JP ducks theism vs. a-theism debate. Petard hoisting afoot.

[joeclarke]

Z-Man started an excellent thread in which the perils of homosexual gatherings were actively debated. That thread soon segued into a discussion of the religious premise relating to homosexuality and thereupon JP weighed in. In his usual convincing, compelling and entertaining style, JP “went off” like a rabid badger on all who approached the subject – taking no prisoners in the process.

Along comes PB, sensing an opportunity to draw JP into a theistic debate. In case you missed it, here’s a synopsis of the play-by-play that ensued:

(1) PB snags a couple of JP’s remarks and takes them on tangents, jabbing and poking at JP. His rapier is somewhat dull and he draws no blood.

(2) JP hints at enthusiasm in his response, but by the end of it he simply deflects PB’s advances with defensive blows and parry.

(3) PB senses weakness (or a lack of interest) in JP and tries to up the ante with his next posting. Some so-so sword play, but again, any wounds are merely superficial.

(4) JP demurs, throws down his weapons in boredom or defeat. No response to PB’s advance.

(5) PB now senses the futility of the gambit, but makes a final thrust – perhaps simply out of the momentum of the moment. However, in a delightful display of footwork, he manages to nab JP’s discarded petard and to begin to hoist him over it. He does so with this gem:

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker

...I am more than my birthday.

...Though it would be cool if vampires existed.

JP

Originally posted by Purrybonker
I have acknowledged that I am intrigued that intelligent, seemingly rational individuals can allow themselves to be taken in by the chicanery of religious superstition. But I do expect that these two quotations may be somewhat instructive as indicators of the underlying drivers. Egoism and the need to find an alternative to our (reasoned) individual status as so much inconsequential, terminal lint in scale of the universe and the romantic, maudlin desire to seize upon wonder and mystery and the belief that there exists an unerring, pure truth against which all actions, deeds or thoughts will ultimately be reconciled.

There are Darwinian drivers for religious compulsion, as there are (strangely) for homosexuality. But check with the Proctor of the local Society (that you have shown yourself to be a joiner, I hope you are not denying Mensa the benefit of your association) about taking a straw (or formal if you like, it's already been done many times over) poll about the rate of religious affiliation. Not that it matters whit, few would debate that the rate of atheism grows with IQ and that the most devout are often the poorest informed or educated. But it's easy to straddle the intellectual-religious chasm by being simply chosing to be rational within one's irrational beliefs. I can interpret God's will by applying my own reason to the teachings of the church, picking and chosing those things that "work for me" and thereby maintaining my ego in both places.

Have the courage to be fish or fowl...

But deism is one thing, the selective slicing and dicing of religious writings/teachings is another, let alone the debates between the various religious factions. I was born into a religious family and went to church, sunday school and confirmation also. But it struck me as questionable at any early age that if I had been born into a Muslim family I would be Muslim rather than Lutheran. Follow that logic string with an open mind and see where it takes you.

If you were a child of Saladin you would probably have been taking off the heads of Crusaders with a scimitar, rather than metaphorically waving one around places the Pelican forum. What would you be waving if you had been a child of Einstein?

Yes, it would be cool if vampires existed.

Brilliant.

And there JP sits. Wiggling still, I suppose.

Come on JP – don’t let it end like this, it’s just getting good. We wanna make some popcorn.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

[IROC]

I thought PB's post was excellent. I'm not so sure about vampires existing, though. Might not be cool.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Thanks for the headlines, but I got bored. I say what I have to and move on; usually hoping to catch a good photo on the random pictures thread before Z-man gets to it.

Having been both an Engineering scholar and a Jesuit student, I've been 'round this carousel with highly self-regarded engineers who disdain anyone with faith. Their failure is usually one of imagination and a refusal, having been conditioned exclusively to cause-effect and mathematical proof to understand and receive the adulation of their peers, to acknowledge that there can be something beyond those cold, comfortable certainties.

As I said a few times in that thread, a person (including myself) can do/believe more-or-less what they want, and I'm OK with it. It's the person (including, potentially, myself) who tries to proselytize, to convince others so vehemently of his own absolute rectitude that's the boor, the annoyance, the "just STFU already" person with whom I take exception. I've said my piece and don't want to become that guy.

My faith is mine, and no amount (or, more accurately, volume) of "reasoning" from Purry (whose acumen I've questioned in the past) is going to dispossess me of what I've forged through relationships with a spectrum of good friends and mentors, from genius scientists and engineers, to devout Jesuits.

