tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post7313692688346815934..comments2024-03-29T06:03:45.545-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Sacrifice, Transcendence, and Vertical RecollectionGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-59539585800693679272007-05-30T14:07:00.000-07:002007-05-30T14:07:00.000-07:00a.m. rude-eu said... "One of my atheist pals had t...a.m. rude-eu said... <BR/>"One of my atheist pals had this to say in explanation of your sophistry:<BR/><BR/>The technique these people are using is just another version of that old sophist's trick, the 'hermeneutic circle'... one cannot understand the parts unless one firstly understands the whole. The trick, for it is a trick, is attributed to Wilhelm Dithey.... "<BR/><BR/>Might want to check into upgrading your consultation pals. The problem here, is that we are not just discussing ideas, but experience entwined with ideas.<BR/><BR/>You can not properly know an experience until you have experienced it. If you've never experienced skiing down the face of a mountain and going off a jump, flipping and landing right at the sweet spot & swishing to a stop [or insert other unique experience here], you can nod or shake your head at someone who is describing it to you all you want, tell them they didn't feel that weightless exileration, freedom and other sensations all you want - they are going to ask "Have you ever done it?"<BR/><BR/>When you say "no", they're going to look at you like the goofball you are, and say "After you've done it, come back and we'll talk", and of course as you turn away, they're going to make 'loser!' jokes behind your back & laugh your comments off.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56467002961853261472007-05-30T13:54:00.000-07:002007-05-30T13:54:00.000-07:00"studied lessons learned from history" means that ..."studied lessons learned from history" means that he's only read things that agree with his point of view. Because, if you actually read history, you see all those times that Christianity has been a civilizing force for good. Do you think slavery in the Western world would have gone away without Christians demanding that it go away. (You might read a bit about the Quakers, starting with John Woolman if you disagree.) And of course, the whole point is that we are to bow down to Mr. Mackenzie's superior knowledge, which is the only reason I can think of for the tone of his posts here. As for making assumptions about someone you've never met, he seems to be doing a lot of that himself.Terihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13382050215676302342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-90867253889640441372007-05-30T13:13:00.000-07:002007-05-30T13:13:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alan MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667377534438807166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-14627064872673539862007-05-30T11:52:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:52:00.000-07:00I don't see how God is a matter of plausibility. "...I don't see how God is a matter of plausibility. <BR/><BR/>"I'm afraid that there is no evidence for the existence of Alan Mackenzie, and hence no reason to believe that there is one. I would quite happily believe in Alan Mackenzies if there was evidence available, but there isn't any. There is evidence for belief in Alan Mackenzies, but that does not prove that Alan Mackenzies exist, or are plausible."<BR/><BR/>That's what your statement sounds like to the ears of the religious.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45666914412957138872007-05-30T11:09:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:09:00.000-07:00Offspring fed.I can't remember if I addressed this...Offspring fed.<BR/><BR/>I can't remember if I addressed this:<BR/><BR/>"Once again, like other people here, you are making an additional assumption about a complete stranger, which requires additional qualifications. You could say that I lack a complete knowledge of the Inquisition. You could ask me to provide my views on the Inquisition, but instead you say that I cannot possibly understand it. You are erecting an artificial barrier, by making a priori assumptions about strangers which need supporting with evidence."<BR/><BR/>Alan, you came here making a priori assumptions about us, too. You assumed we needed correction, education, enlightenment. You assumed that we do not already engage in critical thinking here. <BR/><BR/>You assumed that we overlook, excuse or condone religious conflict. Else, why would you have felt the need to go into a history lesson to assuage our ignorance?<BR/><BR/>You may be able to comprehend the facts of history. When thus-and-such occurred, who did what, which edict was issued by whom, etc. <BR/><BR/>By your own admission, however...<BR/><BR/>"I'm afraid that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and hence no reason to believe that there is one. I would quite happily believe in Gods if there was evidence available, but there isn't any. There is evidence for belief in Gods, but that does not prove that Gods exist, or are plausible." (and so on)<BR/><BR/>...you are bound by purely sensory information. If there isn't sensory evidence for it, it doesn't exist. Do I misunderstand you? If so, please correct me.<BR/><BR/>*Therefore,* yes indeed, it is utterly impossible for you to understand the spiritual significance of the Inquisition. Based on the information you yourself have provided me, I have come to the only possible rational conclusion here. Without the spiritual component, all you know are the dry facts of history. You cannot access the living marrow of history, and in a similar way, the living marrow of language (parable, metaphor, etc.) is utterly lost on you.