201. Comment #200849 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #200717 by theIdiot

But what can one expect from a loser in his fifties or so, who attaches a picture of himself to his forum profile, in hopes that some forum chick finds him attractive and wants to sleep with him. Yea, I'm sure you live the epitome of a meaningful life. I'm sure your life is quite empty, or at least cheaply filled.

Ooh, that wouldn't be an ad hominem would it? And such a strong one at that. I am suitably chastened.

Enough people here know who I am, what I do and my achievements. I really am not interested in justifying them to you.

Other Comments by epeeist

202. Comment #200850 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #200849 by epeeist

I would like to add that I think epeeist looks rather dashing, in a middle-aged Errol Flynn kind of way (if he and his wife don't mind me saying so)

Any comments about men and long weapons are probably inappropriate.

theIdiot is clearly a troll, and should be ignored.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

203. Comment #200851 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 10:37 am

Seems irrelevent amongst the mud slinging,idiot
but no one has said that the old testament is in the Gospel. I was responding to your comment which seemed to be suggesting that atheists who criticise christians for believing in adam and even are fucking morons(my words) because adam ain't in the gospel. My point was xians accept the OT as well as the "fucking" Gospels.

Other Comments by the great teapot

204. Comment #200853 by phil rimmer on June 28, 2008 at 10:40 am

the Idiot

You have described the nature of your theism (a search for meaning perhaps guided by aesthetic considerations) and whilst I'd still like clarification of that (the questions in my comment 139) I'd also be interested in your "other half" i.e. your atheist half. I think it was Tera who suggested you were a "category 2 or 3" Agnostic. Why would you not describe yourself as such? This half and half description is intriguing.

So, could you describe your atheism? If you wouldn't mind, that is.

EDIT I had for some reason thought your ad-hom was directed at Steve and that you had apologised for it. As it was epeeist, this certainly warrants an apology too, don't you think? His post was directed at ideas not you.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

205. Comment #200857 by Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2008 at 10:43 am

Epeeist-

it's at times like this, I'm reminded of the old adage: What Would Steve Zara's Wife Do?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

206. Comment #200860 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:48 am

Comment #200850 by Steve Zara

I would like to add that I think epeeist looks rather dashing, in a middle-aged Errol Flynn kind of way (if he and his wife don't mind me saying so)

I don't think there should be a problem.

Any comments about men and long weapons are probably inappropriate

Or women come to that matter - my lady wife at the World Vets championships in 2006 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/2547356243/in/set-72157604114612772/

theIdiot is clearly a troll, and should be ignored.

I had thought he was taking his name from Dostoevsky. However since he didn't pick up any of my literary illusions then I think I am probably mistaken.

Other Comments by epeeist

207. Comment #200864 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 10:55 am

"Ooh, that wouldn't be an ad hominem would it? And such a strong one at that. I am suitably chastened."

On reflection, I agree it was pretty strong.

Individuals attempt to tell me what my theistic beliefs are pretty much out of their ass, before they even ask or otherwise, and I attempted to do the same thing with you, based on attaching your picture to your posts. It was a creative endeavor that failed, and turned quite nasty.

And I apologize.

Other Comments by theIdiot

208. Comment #200865 by Steve Zara on June 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

Comment #200860 by epeeist

In my household, there is an ongoing (and daily) battle about who is "the master" (albeit on the chessboard). I hope you are your wife don't "fight" over breakfast the way me and my husband do!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

209. Comment #200868 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:10 am

Comment #200865 by Steve Zara

I hope you are your wife don't "fight" over breakfast the way me and my husband do!

Slightly worse than that. My elder daughter fences epee, my younger one fences sabre ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

210. Comment #200920 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Phil: "You have described the nature of your theism (a search for meaning perhaps guided by aesthetic considerations)."

We are meaning seeking creatures, trying to make a poem out of life. This is the component of human existence in which religion (not simply theism) emerges from. Meaning is an aesthetic fulfillment, and truth in this aesthetic component of human existence is poetic.