If he can't understand (or, more to my point, accept) what appears to him to be a paradox between faith and reason ... a "paradox" with which I and many people much smarter than myself, throughout history have had no indigestion ... that's his failure, and it's not my onus to cure him of that schizophrenia. More to the point, never try to teach a Purry to sing... it wastes your time and annoys the Purry.

Sure, I think there's a God, but most of the fascination I had with the study of religion was the sociology and psychology behind the actions of individuals and groups of people trying to comprehend and relate with things at the edge of their comprehension.

The funny part, to me, is being regarded as a "religious" person (and a "joiner"? wow, if that's not off-base. Anyone hereon who knows me, feel free to testify to how good a "joiner" I am).

Then again, I have my limits and I have my blind spots. I don't see the wit evident to you in Purry's response, for example. I see the m/o that bores me -- excerpting one or two non-essential things from the continuum of an argument and contriving what could loosely be called a response to this strawman he creates. Which makes impossible a focused discussion of particular issues, over the course of a series of posts/responses.

Whereas Supe (for example) and I have been able to sustain debate over days' worth of posts, Purry's approach (to be as polite as possible) and mine are immiscible.

But, again, thanks for the props. It's nice to be appreciated, even if simultaneously misunderstood. Hmmm... this must be how God feels.

Best,

JP

[berettafan]

I enjoyed the thread. Thought provoking and some good points.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Having been both an Engineering scholar and a Jesuit student, I've been 'round this carousel with highly self-regarded engineers who disdain anyone with faith. Their failure is usually one of imagination and a refusal, having been conditioned exclusively to cause-effect and mathematical proof to understand and receive the adulation of their peers, to acknowledge that there can be something beyond those cold, comfortable certainties.

That's just the thing. The scientist/engineer atheists get into this argument because they are so ingrained with cause and effect. They (we) see the smart person who has faith in something so silly (to their minds) that a paradox is evident and want to get to the bottom of it. I don't think Purry was trying to convince you of anything, but merely trying to come up with an explanation, that from the outside, is paradoxical: why do smart people have faith in something so non-evidential?

Personally, I thought Purry's response was great.

[scottmandue]

I don't always agree JP however I think he had an excellent response.

I find it interesting the atheist are just as "religious" about forcing their lack of belief on everyone as the very theist they claim to abhorrer.

[island911]

Spot on scottmandue

Originally posted by wludavid
... , that from the outside, is paradoxical: why do smart people have faith in something so non-evidential? ...

ah yes, they would like to know. Perhaps they should ponder the paradox a while longer. Perhaps they should not commingle religion and faith.

Joe- I have yet to see JP stumped for a response. Seems he disappears when Bored with the opposing. But good work, Joe, on drawing out JP with a new thread . .. like yelling " mmmMOMm .JP IS DIS"N PURRY

[wludavid]

Perhaps JP is performing a social experiment on us?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by wludavid
Personally, I thought Purry's response was great.

Sorry, I don't think he is capable of a "great", much less thought provoking response. He reminds me way too much of this little ***** fromThe Princess Bride:

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
He reminds me way too much of this little ***** fromThe Princess Bride:

Now you sound like a man with an axe in need of grinding. Nope, I have him looking more like this...

'tis he looking for the virtuous good fight. Read the play-by-play up top...

[wludavid]

What you don't know is this: Purrybonker is left-handed.

[legion]

Originally posted by scottmandue
I find it interesting the atheist are just as "religious" about forcing their lack of belief on everyone as the very theist they claim to abhorrer.

And yet they are completely unable to see this about themselves.

I have a coworker in this camp. He simply can't comprehend how anyone could think he is wrong, much less that he is doing exactly what he criticizes. He freaks out if someone is wearing a cross necklace. (They are obviously "pushing their religion" on him.) These people seem to be singularly fixated on Christianity. He doesn't seem to mind the little Vishnu statues and whatnot some Indians have at their desk...

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by legion
And yet they are completely unable to see this about themselves.

Yes, and the religious are so very open minded.

At a dinner party celebrating Chinese New Year, I sat beside a teacher who had spent some years in Indonesia doing charity work for a Christian based organization. During her time there she learned about many of the local religious beliefs, things like a religion that involved bat-like creatures (real people who became bats at night I think) that caused mischief in their most benign activities and death and suffering in extreme cases. This particular “tribe” were all believers in this phenomena and many had even seen these bats zooming around in quasi-spirit form. My date – a very devout catholic observed how it must have been very difficult for her (the teacher) to try to cut through that kind of “backward thinking” and the Baptist pastor sitting beside her chimed in with similar observations.

