I don't get it.

[Archangel]

I honestly have no bloody idea why everybody, from TV repairmen to biologists, think that they can have an opinion on metaphysics, or that it counts. I don't know shit about how a TV works or how amino acids work, so I don't tell everyone that plasma is better than LCD, or how lysine is more important than... no idea, it's the only one I've ever heard of. I'm a clever guy, and I know quite a lot, but mostly I know what I do not know, and I either simply do not have an opinion on those things, or keep them to myself. I have never posted in the MLB or NHL threads, because my uninformed opinion doesn't fucking count.

Yet, people who have never read a single philosophical or religious text, and probably wouldn't understand a single word if they did, have the incredible arrogance to believe that they are entitled to an opinion on the matter. Mostly along the likes how by being atheists or evangelicals, they are ipso facto smarter than anybody else, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Take that guy Iolos. Or Crack. They are obviously rather daft, and their knowledge on the subject is on the level of colouring books, which, coincidentally, goes for a large part of American Christianity, as well. Yet, instead of shutting up and letting the smart people talk, they spew hatred and insults at people without even understanding what they're talking about.


What I want to know is: Where does this arrogance come from, and is it only limited to this field, or a symptom of a larger problem? Is it a typically American phenomenon, or more global? Socrates, one of the smartest people who ever lived, said that he knew that he knew nothing. Wittgenstein, not exactly a cretin himself, postulated that the more one knew, the more one realised how much more knowledge was out there, and how much of that one would never attain. Learning is an incredibly humbling experience. You read one book, it references 20 others. You read five of those, they reference a further 20 each. Even in the subjects you know a lot about, you'll never know anything close to everything.
Yet, people who managed to read through Da Vinci Code (or probably just saw the movie), saw some documentary on TV, and can answer four questions on Jeopardy, talk and write on one of the most serious topics of them all, one that has shaped and influenced Western thought for two millennia.

Theology is a bitch of a major. At least as tough as any of the hard sciences. And yet, people discuss it like they would discuss last night's football game (complete with "your team sucks"-level argumentation) or an episode of some reality TV show. Any feeling of gravitas has been lost. There's no... seriousness to these arguments. They hear the elevator muzak version of Mozart, refuse to actually listen to any of his actual works, and then believe that they have the authority to say that Mozart's music sucks.

Personally, there's nothing I find more aggravating than the arrogance of uncultured idiots. If you can convince a moron that he's smarter than someone else, he'll cling to it like it means his life.

So, again, if my opinion on molecular biology rightfully isn't worth jack shit, why should Dawkins's opinion on the belief structure of Augustine or Aquinas count? Why do people think that it's a quantité négligable, not deserving of serious thought. Basically saying that all theologists and philosophers are idiots. The fucking arrogance...
I'm not saying that you have to agree with it: While loathing everything about communism and constantly wondering how basically smart people could come up with such foolishness, I don't ridicule it. I think it's a load of crap, but I take it seriously, and try to learn more about it. Some people just think that everybody who opposes a strictly empirical worldview is basically Pat Robertson (by the same token, look at the moron evangelicals think that everyone who reads a science book and likes titties is gonna burn in hell): Trust me, we're not. Plato was a pretty clever bloke. So was Leibniz.

Disagree, by all means. My favourite thinker of the past half millennium was Christianity's greatest critic. Nietzsche saw himself as Christ's direct antagonist; but for all his hatred and vitriol, he RESPECTED a school of thought which, while he fought it with every fibre of his being, he recognised as an intellectual equal to his own.

Trust me, guys, Nietzsche is smarter than you, or your prophets. If he can show respect, why can't you?

[DjAg]

This sounds almost like an argument for Aristotle's concept of "Greatness of soul" or "Proper Pride".

I see little response other than when it comes down to such metaphysical levels, everyone wants to know something and has been told a version of what to think/say on the subject. Whether they be informed or studied is irrelevant, everyone has an opinion on many of these subjects. And, both fortunately and unfortunately, it's more of a study of opinion and belief using logic, so it's easy to argue both the stupid and the brilliant.

Then again, I should probably be on the list of people who don't know enough to say much anything.

[Morfin]

My first impression, upon reading your first paragraph was to say, "Arch, lighten up." But, to quote Bill Clinton, I can say, "I feel your pain."

The fact that everyone has an opinion on everything and feels the need to express it, no matter how uninformed, is pervasive in all aspects of society.

As you know, I am a lawyer. I get fed up with idiots constantly telling my about frivolous suits, dishonest lawyers, getting out of jury duty, blah, blah, blah, and they don't know Issue One of what the courts involve beyond what they see on TV.

Imagine being a football (yours or ours) coach and having every idiot in the world tell you about what you should do, or what strategy to use.

The point being, you have to learn to ignore them. If someone expresses a stupid opinion, either destroy them with your wit or ignore them. I know I am as guilty as any, but if they take a personal shot and tell you that you're a stupid Kraut, laugh and shrug it off.

I totally agree with the belief that, the more one learns, the more one learns how little he really knows. But, unfortunately, the converse is also true: those who know little, think they know all.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Where does this arrogance come fromHa!

[Axel]

Take that guy Iolos. Or Crack. They are obviously rather daft, and their knowledge on the subject is on the level of colouring books... Yet... they spew hatred and insults at people without even understanding what they're talking about.

...

Wittgenstein... postulated that the more one knew, the more one realised how much more knowledge was out there, and how much of that one would never attain.Since Socrates’ and Wittgenstein’s postulates work both sides, they were already answered on your question. But I’m sure that was your point.

“What is worse: ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care.”

[Menace2Sobriety]

If he can show respect, why can't you?
Why does this not apply to Pat Robertson and the evangelicals as well? Stop pretending only atheists are on the side of stupidity.

[Archetype]

They are obviously rather daft, and their knowledge on the subject is on the level of colouring books, which, coincidentally, goes for a large part of American Christianity, as well.

Missed that part?

[Mustard]

American arrogance... Let me attempt to sum up my thoughts on that subject using American Christianity as a good example.

