Two threads, Big heads?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Two threads, Big heads?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Joe
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:37 am
This really is such a interesting example of the forming of debate in this forum. Firstly, I enjoyed the following threads:

Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behavior?

and

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgemental Behavior?


At first glance, depending on which generalization you take stance on (if you do), These threads seem aggressive and blunt. But i think they serve as a sharpening stone for philosophers. I like the idea that we could take solid expressions and break them down (to the point of torture in some cases:brickwall::poke-eye:).

They only problem That i think many can relate to is the refusal to accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change the things we can; and wisdom to know the difference. lol. A religious prayer with some wisdom.(Does this make me religious? Smile)

Other then that, I guess I'm saying these threads are not in my opinion, Frivolous or self- substantiating. They may start like that it SEEMS, but the doors of communication seem to be the widest in these threads. Hope to see more brave philosophers.:devilish::baloons:
 
Icon
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:58 am
@Joe,
:whistling:
Joe wrote:
This really is such a interesting example of the forming of debate in this forum. Firstly, I enjoyed the following threads:

Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behavior?

and

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgemental Behavior?


At first glance, depending on which generalization you take stance on (if you do), These threads seem aggressive and blunt. But i think they serve as a sharpening stone for philosophers. I like the idea that we could take solid expressions and break them down (to the point of torture in some cases:brickwall::poke-eye:).

They only problem That i think many can relate to is the refusal to accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change the things we can; and wisdom to know the difference. lol. A religious prayer with some wisdom.(Does this make me religious? Smile)

Other then that, I guess I'm saying these threads are not in my opinion, Frivolous or self- substantiating. They may start like that it SEEMS, but the doors of communication seem to be the widest in these threads. Hope to see more brave philosophers.:devilish::baloons:


As much as I agree that the doors should be open to this sort of communication, I also know the dangers of allowing grotesque generalizations and aggressive topics. It is our responsibility as philosophers to know the difference between objective criticism and subjective aggression. Neither of these threads were achieving a goal but rather building a rift between atheism and theism.

You see, when we build a wall like that and start hurling blame and aggression over it at each other, the same thing happens that happened in the middle east thousands of years a go and in Europe hundreds of years ago. Fighting and war over a silly difference of ideas. Frankly, I see no reason to believe in anything. It seems silly to me to dedicate my life to something blindly and call it faith. Still, others will tell me that I am a blasphemer while still other will tell me that I am a model of rationality and logic. Neither is correct. I am me. Just a humble creature living with the choices that I have made and the ability to change the direction of my life at any moment. That is also how I hope to be judged. Not as an atheist or agnostic or governent worker or any of the other things which I choose to do or have chosen to do. I wish to be judged on the sole factor of my ideas and who I am in relation to the universe as a whole.

I do not fit in a box and do not think that good, productive conversation can fit in one either.

And I know what some will say to this. Yes, we are all in a box of some size or shape.... Language, species, so on and so forth. I am talking about the man made labels of personal ideas.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 11:18 am
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
This really is such a interesting example of the forming of debate in this forum. Firstly, I enjoyed the following threads:

Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behavior?

and

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgemental Behavior?


At first glance, depending on which generalization you take stance on (if you do), These threads seem aggressive and blunt. But i think they serve as a sharpening stone for philosophers. I like the idea that we could take solid expressions and break them down (to the point of torture in some cases:brickwall::poke-eye:).



Personally I'd support any question, irrespective of its moral consequences, that would make me think about things I've taken for granted, i.e. that not only took a position but provided some rational basis for considering it. The main problems with these threads were the absence of such basis and repetion of the same generalisations as part of an argument for supporting them. You can't sharpen anything on thin air.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 12:06 pm
@Bones-O,
Hi All!Smile

Framing the question and metaphor. Is Theisim an excuse to feel self-righteous?

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

sometimes the questions are framed for a particular outcome.

Have you stop beating your wife?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 12:29 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi All!Smile

Framing the question and metaphor. Is Theisim an excuse to feel self-righteous?

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

sometimes the questions are framed for a particular outcome.


Yes, very applicable. Interesting reading, thanks.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:14 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Hi All!Smile

Framing the question and metaphor. Is Theisim an excuse to feel self-righteous?

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

sometimes the questions are framed for a particular outcome.


