Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Reducto's ill-fated "logic" |
| 07.16.04 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
|
In regard to a statement made in a [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post by reducto[/url], I made this comment (well, part of a comment): [i]Finally, I'm a little confused: [/i][quote from reducto’s post][i]"they are another religion, another belief system organized around a God bigger than themselves-- the self." So, the self is bigger than themselves?[/i] This elicited this lovely response from dear reducto: [i]I know you're confused, you're always confused. It's about time to admit you're just stupid. The "Self" is an idea bigger than a person. It is embraced by the ideology of Human Secularism. It places "MAN" above all else. It makes man a God. Since man is a God, there is no right and wrong, and moral equality emerges. Still confused? I'm not surprised.[/i] So, I am hereby admitting that I am, in fact, just stupid. Hey, reducto said it- it must be true. In my stupidity, I thought that the self would be equal to those he was referencing, atheists. Actually, reducto's brilliant statement was an implication that "Human Secularists" (I'm not quite sure what that is- I would simply assume he means Secular Humanists, but you know what happens when you assume things) make themselves their own God, meaning that somehow they are under the influence of something bigger than themselves. This influence, according to reducto, is the "Self." Now, here is where my stupidity manifests itself. I can't figure out how the "Self" is bigger than the person. My dictionary, though undoubtedly inaccurate in comparison to the definitions given by reducto, states the definition of self to be as follows: "1. The essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other. 2. A particular aspect of a person. 3. Personal welfare, interest, or advantage : selfishness." Okay, so the essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other is the supposed 'God' to atheists. And this idea somehow is twisted by us atheists (yes, all of us; and we are all Human Secularists, though I still am unsure of what that is) into meaning that man is above all else. This makes us view ourselves as our own God. So this must mean that atheism is actually a polytheistic religion with as many gods as there are atheists. But that's neither here nor there. Reducto's claim, then, is that atheism makes the self bigger than the individual, and into a God. My understanding of atheism has always been simply the belief that there is no God. And I'll admit that, yes, I am still confused, reducto. The reality, however, is that reducto is simply misguided. While the argument could be made by theists that even atheists must have some guiding force that is above them, nearly equivocal to a god, it is erroneous to assert that all atheists maintain the view that man is greater than all else. This all also depends on your definition of God. Most definitions of God include an omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient being who originated the universe, and a being with supernatural attributes that is worshipped by a group of people. The lesser definition of a god (lowercase) is "Someone or something considered to be extremely valuable or important." So, sure, a person could consider himself to be extremely valuable or important. In fact, I hope that most people do. This does not, however, mean that man is above all else. And it certainly does not follow that there is no right and wrong. Morality is determined by the individual, whether that individual bases their moral guidelines on religious dogma or personal views; morality is not exclusive to a belief in God. Basing morality on the doctrines of a church results in an often false view of what is right and wrong- the individual does not determine for himself what is truly moral. However, if you contemplate morality and decide on your own what is moral, you actually have reason to act accordingly, other than the reason of fear. Right and wrong does not dissipate when there is no God, it is simply up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong, to act responsibly, and to be held accountable for his actions. Maybe reducto is right and I am just stupid. Or maybe he just has no clue as to what he is talking about. |
posted by: jesusisangry (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (12:48 am)
i don't think your dumb. You have valid points.
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (10:37 am)
Reply to: jesusisangry
I agree.
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (10:40 am)
You do have valid points and Reducto does not comprehend Secular Humanism and therefore he must attack it wildly and without foundation using hyperbole and emotive rhetoric. Very few people take him seriously anymore.
FYI: A very good discussion of Human Secularism and the separation of Church and State so vital to our Republic is listed on Bill Moyer's web-site on PBS. I did a blog on this topic a while back if you are interested.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (10:56 am)
Reply to: jesusisangry
Reply to: WinstonSmith
Thank you. :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.17.04 (10:58 am)
Reply to: WinstonSmith
"Reducto does not comprehend Secular Humanism and therefore he must attack it wildly and without foundation using hyperbole and emotive rhetoric. Very few people take him seriously anymore."
You're absolutely right, on all accounts. Well, no, maybe not all- I'm not sure that people ever took him seriously...
"I did a blog on this topic a while back if you are interested."
