intermission
in my last post i said
i find this site to be as much a threat to the individual as any other fundamentalist movement i have crossed.
i was asked in direct response
Superstition and ignorance cause suffering and death on a horrifying scale. What would you have us do about it? More importantly, what do you intend to do about it?
do superstition and ignorance cause suffering and death on a horrifying scale? the question supposes a cause for suffering and death, and then asks that i determine the solution based on the assumed cause. i cant really know what the individual who asked this wanted to find out with the question, but as far as i read it, it doesnt seem to be a very telling question. additionally i dont find the cause to be very accurate. but, just assume the assumption and ill answer the question anyway.
i think the first place to start is education. this is a euphamism for indoctrination, of course, but a fine one in any event. i personally believe in indoctrination of total and absolute freedom. throw all the concepts that are thought in a pot and let the buyer beware. there are processes, theories, schools and bodies to be spoken about as idea objects. there are decisions that will be made and assumptions that will be reached by the students based on the framing of the presentation of these ideas. conclusions are for individuals. processes, questions, and temporary assertions are for groups.
schools are publicly funded because they are valuable to the government as a mode of preperation for specified society and indoctrination. when the government is more frequently referred to as 'the government' or 'they' than 'the people' or 'we'... you have a problem. when institution forms, and sides are chosen on a 'policy level', you have the beginnings of a public truth, and public truths are frightening things.
this is why truth should be completely excluded in public affairs. facts are facts. conclusions are opinions. the data is the data and it will speak for itself to anyone interested in looking into it. unfortunately, as we all know, it speaks different things to any who look. to all else: why would you want them to? im sure they are off doing something that makes them quite happy enough and, otherwise, these concepts exist and may be found by any who do rudimentary searches. to force the involvment of their intentionally uninformed opinion is just ludicrous. the only people who it actually matters to are the people who are doing it and the people who are affected by it. war needs to stop. i have no interest in paying for it in any way. i think its ridiculous. let the pentagon put on a bake sale. the mathematics of abortions are not all that appealing to me. tho i would say that tax cuts in overpopulated areas is not an unreasonable stance to take. who is getting the benefit from the abortion laws as they stand? who should be?
but, i digress. what should be taught in public education? who is to recieve benefit from an education from the public? what should the returns to the public investment to this education be?
as it stands: factory towns get factory workers. ghettos have ghetto schools that serve as wage slave and requitment pools. every area educates so as to continue itself, and so does it funnel up to the controlling head where one is allowed to exist. not to say it isnt possible to make it out. of course it is, and many do. just about enough to keep the rest trying.
the benefit of public schools is continuation of society and, currently, the assurance of overarching power.
i think that if you want to make real change, you should ask yourself why and how we are teaching theories in public school. not that they should not be mentioned, but that process should be primary in public school. let the kids go outside into the world and come back to discussion time with questions in a public setting. allow a sense of community and understanding surrounding questions about the natural world to develop in them. public curriculum leads to nothing but trouble.
private institution should research whatever aspects they choose. evolutionary research should be done, research of whatever everything anything that can be asked should be done if someone wants to do it. the individual will do well enough at making their own belief decisions if they understand personal discernment.
in addition to the processes of logic and the scientific method, abstract thought should be encouraged in public schools. the purpose of a society, in my opinion, is to create an experience that is as positive as possible from the perspective of as many individuals claimed by the society as possible. if the society is not successful in this (e.g. the public is not claiming to be 'happy'), it is either the public's responsibilty to re-shape society or governments responsibility to re-define 'happy'.
this is a quote from me from a document ive been writing on for a while. it attempts to describes the aspect of experience that excessive use of logical processes excludes.
'recursion of the mind', or "art" beyond a typical manifestation is 'art' of whatever variety but more generally manifestation without object, given that any object may be used (including {:no object}, 0, nil and the concept they attempt to represent) for whatever purpose that can be used, given that there are those uses that are
labeled 'intended' or 'typical' and others that are not, granting that each (named and otherwise) are exactly equally valid, though one possibly holding more 'practicality' for those using it with its intent, though by no means in all cases.(e.g. thats not a bug, its a feature)
now, to some scopes, it is necessary to make conclusions. in the realm of education, however, conclusions should be drawn by the student to avoid the problems of an echo chamber.
in this way, i think that the public effects of ignorance and superstition can be mitigated and relegated into the personal affairs of the individual, as it should be.
to the public policy ends of it, i will say this:
any truly democratic system should have a clear and defined process by which the public may choose to burn down the publicly owned house where the head stays, assuming a head is to be defined. ample warning should be given to the leader and his party, and it should be done as peacefully as any other transfer of power.
if they leave, i guess you dont have to burn it down. but without clear and obvious advantages given to the people, no matter the superstition, ignorance for the benefit of overarching institution will prevail. benefit for the power structure is not free for its "constituents" (subjects)
at the end of it: i am an advocate of local power, personal freedom, open dialogue, and unexpected criticism of well established ideas. nothing will stop either suffering or death, however. i would say that to think otherwise is delusional.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
- averyv's blog
- Login to post comments
I am surprised that you find
I am surprised that you find the meaning of my question so opaque. I hope that the process of writing your answer provided you with some insight into the question.
