In my experience, a high IQ is often more of a detriment than an advantage in most settings, especially business and social. It essentially materializes as an overdrive of caution and sensitivity.
How do you substantiate your claim that anger is the easiest emotion to feel? How do you measure "ease of feeling"?
As Stephen Hawking once said, "those who brag about their IQs are losers." I suspect you're just trolling anyway. What test did you take, and what was the standard deviation it used?
How do you quote a post that isn't even in this thread?
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Another red herring trucked out constantly. Those who defend religion from its most silly detractors are closet atheists trying to fight their way back into the closet.
The idea that you're an atheist fighting to get back in the closet is one interpretation, I suppose, but not my intent. More like an agnostic uninterested in atheism for aesthetic reasons, trying to pass off his distaste as logical instead of emotional.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The word, although not literally, generally means the same thing. Western Judeo-Christian conceptions of the good derive from Plato and St. Augustine's reconceptialization of Plato's thought into Christian thinking. So it has historical precedence.
God also contains things like right thinking and belief, exclusion of wrong thinking, blood sacrifice, original sin and eternal punishment. The two aren't synonymous. If you were talking about someone other than the Pope talking I might buy that they're talking about God in a vague metaphysical sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Agreed. Although, if we seperate any human being from a revelatory conception of the good, how can we say that they believe anything at all.
The only good possible is revelatory in nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Liberal atheists are really just one step away and although, clearly not nihilists in the brutalist sense they way the Nazis were, they do hold generally lukewarm conceptions of reality which as I said earlier, don't really say or mean much.
If you say so, any liberal atheists here think you're nihilists? If they say no then does that mean they're just not educated enough to see it or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
As an example, I'd bring in the current debate regarding gay rights. The bourgeous conception of a "right" is really just a permission granted to homosexuals by the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals that dominate power structures in the United States. Granting them the permission to get married will not change the way that homosexuals are treated culturally in the United States. This weak dogma paraded as a staunchly moral position is really just moralism.
The moral position (at least as I see it), isn't granting someone the permission to marry so that they'll be treated better in society, it's not withholding permission from one group while granting it to another based on the right of equality. All a right ever is is the obligations of everyone else, so of course it would involve "permission", but the permission is obligatory.
Let me rephrase what you said, something less fuzzy:
"The bourgeous conception of a "right" is really just a permission granted to blacks by the overwhelming majority of whites that dominate power structures in the United States. Granting them the permission to get married will not change the way that blacks are treated culturally in the United States. This weak dogma paraded as a staunchly moral position is really just moralism."
I'm missing the point, maybe because I don't understand what you mean by moralism. The dictionary says "the practice of moral principles without reference to religion", but that's obviously not what you mean. I don't see how this substantiates the claim that liberal atheists are near nihilists..
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
You're right, but as I stated earlier, most atheists, especially the loud bleating kinds, like Richard Dawkins, clearly draw, whether consciously or unconsciously, their atheism from early liberal thinkers. Philosophically, liberalism started as a clean break from earlier theological arguments regarding humanity to a materialist and secular view of humanity. Liberalism is modern atheism at its heart, except since most moderns are unaware of their roots in fairly strong philosophical arguments for atheism, especially by John Locke, they can only repeat the distorted reflections of those views that they gain through the popular media and appropriate atheist spokespeople.
And most theists are unaware of their best arguments drawing from the distorted reflections of them they gain from their media and pastors, or just parrot them because that's what they were taught, so any kind of theism doesn't also does not have the "intellectual heft or moral understanding to understand this issue".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I think what I've subtly tried to say time and time again is that a disbelief in God or theology or divine revelation isn't stupid, just that it's something that must be considered carefully with an awareness of what can be lost if we throw away God. Remember Nietzsche's lamentation, "God is dead and we have slain him."
Possibly, except you singled out atheists, when this is true of every group. Religious groups doing away with the local god for their own. Moral, philosophical, economic, political, whatever.
Plus that's a value judgment, saying what is lost is of greater value than the truth, which seems oddly utilitarian coming from you. I'd rather be in a war living outside the Matrix than happily eating steak inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
One of the biggest myths of any human political perspetive on ideology is it's claim to functionalism. That is, it's non-artificial nature.
How can a perspective on something be functional or non-functional?
How does that relate to what I quoted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
It doesn't work that way because I argue that the Pope isn't misrepresenting history.
Sure by redefining God to mean Good, I'm not convinced, because he used the word atheist. If he meant good he would have used evil as the antithesis of good. Or if we do accept he meant Good by saying god, he's even more strongly equating atheism with evil, so still no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
What he is probably doing is misrepresenting the Church's role in resisting the Nazis within Germany and I agree, it's silly.
I don't think he says much at all about the Church's role in his speech.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The idea that you're an atheist fighting to get back in the closet is one interpretation, I suppose, but not my intent. More like an agnostic uninterested in atheism for aesthetic reasons, trying to pass off his distaste as logical instead of emotional.
Possibly, although emotion is an important component of any intellectual response.
Day Tripper I think you may need a refresher on what 'trolling' actually means. Here you are:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families." - Courtesy of Wikipedia since the term Trolling isn't in a dictionary.
Here's another definition for you:
troll
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
(1994-10-17) Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03)
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by northcrunk
Sorry I cannot understand you because of your multiple use of crutch words. Anger is the easiest emotion to feel which is why those with low intelligence resort to low brow swearing or angry rhetoric.