First off, I'm convinced that the greater part of American Christianity isn't about morality, peace, and harmony anymore, if it ever was. In the here and now (and for a few decades prior) American Christianity and the leaders of it are far more interested in controlling thought and centralizing resources. Need an example? Look no further than The Christian Coalition, arguably the largest Political Action Comittee in the United States. Their goals are simple: To influence policy at every level, and to put in place politicians and political staff members who are directly in line with the controlled thought of said PAC.

If that sort of control isn't arrogant enough for you, then also please keep in mind that there must be at least 30 million American Christians who (in some conclusive way) subscribe to the doctrine of, and who blindly vote down the line for, The Christian Coalition's views on everything they tell their ilk to do. Those who don't fall in line or try to introduce thought counter to the almost hive-mind mentality (and are stupid enough to make it known) are immediately castigated for their views and shunned by their peers.

Need proof of that claim? Well, then ask yourself this question: How can a religion founded on the principles of Christ be (on the one hand) pro-life and (on the other hand) ferverently and blindly support and cheer the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

While I can't answer that question logically, (because there is no logical explanation whatsoever) I can offer this take: That the leaders of American Christianity have bred through their own arrogance a wholly subservient and ignorant base of followers from which they can manifest their control.

[Archangel]

Why does this not apply to Pat Robertson and the evangelicals as well? Stop pretending only atheists are on the side of stupidity.
Um...
Yet, people who have never read a single philosophical or religious text, and probably wouldn't understand a single word if they did, have the incredible arrogance to believe that they are entitled to an opinion on the matter. Mostly along the likes how by being atheists or evangelicals, they are ipso facto smarter than anybody else, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Take that guy Iolos. Or Crack. They are obviously rather daft, and their knowledge on the subject is on the level of colouring books, which, coincidentally, goes for a large part of American Christianity, as well. Yet, instead of shutting up and letting the smart people talk, they spew hatred and insults at people without even understanding what they're talking about.

Some people just think that everybody who opposes a strictly empirical worldview is basically Pat Robertson (by the same token, look at the moron evangelicals think that everyone who reads a science book and likes titties is gonna burn in hell): Trust me, we're not. Plato was a pretty clever bloke. So was Leibniz.



Did reading comprehension become extinct while I was away?

[Archangel]

It's the hypocrisy that gets me.

I can understand (and, in fact, agree) that you want science to be taught to our children by scientists, not preachers.

But how the fuck can you then turn around and, as a biologist or whatever, lecture people on metaphysics? How are you any more qualified than the idiot minister who talks about the earth being 5,000 years old? Or do you honestly think that religion and philosophy are easy to understand, and hence dismiss?
If you demand that the other side stay out of your playing field, aren't you obligated (especially if you want the moral high ground) to extend the same courtesy to them?

[Menace2Sobriety]

So who are you addressing with your first post, exactly? People don't need to engage in an intellectual debate to be atheists. They only need to be human.
The fact that there are major political movements in the name of faith that preach hatred and exclusion should be enough for you to understand why people have a problem with Jesus' fanclub.

[Mustard]

It's the hypocrisy that gets me.

I can understand (and, in fact, agree) that you want science to be taught to our children by scientists, not preachers.

But how the fuck can you then turn around and, as a biologist or whatever, lecture people on metaphysics? How are you any more qualified than the idiot minister who talks about the earth being 5,000 years old? Or do you honestly think that religion and philosophy are easy to understand, and hence dismiss?
If you demand that the other side stay out of your playing field, aren't you obligated (especially if you want the moral high ground) to extend the same courtesy to them?
Not to make a mole hill out of a mountain, but just take global warming for example:

EVERYBODY IS AN EXPERT!!!

[Archangel]

You really can't read, can you, Tua.

I don't mind it that people criticise. By all means, do: If Luther hadn't criticised the living shit out of the church, Christianity would be dead by now. What pisses me off is the ignorance with which both sides treat the subject. If you talk about the NFL and don't know that the Colts are in the AFC, people will tell you to shut the fuck up. But without even knowing who, say, Augustine was or what he said, people (again, from both sides) feel that they can speak with authority on religion. All I'm saying is that I'm wondering why that is.


Religion is serious fucking business, and people treat it like a game show or something similarly inconsequential.

Also:

People don't need to engage in an intellectual debate to be atheists. They only need to be human.


What does that even mean? People obviously can believe or not believe whatever the hell they like. But to criticise the faith of Aquinas and Dante from an intellectual level, you'd better know your shit. You're free to HAVE an uninformed opinion and live according to it.
You are, however, NOT free to lecture people on it.

[Menace2Sobriety]

What you don't seem to understand is that religion is a far more emotional subject than intellectual.

[Archangel]

What you don't seem to understand is that you're wrong. Paul, whose letters make up about half of the New Testament, is the closest thing to Plato.

Religion is first and foremost a school of THOUGHT. Just because idiots boil it down to sunday school picture book levels, doesn't mean that that's what it's about.

[Archangel]

I mean, over here, you need to go to university for six years to become a priest. In America, any idiot rapper or redneck is allowed to lead a congregation.

Priests are supposed to scholars. Men of the fucking BOOK. If you have illiterates preaching metaphysics, gayness will ensue.

[Mustard]

Religion is first and foremost a school of THOUGHT. Just because idiots boil it down to sunday school picture book levels, doesn't mean that that's what it's about.
Well there you go. Religion is most definitely a school of thought. Here in the US, it is mostly a school of controlled thought. This cesspool breeds ignorance from arrogance, which gives those thought contolled zealots a sense of false righteousness which brings forth great arrogance. Naturally, this in turn produces all of these people you say and ask "people (again, from both sides) feel that they can speak with authority on religion. All I'm saying is that I'm wondering why that is".

Without delving into the thoughts of millions of individuals, the above synopsis is my best answer for your "why". I hope that you can use this idea to your advantage.

A more indepth answer is certainly capable of being rationalized.

[Archetype]

What you don't seem to understand is that religion is a far more emotional subject than intellectual.

The two aren't exclusively independent.

[freegood]

If religion is a quasi-culture and people are forced to live with it, then you're going to get a lot of opinionated views on it. Much like white people commenting on the sorry state of blacks and hip hop. But being around it and living in it are different things. As a non-Christian, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised on how my sister and her Christian friends act or think.

