251. Comment #201149 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 7:18 am

theIdiot

I'm Phil not fizh. (you can re-edit your post with the edit button top right.) It might help to avoid confusion for others.

Sorry only briefly for the mo, but..

I'm not interested in the specifics of our differing "Meanings" at all. I'm asking, if you think meaning is a found thing, and if you have found yours and I claim I made mine, surely you must think yours the better? Even if I agreed that mine was found also, could we decide on which was better?


EDIT
Re Kurosawa
No. Just read IMDB. I must see it clearly. I am a great Kurosawa fan, though I've only seen a few,
Rashomon, Kumonoso jo, Kagemusha and of course the Seven Samurai.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

252. Comment #201151 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 am

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

I don't know how my response is both neutral and defensive, or what my original explosive assertions are? My claim was that we don't make meaning, we find it, and I provided a lengthy response to go over why this is so.

I have a feeling that you may be referring to a claim of mine you quoted but cut off a relevant part to. Which you quoted as: "Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence." Leaving out the "For me" part at the beginning, or in other words my atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence, a point I elaborated on in length in the previous post. This doesn't mean that your atheism is the same. But you did ask a few good questions on this point, which I was planning on answering, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

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.

When someone says to me we can make meaning, I see them as believing that meaning can be equated to an active choice. That I can choose meaning, like I can choose if i should eat broccoli or not, or what color shirt I should wear, rather than seeing it along the lines of something like taste. Either broccoli taste good or it doesn't, but I can't choose that it taste good or not, either it is or it isn't. I can taste a bite of broccoli and say it taste yucky, and it's not going to taste better on the second bite by waving a wand and saying this time it's going to taste good.

And I'm confused about what the difference is in eating salt in isolation, and eating salt separately?

And at this point I'm requesting that you use examples to explain your points better. Perhaps you can tell us how you "made" meaning, and how it works with a conceivable example.

Other Comments by theIdiot

253. Comment #201153 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:56 am

Phil,

'm not interested in the specifics of our differing "Meanings" at all. I'm asking, if you think meaning is a found thing, and if you have found yours and I claim I made mine.

Well, I don't think you made yours either. I believe you "found" it as well.

surely you must think yours the better? Even if I agreed that mine was found also, could we decide on which was better?

:)

No I don't think my sword is bigger than yours. I don't even know what you find meaningful, but even that would be irrelevant. What I find meaningful might be better for me than what you find meaningful, and what you find meaningful might be better for you that than what I find meaningful.

Re Kurosawa
No. Just read IMDB. I must see it clearly. I am a great Kurosawa fan, though I've only seen a few,
Rashomon, Kumonoso jo, Kagemusha and of course the Seven Samurai. ,

I conisder Ikiru his best. And it's a perfect film for the topic of discussion. You should check it out some time.

Other Comments by theIdiot

254. Comment #201159 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 8:33 am

OK, I think we can take any further discussion on Meaning off-line. I think we have thoroughly driven people away here with all this metaphorical hand-waving. Set up quite a draught. I'll PM you later, but feel free to carry on with others.

I am at a loss to see your religious half as having any of the main characteristics of the kind of religion that gets attacked here. It seems pretty much pick 'n' mix and dogma free if a little too fetishistic for my tastes. Dawkins is very clear at the outset of TGD to exclude from his sights the non-evangelizing, essentially Deist, tolerant, love and niceness type of religion we see some of in the UK and in Europe.

Moving on and back. There is a caveat to the above. Don't defend other peoples religious dogma by seeking to deny us the right to attack it. Dogma, particularly religious dogma (because tradition confers it respect) locks in behaviours for long periods of time. Yes this can mean some good behaviours as well (I phrased it this way from the outset). But locked in behaviour cannot respond to new evidence and that makes it dangerous. It makes it dangerous for me and my kids, because some of these people want to interfere in my life on the strength of their un-evidenced beliefs. Better still, join the battle against the politically intrusive, evidence free nutters who KNOW whats good for us.

Ikiru. I may have caught the end of this on TV one night and was transfixed. I will certainly find it and check it out.

EDIT added stuff

Other Comments by phil rimmer

255. Comment #201172 by fizhburn on June 29, 2008 at 10:40 am

theIdiot,

So you say that to you atheism is a denial of meaning in human life. But a better way to put it is: you think that if you were to become an atheist then your life would be meaningless. This is because, to you, god(s) = what is meaningful, as you've said.

