Why can't you be cool?

[ApostateAbe]

Here is a toast to the good old boys--that is, the atheists. :cheers:

Now all you Christians please step forward and explain to us why you can't be one of the boys.

[kimo]

religion is like soccer.





...just a whole lot of bullshit.

[Vagabond]

I didn't realise religion (or lack of it) was about being "cool".

I don't give a shit about being perceived as cool or not cool.

[Miss Padfoot]

Good old boys? Excuse me??!!

Are you saying a woman can't be a thinker and an atheist, you misogynist ****

Seriously though, I'm an atheist but I don't think this is the place for those of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof, i.e. atheism) to try and convert others. You're among fellow INTPs here; surely we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and trust that the Christians here have already subjected their beliefs to intense scrutiny.

[Claverhouse]

I'm no longer a Christian, but I can't begin to imagine what it's like to be an atheist.


Go, Vagabond !



Claverhouse

[int]

Ick. I'm not a good old boy.

But I'll drink with you nonetheless.

[nobarcode]

:zzz:

[int]

Lol. nobarcode, your avatars are killing me. :D Where do you find 'em?

[Spartan26]

Here is a toast to the good old boys--that is, the atheists. :cheers2:
Now all you Christians please step forward and explain to us why you can't be one of the boys.
So this is what you guys do Sunday mornings while I'm in church??? :o I just thought you'd lounge around watching the early game on TV. Even if I were to play hookey one morning, I don't think I'd be cool enough to get past the velvet rope. B)

To answer your question, we tried to be cool...once. Pat Boone. Remember him? During hayday rivaled Elvis in terms of popularity; had a daughter Debbie who wrote a song, "You Light Up My Life," which was the biggest song of the 70's outside of "Love Will Keep Us Together," until people found out it was about Jesus and she never had a pop hit again; he popped in and out of PTL and 700 Club -- until he recorded the album of Metal covers. :o :o

Televangelists were publically criticizing Pat for having the tamarity to pull the stick out of his butt without consulting others and he was soon banished from the airwaves and sponsers who hadn't called him in 20 years were dumping him as a spokesperson.

When people actually listened to the album, televangelists and critics said it had more of the feel of a hot Vegas louge act, though no one quite explained nor questioned how the televangelists would know this.

So now we are relegated to fire bombing abortion clinics, protesting outside of Marilyn Manson concerts, and taping re-runs of 7th Heaven.

Though I can't claim to be cool and am heckled on the sideline, the next time you have a martini mixer, might I suggest throwing on Pat Boone's Metal cover album. If you honestly believe the Rat Pack could've done a better Sandman or Crazy Train, I'll double your money back -- (Which, OK, I know will be none as I've read previously on some of your exploits on MP3 downloading). :devil:

[Avengardh]

Why can't you be cool?

No no, the question is, why can't you be cool???

Haha, just kidding, I was an atheist for a while, also a Catholic (Mexico is about 98% Catholic, last I imagined, lol) way back when, and then someone said to me that I was agnostic.

But I like to consider myself of the religion of non-religion. Doesn't mean I am an atheist either though ^-^ .

~*Aven*~

[indczn]

Athiests are just as bad as religious peopl, imo. Each are at opposite ends of the spectrum and get all cranky about the other side in this debate, when there really isnt a whole lot of evidence to support either side. Listening to an athiest trying to convert a christian is just as pointless as a christian trying to convert an anthiest. Your not going to alter you belief web just because someone says so. Most people hold their religious values or lack there of strongly and it takes alot to persuade on to alter their entire belief web.

[antireconciler]

belief web

Mmm. Nice term for it. I've never heard it called that before. I like. :D

What? Oh, right. I agree with what you are saying, at least in the case of ApostateAbe (appearantly), but a lot of people choose to call themselves athiests who don't at all hold thier athiest beliefs religiously. I know Christians equally lacking in zeal for thier beliefs and believe in God simply because it works for them and shed off the unnessisary Christian doctrine that comes with the package. At least I think so. Some are remarkably scientific and logical about it.

[CosmicDust]

I don't officially identify as an atheist because I can't disprove the existence of God, and thus can't be sure there isn't a God. However, I've drifted away from Christianity, and my preferred model of the Universe is basically atheistic, with the Universe itself, made of physical stuff (mass-energy-space-time or whatever the unified material is) being the closest thing to what one could call a God.

[Johnny]

ApostateAbe:Here is a toast to the good old boys...

Nietzche, for one, was a good old boy, an unapologetic atheist. He expresses his ideas about Christianity quite viciously and equated it with slavery. His attacks were meant, in part, to describe a person who knew what his purpose in life was, had the strength and conviction for it, and then fulfilled it regardless of the cost - the general commanding a defending army in battle, the violin virtuoso giving a perfect performance, or, of course, the superman!