You find this site "as much a threat to the individual as any other fundamentalist movement [you] have crossed". I do not for a moment think that the RRS is a threat to the individual, but I shall entertain the notion purely for the purposes of this discussion.
We are fighting a war of memes against religion, pseudoscience and the brand of non-thinking known as faith (although some Rational Responders may deny it out of distaste for the violent metaphor). If you find the RRS site a threat to the individual, what strategy do you suggest that is safer? This is the meaning of my question.
I agree that in fighting superstition and ignorance education is of paramount importance. However, it is not the only front in this war. If we are to turn the tide, we must find ways to make freethought and scepticism spread like wildfire. This calls for memetic engineering, which is precisely what the RRS is doing.
Quote:I am surprised that
i do not agree with the assumptions in the question, i do not agree that there is a war to be fought, and i do not agree that anything can be done about suffering or death. this makes such a question difficult to answer.
however, a revolution with an end in mind is a revolution with a despot at the end. and so i say:
if in any way the ideas push for standardized thought, cut out a mode of thinking, or to establish dominance of a particular belief or mode of thinking, i view it as a threat to the individual. movements as these grow into massive machines of oppression, no matter how well intentioned the first rounds of such a movement.
if the thought is to give neutral, balanced information, encourage all aspects of thought (not only logical processes), and keep a mind toward a totally free and open society where ideas may be expressed as they are considered, rather than through a predetermined good-filter, i see it as a step in a decent direction. if this is the case, i have definitely missed something. but, if the goal is in fact total freedom of thought for all, i have not given it a fair shake, and i retract my comment.
on the other hand, moving out of the tyranny of one system and into the tyranny of a more methodical one is not my idea of a good time.
why? i do not understand this. what is your goal in fighting memes? historically, there has been much more success absorbing them (io saturnalia to christmas, for example, sun gods to sundays). i would like you to suggest to me that you would be ending such memes, rather than merely setting up your own camp. i find this highly unlikely, and either way, see very little difference in being watched by the body of religion and the body of science given the institution of government still sitting between the body and the people.
faith is not non-thinking. faith is trust without absolute knowledge. i do not see the benefit in discouraging faith in individuals. i have tons of it, yet have no problem discussing the need, benefit, and mode of societal coexistance. this is because i understand (to some level) the purpose and benefit of a society, the reasons and tendencies of governments, and the condition of humans. my ability on both fronts causes me to question the purpose of such a goal.
faith is also personal and personally defined. one is free to speak against it as much as they like, i suppose, but to demand its removal sets a pretty nasty precident, and breeds quite a level of mistrust in me toward your proposed movement. it is not fair, right, or reasonable to demand an aspect of human thought be removed. if it is a detrimental thought, it will die. if it is a useful construct in any system, it will find its place in any system. if a powerful system takes hold of a powerful construct, the powerful system is a much better target than the powerful construct, as constructs are absorbable and interchangable.
all of the things claimed to be done by 'religion' are done by people. for the site being so strictly atheist, an amazing amount of action is attributed to god.
much more than fighting superstition and ignorance, my post was intended to suggest a way to a better society. i have no issue with either superstition or ignorance in an individual provided their ignorance is not detrimental to me. as an example, i have no issue with a hellfire and brimstone preacher firmly believing that no one should have the right to an abortion. he doesnt need to get one. he also has no authority.
a much better than fighting against ignorance and superstition is encouraging individuals to maintain a scope of understanding and importance in actions, policies, and thoughts, and to be able to maintain the difference between public and private. i may personally think whatever i like. i should not demand you think this as well, and i should not act in such a way that an opposing opinion has no opportunity. if it is desired, it will be had. suppression of thought on any level and for any reason is just wrong. to the contrary, defense of any position should be forefront in a truly free society.
fighting against defined norms and overarching or demanded perspectives on any particular topic seems a much better goal than against ignorance or superstition. the effects on ignorance and superstition would surely be felt, tho it is intended to have the effect of peaceful coexistence and societal success. what is the purpose of society, after all? is it to find the facts of the origin of man? is it to sustain life? a particular mode of life? living? understanding? culture? or to help the individuals claimed by a society to lead a prosperous and enjoyable existence as defined by each individual in question?
i think it to be the last of these, and see demanded logical/scientific filters to be as detrimental as those centered around some cartoon vision of god.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
this is not to say that you
this is not to say that you should defend a position you do not believe in. but to have a goal of domination leads to trouble.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:faith is not
So then what is thinking? And then how would you define non-thinking?
