patrick.net

I'd much rather have Dan as my defense attorney than you

I'm not so sure. Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance, plus his people skills are seriously lacking. He'd piss off the judge and the jury, by implying they are morons. Where as I would drill down to and focus only on the question at hand.

Most people with common sense realize that the better person to argue in favor of secularism, is the person who is sensitive to and possibly even sympathetic with the religious. United States history certainly backs this up.

I'm not saying that the radical doesn't have their place in affecting change or that I don't want any radicals in the conversation. But I believe history will show you that the radical often causes those on the other point of view to dig in and actually strengthens their numbers, by painting the dangerous radical views as dangerous and evil.

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

136

Rin 2015 Jan 30, 7:26pm

Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance

Yes, he may not be in let's say the lead Clarence Darrow role, as in the actor Spencer Tracy of yesteryear, but he'll be the lead member of the defense squad, providing all the angles and hypocrisies of the prosecution.

The Darrow character, whomever he may be, will argue that the concept of heresy is based upon religious canon as oppose to an individual's faith and thus, render a heresy trial as overstepping the powers of some particular denomination's growth curve, in American politics.

137

Bigsby 2015 Jan 30, 7:56pm

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

This isn't an issue of middle.

138

Dan8267 2015 Jan 30, 8:08pm

Oh, you poor victim you.

Hey asshole, I didn't claim to be a "poor victim". I need no sympathy from inferiors. I've clearly stated my position and justified it in great detail. If the best response you can make is a lame ad hominem, then that's your failing, not mine. Grow a pair and debate the issue.

But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

Your opinion does not reflect reality. I criticize religion and superstition because they need to be criticized. Only an emotionally immature person views an adult debate on an important subject matter as arrogance. Get over yourself. If you don't like my arguments then make a sensible counter-argument. Stop crying like a baby.

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Yes, and I have provided ample justifications as to how and why they are. They promote irrationality and very bad decision making with dire, often life-threatening, consequences. For example, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is largely the fault of the two previous popes who have condemn the use of condoms. An estimated 1.1 people died in Africa from AIDS in 2013. Do you consider that insignificant?

Now if you are an emotionally immature brat trying to make a Straw Man argument that I'm saying all people who are deluded into believing in a god are monsters, well, prepare for an ass-kicking. I've always attacked religion and faith, not the religious and faithful. So please, make that Straw Man argument so I can tear you a new one.

This is where we see how much of a black and white thinker you are.

You are a lying sack of shit and you're still hiding behind baseless ad hominem attacks. I could just as easily accuse you of being a "black-n-white thinker" and dismiss you as a loon. There is certainly more evidence in your writing. Nonetheless, I'm taking the time to ridicule every ridiculous point you make whereas you are completely ignoring the arguments I've made in your attacks.

You can't deal with not knowing one way or the other for sure.

I have no problem that mankind's knowledge is incomplete. However, that does not mean that mankind knows nothing.

And in the cases where we don't know an answer, it is far more honest to say that we don't know than to assume a false answer like "god". I have argued this point for years, so your statement is yet another lie.

However, as I have demonstrated in numerous proofs, I can know with no doubt that certain classes of gods cannot exist, including all the gods of the major monotheistic religions. I can know this for the exact same reason I can know the square root of two is irrational. If you are unwilling or incapable of understanding this, then again it is solely your failing. I have explained it many times. Ask questions if you don't understand.

By the way, assuming that there is only one god is a far greater leap than assuming there are none.

So, I think you are the one who can't deal with the fact that your fantasy has been discredited.

Most great mystics or whatever you want to call them, the greatest "holy men' (for lack of a better term), are agnostic to somewhere a little on the believing side of agnostic.

Telling lies to foolish people and convincing them of falsehoods does not make one great. Explaining the universe accurately and clearly does. Carl Sagan was a great man. Your holy men are not.

By the way. I have never said that atheism is a religion.

It's justs Dan's proselytize version which is, maybe to a lessor degree Bill Maher's version.