I thought, Ahem. Virgin birth – dead people back to life, etc. etc. Hm, Jews skeptically viewing Christians questioning jealous, wrathful Old Testament Jewish God, while they sneer at the modern, convenient Mormon interpretation of loving New Testament God, while they are laughing at and pitying the indigenous for their absurd ritualistic beliefs, all the while everyone asserting vision and imagination and spirituality. Imagination and spirituality that only apply as far as such was implanted in all of us by parents, preachers or teachers at an impressionable age.

(The Jesuits say "give them to us until 7, we'll have them as men")

Now that sounds like a real paradox. I suppose that there really is no paradox between science and faith except for that seen by the faithful.

I held my tongue until the drive home. We no longer “date”. The relationship was great otherwise. Yeah, religion/faith – that good force that might just actually be the greatest dividing influence on the planet. (Did I say "might"? No - that's way too easy, just open a newspaper and pick a story, any story involving war or hatred)

Yep, sounds like the real paradox.

We are all atheistic, really. It's just a matter of scale. Many have picked one God and have eliminated all the rest. Capital A atheists have just eliminated one, or slightly more Gods than the rest.

We all don’t believe in far, far more Gods than we actually do believe in.

Thanks Joe, wludaivd, island911, scottmandue, berretafan and for the indulgence JP.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Ok. Hold on, everybody. Let me get all meta-threadical on you, and then I'll leave this to y'all to work out.

I don't think Purry is stupid. At all. I think his intelligence is undiscliplined, which, as a disciple of hard sciences, he'll probably take as an insult, but allow me to explain.

Whether you find Purry's exigeses entertaining or not, I do not find them to be "responses" in the sense that they're only tangentally "responsive" to what has been said. Usually (and this is over the course of a coupla' years now) rather than respond to the thrust of a post, he'll pick one or two obiter dicta from a post and go off on a world-according-to-Purry tangent. Often, it's a "gotcha" type "look at the inconsistency" banality. Yawn.

If you want to be entertained, I'll stipulate there's some value and, often, humor in that. However, if you're trying to carry on a dialog, it amounts to his, consciously or subconsciously, acknowledging that he cannot reply to the argument you're making, so he re-characterizes or just plain invents your argument for you in a meme convenient to him, and "responds" to that. Hence, the strawman reference.

The novelty of such an approach, from the receiving end, does not last long. So, I get bored, and I'm not going to make anybody's case other than my own. EDIT -- and to be clear, I'm not trying to convince him, or anybody, that there is a God. Most of Purry's thrust has been about how other, smart, people don't believe (more on that below) and therefore either (1) if I'm smart I shouldn't, or (2) because I do believe God exists, I'm dumb. Not exactly a foundation for a compelling dialog.

He and I are going to disagree on this, and I don't need to keep fixing his mischaracterizations and questioning his hyperbole. I believe in his first post he started with this little gem: Most "intellectuals", and certainly almost the totality of the scientific community (including those geniuses who might fall somewhat short of a passing grade in their spelling ability) takes exception to the very existence of God,..."

Having studied some history, and knowing quite a few scientists and other intellectuals, I expressed my skepticism and asked where he got that data from. His response: " ".

Essentially, ignore being called on ridiculous hyperbole, used as the cornerstone of a position and move on. If you think that's a great approach, I'm not going to be giving you voice lessons either.

I hadn't read Purry's ... response ... until this thread was started; and, frankly, a reply seems superfluous. There's no "there" there. I can't tell if he's requiring dogma (can't "slice and dice" religions and choose your own a la carte) or railing against it. Could it be entertaining? Sure, I suppose. Some people like Carrottop and Bob Saget.

The one piece of interest (to me) is another unsubstantiated position using the gravitas of others' opinions: IQ vs. belief in God.

Then again, the rate of athiesm may in fact increase in proportion to IQ. If so, evidently we're to infer, as Purry does, that "smart" people know God doesn't (or is it can't) exist. Personally, I don't buy into IQ as being terribly informative, and I don't believe athiesm is sophisticated. I think it's a dodge.

