|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DHA's Wager | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Undoubtedly true, sad to say.
quote: Nonsense. Because religion was and is used to justify apartheid in South Africa. Furthermore, your concern over hospital care is misplaced, because these individuals have agreed to follow medical practice rather than pray for divine assistance - that is, they are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job. The illogicality of the religious though is easily verified - as we see in so many argments. In fact, every one, whether that be attacking evolution, or abortion, or whatever.
quote: No, becuase I allow the possibility that the person believes honestly, even if they have been misled. But religion still indicates a flaw with the thought process of the person, such that they can only be trusted within certain limits. They have taken the stance that ordinary rationality is not for them - therefore, they cannot be considered safe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I said
quote:and your response: contracycle writes: Nonsense. Because religion was and is used to justify apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid in South Africa was about racism and was justified by the enactment of laws. Religion had nothing to do with justification.
Strategists in the National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the economic and social system. The aim of the apartheid was to maintain white domination while extending racial separation.
You continue,
Race laws enacted in 1948 touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ``white-only'' jobs. Link contracycle writes: Furthermore, your concern over hospital care is misplaced, because these individuals have agreed to follow medical practice rather than pray for divine assistance - that is, they are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job. Then, you agree that medical personnel can be trusted because they, in your own words, are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job. BTW, You use the term fantasies instead of beliefs which further indicates your negative bias.
contracycle writes: The illogicality of the religious though is easily verified - as we see in so many argments. In fact, every one, whether that be attacking evolution, or abortion, or whatever. The point is not whether religion is illogical. It is whether religious people can be trusted and you have already agreed that medical personnel can be. I said
quote: contracycle writes: No, because(sp) I allow the possibility that the person believes honestly, even if they have been misled. You say that you are not bigoted by pointing to the belief of others and that others have been misled. Here again, this is another indication of your negative bias. Bigotry, by its very nature, is directed at others. It is the examination, by the bigot, of religious, ethnic, racial, and cultural traits in other human beings that are deemed undesirable. The subsequent attempt to eliminate these undesirable traits by bigoted authorities in power has caused untold pain and bloodshed throughout human history. All of these efforts are directed outward from the bigots to other human beings. It is never directed at the bigot themselves. It is never a self examination.
contracycle writes: But religion still indicates a flaw with the thought process of the person, such that they can only be trusted within certain limits. This is a perfectly logical statement coming from a religious bigot.
contracycle writes: They have taken the stance that ordinary rationality is not for them - therefore, they cannot be considered safe. Try and get along in life without the trust of the religious. Unless you choose to live your life as a hermit, it can’t be done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
contracycle writes: [...] a plate of film will respond consistently to the frequency, and thus to the observer. A plate of film just delays the same frequencies hitting your retina. They are still just frequencies and, in my opinion, the colour problem persists: frequencies are only correlated to colours in your brain.
contracycle writes: They {octopuses, P.} and I will consistently be able to separate green from red. We will both agree that the green is green, and thus like grass, and that red is red, like blood. You are right there, of course. After I wrote my post, I realised that this would be your answer, and it would be mine as well. My mistake was to fail to realize that you and the octopus can agree on a mapping for your subjective colour experiences, such as a word ('green') or a comparison ('like grass'), without the experiences themselves necessarily being the same. I should have asked my question differently. What I should have asked is: if you could have the octopus's experience and you could compare it to your own, would you then notice a difference? I realise this is still tricky, because it isn't very clear what "to have the octopus's experience" actually means and whether it is at all possible, even in theory. (Are "being you" and "having the octopus's experience" compatible?) Neverteless, I think the question of whether the experiences are different is legitimate. You didn't adress the taste example. Just out of interest: what do you think the "real" taste of PTC is? And do you think the PTC phenomenon has consequences for the colour question? If not, why not?
contracycle writes: It does not matter what subjective experience the subject has - only that the respond correctly to the external phenomenon. It makes more sense to see colours for what they are - just frequencies. If all one wants is to be practical about it, then that would be a workable viewpoint, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I am now losing patience; and am frankly surprised by this silly resort to subjective solipsism. What your brain does with the freqncy is not important - not any more important than what your brain does with the sensation of "chilli". Thats merely human hubris, as if WE make the world real. We do not. The world is real, and we respond to it. The frequency inputs to your eye, my eye, or an octupus eye, are identical. The same object reflects the same frequency. Thats all there is to it.
quote: Fucking finally.
quote: It certainly was not in relation to the question, and no I don't think its important at all - I think of the quesiton as a form of philosophical masturbation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
contracycle writes: I am now losing patience... Fucking finally... philosophical masturbation. As I said earlier, if you want me to stop, I'll stop. Since this is your attitude, I am stopping this discussion right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Bullshit. God made the black man to serve the white, according to the Dutch Reform Church and sundry Calvinists (including Americans, btw). That became the basis for Separate Development, which was refined into Apartheid, or "separateness". Furthermore, the Dutch settlers declared themself the lost tribe of Israel, claimed that they were now the personal people of god, and that god had given them this new land to be theirs alone. That was why it was immoral to share it with the people who originally lived there, as they had clearly been found unworthy by god. The similarities, and solutions, seen in Israel are not accidental. That little paragraph you cite is both right and wrong - as a materialist, sure I think the real goal was economic theft; but that does not alter the fact that they justified it and garnered support for it by arguing the case in theological terms, as I have just described. And thus the religious element provided an excuse for an act that was essentially economic (just as it has done since the first priest sold the first snake-oil).
