Halo,This internet is a tricky business. I certainly saw mocking in the choice of syntax and context of your statement: "How is that going, the exposing all wrongs and healing everything, thing?" An afterthought, a tongue-in-cheek question that really has no serious inquiry to it. Kind of like: "How's that going for you, that rocket ship you intend to build?" I will take you at your word, and acknowledge that you meant no harm in the statement.I don't think it is impossible to understand peoples' state of mind from observation. I, however, think it is reckless to make general statements about insubstantial ideas, directed at whole groups of people, based on mere anecdotal evidence:Quote:BUT HAPPY? As in a relaxed, confident, self loving, productive, ethical, person, able to think and act for themselves? Uh, no. The people I know who would fit that description, stopped going to church, if they ever went, at age 8 to 11...That might be true of all the people you know, I doubt it

Frank 013: So can we start calling you "crazy" architect?Start? Ha. misterpessimistic: And as for the last part of your sentence, there is absolutely something inherent in religion that would make it very hard to find cooperation with someone that is in direct opposition to what you hold true in your heart.Abandoning religion altogether isn't going to change that. People are still going to have differences and differing priorities. They're going to act according to those priorities. And they're going to find it difficult to get along with people whose priorities conflict with theirs. So maybe it is something inherent in religion, but it is by no means unique to it. It's inherent in anything that matters to people.It is the ability of the human being to reason and examine the world around her that gives us the ability to overcome the religious seclusion inherent in the system.I don't think so. A great deal of scholarship written in the last 100 years or so has been devoted to examining the ways in which reason contributes to atrocity. Reason is not some unmixed blessing. Considered, deliberate steps can lead just as surely to the gallows.But then, this all goes back to the argument that all rational arguments are rooted in values that are, themselves, arational, which is a position that you de facto reject. So we should probably just call that one an impasse.I took you for a pompous ass...and I have yet to stray from that assessment.Doesn't surprise me. I've never seen you stray from any assessment you've made. I'm not sure you're capable of it.

I dont think I have a NEED to. Well Luke, looks likes we are at an impass on many things.And just what positions have you strayed from?Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 3/28/07 7:28 pm

Quote:MadAbandoning religion altogether isn't going to change that. People are still going to have differences and differing priorities. True, but how many differences do we need? especially ones that cannot be logically rectified. Quote:MadSo maybe it is something inherent in religion, but it is by no means unique to it. It's inherent in anything that matters to people.I do not think anyone here has argued that these issues are unique to religion, but I do think religion adds an element of irrationality to existing conflict.And shouldn't we remove all unnecessary reasons for conflict where possible?Quote:MadBut then, this all goes back to the argument that all rational arguments are rooted in values that are, themselves, arational, which is a position that you de facto reject.Which any practical person who wants to accomplish anything must do.Later

me: But then, this all goes back to the argument that all rational arguments are rooted in values that are, themselves, arational, which is a position that you de facto reject.Frank: Which any practical person who wants to accomplish anything must do.No, all they need do to stay practical is admit that their reasons are always, at root, personal rather than objective. That still allows for pragmattic behavior and makes us less prone to the delusion that we're behaving objectively and from pure reason.

Quote:MadNo, all they need do to stay practical is admit that their reasons are always, at root, personal rather than objective. That still allows for pragmatic behavior and makes us less prone to the delusion that we're behaving objectively and from pure reason.This does make us less prone to delusion by basically saying that all views are equally valid; from the crazy Sally example to ones based off of evidence that is corroborated and tested by other people and science.That's hardly practical.Later

Quote:This does make us less prone to delusion by basically saying that all views are equally valid; from the crazy Sally example to ones based off of evidence that is corroborated and tested by other people and science.That's hardly practical.But people can make functional assumptions. I can say that on an ultimate level, all views are equally valid, regardless of whether or not they belong to Crazy Sally or Einstein. But when speaking within a specific agreed framework, I can say that (according to the agreed criteria) one view is better than another.What you seem to be saying is akin to saying that it because a person recognised that positions like right and left are relative, they could not say that the sun was to an individual's right or left.More interestingly, it is a lot like saying that because you have no belief in a morality that transcends humanity, then you would not be able to behave morally. Think about it. You believe that morality is a matter of opinion, that it is something artifical (or at least, that is the impression I get), but still, you live your life as though your opinions on what constitues a moral/immoral actions were objective facts. If Crazy Sally's cousin (we'll call her Crazy Ann) were to turn to you and say that she believed that genocide, murder and rape were good things, would you consider the moral scheme she constructed to be the equal of yours? Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Quote:NiallBut people can make functional assumptions. I can say that on an ultimate level, all views are equally valid, regardless of whether or not they belong to Crazy Sally or Einstein. But when speaking within a specific agreed framework, I can say that (according to the agreed criteria) one view is better than another.This is exactly my point, but Mad seems to want to defeat valid arguments by poking holes in the agreed framework.Quote:NiallWhat you seem to be saying is akin to saying that it because a person recognized that positions like right and left are relative, they could not say that the sun was to an individual's right or left.Not at all those examples are based off of sensory input and within the accepted framework. Quote:NiallMore interestingly, it is a lot like saying that because you have no belief in a morality that transcends humanity, then you would not be able to behave morally. Think about it. I am thinking about it and I do not see the similarity, morality is made by humanity for humanity how can it transcend humanity? Quote:NiallYou believe that morality is a matter of opinion, that it is something artificial (or at least, that is the impression I get), but still, you live your life as though your opinions on what constitutes a moral/immoral actions were objective facts. They are for me. but these moral choices are mine alone I do not expect everyone to agree with me or attempt to force others to follow my example. Quote:NiallIf Crazy Sally's cousin (we'll call her Crazy Ann) were to turn to you and say that she believed that genocide, murder and rape were good things, would you consider the moral scheme she constructed to be the equal of yours?No because I take into account personal freedom and the welfare of all people, Crazy Ann clearly does not. But under the all views are arational stance, crazy Ann might have a valid point. Who knows maybe she has important information the rest of us are lacking?Later

Frank: In this way we are not vastly different, while I do not pray or expect a loving response from the cosmos I am in wonder of what I see; from the vastness of the universe to the complexity of a single cell.Perhaps if you expected more out of the cosmos you'd experience something different? Perhaps if you allowed your wonder to expand beyond observation and into intimacy: in other words, not simply observing but really loving...and, in the process the cosmos responds with a sort of gracious hospitality: a prodigious invitation to join in relationship where intimacy and communion take the place of exploration and understanding...the cosmos is no longer simply a great spanse of stuff to learn about, but a loving partner to cherish and honor and care for.Frank: And while I do love nature I realize that without giving it its proper respect it will readily take my life.Where does Frank start and Nature end?Frank: From my experience the cosmos seems to be totally indifferent to the plights of mere humans and it is our own will and resourcefulness that makes the difference.My experience is more mixed. The cosmos is gracious in billions of ways: cool breeze, warm sun, fresh water, fertile soil, lucious vegetation, ripe fruits, clean air, beautiful beasts, etc...and it is a tsunamic whirwind of crushing force and brutal consumption. I think a great deal of our suffering is related to our lack of resourcefulness and indifference to the miseries of others. But, there is also extraordinary graces thruout the human experience too.

Quote:DHPerhaps if you expected more out of the cosmos you'd experience something different? Perhaps if you allowed your wonder to expand beyond observation and into intimacy: How would you accomplish something like that? My nature does not seem geared towards intimacy with something I can't completly understand, and seems as hostile as it is giving. Quote:DHin other words, not simply observing but really loving...and, in the process the cosmos responds with a sort of gracious hospitality:Like how? Do you get super powers? Quote:DHa prodigious invitation to join in relationship where intimacy and communion take the place of exploration and understanding...the cosmos is no longer simply a great spanse of stuff to learn about, but a loving partner to cherish and honor and care for.Sounds like a long wait for a train that will not come.Quote:DHWhere does Frank start and Nature end?Frank starts at consciousness and nature ends at instinct. Quote:DHMy experience is more mixed. The cosmos is gracious in billions of ways: cool breeze, warm sun, fresh water, fertile soil, luscious vegetation, ripe fruits, clean air, beautiful beasts, etc...While I do appreciate those things I could also argue the opposite, freezing winds, scorching deserts, salty wastelands, inhospitable rocky regions, poisonous fruit, choking volcanic gasses, wild deadly and poisonous animals, viruses, bacteria, natural disaster, all are just as prevalent. Quote:DHI think a great deal of our suffering is related to our lack of resourcefulness and indifference to the miseries of others. But, there is also extraordinary graces throughout the human experience too.Undoubtedly. Later