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41884902805825760852007-05-30T10:32:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:32:00.000-07:00a.m. rude-eu said "Yep, another attempt to compare...a.m. rude-eu said "Yep, another attempt to compare atheists to other animals. Oh, I'm much too of a "literal minded" subhuman to appreciate the symbolic meaning of the Mackenzie-Pussy analogy, right?"<BR/><BR/>AH! LOL!<BR/><BR/>What an absolute goofball! (I do wonder about your reading in the 'Pussy analogy' though... could be a few insecurities purring through?"Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12835689373954220712007-05-30T10:30:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:30:00.000-07:00Susannah - 5/30/2007 08:52:00 AM = AOK!Susannah - 5/30/2007 08:52:00 AM = AOK!Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-36102082860097419312007-05-30T10:26:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:26:00.000-07:00a.m. rude-eu said "How so? I get shivers down my s...a.m. rude-eu said "How so? I get shivers down my spine when I listen to Handel's Zardoc the Priest. Music stimulates the same area of our brains responsible for language, something proven by the sciences. You imply that I am being dishonest, and in doing do, yet again, like many other readers here, you are implying that I am being dishonest, without arguing why you know that. "<BR/><BR/>Open your cataracted eyeballs and look at what you're trying to appear to argue with. Big Black Steinway said "Everyone loves fuzzy puppies. But sentiment and love are different things. Enjoyment is the same way. If you say you enjoy religious music - I think yer sayin', you like the sound of the notes. That doesn't mean you enjoy religious music it just means you enjoy music. To enjoy religious music you must in fact BE religious. Just because Bach sounds nice to the ear doesn't mean you can claim to enjoy religious music."<BR/><BR/>His argument is clearly not that you don't enjoy music, but that by missing the religous conotations, you miss that portion of the music that it was specifically written to address. You enjoy music, you are unable to enjoy religous music.<BR/><BR/>That's his argument. Argue it, or don't, but don't try to evade it.<BR/><BR/>What a maroon.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11384722940711023842007-05-30T10:09:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:09:00.000-07:00a.m. rude-eu said " Ask yourself why you don't bel...a.m. rude-eu said " Ask yourself why you don't believe in Wotan, Thor, Allah, or Apollo"<BR/><BR/>Because they sound like a new line of skateboards.<BR/><BR/>Further explaination would be lost on someone with such self restricted imagination as yourself.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79263469260233626242007-05-30T09:57:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:57:00.000-07:00"river,Many theists argue that most religious wars..."river,<BR/><BR/>Many theists argue that most religious wars have not been over religion at all, but simply used religion as an excuse for power or land struggles. If this is the case, we already have "beastly conflict"."<BR/><BR/>Correct. No principles exercised, good or evil. Also, it need not be symmetrical - one side may be fighting 'beastly war' while the other 'principled war'. As a theist, one looks for the reasoning behind conflicts in the people making the decisions as well as in those carrying out the orders to determine the intent. It seems quite often that people automatically assume all war is 'beastly' - I.E. just about power/land struggles on an animal level and then go from there to justify that generalization. Mostly they just reveal their inability to see anything higher than the material.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-60674539388916005992007-05-30T09:50:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:50:00.000-07:00Stop bitchin', man."How so? I get shivers down my ...Stop bitchin', man.<BR/><BR/>"How so? I get shivers down my spine when I listen to Handel's Zardoc the Priest. Music stimulates the same area of our brains responsible for language, something proven by the sciences."<BR/><BR/>So does anyone who enjoys music. Yer seemin to think that somehow being of a religious subject makes it no longer a bunch of tones and rhythm. So religious music is well composed. So what? You still don't enjoy religious music, you enjoy music. Its the same argument people make to make themselves look non-racist - you know, 'I have black friends!'<BR/><BR/>I mean, either you do or you don't. You can't enjoy th' music as religious music at all - the only reason you know its religious is cause someone told ya. Tell me some music that is religious that you enjoy that doesn't say its religious and I might believe ya.<BR/><BR/>Fer cryin' out loud. It sounds like an elitist argument but its still true. What's so significant about Zadok the Priest that makes that song especially poignant? Or is it just neurons firin'?<BR/><BR/>Why should it be named 'Zadok the Priest' then? Just call it 'Song number [n]' and be done with it. <BR/><BR/>Don't lump me in w/ the rest, I'll show no quarter about this crap.<BR/><BR/>"To enjoy religious music, you need to be a human theist. To not enjoy it requires one to be a subhuman atheist. I'll be damned if I let that one slide."<BR/><BR/>Didn't say ya couldn't enjoy music. Yer missin' the distinction. Its like sayin' you enjoy the Bible. Yeah, and you also enjoy Wuthering Heights, and Emma, and Watership Down, and so forth. Telling me you enjoy it because it fires certain neurons in your brain only tells me how your body responds and not why it is actually enjoyable. You know? I'm askin' for the principle of th' thing, like yes, a car runs on an internal combustion engine. But WHY? <BR/><BR/>All you've done so far is get offended - which is a bad choice considerin' I've got enough insults t' keep you spinnin' for the rest o' yer days.