Contradiction much? You refute calling atheism a religion and then do just that. Well, guess what, you are wrong on both counts.

What I'm doing isn't proselytizing. It's educating. The difference is that I deal in verifiable facts, not superstitious beliefs. That's a big difference. To equate evolution to intelligent design is simply stupid.

. I guess when someone is strongly indoctrinated as a child into Catholicism it's sometimes so hard to undue the effect, without a lot of overboard hostility toward religion later, especially for example in Dan's case. One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

Once again you are pulling shit out of your ass for which you have no evidence. Your statements are yet another transparent ad hominem meant to distract from the arguments you cannot refute. The fact is it doesn't matter who I am or even what I am. I could be a figment of your imagination and it would not invalidate the arguments I've made here. A concept that is valid is valid no matter where it originates. The messenger is irrelevant.

Those who attack the messenger are pussies who cannot attack the message. Their positions are as weak as their minds.

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well.

That's a cop out. The good done in the name of religion would be done without religion or superstition. Man does not need lies to be noble and compassionate. And yes, there would be evil done with or without religion, but the greatest and most dangerous evils in our world are the direct result of religion. One only has to take a look at the Middle East to confirm that.

The problem is the generalization that it always is, or that in total it is negative.

Completely false. Without generalization no book on any topic would have ever been written.

Furthermore, the statement that there is no god and all monotheistic religions are based on lies is not a generalization. It is simply a true statement that you don't like and don't want others accepting. Nor was anything that Sam Harris stated in the original video a generalization. He was quite specific in all his statements.

Ironic that unlike most great thinkers, Dan somehow has God like powers to somehow know the answer to these questions.

What a piece of work is a man!
How noble in reason,
How infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel,
In apprehension how like a god!

Shakespeare would agree with you that the power to think rationally and comprehend things is god-like. However, I believe that all of mankind today should have these powers. The ability to reason should not be reserved for the gods as you suggest, but enjoyed by any educated and mathematically literate person.

How dare you deride wisdom, intelligence, reasoning, and clear contemplation? Who are you to judge the wonders of critical thinking as vile and base? Who are you to promote ignorance and darkness and a return to barbarity of the Bronze Age? Who are you to obscure the beauty of the natural world from others with the pestilent vapors of ignorance and superstition? Man delights not the Danish prince and you make a compelling reason why.

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it?

If you are going to base important decisions on something, you'd had better be damn certain it's true. Take the 12-year-old girl who committed suicide because of the lie of the Christian afterlife. Do you think that's a wash? Take the senator from Oklahoma who blocks legislation to deal with climate change because "god is up there controlling the climate". Yeah, we need facts not lies when it comes to national policies and global problems.

If religion were just verbal masturbation like tarot card readings and people didn't make major life decisions based on them, didn't vote for candidates based on them, and didn't make policy or start wars based on them, then we could ignore religion as a minor vice like tarot card readers and fortune tellers. But that is not the world we live in. Religion affects the education of our children; misinforming them about how the universe works and polluting their minds before they have the chance to fight back. The afterlife lie causes people to make become suicide bombers and to waste what precious time they have. The god lie is used to justify wars and vile policies in our very own Senate. False religion has a major influence on our society today.

And the bottom line is that it is false. Not once has anyone stood up to defend the outright lies of all the religions from creation myths to afterlife myths, from miracles to faith healing, or regarding a god who was quite chummy two to ten thousand years ago appearing as booming voices and burning bushes and parting seas, but for some reason goes to extreme lengths to keep his existence secret today. Hey god, why don't you appear as a burning bush on the Whitehouse lawn. It would be a far more effective way to get your message across than talking inside the head of some nut job.

Okay. Well we can agree on that. Even he knows it, and it might more his forum persona than his real life persona. One would have to hope he behaves a little different in real life.

I stand firmly in my convictions, which are grounded in fact. Because you don't like my convictions, you call standing up for them arrogance instead of resolution. People like you referred to Martin Luther King, Jr. as arrogant and an uppity nigger for refusing to back down on the issue of civil rights. To attack a person's character simply because you oppose his political position says far more about you than your opponent.