The other thing spreading the culture of mass ignorance is the preponderance of information without informing. If people picked up a good book every month and read it without flipping their mental remote, there's no doubt they wouldn't need to read Plato or Aquinas to understand the basic underpinnings of metaphysics. I didn't read them for most of my life.

It's all around us...filtered into our culture. It's a matter of smelling the roses.

What you don't seem to understand is that religion is a far more emotional subject than intellectual.

What you don't seem to understand is that you're wrong. Paul, whose letters make up about half of the New Testament, is the closest thing to Plato.

Religion is first and foremost a school of THOUGHT. Just because idiots boil it down to sunday school picture book levels, doesn't mean that that's what it's about.

It's both. God wants your undivided attention. While a religious person can be humbled by the Bible's metaphorical standing, when he sees his or a loved one's death as imminent, that emotional quotient kicks in with full force.

There's a lot to life that doesn't stand to reason or where a logical consequence can't be accepted with the human heart. I'm not saying blind acceptance will cure all of that. Clearly you have to have a decent mind to sift out the good parts...

[Area Man]

Its much harder to assert authority in a subject that does not have any provable theories, any use of the scientific method.

In concrete sciences (or whatever you prefer to call them), there are numerous ways in which a person can say something that is known to be false. In a metaphysical argument, I cannot prove a person to be wrong if they believe that Jesus exists or that when i die my soul will be reborn inside of a frog.

Every idiot's and every scholar's opinion is equally unprovable.

[Pike Bishop]

Just as the best man won't necessarily be the last man, the one with the best ideas concerning thought and other human endeavors will not necessarily be familiar with the writings of Nietzsche. Similarly, the one with the best ideas concerning metaphysics will not necessarily be familiar with the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or any of that stuff.

I agree that it would be arrogant for such a person to assume that he or she had better ideas on such subjects than anyone else has without reading what has been written by others. However, I think that it would also be quite arrogant for someone to assume themselves to be more knowledgeable about these subjects simply because they were more well-versed in what other people thought about them.

[Area Man]

If what gives you credibility is familiarity with the opinions of others, then listening to other people share their ignorant, uninformed thoughts should actually make a small contribution to your overall knowledge.

[riseabove!]

It doesn't matter if one has more knowledge than I if we are speaking impressions. I don't know shit about scientology honestly, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to think it's ridiculous.

[Archetype]

Its much harder to assert authority in a subject that does not have any provable theories, any use of the scientific method.

In concrete sciences (or whatever you prefer to call them), there are numerous ways in which a person can say something that is known to be false. In a metaphysical argument, I cannot prove a person to be wrong if they believe that Jesus exists or that when i die my soul will be reborn inside of a frog.

Every idiot's and every scholar's opinion is equally unprovable.
So you don't understand metaphysics, congrats.

It doesn't matter if one has more knowledge than I if we are speaking impressions. I don't know shit about scientology honestly, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to think it's ridiculous. Does this really seem like a valid point to you?

[Menace2Sobriety]

What you don't seem to understand is that you're wrong. Paul, whose letters make up about half of the New Testament, is the closest thing to Plato.

Religion is first and foremost a school of THOUGHT. Just because idiots boil it down to sunday school picture book levels, doesn't mean that that's what it's about.The two aren't exclusively independent.
So now you can't understand why not everyone sees the world through the same perspective as you? Because yours is the right one I suppose?
And who's being arrogant here?

[Archetype]

So now you can't understand why not everyone sees the world through the same perspective as you? Because yours is the right one I suppose?
And who's being arrogant here?
Expound prease, I don't know how this applies to what I said.

[Axel]

Arch, you try to discuss about such comprehensive, yet absolutely subjective issues as religion and faith on an internet forum of a GMF scale; responses like Iolas’ and Crack’s ones should be the least you can expect.

BTW, it seems that your point in this thread contradicts to the one in a previous “religious” thread: one’s personal faith doesn’t need to be based on knowledge at all.

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."

~ Immanuel Kant (was not a cunt)

But if I’d have to choose between ignorance and apathy, I’d choose the first.

[DjAg]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BIG LETTERS!

Or you could just not read it while letting it be here for those who want to read it for the same exact results, except with a much more "social" aspect to it... More of a debate or discussion than a statement with inane comments after.

[Axel]

^^ See? I told ya, Arch...

[DjAg]

I guess you're still an idiot. This is what i do to Arch's threads dipshit.
I remain indifferent, I don't understand why a philosophy forum has to be full of such bullshit rather than at least attempts at something... philosophical?

[AJ]

.... and then curb him like a guy that's trying to break into your house.

[Mustard]

I don't appreciate the immature tone of this thread, and so I'm going to write a strongly worded letter and mail it to Santa Claus telling him not to give EG any presents this year.

[Archetype]

Didn't you hear? The elves took over the North Pole. No Christmas for anyone.

[AJ]

EG hasn't gotten any presents in years because of all the rape anyway.

[Mustard]

Well its a good thing Santa moved shop to the South Pole.

Then i will right a polite letter to Satan asking him not to buttfuck you anymore this year. :)
You take all the fun out of life...

Just like my ex.

[DjAg]

Because it's way fun to get arch riled up and get his sad face rep comments. Then point and laugh.

I see, this is why I think we should break the forum up into two sections, kind of like at dinner where there's a table for all the children. The only difference is the tiny table is now the adult table, and the kiddie table is fucking gigantic, constructed out of cum stained issues of playboy and unlabeled VHS tapes.

[Archetype]

Well its a good thing Santa moved shop to the South Pole.

What?? Aw, man, Will Smith is gonna be pissed we sent him up there to negotiate with a bunch of jobless midgets.

[Axel]

Then i will right a polite letter to Satan asking him not to buttfuck you anymore this year. :)Well its a good thing Santa moved shop to the South Pole.
I just realized that Santa is a travesty of Satan: my faith is fading away! Ignorance is bliss.

[AJ]

I see, this is why I think we should break the forum up into two sections, kind of like at dinner where there's a table for all the children. The only difference is the tiny table is now the adult table, and the kiddie table is fucking gigantic, constructed out of cum stained issues of playboy and unlabeled VHS tapes.

People who are under the impression that they're superior to others because they can spew a bunch of worthless shit on the topic of culture and religion always make me laugh a little.

[DjAg]

People who are under the impression that they're superior to others because they can spew a bunch of worthless shit on the topic of culture and religion always make me laugh a little.

Superior? You obviously have no idea who I am; I am fucking worthless and I know it. Only difference is I admit it.

[AJ]

Superior? You obviously have no idea who I am; I am fucking worthless and I know it. Only difference is I admit it.

I was generalizing.

[Archetype]

Superior? You obviously have no idea who I am; I am fucking worthless and I know it. Only difference is I admit it.And don't you forget it!

[Mustard]

Yeah!

[Insomniac]

Being an expert in one thing obviously doesn't make someone an expert in something else, although people forget this. If Noam Chomsky didn't know anything about linguistics, his books on politics wouldn't sell, and he would be generally unknown except to be ridiculed. But he has authority, so all of his opinions must have validity. And that's silly.

But your general point is basically that the Philosophy section of GMF shouldn't exist. No one on the internet should offer any opinion they have because they haven't studied enough. Presumably, you mean you have studied enough, but how much have you buffed up on Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, tribal religions, etc.? Can you really be a theology authority unless you're an expert in all of those as well?

And let's take it to other subjects. You mention sports, but what about politics? If you haven't studied the history of the Democratic party, the structure of government at all levels, how lobbying works, what PACs are, etc., are you not allowed to say you dislike it and or allowed to vote Republican?

Lucain pokes fun at philosophers because all the Stoics and Epicureans and so forth claim truth can only be arrived at after a lifetime of effort, so there's no way to weigh them all against one another and find truth. In the same way, even if you could devote your life to being able to discuss 'metaphysics', what else could you then be allowed to talk about? What else would have time to devote yourself wholly toward?

People more or less have basic fundamental principles they build on with knowledge. If you believe in small government, that is your answer, and all the study of political theory will probably do nothing but give you better reasoning for the same answer. If you don't believe in the supernatural and think it's ultimately harmful, what study of Christianity is going to change that?

If you're talking about general intellectual tolerance, that's one thing, isn't it? If you're talking about people not being universally qualified, that's one thing. But to say a person can't dislike Mozart without listening to everything he's done, that's silly. "Mozart sucks," i.e. he has no appeal to me. Whatever his technical virtuosity and other people's claims of his universality, I feel nothing from it and never will. Maybe we should be able to separate what we like from what's good, but you know very well that's almost impossible.

In any case, I take from your original post that everyone here should shut up because we're too ignorant. So correct me if I'm wrong on that, and tell me if basic knowledge is all that's required to talk about something, where does knowledge stop being trivial and become basic?

[Archangel]

So now you can't understand why not everyone sees the world through the same perspective as you? Because yours is the right one I suppose?
And who's being arrogant here?

What the fuck are you talking about? Why are you trying to make this about me?

Seriously, if you're unable to comprehend anything above ESPN article levels, please stay out of these threads.

[Archangel]

People who are under the impression that they're superior to others because they can spew a bunch of worthless shit on the topic of culture and religion always make me laugh a little.

People who think they are superior because they know less than others, however, are fucking pathetic.

EDIT: I guess that it's telling that in a society where being able to hit a ball with a stick is considered the pinnacle of human endeavours, the things that form the backbone of actual civilisation are considered "worthless shit".

[Morfin]

Archangel takes the Philo threads seriously. That is his right, based on the amount of time and effort he puts into them. It bothers him that some people who have little knowledge and/or little serious inclination to think about the issues in Philo clutter the threads with "Religion is for retards" posts.

Maybe it is Arch's fault for expecting too much out of GMF, which is mainly geared toward porn junkies, with just a smattering of semi-serious posters. Maybe Arch is too sensitive.

To me, a relatively-recent addition to GMF (6 months), like Arch, I don't post in threads like Soccer or MLB or gaming because I know virtually nothing about them. I wish the idiots and trolls would stay out of the semi-serious threads. But, then, this is the internet where every idiot has a voice and, unfortunately, feels compelled to join in. C'est la vie.

[AJ]

People who think they are superior because they know less than others, however, are fucking pathetic.

EDIT: I guess that it's telling that in a society where being able to hit a ball with a stick is considered the pinnacle of human endeavours, the things that form the backbone of actual civilisation are considered "worthless shit".

.... but no matter how many hours upon hours you spend studying, discussing, arguing and crying, you're NEVER, until you die, going to get any closer to finding out if your belief is true, and even when you do, you're not gonna know it anyway.

On the other hand, I can watch a baseball game and tell you exactly, how and why a double play happened and tell you exactly how to do it again. I can tell you what a nickel defense is and why it's used. I can tell you why a hockey player was awarded a penalty shot.

You just keep on striving for answers you're NEVER going to find, and bitch about the people that think you're fucking retarded for whining and moaning about it all the time. I'm gonna go watch Sportscenter.

[Bill Paxton]

Being an expert in one thing obviously doesn't make someone an expert in something else, although people forget this. If Noam Chomsky didn't know anything about linguistics, his books on politics wouldn't sell, and he would be generally unknown except to be ridiculed. But he has authority, so all of his opinions must have validity. And that's silly.

But your general point is basically that the Philosophy section of GMF shouldn't exist. No one on the internet should offer any opinion they have because they haven't studied enough. Presumably, you mean you have studied enough, but how much have you buffed up on Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, tribal religions, etc.? Can you really be a theology authority unless you're an expert in all of those as well?

And let's take it to other subjects. You mention sports, but what about politics? If you haven't studied the history of the Democratic party, the structure of government at all levels, how lobbying works, what PACs are, etc., are you not allowed to say you dislike it and or allowed to vote Republican?

Lucain pokes fun at philosophers because all the Stoics and Epicureans and so forth claim truth can only be arrived at after a lifetime of effort, so there's no way to weigh them all against one another and find truth. In the same way, even if you could devote your life to being able to discuss 'metaphysics', what else could you then be allowed to talk about? What else would have time to devote yourself wholly toward?

People more or less have basic fundamental principles they build on with knowledge. If you believe in small government, that is your answer, and all the study of political theory will probably do nothing but give you better reasoning for the same answer. If you don't believe in the supernatural and think it's ultimately harmful, what study of Christianity is going to change that?

