A Few Observations

[(Q)]

My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?

The supernatural. That which has been acknowledged by theists to exist.

[invert_nexus]

One Raven,

I respect people that act with integrity.

You respect people that agree with your notion of integrity.

I respect people who act in accordance with selfless regard for others.

You respect people who agree with your view that other is more valuable than self.

I respect people who treat others with respect.

You respect people that agree with your notion of respect.



When you respect people for those things, you're being neutral or indifferent for those aspects of them that you do disagree with. You don't respect their theistic ways. You don't respect their worship of the 'flying spaghetti monster' (to use the internet meme). You don't respect their tacit endorsement of all the cold, callous, and brutal acts which their religion has committed throughout the years and which still loom in the future.

You respect them despite these things.

I agree with Water.
Yes. It's an issue of semantics. But 'respect' has been abused by the modern world. Every homeboy on the block demanding respect as if it were his right.
Ha!
You earn respect. Respect given as default is worthless. And if you respect an other without them earning that respect then that makes you worthless.
Part of the problem.
Might as well get on your knees with the rest of the christian scum. You're already halfway there.

[Jenyar]

The supernatural. That which has been acknowledged by theists to exist.

That's a broad generalization, and I would argue only in non-theistic circles would you find belief in non-entities, visible (but perhaps illusionary) or invisible.

[(Q)]

That's a broad generalization, and I would argue only in non-theistic circles would you find belief in non-entities, visible (but perhaps illusionary) or invisible.

The supernatural MUST be of non-entities, or they would be entities and part of the natural world; ie. they would be detectable. And they are invisible, since they are undetectable.

For the purpose of discussion, we must find a term that suits that which is undetectable in the physical world but is still believed to exist. A paradox, of course, but one that appears to affect millions.

[Jenyar]

You mean, like atoms? Dark matter? Boson Higgs particles - and for a long time, black holes? The "natural" world is a concept that describes what we can detect and predict under ideal circumstances and according to our best knowledge and abilities. It defines nothing more than that. We can't keep something out of reality by defining it out. We wouldn't even be able to imagine our own consciousness just from observing the human brain.

Observation depends on your instruments, and, in the case of singular events and temporary limitations, time. God is not by nature part of nature, although He can (and according to Judaism and Christianity, has) enter it. He is therefore by all definitions of the word, an entity.

[MarcAC]

My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?

It seems Q failed to realise the redundancy in the use of the term "invisible non-entity".

It was most likely an attempt at making theist belief look "even more pathetic"... yet it turns out he's the one who looks pathetic...

Hmmm... Wasn't that a boomerang... ?

[perplexity]

George Bernard Shaw said that

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place"

I would say the same of perception, what we like to call knowing.

--- Ron.

[Jenyar]

George Bernard Shaw said that

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place"

I would say the same of perception, what we like to call knowing.

--- Ron.

And there might be a level on which all things are illusionary, but we would reach it as rarely as we reach a level where all things are real. We live (and think and act) absolutely in a relative space between seemingly arbitrary points (from our perspective). This living with our heads in the thin atmosphere above the clouds and our feet planted on terra firma is what we call existence, and that, however we manage to circumscribe it, is the reality we have to work with. I believe between subjectivity and objectivity - between the strategic and the parametric - we usually manage to find some meaning, and that is after all what communication is about.

[one_raven]

invert_nexus,
While I do understand what you and water are talking about, I still disagree with you (but still respect your point of view ).
It is a subtle distinction we are referring to, but I think an important one.
So subtle, in fact, that I am finding difficulty expressing it well.

Let’s take a body-builder as an example.
I don’t personally practice body-building.
The time and attention it takes to do, I find better spent in other endeavors.
I also don’t find the archetypal muscle-bound person particularly attractive.
It is simply not for me.
At the same time, I have an immense amount of respect for the level of dedication, self-discipline and focus it takes to achieve the kind of results I have seen.
While Lee Haney and myself have very different views on what is attractive, what is important, how to treat the body and how much time to spend on beautification of the body, I still whole-heartedly respect his views and what he has done with them.

I do not have respect for views of people that will have an obvious negative effect on me or society as a whole, but if they are not hurting me, I can certainly respect their views and beliefs and them as a person, not despite, but because of their views.

[perplexity]

So subtle, in fact, that I am finding difficulty expressing it well.

Well expressed, in my opinion.

Might as well get on your knees with the rest of the christian scum. You're already halfway there.

Not so well expressed, in my opinion.

Just another homeboy on the block demanding respect as if it were his right.

It is one thing to be different, to own an opinion for the sake of it, to cease to try to reason because it seems to feel good at the time, quite another to make a difference, to convince, to achieve something, to actually earn the respect.

It is an ego thing.

--- Ron.

[Jenyar]

I do not have respect for views of people that will have an obvious negative effect on me or society as a whole, but if they are not hurting me, I can certainly respect their views and beliefs and them as a person, not despite, but because of their views.