In his defense, though, Nietzche considered prejudice as an indication of personal weakness, not a tool worthy for the superman, and he detested the Nazi party for their anti-semitism.

[nobarcode]

Lol. nobarcode, your avatars are killing me. :D Where do you find 'em?
:D ....I had to go back to the old one though.

CosmicDust:

I don't officially identify as an atheist because I can't disprove the existence of God, and thus can't be sure there isn't a God.

Exactly, one could play a mind game all day. The funny thing is, both (a)theist and theist dogma are both based in BELIEF ( I miss that thread from the old forum that Odyssey started: http://intp.1.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=350) . That much is a fundamental philisophical arguement that has been going on for...sheesh, I don't know how long.

[Claverhouse]

ApostateAbe:Here is a toast to the good old boys...

Nietzche, for one, was a good old boy, an unapologetic atheist. He expresses his ideas about Christianity quite viciously and equated it with slavery. His attacks were meant, in part, to describe a person who knew what his purpose in life was, had the strength and conviction for it, and then fulfilled it regardless of the cost - the general commanding a defending army in battle, the violin virtuoso giving a perfect performance, or, of course, the superman!

In his defense, though, Nietzche considered prejudice as an indication of personal weakness, not a tool worthy for the superman, and he detested the Nazi party for their anti-semitism.

Personally, despite the Death of God = The Idols rather, I shouldn't consider Nietzche an atheist exactly; however my trouble with the above consists of the fact that he died two decades before the nazi party was born.

He certainly wasn't anti-jewish, despite the nazi, with his sister's connivance --- what is it about families ? --- attempt to co-opt him as a proto-nazi. However he didn't really care much either for the semitic religions or the jewish influence on the world: neither did, or do, many others who had or have no intention of persecuting that faith/race/people or however you or they choose to define them.

Spengler, on the other hand, was also taken to be a proto-nazi, ( his advice to Hitler to turn on his Praetorian Guard --- the SA, was the nearest he got to the nazis: and may have been either disinterested advice or Germanic humour to watch the mess that would ensue ); but he too had no interest in racial theory and actually suggested invalid arguments against it in 'The Decline of the West'. He had no admiration for Hitler or the nazis, and it is safe to say that Nietzche would have felt the same way even if he hadn't died or lost his mind.

Spengler's preference was for a Prussian Socialism ( as would be mine ), whereas the nazi philosophy wasn't really a single theory ( 'Fascism is a philosophy: nazism is a political platform' ); more an ad hoc combining of different strands at different times. To consider anyone as an archetypical nazi is as futile as considering either a chekist or a trotskyist loon as a typical communist. As with their enemy of communism, both the nazi party and individuals were very different things/types at different times of the short history of nazism. Some were left, like the Strassers & most of the SA; some were right, like Himmler & the SS; some like Hitler & Goebbels were centrist opportunists. And some were believers in various religions, from Christianity to Wotanism to Buddhism and some were atheists.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Actually if you're going to examine abstruse Germanic Western philosophers and their relationship to naziism, don't even go near Heidigger or Jung. :D :rofl:

Both atheists, I think :devil:

[CosmicDust]

However he didn't really care much either for the semitic religions or the jewish influence on the world: neither did, or do, many others who had or have no intention of persecuting that faith/race/people or however you or they choose to define them.

I can see where that comes from. The mideastern monotheistic religion family is infamous for its sexism and its warlike tendencies - even among sects within the same religion, never mind the enmity that's developed among the separate religions.

[Claverhouse]

However he didn't really care much either for the semitic religions or the jewish influence on the world: neither did, or do, many others who had or have no intention of persecuting that faith/race/people or however you or they choose to define them.

I can see where that comes from. The mideastern monotheistic religion family is infamous for its sexism and its warlike tendencies - even among sects within the same religion, never mind the enmity that's developed among the separate religions.

Partially, but of course there are many other things to object to: his primary target was the essential weakness of the slave-religion of the Christ: only fit for those who are slavish by nature.

The hideous massacring & killing & trickery in both the Old Testament ( Torah ) & the Talmuds is a separate issue, and certainly inclines my heart away from their 'God'.

Sexism is something different & I doubt if Nietzche any more than myself would object. After all, his most penetrating prophetic insight was that the future century would be dominated by resentissmente ( the hatred of the weak and oppressed for the stronger ) and the Rise of the Weak: a theory that adequately accounts for not only the great democratic mass-movements of the time, including communism & naziism amongst many others; but also for the dehibilating corrosion of feminism and anti-racialism [ the racialism of the anti-racist. As the great Huey Long put it when asked if there would ever be Fascism in the USA: 'Sure there will: we'll just call it Anti-Facism' ]. In some ways Nietzche was extremely traditional.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Johnny]

Claverhouse:...my trouble with the above consists of the fact that he died two decades before the nazi party was born.