Phil: "I'd also be interested in your "other half" i.e. your atheist half. I think it was Tera who suggested you were a "category 2 or 3" Agnostic. Why would you not describe yourself as such? This half and half description is intriguing."

There's probably a few pieces missing to derive at where I am coming from. So let's start a bit of clarification. Atheism is not an easy term to define, as Noam Chomsky once said, "I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny." It is a description difficult to pin down, and can have a different sense of meaning for each individual. For me Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence.

For a number of atheist it is: "there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, therefore I doubt his existence". Their view on God is based on a scientific validation of him. I also see no scientific evidence for a belief in God, but I never cared for a scientific validation of him to begin with. I have no belief in a God who reveals himself in science. Even in my youth the question of God, had nothing to do with science at all, never have I had a creationist desire to validate a belief in God with it.

The question of God for me is not one which wonders if he has a scientific existence. The question of God existing is a meaning one. God for me is validated and rejected by meaning. And while for some atheist the question of God is contingent on science, the question of God for me (and some other atheist) are contingent on meaning. God's existence is an answer for an aesthetic fulfillment: Is life full of sound and fury but signifies nothing, or does it have a meaning and purpose.

I'm an atheist because I am trapped on this question, with a crucified innocence I have to make sense of. As a witness to life's cruelties and misery, that only faith can give meaning to. If I was not a witness to a tortured body, agnosticism, or even committed atheism would be easy. But as a witness to a cross, I'm always stuck with an answer, either I believe or I don't believe.

Somedays I wake up believing, some days I don't.

(Theodore Dalrymple has an excellent article in the City Paper that goes over some of what I have just discussed, and I'm just going to link it here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)

Other Comments by theIdiot

211. Comment #200928 by Radesq on June 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm

There is absolutely no correlation between God's existence/non-existence and my determination of life's meaning. Most of the holy heavy lifting supposedly happens after you die anyway. What a bunch of tartar sauce. Jesus died for me? Yeah well what have you done for me lately?

Other Comments by Radesq

212. Comment #200929 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 2:18 pm

the idiot

thanks for that junior fuckwit.
Do come back when you have something worth saying.

Other Comments by the great teapot

213. Comment #200933 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Ha!

junior fuckwit......

...that was a good one, i like that one.

:)

Other Comments by theIdiot

214. Comment #200936 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Good Lad,
may be you're not so bad after all.

Other Comments by the great teapot

215. Comment #200937 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I am warming to you.
is that english.

Other Comments by the great teapot

216. Comment #200938 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm

...as long as you don't try to fuck me in the ass, I don't mind.

Other Comments by theIdiot

217. Comment #200939 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm

But nothing changes.
Religion is unadulterated horseshit.
That remains for alltime.

Other Comments by the great teapot

218. Comment #200942 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:47 pm

and one man's unadulterated horseshit is another man's gold

...or at least a good fertilizer.

Other Comments by theIdiot

219. Comment #200943 by the great teapot on June 28, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Sorry to disappoint, i know you really want it up there,(no one else even hinted at it) but that is really not my scene.

Other Comments by the great teapot

220. Comment #200951 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Sunday morning, rain has stopped for a spell and I'm having a coffee before painting a room...so I read DickyD.net :-)
TerBrat - I'm sure you are a really nice person but sometimes you come across.....slightly immature. I'd try and phrase that less impolitely, but caffeine has not kicked in. It is rather endearing in the right time :-) And you still think people in love should share - how sweet. You must be young ;-)
Christianity was not Jesus' invention. Paul of Tarsus saw a quick buck in the making and started a new cult. I believe there was conflict between him and Jesus' own family. A lot of the NT is Pauline spin doctoring and marketing - no circumcision and the lack of porcine restrictions on diet are meant to appeal to Gentiles and hence broaden the appeal. He must have been good at promotions - see how Christianity flourished! I dare say if he were alive today, Paul would be a concert promoter or something...