Tell that to his followers.
Forgive me for wanting those with power to use logic and reason to make decisions instead of getting a revelation from god... If a person wants to come along and claim something they better damn well have a better reason then god if they plan on getting me on board. Why? Well they can just claim anything then. Like you said its trusting without knowledge.
Quote:So then what is
i guess 'thinking' is 'doing think' whereas 'non-thinking' is 'not doing think'. ive never not thought, that i know of, and if i knew of it, then i must have been thinking. ive blacked out before. maybe that counts?
i would like to cut the power down to the point it just wouldnt matter. private affairs may rule private affair and the feds can sit up there and help us pass around the money. if that. i think theyre totally worthless.
come on board for what? if its a picinic, god seems likea fine enough reason to me, even maybe if its not such a nice day. god as a reason for war seems fishy any way you dice it. most other things, gay marraige, stem cell research, and others...the feds just have no place in. a person's opinion on the subject can define how much they support it (in actual support, not flag waving and shouting). peple think if they dislike something or disagree with it they should just go shut it down. scope is necessary, and presently greatly lacking.
they can claim anything. it is up to you to trust or not. i cant imagine politics operating any other way.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:if in any way the
If we accept that thinking can actually extract useful insights from sensory or memetic information, i.e. that thinking actually does some useful work, it follows that some tools of thought necessarily work better than others. What I want to do is to introduce to the greater public some good tools that are well known to scientists and philosophers but not to all laymen.
These tools may push some other tools to near-extinction.
A whole another issue is how I am going to propagate these tools. I have introduced some of them on my blog, and I also intend to write a book about them (probably in my native Finnish). We shall see how things turn out.
Rhetoric without hyperbole is impossible. (A bit of meta-humour there
)
So what I want to do is to give good, useful, true information but I do think that it is necessary to advocate that information to get the message through.
A free and open society is what I want too. However, I do not actively encourage all methods or tools of thought for two reasons:
- Some tools work so poorly that they are not worth keeping.
- Some good tools are already so well established that they need no help from me.
My ultimate goal, quite unattainable in our lifetimes, is a world where everyone can live a long, happy, rewarding life. Clearly some beliefs are more conducive to that end than others. The belief that Paris is in France is relatively harmless while the belief that blowing oneself and ones neighbours up in a ball of fire is a quick way to eternal bliss is quite detrimental.
It is not power that I want but freedom. I do not want freethinkers in places of power; I want the places of power abolished.
We should demand that all public decision-making (as long as such a thing exists) be based on logical and scientific thinking. But even in private affairs I think it is desirable to advocate (but not mandate) logical, critical, sceptical and scientific thinking. This is because suicide bombings, abortion clinic attacks, predatory belief systems (like Scientology), witch-hunts and gay-bashings are not conducive to our happiness.
Quote:If we accept that
you would have to define 'useful' (and scale of society) to get me to agree to this on a societal level . however, in principle, on every small scale assuming whatever use, your statement is accurate and i stand by it.
i fear encouraging individuals to identify with institution. identification with community and individuals and others is much more important, in my opinion, and leads to a more mutually beneficial society, based primarily on the actions which happen between individuals, and secondarily (but still importantly) on the processes used to reach decisions.
additionally, there is a philosophical side that massive society is just missing. why should i not punch him in the face? because it would hurt me if he did it to me? ohhh.....well then id better hurry up and punch him before he gets a chance. right? right??
i do not feel that moving closer to logic will do anything about this. this is a problem, in my opinion, with societal organization, the viewing of the self, and the understanding of others. i feel that these issues are the more pressing, and if addressed, willl lead to more sensible, agreeable societal decisions. for the sake of a tangible community, too. rather than for the sake of an idea.
but, these are questions of process to reach the same basic goal. i agree with you in largest part. this makes me happy:
here, here. positions are the problem, not the people occupying them. not that theyre doing anything to help the situation...
im less interested in the 'long life' part, but the 'unattainable in our lifetimes' strikes me. this is actually the very reason that i do not find the advocacy to be so important. i have seen what history does to thinkers with good ideas. generation #2 is a rough time.
because of this, i have much more interest in creating alternate systems that encourage happy and rewarding lives immediately. when others are aware they exist, they will come check the water. as long as it is merely theory we will continue conversations like these as we continue a society that opperates contrary to any sense of sense youd like to appeal to. this is another aspect of my insistence that belief causes nothing. either its action and doing, or its not and not. simple as that.
but i dont see benefit in advocating to other people. create for the self and others who understand it to be a good idea. including a massive society in such a conversation is really only going to muddle it into pointlessness. when it is viewable, it will be viewed and judged.