If you're talking about general intellectual tolerance, that's one thing, isn't it? If you're talking about people not being universally qualified, that's one thing. But to say a person can't dislike Mozart without listening to everything he's done, that's silly. "Mozart sucks," i.e. he has no appeal to me. Whatever his technical virtuosity and other people's claims of his universality, I feel nothing from it and never will. Maybe we should be able to separate what we like from what's good, but you know very well that's almost impossible.

In any case, I take from your original post that everyone here should shut up because we're too ignorant. So correct me if I'm wrong on that, and tell me if basic knowledge is all that's required to talk about something, where does knowledge stop being trivial and become basic?

I was trying to write something out similar to this but Insomniac said it much more eloquently than I was going to be able to.

I agree that people like Dawkins come off as know nothing know it alls when they go off the way they do but how can you disagree with the following logic...

Yes Paul was a great philosopher, but why is it wrong for me to dismiss any of his philosophies that proclaim the existance of a deity if I (for whatever reason) do not believe in a deity (as Dawkins and many others have stated).

You could have written great books with brilliant ideas about how humans and vampires can coexist, but if I don't believe in vampires, isn't it my right to step in and say "hey thats great, but vampires don't exist, you've wasted your life studying the undead, moron" (please note im just making a point and I do in fact believe in and fear the immortal undead.)

I mean meta-physics isn't really a great term to use. In theory there could very well be a day where everything can be explained through physics. I mean, before we "discovered" gravity the way we explained staying on the earth was essentially meta-physics.

[Morfin]

I agree that people like Dawkins come off as know nothing know it alls when they go off the way they do but how can you disagree with the following logic...

Is "know nothing know it all" an oxymoron?

[Bill Paxton]

Is "know nothing know it all" an oxymoron?

Well yeah I think so. A know it all is someone who thinks they know it all (at least thats the usual connotation) so if you're saying someone who knows nothing is a "know it all" then yeah well I guess its still an oxymoron.

[Archangel]

.... but no matter how many hours upon hours you spend studying, discussing, arguing and crying, you're NEVER, until you die, going to get any closer to finding out if your belief is true, and even when you do, you're not gonna know it anyway.

[...]

You just keep on striving for answers you're NEVER going to find, and bitch about the people that think you're fucking retarded for whining and moaning about it all the time. I'm gonna go watch Sportscenter.

That is why you fail. God, I see the root of the problem now.


You apply categories to metaphysics that simply aren't applicable.

I AM NOT STRIVING FOR FUCKING ANSWERS. If you are in this for answers, you're in for some serious disappointment. I'm in this for the questions. I mean, it's so limited to think that people who ponder metaphysical issues are stupid because they're never gonna have the answer they look for anyway: This isn't economics, you know, and you cannot judge the one through the other's categories. No. What you do is ask yourself a question, and observe the thoughts you develop while pondering it. THAT is philosophy. If we were about answers, Plato's Timaeus would go:
"How did the world come about?"
"Through a benevolent creative force; the end."

Needless to say, it doesn't.

Answers are for suckers. Answers are collective. Answers are the end of thought. Questions are deeply personal, totally individual, and the only reason that thought is born. There is no end to thought, no goal line. But every new original thought has the potential to create a million impulses. Thought is not supposed to have an end: Purely teleological thought usually leads to fallacies.

I mean, is the idea of just thinking so alien to you? Too hard, maybe? No short-term economic gain in it? ADD?

Does every question have to be preceded by cui bono?

You're free to make fun of me, call me retarded, whatever. But everybody who matters knows who, between Kant and Jeter, is more important to civilisation.

I don't whine or moan. It frustrates me that people don't fucking get it.



But on the up side, I just did.

I think that the underlying root here is the fact that nobody's thinking for themselves anymore, because we're scared to. All restrictions on thought have been lifted, so we're afraid of where those thoughts might lead. We live in a time totally dominated by that scariest of modern phenomena, contingency: And what we want are answers, certainties, something to hold on to. A stop to thought, to questions, to contingency. So we throw in our lot with the first bunch of people who provide us with answers - the easier, the better - and call ourselves "Right to Life" while advocating the death penalty, or "Christians" while preaching hatred, or even "atheists" while blindly following the words of a self-aggrandising leader (hint, guys: Atheists are supposed to worship NOBODY. Fawning over the typewriter on which "The Professor" wrote his first book is a very very theist thing to do).
You're not a liberal/atheist/pacifist/feminist anymore because you have reflected upon the issues in question and decided what is right for you, because you want to exercise your freedom of thought, but because it differentiates you from certain people while creating a bond with others. Fuck the issues, let's just call every liberal a pussy and every Christian a redneck. Got a catchy slogan? Even better. Oh, and the benefits. Join our church, and you'll go to heaven. Renounce faith, and people will think you're really smart and interesting, and you'll get laid. Blow up a hundred schoolchildren, and you'll get a tonne of virgins for eternity. Answers everywhere.


Religion and atheism aren't schools of thought anymore (same goes for political doctrines): They're t-shirts. Blackhawks fans wearing "Detroit sucks!" slogans on their chests. Atheism v religion, at this point, is basically Pepsi v Coke, McDonald's v Burger King, Bud v Miller. They all suck exactly the same, but I have to cling to the idea that one's better than the other because I'm so empty that that is what defines me. I don't know what I am, but I know that I'm not you. Use me, lie to me, but for fuck's sake, keep me from asking myself any questions. Individualism and collectivism run totally amok. The sad thing is that people now define themselves not through what they think or do, but what they don't. Not by what they are for, but what they are against.
If you're a Christian, you are AGAINST gay marriage, AGAINST abortion, DON'T have pre-marital sex, etc. Not because you made up your mind, but because someone gave you answers.

But what is it that you DO? What do you stand FOR?

Dawkins and Hitchesn want all religious people to disappear, and say that that will eo ipso make the world better. But what are their alternatives? Where is their Critique of Empirical Reason?

Because any school of thought that works in that fashion is completely hollow, utterly devoid of content. We cling to symbols that have been robbed of meaning and chant slogans whose significance we don't understand. We have been given all the freedom of choice in the world, and yet run away from the very idea of choice into easily comprehensible, totally rigid, protonormalistic structures.

We have been rendered, in a word, incapable of grasping what thought is.