TheIdiot, I am still confused. You believe, yet you don't. Mother Theresa complex? You say you are witnedd to a cross - could you explain that for me? Not quite sure I get you there. Obviously not a literal thing - unless you are talking about the crosses in church.
If you are digging for a religion for meaning, why Christianity? Are you also looking at other religions? Or is this a cultural comfort blanket?
There is no god. Everything you do if from yourself. As Emo once said
"I prayed and prayed and prayed for a bicycle, but never got one. So I stole one and asked for forgiveness instead!"
This sums up religion to me.

Other Comments by Goldy

221. Comment #200962 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm

FIZHBURN: "The following is partly rhetorical, partly diagnostic.

Why not immerse yourself in the admittedly human-made arts then? Surely the sublime is available to us all through them. "

One can appreciate the beauty of a painting, yet faced with a consuming sense of misery, a painting is perhaps not the best escape from it. A painting can be quite beautiful, but not be a source of hope.

FIZHBURN: "I can't tell if you've already decided whether the new testament gospels are true or not. If so, why think you're searching for anything? If not, why commit yourself to a historically (that is, factually) dubious story?"

My favorite stories have been historically dubious ones, just not l literary dubious. The Brother Karamazov is my favorite novel, that conveys truth--poetic statements of truth, just not historical ones. To commit myself to meaning implies that the value of the Gospels is literary. As a poetic I find the Gospels to be true, as historical truth, I'm skeptical.

FIZHBURN: "The existentialists have a lesson for us, which is that in the absence of a meaning imposed upon us by the world (by some deity, for instance, or fate), we must make our own meaning. Does this idea frighten you? "

:)

No, it doesn't frighten me, though it's not true. We do not make meaning, we find meaning. I can't make meaning, something is either meaningful to me or it's not. I can't will something to be meaningful. I can't snap my heals and will living in a cave the rest of my life to be a meaningful life. Either it is meaningful or not. Meaning is like taste, such as broccolli either taste good to me or it doesn't. I can't just say to myself the second before I eat it, "Aberkedabera taste good", and have it happen.

We find meaning in things, but we don't make it. Something is either meaningful or it isn't. If you tell me to make my own meaning, I wouldn't have a clue as to how.

(I have thread somewhere were I went over this in length, and if I can find it, i'll link it here. )

FIZHBURN: "Why do you need to find something outside yourself that isn't the wonderousness of the natural world or of human interaction and creativity? Do you insist that "meaning and hope" are only available through theism, and if so why would you think that?"

I never said meaning and hope are available only through theism, meaning and hope may be only available through a belief in God for me, but this doesn't mean that this is true for you. For a mother I know, the only sense of hope and meaning she can find is in her God, in a belief that a mother's tears do not go by unanswered. The struggles of her existence deprive her of finding hope in finite creativity, her hope can only be derived from faith in a transcendent poem. Disbelief has no answer for her, disbelief is her breaking into pieces.

FIZHBURN: "If truth is beauty, and beauty truth, you can find plenty of both without resorting to worship of some invisible mystery."

Or it could just be a worship of that which we find to be beautiful and true.

"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it's very simple. It's Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is"
~Dostoevsky

Other Comments by theIdiot

222. Comment #200966 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 4:26 pm

A painting can be quite beautiful, but not be a source of hope.

Call me sad and lost, but I can't see how a dead Jew nailed to a tree two millenia ago be a source of hope either. Mind you, can't knock paintings. Important enough to cause a schism in the Christian church...
And talking of painting, better get back to it. That room ain't painting itself!

Other Comments by Goldy

223. Comment #200967 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Goldy,

Christianity was not Jesus' invention.

If that was aimed at me I'm puzzled. That's what I said.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

224. Comment #200968 by leaphty on June 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm

You are all so intimidating! (shiver shiver) I am feeling so very ignorant as I read your multisylabic slurs and slanders toward each other until the blaring typographical errors turn it all to entertainment.

peace

8*)

call me a clown
(here clown! here clowny clowny!)

Other Comments by leaphty

225. Comment #200970 by Radesq on June 28, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Things in the world are as they are and events happen as they will...any meaning you derive from these comes from you not them, and not Him. It really is that simple ... to think otherwise is just making stuff up.