is rhetoric even necessary? i dont know. maybe it is. i tend to think that shortcutting people's understanding to get them to agreeance is not much of a permanent solution. hyperbole only leads to hyperbole, as far as i am concerned. setting the stage for a despot.
i tend to think that if you have a really fine idea as to the proverbial 'way to life', it should be so obvious in your being that others will see it. and anyway, advocacy isnt 'bad'. its success im worried about
all information should be as freely and openly available as possible. the merit of ideas compared to each other is not a foreign concept to people, given they are shown an opportunity to justly compare the ideas. i dont think the proles need your help in an advocacy sense as much as to be given true freedom of decision. the implications of such a responsibility, one would hope, would encourage them to participate positively iin the aspects of society where they feel to be beneficial and to keep tabs on the rest of it as it intersts them. to approach them with less openness, in my opinion, is to effectively close them into whatever new system in the same way they mindlessly went with the first. not a problem for the first go round. powerful figures in try #2 eat people like that for breakfast.
lets just focus on it not existing. i will not disagree with you, but again say that a power structure as lofty as ours can and will mold any sort ofthinking, however logical or scientific, to their benefit. and they will. and it will be to our detriment. facts are not out of the spin machine's control. understanding in the people will force good process by the government. good process by the government, inherently, does nothing for the state of things.
i agree. you shouldnt fight for things you dont personally believe in, instead that any tool or method being advocated should be allowed to be advocated.
poor tools show themselves as such when placed against new shiny ones. there is no reason to tell someone how old or rusty a tool if you can effectively wield a new one. [edit: this assumes the tool is worth something on top of being shiny. i guess. people do like shiny..]
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:Kemono : A free and
I have no confidence that you do. It seems to me you are trying to build a strawman of what Free Thought is...again. People can change their minds about what is useful through demonstration..or a logical argument...exchanging ideas to find what works is not illogical rhetoric...or reason attempted half hearted due to fear of better tools or ideas....or fear of ones beliefs being demonstrated to be irrational, or unreasonable. That must be why you do not think much of logic. I think many, many people would use better tools, if they were aware of them, through the exchange and demonstration of ideas and tools. That is Free Thought. Free Thought seeks to demonstrate, where as your Freedom of Thought can't do anything beyond each person sharing their ideas without demonstration much of the time...Free Thought is Freedom of Thought but with an emphasis on logical demonstration to show how certain tools can be better, which irrationality just can't do.
You do not have to worry about any ill consequences from humanity trying to be as rational as possible, because we will never become perfectly logical that we would stop being human. Reducing harm is worthwhile, and if you disagree, then get out of the way of others who wish to use the best methods in reducing harm and increasing what is beneficial. Irrationality and half hearted attempts at reason can not be used to find what works. Also your idea of Faith is not most peoples. Faith is irrational and redefiing faith, because it suits you is not going to help you. I think you re-define words a lot to slip out of the dilemas we point out. I think you are in denial and so your mind is trying to find any possible way out of the fact that Faith is irrational, as well as believing without any evdiences...which is what all theism is. Sorry dear.
Emotions and Reason go hand in hand, but it is Reason that can best serve the emotions as far as objectively finding ways to meet the hearts goals, and sometimes it is through logical approaches that the heart can change what it want sometimes, or how it will try to accomplish its goals. Irrationality is a russian rulette when it comes to finding the good. Emotions and Reason can work hand in hand. They are dance partners and so should learn not to step on eachothers feet....I think they take turns leading the other...back and forth. Test...feel....test...feel. Feelings can change as you learn more...as you know more. Faith is a wall flower in the great dance of human experience as she does not have reason as her partner.
Strawman of our position averyv. Free Thought allows for ideas to be shared....but they must be demonstrated and explained logically, and irrationality just can't do that...
Yet you are against what we are doing here. You can not demonstrate your tools as useful. So it appears that you make straw men of better tools. Your mind is closed, due to your wanting God belief and Faith to be respected. You have want bare wants and nothing else as far as I can tell averyv.
Wrong. People can sometimes be willing to change their minds after exchange of ideas and demonstration. Many times other ideas or tools do not come to mind without sharing ideas. Why do I get the feeling your sole purpose is to shut out exchange of ideas?
That is what Free Thought is, as well as anti-theism. There is no force or domination when it comes to Free Thought or anti-theism, there is only an exchange of ideas, logical arguments, and demonstration....which irrationalty just can't do.
Kemono. Lets work together
Kemono. Lets work together with averyv. I will be the heart and you the mind.
His ideas should be able to handle it, if there is truly any good or wisdom in his ideas.
I must say averyv I do like some of your stance about government and isntititions, perhaps I will steal some parts of your ideas....that is how Free Thought can work as we do not have to take everything from a persons ideas....we can use reason and experience to pick what is ripe and leave what is rotten at the supermarket of ideas, which is Free Thought.