And no, I'm not comparing me to MLK. I'm comparing you to the people who called MLK an uppity nigger.

You obviously haven't read Dan's extensive "proof" that God does not exist. You can't prove something doesn't exist without getting very much into what it is.

1. Proofs, not proof. There are many.
2. What I did was address every single class of god one by one. You can break down any multitude into distinct classes and take them case by case.

He takes a straw man definition of God

I'll take any definition of god. And by the way, if you think that any of the definitions of god I used in any of my proofs were Straw Man, then point them out. I used the most well-known and widely accepted definitions and I represented them in their best forms. For example, the Standard Monotheist God or SMG is a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all good. This is exactly what core Christianity, Islam, and Judaism teach. How the fuck is that a Straw Man?

And don't try to bullshit that there are other definitions, because I represented them as well.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to

But I'll call your bluff. Define god any way you like. I'll demonstrate one of four things.

1. Your god does not exist using a priori logic.

2. No one prays to your god and no one looks to him for moral guidance. Your god isn't the god you really advocate.

3. Your "definition" of god is meaningless bullshit masquerading as a definition. You deliberately chose wording to make the issue impossible to discuss and are hoping to add enough Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or FUD to get people to believe the whole subject is a wash. This is exactly what climate change deniers do.

4. Your god is a superhero like all other polytheistic gods. It is not what monotheists believe in god.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Chances are you'll pussy out.

Looks like Marcus did pussy out.

I'll take on any theist using any definition of god any place any time any plane of existence. In fact, back when PatNet had that ask an expert feature, I challenged the pope on the question of the morality of gay butt sex. The pope chicken-shitted out.

And the reason I'm so confident? It's easy to defend a position that is true. Damn easy. It takes no skill to defend the truth because evidence and reasoning support the truth so well. Now if I had to defend a bullshit lie like spirituality, I wouldn't be so confident.

Nice try. I wasn't trolling you. This is a perfect example of your childishness and your emotion and ego driven point of view on this subject.

Once again, Marcus demonstrates the lowest level of the argument pyramid.

Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance

I develop software for a living. I handle detail and nuance far better than you could ever hope to. What you are doing here is called a cop out. You are using a trite platitude to avoid having to address well-supported arguments.

Rin says

I'd much rather have Dan as my defense attorney than you

I'm not so sure. Dan isn't so good at navigating nuance, plus his people skills are seriously lacking. He'd piss off the judge and the jury, by implying they are morons.

Actually, INTJs make excellent lawyers because of their great attention to detail and nuance. I find it hilarious that anyone would accuse an INTJ of not being aware of nuance when usually people complain about that INTJs are far too detailed and nuanced in their analysis.

Nonetheless, I chose not to enter law because I could not stand the idea of being a professional liar advocating bad things because that's where the money is. If you want to know what kind of a lawyer I would be, watch 12 Angry Men. It's about a jury, but the character played by Henry Fonda is pretty well representative of my view of courts and justice. Actually, watch the movie regardless. Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

The real battles are fought and won closer to the middle.

There isn't a middle ground in whether or not a god exists. It's pretty much a binary condition.

139

Rin 2015 Jan 30, 8:17pm

If you want to know what kind of a lawyer I would be, watch 12 Angry Men. It's about a jury, but the character played by Henry Fonda is pretty well representative of my view of courts and justice. Actually, watch the movie regardless. Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

140

Y 2015 Jan 30, 8:35pm

while you boys are playing with each other i'll be out porking the hoes in montreal...

Everyone should see it, especially anyone serving on a jury.

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

141

Rin 2015 Jan 30, 8:39pm

SoftShell says

while you boys are playing with each other i'll be out porking the hoes in montreal...

Yeah right, your drive between Brilliant OH and Montreal QC is 11-12 hours.

I can make that trip in ~5 hrs.

