Is a Humanity based religion where we should go ? Any god concept is excluded
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Bigotry is simply a more intense form of discrimination.
IOW whatever manner a person is discriminatory is a manner that they can potentially be bigoted.
Usually all that is required is that the ante of social pressure be increased. So for instance, observers of individuals in prison commonly note how the standard issues of discrimination inflame into bigotry.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
The irony is that in your discussion on how religion is the kingpin of bigotry, you are simply expressing a text book example of a bigot.
:shrug:
Incorrect
Bigotry is a term closely related to discussions on discrimination.
What is irrelevant is your attempt to talk about bigotry as if it bears no relation to discrimination
Obviously you are not comfortable discussing such minor details of theistic philosophical discourse.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
:shrug:
agreed
This is entirely an argument proposed from what you need and desire.
aka: .... with a good measure of cerebral pretensions about civil justice for good press coverage/income protection
:shrug:
Actually the problem is much more complex than you would care to admit since it culminates from values of individuals and is closely tied to their core needs as a person.
As an example, what form do you suppose education could take to erode your blatant bigotry regarding theists?
:scratchin:
Better to just talk in cerebral platitudes, no doubt ....
ok
There you go again. You don't actually need us to have this conversation, you can have it all by yourself, since you're so sure you already know everything, or at least all there is to know here.
Then do please enlighten me as to the relevancy of your opinion of me to the topic matter of this thread?
And even beyond this thread, how is your opinion of me (whether I am as open-minded as you think I purport to be etc), accurate or otherwise, relevant to any discussion beyond those which relate to that very topic?
I couldn't care less what you think of me or any other person. It is irrelevant (or at least it should be) to what a person actually writes. And it is to that which you should respond... not your opinion of that person. Maybe you should concentrate on doing that. Or raise a thread to discuss your opinion of people, where such opinions would actually be relevant.
It's telling that you think - "I'm not going to dress things up in cotton wool just to protect their sensibilities." Nobody suggested to refrain from accusing others of logical fallacies for the sake of "protecting their sensibilities." That's entirely your suggestion, I'm not sure how you've arrived at it.
Until you read up on the theory of informal logical fallacies, there isn't much else I have to say to you. But then again, maybe even that won't help, as long as it isn't accompanied by a change of heart.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't know what this thread is proposing. Why call it a 'religion'? What characteristics would this proposed non-theistic... something... have that would make it religious?
I'm not trying to attack anyone here. In fact I kind of lean towards a non-theistic sort of religiosity myself. I'm just trying to highlight the question of what makes an X a religion.
One possible answer to that might be possession of some theory of salvation. Buddhism offers that. So does Marxism.
We are human beings. But are we human beings foremost? That seems like a significant assumption, which suggests another possible characteristic of religions, possession of an anthropology, a theory not only of what human beings are, but of what they should be, and consequently, of how they should behave.
That sounds unpleasantly anthropocentric to me.
Philosophers have already produced lots of theories that try to place human beings at the exact center of reality, often of the idealistic - 'reality is nothing more than human experience' - sort. The goal seems to replace the traditional concept of God with... ourselves. I think that's a big philosophical mistake.
The way I approach this stuff is linguistically, ontologically and epistemologically.
What does the phrase 'gods of any metaphysics' mean? When we say something like that, what do we think that we are referring to?
Do those kind of things, whatever we think they are, really exist, or are they just products of our own imaginations?
If they do exist, how could beings like us know anything about them?
That's a humanistic way of looking at things, I guess, since it starts with us and with our human condition, with our concepts and with our ways of knowing, and proceeds from there. But it doesn't have to assume that human beings are the axis around which all of the rest of the universe revolves. I'm reasonably certain that we aren't.
That will depend on the topic at hand. There are fields of knowledge, notably religion and philosophy, where a person's actual expertise and attitude are part of whatever they say.
Odd how humanism so often gets taught in an autocratic manner.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
What's the difference between having a "humanity based religion" and having no religion at all?
Here's another thread by River on the same topic: Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Humanity-was-more-important-than-any-religion
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Humanity-was-more-important-than-any-religion
Oh well. River, in his humanistic zeal, it seems hasn't quite figured out what exactly he wants and what exactly he wants to promote.
