Argument against "lacktheism"

[Quintessence]

Dude, I AM one of the people you trained to be so sensitive to. And I understand the hard facts of addiction intimately. I've been sober for 30 years and have sponsored and helped many others to get and stay sober as well. Addiction is a disease, but not just of our biology. If it were, we'd have a pill for it. But it's also a mental and emotional illness, as well as a biological compulsion. And our ego plays a big part in the wall of denial that addicts create for themselves. In fact, "hitting bottom" is largely about breaking down that wall of denial and self-delusion so the addict can finally see what they have become. And that they are powerless to fix it. That insane ego has to finally be crushed so that the addict can learn, again.

That's true - I'd be interested to hear other insights! Part of how our training was done was putting emphasis on not further berating or stigmatizing (or "tough love" language) because that tends to just erect more walls in the person who is struggling which makes them more likely to close off again instead of seeking help - a defensive reaction that you might characterize as an ego thing? Ours might've been oriented that way because berating students - calling them out as "addicts" or "deluded" similar - is just kind of not appropriate in our context. Maybe harsh language and "tough love" was part of what helped your journey?

In any case, I think I understand better why you might use this metaphor given your personal experiences. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but it makes sense even if it is going to rub some others the wrong way.

 

[MikeF]

Here's King David describing our god.

Psalms 139:4כי אין מלה בלשוני הן יהוה ידעת כלה׃
For before a word is in my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it all.
That's an objective standard. A very high standard, which is good. It easily weeds oout imposters claiming to be "God" a "reflection of All", an "Avatar of God", "God in the flesh" or any other of the human monikers used throughout history to deceive and manipulate.

I had one other thought in regards to the above. If, for the sake of argument, we say that there are certain entities in the world and that they can speak directly into someone's mind. What is the objective criteria for determining who is doing the speaking? Does one rely solely on the testimony of the entity?

Say, for example, Baal wants to mess with El and decides to speak to an El follower and get them to do something that will annoy El? What if a demon or Satan himself claims they are God and uses mindreading and predicting future events to prove their bona fides? What if it is Enki, Loki, or Wisakedjak that is bending your ear? How does one tell? Objectively, that is.

 

[PureX]

That's true - I'd be interested to hear other insights! Part of how our training was done was putting emphasis on not further berating or stigmatizing (or "tough love" language) because that tends to just erect more walls in the person who is struggling which makes them more likely to close off again instead of seeking help - a defensive reaction that you might characterize as an ego thing? Ours might've been oriented that way because berating students - calling them out as "addicts" or "deluded" similar - is just kind of not appropriate in our context. Maybe harsh language and "tough love" was part of what helped your journey?

In any case, I think I understand better why you might use this metaphor given your personal experiences. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but it makes sense even if it is going to rub some others the wrong way.

You're dealing with young, still somewhat functioning substance abusers. People that have not likely hit much of a "bottom", yet, and so have not had their ego broken by the constant and repeated humiliation of life as an addict. So I understand that you want to be careful not to give themand ther ago an excuse to run back to using again. And whatever works, works. But I came through the halfway houses and church basement meetings with people that, like myself, have been chronic drug addicts and alcoholics for years. So for most of us, by the time we stumble into AA or NA, our lives are already destroyed, along with any illusions that we are anything but what we are. So for us, it's a matter of trying to learn how to live, or die "in our cups" as they say. It wasn't that difficult to spot the ones that would eventually get sober from the ones that probably wouldn't. (Though there were always those astonishing surprises.) It really came down to how hard they hot bottom, and how broken they were as a result. There are few humans as hard-headed, stubborn, and determined to self-destruct as an alcoholic or drug addict. Ask anyone who has had the misfortune of loving one.

We just can't seem to learn until let go of the idea that we already have the answers. And this is a theme I see among ideologues on here all the time. They are so obsessed with being right that they can't see any other possibility, no matter how obvious, and so can't learn anything new as a result.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't believe in anything, if I can help it. I see no need for that sort of pretense.

Okay so you're going to ignore the point.

I didn't say you got it wrong.

Yes, I know. I'm saying you were going on about me, and getting it wrong (what you were saying about me).

I said your choices are your own responsibility.

Well no kidding.

The whole "there's no evidence" shtick is your own doing.

It's not a shtick.
I want to believe in as many true things as possible, while not believing in as many false things as possible. I don't believe things that I don't have good reasons (i.e. evidence) to believe. Why anyone else does is beyond me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nah, I think thats something you're imagining in your "brain-places".

It's thrown around all the time on this forum.
I responded to a post doing that exact thing, just yesterday. And now you've done it, just now.

Great!



Or not.

It is.

I have seen no brain power devoted to this. Just ignorance.

Look harder. Throwing out an insult instead of responding to the point isn't going to make your case.

Unless you have ESP you don't know "ANY" and all religious beliefs. But it appears that you have made a chioce to deny them all. Based on our past interactions, you really only had knowledge of Christianity, and shallow knowledge at that. You said {paraphrasing} "It wasn't working for you." Then you found buddhism, and it "worked for you". It's not really much of an investigation. But "magically" you think that this qualifies as excluding any and all religious thought.



If that floats your boat...

 

[PureX]

Okay so you're going to ignore the point.

Yes, I know. I'm saying you were going on about me, and getting it wrong (what you were saying about me).

Well no kidding.

It's not a shtick.

Of course it is. You made all the choices and decisions so you could pretend that you didn't. That's "shtick". Theater. The "kangaroo court" skit. It's very common around here among the scientism obsessed anti-theists.