I think this will get us closer to the issue. Respect, like honour or virtue, is a social thing, and it would be logical to set the standard for it at a social (rather than personal) level. Like I said in the Question of respect thread, we don't generally respect criminals, or expect anybody else to. But we may require ourselves to respect their basic rights (and here "respect" become almost a formal exercize, a mere skeleton). In a social sense, their actions may cause us to lose all respect for them, but the counterpoint to that is how we define our own human nature, how we respect ourselves and the things we would like others to respect in us.

[(Q)]

You mean, like atoms? Dark matter? Boson Higgs particles - and for a long time, black holes?

What do those have to do with invisible non-entities? They are detectable and observable.

We wouldn't even be able to imagine our own consciousness just from observing the human brain.

That is also detectable and observable. You're really quite confused.

God is notby nature part of nature, although He can (and according to Judaism and Christianity, has) enter it. He is therefore by all definitions of the word, an entity.

Only within the confines of your imagination, if that's what you refer to as part of nature. For the rest of us, he is an invisible non-entity.

[perplexity]

I think this will get us closer to the issue. Respect, like honour or virtue, is a social thing, and it would be logical to set the standard for it at a social (rather than personal) level. Like I said in the Question of respect thread, we don't generally respect criminals, or expect anybody else to.

A degree of respect might not be so amiss if you live next door to a criminal, to keep the doors locked and your eyes open.

A better notion to play with might be qualification. When somebody seems to think thay've something to tell me I like to know why, where they're coming from, and what they've done for themselves, what they have to show.

I notice this with marriage for instance: Friends keenest to tell me how it should be done are those with no marriage to show for themselves, and often those with nothing like a marriage to show for themselves, while those with a marriage to speak of, those who had to learn it the hard way, they're the keenest to keep their council to themselves, content to leave me to it.

I learn a lot about respect from that sort of thing, the back seat driver syndrome.

--- Ron.

[ggazoo]

Atheists here simply lack the political correctness with religion which is rampant in the media and in politics. Shame you see it as a personal attack

Sorry Kenny, but I have to call you out here:

You mean you will believe anything that is in vague support of your irrational beliefs without realizing your beliefs are fucked up in the first place?

That was something that you said to me on another thread. Sounds like a personal attack me to me...

as it is not often the person, but the beliefs themselves that quite rightly receive a lashing.

Why do our beliefs "quite rightly" deserved to be lashed? Because you don't agree with them?

[KennyJC]

That was something that you said to me on another thread. Sounds like a personal attack me to me...

This is the reason why political correctness exists in the first place over religion. People can not differentiate between a personal attack, and an attack on their faith. The quote you gave shows me attacking your faith. Occasionally the line will be over-stepped, but only with good reason - such as Woody's homophobia and male chauvinism.

Why do our beliefs "quite rightly" deserved to be lashed? Because you don't agree with them?

Simply put - it is bullshit. It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education. I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

I could probably write pages and pages on why religious beliefs deserve to be lashed.

[Jenyar]

A degree of respect might not be so amiss if you live next door to a criminal, to keep the doors locked and your eyes open.

A better notion to play with might be qualification. When somebody seems to think thay've something to tell me I like to know why, where they're coming from, and what they've done for themselves, what they have to show.

I notice this with marriage for instance: Friends keenest to tell me how it should be done are those with no marriage to show for themselves, and often those with nothing like a marriage to show for themselves, while those with a marriage to speak of, those who had to learn it the hard way, they're the keenest to keep their council to themselves, content to leave me to it.

I learn a lot about respect from that sort of thing, the back seat driver syndrome.

Yes. People who exemplify what they're talking about seem more qualified and garner more trust. But I don't think that's the kind of respect one has for a criminal next door...

There seems to be an element of "standing back" in the understanding of respect. Awe-respect, fear-respect, admiration-respect, status-respect... People can become qualified in various things.

[MarcAC]

People can not differentiate between a personal attack, and an attack on their faith.

What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

[wsionynw]

Simply put - it is bullshit. It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education. I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

I could probably write pages and pages on why religious beliefs deserve to be lashed.

Well said!

[wsionynw]

What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

I disagree, your actions define who you are.

[KennyJC]

What you believe defines who you are.

If you attack a person's faith, you attack the person.

See it that way if you wish. Faith is open to criticism unlike persecuting a person based on the colour of their skin, sexual orientation or gender. Religious beliefs, as with taste in music are open to question. I criticise friends and family all the time for their taste in music, irrational belief in sky fairies or belief in Astrology.

If someone believes Jesus floated off into the sky or that there is a teapot circling the sun, I'm sorry, but they are open to ridicule and we should question their sanity. To stand by and 'respect' a persons beliefs - no matter how irrational - would be something to be offended about.