Let me make an analogy: a man eats the same food at every meal for many years. Sometimes he adds one spice, sometimes another, but it is always the same meal. Perhaps it is coffee with cherry pie; who knows. One day, as he sits at the counter, the server tells him there is no coffee, there is no cherry pie. Is he to suddenly say, "Oh no, there is no food, I'll starve!"? I think not. You can see how we are skeptical that you personally need god(s) in your life for it to be meaningful, which is not to dispute that you do now find meaning in religious myths.

Another topic regarding atheism. You say that you find a literary or aesthetic "truth" in the bible. Yet surely you have some reason to hold the moral views you do. If not the bible, where do they come from; if the bible, I wonder how a literary work can give good reasons for acting in one or another morally significant way?

You've indicated that you'd like to really believe, but are wavering. It seems to me that if you want to believe the bible is factual, you want to be willfully ignorant, and that's foolish. But if you merely want to believe that there is some deeper meaning, for you, personally, in that work, based not on its factuality but on its aesthetic properties, then there is no reason to believe that it is the factuality of god(s) that provides the meaning. It's merely the idea of god(s). So you in no way are required to endorse the factuality of any deity in order to find a particular story meaningful. How does that strike you?

Other Comments by fizhburn

256. Comment #201452 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Phil,

I am at a loss to see your religious half as having any of the main characteristics of the kind of religion that gets attacked here. It seems pretty much pick 'n' mix and dogma free if a little too fetishistic for my tastes. Dawkins is very clear at the outset of TGD to exclude from his sights the non-evangelizing, essentially Deist, tolerant, love and niceness type of religion we see some of in the UK and in Europe.

Dawkins, and companies onslaught doesn't stop at those "pesky" fundamentalist, even if he claims he does. How many debates has he gotten into with non-fundamentalist Christians, such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Allister McGrawth. He may claim that he hasn't developed a good argument for them, but this doesn't stop him from taking shots every chance he gets.

And just to clarify, the Christianity that I align myself with is of the orthodox tradition, with a belief in the bodily resurrection, and Christ as the incarnate Word. I'm not a deist, I'm a theist, who believes God revealed himself in history, in the person of Christ. Allegations of pick 'n' mix don't stick too well to me, but I do read the bible, and engage in exegesis, from a learned perspective that is historically informed, with a sound literary analysis, that I doubt anyone would label a specious piecing together.

I do not believe in a God who revealed himself in science, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer, that is not the Christian God, even if it is the God fundamentalist are prone to advocate. The Christian God revealed himself in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. Ask me what the reason for my belief is, and I'd point you to Christ.

Now, in the previous post, I haven't felt the need to go into my Christian beliefs, because they were fairly irrelevant to the discussions. But I'm not a big fan of an erroneous labeling of my faith, and I felt compelled to correct you on this.

Don't defend other peoples religious dogma by seeking to deny us the right to attack it.

This is a really odd argument especially coming from Westerners. Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

So what crack have you been smoking?
I mean do you live in China?

Dogma, particularly religious dogma (because tradition confers it respect) locks in behaviors for long periods of time.

And where is the evidence that religious dogma locks in behavior more so that non-religious dogma?

Yes this can mean some good behaviours as well (I phrased it this way from the outset). But locked in behaviour cannot respond to new evidence and that makes it dangerous.

I can tell this is not psychologically informed. The dilemma of the creationist like, is not much different than the dilemma of 9/11 conspiracy theorist (a popular movement by the way even in the unbelievers camp), Jesus Mythicist, holocaust deniers, and can be found in various individuals of particular ideology whether it's liberalism, socialism, feminism, anti-theism, nationalism, and etc...

There is little distinction here as to why some believers block out evidence, and suffer bouts of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, then the same phenomenon occurring to individual in the above categories.

The reason for it, is that these components of their life hold a sense of meaning for them, that they do not desire to lose. I ran across a christian the other day who would stay away from material from atheist that attempted to take apart his beliefs, even the dubious claims, because he didn't want to risk losing his belonging in the Christian community which he enjoyed very much. This element of humanity, is no different than why a mother will defend her son's innocence, even when the evidence points to his guilt.

And any time we see this occurrence appearing, to develop an informed view on it, we should be looking into what the person fears losing, what are they trying to preserve.