Can you give me the link for it? :)
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 07.18.04 (8:38 am)
"This elicited this lovely response from dear reducto:
I know you're confused, you're always confused. It's about time to admit you're just stupid."
ROFLOL! Ah, good ole Refucto sure knows how to woo a woman! Don't you see he's just trying to say he loves you, LOL?
"The "Self" is an idea bigger than a person. It is embraced by the ideology of Human Secularism. It places "MAN" above all else. It makes man a God. Since man is a God, there is no right and wrong, and moral equality emerges.
Still confused? I'm not surprised."
Geee, where is my grand dictionary of idiotic statements. I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere.
"So this must mean that atheism is actually a polytheistic religion with as many gods as there are atheists. But that's neither here nor there. Reducto's claim, then, is that atheism makes the self bigger than the individual, and into a God. My understanding of atheism has always been simply the belief that there is no God. And I'll admit that, yes, I am still confused, reducto."
You don't say! Then again, mathematically, there is a strong link between zero and infinity. Whereas 1 god is very different to 2 or 3, zero god is singularly closer to an infinity of them. Maybe Reducto is using calculus to explain why atheists are in fact multigod pagans? He's a very clever dick, you know. Multigod yes, why not? Why be so shy as restricting the number of gods to that of humans? Really, this sucks. Everyone of us atheists' huge self is ... well... huge, right? I mean, we know it's bigger than us, so how big exactly? And since god is infinitesimally (mmm.... is this spelled right? No worries, I'm sure Nogoogoo will jump on my ass if it ain't) small as well as huge, anything of any size really contains an infinity of dogs. Err.. gods, I mean. Do I? Hmmm... oh well, whatever them fuckers.
"...it is erroneous to assert that all atheists maintain the view that man is greater than all else."
In fact, if I remember right my good ole days of catholic brainwashing, I was told then that Man (and perhaps even woman, but I can't say for sure now, it's so long ago) is far above any other form of life. Hey, just a man's soul is bigger than this goddam planet! Also, that everything on this planet *belongs* to man and is at *his service*. Can't remember exactly why, but I think it has to do with god's will. Will as in desire/wish. Or maybe as in legacy? Maybe god thought he was getting on and about to kark it as they say in Oz, so left a will for man: man inherits a soul, the other species, the whole planet, in fact the entire fuckin' universe. How's that for a deal? Geee... why can't all Fathers be that generous.
On the other hand, most if not all atheists I've met, including myself (hey, I talk to myself all the time, like right now), don't regard humans as anything more special than your average ant. Dragon, this reminds me of our talk about man-animal associations; are you still contemplating posting something? But I disgress... where was I? Oh yeah, the ants. In fact, doesn't have to be animals. I don't see humans as being anything more worthy than a tree or a weed. Humans are just life forms, complex systems of DNA, that grow, live for a while, than die and rot back to the great pool of life-engendering layer that covers this planet. Aside from our unique talent for destroying things faster than they come to life, and otherwise generally fucking up this planet on a never seen before scale, I see little about humans that would lead me to give them any special status in the scale of life forms. A snow leopard, maybe
"And it certainly does not follow that there is no right and wrong. Morality is determined by the individual, whether that individual bases their moral guidelines on religious dogma or personal views; morality is not exclusive to a belief in God. Basing morality on the doctrines of a church results in an often false view of what is right and wrong- the individual does not determine for himself what is truly moral. However, if you contemplate morality and decide on your own what is moral, you actually have reason to act accordingly, other than the reason of fear. Right and wrong does not dissipate when there is no God, it is simply up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong, to act responsibly, and to be held accountable for his actions."
Amen, sister. No comment needed, I couldn't put it in better words (hey I could translate it into French though!). :-)
"Maybe reducto is right and I am just stupid. Or maybe he just has no clue as to what he is talking about."
I'll have to mull over this one for a long time to work out the answer, LOL!
posted by: AdamSelene (reply)
post date: 07.18.04 (9:10 am)
Perhaps what this guy is talking about is the placement of race above the individual. Many of the principles of secular humanism are about prolonging the human race and improving its condition. As such, emphasis is placed on things like altruism and improving the quality of life for as-yet unborn future generations.
So, in a sense, it is the "worship" of "man." But more technically it is the placement of "mankind" above the self. I don't much care for it, but I don't have to agree with it. Placing mankind above the self is similar to how theists place their god or gods above themselves. But simply sharing this one trait with a deity doesn't make mankind itself a deity in the eyes of secular humanists. It is a belief system, but it's not a god.
posted by: whoisjohngalt (reply)
post date: 07.18.04 (1:35 pm)
Reply to: WinstonSmith
"Very few people take him seriously anymore."
What!? How can you say that about poor ol' James? Just because he uses the same tired, worn out "Anti-americanism" phrase every three days, gets caught copying&pasting articles he didn't read and accuses others of the very sins he himself commits does doesn't mean ... well ... uh ... okay, you're right. ;)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (8:59 am)
There's an old Latin saying: "Fatua numquam persona altercare"
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (12:42 pm)
Reply to: WhyNot
"Ah, good ole Refucto sure knows how to woo a woman! Don't you see he's just trying to say he loves you, LOL?"
You know, you're right, how silly of me. He's such a sweetie. It's like an eight-year-old kid calling a girl a stupidhead...
"Maybe Reducto is using calculus to explain why atheists are in fact multigod pagans?"
Ah, so that explains it.
"Dragon, this reminds me of our talk about man-animal associations; are you still contemplating posting something?"
Hmm, I forgot... maybe you should go ahead and post something. :)
"I couldn't put it in better words (hey I could translate it into French though!)"
Lol, awesome. Si vous voulez, nous pouvons parler en francais...
"I'll have to mull over this one for a long time to work out the answer, LOL!"
Please be sure to let me know when you figure it out, I'm clueless myself. ;)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (12:46 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Too bad I don't know Latin...
I don't think reducto is an idiot, though- he's actually somewhat smart, he just has these tendencies to deny logic.
Oh wait, or were you agreeing with reducto that I'm just stupid?
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (4:56 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Again, I would have to disagree with you. When somebody consistently lacks the ability to put together a logical argument, I cannot consider that person intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge, and Reducto does not have that ability.
While it may not seem to be the case, I agree with you far more than I disagree with you. But I certainly respect your opinion no matter what, and it's clear that you put a lot of thought into things. You do not generally make arguments solely because they fit in with your notion of how things should be, and if somebody does not agree with you, you consider their points. There's nothing stupid about that.
When it comes to some issues, such as the electoral college and how votes should count, there's a large degree of subjectivity. Sometimes, conflicting methods of counting votes can each have merits and a strong case can be made for each, but the results for each may differ. In cases like that, there are no absolute rights and wrongs. There are merely competing systems that are each more fair in some respects than competing ones.
When it comes to religion, things differ. Some people pick a religion based on a logical view of comparative religions. Others choose a religion because of marriage, and some are given one at birth. Others have none. If a particular religion expects one to take its gospel on faith alone, and questioning it shows a lack of faith, then the idea of debating its merits is inherently fruitless. Indeed, it's irrational to say that a religion is based on divine mysteries and should not be questioned, yet to also debate its merits against others as a way of defending it. By doing so, one tacitly admits that it can be defended by debates (logic and reason,) yet if the same person denies that principle when discussing the religion's inherent dogma, that notion falls apart.
Reducto is trying to have it both ways.
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (11:05 pm)
Reply to: mblog
I enjoyed reading your very well put argumentation. There is just one thing that puzzles me a bit - in these statements (and the surrounding paragraph):
1. "...Some people pick a religion based on a logical view of comparative religions..."
What is a "logical view of comparative religions"? Not picking, just honestly curious.
2. "...If a particular religion expects one to take its gospel on faith alone, and questioning it shows a lack of faith,..."
Isn't every religion based on axioms? Isn't "faith" the very word that describes a religion basis, i.e. to have blind faith in something that is totally unprovable? In other words, one cannot prove (nor disprove) the existence of a particular god, the only mechanism for agreeing is founded on having faith it IS truth - no matter unproven it is.
I have a feeling that it is perhaps what you're infering, considering the end of your paragraph, but I a little puzzle by the word *if* in "if a particular religion..." which could be construed as to infer that in *some* religions, the axiom/dogma principle applies, but some by actually have tangible proofs and rest on theorems rather than axioms.
Again... just curious - as I said, you write very well, and your thoughts are very clearly stated - even in subjects as obscure as all this religious ....er.... well.... *stuff*, let's say :-)
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (11:33 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
"Hmm, I forgot... maybe you should go ahead and post something. :)"
Goodness. Takes imagination. I'll see what I can think of since I have a few days off (but must concentrate on finding a new place to live real fast).
"Lol, awesome. Si vous voulez, nous pouvons parler en francais..."
Oulala! D'abord, faut pas me vousvoyer, mais me tutoyer, ok? Ensuite, tu vas découvrir que mon français est encore pire que mon anglais! Et toi, comment ça se fait que tu te débrouilles en français? Peut-être tu pourrais m'aider - je mélange les 2 langues au travail, ce qui n'est pas toujours génial quand je réponds au téléphone, LOL.
"Please be sure to let me know when you figure it out, I'm clueless myself. ;)"
It must because of your inherent lack of *faith*. In other words - Reducto will prove it to you, no doubt - you're unfaithful, i.e. you're not only stupid, but a slut as well. Oh, and I forget: if I remember right, you're also a murderess, right? Gee no wonder he gets aroused just talking to you: it makes him gobble triple doses of cheetos in record time while he jerks off. Hey, this (and the article you posted here in the first place - no I haven't lost track of it altogether, LOL) reminds me of a book I'm reading and am nearly through with: "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. A bit far fetched, but a gripping suspense thriller based on the very subject of your blog. Certainly packed with information as well as (probable) interpolations/embellishments of reality, but a great recipe altogether. Very recent novel.
Bon, je vais penser à l'idée des comparaisons tBloggers avec animaux. J'ai quelques idées sur certaines associations, mais c'est plutôt comment approcher le sujet qui m'échappe pour le moment.
À plus tard, leopard des neiges :-)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.24.04 (8:42 pm)
Reply to: mblog
"Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge, and Reducto does not have that ability. "
See, I don't know, maybe it's the eternal optimist in me, but I do believe that reducto *has* the ability to apply knowledge, he just tends to disregard it.
"While it may not seem to be the case, I agree with you far more than I disagree with you."
Lol, I've noticed that no matter how much you agree with me on something, you will still find something in my argument to disagree with. Which, of course, is not a bad thing (usually ;) ).
"But I certainly respect your opinion no matter what,"
Well, thank you- it is a mutual respect.
"Reducto is trying to have it both ways."
Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, reducto is unwilling to acknowledge this, and when his views are questioned, he resorts to name-calling, projection (like 'defending' Bush's actions by saying that Clinton is guilty of the same thing), and goes into extreme defense mode. I only argue with him anymore because I find it all (sadly) hilarious.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.24.04 (9:11 pm)
Reply to: WhyNot
D'accord, on vas parler en francais... hmm, j'ai besoin de tu dire que je ne me souviens beaucoup de francais. :/ Il y a 5 ans que je l'etudier, et ensuite soulement pour 3 ans. Alors, je ne comprends tout (presque rien). Mais, je peut le lire mieux que je peut dis ou ecrire le langue. Je suis tres bonne a franglais. ;) Comme, quand tu sais un mot mais pas l'autre... Hmm, peutetre il faut que je parle soulement en anglais, lol.
"Bon, je vais penser à l'idée des comparaisons tBloggers avec animaux. J'ai quelques idées sur certaines associations"
Hmm, let me know what you come up with and maybe it'll spark some creativity in me, lol.
By the way, I haven't read the Da Vinci Code yet, though I have heard it is pretty good. But, I'd like to recommend "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins if you're interested in fictional accounts of religious topics. It's very funny, well-written, intriguing, sexy, you name it. Without giving too much away, I'll tell you it deals with the possibility of an elaborate conspiracy involving the Catholic church and a non-resurrected Jesus Christ. ;)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.24.04 (9:13 pm)
Reply to: WhyNot
Oops, j'ai oblier,
"À plus tard, leopard des neiges"
Alors, je peut etre une leopard des neiges!? Yay! Mais, quelle animaux est-ce que tu vas etre?
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 07.25.04 (2:30 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
"Il y a 5 ans que je l'etudier, et ensuite soulement pour 3 ans."
Tu te débrouille bien mieux que moi quand j'étudiais l'anglais à l'école: 7 ans d'anglais, et quand je suis arrivé à Sydney en Australie, je ne comprenais RIEN à ce que les gens disaient, et je ne pouvais pas exprimer une seule phrase non plus, LOL. So... you're doing pretty good! Ou bien, le système d'enseignement des langes étrangères aux USA est bien supérieur au système français (which ain't hard to achieve).