In the case of someone like Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher, is atheism an excuse to feel self-righteous?
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 02:26 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
In the case of someone like Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher, is atheism an excuse to feel self-righteous?


Theaetetus,Smile

Without a doubt-------and justly so!! -----lol!! Thats kind'a the point!
Ask your self at the out start, if the question, no matter who is asking it, is setting you up, are you of necessity in responding, on the defensive?


George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 03:17 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
:whistling:

As much as I agree that the doors should be open to this sort of communication, I also know the dangers of allowing grotesque generalizations and aggressive topics. It is our responsibility as philosophers to know the difference between objective criticism and subjective aggression. Neither of these threads were achieving a goal but rather building a rift between atheism and theism.

You see, when we build a wall like that and start hurling blame and aggression over it at each other, the same thing happens that happened in the middle east thousands of years a go and in Europe hundreds of years ago. Fighting and war over a silly difference of ideas. Frankly, I see no reason to believe in anything. It seems silly to me to dedicate my life to something blindly and call it faith. Still, others will tell me that I am a blasphemer while still other will tell me that I am a model of rationality and logic. Neither is correct. I am me. Just a humble creature living with the choices that I have made and the ability to change the direction of my life at any moment. That is also how I hope to be judged. Not as an atheist or agnostic or governent worker or any of the other things which I choose to do or have chosen to do. I wish to be judged on the sole factor of my ideas and who I am in relation to the universe as a whole.

I do not fit in a box and do not think that good, productive conversation can fit in one either.

And I know what some will say to this. Yes, we are all in a box of some size or shape.... Language, species, so on and so forth. I am talking about the man made labels of personal ideas.
As dangerous that they may be, they must be allowed, because some ideas "forbid" the existence of certain other ideas, and its better that they clash in open discussion than in secrecy.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 03:34 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
:whistling:

As much as I agree that the doors should be open to this sort of communication, I also know the dangers of allowing grotesque generalizations and aggressive topics. It is our responsibility as philosophers to know the difference between objective criticism and subjective aggression. Neither of these threads were achieving a goal but rather building a rift between atheism and theism.

You see, when we build a wall like that and start hurling blame and aggression over it at each other, the same thing happens that happened in the middle east thousands of years a go and in Europe hundreds of years ago. Fighting and war over a silly difference of ideas. Frankly, I see no reason to believe in anything. It seems silly to me to dedicate my life to something blindly and call it faith. Still, others will tell me that I am a blasphemer while still other will tell me that I am a model of rationality and logic. Neither is correct. I am me. Just a humble creature living with the choices that I have made and the ability to change the direction of my life at any moment. That is also how I hope to be judged. Not as an atheist or agnostic or governent worker or any of the other things which I choose to do or have chosen to do. I wish to be judged on the sole factor of my ideas and who I am in relation to the universe as a whole.

I do not fit in a box and do not think that good, productive conversation can fit in one either.

And I know what some will say to this. Yes, we are all in a box of some size or shape.... Language, species, so on and so forth. I am talking about the man made labels of personal ideas.



Icon,Smile

Just kind of thought this echoed your above post.

To separate oneself or one's group-to say, "Oh, no, we are different" - is to set oneself against wholeness. To separate ourselves from the whole is to cut our options and erect the walls of our own prison. When we create duality in our thoughts and lives, we have created opposition.
|-Joseph Campbell
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 03:46 pm
@Joe,
Jon Stewart had a comment about this a while ago, when Neil Cavuto of Fox news had a banner headline "George W. Bush: the greatest president ever?"

The phrasing of the question implies the attitude and the subtext. It's biased from the start.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 03:56 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
As dangerous that they may be, they must be allowed, because some ideas "forbid" the existence of certain other ideas, and its better that they clash in open discussion than in secrecy.


There is a way to work through such ideas in a manner that keeps us talking, is considerate, intelligent and isn't just abject mud-slinging.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 04:14 pm
@Joe,
Ideas aren't the problem.

It's the fact that we don't do a very good job distinguishing an idea in the abstract from people in the world.

For instance, we can make certain assumptions about a theist. Or an atheist. But whatever that assumption, the fact of the matter is that we NEVER really know what goes on inside people's heads, regardless of their professed beliefs. And in practice, plenty of acts of horror and plenty of acts of virtue have been committed by theists, atheists, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, pagans, wiccans, Democrats, Republicans, Americans, etc.