142

Bigsby 2015 Jan 30, 8:39pm

Your opinion does not reflect reality. I criticize religion and superstition because they need to be criticized. Only an emotionally immature person views an adult debate on an important subject matter as arrogance.

He was more likely referring to comments like this one:

I need no sympathy from inferiors.

143

Dan8267 2015 Jan 30, 8:39pm

Dan, are you and I playing good cop and bad cop with Marcus?

No, he has no information of value. Let's play bad cop, worse cop.

144

marcus 2015 Jan 30, 8:40pm

Bigsby says

This isn't an issue of middle.

Sure it is. Say some rabid fundamentalists want to make science books less science based, or they want to kill abortion doctors. The laws preventing them from doing these things will come from mainstream Americans.

I will grant you, that the shrinkage of moderate established religions and growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

145

Dan8267 2015 Jan 30, 8:42pm

Bigsby says

He was more likely referring to comments like this one:

A person incapable of even discussing the topic at hand is an inferior. I can respect people with different opinions and values, as long as they aren't evil values, but I cannot respect someone who substitutes ad hominems for addressing the issues. It's what politicians do. We need policy makers, not politicians.

146

Dan8267 2015 Jan 30, 8:44pm

Dan8267 says

I need no sympathy from inferiors.

you gotta love it.

Respect has to be earned. You have earned only derision.

147

marcus 2015 Jan 30, 8:51pm

However, as I have demonstrated in numerous proofs

I have to admit, you're still amusing. Especially when you get all hot and bothered. The primary reasonwhy I don't engage you is because I have nothing to argue. I'm not arguing that God exists. I surely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone that you can't prove the non existence of God. The very fact that you think you can says everything.

Also, why should I argue with you. Every time that I've made a total fool of you in the past, the only thing that happens is you start throwing a hissy fit, showing yourself to be more of child than anyone had previously imagined.

148

Bigsby 2015 Jan 30, 9:02pm

Sure it is. Say some rabid fundamentalists want to make science books less science based, or they want to kill abortion doctors. The laws preventing them from doing these things will come from mainstream Americans.

I will grant you, that the shrinkage of moderate established religions and growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

That isn't the middle. Touting the place of Middle America wasn't the point. Science books should be science. I take it from your perspective that it's OK to toss in a bit of creationism or God speak to balance out that damn theory of evolution - is that not the argument from the 'middle?'
Now you may argue for less stridency from the likes of Dan, but that is merely asking for a change in the way the message is delivered, not the message.

149

Bigsby 2015 Jan 30, 9:07pm

Also, why should I argue with you. Every time that I've made a total fool of you in the past, the only thing that happens is you start throwing a hissy fit, showing yourself to be more of child than anyone had previously imagined.

Come on Marcus, when did you make a total fool of him? Saying is not doing.

150

Bigsby 2015 Jan 30, 9:08pm

A person incapable of even discussing the topic at hand is an inferior. I can respect people with different opinions and values, as long as they aren't evil values, but I cannot respect someone who substitutes ad hominems for addressing the issues. It's what politicians do. We need policy makers, not politicians.

Your points are good enough. You only really do a disservice to yourself tossing in those kind of remarks.

151

Rin 2015 Jan 30, 9:14pm

growth of the evangelicals is a little scary, but the secular foundation is still very much intact.

I'm not arguing that God exists. I surely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone that you can't prove the non existence of God. The very fact that you think you can says everything.

Between the above two remarks, why are you here Marcus?

For one, I do believe in *something*, though I'm not willing to talk about it because it's no one else's business.

With that stated, I have no problems with Dan, talking trash about religious types. Those ppl are insecure, control freaks. Ppl, who I care nothing for.

My beliefs and practices have nothing to do with bunch of ppl, seeking Pharisee status in American society.

Those evangelicals can go f'ck themselves.

152

curious2 2015 Jan 30, 9:23pm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bxQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1A0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6800%2C5153420

why are you here Marcus?

Marcus has a compulsive need to troll, even using a separate browser to stalk the dozens of people (s)he claims to Ignore.