[Tar Heel]

This is an American phenomenon that I think is a direct result of being able to maintain a lifestyle of laziness, arrogance, and ignorance. We are oceans away from europe and most of our roots, so most of us are not well traveled and versed in foreign cultures and ideals. I would guess that of the citizens that say America is the greatest country in the world, only 20% of them have actually left the country in their entire lifetime. Our news and media outlets are all american and american propaganda influenced, so our information is largly ratings based. We see atrocities on the news and don't even miss a single bite of dinner because we are more removed from it than the rest of the world. Our public education system gets people just smart enough to survive, but keeps us just dumb enough to do things like elect Dubbya because "he seems like a normal/everyday guy". I'm not taking any political party's side, but when the majority of a country thinks it's ok to have a president that sounds like a dumbass, something is wrong. Notice I didn't say that he is a dumbass, because that is impossible for me to know, but I don't think there are many people that will argue that he doesn't sound dumb. Our 2 party system further limits our political scope by classifying everything into 2 political agendas/beliefs. This makes it easy for us lazy americans do align ourselves with one of two groups of ideals determined by a few people in 2 parties. We get a team mentality and start seeing our grey world in black and white. What are we left with? Americans that are just smart enough to not have any idea how dumb we actually are and can actually have opinions based upon things that only experts can truly understand.

[freegood]

I was trying to write something out similar to this but Insomniac said it much more eloquently than I was going to be able to.

I agree that people like Dawkins come off as know nothing know it alls when they go off the way they do but how can you disagree with the following logic...

Yes Paul was a great philosopher, but why is it wrong for me to dismiss any of his philosophies that proclaim the existance of a deity if I (for whatever reason) do not believe in a deity (as Dawkins and many others have stated).

You could have written great books with brilliant ideas about how humans and vampires can coexist, but if I don't believe in vampires, isn't it my right to step in and say "hey thats great, but vampires don't exist, you've wasted your life studying the undead, moron" (please note im just making a point and I do in fact believe in and fear the immortal undead.)

I mean meta-physics isn't really a great term to use. In theory there could very well be a day where everything can be explained through physics. I mean, before we "discovered" gravity the way we explained staying on the earth was essentially meta-physics.

That's the thing. Trying to prove vampires exist isn't what meta-physics is intending to do. You're not having a meta-physical discussion when a Christian tells you that hell is real.

These debates are normally framed with this mindset, whether science will answer all questions, or whether religion was created as a God of the gaps. I don't think there's any doubt that we would appear like Gods to cavemen. The fact alone doesn't disprove the existence of Gods or cause the cavemen to permanently stop questioning the reason for their existence.

Thinking about things other than getting pussy is unproductive.

What do you think about if you're already getting pussy?

[Archangel]

Yes Paul was a great philosopher, but why is it wrong for me to dismiss any of his philosophies that proclaim the existance of a deity if I (for whatever reason) do not believe in a deity (as Dawkins and many others have stated).


At this point, it isn't wrong at all.

As I said a million times, I have no problem with people attacking even the most basic tenets of Christianity.

So if you've read Paul, decided that yeah, he's a smart bloke, but you just don't see it that way, more power to you. I prefer a thinking, critical atheist to a dumb, unquestioning Christian. About a thousand times. And people who have studied the subject matter with any measure of seriousness don't belittle the opposition.

Again: This isn't about those people who don't find it in themselves to believe in a deity or the core principles of Christ.

This is about idiots who have extreme opinions. Only idiots would look at something that a great many smart people have thought and written about for 2,000 years, and think, "derr they all stoopid". Only idiots would look at the Arab world, then at Western civilisation, and then decide that the latter was to blame for everything that was wrong with the former, and would have to be wiped out.



To answer Insomniac, it's not about knowledge. Of course you can't know everything about any given subject, let alone all of them - I believe I say so myself in the original post.
You're obviously allowed to make uninformed choices: All of us do, every day. All I'm saying is that if you make the hating of something a central part of your life, you might want to check up on what it is that you're hating. Of course you can be an atheist, or a Christian, or a conservative etc out of a gut feeling.
But the second you start criticising, or even hating, the other side, some knowledge would help. Because if you talk about how the Red Sox rule, and the Yankees will never go anywhere with that quarterback, you will look a twit.

Just have an open fucking mind, is all I'm saying. If you want to decide between atheism and religion, you don't have to read everything by everybody, their epigones, and their mothers. Read the Bible. Or the Qur'an. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (hard, I know). maybe with some cliffs notes. By no means, read it in a strictly literal sense. Then, make up your mind.

But don't go spewing hatred because some guy said something.

[Morfin]

Tar Heel: I am going off on a tangent from the OT, but I, as Arch probably knew I would at some point, take issue with the idea that this is an American phenomenon. We are discussing several things simultaneously, so I will divide them out.

First, Arch, in his original post commented that American religions are somewhat to blame. I agree that American religions deserve blame in terms of schools of thought and dogma. But I do not believe this is a solely-American problem. One only needs to look to the Catholic Church to see the prime example of dictated and narrow-minded thought (Galileo, anyone?). Don't forget that while the Puritans did come to American, they also were oppressed (rightly or wrongly) by England and the Netherlands as well. And we certainly don't need to be reminded of those wacky broad-minded fundamental Muslims.

Second, while I do not disagree that many Americans are lazy, arrogant, and ignorant, I take issue with its cause. Yes, the media is American-centric -- one merely has to watch an Olympics telecast to see that. But that is due, in my opinion, to the lack of any non-American media that Americans can see. We, who live on the U.S./Canadian border are able to see the CBC (and Canadian Olympics telecasts) because the CBC is on our cable system. Therefore, we have a little familiarity with it.

But now contrast that with Europe. Due to the fact that there are many different countries in a small area, a multitude of different media from numerous countries are available. Plus, there are different countries and peoples just a few miles away from anywhere in Europe. Look at the vast number of Americans: we have to travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to reach another country. So we see and experience only Americans. For us, to travel to an actual different culture, with a different language, we pretty much need to drive to Mexico or fly a long ways. In Europe, you can drive or take short flights to numerous countries. Financial barriers to international travel are much smaller than in Europe.

