argue with children, and college students of any age are children in every sense of the word. Can you imagine, expecting to be spoon-fed knowledge and understanding? No one who thinks there is any value in that approach beyond vocational concerns is an intellectual adult. As Dan puts it, philosophically speaking, they don't know how to wipe their own noses. And when you argue with children, they drag you into the sandbox and beat you to death with a plastic bucket.

I feel like I should defend myself here... but then I realize Nat's right. And arguing that college students aren't children would be arguing againt my own complaints about my neighbors and classmates. Though I would draw exception to any absolutist thing - I think there are a good number who recognize it as vocational school (or like me are doing ti 'cuz it's NOT work and keeps me from getting too bored)

[Ataraxia]

Haha.What a classic thread in the Dawkins forum,I just have to join.
Positively Diogenes-esque by Dan,magnificent,even down to getting cyber spat upon by the masses.

Havn't had such a good laugh in ages.

<Thumbs up emoticon>

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Nat,

We have to be careful to avoid blaming people for holding differing values when values are entirely causal in nature, imposed on individuals by various internal and external factors

According to my values though, these people have shit values. And they will continue to have shit values until they get a whiff of their own stink.

I saw no reason to blame them -- not everyone can be as hygienic about beliefs as the philosophically-minded -- but I still find them putrid.

You are spot-on with your analysis of them. It was hard to remember the last place I needed (at the risk of extending the metaphor to its breaking point) to use such a wide variety of disinfectants. Of course: school!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ataraxia: good luck, and don't forget to bring a gas mask. Start a new thread, and lay down a link when it starts to get interesting. :)

[Unidian]

According to my values though, these people have shit values. And they will continue to have shit values until they get a whiff of their own stink.

I saw no reason to blame them -- not everyone can be as hygienic about beliefs as the philosophically-minded -- but I still find them putrid.

Of course. One of the ironies of life is that although there is no strictly rational reason to take sides, one is forced to take sides by the nature of consciousness itself. Their values and our values are equally caused and equally beyond any sort of "freely chosen agency," but that has no effect on the fact that each party finds the others' values objectionable.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If I had to do it again, I'd try it without feeling pity for them. I was almost as bad as a religious fanatic myself. It's just so goddamn hard not to feel pity for people who you know are smart, but don't seem to have the values/virtues/wisdom to do anything other than jack each other off. I honestly don't think I could go into a forum like that without pity being my main motivation -- which is reason enough for me to avoid such forums. At least, until I can think of a better motive.

Even going in there simply to laugh at them would have been bigger of me.

[Unidian]

Why go in there at all? I don't go into prisons. I don't go into war zones. I don't go into ghettos. The Dawkins forums aren't as bad as all that, but if nothing good can come of it, why go?

Those with any motivation to hear what you have to say will find it, if you put it out there. I see no need to go on missions. It's spoon-feeding the few who are interested and angering the rest.

[ChochemV2]

I've spent a bit of time there while at work for no other reason than I've never been exposed to a place like that before. Not only have I never been to a forum populated by such a large number of atheists so I have really no idea what "atheist culture" is like. Even though I'm bored now it was educational.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Nat: With Dawkins' Forum, I can think of no good reason.

The last forum I went on a mission to (Nexopia's "Politics & Debate", if you recall), my rationalle was that I was starting to notice my writing style had gotten very dry and academic. I felt I needed to learn how to make myself at least somewhat readable to non-philosophers. I think it helped, and the change of audience was a welcome break.

After a few months, I'm weaning myself off of it. Being the big fish can be addictive -- not to mention, it is fun to watch people who have probably never read philosophy before take up a new-found interest. Some of the locals are finally starting to get on my nerves, though, which is a pretty big sign that I've got to move on.

I think so long as there is a genuine belief that the locals have something to offer, even if only a change of pace, there is ample reason for the occasional wandering. Pity is just not a good reason.

[Ataraxia]

The duality of David Quinn.:D

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/s ... sc0086.htm

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dawkins is typically scientistic. "If science can't answer the God question, then theology can't either."

It's moronic. Essentially, that boils down to:

"If it is impossible to create a testable, empirically-based, hypothetico-deductive model of God, then it also must be impossible to create any model of God whatsoever."

This is plainly false, and I don't think I am creating a strawman if I call that his entire argument.

[ChochemV2]

That may very well be his argument, I have no idea, but you'd still have to provide something which answers the question of God's existence one way or the other.

Scientific analysis has the advantage of being rather definitive once you've reached a certain point so scientific proof of God's existence or non-existence would be fairly difficult to argue. Logical arguments, on the other hand, rely on assumptions and (in my experience) contradict themselves regularly. For example we assume God would have to be outside our universe to have created it so any God whose influence we can see and understand is logically impossible. Of course then you're applying the laws of our universe on a God which you have already assumed isn't governed by those laws so the theory is broken.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The pantheist God works nicely, though. It's true-by-definition, and therefore there is no argument. It is deductively certain.

[ChochemV2]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a pantheist God is everything. So instead of God being a separate entity or multiple entities everything is God and God is everything.

Personally I don't see how that solves anything because all you're doing is putting things under the heading of God for no other reason than you can. You could just as easily say Richard Simmons is everything by re-defining Nature and the like as "Richard Simmons".

[Trevor Salyzyn]

That is correct, however what impresses me about the pantheist God is when they do something like that -- they end up describing something that is surprisingly similar to the Christian God (at least as far as adjectives go).

If God is Everything, then God is omnipresent, infinite, the cause ("creator") of all things, uncaused, absolute, eternal, etc.

I love the satirical nature of pantheism more than anything.

[Unidian]

The pantheist God works nicely, though. It's true-by-definition, and therefore there is no argument. It is deductively certain.

But, for that very reason, it says nothing meaningful. Whether it encourages a useful experiential approach or not is another question. But strictly within the semantic realm, saying that God is everything simply makes one of the terms superfluous.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I agree, Uni. However, I find it useful for satirical purposes -- a pantheist simply has to be an atheist or theist as well to make his position meaningful. The pantheism itself can be used as a lesson in semantics, or as a way to inspire religious people to talk of a more sane deity (ie "I've defined God. Now, can you?")