Quote:I have no confidence
if you ever come across a statement of mine that you think i straight up dont believe but have obviously written, you should read it again. or just ask me about it. i misspeak, to be sure, but i typically mean what i say, and write things with some amount of intention. accuracy varies, but i try to correct.
there is nothing in the statements i agreed to that should elicit disagreement. not one statement was made about where religion, god, or anything else sit in either of those piles, and i know that old tools have died and new ones have emerged. no disagreement. honestly.
a. this is part of why i think its so stupid to try all the time
b. we, as a large group, are dumb enough to think either we or our illustrious leaders have attained true logic.
obviously this is not an aim of this site, but it is a legitimate worry, as power structures love power and, while aims and effects are related, they are by no means the same thing.
excuse me, but i will not stand out of the way because my methods are not what you appreciate. i agree that harm should be reduced, tho i am not convinced that religion is the primary thing that is causing harm, and even if it is, im not sure it is a very good first shot. further, i will not sit back while it is accosted for the simple gullability of a bunch of publicly educated dolts that would be equally indoctrinated by any system that had the resources. the sentiment of 'get out of my way and let me do this' is an aspect of my worry, as i do not have faith that your movement, while it certainly recognizes harm, does definitely recognize the root cause. i am also not sitting here cheering behind the catholic squad. actually, for the sake of intents and purposes, im pretty neutral.
not like yours, is what you mean, and mine is not inconsistent with the dictionary on this one. faith is trust without absolute knowledge, i believe is what i said. the dictionary says confidence. different words, but the sentiment remains.
i redefine words because they are tossed around like big bricks of concrete when they should be blown about like feathery remnants of a whole for the necessary evil of identification. that is to say, i redefine words because their definitions are not universal and sometimes deserve specification given context. i redefine words because i can, and it helps me and others to define specifically what we mean in a conversation rather than resorting to generic and misleading or non-descript terms. i only have so many words to work with, and expression is a higher concern for me than uniformity.
are you asking me to play you a song, antifaith? im sorry. i hardly know you.
ill not have opportunity to demonstrate much for you. but, ill explain soon. in the meantime, would you demonstrate for me how my life would be 'better' without the concept of god? i was going to write 'more fulfilling', but i will give you the leeway of defining 'better' for my life, since you already seem to be aware of the way by which it should be led.
listen, sweetheart. i am well aware (highly, keenly aware) of the fact that god may not exist. i believe that he does because of physical, universal complexities and personal experience.
as a brief summary of this, we have no idea what 'reality' actually looks like. we experience, to varying degrees, a sequence of events comprised of, apparently, a momentary and 3 spatial dimensions. in terms of spacetime, it is very difficult to discern what we are actually experiencing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_theories_of_consciousness
-Hermann Weyl
we experience and judge reality as our sensory and spatial faculties allow. when you say that god does not 'exist', i know what y ou mean, and in many senses agree with you. when i say that god 'is', im not sure if you follow my meaning or not, but i for one do not have issue on any level with our differing stance on the subject.
if you can explain to me how this constitutes 'denial', i would be very interested to hear that. otherwise, if we could just stick to 'confusion', im sure we will both be satisfied with the label. i do not see external verification as an important aspect of belief in god, because god, and belief in general, is an internal affair. scope is important to maintain.
as to faith: i have faith in the government. faith in a negative direction, perhaps, but faith nontheless. i have faith in my friends and family, tho i am let down sometimes. i do not have the delusion that faith makes fact. faith is faith, of course, and based on unknowns, thoughts, beliefs, and personal prior experience. faith is not 'irrational' as much as 'not necessarily correct'.
have some links.
kant's critique of pure reason
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/aesth.html
captain beefheart (don van vliet). a personal hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Beefheart
this is a quote from a course on foucault
from wikipedia about foucault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archaeohttp://www.amcgltd.com/archives/007722.html#007722logy_of_Knowledge
============
Foucault directs his analysis toward the "statement", the basic unit of discourse that he believes has been ignored up to this point. "Statement" is the English translation from French énoncé (that which is enunciated or expressed), which has a peculiar meaning for Foucault. "Énoncé" for Foucault means that which makes propositions, utterances, or speech acts meaningful. In this understanding, statements themselves are not propositions, utterances, or speech acts. Rather, statements create a network of rules establishing what is meaningful, and it is these rules that are the preconditions for propositions, utterances, or speech acts to have meaning. Statements are also 'events'. Depending on whether or not they comply with the rules of meaning, a grammatically correct sentence may still lack meaning and inversely, an incorrect sentence may still be meaningful. Statements depend on the conditions in which they emerge and exist within a field of discourse. It is huge collections of statements, called discursive formations, toward which Foucault aims his analysis. It is important to note that Foucault reiterates that the analysis he is outlining is only one possible tactic, and that he is not seeking to displace other ways of analysing discourse or render them as invalid.