Maybe it was the wrong phrase to use, so let me rephrase: "I'm not going to dress things up in cotton wool just on the chance I might upset someone."
And what do you think I have to gain from reading up any further on the matter? You disagree when I see people committing such fallacies and call them out? Then feel free to explain why they are not fallacies and why I am then incorrect.
And what change of heart are you expecting, exactly?
You expect me to start accepting arguments I find fallacious, perhaps? Or follow them up with equally fallacious responses?
Explain it to me.
Agreed - as I mentioned.
How so? Surely all that matters is that you can get your point across. Expertise can help here, of course, but only in so much as you might be able to be more succinct, or get to the heart of a matter. But expertise itself is irrelevant compared to what one actually writes in such a forum as this. If someone with expertise is wrong then they are wrong. If they can't support a point then there is no reason to accept their point any more than an unsupported point from a non-expert.
With regard attitude, IF one's point is related to the attitude you portray then perhaps attitude is relevant.
But it doesn't matter to the actual content of what I say if I shout angrily that "2+2=4" or say it in a polite, soothing, calming way.
Attitude might help or hinder getting a point across, but in itself it is irrelevant (except as previously noted).
It does? I've never actually experienced it being taught. Please do tell me what it's like.
It's still about the same thing, which I never brought up.
They are fallacies only within a particular context of thought (namely yours), but not within every other one. As such, acknowledging the context makes one reconsider whether there is much point in claiming something another person said is an informal logical fallacy or not.
Expecting? No. Hoping? Again, no.
You might check out this book on communication and conflict to get an idea of where I'm coming from.
Not at all, and I'm not sure how you arrive at those questions, or why you think those are the only options.
To get your point across - to whom, where, when, in what circumstances.
It's these things that you are ignoring.
The way you talk may be perfectly fine when you think things through for yourself or when you talk to like-minded people. But beyond those contexts, focusing only on getting one's point across is a recipe for miscommunication and non-communication, no matter how much talking you do.
See River's way of talking about humanism, for example. See also the other thread of his that I've linked to. It's got to be his way, or the highway.
Well, if you're not upset with it, please stop complaining about it. :shrug:
If you don't think I acknowledge context before highlighting a logical fallacy then point out why something is not fallacious - and how the context (as you understand it) means that it is not. I assure you that I do take context into account, but I am not going to second-guess what a person might be meaning if they haven't stated it. If they have provided inadequate context to explain what would otherwise be a fallacy then they would need to defend their argument by then providing that context, or the missing thought process that links A to B, or whatever it is.
If you think I erroneously highlight something as fallacious then point it out to me!
But you don't.
Instead you merely take issue that I call people out on what I perceive as their fallacies, yet at no point (maybe with one or two exceptions) do you show me how I am supposed to be wrong in such.
Do you perhaps think I am just to take your word that I am in error? If not, then you'll have to do more than just say "you're wrong, but I won't explain why... Just read a book!" which is what you're effectively doing here.
As I said, it rather depends on what you want out of a discussion in this site: something fruitful or merely frivolous.
I don't think they're the only options, and i arrive at them because your issue seems to be with me calling people out on fallacies. You imply you're not upset with the wording, so I'm struggling through all this to see what your actual issue is, if not you preferring I ignore those fallacies. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?
No I'm not ignoring them. They've been assessed and considered before I start formulating a response. You may not agree with the way I work, but don't assume that because it doesn't match your way that I must not have considered such things. You may place more stock in those things. I prefer looking at what people actually type within the context.
Surely getting one's point across IS communication. And it is miscommunication when you fail. I am not talking about making sure the other person accepts the point, just that what you write adequately and correctly communicates the point you intend to make.
Sorry, I thought you mentioned teaching.
Anyhoo - are you sure you want to continue dissecting my style on this thread, or would it not be better served elsewhere?
We've actually talked about this at least once before. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that you're in error. It's that your metaphysical outlook is reflected in your approach to communication. Namely, it's effectively impersonalist. And there seems to be very little that a personalist and an impersonalist can meaningfully converse about.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that from the frequent posters here, it's still only myself and LG who have a working understanding of personalism and impersonalism and their applications.
One person's fruit is another's frivolity ...