The rate of high-functioning mental disorders may increase in proportion to IQ as well (I have as much proof at hand for that as Purry put forth for his own, but it is fun just to make ***** up as you go along, so I can understand the temptation). So, what would you infer from such a circumstance? That athiests are mental? You can be wicked smart and wicked freaking unstable... and history is replete with examples of that.

Finally (and I do mean finally) I thought that Jeff, Z and the others with whom I was discussing matters had come to a point where we understood and appreciated each others' views; and frequently that's about as much as you can possibly expect. There can be no such point with Purry, IMHO, b/c it's substance and style on which we clash. I'm probably even in the bottom decile of "religiousness" of people on this board anyhoo, and I don't enjoy having to answer (atone?) for all of their supposed mendacities, tenacities and beliefs.

It's like putting me in a position to argue anything positive about Notre Dame. My heart's just not in it. "At least it's not any larger" is about the most positive thing I could say about it.

As always, best.

JP out.

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Ok. Hold on, everybody. Let me get all meta-threadical on you, and then I'll leave this to y'all to work out.
...

JP out.

Hm. Nothing to see here but what's firmly rooted in the ad hominem I'm afraid. Ain't no meta-anything in this post. Except "here's why PB gets under my skin, I just can't even talk to him 'cause...".

Seems to me that this place would be pretty boring without tangential "gotcha" arguments.

But, whatever...

JP's clearly gonna stay completely clear of the subject . Fair enough. I'm gonna turn off the popcorn machine now.

But geez JP, even when you've got nothin' to say, you're still darned entertaining to read!

Fine.

TKO to PB.

[bivenator]

I got JP on points but twas a very entertaining match. I lean more towards agnostic in my own beliefs.
I do believe that those who spout off about tolerance are often the most intorlerant.
Homo's and Christians don't really matter much to me until they try to force me to accept thier views.
If your gay, be gay. If you are a FSM believer, rock on. Just don't expect me to participate.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by joeclarke
Now you sound like a man with an axe in need of grinding.

I suppose I do, in the context of this BBS. It has to do with those that participate for no other reason, or maybe more accurately with no other apparent purpose, than to antagonize and instigate. There are a few regulars here; most of us know who they are. This guy is towards the top of that list. I have lost track of how many he has attempted to tear down and belittle on this board. Such mean-spirited boorish "trolls" are rather tiring.

'tis he looking for the virtuous good fight. Read the play-by-play up top...

No, he was not. Just as he has done repeatedly in the past, his lead-in was to once again exclaim how stupid anyone is that could possibly dissagree with his point of view, and to follow that up by trying to support that point of view by claiming to be in agreement with the "vast majority of intellectuals".

That's where he begins to remind me of Vinzinni; far too impressed with his own intellectual prowess; ready to comment with authority on that which he so very obviously has not a clue. Dismissing those who would dare dissagree as his intellectual inferiors; and clouding his arguments with the sheer weight of his verbose, divergent ramblings. I'm sorry, but an eloquently expressed banal thought is still a banal thought. He brings nothing new to the argument other than his childesh barbs at the intellect of other participants.

Maybe he reminds me more of Henry Higgins of Shaw's Pygmalion, played so convincingly by Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady. Vocabulary as a weapon to subdue conversational "opponents", where every conversation has a "winner" and a "loser"; whether it begins as a debate or not. Vocabulary becomes more important than substance or original thought; it serves to fool the masses into thinking you might actually know what you are talking about. The clearest indication that he does not is how deftly he veers just ever so slightly off course when challenged; it happened a couple of times in the very thread to which we refer.

TKO to PB.

Hardly. He slipped and fell on his ass back in the locker room.

[Nathans_Dad]

Theism vs. Atheism? Is there a debate?

I'm definitely in the theist camp, but it seems to me that both sides fervently believe something that they cannot prove. Sounds like they should be happy with their beliefs and quit trying to prove the other guy wrong...

[MRM]

I tried to read the entire thread. My heads hurt.

I'm reasonably intelligent, fairly well educated, and widely read. I'm also a believer. I don't think it is hard to reconcile being a thinking, educated person and still be a believer.

I happen to think that God created man (and women) and that mankind created God by believing in him. Yeah, there you go, circular, right? Try to find the flaw in the logic. If you don't believe in God, He doesn't exist for you, if you do, He does.

Darwin didn't reject the church completely; he was unsure. Einstein believed that there was some higher power that his calculations couldn't account for. All we really know is that if we think we must exist. Everything else is our best reasoning. As they say, reasonable minds can differ. What makes sense to me might not make sense to you.