The Dudeism Forum

Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 10:33:11 AM

Fair enough.  But it's still inaccurate and unfair to lump atheists and theists into the same category in your statement, quote: "People get pretty offended when their belief system is attacked, whether they are a muslim or an atheist."

I differentiate the two by pragmatic observation: the theist whackos are the ones that are *SO* strident, (to the point of murder) with a belief system based on ancient texts that have little relevance; the atheists continually add to mankind's knowledge by scientific discovery, basing everything on evidence.  The latter is not a belief system, it's just the facts. Having studied it, you know exactly what I mean.

There is a phenomenon known as 'scienceology' which is very much a belief system. It involves (amongst other things) the belief that knowledge is inherently value-positive whereas in truth the value of knowledge is purely contextual.

American marines videoing eachother pissing on the corpse of their enemy probably looks pretty whacko to most muslims.

However "pragmatic" ones observation may be, one always observes from a certain position. I'm just encouraging you to try a few new positions - a sort of intellectual karma sutra.

The point is that it is irrelevant that people become offended when their beliefs are criticized.
This is the typical religious "hurt card" that insulates religious beliefs from criticism.

Quote
[Daniel Denett] You know, they sort of play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and faced with a choice of, well, am I gonna be rude or am I going to articulate this criticism? I mean, am I going to articulate it, or am I just gonna button my lip?

[Sam Harris] Right, well, that?s what it is to trespass a taboo. I think we?re all encountering the fact that that religion is held off the table of rational criticism in some kind of formal way even by, we?re discovering, our fellow secularists and our fellow atheists. You know, just leave people to their own superstition, even if it?s abject and causing harm, and don?t look too closely at it.

Do not fall for this kind of special pleading. Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.

Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:52:24 AM

Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.

Sure and by the same logic criticism of religion is fair game for criticism.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 11:58:26 AM

Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:52:24 AM

Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.

Sure and by the same logic criticism of religion is fair game for criticism.

Fucking nihilist!!!!  ;-)

Kidding aside, there's some truth to that accusation though... claiming that "the value of knowledge is purely contextual" removes any importance one places on our very lives by making everything value-neutral. Such a claim is overshadowed by the inherent value of the morals you and I have agreed to live by. Like - don't kill me. I won't kill you.  Nothing wrong with pragmatism. It's based on the biological imperatives of survival and thriving.

From the position of the virus that kills its host, it has completed its mission. But from an evolutionary perspective, that's a huge mistake. We're pretty well at the top of the food chain mainly because of successful adaptations that assist in our survival. THAT is the prime directive any human has... and any other "perspective" is counter productive, and likely considered immoral by most.

The science of knowing is a thought experiment, delving into philosophies that have little to do with helping us live better lives...   The most sacred thing is truth.

If you ask "what is truth?" I'll shoot you.

Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 12:21:47 PM
  The most sacred thing is truth.

Truth is just an externalisation of understanding, awareness, wisdom. It isn't sacred, it's just a book on a shelf. Only the existential manifestation of truth within an individual is sacred - some people refer to the advanced state of which as 'enlightenment'.

I'm with Biker Dude.  

You place yourself above everyone else with what you think is superior intellect. You're a nihilistic troll.

Okay, now I'm REALLY done...

Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
I'm with Biker Dude. 

You place yourself above everyone else with what you think is superior intellect. You're a nihilistic troll.

I empathise with your frustration dude. It must be tough for you coming up against an enlightened being like me.

I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.

Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?

A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.

I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.

Quote from: AspiringDude on September 25, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.

Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?

A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.

I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.

Well said.
The offer nothing but intolerance while requiring total respect.
Otherwise the scriptures instruct them to kill the offender.

Quote from: AspiringDude on September 25, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.

Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?

A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.

I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.

Nice that you sit down and talk with these people dude. Very happy to hear that. 'befuddled' is excellent. All thought is illusion of varying subtelty. You helped him get in touch with the illusory nature of his fixed thought patterns. You just can't do better than that - spreading enlightenment.

Boston. Sop being a Dick.

You're not being enlightening. You'r just showing yourself up to be a pseudo intellectual with a current hardon for self proclaiming grandising.

You've maybe passed or more likely are sitting through some philosophy course and are trying to project some of that course content onto us on the boards.

You are NOT being dudelike. You are acting like a cunt!

Start to take it easy mate....  You are so full of self importance and ego it's not funny....

Maybe take a look in the mirror for a minute and realise that you are not actually on the cover of Time magazine.

I'm not falling for your shit. You think you're a dude because why exactly?

Dudes in my experience don't antagonise and don't belittle (or try to) Real dudes stop caring...which is exactly what Hominid and Biker and now me have done.

Take it easy princess.

Um - what day is this...?

VAGINA!!!!

Quote from: cckeiser on September 26, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
VAGINA!!!!

Ata boy.

Quote from: cckeiser on September 26, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
VAGINA!!!!

Did someone say "vagina?"