As long as you maintain your impersonalist outlook, I don't think that can actually be done. I don't think that a personalist can explain personalism and impersonalism to an impersonalist.
The way I see it, it's not about your style, but about your metaphysical outlook, that also comes through in your approach to communication. Which is why this is on topic.
Although, again, apart from myself and LG, I'm not sure how many people here understand what I'm talking about ...
lightgigantic #102 writes: Bigotry is simply a more intense form of discrimination.
IOW whatever manner a person is discriminatory is a manner that they can potentially be bigoted.
Of course, if one writes one's own dictionary in order to support an argument we might as well make little dolls of each other and stick needles into them. Only one steeped in bigotry could contrive such a corrupt lexicographical abortion as you attempt to do.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
My uthority is the Macquarie Dictionary. You cite none, hence your "definition" has no credibility but does bear the odium of self-serving sophistry, so inasfaras revealing the corruption of your "reasoning", it's not a complete loss.
Biggles wrote previously: Your alternative to solving the question of a universal consensus is to convince everyone of the divine rectitude of your eccentric interpretation of christianity [even christians here disagree with you]. Well, I must record here that I find your presumption to messiahship both a risible and a contemptible one.
Obviously you are not comfortable discussing such minor details of theistic philosophical discourse.
You'll never realise how wrong you are. But to identify the piffle you write as "theistic philosophical discourse" was such a pretension to authority that I'm prompted to ask if you ever contributed to the dialog of Everybody Loves Raymond.
Biggles wrote previously: The sooner we face up to the material world, the sooner we recognise our insignificance then the sooner we will forgo the obsequious cringe that proclaims our inadequacies and forces intellect into subservience to an imaginary capricious provider who may help if everyone kowtows deeply enough. Allied with your presumption to messiahship, your pretensions would be so utterly laughable if they weren't so utterly preposterous.
This is entirely an argument proposed from what you need and desire.
It's a proposition based in observable fact and conclusions drawn therefrom. The sure and certain conceit that religious belief generates in the believer is the epitome of bigotry. It presumes that at a specific moment in the conjunction of cosmic forces there came about a unique condition that impregnated a carbon-based organism on a tiny planet amongst billions of its like within a galaxy equally numerous in its like, and that organism was uniquely imbued with the truth of all existence.
Well, in this respect, I rejoice for you while ROTFLMFAO. SUCH PRESUMPTION!!!! You really are a piece of work. Whose work, is for conjecture among the psychiatric community. Far be it for me to presume to such lofty deliberations.
This conceit is all but a tangible phenomenon. The principal goal of religious faith is to turn exclusivity, conceit and bigotry into highest virtue
Biggles wrote previously: Followers of current affairs and history are already aware of the main component of that antagonism. Its elimination through education may take centuries but eventually it will happen. The progress of humankind to maturity, rationallity and reason is inexorable, providing you don't succeed in destroying humankind to prove how peaceful religious faith can be.
Actually the problem is much more complex than you would care to admit since it culminates from values of individuals and is closely tied to their core needs as a person.
The values and core needs are easily replaced with appropriate education. That's why commercial advertising is such a success. There are many similarities in the psychology of both phenomena.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), A Connecticult Yankee in King Arthur's Court
You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements.
Norman Douglas, South Wind, 1917
IOW whatever manner a person is discriminatory is a manner that they can potentially be bigoted.
Of course, if one writes one's own dictionary in order to support an argument we might as well make little dolls of each other and stick needles into them. Only one steeped in bigotry could contrive such a corrupt lexicographical abortion as you attempt to do.
Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
My uthority is the Macquarie Dictionary. You cite none, hence your "definition" has no credibility but does bear the odium of self-serving sophistry, so inasfaras revealing the corruption of your "reasoning", it's not a complete loss.
Biggles wrote previously: Your alternative to solving the question of a universal consensus is to convince everyone of the divine rectitude of your eccentric interpretation of christianity [even christians here disagree with you]. Well, I must record here that I find your presumption to messiahship both a risible and a contemptible one.
Obviously you are not comfortable discussing such minor details of theistic philosophical discourse.
You'll never realise how wrong you are. But to identify the piffle you write as "theistic philosophical discourse" was such a pretension to authority that I'm prompted to ask if you ever contributed to the dialog of Everybody Loves Raymond.
