Originally posted by EddieZilker
The point is that imposing sanity isn't very sane and won't achieve desirable results
That's not what people are asking for. It's already well established that it is on a supernatural scale that religion will ever go away, so the second best thing is to diminish it. That doesn't automatically require force.
de+
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
I'm arguing that totalistic thought-reform creates a dystopian world. My argument has nothing what-so-ever to do with religion. I'm just focused on the flaws of your rhetoric. Your recent answers consist of thought-terminating clichés.
So Constantine's totalistic replacement of the Roman pantheon with Christianity created a distopian world? Or your argument is bankrupt?
No society ever suffered from becoming "too reasonable".
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by de+
No society ever suffered from becoming "too reasonable".
I think you're caught up in the abstraction of the ideal and not understanding of what I'm getting at when I'm talking about a fictional construct of governance organized around the imposition of clinical sanity on its citizenry.
de+
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
I think you're caught up in the abstraction of the ideal and not understanding of what I'm getting at when I'm talking about a fictional construct of governance organized around the imposition of clinical sanity on its citizenry.
Oh, i do understand. In practical terms, it's indistinguishable from a theocratic dictatorship. Those not fully sane (where "sane" is defined as "follows the rules") aren't allowed to remain in the citizenry. That ensures that all citizens are sane.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by de+
Oh, i do understand. In practical terms, it's indistinguishable from a theocratic dictatorship.
Your conversational reference points seem restricted to those which really only concern religion. Although they may employ many of the same mechanisms, there are significant distinctions between theocratic and totalitarian regimes. These seem to be distinctions that you are unwilling to make.
It reminds me of having a conversation with my ultra-religious grandmother. We could be having a conversation about dodge-ball, the evolution of safety features employed in modern, industrial fractional distillation, or unresolved issues associated with Panda birthing in captivity, but she would always, always, always manage to steer the conversation to the direction of Jesus. It was uncanny. Having the dodge-ball is like having Jesus in your heart. Pressure relief valve failures, persistent in the F-20 Blowdown Stack, could could be traced to the absence of Jesus in the hearts of Texas City engineers. Pandas born in captivity are the work of the Devil because that requires science which defies God's will for people; and pandas; Jesus.
Hey, you don't want to talk about my half-baked idea for a book that will probably never go anywhere? That's fine. I'm a big boy. I can take a hint. But don't go changing the subject from something that essentially has nothing to do with Jesus because you want to have a conversation about Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by de+
Those not fully sane (where "sane" is defined as "follows the rules") aren't allowed to remain in the citizenry. That ensures that all citizens are sane.
You definitely can't have drastic over-simplification without Jesus.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
I think you're caught up in the abstraction of the ideal and not understanding of what I'm getting at when I'm talking about a fictional construct of governance organized around the imposition of clinical sanity on its citizenry.
Who's demanding that people be forced to be sane? As far as the Judicial system that's already enforced to some degree, i.e. pleading insanity and then being sent to an institute. Actually committing a crime period is punishable and you're forced to correct your behavior (behavioral modification) through prison time/community service. Hence, "corrections officers".
Originally posted by Znack
Who's demanding that people be forced to be sane? As far as the Judicial system that's already enforced to some degree, i.e. pleading insanity and then being sent to an institute. Actually committing a crime period is punishable and you're forced to correct your behavior (behavioral modification) through prison time/community service. Hence, "corrections officers".
It has to do with your over-zealous pursuit of atheism. How many atheism threads are there, in the CoR, and how many are really that ing necessary? It has been done to death, yet you persist. The only resolution seems to be that everyone agrees with you, de+, and Kylle.
Failing such a consensus, all three of you seem compelled to repeat yourself and the same tired refrains (regurgitated, decontextualized Dawkins and Hitchens quotes) concerning everything I (along with others) don't really care all that much about; in part because we have already read it or plan on reading it and do not require your interpretations to help decipher something so eloquently stated by better minds than yours. Looking at the content of your proposals leads one to believe, given your ideal world, there would be no religion. I'm speculating on the nature of how that would be achieved; based in large part on some of the utterly asinine things that have already been posted by you, de+, and Kylle.
You tossing Reductio ad Absurdium into this discussion is, at its root, a Reductio ad Absurdium fallacy. You haven't demonstrated the slightest conception of, let alone a willingness to grasp, what I'm talking about and I, consequently, really haven't invested a lot of time in establishing what, exactly, I am talking about; it is so painfully apparent that it will be misunderstood because you three are absolutely obdurate.
My feelings aren't hurt by what you have to say, although you (EDIT: Kylle - I've just taken to lumping all three of you together, at this point) tried to claim that you were being accused of bullying, earlier, when it was pointed out how pointless such meandering discussions are. But that is the essence of Reductio ad Absurdium. People are openly pointing out your hypocrisy and telling you to shut the up and you miss the point of that to claim you have been unfairly singled out because nobody but you cares to have a discussion concerning your very remedial grasp of atheism.
Dykes_on_Jay
a lot of pinko commies in this thread imo.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
How many atheism threads are there, in the CoR, and how many are really that ing necessary?
I don't know the answer to the first question, but we definitely need only half the amount of the threads we already have.
It's come to a point religious TA's don't care, and you only have us atheists (you're an atheist too, right?) arguing amongst ourselves... with the occasional by Russell or Moral Hazard.
Halcyon+On+On
Eddie, I think you do a disservice to yourself attempting to explain the gist of the story that has been rattling around in your head. People are bound to see it as a point they can dissect, rather than a work of possible literature.
Your pitch rather reminds me of this absolutely excellent episode of The Twilight Zone:
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
(you're an atheist too, right?)
What does it mean if I just really don't care? (serious question)
...I'm a culpable denialist. (joking answer)
I can neither confirm nor deny if there is or is not a god.
(Kind of a long story about why that is but I wouldn't even say I'm agnostic - but maybe that's precisely what it is.)
Lira
I should've said "you're not religious, right?" instead of calling you an atheist, I guess :p