<BR/><BR/>Am I guilty of a hate crime? I don't believe in 'em. So, I couldn't know what yer talkin' about. <BR/><BR/>Besides, yer arguin' with a frickin' piano. I mean, bein' big and black and all I'm kinda intimidating, but man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1223593536552197372007-05-30T09:38:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:38:00.000-07:00alan mackenzie's reply on his bog was: Alan Macken...alan mackenzie's reply on his bog was:<BR/> Alan Mackenzie said... <BR/>Van,<BR/><BR/>"I'm afraid that your assessment of Bob's writings came over like an astrology reading. I sincerely doubt that you understand Gagdad Bob's writings any more than he does.<BR/><BR/>Vagueness does not equal sound or valid argumentation.<BR/><BR/>Long, important-sounding paragraphs does not equal ground-breaking revelation. <BR/>"<BR/>Followed by another snippety offense taking asnide about how someone here noticed he seemed humorless. Go figure.<BR/><BR/>Snippety tone and Evasion will not substitute for valid argumentation either. You dissapoint me Mr. Mackenzie. You have gone out of your way here to seek any opportunity to take offense, and have been rude about it as well. <BR/><BR/>Finally, my comment was clear as could be to anyone seeking to understand. Doesn't mean it couldn't be disagreed with, but to compare it with an astrology reading & dismiss it as vague is just juvenile pettiness.<BR/><BR/>You have either purposefully misinterpreted several commentators here (JulieC, Susannah, Will, etc), or are so unbelievably ignorant and dense as to trully haved missed their true intent. Either way you are useless here, you will convince no one here with your adolescent appraisals. <BR/><BR/>Your only use from here out will be as whackatroll fodder. Do Enjoy.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-57356135307487572272007-05-30T09:16:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:16:00.000-07:00Cryptic, I really don't have time but...Christians...Cryptic, I really don't have time but...<BR/><BR/>Christians are not against stem cell research. They are against destroying human embryos. And in fact, the most productive lines of stem cell research are actually those using *adult* stem cells. Read up on it. I'd post all the news stories that show the promise of legtimate stem cell treatment, but I don't have time to search right now. It's also true that uninformed reporters do not distinguish between types of stem cells used in promising treatments.<BR/><BR/>So no, Christians are not for denying people life-saving research. We are against *consuming our own young* for that purpose.<BR/><BR/>Clear enough?<BR/><BR/>I have no idea the extent of your understanding of Christian doctrine, but do you really believe murder to be compatible wiht it? I read a brief entry a couple of days ago in which an atheist disavowed the horrific human toll of atheistic Marxism. I think Christians can be allowed, then, to disavow the murder of an abortionist.<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but I'm ready to say bye-bye to this now and move on to better things. Plus, my kids are asking for lunch.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-63143023081918823502007-05-30T09:09:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:09:00.000-07:00alan mackenzie, the comment came second, how about...alan mackenzie, the comment came second, how about the questions?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37745453863641594972007-05-30T09:07:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:07:00.000-07:00"Do you not find it insulting when Dawkins refers ..."Do you not find it insulting when Dawkins refers to those who believe in a deity as mentally ill?"<BR/><BR/>No, not in the least. For one thing, I coonsider the source. I think he's nuts.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-49857835995988431252007-05-30T09:02:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:02:00.000-07:00Interesting.To those who claim you're not being in...Interesting.<BR/><BR/>To those who claim you're not being insulting, you might reflect on that you've referred to atheists as "sub-human". Protests that this is meant literally, and not as an insult, are a bit hollow. Would you refer to someone who didn't know calculus as "sub-human"? Do you not find it insulting when Dawkins refers to those who believe in a deity as mentally ill? <BR/><BR/>That said, I don't care. Insult all you like, but be aware of what you're doing. Or phrase your points more carefully. <BR/><BR/>Susannah,<BR/><BR/>Yes, that's what I was referring to, but your simply saying "that's a lie" doesn't tell me what part of it you disagree with. Clearly you recognize there have been shootings of abortionists. I sense we're heading towards "No True Scotsman" (with whatever validity that may have). It's generally reported that Christians (ah, or perhaps that's only Catholics?) are against stem cell research. <BR/><BR/>Slavery is, generally, forced labor without justification or recompense. As such, it's an unnecessary and unhelpful impingement on social freedom. There should be an optimal level of social freedom to allow society to provide general welfare and happiness to its citizens, and slavery would be incompatible with this. <BR/><BR/>magnus,<BR/><BR/>That does help, though I am curious to how many here it applies. Generally theist-atheist discussions gloss over the definition of a deity, and perhaps they should not.<BR/><BR/>If you've removed the lower values from the god-concept, are there other aspects of this concept that have been removed? Does this god have emotions? Is it properly termed an entity at all, or is it more of a spiritual force? I've seen references to Jesus here in these comments, how does that fit in, given that the Christian deity is apparently rather tied up in "lower values"?