TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions.
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how do you burn imaginery bridges?

Not all religious people are fundamentalists.

If you approach them with a preachy voice and an aggressive tone, it's very unlikely that you'll ever persuade them. If, however, you treat them as equals, you may not do wonders at first, but they'll sure be more receptive to whatever it is that you've got to say.

Fundamentalists are a lost case, though.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I don't have it against you man, but you are not doing yourself or the conversation any good by behaving in this fashion. Let's not make this to be something personal when it's really only a critique of your arguments. I concede that I might have done a better job in writing it the first time.

Who do you think you are? We're on a trance messageboard here. Save it for the classroom. Talk about being a 'stubborn whiner', at least I am accused of whining about something worth whining about.

I don't make arguments on a message board. I post messages.


If you want to critique arguments, critique arguments. How can you say these things are not personal?

"Quite frankly, I used to read all your comments on deep and meaningful subjects like philosophy, psychology, music, etc. Adam because you are a very knowledgeable person who has read and has studied them and you always debated reasonably. Now you've turned into a stubborn whiner who likes to play devil's advocate."

"LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is."

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I think we all agree that it's not the best situation. But what are you going to do? I dare you to go over there and scold the father who kills his raped daughter. Are you going to police the world? Oh wait, the US already does that..

I know you are not big on criticizing religion, but ceasing to imbue religions with the ridiculous amount of respect they have gained throughout their history would be a fantastic start.

Making the set of religious beliefs that tolerate this kind of behavior disappear is another great start. This doesn't mean to extinguish all religious belief in the world, it means to eradicate the twisted ideas that have plagued it over their existence. I think that only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the overall message of the story of Jesus, which comes to a pinnacle with the sermon on the mount, is a positive one for mankind (regardless of his being a divinity or not).

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If you approach them with a preachy voice and an aggressive tone,

they'll feel right at home?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira it's very unlikely that you'll ever persuade them. If, however, you treat them as equals, you may not do wonders at first, but they'll sure be more receptive to whatever it is that you've got to say. Fundamentalists are a lost case, though.

you dont have to be a fundamentalist to be forcing your superstitions into the public sphere, and onto other people. these are the only people i care about, and i say fuck em. like i said earlier, these so-called new atheists will never (can never) change the world, so why not infuriate some theists in what little time we have? the dear lord knows they shit us to tears. ideas dont deserve automatic respect, and i fail to see what placating the peddlers of filth is ever going to achieve. but you never know, a quick, amusing insult (such as dawkins and hitchens are famous for) could just wake up the non-committal. and if not, well i certainly enjoyed it

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Who do you think you are? We're on a trance messageboard here. Save it for the classroom. Talk about being a 'stubborn whiner', at least I am accused of whining about something worth whining about. I don't make arguments on a message board. I post messages. If you want to critique arguments, critique arguments. How can you say these things are not personal? "Quite frankly, I used to read all your comments on deep and meaningful subjects like philosophy, psychology, music, etc. Adam because you are a very knowledgeable person who has read and has studied them and you always debated reasonably. Now you've turned into a stubborn whiner who likes to play devil's advocate." "LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is."

Yes, I get it. I have been guilty of doing the same thing I am giving you shit for now.

I conceded that it was a stupid way of saying it. Can you accept the apology and move on?

Let me ask, what do these arguments accomplish?

---

MOVIN' ON.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I know you are not big on criticizing religion, but ceasing to imbue religions with the ridiculous amount of respect they have gained throughout their history would be a fantastic start. Making the set of religious beliefs that tolerate this kind of behavior disappear is another great start. This doesn't mean to extinguish all religious belief in the world, it means to eradicate the twisted ideas that have plagued it over their existence. I think that only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the overall message of the story of Jesus, which comes to a pinnacle with the sermon on the mount, is a positive one for mankind (regardless of his being a divinity or not).

I was a self declared atheist for years and have always remained a critic of book religion.

Universal morals don't make sense. Your hero himself said that things like human health change over time. This guy said that values are primarily based on preserving conscious experience. Since conscious experience changes based on advances in science in technology, that means values will likely change as well.

So what is the point of universal morals if they need to constantly change to adapt to changing values? Obviously they won't change at the same time everywhere around the world, and obviously different cultures will react differently to them.

Not to mention that the pure machinery/red-tape/bureaucracy needed to enforce these morals on a governmental scale would be highly impractical and probably autocratic.

Do I think that theoretically there are universal morals? Maybe. However it's surely not pragmatic, and highly dangerous territory in the area of civil liberties and cultural diversity. Human civilization is an ecosystem of sorts. In any ecosystem, sustainability is guaranteed through diversity. Sort of a checks and balances situation. I believe human civilization requires the same sort of cultural diversity to prosper. (and also diversity in nature, but that's another topic...)

quote:

Originally posted by Lomeli Let me ask, what do these arguments accomplish? --- MOVIN' ON.