=======================
finally,
http://tinyurl.com/huwze
this is a google cache of some private site that cached http://preeventualist.org, which has been working only infrequently as of late. unfortunate, it would seem, as the cache of the private cache is not really all that complete. one page is enough for the gist.
i hope this smattering of nonsense will serve as some insight. as an extra bit, i posted a small one on a tiny discussion about preeventualism.
http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/007722.html#007722
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:AntiFaith : I have no
I will try to be reasonable, I fail sometimes...
Its too late now, what ever mistakes I make I can always be corrected.
a : I get the feeling you think its stupid for EVERYBODY to try to solve problems with reason....which is the only way - even though we are all fallable. "perfect" or "true" the way you describe comes from religion...God, true God. "Truth"....I believe averyv Free Thought can help to dispell such a notion. b:The more rational we ALL are the less a problem power structures will be in a democracy, or Democratic Republic.
You said "excuse me, but i will not stand out of the way because my methods are not what you appreciate." Well with such distaste for logic and reason I am not sure you have any methods....you have scarred me from our last couple encounters averyv. There is nothing wrong with logic or reason. Or emotions. They all work the way I described as far as I know.
You said " i will not sit back while it is accosted for the simple gullability of a bunch of publicly educated dolts that would be equally indoctrinated by any system that had the resources." Free Thought is all about individualism and more. We each do our best to use Reason and evidences to solve problems and Free Thought can address any problems not just religion. If it acts like religion then it may be a problem. I get the feeling we misunderstand eachother a little. Yea, I am making a few irrational assumptions about you I think.
You said : the sentiment of 'get out of my way and let me do this' is an aspect of my worry, as i do not have faith that your movement, while it certainly recognizes harm, does definitely recognize the root cause. i am also not sitting here cheering behind the catholic squad. actually, for the sake of intents and purposes, im pretty neutral." I was refering to your statement here dear, "i do not agree that there is a war to be fought, and i do not agree that anything can be done about suffering or death. this makes such a question difficult to answer." If I ever have children Mr. averyv, statements like these will only infuriate me. I do not give up, or entertain self defeating attitudes like these. I will not have it. If you don't want to help then get out of the way. I can be a bitch sometimes. But I can see that I misjudged you unfairly, I appologize averyv.
Quote:averyv : i misspeak,
I see a problem here dear. Because you used the word faith I got a little confused as many theists love to equivocate with words, and I am not sure if you are trying to use a word so that other theists ( Christians ) that are unlike you will forget to read thier bible. Christians according to the bible are to live by Faith as defined by the bible.
*Hebrews 11:1Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.
*Romans 8:24-25: For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for that which he sees? But if we hope for that which we don't see, we wait for it with patience.
*2 Corinthians 5:6-7 Therefore, we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we ( ALL Christians) walk by faith, not by sight.
-----------
Faith is irrational as Faith is hope that is naked of evidences. According to scripture Faith is hoping for something blindly. To believe in something with out a reason ( blindly) is unreasonable. To believe without rational thought ( which is what Faith is -blind hope) is Irrational.
I plagiarized from todangst that I remembered reading when I was a theist. We really do not consider how irrational belief can be sometimes.
------------
You said "faith is also personal and personally defined." That is not so for Christians who are the majority. For them it is the bible that defines Faith. Faith as defined by the bible is BLATENTLY irrational. You say : "i redefine words because their definitions are not universal" Thats not entirley true. It is universal for each denomination of a religion, and your definition is just different enough in comparison to Christians who are a majority in the Western World. For Christians the bible defines Faith, not the dictionary. Not you. Many of your readers will understand Faith as Christianity defines it. You say : "i redefine words because i can, and it helps me and others to define specifically what we mean in a conversation" Faith is a poor word for your description, and yes confidence is a much better word for what you describe, so long as you do have a logical argument based on evidences and facts. You said " not like yours, is what you mean, and mine is not inconsistent with the dictionary on this one. faith is trust without absolute knowledge, i believe is what i said. the dictionary says confidence. different words, but the sentiment remains." Then use confidence as it is a better word since you think you have some evidences. Do you not agree averyv?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Faith
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question
I see nothing here as far as confidence. Keep in mind hon, the more evidences the more reasonable the belief.
Lets look at confidence shall we?
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/confidence
Main Entry: 1con·fi·dence
Pronunciation: 'kän-f&-d&n(t)s, -"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances b : faith or belief that one will act in a right, proper, or effective way
2 : the quality or state of being certain : CERTITUDE
3 a : a relation of trust or intimacy b : reliance on another's discretion c : support especially in a legislative body
4 : a communication made in confidence : SECRET
But here ( 1) describes believing based on reason. To believe without reason is to be unreasonable dear. ( 2) does not mention reason. Neither does ( 3) or ( 4) mention reason.
