Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 20 2010 at 14:42
^ It's pretty Anti-Theist though. You're re-defining the gods, making the positive claim that they're not what the Theists claim they are.
I agree with you though - or at least, like I said, I'm leaning heavily towards it. And I always liked the term "Post-Theist", although I always understood it more literal: To me a "Post-Theist" is someone who refuses to discuss Theism vs. Atheism at all, because he's come to the conclusion that gods are man-made delusions and we should get past that stage of our cultural evolution and move on. Count me in on this definition! Except for this thread of course.
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Posted: August 20 2010 at 14:52
"Why not admit that the basis for your religion is a fairy tale?"
We were advised aganist this sort of statement just a couple pages back:
Easy Money said:' it would be best if all those involved would quit making broad baseless accusations," and then gave a list of derogatory terms to be avoided. Your specific term was not on the list but that is clearly splitting hairs. I suppose you're just afraid that your point won't be as strong without it since it is the #1 term for Christianity in the atheist bible. I understand why you can't resist using it.
I'll split some hairs just for fun myself.
I've been advised that even if it follows logically from your behavior that you are an arrogant boob I am not allowed to tell you you are an arrogant boob so i won't.
There now we've both managed to violate the rules without violating the rules. Aren't we clever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:02
Maybe an admin could clarify whether it is insulting to call the story of Creation a fairy tale, when even the Catholic church apparently accepts Evolution.
In any case, I know you think I'm arrogant - so you might as well just say it instead of making these "Mike Speak" type of snipes. I won't be offended, and I even agree that some of my statements indeed are arrogant. But then again, they are often responses to arrogant claims.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:12
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Maybe an admin could clarify whether it is insulting to call the story of Creation a fairy tale, when even the Catholic church apparently accepts Evolution.
Will I do?
Calling the story of creation a fairy tale is not acceptable. You can say it is a myth or it is alegorical, but "fairy tale" implies that it is purely for children so can be seen as being insulting.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:19
When you say "fairy tale" Mike you mean "false." Incorrect, invalid, wrong.
When people use stories to try to understand extremely complex things that are hard to understand, those stories are maps, not the territory (somebody said that). This is the meaning of metaphor.
If you find a certain set of stories / metaphors unuseful to you, fine. Do not assume they are not useful to others or that they offer absolutely no insight into the extremely complex thing they're trying to point to. (Life, death, creation, the nature of existence.)
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:35
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Maybe an admin could clarify whether it is insulting to call the story of Creation a fairy tale, when even the Catholic church apparently accepts Evolution.
Will I do?
Calling the story of creation a fairy tale is not acceptable. You can say it is a myth or it is alegorical, but "fairy tale" implies that it is purely for children so can be seen as being insulting.
I believe a fairy tale has to have fairies in it.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:44
Negoba wrote:
When you say "fairy tale" Mike you mean "false." Incorrect, invalid, wrong.
When people use stories to try to understand extremely complex things that are hard to understand, those stories are maps, not the territory (somebody said that). This is the meaning of metaphor.
If you find a certain set of stories / metaphors unuseful to you, fine. Do not assume they are not useful to others or that they offer absolutely no insight into the extremely complex thing they're trying to point to. (Life, death, creation, the nature of existence.)
When I say "fairy tale" with respect to the story of creation then I mean "false" when taken literally. And even when taken allegorically, it pretty much flies in the face of most we now know actually happened.
BTW: Usefulness is an entirely different issue. And if you really think that the story of creation offers any insight into complex matters of the real world, I humbly, respectfully think you're wrong.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:45
@Trademark: Yes, those are surely very valid reasons to criticize a position.
Earlier today I watched one of the Atheist Experience shows, and at one point they talked about how in this type of arguments Theists often come up with entirely irrelevant points instead of actually trying to address the claims or criticism of the opposing side. And of course I though of you. Have you actually made any substantial contribution to this thread yet? I can't remember any.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 20 2010 at 15:51
@Tony R: Interestingly, that video was the one that I posted in the Poll about Brights/Murkies/Supers back in January, which I eventually had the admins close because it was obviously being boycotted by most people who were fed up with religious discussions and polls. It's one of my favorite talks from that conference.
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Posted: August 20 2010 at 16:08
I didn't criticize the position, I criticized the speaker's lack public speaking skills. I couldn't tell you what his position is (and amusingly neither could he , so maybe he doesn't even know himself) as I found his mannerism so distracting I couldn't follow the points he may or may not have tried to make.
I do find it hilarious that he was introduced as being such a beacon of clear thought. Maybe he was just drunk.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: August 20 2010 at 16:28
Words are symbols we use to help understand phenomena. None are truth.