So, to wrap this up, so I can have another Diet Coke, I do not totally blame America and Americans. Europeans have to understand the context of why we tend to be so insular.

[Archangel]

Dunn's read Twilight, hasn't he.

[DjAg]

...

I mean, is the idea of just thinking so alien to you? Too hard, maybe? No short-term economic gain in it? ADD?

...

I think that the underlying root here is the fact that nobody's thinking for themselves anymore, because we're scared to. All restrictions on thought have been lifted, so we're afraid of where those thoughts might lead. We live in a time totally dominated by that scariest of modern phenomena, contingency: And what we want are answers, certainties, something to hold on to. A stop to thought, to questions, to contingency. So we throw in our lot with the first bunch of people who provide us with answers - the easier, the better... You have reflected upon the issues in question and decided what is right for you, because you want to exercise your freedom of thought, but because it differentiates you from certain people while creating a bond with others.

...

We cling to symbols that have been robbed of meaning and chant slogans whose significance we don't understand. We have been given all the freedom of choice in the world, and yet run away from the very idea of choice into easily comprehensible, totally rigid, protonormalistic structures.

We have been rendered, in a word, incapable of grasping what thought is.

So, to sum it up, we can just ask Kierkegaard (1813-1855): "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid".

Unless I am being retarded, which is more than likely.

[Archangel]

Funny you should bring him up. On the old boards, I had a thread on Kierkegaard called "The Idiocy of Answers", centered principally around his treatise on Abraham and Isaac.

EDIT: for anyone who's interested (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=54244) (yeah, right)...

[Bill Paxton]

Dunn's read Twilight, hasn't he.

Nope, but i've seen a 30 minute preview for the new HBO series True Blood.

[Area Man]

Just have an open fucking mind, is all I'm saying. If you want to decide between atheism and religion, you don't have to read everything by everybody, their epigones, and their mothers. Read the Bible. Or the Qur'an. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (hard, I know). maybe with some cliffs notes. By no means, read it in a strictly literal sense. Then, make up your mind.

But don't go spewing hatred because some guy said something.

This is a far cry from your OP, where you decry people for even having an opinion on metaphysics. I think a dumb opinion (while annoying) is still better than being incapable of thinking for yourself, and just reciting opinions of others.

[Archetype]

Arch didn't decry having an opinion, he decried having an ignorant opinion, which is the exact opposite of having an open mind.

[Okie Medicvet]

When I first began using the intenet so many eons ago (sometime in '04 actually), one of the chat rooms I would love going into was the 'philosophy' chatroom in the half of aolhell that says "people connection" and that you can't get into unless you have an online account with them. This is why I still have an aolhell account. People would discuss all different kinds of things, and in the end, it all boiled down to philosophy, no matter what the surface of the topic was about. It was that thread that had me decide to read some of the philosophers works in depth. I never had to do it before because I only took one philosophy course, and that was philosophy or religions which was very enlightening. Anyway, it was because of that thread, and some of the names being bandied about that I checked out from the library and bought some books that talked about the philosphers from Plato to Sartre in some detail.

The point I am trying to make is that I didn't do this for a grade, I studied for my own personal edification, and have found myself the richer (philosophically speaking) because of it. But if I hadn't been chatting about supposedly inconsequential matters in a 'chatroom', I wouldn't have thought of delving into some pretty heavy duty works. So in a way, it doesn't matter what it is that gets you there, if you want to learn, whether it be philosophy or another matter, then you will put yourself out there to do it. So I don't consider most comments about philosophy to be trivial at all..if it was trivial and someone didn't want to look deepr, then why would they even post in a philosophy thread?

I guess I just am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are serious about this, even if the comments may seem somewhat flippant at times.

[Phil Theehor]

I honestly have no bloody idea why everybody, from TV repairmen to biologists, think that they can have an opinion on metaphysics, or that it counts...

Yet, people who have never read a single philosophical or religious text, and probably wouldn't understand a single word if they did, have the incredible arrogance to believe that they are entitled to an opinion on the matter....


The Answer to the original question, "Why do people feel they should have/express opinions on such weighty matters?", is a simple one.

People have a strong opinion on these questions because, at some level, they act as a cornerstone to their belief structure. And everyone, regardless of how simple they are, has a core belief structure. So, even if someone has not read the great works of philosophy and/or religion, they still need to have basic opinions about these questions in order to make sense of the world. And because they are essential to everything else they believe, their opinions will be quite strong. Most people don't want to have to rethink their worldview every day.

Take the original point about the physics of the plasma television. All you really need to know is how to operate it. Nothing else is built on that. The same cannot be said, however, for the Great Questions.

This parallels the appreciation of art. Whereas an unwashed ruffian like me will look at a painting and say "Wow, pretty trees", a truly educated viewer will see metaphors (and cocks, they always see cocks) everywhere. His opinion is not more valid than mine, just more complex. While cocks may abound, the trees are, in fact, pretty. The bottom line is that we both get what we seek from the painting.


Arch's frustration seems to come from people bringing knives to gunfights-- trying to argue at strata beyond their depth. I get that. Ignorance will always rub the learned the wrong way. But people still need to have these opinions-- no matter how simple they may be.

[Okie Medicvet]

But then again, this is what happens when we let just anyone talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

[Archangel]

The Answer to the original question, "Why do people feel they should have/express opinions on such weighty matters?", is a simple one.

People have a strong opinion on these questions because, at some level, they act as a cornerstone to their belief structure. And everyone, regardless of how simple they are, has a core belief structure. So, even if someone has not read the great works of philosophy and/or religion, they still need to have basic opinions about these questions in order to make sense of the world. And because they are essential to everything else they believe, their opinions will be quite strong. Most people don't want to have to rethink their worldview every day.

Take the original point about the physics of the plasma television. All you really need to know is how to operate it. Nothing else is built on that. The same cannot be said, however, for the Great Questions.

This parallels the appreciation of art. Whereas an unwashed ruffian like me will look at a painting and say "Wow, pretty trees", a truly educated viewer will see metaphors (and cocks, they always see cocks) everywhere. His opinion is not more valid than mine, just more complex. While cocks may abound, the trees are, in fact, pretty. The bottom line is that we both get what we seek from the painting.