You said : "faith is not non-thinking. faith is trust without absolute knowledge." No it isn't. Not for many people, and you do want people to understand you, so perhaps you should use the word confidence instead. Confidence can be belief based on some evidences. Can YOU yourself show that you have evidences for God? A sentient creator? Kindly take your links to this forum Atheist vs. Theist http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/atheist_vs_theist and demonstrate that your belief in your God concept is reasonable. Or here, http://www.infidelguy.com/forum-3.html Don't be shy sweety. Leave us a link to your thread were you show how reasonable your belief in your God concept is, I bet some of us will see if you are really on to something....
For me a snow flake looks created by a sentient being, it looks that way, but really all I am aware of is nature crafting something sort of complex and pretty. Maybe your belief in a sentient creator suffers from the same dilema some how? Since you yourself have not made a logical argument for God or demonstrated reasonable belief I will ignore it. Don't make us do your work dear. Demonstrate and explain as much as you can at the links I gave , so that philosophers of your caliber can really test your belief. ok sweety?
THANK YOU. Thank you kindly averyv. I am very interested and will do my best to understand it. No guarantees....I may have to bug you about what stuff means.
If I have not addressed one of your points kindly point it out averyv.
averyv, we seem to agree on
averyv, we seem to agree on most of the main points. A few further comments:
I am all for this. However, as we have to physically live somewhere, and practically all habitable land is claimed by nation-states, we are not free to redefine the rules and mechanisms of human interaction on a voluntary basis. If we ignore national laws, we face imprisonment. This is why we have to bring about change in the (nature of the) nation-state first.
I disagree on this point. For example, if a bad tool is used to justify slavery, we should actively discredit the tool in order to get rid of slavery as quickly as possible.
I should think it is. Modern man is immersed in a deluge of memes. If we want certain beneficial memes to spread, we have to help them along.
Sure!
Quote:AntiFaith : Kemono.
Great! I hope averyv continues with you first. Parts of my last posts here can wait except for what is related with what you fellas were discussing.
I should have re-read as averyv suggested. I am glad I did. Interesting.
i got my definition of faith
i got my definition of faith from wikipedia. im a sucker for wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
==================
In Consulting a Dictionary, the definition would read: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.[
==================
i will agree with you that, biblicly, the use of faith is specifically defined. i will not agree with you that faith means one thing specifically because some dominant group of pepole decided it was so.
i agree with your assertion that 'confidence' is a better word for my stance, but i prefer 'faith' for 2 reasons. first, faith is a useful word outside of christianity, and i am not a fan of groups of people usurping words for their own ends. second, i personally consider it as faith. i have confidence in my belief system. i dont see any need to make confidence pull double duty there, and see faith as a fine word. in either case, we are on similar pages.
i do want people to understand me (i guess), but more importantly is people developing understanding. justifying or solidifying words as concrete is not an aid to understanding as much as a means to indoctrination.
i will show. i will explain, anyway. let the deposition settle for a short bit, and i will move into these things soon. this is my first foray into the prestigious intertron as an active participant. my blahg will expand.
ive also got a thing or two to say, eventually, in the atheist vs. theist thread. i see no reason to rush these things. all in good time.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:I am all for this.
i disagree. i think we are free to redefine the rules and mechanisms of human interaction on a voluntary basis. i could not have put it any better had i not stolen your entire sentence.
if we ignore national laws on a large enough scale, we force national justification, which there is none, and so we're safe. right? ok, well, maybe thats not exactly practical. but: to go at the problem with a mind to preserve the problem while attempting to solve it, basically, sets 'them' up to win from the get-go.
i defy you to come up with a change to a nation-state that will not immediately make the nation-state stronger. 'get stronger' seems to be all they do. so, either destroy it or admit the stench of dafeet.
i would rather stop memes, as truth cannot be spread through soundbite. memes, in my opinion, are a primary cause of the oversimplification that serves our illustrious leaders so well.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:I will try to be
no worries. really, you seem to take these things kind of hard sometimes. maybe its just the way i read it, but honestly, its all good.
'perfect' and 'true' given any concept are of that concept as a purity and nothing else, just as in the phrase 'perfectly logical'. all thoughts bring with them some element of the absolute or 'perfection', as no thought is exacted in reality just as it is imagined in the mind.
good luck with that. let me know how it works out.
assuming a level of access to information, i do not disagree.
nothing can be done about suffering and death. they are defined, essential aspects of experience. nothing should be attempted to be done about suffering or death, in totality. unnecessary suffering and death should be mitigated, of course, but this is not what was presented to me.
and i do not agree that there is a war to be fought. i believe a sentiment such as that to be quite divisive, focusing much too much on our percieved differences and far too little on our obvious similarities.
i learned my passive stance from groundfighting. excess energy should be allowed and used against your attacker. if you retaliate with excess energy, you will just tucker yourself out.
i want to help. im just not positive either the definition of 'help' or that you are on your way to a positive outcome
appology accepted. no need for it tho.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
Quote:if we ignore national
I think we should do this, but we need a lot of dissidents to make it work.