quote: Nope, I am trusting in their job description, not their character. I wouldn't let them handle my wallet.
quote: No, the point is whether religion is logical, and therefore, whether someone who clings to illogical beliefs is reliable. It is not irrelevant - they cannot be trusted because they are illogical. They manifestly do not make evidence-based decisions. That is a practical analysis, not a moral judgement.
quote: Of COURSE I am biased, I want religion eradicated. But it is pointless to dismiss anynposition as "bias" because this makes all conversation impossible - bias is mainly important when it is covert, and masquerades as impartiality. I have been totally open in my OPINION that religion is a purposeful fraud and detrimental to human wellbeing. I'm also willing to argue in support of that opinion. Deal with my opinion, don't slander it as dishonest "bias".
quote: No shit. So are "insult", "disagreement", "respect" and "love".
quote: Nonsense - lack of any opinion at all is NOT the counterpoint of bigotry.
quote: Perhaps a good example would be ignoring human 100,000 deaths in a foreign land and describing the murderer responsible as a "patriot", eh? Now that would be a clear demonstration of "strong partiality". On the other hand I have no regliion, acknowledge not state, and the only group to which I am aprtial is political.
quote: Indeed - and 99% of the time religion has provided the basis for that bigotry. And continues to do so, as good christians back the murdering bastard Bush, or the National Party government in SA.
quote: Quite correct. And it is the failure of self-examination among the religious that makes me wary of them. I discarded relgiion precisely because I *did* examine my own beliefs, motives and views.
quote: I've been doing fine for years, thanks. Moving to a state with a much lower incidence of religious irrationality did me a power of good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Ah, but the IPU makes the wisdom of the wise -- foolish. The IPU’s colorness is a matter of dogma and faith and as such is something beyond the comprehension of those who have not given their lives over to the IPU. Edited to remove extra word. This message has been edited by Trae, 03-22-2005 11:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I see by the time stamp of your reply that it is within the same hour as your closing joust with Parasomnium where your emotions and frustrations were quite evident. I’ll keep that in mind as I reply to your post.
I have noted, however, that your replies are beginning to exhibit a deep undercurrent of cynicism and hatred for religious people. That is the bigotry that I have previously identified. One gets the impression that you consider your fingertips to be soiled by having to touch the keyboard of a computer in response to a post by a believer. Very sad.
contracycle writes: Bullshit. God made the black man to serve the white, according to the Dutch Reform Church and sundry Calvinists (including Americans, btw). That became the basis for Separate Development, which was refined into Apartheid, or "separateness". Furthermore, the Dutch settlers declared themself the lost tribe of Israel, claimed that they were now the personal people of god, and that god had given them this new land to be theirs alone. That was why it was immoral to share it with the people who originally lived there, as they had clearly been found unworthy by god. You spout off responses without offering any independent references to support your inaccurate portrayal of historical events. Where is the source for your quote, God made the black man to serve the white, Did you just make that up? Here is the truth of the matter: Let me repeat, apartheid in South Africa was about RACISM. It seems ludicrous that I should have to argue such an obvious fact. Religion was not the basis for separate development, racism was. You are plain wrong about that assertion. Laws were passed that justified apartheid. It was the legal authority of the law that justified the widespread atrocities of apartheid. (Unless noted otherwise, the following quotes are from Link.)
quote: Ok, so at this point, there is a state religion, a theocracy, that governs politics in South Africa.
quote: Here, we see that black Africans were joining the Dutch Reformed Church. They were being accepted into the faith. Racial pressures grew and black church members then began to demand their own churches. How could black church members demand their own church if they had not embraced the church to begin with? It was not immoral for the Dutch settlers to share their faith with the people who originally lived there as you suggest. The whites were doing that. They just didn’t want to associate with the black converts, i.e. racism. Racism was the issue, not religious bigotry. I submit that apartheid would have occurred with or without religion. If anything, religion served to temper the fear and hostility of the white minority. If the Dutch Reformed Church had been the Dutch Reformed Atheists. Apartheid would have occurred in much the same way. In addition to their racists views that black africans were inferior to whites based on their skin color, the white minority became increasingly fearful of the black majority because of the potential loss of power and material possessions. Aside from racism, apartheid was promulgated as a self preservation instinct on the part of the white minority. This self preservation instinct is part of our biological evolution having nothing at all to do with religious belief. It is religion that teaches us to overcome this self preservation instinct and to suppress it for the benefit of our fellow man and in homage to our God.
quote: Here, racist pressure was building in the early twentieth century. This finally lead to the full realization of apartheid and its subsequent justification via the enactment of apartheid laws in the late 1940’s and 50’s. It is true that, in the twentieth century, the white africaans began to corrupt their religion by introducing philosophies that falsely supported apartheid on a theological basis.