153

Rin 2015 Jan 30, 9:25pm

curious2 says

Rin says

why are you here Marcus?

Marcus has a compulsive need to troll, even using a separate browser to stalk the dozens of people (s)he claims to ignore

That's ok, I just want to make it apparent to him and others.

154

Indiana Jones 2015 Jan 30, 9:33pm

The biggest bully wins, for now. Jump on now the kicking train while Marcus is still down!

155

Vicente 2015 Jan 30, 10:35pm

In my random web searches, I ran across a good but OLD article by Mel Cummins.

How old? 1936. Worth a read!

156

Dan8267 2015 Jan 31, 12:04am

Especially when you get all hot and bothered.

Just because I'm demonstrating what a fool you are doesn't mean I care enough about what you say to get upset. I've said it a thousand times, the purpose of ridiculing the village idiot is to dissuade others from taking up the job.

I'm sure you would like to upset me, as immature trolls thrive on that sort of thing, but you will never have the pleasure. You aren't even a challenge.

Also, why should I argue with you. Every time that I've made a total fool of you in the past, the only thing that happens is you start throwing a hissy fit, showing yourself to be more of child than anyone had previously imagined.

Ah, predictable Marcus. You are consistent. Here's a video of one of your finest rebuttals...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PxdnKQX3SqI

You always know Marcus is going to throw some poop, but it's always funny when he does and thinks he's winning.

Bigsby says

Come on Marcus, when did you make a total fool of him? Saying is not doing.

Marcus follows the Fox News interpretation of reality. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

157 humanity 2015 Jan 31, 2:37pm

It's true that I have two accounts. This is the one I use at work. I have my reasons. I'm at work now, getting some paper work done. Well I should be.

http://patrick.net/?p=1213078&page=6#comments

Bigsby says

Come on Marcus, when did you make a total fool of him? Saying is not doing.

We have argued this subject often. From my perspective, if I look at it objectively, as if I were an outside observer, Dan makes a fool out of himself whenever he gets in to this subject. For him this subject is charged in a way that prevents him from staying civil or rational. And I wouldn't be surprised if deep down he knows why. I believe he's made a fool of himself in this very thread. That's my opinion. But it's true, I didn't really do it. He does it to himself.

Here are couple for Bigsby or Rin or anyone else who wants to see how Dan sometimes gets when confronted with my reasonable point of view.

http://patrick.net/?p=1223325&page=5#comments

Bigsby I get it that you agree with Dan (even back in those arguments years ago) so much that you even enjoy it when he acts like such an arrogant jerk. And that's fine. But if you like that, then of course you don't see how he makes a fool of himself. Look, there's a reason why 10 people have Dan on ignore, and 1 person has me on ignore. He can accuse me of doing nothing more than flinging shit, and that he's the one that's about reasoned rational debate. But those relative ignore stats don't support that claim.

For one, I do believe in *something*, though I'm not willing to talk about it because it's no one else's business.

I respect that, and I think I feel similarly or I might a little more or less agnostic that you.

If you have heard all of the arguments you would know that Dan thinks you are wrong for those beliefs, and he even thinks he has proven you're wrong.

158

Rin 2015 Jan 31, 2:54pm

Rin says

For one, I do believe in *something*, though I'm not willing to talk about it because it's no one else's business.

I respect that, and I think I feel similarly or I might a little more or less agnostic that you.

If you have heard all of the arguments you would know that Dan thinks you are wrong for those beliefs, and he even thinks he has proven you're wrong.

Here's the thing ... I'm so secure in my beliefs concerning that particular topic, that Dan simply doesn't phase me.

In all honesty, I believe that some future science & engineering work will discover the secrets of the universe and it won't be incongruent with spiritual training. In popular culture, the original Star Wars trilogy (not the crappy prequels) was a pretty good metaphor that spiritual training and a universe full of advanced technologies could co-exist.