Only in extremely rare cases should people LOSE the benefit of the doubt because of a group identity, and this happens when the group's identity and practice are sufficiently small and homogeneous that there's no escaping it. For instance, I believe it IS fair to ask questions about people like Martin Heiddeger and Richard Strauss who belonged to the Nazi party.

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to ask such questions about people merely by virtue of atheism or theism -- the inherent ideas are just way too nonspecific.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 07:49 pm
@Aedes,
I was thinking about the main point about why i made this thread. Mostly I want to understand what the separation is between OPINIONATED statements and FACTUAL statements. I think that the arguments are very easy to slate when you say "oh thats opinion your forcing as a fact". Of course this happens with everyone because its how we state our facts in formative ideas. With subjects involving deep beliefs on our existence, I think its used as a defense as much as it seems as an offense.

I like to break it down whenever I can to (+)+(+)=+. Its hard sometimes but remembering this formula helps weave out alot of the accessories that are in between the ideas.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:06 pm
@Joe,
Joe;47701 wrote:
I want to understand what the separation is between OPINIONATED statements and FACTUAL statements.
The problem is that people assume that a fact can be derived from logic alone. But what they don't realize is that 1) people have different logical processes from one another, and 2) for something to make logical sense doesn't coronate it as a fact.
 
Icon
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:31 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
I was thinking about the main point about why i made this thread. Mostly I want to understand what the separation is between OPINIONATED statements and FACTUAL statements. I think that the arguments are very easy to slate when you say "oh thats opinion your forcing as a fact". Of course this happens with everyone because its how we state our facts in formative ideas. With subjects involving deep beliefs on our existence, I think its used as a defense as much as it seems as an offense.

I like to break it down whenever I can to (+)+(+)=+. Its hard sometimes but remembering this formula helps weave out alot of the accessories that are in between the ideas.

The difference between factual information and opinion is the difference between objective and subjective information.

Example. Norway is in northern Europe = Objective. I can go there and prove this. Fact

Christians are [in my experience] closed minded = Subjective. My experience is not all inclusive. Opinion

The fact of the matter is that we have all lived very different lives and so we have come to different conclusions. We talk to share our views but must remember that we have only one side of the story.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:37 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
The difference between factual information and opinion is the difference between objective and subjective information.

Example. Norway is in northern Europe = Objective. I can go there and prove this. Fact

Christians are [in my experience] closed minded = Subjective. My experience is not all inclusive. Opinion

The fact of the matter is that we have all lived very different lives and so we have come to different conclusions. We talk to share our views but must remember that we have only one side of the story.


Right so where do you think the break down when to use opinion with fact as opposed to verses? Because if we just talk about facts we end up ignoring the gap of perception.
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:42 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
The problem is that people assume that a fact can be derived from logic alone. But what they don't realize is that 1) people have different logical processes from one another, and 2) for something to make logical sense doesn't coronate it as a fact.


Absolutely. I guess thats what were so used to doing when it comes to forming an insight on something that to communicate takes further effort. Logically speaking. I like it when people on the forum identify there thinking at the beginning of their posts, its very informative on the premise of the subject. I gotta remember to do that more often.
 
Icon
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:44 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
Right so where do you think the break down when to use opinion with fact as opposed to verses? Because if we just talk about facts we end up ignoring the gap of perception.

Excellent question.

Here is how I like to do it but this is just my opinion Wink

If you are trying to come to a conclusion, use fact. If you are trying to discover new truths, use opinion.

If you know your opinion is a bit limited or possibly offensive, keep it to yourself and use perception of the current facts in the thread or try to open your view enough to word it differently. Also, if you discover that your opinion is found to be offensive, make sure you can see it from their view too. This is how we learn and grow as a group.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:44 pm
@Joe,
I think this would all crumble if people asked themselves what they REALLY know about the subject they're discussing. I mean how much experiential or academic knowledge do we have of these subjects? To what degree do we investigate the methodological soundness of our sources?
 
Icon
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:46 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
I think this would all crumble if people asked themselves what they REALLY know about the subject they're discussing. I mean how much experiential or academic knowledge do we have of these subjects? To what degree do we investigate the methodological soundness of our sources?

Thoroughly and to every extent possible. Of course, I also think I am always wrong so that should tell you something.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Two threads, Big heads?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2024 at 05:16:05