Other Comments by Radesq

226. Comment #200971 by leaphty on June 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Whatever I say must be true as I have just made it up and no one has had the opportunity to prove it otherwise.

And... this "God" of which so many refer... What is it?

Hear ye the clown!
8*)

Other Comments by leaphty

227. Comment #200972 by mordacious1 on June 28, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Tera

According to Logicel under the thread "common new atheist fallacies", you don't exist.

Other Comments by mordacious1

228. Comment #200987 by phil rimmer on June 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm

theIdiot

Thanks again for your reply.

We are meaning seeking creatures

I would rather say we are agency seeking and meaning making creatures. (I'll expand on this later if you're interested.)

Chomsky can screw up the simplest of ideas. To adopt a definition of atheism other than its initial and simple definition of not possessing a belief in God or gods is to play semantic games that stifle useful debate. The great bulk of atheist (and theists for that matter) hold to the simple definition. If you wish to ascribe further innate characteristics to atheism, that's fine, but be aware in this piece of yours you have already two definitions of what an atheist is. The word is becoming useless between us.

Words are slithey and slippery things and their poetic use is thrilling, but, if you want to work together to solve our desperate problems you will have to share our common and prosaic use of them.

Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence

the question of God for me (and some other atheist) are contingent on meaning

The first quote doesn't cut it for me because, as I said, I believe we are meaning makers, as I think you acknowledge in your second quote above.

I'm sure you are aware that in going looking for answers you have one that's been planted in your head already. It kind of bulges out from your calmer and more measured statements like a cuckoo in an otherwise respectable nest. The prose gives way to poetry when talking about that horrid, empty scientific state of atheism. (Trust me, its none of these things. Its as simple as I said before.)

I'm an atheist because I am trapped on this question, with a crucified innocence I have to make sense of. As a witness to life's cruelties and misery, that only faith can give meaning to. If I was not a witness to a tortured body, agnosticism, or even committed atheism would be easy. But as a witness to a cross,

You do not have to make sense of a crucified innocence. You have to make sense of life's cruelties. Neutralising them with the power of faith is a wank. It allows you to smear over the causes of cruelty with an aesthetic brush stroke. The only tortured body you need to witness are the bodies of the tortured. They are no less forsaken.

There are many ex-religious people on this site. Some became atheists because the Truth claims made by their religions (about the nature of the creation and the universe etc.) had been sufficiently demonstrated to them to be false. Some found themselves atheists for moral reasons (My own reason.) One thing that we do seem to share is a collective shudder at the aesthetic aspects of religions. Whilst many of us (like Dawkins) adore poetry of the King James Bible, we are appalled at the a-humanity of many of its core narratives. I could never subscribe to Christianity now precisely for aesthetic reasons. I may find a few of the ideas beautiful, but I can find as many in King Lear alone.

Atheism is the least easy choice. You're on your own kid. And you get one chance to get it right. Get writing.

EDIT I've yet to check out your link. I'll have to do it tomorrow. Sleep...

Other Comments by phil rimmer

229. Comment #200988 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm

TB

If that was aimed at me I'm puzzled. That's what I said.

I know, I was agreeing with you. I was telling you which follower started the show. Not all his followers agreed...
:-)

Reading all TheIdiots posts, am I the only one coming to the conclusion he is an "Atheist for Christ"?

Other Comments by Goldy

230. Comment #200990 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Reading all TheIdiots posts, am I the only one coming to the conclusion he is an "Atheist for Christ"?

You actually read all of his posts?

Kudos to you, I couldn't.

Thank you for the imformation about Jesus and his followers.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

231. Comment #200992 by qomak on June 28, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Gosh, I hate it when a troll with severe psychological problems hijacks a thread.

I know sometimes it gets boring arguing among ourselves because it is very difficult to find points of disagreement but that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to debate anyone who is a random argument/swear word generator.