Since it's a movie, the fundamentalists don't have an issue with it. On the other hand, if they did discover some "Force"-like training among let's say Unitarians, Christian Science ppl, Buddhists, Taoists, etc, those ppl will be dubbed the servants of the devil and be put on trial, ala Salem. And then some one like Dan, running experiments on "Force" practitioners, may discover that Tesla's ether speculation had a biosignature, also explaining the Morphic Field Theory, and then, we're on the way to discovering a new field of science altogether.

Today, such a method of inquiry doesn't exist. Instead, we have bible thumping douchebags, telling ppl and legislatures what to legislate for the greater good of society. These are modern day Pharisees. And the problem with these fundies is that one has to take everything as faith/canon and any disagreement is heresy. And thus, in such a climate, I'd prefer to see Dan, flinging rocks, showing all the inconsistencies both, in the canon (scriptures/letters) and in the so-called faithful.

159

Dan8267 2015 Feb 2, 8:44am

It's true that I have two accounts. This is the one I use at work. I have my reasons.

Yes, trolling is a reason, just not a good one.

if I were an outside observer, Dan makes a fool out of himself whenever he gets in to this subject.

I would say the exact same thing about you. The difference is I back up my assessment by showing how your arguments, if you ever make any, are wrong, whereas you simply make baseless assertions about the character of your opponent without ever attacking his arguments.

I'll say, Christianity is fundamentally bad because of x, y, z. You'll say, Dan is an asshat. I'll say whether or not I'm an asshat doesn't undermine x, y, or z and thus doesn't address whether or not Christianity is fundamentally bad. You'll say Dan is arrogant. I'll say you still haven't address the topic of the thread and are just making baseless assertions and that shows that you are not intelligent enough to defend your position. You keep repeating insults without ever addressing the topic.

I'm all for insulting a person who acts like an idiot on a forum like you are doing, but those insults must come from the idiot refusing to address the topic and instead trying to derail the conversation, which is exactly what you and other trolls do. I don't care that you hate me. I take it as a badge of honor. I wouldn't want someone as despicable as you liking me. The fact that you despise me is evidence that I'm on the side of good. The bad guys always hate the good guys. The more you try to poison the well, the more I know I'm being effective in crushing your vile and indefensible position.

so much that you even enjoy it when he acts like such an arrogant jerk

Yep, keep calling Martin Luther King, JR an uppity nigger for speaking out against injustices. "Arrogance" is a code word for uppity nigger. Well, honey, if standing up for the truth is arrogant, than I'll gladly be arrogant. I'd rather be an uppity nigger than an asshole bigot like you.

Look, there's a reason why 10 people have Dan on ignore

Yeah, we live in a highly polarized society where people can't listen to an opposing point of view. Personally, I'd with more people would put me on their ignore list starting with you. I also have 8,559 likes, far more than you, so a lot of people must be listening and saying, well that makes sense. In fact my like to post is 60%, not too shabby.

Now, when the hell have you ever added anything of value to a conversation? You sure the hell haven't in this thread.

But those relative ignore stats don't support that claim.

Really, you're trying to make the argument that a bunch of conservative twats ignoring me means that my arguments aren't rational? Wouldn't a more direct approach be to show that the arguments themselves aren't rational? After all, it's all on public record where anyone in the world, literally, can examine them. Nothing is hidden. So why not address the arguments themselves? Oh wait, you can't.

160

marcus 2015 Feb 7, 9:50am

Here's the thing ... I'm so secure in my beliefs concerning that particular topic, that Dan simply doesn't phase me.

That doesn't make much sense. Unless you're suggesting that the only reason you would ever take issue with a point of view, is when you are insecure about your own view.

humanity says

so much that you even enjoy it when he acts like such an arrogant jerk

Yep, keep calling Martin Luther King, JR an uppity nigger for speaking out against injustices. "Arrogance

No arrogance is an attribute that you know the definition of, and which you must know you project pretty regularly in these threads . Actually, you trying to say that you're the MLK of this issue, is simply one more example of your arrogance.