I encountered this dilemma often in my discussions with forum unbelievers who in their rage against religion, isolate religious acts and behaviors from the same phenomenon occurring without religious ties. In their view religion is to blame for the actions of suicide terrorist, even though mosque attendance is a negative indicator of it, while membership in a soccer club is a positive indicator, and that prior to 9/11 the bulk of suicide terrorist were secular nationalist. Confirmation bias kicks in when presented with evidence that differs from the views that emerge from their angst.

The dilemma that you point out, has little to do with religion, and more to do with irrationality of human nature. Disbelief does not rid us of it.

Other Comments by theIdiot

257. Comment #201464 by Goldy on June 29, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

Pendulum.
Actually, can you say that the religious have been forever tolerant? Silly point - what are you trying to tell us?

Other Comments by Goldy

258. Comment #201620 by phil rimmer on June 30, 2008 at 12:15 am

theIdiot

My thanks for your last post. I'm not going to be able to post for 2 days or so. I will respond as soon as possible when I'm back in town.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

259. Comment #201622 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 12:30 am

Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

Evangelical atheist. Odd choice of word to describe it...

Main Entry: 1evan·gel·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ËŒÄ"-ËŒvan-ˈje-li-kÉ™l, ËŒe-vÉ™n-\
Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1531
1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2: protestant
3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 acapitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany boften capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist coften capitalized : low church
5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic

Maybe the last definition might fit...
So, you are worried about a few books (what, pray tell, is the best selling book? And what follows that one? and which book do a prtion of 1.6 billion people try and memorise in a foreign language?) adn some interviews. Oddly, every Sunday there appears to be a propaganda house or two open, where God and Jesus are, not discussed, but exalted. Every Sunday! And just to make sure there's not much else to do - the shops are restricted. Does Scotland still have Sunday drinking hours? Islam restricts the freedom of anyone not Muslim - Malaysia has an interesting story...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7475950.stm
Looking at my money, I see Queen Liz is Regina, D.G. Regina (look it up). On becoming a New Zealander, yes, I had an affirmation or an oath to take (nothing to do with atheism, I'm told - more to do with those that follow other gods). The UK has people sitting in the House of Lords whose only qualification is that they worship God. I read the papers and see columnists who I would not trust to wipe their arses properly but who are allowed to write and be published because they write about God, Jesus and other mythology (Look up Garth in the New Zealand Herald). I am ridiculed for invoking an old god but nary an eyebrow is raised if I mention God. I was baptised, without my permission, in the name of God.
I'm sorry if I find your words fucktardy of the highest order but that's the way it is. You Christians have been shitting on us all your lives, Christians have killed my ancestors and shat on their culture - and you whine about a few books adn some radio interviews.
What a pathetic shit you are. Beneath even any thought of contempt.

Other Comments by Goldy

260. Comment #201624 by 8teist on June 30, 2008 at 12:33 am

Goldy, ......... Hear, Hear

Other Comments by 8teist

261. Comment #201632 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 am

#201159 by phil rimmer: Don't defend other peoples religious dogma by seeking to deny us the right to attack it.

#201452 by theIdiot: Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

#201464 by Goldy: Pendulum.
Actually, can you say that the religious have been forever tolerant? Silly point - what are you trying to tell us?

I don't think this is a pendulum. Much of it is a new phenomenon that has changed the conversational climate long-term. But because it has happened fairly recently, some people haven't realised that it is probably permanent, and worry that it may reverse.

Well within the last decade, we have new media feeding a somewhat changed audience. 9/11 changed the audience, and the new media, including extra TV channels but especially anything to do with the web, provide the opportunities to discuss and debate with the new audience. I expressed this at:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2749,Should-Strident-British-Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Dictate-Education-Policy-to-US-States-Barbara-Forrest-Apparently-Thinks-So,The-Discovery-Institute,page1#197070

Extract:

Suppose that Richard Dawkins had had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand that outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated? What would the reception have been?

For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.

Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11". That influenced some of the content of the book and surely changed the audience.

Given all of this, how far would people have taken an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it?

It isn't surprising that some people are concerned that religions will attempt to reduce/suppress such attacks. The UK nearly introduced bad legislation in 2006 that would have made it an offence to insult/ridicule religions in a way that upsets/offends people. Fortunately it didn't happen. The UN Commission on Human Rights has now adopted a new role of monitoring and criticising free speech in the case of religion. Fortunately they don't have the teeth to make this stick.