Arch's frustration seems to come from people bringing knives to gunfights-- trying to argue at strata beyond their depth. I get that. Ignorance will always rub the learned the wrong way. But people still need to have these opinions-- no matter how simple they may be.



Yeah, I see your point, and amazingly enough, it has made me revise my original opinion somewhat.

You're absolutely right; people are gonna have a strong opinion on these issues, and this being a free society, they're absolutely allowed to express it. The problem with religion is that unlike "pure" philosophy - which is basically reserved for people who are truly interested - many religions try to reach as many people as possible, most of whom are, alas, morons.

So what I really should ask for is some sense of measure, of propriety: To use your example, when you see two people discussing the use of symbolism in Titian's Venus of Urbino (which idiot came up with the notion that that was a "Venus", anyway? It's a 17-year old chick that just fucked around on her man - note the sleeping dog, which would suggest a momentary absence of fidelity), would you really join in that discussion with, "wow, nice tits, butterface"?

As I said, I don't talk about the Diamondbacks' new wide receiver, so why would you do the equivalent here?

But then again, this IS GMF, so I really can't ask for that, either...

[Archangel]

To go back to a previous topic:

Djag brought up Kierkegaard: Smart dude that he was, he never proposed answers. All he offered were contingencies. And questions, possibilities, contingencies are scary as fucking hell. In his treatises on Abraham, every single possible answer (that you yourself could come up with) for why he would actually sacrifice Isaac NECESSARILY shakes the foundations of your faith, scares the bejesus out of anyone who wants to believe.
He actually postulated that human beings were unable to deal with the uncertainties that possibility brings, that anxiety was the only possible result, and that therefore, we needed decisions, answers, the faster, the better. Kafka learned a lot from him (if you read Kierkegaard's more or less only literary work, a short story called - you guessed it - A Possibility, you'll be amazed by how, 80 years before Kafka, all of Kafka's topoi had already been established): This is why we find his works so deeply disturbing, the incertitude of contingency.

[Archangel]

Now that I think about it, it all starts coming together.

Empirical thought is teleological. Metaphysical thought is not: Living in a time in which the former reigns supreme, any contingency, any possibility presents a problem.

Using an easy metaphor, look at it as a fork in the road. If the road, for you, is a means of getting to a certain point, all you want to know is which one to take. If you want to get there quickly, the fact that you now have to consult a map for answers represents a waste of time: You want a sign saying, "this way to profit". Hell, if it were up to you, all roads would be a straight line from A to B.

If, however, you're on the road to either take in the scenery, or to run/cycle along it to get in shape, the fork represents a choice. You can look a bit ahead to see which side appears to prettier or more challenging, and take your pick. You can be wrong or right, but you definitely WILL achieve, in some measure, what you set out to do.

Even better, you can retread your steps, come back to the fork, and take the other path, and you will see even more scenery and burn more calories. Isn't there a saying, "the path is the goal"? The problem is that nobody thinks that way anymore. For a business traveller, Bologna is a traffic jam hold-up on the road from Milan to Rome: For a cultural traveller on the same road, it's a wonderful opportunity to explore a beautiful city...


And for Face, it's lunch. But that's another matter entirely.

[Axel]

mindless bulshitThat is why you fail. XThe X sign marks the exact place where AJ stopped to read your reply, Arch. I don't think it was worth it.

A huge diversity of intellectual levels and lack of any homogeneity in these forums amuses me in a way. AJ is as lame as fuck and annoying as a toilet fly, but you can’t stop him expressing his worthless opinion – that’s his attitude. But at least you can delete it as off topical in this section.

[Archangel]

My reply to AJ's post wasn't actually meant for AJ to read, but rather everybody else. If you cannot convince a cretin that he is, in fact, a cretin, you can at least isolate him by convincing everyone else.

[Duncndisorderly]

didnt they do something similar to Jesus? they couldnt convince him he wasnt the son of god so they convinced everyone else instead
and no i dont believe AJ to be the son of god

[Morfin]

But then again, this is what happens when we let just anyone talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI


Too funny. Archangel attempts to argue with Federal Farmer.

[canto iv]

My apologies for dredging up an old thread, but I found the OP to be an enjoyable read and agree with it to much a large respect. It also brought to mind this clip:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HBkUWbFjdpg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HBkUWbFjdpg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As for myself, I teeter between agnostic and weak atheist. I know enough to know there's a lot I don't know, and that I have no right to take an authoritative stance on the matter. To do so would be audacious and sophomoric at best.

[Archetype]

There's no such thing as weak atheism. I believe you're referring to what one might call nontheism. Weak atheism is bad English.

[canto iv]

There's no such thing as weak atheism. I believe you're referring to what one might call nontheism. Weak atheism is bad English.

From what I understand, the term weak atheist is pretty widely accepted, but I could very well be mistaken. "Weak Atheist" yields all kinds of results on Google (Wiki, About, etc), but I'll be the first to admit that the Internet isn't always the most reputable source for such things.

Any how, semantics aside, what I was trying to say is that I'm not one to out right deny the possibility of something when I don't have fact driven, empirical evidence to support it.

[Archetype]

From what I understand, the term weak atheist is pretty widely accepted, but I could very well be mistaken. "Weak Atheist" yields all kinds of results on Google (Wiki, About, etc), but I'll be the first to admit that the Internet isn't always the most reputable source for such things.

The prefix a- in English normally means "without," and since "-ism" being a belief, doctrine or theory, certain people tend to add "a-" to "theism" to get "without a belief in god or gods." However a word's literal meaning doesn't read itself left to right (which should be obvious); rather it reads chronologically. The root word, "atheos" actually predates "theism" or "theist," and thus the term actually becomes, "[a belief in] [without a god]."

This is why Nontheism would be what you might classify your belief as, as it actually refers to the absence of belief in god or gods, rather than necessarily the belief in the absence of god or gods. Of course, atheism would fall under it's banner, but atheism is referring to the specific rejection of god or gods as viable possibilities. And like even Dawkins says, strong atheism would be reserved for people who "know" there is no God, which is essentially bad English. Additional terms: agnostic, antitheist, antireligious, alltheist, theist, pantheist, monotheist, panentheist...

Also, the strong/weak argument is relatively new, the actual terms with some credibility are positive/negative, although I stil vote that it's shitty English.