We could purge nationalist propaganda from public school curricula. A tiny little victory was actually won a couple of weeks ago when a court in Tokyo found it unconstitutional for schools to force teachers to sing the national anthem (Kimi ga yo) and to stand up in front of the national flag (hinomaru).
I think the only feasible way to eliminate nation-states is by gradual transformation. What do you think? Do you have a more abrupt approach in mind?
Quote:We could purge
a victory, yes, but i wonder how many know what it means? does it make the individuals living under the government freer from the government? does it encourage them to trust the government more? i do not know these things, and recognize such events as positive, but question their meaning in the scheme of things.
it will, more than likely, be a gradual process for their eventual demise (if it ever happens at all), but if groups of self sufficient people make self sufficient communites...even "largely" self sufficient, maintain grid status, etc...i think that you can start to show empirically that the nation-state is only effective in mass indoctrination and war and specifically ineffective at maintaining a reasonable society.
in other words: the nation-state will not die on the nation-state scale for quite some time. but why should that concern me? i don't believe in a nation-state. so, act as if it isnt there (it isnt.) and move on with existence.
the nation-state will not be rectified through nation-state laws. i would bet every american penny ive ever run across on that. (which is not insignificant, as it would actualy be worth the copper) the transfer will only come from the lack of relevance being made obvious. (and actual in the minds of its constituents....which is probably the harder part)
the nationstate will also not be rectified on violence. i think this has been shown enough times throughout history that i dont need to belabor the point any longer than it took me to say 'belabor', which i wanted to get out.
i think disruptions are valuable. especially disruptions in the election process. local elections, up to you. national elections, vote f*ckyou. if over 50% of the voting population deliberately and obviously threw the vote back in the faces of the two puppets on the card, i believe (i sincerely, sincerely hope) the nation would have no choice but to recognize a. how poorly the management has beeen running recently and b. how undemocratic our particular brand of democrazy is.
even if 25? percent that would have thrown their vote away on some third party stuff that could be really nice, but wont ever happen under the current system. or the what? 60somethingpercent who just dont vote at all. let them do it explicitly so as not to be ignored. a nonvote is a valuable vote, after all.
and whatever. that could totally be wishful thinking. but i think that to reason under their terms is to concede that they should be in charge. to start to define our own terms, we show that we do not need them. define our own sufficiency, and we start to choke them out.
to sum up, as if all of that wasnt scattered enough: i think abrupt on the personal scale is the only way to go. the terms of reasonable governmental scale must be set firmly in place as a viable, comparative entity before the majority of individuals will even consider it one way or the other. as such, terms must be made known.
in my estimation, open disregaurd for the current system should be encouraged at every possible juncture. laugh in the face of policemen. ask where they got that funny hat. who paid for that gun, mr? gee whiz. i bet that makes you feel pritty important. beg to be held in contempt of court, make a note for the record of what the words 'contempt of court' imply and how utterly ridiculous it is that you may be detained for such a thing. if you feel so inclined as to not wear a seatbelt, tell the police to let the insurance companies do their own dirty work. demand to negotiate your social contract. make them deal with YOU, the individual. do not let them take the terms of you as a minor representative of society any longer. actions such as these on a large enough scale simply cannot be absorbed unnoticed by the system.
and when things get rough, and they will sometimes when doing things like that, just sit down and put your hands up. go 'lalalalala' if you feel like not hearing what they have to say. peaceful and obnoxious nonresistance. definitely the way to go.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
*Government, even in its
*Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
*To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches.
*An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.
*A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
*When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
*Virtues are acquired through endeavor, Which rests wholly upon yourself. So, to praise others for their virtues Can but encourage one's own efforts.
*The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
*I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
*We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
-Thomas Paine
Beneficial Memes? I believe that there are Free Thinkers who feel the same way.
Very interesting blog averyv. I am a pacifist, I do not trust Government. I am a liberal and a conservative but do not like this two party system. I despise nationalism and patriotism scares the hell out of me. I want to be a citizen of the world. Certain memes that were appealing to me, have planted seeds of discontent, but also seeds of hope -Free Thought.
I don't really have anything to add to your blog so far averyv, I will continue to follow your blog. Very interesting...
averyv, You make very good
averyv,
You make very good and though-provoking points. I shall think about what you have said and comment when I have something new to add.
I look forward to continuing this dialogue with you and AntiFaith.