All stories whether called myth or hypothesis are made up by humans. Usefullness is the only metric by which a story can be measured.
I respect that you don't find the creation storie(s) in Genesis useful. I do, though I don't think they are useful in the same way as "I made potatoes for supper" is for my family.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 20 2010 at 17:01
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ It's pretty Anti-Theist though. You're re-defining the gods, making the positive claim that they're not what the Theists claim they are.
I agree with you though - or at least, like I said, I'm leaning heavily towards it. And I always liked the term "Post-Theist", although I always understood it more literal: To me a "Post-Theist" is someone who refuses to discuss Theism vs. Atheism at all, because he's come to the conclusion that gods are man-made delusions and we should get past that stage of our cultural evolution and move on. Count me in on this definition! Except for this thread of course.
I would never use the word "delusions" simply because it is inappropriate and not accurate - I do not believe that there was any deliberate attempt at deception in the creation of gods so subsequent believers have not been deluded or tricked at all. The reason people believe is (oddly enough) because it is believable. To you and I this is a contradiction and a problem, because to us it is not believable.
Of course I could ask where, in this or any other religious thread, have I ever discussed Theism vs. Atheism? I think I've made a point, especially with you, of discouraging such discussions because of the ultimate futility of them. The only evidence-truth-proof of a belief is self-referential and contained wholly within the belief system itself - that's the beauty of simplicity and the elegance of design - what people have called the "get out of jail free" card or the "god works in mysterious ways" card that there is no atheist trump-card for. After surviving 200 years of post-enlightenment thinking, the system isn't going to be tripped-up by anything I can write.
That's not to say I don't find such discussions to be interesting, and will "join-in" where I see an opening worth exploring.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 20 2010 at 17:12
Negoba wrote:
Words are symbols we use to help understand phenomena. None are truth.
All stories whether called myth or hypothesis are made up by humans. Usefullness is the only metric by which a story can be measured.
I respect that you don't find the creation storie(s) in Genesis useful. I do, though I don't think they are useful in the same way as "I made potatoes for supper" is for my family.
Hi Jay, nice to see you back
"I made potatoes for supper" is an good example of the ambiguity of language that has resulted in many a misinterpretation of literal vs. metaphoric meaning. You didn't make potatoes - you may have prepared and cooked them, it is possible you planted, tended and harvested them beforehand - but unless you have some alchemy skills or possess a futuristic machine for constructing the cellular carbohydrate starch matrix that forms a potato from base elements, you didn't make them.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: August 20 2010 at 17:20
It is ironic (though of course now will seem intentional) that my attempt at a straightforward example of words that would closest resemble "truth" or "reality" in fact are imperfect symbols.
I was off in hippy folky stummy land for awhile. Blitzen Trapper anyone?
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 20 2010 at 20:19
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Iván_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Understood as a man for about 1800 years or more, and then maybe understood as humanity by an increasing number of people. Please excuse me for saying so, but this seems like a really, really lame excuse to me. Why not admit that the basis for your religion is a fairy tale? It even features a talking snake.
Making up excuses in hindsight is not a valid defense for a position IMO.
Mike again WHY ARE YOU MAKING LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS THAT WE DON'T MAKE?
The 1800 yeas is only allegoric if you want, but the Bihble is not a history book with exact dates and years., please understand tis.
Even when it's obvious I didn't expressed mnyself well (Made a wrong cut and paste of a post I had started to write hours before), you never tried to understand me.
For 1,800 or even 1,900 years, the people believed that what we understand as allegoric today was an undeniable truth.
One of the mistakes of the Churches in general was to sell us this literal interpretation as the truth, because they believed that in this way we would believe without questions (They thought we would accept God if they told us the beautiful story of Genesis han if they told us the complicated reality), but even the most faithful persons, start to ask when something is not logic, and we are able tio understand God doesn't act in such obvious ways.
It was crucial for the Church that we believed Adam was a real person, because the Medieval concept that expanded to the late 1800's was that the Original sin consisted in sexual relations between Adam & Eve because they wanted us ti believethat sex was dirty and unnecesary except for procreation.
Even in this century, there was an Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Abolished in 1966 byv Paulus VI) telling us what to read and what not to read, and and even when "The Origin of the Species" was not in that codex,. we were recommended to avoid it.
So if men believed in an allegoric text as 100% real for more than 1800 years, it was for a wrong position of the churches (including mine) or simply lack of knowledge od men and churches....Now this has changed in most Churches, and the few that still believe in creationism of the Genesis Book, are the fundamentalists that will always exist
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.350 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
, so maybe he doesn't even know himself) as I found his mannerism so distracting I couldn't follow the points he may or may not have tried to make. 