Biggles wrote previously: The sooner we face up to the material world, the sooner we recognise our insignificance then the sooner we will forgo the obsequious cringe that proclaims our inadequacies and forces intellect into subservience to an imaginary capricious provider who may help if everyone kowtows deeply enough. Allied with your presumption to messiahship, your pretensions would be so utterly laughable if they weren't so utterly preposterous.
This is entirely an argument proposed from what you need and desire.
It's a proposition based in observable fact and conclusions drawn therefrom. The sure and certain conceit that religious belief generates in the believer is the epitome of bigotry. It presumes that at a specific moment in the conjunction of cosmic forces there came about a unique condition that impregnated a carbon-based organism on a tiny planet amongst billions of its like within a galaxy equally numerous in its like, and that organism was uniquely imbued with the truth of all existence.
Well, in this respect, I rejoice for you while ROTFLMFAO. SUCH PRESUMPTION!!!! You really are a piece of work. Whose work, is for conjecture among the psychiatric community. Far be it for me to presume to such lofty deliberations.
This conceit is all but a tangible phenomenon. The principal goal of religious faith is to turn exclusivity, conceit and bigotry into highest virtue
Biggles wrote previously: Followers of current affairs and history are already aware of the main component of that antagonism. Its elimination through education may take centuries but eventually it will happen. The progress of humankind to maturity, rationallity and reason is inexorable, providing you don't succeed in destroying humankind to prove how peaceful religious faith can be.
Actually the problem is much more complex than you would care to admit since it culminates from values of individuals and is closely tied to their core needs as a person.
The values and core needs are easily replaced with appropriate education. That's why commercial advertising is such a success. There are many similarities in the psychology of both phenomena.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), A Connecticult Yankee in King Arthur's Court
You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements.
Norman Douglas, South Wind, 1917
Biggles wrote previously: Nature has no remit to care for us. It will not mourn our extinction. It will thrive and prosper without us.
Fork writes #101: Of course. But God is real.
Your persistance is rewarded. As for your assertion of blind religious faith, you can repeat it as often as the rules allow, but the poverty of veracity therein will never change. Your argument ends in infinity and thus absurdity.
Albert Einstein wrote: "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."
If you have anything to offer besides evangelistic zeal I'm usually obliging with my time and effort. So please............give it your best if you are so inclined.
Fork writes #101: Of course. But God is real.
Your persistance is rewarded. As for your assertion of blind religious faith, you can repeat it as often as the rules allow, but the poverty of veracity therein will never change. Your argument ends in infinity and thus absurdity.
Albert Einstein wrote: "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."
If you have anything to offer besides evangelistic zeal I'm usually obliging with my time and effort. So please............give it your best if you are so inclined.
I am not writing my own dictionary.
I am not even challenging the definition you offered.
What I am challenging is your assertion that discussions of discriminatory practices have no bearing on discussions of bigoted ones.
I just cited a discussion on bigotry that falls under a broader category of discriminatory practices ( If you bother to check out the side bar)
On the contrary, attempting to breach philosophical issues by ....
... calling people names strengthens my assertion
RE: your statements about the material world, god et al.
Of course we are well familiar with the seasonal charade of atheists who blast into heavy statements of strong atheism before quickly retreating to the safe ramparts of weak atheism in an attempt to recover their intellectual integrity.
By all means, feel free to provide the "facts" for your claims or proceed to migrate as predicted ...
"man from goo" ideas are remarkably similar
:shrug:
So now its not education but advertising that can solve the world's ills ..
lg writes #118: I am not writing my own dictionary.
I am not even challenging the definition you offered.
What I am challenging is your assertion that discussions of discriminatory practices have no bearing on discussions of bigoted ones.
You can't even back-flip with alacrity. You also wrote: Of course we are well familiar with the seasonal charade of atheists who blast into heavy statements of strong atheism before quickly retreating to the safe ramparts of weak atheism in an attempt to recover their intellectual integrity.
And here you are, with your bare face hangin' out accusing me of your own peccadilloes!!!
You wrote in #49: The problem is that you are running with the idea that bigotry is ultimately dictated by reason when it is actually determined by difference.