Finally, we all agree that there is no serious evidence for God, soul, ghosts, higher powers, angels and the rest and we all know why the existing claims are non-sense; what I am saying is that these discussions with trolls with mental problems hardly adds anything new to the discussion and rarely (if ever) has any positive effect on the troll.

Other Comments by qomak

232. Comment #200997 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Thank you for the imformation about Jesus and his followers.

Look up the pork eating thing - if that is not marketing, I don't know what is!

Other Comments by Goldy

233. Comment #201002 by phil rimmer on June 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm

theIdiot

Sorry didn't realise it was the Dalrymple. You may be interested in these ripostes/comments...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1834,Response-to-Theodore-Dalrymple,Sam-Harris,page1#comments

Other Comments by phil rimmer

234. Comment #201005 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Goldy: "Christianity was not Jesus' invention. Paul of Tarsus saw a quick buck in the making and started a new cult. I believe there was conflict between him and Jesus' own family. A lot of the NT is Pauline spin doctoring and marketing - no circumcision and the lack of porcine restrictions on diet are meant to appeal to Gentiles and hence broaden the appeal. He must have been good at promotions - see how Christianity flourished! I dare say if he were alive today, Paul would be a concert promoter or something... "


Uhm, no.

I suggest you familiarize yourself better with the Epistles, and first century Judaism. First of all Paul's issue with circumcision and dietary laws is not much different than Christ's issue with the legalistic practices of the Pharisees, particularly as means to exclude gentiles, the poor etc from God's community. Paul doesn't see anything wrong with individuals who adhere to the dietary laws, and circumcision, just as Jesus would not have had an issue if individuals chose to wash their hands before they ate, in the tradition of the elders.

Paul and Jesus' issue is when these practices are used as a means of exclusion. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for resorting to the practices to exclude the disciples from the meal table. Paul takes issue with James who at one point stops eating with the Gentile Christians, to eat only with Jewish Christians who still adhered to the dietary laws. Paul doesn't take issue with Jewish Christians who adhered to the dietary laws, but he takes issue when the practice is used as a mean to exclude and divide the Christian community between Jew and Gentile.

Paul wasn't adding something new here to the Gospel. He is proclaiming the message of a God who ripped the temple veil, whose presence is not confined to a corner of a temple, but all of humanity. He is proclaiming the message of the Gospel of a God who is not a God of the Jews, but the God of all people, in whose Kingdom community, Jew and Gentile, whore and publican, rabbi and leper share the dinner table.

The Gospel sees a once tribal religion, as a religion of all people. The Gospels see the Israel messiah, as redeemer of all humanity. This was not Paul's invention silly, it's the pronounced theme of all the Gospels. He is sharing in Jesus' Kingdom vision, not creating his own.

Other Comments by theIdiot

235. Comment #201007 by Radesq on June 28, 2008 at 6:37 pm

All this nitpicking over who did what a hundred generations ago...let it go. It was all a tall tale at best, if not entirely fabricated. You might as well be arguing about whether Zeus could take Odin in a fight.

Other Comments by Radesq

236. Comment #201010 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 6:42 pm

TheIdiot, all this would make more sense if it wasn't for the fact that the Gospels that I read are those chosen by men following Paul's traditions (Synod of Niceae, 300-something).
As for "Paul takes issue with..." - maybe it would be more convincing if it wasn't so one sided. Can you point me to James' Epistle, or even gospel?
Everything is rather Pauline, as I am sure you will agree.
This was is all Paul's invention silly, it's the pronounced theme of all the Gospels after he had a wee look-see and a bit of a tinker :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

237. Comment #201011 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
325, it was.

Other Comments by Goldy

238. Comment #201013 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 6:49 pm

325, it was.

And I believe that was when the terms "Christ" and "Christian" were coined. They originally called themselves "Nazarines". (I could be confusing something here the history of Christianity is not something I learned much of).

Other Comments by TeraBrat

239. Comment #201016 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:01 pm

GOMAK:

"Gosh, I hate it when a troll with severe psychological problems hijacks a thread.

I know sometimes it gets boring arguing among ourselves because it is very difficult to find points of disagreement but that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to debate anyone who is a random argument/swear word generator.

