Is there any meaning to us???

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

He's arguably one of the best writers in the last 500 years. If his ideas didn't influence Hitler I would probably be a little bit more appreciative of him. Certainly if I were to consider a group of writers for a compendium of literature on secular understanding I would personally include him far quicker than Dawkins or Hitchens. Hitchens I will say is entertaining however.

Dawkins book wasn't about secular understanding, it was about the God delusion and went through explaining how God is a delusion. So when you say:

Jakkass wrote:

I appreciate atheists such as Nietzsche and Albert Camus who attempt to make sense of a secular worldview in comparison to others like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett who rant about religion

You are criticising them merely for writing the books or because you misunderstood the point of them and not because of anything they have to say.

Basically you don't like people 'ranting' about religion correct? But does this make what they're saying 'feeble'?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Dawkins also spends much of his time making errors concerning the Biblical text before too long.

I'm sure that you consider them errors because your interpretation bears no resemblance to his. However I am equally sure that if I or another non-christian read the same text we'd come to a conclusion that's a lot closer to Dawkins'.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Dawkins book wasn't about secular understanding, it was about the God delusion and went through explaining how God is a delusion. So when you say:

Several parts of the book deal with secular understandings of morality, rights and wrongs, science and how seculars identify themselves between atheist and agnostic. Let's be honest here, that is a major part of the book.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are criticising them merely for writing the books or because you misunderstood the point of them and not because of anything they have to say.

You're getting rather defensive over very little . I believe you are mistaken, both Dawkins and Hitchens deal with secular morality in their books, and secular living in comparison to religious living. Again, I withhold the right to read what the authors are saying without adopting your interpretation of what they were trying to communicate. Instead I will read what they intended to say themselves

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Basically you don't like people 'ranting' about religion correct? But does this make what they're saying 'feeble'?

No, rather I consider Dawkins and Hitchens to be of lesser literary quality than anything that Nietzsche and Camus have published. I consider that a valid criticism of the book. In terms of quality Dawkins and Hitchens are feeble in comparison to the quality of what Nietzsche or Camus have put forward. That's a totally valid objection.

I'd rather just agree to disagree if you think that Dawkins is better than Nietzsche or Camus, rather than squabble over literary quality. I think that is something we can agree to disagree on.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Sam, I can judge Dawkins work, and Nietzsches work in whatever way I want without you telling me how to assess it for myself

On this point, you are absolutely free to dismiss Dawkins' work because of his 'ranting' style, his lack of creativity, the mere fact that he's ranting against religion (which is the point of the book), the picture on the cover or even the font used. In a free country you can do whatever you want.

However, if you are dismissing it based on anything other than the strength of the arguments being made then you're making an ad hominem argument

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Several parts of the book deal with secular understandings of morality, rights and wrongs, science and how seculars identify themselves between atheist and agnostic. Let's be honest here, that is a major part of the book.

Several parts talk about how morality can exist without religion, yes, in comparison to religious morality. The fact remains, the point of the book is to highlight "The God delusion" so to use your favourite phrase, when you compare him to Nietzsche "you're not comparing like with like" and to dismiss him as feeble because in your opinion he doesn't meet the standards of 'one of the greatest writers of the last 500 years' is ridiculous

Jakkass wrote: »

No, rather I consider Dawkins and Hitchens to be of lesser literary quality than anything that Nietzsche and Camus have published. I consider that a valid criticism of the book. In terms of quality Dawkins and Hitchens are feeble in comparison to the quality of what Nietzsche or Camus have put forward. That's a totally valid objection.

I'd rather just agree to disagree if you think that Dawkins is better than Nietzsche or Camus, rather than squabble over literary quality. I think that is something we can agree to disagree on.

There is no need to squabble over literary quality. It doesn't matter if the books are written in crayon on napkins, the only thing that matters is the points they're making

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On this point, you are absolutely free to dismiss Dawkins' work because of his 'ranting' style, his lack of creativity, the mere fact that he's ranting against religion (which is the point of the book), the picture on the cover or even the font used. In a free country you can do whatever you want.

I never said I dismissed his points. I found some of them to be interesting, but I don't adopt them. That is different. Likewise with Hitchens. What I said had nothing to do with dismissing or accepting any argument they make. This is you trying to turn the discussion around.

I merely said, that Nietzsche and Camus are better at promoting secularism than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens will ever be. Yes, I believe that Dawkins and Hitchens are feeble in comparison. What's the big deal? I'm allowed to like whatever authors I like surely?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However, if you are dismissing it based on anything other than the strength of the arguments being made then you're making an ad hominem argument

Sam, the point wasn't about their arguments, it was about how they argued in comparison to how Nietzsche and Camus present their views. One set are superior to others. I.E their method of communication and their style of writing is superior. That's what I said. The fact you are getting so prissy over nothing is really absurd. It isn't an ad-hominem to compare two writers based their writing style. Did you ever do English at school Sam?

I appreciate some secular writers over others and it gets into a full scale argument? I wonder if an atheist was arguing with you over their favourite authors would it lead to a schism :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said I dismissed his points. I found some of them to be interesting, but I don't adopt them. That is different. Likewise with Hitchens. What I said had nothing to do with dismissing or accepting any argument they make. This is you trying to turn the discussion around.

You called their works 'feeble' and now you're saying that had nothing to do with their points and instead had to do with the fact that you prefer Nietzsche as a writer. It is in fact you who is trying to turn the discussion around but whatever you want to think. It's a free country

You're basically saying "Yeah I know that Dawkins made loads of good points in saying that God is a delusion but Nietzsche, one of the greatest writers in history, put it more nicely so Dawkins is feeble :rolleyes:"

God forbid you judge him on the strength of his case rather than his writing ability

togster

It's the question that has caused us to go to the moon. Mans never-ending desire to find the answer to everything and in particular who am I and what is my purpose?.

I think we are here to live. Really live. Not sit in and eat fastfood or play call of duty for 12 hours a day, or get pissed of our heads on a Friday and Saturday night. How is that intelligence? I don't know any other species who is so self-destructive. We are destroying the very thing that sustains us, and this is intelligence?

The very question you are asking OP is the very reason for this minute selection of self-induced problems.

In this debate you often have the religious and the atheists. Both think they are right. In a sense their stance on the subject defines who they are to an extent.

mobius42

From discussion of Nicolas Cage movies to Jakass-fuelled religious debate in just 14 posts. We have a new record!:D

philologos

Sam, yes they are feeble in comparison. I'm really just not going to get into an argument about quality of books. You are allowed to have your opinion that Dawkins and Hitchens are better, my view is that they are simply not, and that atheist authors from former eras are far more interesting to me than anything that they will put across. End of. That's my opinion. I wasn't expecting that you would actively debate my preference of authors with me. You're far far too defensive. Especially when both are putting forward a secular viewpoint.

Some points that Dawkins put across were good. A lot were not. That's my view on Dawkins. So, how about discussing the actual topic instead of getting prissy over what preference of atheist authors I have?

togster

mobius42 wrote: »

From discussion of Nicolas Cage movies to Jakass-fuelled religious debate in just 14 posts. We have a new record!:D

Eh it wasn't about Nicolas Cage movies.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, yes they are feeble in comparison. I'm really just not going to get into an argument about quality of books. You are allowed to have your opinion that Dawkins and Hitchens are better, my view is that they are simply not, and that atheist authors from former eras are far more interesting to me than anything that they will put across. End of. That's my opinion. I wasn't expecting that you would actively debate my preference of authors with me. You're far far too defensive. Especially when both are putting forward a secular viewpoint.

Some points that Dawkins put across were good. A lot were not. That's my view on Dawkins. So, how about discussing the actual topic instead of getting prissy over what preference of atheist authors I have?

you've actually just descended to personally abusing me every time I try to have a rational debate with you. Well you can think whatever you want mate. I'm not here to be abused by people such as yourself

In All Fairness

Hi I can't use the quote feature but I've read the whole thread and found it fascinating. Could I just say as a mentally ill christian.Tut Tut.:) You have used a group of people as comparatives for ridicule without any thought for their feelings because you are both arguing from your minds and not your hearts. Btw jakass if somebody asks you if the messiahs in the psychiatric hospital are not to your taste the preferred answer is that all god's children are to my taste because they were created by a supreme being.:rolleyes:

Anyway I just thought I'd post to say that Jesus Christ being the Messiah and being mad are not mutually exclusive. There are several of us who believe he was both. There is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ suffered with bipolar disorder and if you want to talk creativity and an insight into God why not look at some of Van Gogh's paintings from the mental hospital and then look at "starry Starry Night" and you will know what it is to be touched by God.

As for the truth lads,well I've been locked up against my will four times just for what I was saying.Me and the big man alone together.:cool:

veryangryman

dan719 wrote: »

Funny how you expect atheists to use a certain standard of work, when your entire world view is based on a two thousand year old book containing as much reality as Harry Potter.:rolleyes:

Athiests just annoy me. More so than Jehovahs. Pushing their beliefs in nothing on me.

The most annoying thing about them is that they all seem to revel in the infinitely annoying "South Park"

Parker/Stone was on Bowling for Columbine giving out about how crap his small town was with small town folk etc etc not thinking for one second that it mirrors practically every other small town on the planet. Negative, unfunny and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Thankfully God/Evolution/Veryangryman was kind enough to dilute the pain caused by that complete gash with the excellent Family Guy and excellent-to-a-lesser-exten American Dad

Im not religious, im just not "not religious"

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you've actually just descended to personally abusing me every time I try to have a rational debate with you. Well you can think whatever you want mate. I'm not here to be abused by people such as yourself

How am I abusing anyone to say that I think that Nietzsche and Camus are better advocates of secularism than Dawkins and Hitchens? I've yet to understand this

In All Fairness

Sorry last post wasn't very lucid. Bipolar disorder is charactarised by moods of extreme depression and manic elation caused by the serotonin (Natural Feelgood drug) distributors being skewed so that instead of getting an even flow like most human beings it comes in trickles then in big waves. During these periods of elation the sufferer is incapable of feeling fear even fear of the future because they are consumed not with belief but with certainty. There is no need to argue with anyone because it is not an opinion it is knowledge and if anyone is interested you would gladly show them but that's it. People in this state become incredibly attractive because they have no insecurity just supreme confidence and a total lack of arrogance because they have forgotten their ego.It has no place in what they are doing as their mind has become merely a tool of their heart rather than being a command centre. It is not difficult to understand (given the absence of medication) Jesus in this light. Btw Jackass with regard to the resurrection you can argue supreme powers but it is simpler to just explain the metaphors and if that fails use the Oscar Wilde defence,"Anyone can walk down Bond Street with a dandelion in their buttonhole.It's having the whole town say you did when you didn't that takes genius."

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How am I abusing anyone to say that I think that Nietzsche and Camus are better advocates of secularism than Dawkins and Hitchens? I've yet to understand this

The fact you are getting so prissy over nothing is really absurd

So, how about discussing the actual topic instead of getting prissy

.

Puddleduck

I really didnt like that film.

togster

In All Fairness wrote: »

Sorry last post wasn't very lucid. Bipolar disorder is charactarised by moods of extreme depression and manic elation caused by the serotonin (Natural Feelgood drug) distributors being skewed so that instead of getting an even flow like most human beings it comes in trickles then in big waves. During these periods of elation the sufferer is incapable of feeling fear even fear of the future because they are consumed not with belief but with certainty. There is no need to argue with anyone because it is not an opinion it is knowledge and if anyone is interested you would gladly show them but that's it. People in this state become incredibly attractive because they have no insecurity just supreme confidence and a total lack of arrogance because they have forgotten their ego.It has no place in what they are doing as their mind has become merely a tool of their heart rather than being a command centre. It is not difficult to understand (given the absence of medication) Jesus in this light. Btw Jackass with regard to the resurrection you can argue supreme powers but it is simpler to just explain the metaphors and if that fails use the Oscar Wilde defence,"Anyone can walk down Bond Street with a dandelion in their buttonhole.It's having the whole town say you did when you didn't that takes genius."

It's possible to be this way and not be bi-polar.

Very interesting post btw, especially about ones ego etc.

cruiser178

I get regular erections,there for ,i am

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

.

Valid criticism. Look, I just like Nietzsche more than Dawkins in terms of what he puts on the table. There is no need to be offended or annoyed at that, or get into the nothingness discussion that we did

In All Fairness wrote:

Btw Jackass with regard to the resurrection you can argue supreme powers but it is simpler to just explain the metaphors and if that fails use the Oscar Wilde defence,"Anyone can walk down Bond Street with a dandelion in their buttonhole.It's having the whole town say you did when you didn't that takes genius."

Just because something is simpler does not make it more true. Nice use of Occams Razor, which has been widely debated on the A&A forum recently. However, I don't see that when a tomb is guarded extremely heavily that the body is likely to be stolen. Infact I don't see that we have many more options for:
1) How the body was removed from the tomb
and
2) How Jesus appeared to the Apostles, and the 500 witnesses that Acts accounts for.

I've dealt with the Ressurection quite extensively before and I don't think we need to go down that long road of discussion again. Simply put I explain some of the reasoning for my belief in the Resurrection on my signature.

In All Fairness

Hi Sam. What makes Jesus Christ different is the enormous respect Pontius Pilate had for him even though he was only one man without an army and with nothing to offer Pilate. Pilate went out of his way to try and spare Christ and there is no doubt whatsoever that if Jesus were alive today he would almost certainly be committed to a mental hospital. Pilate even went to the lengths of making sure Jesus was the last one on the cross on Friday evening because they didn't kill Jews on the sabbath and so the spear just before midnight rather than by heatstroke and exhaustion over days. As far as I,m concerned if you see God in Jesus and not in Pilate you're only seeing half the story.

philologos

In All Fairness wrote: »

. Pilate even went to the lengths of making sure Jesus was the last one on the cross on Friday evening because they didn't kill Jews on the sabbath and so the spear just before midnight rather than by heatstroke and exhaustion over days. As far as I,m concerned if you see God in Jesus and not in Pilate you're only seeing half the story.

Problem. Shabbat starts on Friday evening (6pm - 6pm Saturday). He would have broken Shabbat by putting Jesus up on Friday evening. It seems that he didn't care all that much for Jewish practice.

In All Fairness

togster wrote: »

It's possible to be this way and not be bi-polar.

Very interesting post btw, especially about ones ego etc.

Thank you. I am not sure if you have seen manic elation or not but you would be able to differentiate it from confidence.People believe you because they can actually feel your confidence. They believe in you. Carrie Fisher got four films greenlighted in Hollywood one time before they could get her into Hospital.Top story btw. A friend with manic depression (successful businessman) bought a Ferrari while elated and another friend also successful businessman who was with him got caught up in his certainty of the future and bought a Mercedes. When they got yer man right he was able to give back the ferrari as he had been off his nut but the other poor divil had to keep the Merc.

aDeener

larchielads wrote: »

just watched nicolas cage film "knowing". In it he poses a question to his class why and what are we here? He offers a couple of answers like are we here cos of some huge explosion, the big bang, or is it God or someone or something else made us. Are we just an accident that happened and there is no god or whatever. is there no meaning to our existence cos we're just an accident. do we even matter in the greater scheme of things. why is there no life, well none that we know of, any where else?maybe this topic belongs in the religious section but just want to see what people think.

pfft nicholas cage films.....:rolleyes:

"genghis khan was a mongol, not to be confused with a mongoloid like the actor nicholas cage" so true :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Valid criticism. Look, I just like Nietzsche more than Dawkins in terms of what he puts on the table. There is no need to be offended or annoyed at that, or get into the nothingness discussion that we did

Calling someone prissy is not not only not valid criticism, it's against the charter and I could have reported the post if I was petty enough. Needless to say I've lost the last little shred of interest I had in anything you have to say because it's clear you've taken to personally attacking me every time our paths cross. This is far from the first time but it will be the last

In All Fairness

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem. Shabbat starts on Friday evening (6pm - 6pm Saturday). He would have broken Shabbat by putting Jesus up on Friday evening. It seems that he didn't care all that much for Jewish practice.

Sorry I may have got my times wrong and why do you want to believe that Pilate was a bad person. What I meant was that Jesus was put up last that is why he was killed with a spear. Obviously it was 6 p.m. not midnight. My apologies

In All Fairness

Sorry jakass I forgot to ask. What's Occams Razor and what's A&A?

I,m afraid if I should know, I don't.:o

philologos

In All Fairness wrote: »

Sorry jakass I forgot to ask. What's Occams Razor and what's A&A?

I,m afraid if I should know, I don't.:o

My fault for using the terms without explaining them don't worry:

A&A = Atheism & Agnosticism - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

Occams Razor = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor

Occams Razor being discussed is near the end of this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055599005&page=10

Spiritoftheseventies

yeah that used to bug the **** out of me. thoughts about where we came from. used to have these episodes. not so much anymore. i think you have to live in the moment and keep busy.