I want to believe in as many true things as possible, while not believing in as many false things as possible.

Whatever for?

I don't believe things that I don't have good reasons (i.e. evidence) to believe. Why anyone else does is beyond me.

There's a that 'kangaroo court skit' again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it is.

Nope, it's not.

You made all the choices and decisions so you could pretend that you didn't.

What?

That's "shtick". Theater. The "kangaroo court" skit. It's very common around here among the scientism obsessed anti-theists.

Good thing I'm not in that community.

Whatever for?

Seriously? Because I want my beliefs to comport with reality. Don't you?

There's a that 'kangaroo court skit' again.

It's true. Sorry you don't understand but I really don't care at this point.


Please notice how your entire post has completely devolved into a set of attempted insults, instead of a back-and-forth addressing the points under discussion.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it is. You made all the choices and decisions so you could pretend that you didn't. That's "shtick". Theater. The "kangaroo court" skit. It's very common around here among the scientism obsessed anti-theists.

The bolded bit is schtick and theater. That you can't, or won't, allow yourself to think objectively, and that is your issue, not those who can.

It's so revealing that you recognize a problem in others that they don't have, but totally not se that it is you that has it. Denial and projection. You are obviously so absorbed in your assumptions and beliefs that you are unwilling to think beyond them.

Whatever for?

To avoid delusion. That you seem dumbfounded by those who want to understand what is true, and reject what is untrue tells us something you don't acknowledge yourself.

There's a that 'kangaroo court skit' again.

Self-indictment. It's like Trump saying he's happy he defrauded insurance companies and investors, but can't understand why it's a crime.

 

[PureX]

The bolded bit is schtick and theater. That you can't, or won't, allow yourself to think objectively, and that is your issue, not those who can.

There is no such phenomenon as "objective thinking". It's like proclaiming a "square circle".

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no such phenomenon as "objective thinking". It's like proclaiming a "square circle".

Sure there is. It's called logic.

 

[MikeF]

Sure there is. It's called logic.

Logic, in and of itself, is not objective. Logic is simply a tool, an algorithm. Start a logical thought process with faulty premises and you will create faulty conclusions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logic, in and of itself, is not objective. Logic is simply a tool, an algorithm. Start a logical thought process with faulty premises and you will create faulty conclusions.

Okay, sound logic.

 

[Heyo]

Logic, in and of itself, is not objective. Logic is simply a tool, an algorithm. Start a logical thought process with faulty premises and you will create faulty conclusions.

Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. And it is objective in that way as, correctly applied, only true statements can be derived and they are unambiguously true. No subjective believes required.

 

[MikeF]

Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. And it is objective in that way as, correctly applied, only true statements can be derived and they are unambiguously true. No subjective believes required.

Ha, this cracks me up.

It is not about subjective beliefs being required, it is about subjective beliefs being mitigated. Who wields the tool of logic other than subjective human beings? Subjectivity is injected at the start. You added the caveat "correctly applied", which is my entire point and word of caution. How are the initial "true" statements derived and how do we know they are true? Objectivity does not begin with logic, it begins elsewhere and logic will only maintain that objectivity if used correctly.

 

[PureX]

The thing that very few people recognize about science is that the questions asked, and the experiments derived to answer them, are all, themselves, 'subjective' in that they are based entirely on the understanding that we currently hold about the nature of existence. And that is inevitably a subjective, limited, and flawed understanding. So although science tries to help us weed our our biases, it can only do so to a limited degree.

Science is NOT the antidote to subjective bias that so many (of you) folks these days sadly want to believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. And it is objective in that way as, correctly applied, only true statements can be derived and they are unambiguously true. No subjective believes required.

Formal logic looks pretty useless
for religious beliefs & disbeliefs.

 

[MikeF]

The thing that very few people recognize about science is that the questions asked, and the experiments derived to answer them, are all, themselves, 'subjective' in that they are based entirely on the understanding that we currently hold about the nature of existence. And that is inevitably a subjective, limited, and flawed understanding. So although science tries to help us weed our our biases, it can only do so to a limited degree.

Science is NOT the antidote to subjective bias that so many (of you) folks these days sadly want to believe.

So in your view, science can help us weed out our biases to a limited degree. Is there anything else in your estimation that weeds out or even eliminates our biases to a greater degree than science?

 

[PureX]

So in your view, science can help us weed out our biases to a limited degree. Is there anything else in your estimation that weeds out or even eliminates our biases to a greater degree than science?

Yes, honesty, skepticism, and logic are all very useful tools for helping us to recognize our bias, but ultimately, we WILL be biased. It's unavoidable. We only have our own subjective experience and cognitive capabilities to work with, and they are not going to be enough to avoid reaching and defending the wrong conclusions.

Also, it's important to recognize that science can only help us with our bias regarding the realm of physical interactions. And there is far more to our understanding existence then that.

 

[Audie]

Formal logic looks pretty useless
for religious beliefs & disbeliefs.

"Pretty" useless?

 

[F1fan]

There is no such phenomenon as "objective thinking". It's like proclaiming a "square circle".

I can understand why you would say this, as a way to make excuses for your lack of checking your bias, and so you can believe your flawed conclusions, and enjoy your ongoing confusion.

Skilled thinkers can reason objectively, by following the evidence and facts of any given question. Do you acknowledge that facts are real? Or do you have doubts about everything, like whether the tree your car is heading for out of control is really in your way?