I've never taken issue with criticism of fundamentalists for their ignorance. I've only taken issue with these two claims:

1) Generalizations that all religion is evil or your arrogant claim that somehow you know mankind would be better off if religion has never existed.

2) Your claim that you have proven the non existence of god ( for all definitions of god).

Ironic that you say my observing your arrogance,, is calling MLK an uppity nigger, considering that if the good reverend were here, he would disagree with you more strongly than I do (regarding your generalizations about religion).

161

Rin 2015 Feb 7, 10:50am

Rin says

Here's the thing ... I'm so secure in my beliefs concerning that particular topic, that Dan simply doesn't phase me.

That doesn't make much sense. Unless you're suggesting that the only reason you would ever take issue with a point of view, is when you are insecure about your own view.

Considering that I have no scientific proof that things like a Qi field exists a/o that meditation, prayer, or Tai Chi forms have some spiritual, as well as a neurological/endocrinogical, dimension then yes, Dan is right.

Until a science can be formed, explaining current phenomena like Morphic Field theory, etc, then a lot of this stuff is conjecture which goes back to the form of thought known as religion. This is why we need Dan.

Otherwise, we'll have a mass of cult leaders, religious Pharisees, etc, taking credit for events and gaining political advantage, and going back to the days when a person would be charged for heresy or witchcraft. I'd rather we have a society of independent heretics. And in that society of heretics, Dan is our secular hero.

162

marcus 2015 Feb 7, 11:05am

Otherwise, we'll have a mass of cult leaders, religious Pharisees, etc, taking credit for events and gaining political advantage, and going back to the days when a person would be charged for heresy or witchcraft.

I find the idea that it has to move toward one of two extremes, either atheism, or cults and fundamentalists to be a false dichotomy.

In fact, I believe that if we have any hope of evolving as a species, which would include having less fundamentalists and less ignorant superstition, that can best be accomplished incrementally by having better religions.

If a fundamentalist, only has a choice between sticking with his fundamentalist religion or total atheism, then the change won't happen.

IF on the other hand secular arguments are made by a growing middle, many of whom are members of more sophisticated religions, then ignorance might be diminished. This is why the attack of moderate or liberal politicians who claim to be believers are misguided. IT's not like there isn't any history to back up what I'm suggesting here.

Haven't we learned enough lessens yet about the downside of growing polarization and the divide and conquer tactics used by the ruling class ?

THe fact is that there has been a decline in recent decades in the practicing members of the more moderate religions in this country and an increase among the fundamentalists. I don't believe the Dans of the world are helping that at all. IF anything it only pushes the decline in the traditional and more moderate religions.

163

Rin 2015 Feb 7, 11:50am

THe fact is that there has been a decline in recent decades in the practicing members of the more moderate religions in this country and an increase among the fundamentalists

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity. Ask yourself back in 2000 ... what percent of the urbanized western population would be addicted to smart phones and devices by 2015? Would you have guessed 2/3's or more? Nowadays, ppl don't even talk on the phone, they text almost everything. What does that say about the value of basic human connections?

Let's say the membership of the Unitarians, the most moderate of any denomination, don't rise in contrast that of the fundamentalists, because Unitarian gatherings are *too worldly* and have ppl who're interested in stuff like Tai Chi. In contrast, the Fundies have fire brand speakers who attract ppl who're basically intolerant, in pain, or simply hateful but then, turn around and talk about JC's love, as if they're special just because they belong to that *special* congregation.

So yes, we need Dan to keep those ppl out of politics. As for the Unitarians, do they even need to worry about Dan? It's obvious that their members are somewhat normal and keep their beliefs within their respective households and ecumenical gatherings.

164

marcus 2015 Feb 7, 12:00pm

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity.

I agree with this completely. And it's partly the basis of the pov I'm expressing here.

So yes, we need Dan to keep those ppl out of politics.

Those people are already in politics and are going to continue to be in politics on the religious right.

Who is going to represent the middle ? And who best do that in a way that grows a secular middle ?