quote: But this is a distortion of their own religious beliefs in an effort to justify racism. This was a recent event occurring after institutional racism and the doctrine of segregation had been in place. Racism is the foundation for apartheid, not religion. Now on to the balance of your reply: I said:
Then, you agree that medical personnel can be trusted because they, in your own words, are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job. contracycle writes: Nope, I am trusting in their job description, not their character. I wouldn't let them handle my wallet. I wouldn’t let a medical professional handle my wallet either, your point is nonsense. But you would let a banker handle your wallet, or a teller at a bank, or a financial planner, or a stock broker, wouldn’t you? Again, 8 out of 10 of them are religious. I said,
You say that you are not bigoted by pointing to the belief of others and that others have been misled. Here again, this is another indication of your negative bias. contracycle writes: Of COURSE I am biased, I want religion eradicated. Spoken like a true bigot. Similar words have been spoken by many bigoted leaders throughout history. You are close to their point of view my friend. The only difference is that bigots in power have the ability to take this philosophy one step further than you. Their historical solution has been to eradicate religion by eradicating the people who adhere to religion.
contracycle writes: But it is pointless to dismiss any position as "bias" because this makes all conversation impossible - bias is mainly important when it is covert, and masquerades as impartiality. I have been totally open in my OPINION that religion is a purposeful fraud and detrimental to human wellbeing. I'm also willing to argue in support of that opinion. Deal with my opinion, don't slander it as dishonest "bias". So your bigotry is not concealed, fine, that does not diminish the fact that it exists. Two opposing sides can debate a topic without introducing blatant unsubstantiated bias as you have done. It is one thing to disagree with the religious point of view. It is quite another to advocate the eradication of that point of view, as you have said. Further, you have stated in Message 151, But religion still indicates a flaw with the thought process of the person, such that they can only be trusted within certain limits. In Message 126, you describe the religious view as rather like a habitual alcoholic. You go beyond merely disagreeing with the religious point of view in conversation, you describe that view as a deficiency in the mental process of the individual. Since you have no faith in God, then this so called deficiency must be biological or biochemical, and since you have no data to support this thesis, then the source of your belief is your own irrational prejudice.
contracycle writes:
bigotOne who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Very good. Now please examine your own definition very closely with particular emphasis on intolerant of those who differ. That’s you buddy.
contracycle writes: Perhaps a good example would be ignoring human 100,000 deaths in a foreign land and describing the murderer responsible as a "patriot", eh? Now that would be a clear demonstration of "strong partiality". On the other hand I have no regliion, acknowledge not state, and the only group to which I am aprtial is political. Now you introduce a political discussion from another thread? Changing the subject eh? That’s often used as a diversionary but weak debate tactic.
contracycle writes: Indeed - and 99% of the time religion has provided the basis for that bigotry. And continues to do so, as good christians back the murdering bastard Bush, or the National Party government in SA. Where do you get your information?! You seem to just make it up as you deem necessary. If we are going to play that game, then consider the following statement: 99% of all atheists are racists. Would that be an accurate statement? Of course not, it is ridiculous. But it carries the same weight as your unsubstantiated claim that 99% of the time religion has provided the basis for that bigotry. I said,
Try and get along in life without the trust of the religious. Unless you choose to live your life as a hermit, it can’t be done. contrcycle writes: I've been doing fine for years, thanks. Moving to a state with a much lower incidence of religious irrationality did me a power of good. But that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of your interpersonal relationships are with religious people. You trust them with your health, you trust them with your finances, you trust them with your very life. You can run, but you can’t hide, we are everywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Trae writes: Ah, but the IPU makes the wisdom of the wise -- foolish. The IPU’s colorness is a matter of dogma and faith and as such is something beyond the comprehension of those who have not given their lives over to the IPU. OK... let me see what springs to mind now... ah, how refreshing: 'irrational'.
Trae writes: Edited to remove extra word. Riddles, eh? Well, how about this one: I have finally solved the riddle of how something can have a colour AND be invisible. Seek and ye shall find...the answer. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 22-Mar-2005 10:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Riddles, eh? Well, how about this one: I have finally solved the riddle of how something can have a colour AND be invisible. Seek and ye shall find...the answer. Only one color? Or is this one of those "To the left of me ... and To the right of me ..." tales? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Damn Jar,
I said "Seek and ye shall find...", I didn't say "within ten seconds", did I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I can only plead that I was misguided and that the devil made me do it. Please forgive my transgressions.
But I still adore the Great Pink One. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
By the way, Jar, what did my post look like at your end? Was the answer hidden? I had to choose between the two alternating blues. At first I picked the wrong one and had to edit it on the double. Did you see that? I can only have been visible on the web for a few seconds. Drat.
added by edit: we crossposted. I don't mind you found it so quickly, Jar. (I see you made the mistake I just described.) This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 22-Mar-2005 11:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I still adore the Great Pink One. Aw shucks, jar, I never knew you felt that way about me... I don't know what to say...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How does my response above look to you? Same codes.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024