Finally, we all agree that there is no serious evidence for God, soul, ghosts, higher powers, angels and the rest and we all know why the existing claims are non-sense; what I am saying is that these discussions with trolls with mental problems hardly adds anything new to the discussion and rarely (if ever) has any positive effect on the troll."

Odd, here we have someone who was to label me a troll, and yet accuses me having severe psychological issues. One of the most comical allegations I've heard in ages. But why don't you back it up? Why don't you provide the assessment that leads you to this conclusion? Or am I spotting a pot calling a kettle black?

Now, I've toned down my language quite a bit at the request of a few people on this forum. But swipe jobs such as this tend to give me reasons, to become a recidivist.

Other Comments by theIdiot

240. Comment #201024 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:27 pm

can someone tell me how to do the quote windows in comment post?

Other Comments by theIdiot

241. Comment #201025 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Goldy: "TheIdiot, all this would make more sense if it wasn't for the fact that the Gospels that I read are those chosen by men following Paul's traditions (Synod of Niceae, 300-something). "

Uhm, another no. Nearly every Christian community orthodox and those labeled heretic adhered to at least one of the four Gospels, such as the Gnostics and the Gospel of John, the Ebionites and Matthew, Adoptionist and Mark, Marcionites and Luke, etc….

The Nicean council may have canonized the four Gospels, but they have had a popular appeal to varying Christian communities heretic and otherwise long before canonization.

Goldy: "As for "Paul takes issue with..." - maybe it would be more convincing if it wasn't so one sided. Can you point me to James' Epistle, or even gospel?
Everything is rather Pauline, as I am sure you will agree. "

Uhm, all we need is one side of the issue to understands Paul's point of view. We are only concerned with one side of the issue. We're not talking about how James saw dietary rituals, and others works of the law, we are talking about how Paul saw it, and what Paul's issue with it was, not James's, of even if Paul misunderstood James's position.

Other Comments by theIdiot

242. Comment #201027 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Phil: "The first quote doesn't cut it for me because, as I said, I believe we are meaning makers, as I think you acknowledge in your second quote above."

No, we're not meaning makers. We find meaning not make it. A point that I covered with Fihzburn in Comment #200962, I ask that you read it, so I don't have to repeat it again in a response to you.

I'm sorry for not responding to the rest of your post yet, its slightly lengthy, and it will take me a little time to respond to the various points you make.

Other Comments by theIdiot

243. Comment #201036 by Goldy on June 28, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Look above the comment posting box - you'll see the "Comments posting guidelines"
otherwise, do this, type < then "blockquote" followed by > To end the quote, type /blockquote between the arrows.

Uhm, all we need is one side of the issue to understands Paul's point of view.

Then it's not Jesus' views Christians follow then, is it? We are only looking at one side of the issue - Paul's side of the issue. We have absolutely no idea what Jesus thought.

Uhm, another no. Nearly every Christian community orthodox and those labeled heretic adhered to at least one of the four Gospels, such as the Gnostics and the Gospel of John, the Ebionites and Matthew, Adoptionist and Mark, Marcionites and Luke,etc

Probably why they were picked - but how many other Gospels do we get to see? And how many other gospels did these "heretical" sects get to see which influenced their "heresy"?
Off to a mate's house now to talk bikes and eat. TTFN.

Other Comments by Goldy

244. Comment #201068 by fizhburn on June 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm

theIdiot,

You claim we find meaning, rather than make it. How do we recognize meaning? It's not a special "non-natural property" I hope. I should think that Waiting for Godot is a good example of the problem with waiting for purpose to drop out of the sky.

Is there something wrong with us that we can't create meaning? I doubt this, since I, and perhaps others here can second this (phil rimmer, I'm glancing at you out of the corner of my eye), see myself as creating the meaning in my life. You must be saying we're wrong about this self-assessment, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's wrong with it.