Promoters of atheistm ? I don't think so.

165

Rin 2015 Feb 7, 12:11pm

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/a/ReligiousOrigin.htm

Who is going to represent the middle ? And who best do that in a way that grows a secular middle ?

Promoters of atheistm ? I don't think so.

Dan's role in my hypothetical "Scopes" witch trial is not Clarence Darrow/Spencer Tracy but more that 2nd attorney, who digs up all the dirt on the opposition.

The diplomat, who let's say attends a Unitarian gathering, is the arbitrator whose job it is to show that Dan's got valid points, however, the Fundies don't because of X, Y, Z and at the same time, he's wise enough not to preach Unitarianism because hard proselytizing is not their game.

166 humanity 2015 Feb 7, 12:45pm

A little history:

Early on, it was emphasized that these two spheres of knowledge actually constituted a united continuum, but this alliance did not last long. Eventually a number of theologians, most notably Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, argued that all doctrines of the Christian faith were fundamentally based upon revelation, and as such were necessarily filled with contradictions which would cause problems for human reason.

As a consequence, they adopted the position that human reason and religious faith were ultimately irreconcilable. Human reason must operate in and on the realm of empirical, material observation; it might arrive at the same conclusions as religious faith and the study of supernatural revelation, but they could not be united into a single system of study. Faith could not be used to inform reason and reason could not be used to structure faith.

The final push towards widespread secularization was not caused by anti-Christian secularists but by devoted Christians who were aghast at the devastation caused by the religious wars that swept across Europe in the wake of the Reformation. In Protestant countries there was initially an attempt to translate the principles of the religious community into the wider political community; that, however, failed due to the growing divisions between Christian sects.

As a result, people needed to find a common ground if they wanted to avoid civil war. This forced a reduction of overt and explicit references to specific Christian doctrines — reliance upon Christianity, if it remained, became more general and more rationalized. In Catholic nations the process was slightly different, because members of the Church were expected to continue to adhere to Catholic dogma, but they were also allowed a degree of freedom in political affairs.

Over the long run, this meant that the Church came to be excluded more and more from political affairs as the people found that they appreciated having a realm of action and thought where they could be free from ecclesiastical authorities. This, in turn, led to an even greater separation between church and state than existed in Protestant lands.

167

rooemoore 2015 Feb 7, 1:08pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consolation_of_Philosophy

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity. Ask yourself back in 2000 ... what percent of the urbanized western population would be addicted to smart phones and devices by 2015? Would you have guessed 2/3's or more? Nowadays, ppl don't even talk on the phone, they text almost everything. What does that say about the value of basic human connections?

Same argument could be made for every technological advance - especially those that improve communication.

Technology has kept friends who are separated by space and time connected. This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it. Of course, the economy would tank, but that's another debate.

168

Rin 2015 Feb 7, 1:10pm

Long before modern times, during the decline/fall of the western Roman Empire, a senator-scholar, Boethius who was attempting to correct the growing schism between the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople wrote 'Consolation of Philosophy',

Excerpt: In the Consolation, Boethius answered religious questions without reference to Christianity, relying solely on natural philosophy and the Classical Greek tradition. He believed in the correspondence between faith and reason. The truths found in Christianity would be no different from the truths found in philosophy. In the words of Henry Chadwick, "If the Consolation contains nothing distinctively Christian, it is also relevant that it contains nothing specifically pagan either...[it] is a work written by a Platonist who is also a Christian, but is not a Christian work."

169

rooemoore 2015 Feb 7, 1:12pm

meanwhile, on Reddit...

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/2v31f1/a_lighthearted_moment_from_a_childrens_bible/

170

Rin 2015 Feb 7, 1:13pm

rooemoore says

This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it.

Until the day when the phone has an A.I., personal digital assistant. When that happens, that app will most likely end up becoming one's best friend. I think that was a big part of the movie, 'Her', where the guy actually falls in love with his PDA.

171

rooemoore 2015 Feb 7, 1:18pm