And in # 54 you wrote: On the contrary, bigotry, regardless whether it appears under the guise of gender, creed, nationality, geography, annual income, marital status, age, education or many, many, many, many other possibilities has only one reason : difference.
And you added further to your point by averring: The nature of difference can be promulgated by the communities it appears in or learned from forces external to the said the community.
And lastly: Bigotry is simply a more intense form of discrimination.
IOW whatever manner a person is discriminatory is a manner that they can potentially be bigoted.
My original assertion in #44 was: That's not necessarily an insoluble dilemma [a better life for people in the future]. But if there is one point in this question that is certain it is that religion is no solution. Its bigotry, exclusivity and misogyny, its pettiness and the conceit it generates in the believer will prevent forever its being a solution to anything.
And you deny a retreat to me that you have already taken! Do you think you are being clever or does your lord allmighty regard deviousness as high virtue when done in his name? In much the same manner as bigotry, as intolerance, as exclusivity and as misogyny?
I asserted in #44 that religious faith would never solve the dilemma posed in the OP, mainly because of its inherent bigotry [among other features]. You tried to spread the butter so thin that just about any slightly inimical human behaviour could be the basis of bigotry. I responded that religious faith is inherently bigotted.
Do try to remain relevant. Please paste here my "assertion that discussions of discriminatory practices have no bearing on discussions of bigoted ones." Especially in the question posed by the OP's dilemma.
On the contrary, attempting to breach philosophical issues by ....
Your promotion of "theistic philosophical discourse" has little to recommend it given the history of religious faith in general. Its failure is being recognised more and more as the sciences reveal more and more of our world and the Universe. It will require only two or three paragraphs to lay out for you the absurdity of the supernatural. It's not relevant here but another topic might be of help.
Of course we are well familiar with the seasonal charade of atheists who blast into heavy statements of strong atheism before quickly retreating to the safe ramparts of weak atheism in an attempt to recover their intellectual integrity.
You are gloating before the fact. I'll have no truck with anything but actual, undiluted, unalloyed, untainted ATHEISM, a world devoid of the supernatural in its entirety. The relationship between the planets and our sun is not a matter solved by "theistic philosophical discourse". There is no bigotry involved in averring that truth to be inarguable. Similarly with the age of our Universe, evolution and natural selection in the biosphere, similarly with holding to the observation that our brains are the only tools we have that will reveal our world to us.
All you have endured is a whiff of grapeshot. There'll be no retreat, no charade provided to you by fence-sitters too timid to muster the strength to bind their convictions. Atheism can proceed and progress no longer connected with the petty pecksniffery of religious faith. It stands on its own now. The "we" who are "well familiar" will find themselves in unfamiliar territory. The jibe about "intellectual integrity" will redound to your discomfit.
"man from goo" ideas are remarkably similar
Science is the difference. Religious faith has never really understood the assault mounted by science and consequently has been in constant retreat. The human mind is finding much more interesting things to think about. "Man from goo" is powerful evidence of a superficial intellect hardly deserving of a serious response.
So now its not education but advertising that can solve the world's ills ..
More powerful evidence. I'll overlook the facetiousness and puerile attempt at humour if you too try harder next time.
I am not even challenging the definition you offered.
What I am challenging is your assertion that discussions of discriminatory practices have no bearing on discussions of bigoted ones.
You can't even back-flip with alacrity. You also wrote: Of course we are well familiar with the seasonal charade of atheists who blast into heavy statements of strong atheism before quickly retreating to the safe ramparts of weak atheism in an attempt to recover their intellectual integrity.
And here you are, with your bare face hangin' out accusing me of your own peccadilloes!!!
You wrote in #49: The problem is that you are running with the idea that bigotry is ultimately dictated by reason when it is actually determined by difference.
And in # 54 you wrote: On the contrary, bigotry, regardless whether it appears under the guise of gender, creed, nationality, geography, annual income, marital status, age, education or many, many, many, many other possibilities has only one reason : difference.
And you added further to your point by averring: The nature of difference can be promulgated by the communities it appears in or learned from forces external to the said the community.
And lastly: Bigotry is simply a more intense form of discrimination.
IOW whatever manner a person is discriminatory is a manner that they can potentially be bigoted.