Other Comments by fizhburn

245. Comment #201106 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 3:41 am

fizh

Caught your glance. The fact that we do seem to fabricate meaning for ourselves does demand an explanation. That many people seem to live happy lives with such a variety of differing meanings and that some find the Christian story as it has been finally rendered through the centuries quite reppelant needs an explanation too.

theIdiot

I certainly did read your points to fizhburn. But the contention over the issue of meaning will not go away after our simple statements to each other.

My point in this-

Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence

The first quote doesn't cut it for me because, as I said, I believe we are meaning makers,

was simply that you had mangled the definition of atheism by spuriously rolling into it stuff about meaning, rendering the term useless for discussion between us.

Let me start the ball rolling on this needed "meaning" debate by asking-

Is meaning innate in the fabric of the universe? Is it a new separate and singular thing gifted by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son? Is it an aesthetic "light" in your/our heads if and when we come to find it/recognize it?

A final question for the moment. What happens when theIdiot dies? And is it the same for all of us?

PS What time zone are you in?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

246. Comment #201119 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 5:01 am

(I'm going to try and keep the meaning post separate from other responses, and address them both to FIHZBURN and PHIL RIMMER, so I don't have to go over the same things twice. So the response here is for both of you.)


FIHZBURN:

"You claim we find meaning, rather than make it. How do we recognize meaning? It's not a special "non-natural property" I hope. I should think that Waiting for Godot is a good example of the problem with waiting for purpose to drop out of the sky."

I never said we had to wait for purpose to drop out of the sky. Meaning is an attraction, and what I like to compare it to is taste. Either I find something tasty or I don't. There are plenty of things that I haven't tried yet, that I might find tasty. Though I might be able to say that I probably wouldn't find something tasty based on the ingredients I'm familiar with, such as I might find the taste of cheese to be nasty, therefore I probably wouldn't like a cheeseburger.

FIHZBURN:

"Is there something wrong with us that we can't create meaning? I doubt this, since I, and perhaps others here can second this (phil rimmer, I'm glancing at you out of the corner of my eye), see myself as creating the meaning in my life. You must be saying we're wrong about this self-assessment, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's wrong with it. "

Well, I think you and phil rimmer are perceiving it wrong. I could say I made an once tasteless broth tasty by adding seasoning to it. But the complete picture reveals that I made it tasty by adding ingredients that I already "found" tasty to it. I find salty food tasty, a saltless broth is not tasty, if I add salt to it, and have it taste salty, the broth is now tasty.

I can "make" something that was once meaningless to be meaningful by perceiving what I already found meaningful in it. A meaningless job might become meaningful when I made friends out of coworkers, and developed a community with them. Meaning is not made it's found. I can bring ingredients that i found meaningful into a once meaningless broth to have it taste meaningful, but that's about it.

There's nothing wrong with us that we can't create meaning, anymore so than there is nothing wrong with me, since snapping my fingers and willing broccoli to taste good doesn't work. There is nothing wrong with you or me, because somethings taste good to you and somethings don't taste good to me. There is nothing wrong with you or me, because somethings are meaningful to you and meaningless to me. And there is nothing wrong with us, in the we can't say to ourselves make what each other find meaningless, meaningful, and have it happen.


PHIL RIMMER:

"Is meaning innate in the fabric of the universe? Is it a new separate and singular thing gifted by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son? Is it an aesthetic "light" in your/our heads if and when we come to find it/recognize it?"

:)

Well, I should just tell you that I'm not the best spokesperson for the cosmos. And it seems as silly to me to say meaning was gifted to us by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son, as it would be for me to say that Kit Kits became tasty when a Jew was nailed to a piece of wood.

PHIL RIMMER:

"Caught your glance. The fact that we do seem to fabricate meaning for ourselves does demand an explanation. That many people seem to live happy lives with such a variety of differing meanings and that some find the Christian story as it has been finally rendered through the centuries quite reppelant needs an explanation too."

It needs as much of an explanation as why do some people find peanut butter to be the best stuff on earth, while others would rather eat shit.

PHIL RIMMER:

"A final question for the moment. What happens when theIdiot dies? And is it the same for all of us?"

I don't know. I haven't died yet.