Yup, I'm just some dumb yokel who got all angry cause you're some sort of super genius.
Though in my experience, I havne't met too man really intelligent people that go around braging about their IQ.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
I wasn't bragging btw, I only raised it to make a point against the pope basically saying athiests are not intelligent. But hey, you may have provided a argument against me if you are also an athiest.
Calling someone stupid for not being impressed by your self-reported IQ score is quite in line with the definition. The Albertan creationist Ian Juby, who opened the creationist museum in Big Valley, boasts openly about his 145 IQ and his Mensa membership. Is he smarter than Feynman? Any reasonable person would say no; Feynman was a genius and Juby is an idiot.
I am reminded of those great philosophicalisers of our time, the Headstones:
God loves me
Same God loves you
Same God loved Hitler, man
And them 6 million Jews
And there is my issue with organised religion. The organisations have as much to do with politics as religion. Any of them can (and will) bend God to their purpose. Which includes the Pope professing denial of the Church's knowledge of abuse... doing so has nothing to do with the Catholic religion, everything to do with protecting the leaders of the church. This does a disservice to the many people who take benefit from their religion.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mad Mel For This Useful Post:
I didn't want to clutter up the board with another Vatican/church post, but apparently the Vatican Bank is being looked at in a possible money-laundering scheme.
Quote:
The Bank of Italy investigation was prompted by two wire transfers which the Vatican Bank asked Credito Artigiano to carry out, the Bank of Italy said.
The Vatican Bank did not provide enough information about the transfers -- one for 20 million euros (about $26 million), and one for 3 million euros (about $4 million) -- to comply with the law, prompting the Bank of Italy to suspend them automatically, it said.
Quote:
The Vatican said Tuesday it is "perplexed and baffled" by the public prosecutor's actions, and the Holy See aims for "complete transparency" in its financial operations.
Peter12 has got to be one of the biggest labelers, categorizers and ideology subscribers I've seen.
You can create some category you call "new atheists", define it however you want and lump a whole whack of people in it. But it does not mean your category in any way corresponds to reality, nor that the people you lump in it share the views you proclaim they do.
I'd love to see you try to post without using political, social, philosophical ideological categories for people.
You probably think you sound really smart using all those categories you've heard of in university but the way you apply them liberally to large groups of people shows your ignorance in how much variety there is in opinion and thought.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
seeing as though we have this up still...here's another beaut from the Pope's Astronomer...yes I wrote that correctly.
Intelligent aliens may be living among the stars and are likely to have souls, a senior Vatican scientist said yesterday. The Pope's astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, said he would be happy to 'baptise an alien.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
seeing as though we have this up still...here's another beaut from the Pope's Astronomer...yes I wrote that correctly.
Intelligent aliens may be living among the stars and are likely to have souls, a senior Vatican scientist said yesterday. The Pope's astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, said he would be happy to 'baptise an alien.
Why is it so odd that there would be an stronomer on the Vatican payrole.
Good job though with your usual schtick. Throw out an article and pull out the line that makes someone in a position of power within a religion look like a moron, and totally ignore the rest of the article and the rational thought displayed by that person.
Like this: The Pope's astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, said he would be happy to 'baptise an al ien' - but admitted that the chances of communicating with life outside the Earth were low.
or this: Dr Consolmagno also dismissed Creationism and claimed that the revival of 'intelligent design' - the controversial theory that only God can explain gaps in the theory of evolution - was 'bad theology'.
Or this: Asked if he would baptise an alien, he replied: 'Only if they asked.' He added: 'I'd be delighted if we found life elsewhere and delighted if we found intelligent life elsewhere.
'But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it - when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.
Seems to me the guy is actually a pretty qualified scientist who agrees with the general concensus on life in the universe, and was answering questions about how that view conincides with his religious beliefs, and did so in a pretty uncontradictory way.
But yeah, let's point out that "OMG the pope has an astronomer!!!! And he wants to baptize aliens"
Yup, I love the good old Cheese M.O. of throwing out out of context quotes to passive agressively bash religion.
Peter12 has got to be one of the biggest labelers, categorizers and ideology subscribers I've seen.
You can create some category you call "new atheists", define it however you want and lump a whole whack of people in it. But it does not mean your category in any way corresponds to reality, nor that the people you lump in it share the views you proclaim they do.
I'd love to see you try to post without using political, social, philosophical ideological categories for people.
You probably think you sound really smart using all those categories you've heard of in university but the way you apply them liberally to large groups of people shows your ignorance in how much variety there is in opinion and thought.
This is one of the most moronic things I have read in the past 15 minutes or so. You try doing it first. The fact that I understand what new atheists is, and have tried to explain it logically and you don't understand is not my fault.
Fact is, philosophical anthropologies are important and I do my best to communicate exactly what they are. It's a complicated process, but I am, in no way, a snob about. Most people can try to behave and interact respectfully, even when the subject matter is complex and controversial. I don't think you can handle it.
Seems to me he's a primo example of how organized religion morphs and adapts it's message to protect it's power base.
The Pope would have ordered him burned at the stake for those observations only a few hundred years ago.
Cowperson
Probably, yes. In all truth, the Church is mainly bogus. Reading their view on reproductive rights is bizarre, dualistic and outright hostile to women. The Church deserves to be nailed to many a tree for its crimes and lies.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