My original assertion in #44 was: That's not necessarily an insoluble dilemma [a better life for people in the future]. But if there is one point in this question that is certain it is that religion is no solution. Its bigotry, exclusivity and misogyny, its pettiness and the conceit it generates in the believer will prevent forever its being a solution to anything.
And you deny a retreat to me that you have already taken! Do you think you are being clever or does your lord allmighty regard deviousness as high virtue when done in his name? In much the same manner as bigotry, as intolerance, as exclusivity and as misogyny?
I asserted in #44 that religious faith would never solve the dilemma posed in the OP, mainly because of its inherent bigotry [among other features]. You tried to spread the butter so thin that just about any slightly inimical human behaviour could be the basis of bigotry. I responded that religious faith is inherently bigotted.
Do try to remain relevant. Please paste here my "assertion that discussions of discriminatory practices have no bearing on discussions of bigoted ones." Especially in the question posed by the OP's dilemma.
On the contrary, attempting to breach philosophical issues by ....
Your promotion of "theistic philosophical discourse" has little to recommend it given the history of religious faith in general. Its failure is being recognised more and more as the sciences reveal more and more of our world and the Universe. It will require only two or three paragraphs to lay out for you the absurdity of the supernatural. It's not relevant here but another topic might be of help.
Of course we are well familiar with the seasonal charade of atheists who blast into heavy statements of strong atheism before quickly retreating to the safe ramparts of weak atheism in an attempt to recover their intellectual integrity.
You are gloating before the fact. I'll have no truck with anything but actual, undiluted, unalloyed, untainted ATHEISM, a world devoid of the supernatural in its entirety. The relationship between the planets and our sun is not a matter solved by "theistic philosophical discourse". There is no bigotry involved in averring that truth to be inarguable. Similarly with the age of our Universe, evolution and natural selection in the biosphere, similarly with holding to the observation that our brains are the only tools we have that will reveal our world to us.
All you have endured is a whiff of grapeshot. There'll be no retreat, no charade provided to you by fence-sitters too timid to muster the strength to bind their convictions. Atheism can proceed and progress no longer connected with the petty pecksniffery of religious faith. It stands on its own now. The "we" who are "well familiar" will find themselves in unfamiliar territory. The jibe about "intellectual integrity" will redound to your discomfit.
"man from goo" ideas are remarkably similar
Science is the difference. Religious faith has never really understood the assault mounted by science and consequently has been in constant retreat. The human mind is finding much more interesting things to think about. "Man from goo" is powerful evidence of a superficial intellect hardly deserving of a serious response.
So now its not education but advertising that can solve the world's ills ..
More powerful evidence. I'll overlook the facetiousness and puerile attempt at humour if you too try harder next time.
There's plenty, if only you want to try. But perhaps you just want to hide behide the difference you perceive as being an impenetrable barrier so as to avoid discussion.
And I hope you're enjoying the view from such a lofty seat you have built for yourself. But hey, you're not sounding too arrogant.
And while you maintain that view without ever actually trying, perhaps you will convince yourself further of that. One only needs to read some of John M. Frame's works to get a gleaming of what such worldviews are:
"If the world is basically impersonal, it is a pretty dark, dreary, and hopeless place. Happiness, justice, love, beauty might spring up for a while, but they are cosmic accidents of no ultimate importance. Finally they will be consumed in various cosmic explosions, and nothing will remain to remember them. Ultimately they are meaningless. If the world is basically personal, the situation is different: personal values like happiness, justice, love, and beauty are wrapped up in the very core of the universe. They are what nature and history is all about. In time, it will be the matter of the world that will be burned up, to be replaced by a new heaven and earth wherein dwells righteousness."
(from "How to Believe in God in the 2000s").But heck, what can personalists ever explain of their worldview to impersonalists (even if they don't agree)!
Woah, don't fall off the edge! It must be a long way down.
First you criticise my style as being uncommunicative, you criticise me for flagging logical fallacies, and when all criticisms have been responded to you throw up this "well, personalism and impersonalism can't meaningfully communicate" drivel. I wonder if anyone else would see the irony here.
All I see from you at the moment, wynn, is someone acting as though they have no answer, trying to find excuses to appease themself. If it works for you, wynn, then who am I to stop you.
Needless to say I'm disappointed.
Last edited: