Moderator: Dan~
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I have had this pretty much developed for a while, and I haven't talked about it because I basically don't think it's anybody's problem.
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a belief in God and religion.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this religious belief expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about God and religion; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this faith in God and religion with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their faith in God and religion with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own faith in God and religion as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original spiritual quest for God and religion has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".
iambiguous wrote:
As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.
iambiguous wrote:But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:iambiguous wrote:But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.
Well it's you, with your demonstrated communist bias, that wants to do this.
Communism, of course, being simply a particularly fanatical version of Evangelism.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:iambiguous wrote:
As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.
You first.
Memes and genes.
As for genes here, it is obvious that the biological evolution of life on earth has culminated so far in us. A species able to choose either to believe in God and religion or not to. But: is there an understanding of human biology that would enable us to decide whether a belief in God and religion is rational or irrational? Or is that far more likely to be embodied in the manner in which I construe the "self" here as a subjective/subjunctive existential contraption rooted in dasein?
iamcommunist wrote:As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Pedro I Rengel wrote:iambiguous wrote:But if what you believe about God and religion results in restrictions and prohibitions on the beliefs and the behaviors of others, it very much is their business.
Well it's you, with your demonstrated communist bias, that wants to do this.
Communism, of course, being simply a particularly fanatical version of Evangelism.
Which is why you all commie bastards, "fragmented self" rhetoric or no, are my business.
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:You respond to my points first, which I raised far before you.
Genes and memes.
Go.
As for genes here, it is obvious that the biological evolution of life on earth has culminated so far in us. A species able to choose either to believe in God and religion or not to. But: is there an understanding of human biology that would enable us to decide whether a belief in God and religion is rational or irrational? Or is that far more likely to be embodied in the manner in which I construe the "self" here as a subjective/subjunctive existential contraption rooted in dasein?
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I'm not obligated to convince anyone of anything because I am not an objectivist fanatic like you.
But you are.
Genes and memes.
Pull up your pants boy.
iambiguous wrote:Okay:
Religious memes are everywhere.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:You respond to my points first, which I raised far before you.iamcommunist wrote:As for all the rest of it, there is what you believe "in your head" and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe in turn.
Genes and memes.
Go.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:iambiguous wrote:Okay:
Religious memes are everywhere.
No, mi friend. You are postulating an objectivist world view. The gene meme paradigm. Not religious memes.
Have some balls, and explain yourself. You know, like you are forced to convince all rational men and women (don't know why you wrote men and men).
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Pussy.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I'm not asking anybody else. It is not anybody else, here and now, postulating memes and genes as a paradigm of objective truth.
It is you.
Or do you take orders or direction from whoever you are quoting?
iambiguous wrote:Pedro I Rengel wrote:I'm not asking anybody else. It is not anybody else, here and now, postulating memes and genes as a paradigm of objective truth.
It is you.
Or do you take orders or direction from whoever you are quoting?
How about women who have beat you at chess responding to the points I raised above? Quote them, okay?
promethean75 wrote:I had no idea pedro was catholic. I will now know and refer to him as Father Vivian O'blivion.
promethean75 wrote:I had no idea pedro was catholic. I will now know and refer to him as Father Vivian O'blivion.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users