<BR/><BR/>Merely stating that one has a value system does not mean that they have a de facto belief in a deity (though I'm no longer sure the words "a deity" make sense in your cosmological view). If all white panties were destroyed, the net effect on people and the world would be rather minimal (okay, it might force a renaming of "white day" in Japan). The effect of eliminating freedom would be far greater. It doesn't matter if nothing exists in fifty years, if freedom is eliminated now it's bad for those on this earth. Having an extranatural "badness" of it adds no force to the argument.<BR/><BR/>river,<BR/><BR/>Many theists argue that most religious wars have not been over religion at all, but simply used religion as an excuse for power or land struggles. If this is the case, we already have "beastly conflict".CrypticLifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05313033952671292402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-58291790276635241192007-05-30T09:00:00.000-07:002007-05-30T09:00:00.000-07:00Oh, Alan...You really are humorless, aren't you?Oh, Alan...<BR/><BR/>You really are humorless, aren't you?Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-10063380362267395912007-05-30T08:58:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:58:00.000-07:00BTW, I don't agree about music appreciation. Ther...BTW, I don't agree about music appreciation. There's that common grace thing.<BR/><BR/>However, I do get more out of Bach than Chopin.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-10356460226255485872007-05-30T08:56:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alan MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667377534438807166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-43204399751799827412007-05-30T08:52:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:52:00.000-07:00Alan Mackenzie, I am going to try to speak your la...Alan Mackenzie, I am going to try to speak your language...<BR/><BR/>"There is a huge gulf between critiquing someone's arguments, and disregarding someone's basic human rights."<BR/><BR/>That's a bald assertion. You have not provided any evidence to prove that Bob or the Coons are denying anyone his basic human rights. Are you not an advocate of free speech?<BR/><BR/>"Where is your evidence that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you and others here?"<BR/><BR/>See above.<BR/><BR/>Disagreement does not equal "intolerance". <BR/><BR/>This sword cuts both ways, and one should be careful in wielding it.<BR/><BR/>If Bob were actively lobbying to criminalize leftwing ideology and impose capital punishment as the penalty to godless thought, you might be justified in calling him intolerant. As it is, you are applying a double standard here.<BR/><BR/>You are over here on someone else's space, annoying the heck out of everyone with your unwelcome and factless accusations, but that's not intolerance, under your rubric, that's simple disagreement. Whereas Bob, blogging on his own space, writes things that annoy the heck out of you, but that's not simple disagreement, that's intolerance. <BR/><BR/>The irony is, you cannot tolerate Bob's opinions. If you could, you would discuss them with us. Instead of "asking, seeking, and knocking," you come here in full battle armor making baseless accusations, such as: Bob is "dehumanizing you" and trying to eliminate your "human rights" and somehow we're all dangerous proto-Inquisitionists. The fact is, you are projecting all of this. <BR/><BR/>*That's* intolerance.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69834429624214468012007-05-30T08:50:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:50:00.000-07:00Van-Don't be surprised if he dismisses your questi...Van-<BR/>Don't be surprised if he dismisses your questions out of hand or perceives them as ad hominem attacks. :^)<BR/><BR/>I'm kinda surprised he believes in spirits though.<BR/>A true atheist does not.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23036093343700911122007-05-30T08:49:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:49:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alan MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667377534438807166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-6928698449119072912007-05-30T08:40:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:40:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alan MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667377534438807166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-9762521507525707862007-05-30T08:33:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:33:00.000-07:00Alan Mackenzie, I'm starting to feel neglected - i...Alan Mackenzie, I'm starting to feel neglected - is there a reason why you are ignoring my questions & comment for you?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76404079984619524512007-05-30T08:23:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:23:00.000-07:00In fact, you're the most defensive little bugger I...In fact, you're the most defensive little bugger I've ever seen. You take every damn thing literally and demand, demand, demand. I'm frickin' tired of it. You demand evidence. But what evidence would you believe? What, scientific studies that are often poorly premised and inaccurate? It's a load of crap. You just want to have a debate on some kind of horsesh*t rational level where you hold all the cards. OR you think you do. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, since when was Ad Hominem against the law? I for one don't intent to have a competition with you. Look, I'm sure you ain't a bad guy. That's not what we're sayin'. What we're saying is everyone is kind of messed up - that's what its about. Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean ya can call foul and expect us to agree wit ya.<BR/><BR/>You call foul, we call bullsh*t on your foul, and you get all defensive about it.<BR/><BR/>Maybe yer the one speaking in tongues?<BR/><BR/>Maybe I need a tune up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com