Religions will continue to try to deny the right to attack their beliefs. The "new media" will (I hope) continue to thwart them.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

262. Comment #201633 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 am

Another peeve of mine. I would apologise, but I think this time I'll wait for a retraction first.

NZ gin, eh? Who'd have thought it would have such and effect :-D

Other Comments by Goldy

263. Comment #201646 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 1:31 am

And where is the evidence that religious dogma locks in behavior more so that non-religious dogma?

Do you believe that marketing and advertising works? Do you believe that a parent rewarding a child with love and affection works? If so, then you are going to have to concede that religion locks in behaviour more than other dogma.

It works like this. Suppose you were offered reward points for shopping at a particular store. Say 10% off. That would encourage you to shop there, perhaps. The more the reward points, the more it would encourage you. That is not controversial. Supposed you got told you didn't just get reward points - you actually got paid to shop at the store. And, you would get a hug from the cute manager for doing so. And, it was actually good to shop there (even though you come out with more money than you went in with). I kind of think you would be pretty keen to shop there. Now let's ramp things up a bit. Suppose the store not only pays you to shop, but offers health benefits - free medical treatment when needed, and the store owner has actually said they are in love with you. How does that sound? Good? It turns out that things are even better. The free medical treatment gives indefinite life, and during that life you can have unlimited sex with people who are always available. Sounding wonderful, isn't it! It is so great, you would desperately want to ensure that your family, friends and future generations shopped there. In fact, it would seem positively wicked not to ensure that they do, wouldn't it?

But it gets even better than that... whatever belief you have about the world, be it gays are nasty or cows should not be eaten will be approved by the store manager. They will give you a big hug and say "yes dear, you are just SO right about all that". That includes not liking people enough to fly planes into buildings.

Combine that with the actual words of people who say why they are motivated to shop at the store - their testimonies - and you have a convincing case.

Other stores (dogmas) don't offer the same health benefits. They don't tell you that it is actually very good to shop there. Nationalism or worship of a dictator does not bring benefits in the afterlife.

If one was going to design from scratch a system of dogma that could make people do anything, it would be religion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

264. Comment #201664 by Goldy on June 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

Christies - it about $35 for a litre. Only 37%, mind, but tasty. And a nice bottle to boot.
I sometimes feel I have to apologise - anger is a silly emotion, clouds the mind. I like to tell, to explain, not to rant. But sometimes the amount of crap spouting out of mouths and fingers is just too much.

Other Comments by Goldy

265. Comment #201676 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 3:27 am

#201646 by Steve Zara: If one was going to design from scratch a system of dogma that could make people do anything, it would be religion.

Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett make a good case for the evolution of religion by natural selection.

Are you suggesting that in fact there was an Intelligent Designer who helped religion over its difficult bits?

(Duck!)

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

266. Comment #201678 by Quetzalcoatl on June 30, 2008 at 3:29 am

Barry Pearson-

Are you suggesting that in fact there was an Intelligent Designer who helped religion over its difficult bits?

Given the way religion turned out, I hardly think we can seriously call the Designer "Intelligent".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

267. Comment #201679 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #201676 by Barry Pearson

Are you suggesting that in fact there was an Intelligent Designer who helped religion over its difficult bits?

We don't need a designer. We are lucky to be able to observe a speciation event actually in progress:
http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/06/schism-schism-cataclysm-well-almost.html

Other Comments by Steve Zara

268. Comment #201706 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

#201679 by Steve Zara: We don't need a designer. We are lucky to be able to observe a speciation event actually in progress

Chuckle! Yes, I'm enjoying that. Not least because of the revelation of so much dogma and intolerance in an organisation that many people (myself included) had thought was almost an enlightened church.

Needless to say, I hope that this will speed up what I requested in my letter to my MP and his party leader:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

.... I want all religious bias to be removed from Government and Law:

- My main desire is disestablishment of the Church of England, and the removal of their automatic right to have many bishops in the Upper Chamber giving a religion (any religion) privileged influence on the legislative process....

(Yes, I do sometimes do things with little hope of success. But perhaps a steady drip drip drip will eventually make it more than a gesture).

Other Comments by Barry Pearson