What does anything accomplish? You end up in a different spot than when you started.

Great answer.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but you never know, a quick, amusing insult (such as dawkins and hitchens are famous for) could just wake up the non-committal. and if not, well i certainly enjoyed it

Yeah, and I think they have built a nice fan-base from people like you and me that enjoy the fuck out of statements like these:

"To "choose" dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid. "
-Christopher Hitchens

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests""
-Richard Dawkins

Edit: Adam, just read your last post but I'm too tired to type out a response right now. I'll hit the sack now, and type it out tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Yeah, and I think they have built a nice fan-base from people like you and me that enjoy the fuck out of statements like these: "To "choose" dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid. " -Christopher Hitchens "Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"" -Richard Dawkins

see lira, how dare you suggest that such tones are counter-productive! little is more valuable than mirth!

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I think that only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the overall message of the story of Jesus, which comes to a pinnacle with the sermon on the mount, is a positive one for mankind (regardless of his being a divinity or not).

I thought his overall message was love your neighbor as yourself =/

Except homosexuals, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Universal morals don't make sense. Do I think that theoretically there are universal morals? Maybe. However it's surely not pragmatic, and highly dangerous territory in the area of civil liberties and cultural diversity. Human civilization is an ecosystem of sorts. In any ecosystem, sustainability is guaranteed through diversity. Sort of a checks and balances situation. I believe human civilization requires the same sort of cultural diversity to prosper. (and also diversity in nature, but that's another topic...)

I get into this argument with my girlfriend all the time. Yes, cultural diversity is a very important thing, and yes we shouldn't assume that we are better than other people and they need to follow what we believe to be objective universal morals, however, I don't understand how things like "killing people is bad" shouldn't be a universal moral.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews however, I don't understand how things like "killing people is bad" shouldn't be a universal moral.

..it already is.. was this sarcasm?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar There's a wonderful and cheerful little movie that you should watch called "Jesus Camp".

excerpt..

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec ..it already is.. was this sarcasm?

But if morality can come and go as political or social climate does, what good is establishing certain actions as universal or not? You basically said this yourself. Killing is an entirely moral act when you have the appropriate reasons. Would you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Marcus, there are times when being aggressive works in the context of speaking for atheism.

We need both. There are "kindler gentler" Carl Sagan types who believe teaching science and skeptical thinking is the way to slowly wean people away from superstition, but sometimes education isn't enough to shake people out of their stupor, and you need to slap-a-bitch like Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris are doing..

Here's an excerpt from a conference where Dawkins was debating Laurence Krauss, Neal Degrasse Tyson, and a few other "peaceful" atheists who believe in education and persuasion was the way to win people over. I think Dawkins' response sums it up nicely

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Not all religious people are fundamentalists. If you approach them with a preachy voice and an aggressive tone, it's very unlikely that you'll ever persuade them. If, however, you treat them as equals, you may not do wonders at first, but they'll sure be more receptive to whatever it is that you've got to say. Fundamentalists are a lost case, though.

Why would you approach a religious person as an equal? Clearly, someone who believes in an old man in the sky ready to punish them for not believing in him isn't on your level.

Just what is "clear" about that?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Just what is "clear" about that?

I was being facetious. There are more important aspects to participating in society than intelligence. A atheist serial killer obviously isn't any better than a religious charity-worker.

However, I have little time for people with a limited grasp of reality.

Well you'd certainly be a minority in that respect, if ********'s threads are any indication.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well you'd certainly be a minority in that respect, if ********'s threads are any indication.

Last night I met this writer from New York and we were having a discussion about Philip K. Dick. There's someone with a limited grasp of reality who should have stuck around.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Yes, cultural diversity is a very important thing, and yes we shouldn't assume that we are better than other people and they need to follow what we believe to be objective universal morals...

Even when it's quite obvious that your objective morality is better? The raped daughter = shame for father = murdered daughter scenario is a good example, even though it's quite extreme. I shall resort to utalitarianism here and say: exactly what good does it do to anyone involved in this unfortunate situation?

Harris' point was the complete opposite of that excerpt of yours that I quoted. There are times when appealing to relativism is completely counter-productive and morality is a perfect example of this. Saying the opposite is choosing to ignore whatever moral knowledge and improvement humanity has acquired over its existence.

No kidding. Philip K. Dick had a sort of sorcery with his writing - the synchronicities that man was able to elicit and relate to were just shuddering. I still haven't worked up the gall to read Valis just yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On No kidding. Philip K. Dick had a sort of sorcery with his writing - the synchronicities that man was able to elicit and relate to were just shuddering. I still haven't worked up the gall to read Valis just yet.

Read a bit about his later life. I'm pretty sure he was a delusional schizophrenic or something similar. Valis is semi-autobiographical.

If you like Dick , I suggest you read some Kurt Vonnegut too, particularly Slaughterhouse Five.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.