PHIL RIMMER:

PS What time zone are you in?

I'm from Philadelphia, so it's Eastern Time.

Other Comments by theIdiot

247. Comment #201132 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 5:46 am

theIdiot

Questions, questions. (These may be the last few.)

Your Christian "Meaning" (of sin and redemption??) and my "Meaning" (of, say, collective creativity) are hugely different. Is yours in any absolute sense better (i.e.independent of you and me)?

This in the light of-

It needs as much of an explanation as why do some people find peanut butter to be the best stuff on earth, while others would rather eat shit

which was not rendered as-

It needs as much of an explanation as why do some people find peanut butter to be the best stuff on earth, while others would rather eat jelly.

Does your sense of "Meaning" inform your morality and your behaviour?

Does your sense of "Meaning" demand public action other that the simple relief of harm? (E.g. My sense of "Meaning" deserves wider acceptance or, deserves not to be attacked.)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

248. Comment #201135 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 6:16 am

theIdiot

Your responses to my earlier questions seem strangely neutral and defensive given your original explosive assertions.

The tasty food metaphor seems strangely incomplete also. We may indeed discover pre-existing ingredients for taste/meaning. Whilst in isolation these ingredients (e.g.salt) have taste, separately they are unsatisfying. Just as elemental facts about the world per se have no meaning. We are our own chefs selecting ingredients from anywhere we may. Satisfying taste and meaning may be synthesised (sic, man made)in a myriad differing ways.

Well, I should just tell you that I'm not the best spokesperson for the cosmos. And it seems as silly to me to say meaning was gifted to us by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son, as it would be for me to say that Kit Kits became tasty when a Jew was nailed to a piece of wood.

This is disingenuous. Where does meaning reside if it is discoverable by the likes of you and me?

I don't know. I haven't died yet.

Disingenuous. (EDIT No, sorry, I was imprecise.) Does your sense of meaning not encompass your own death?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

249. Comment #201144 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:04 am

Phil,

Your Christian "Meaning" (of sin and redemption??) and my "Meaning" (of, say, collective creativity) are hugely different. Is yours in any absolute sense better (i.e.independent of you and me)?

I think you're using meaning here with two slightly different connotations.

If you're asking about the Christian meaning of sin and redemption, the question can be one of which is: "why do find the concepts of sin and redemption to be meaningful to your life." And I may be able to explain that to you, as I may be able to explain to you why I love my mother, without you finding it meaningful, and without falling in love with my mother yourself.

If you're asking about the Christian meaning of sin and redemption, the question can be one of which is: "what does sin and redemption mean to the writers of the New Testament". This type of endeavor is not dependent on if we find the concepts meaningful to our lives. In fact, me and you may be able to reach an agreement on this. Since the question is reminiscent of asking what is the meaning of a fable, a poem.

For collective creativity, you and I may be able to reach an agreement on what it means, on what it is, yet disagree on how we find it meaningful to our lives.

So in terms of sin and redemption, I would have to ask you what exactly are you asking? Why do I find these concepts meaningful to my life, or what do these concepts mean.

Does your sense of "Meaning" inform your morality and your behavior?

Hum, I don't believe so. Meaning may be how I make sense of my morality and behavior, but not inform it. But I would have to think about this question more, before I could provide a satisfying answer. Perhaps you can elaborate this question?

Does your sense of "Meaning" demand public action other that the simple relief of harm? (E.g. My sense of "Meaning" deserves wider acceptance or, deserves not to be attacked.) ,

Let's say I found seeking justice for the poor to be meaningful, demanding public action on behalf of the poor, might just be a meaningful pursuit. Since I find seeking justice for the poor to be meaningful, if demanding public action is a means of achieving justice for the poor, than it might just be meaningful as well.

Other Comments by theIdiot

250. Comment #201145 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #201135 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 6:16 am

Quick question, have you ever seen Kurisowa's film, "Ikiru"? If so, then I have a point of reference to help you see what I am getting at better, if not than I'll just do so without it.

Other Comments by theIdiot