"Je suis tres bonne a franglais"
LOL, moi too. En fact, c'est my spécialité. Tu sais what? Quand les touristes English et American arrivent here sur la Côte d'Azur, la plupart of them font de wonderful speeches en franglais, et cela plait very beaucoup aux natives ici. Ils (les natives) deviennent instantly amoureux des anglais & américains pour having tried their mieux to dire quelques words in français. Ça give à reflection: tu realise alors how easy c'est de s'entendre - unlike ce qu'on pourrait think quand on read la presse américaine. À ce propos, j'ai une discussion en cours avec "Defensor", que tu perhaps va trouver intéressante: c'est here:
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=Defensor&static=234743
Basically, il essaye de me démontrer qu'il knows what's going on ici in France mieux que je ne le know myself, malgré que je vis ici, connaisse la mentalité grassroot, vois chaque jour les news, et en plus have access aux news américaines par satellite pour comparer.
This all makes for an interesting lingo, don't it? Maybe the new Esperanto :-) ? Not so silly, really: I think once ppl make the effort of bridging the lingo gaps, so many things fall into place, that were previously like insurmountable barriers of culture.
"But, I'd like to recommend "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins if you're interested in fictional accounts of religious topics. It's very funny, well-written, intriguing, sexy, you name it..."
Sounds like a real goer. Thanks for the tip, I'll get in touch with my friends in the US/UK for a copy in English.
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 07.25.04 (2:31 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
"Alors, je peut etre une leopard des neiges!? Yay!"
Absolument, mon amie. Tu est parfaite dans cette image que j'ai de toi. Tu sais quoi? En français (comme en anglais, d'ailleurs), il y a 2 mots pour le même animal: pantère et léopard. Comme tu le sais probablement, en français, il n'y a pas de genre neutre, i.e. chaque nom est soit masculin, soit féminin. La chose curieuse ici est que "pantère" est féminin, tandis que "léopard" est masculin. Don't ask me why! Donc en fin the compte, tu serais plutôt une "pantère des neiges". Ça te va?
"Mais, quelle animaux est-ce que tu vas etre?"
Ah, bonne question! Si je pouvais, j'aimerais bien être un tigre de Sibérie. C'est mon idole de beauté, grâce, liberté et perfection. Mais je ne suis qu'un humble et imparfait être humain, duh! Je ne pretends donc pas à cet honneur. Si je pouvais être comparé à un renard, je serais déjà très flatté! Have you ever read the "Roman de Renart" - old troubadour(= "minstrels") tales of the 10th & 11th century, one of the oldest things that have been recorded in writing? It's a magic world. Plus a real insight into how freely artists of the pre-christian-sex-freaking-out era of the dark ages (13th/14th centuries) were to expose views on life in a way that 21st century western societies would gasp at in envy. Libertine galore.
TTYS, panther des neiges (you definitely don't strike me as an elephant, :-) )
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 07.29.04 (5:31 pm)
LOL! That's the way to encourage people to learn your culture and understand your religion! insult them when they ask about it! Bravo!
I think we all know who is really stupid here.
More flies with honey, reducto! ;)
posted by: jesusisangry (reply)
post date: 08.01.04 (3:26 am)
Reply to: mblog
When somebody consistently lacks the ability to put together a logical argument, I cannot consider that person intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge, and Reducto does not have that ability.
funny. maybe he somekind of mental disorder that why he is like that.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 08.09.04 (4:03 pm)
First of all... I'm with WhyNot on this one. I've been convinced for quite some time now that you were the object of Reducto's affections. However, an even more important point seems to be ~ Where the hell have I been? Your new header looks FANTASTIC! I love it. Lucid Dreams has always been a great blog... but I really love the new look! :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 08.09.04 (5:30 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
"I've been convinced for quite some time now that you were the object of Reducto's affections."
I know, the poor guy. Must be difficult for him to sort out his feelings.
"Where the hell have I been?"
That is a very good question! Where have you been?? The blog re-design was pretty recent, so don't feel like you're too out of the loop. ;) I felt that 'laissez-faire' might be a more suitable title for this blog than 'Lucid Dreams' (which, by the way, I only chose because I once thought of it as a name for a band :) ). And I'm glad you like it. :)