You caught me Claverhouse; I took the liberty of making a logical conclusion there. I probably should have claimed, "would have detested".

[Claverhouse]

:D :D :D

Still, you could get away with it if you suggested either that time is essentially meaningless and all things are happening simultaneously; or, that during his duration of mental withdrawal he was a seer perceiving the future and not too happy about it. :ph34r:

Don't mind me: I've not quite recovered from some car-trips yesterday when the driver had some sort of golf commentaries being broadcast. Not only does one get terse, but one has flashbacks to being in a coma.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[flan2dave]

If it does exist, I'm sure its description would be as far from the anthropomorphish versions most relgions offer as possible.

[Odyssey]

Listening to an athiest trying to convert a christian is just as pointless as a christian trying to convert an athiest.

...*raises hand politely for agnosticism*

~Odyssey

[indczn]

belief web

Mmm. Nice term for it. I've never heard it called that before. I like. :D

What? Oh, right. I agree with what you are saying, at least in the case of ApostateAbe (appearantly), but a lot of people choose to call themselves athiests who don't at all hold thier athiest beliefs religiously. I know Christians equally lacking in zeal for thier beliefs and believe in God simply because it works for them and shed off the unnessisary Christian doctrine that comes with the package. At least I think so. Some are remarkably scientific and logical about it.


I dont remember exactly where i heard the term "belief web" It was in Theory of Knowledge class in a thick, red, out of print book that i forgot the name from, but wish i had a copy of because i learned alot from it.

I probably shouldn't have generalized like that, and rather point out specifically the overzealous athiest/christians.

[Johnny]

Claverhouse:Still, you could get away with it if you suggested either that time is essentially meaningless and all things are happening simultaneously; or, that during his duration of mental withdrawal he was a seer perceiving the future and not too happy about it.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of: if Dr. Frankenfurter can do the time warp, why shouldn't Nietzche be extended a similar honor to support my claims? :D

But in offering skepticism in my calling Nietzche an atheist, if you mean to say that there's a difference between claiming God is irrelevant and claiming that God doesn't exist, then you've called me to the carpet again. With Nietzche, there's lots of good stuff to ponder and there is a heightened sensitivity to taking his writings and ideas out of context considering the damage the Nazi's did, so I'll try to be more careful here.

When I look at the definition of atheism, it's clearly about denying the existence of God rather than about denying that God matters. As Nietzche goes for the latter option in removing God as morality's foundation, I took him as a vicious, unapologetic atheist. What better way to get under the skin of the devout than to say that God can exist for eternity, but be absolutely powerless to assist one's quest in life to be all he/she can be? Is my claim baseless in your view, or do you think I have grounds to stand on here?

[paladinoflunaria]

Faith strikes me as a sloppy way to run the universe.

-Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

If anyone can find a collection of Robert Heinlein quotes, it would be much appreciated.

[Claverhouse]

Is my claim baseless in your view, or do you think I have grounds to stand on here?

Actually, I would defer to your authority. I've read him, at random & sometimes en masse, but never felt qualified afterwards to explain what I had read. :D However his glorification of hedonistic gaiety always seemed ( without descending into obsessive self-love and nihilistic misery like most results of such creeds ) seemed to be challenging and more exciting than the conventional morality he excoriated, solely because it was solely based on custom and narrow self-interest. Wish there was a smilie for 'I'll consider this and come back to it later'... :D :ph34r:



Faith strikes me as a sloppy way to run the universe.

I adore faith. It is the strongest and most powerful thing in the universe ( excepting no doubt the Object of faith ): besides which every action and every belief is based on faith. How do you know you are you, and not, say, a computer program ?

Besides which I detest Heinlein. Even though I can accept racialism more phlegmatically than most ( 'People Are What They Are' ), even as a kid I was shocked at one of his books on invaders based on the Japanese. Although, come to think of it, the American writers fell into their appointed slots as national propagandists in WWII as any German or Italian writer on the other side... The dean of whipping up Anti-German hate was actually Nero Wolfe of all people, a detective writer.

That other ppb site I mentioned elsewhere, the IDBoF, has an extensive Heinlein forum I think. It certainly covers a lot of SF; which is unlucky for me.


Claverhouse
:ph34r:

[Johnny]

Claverhouse: I adore faith. It is the strongest and most powerful thing in the universe ( excepting no doubt the Object of faith ): besides which every action and every belief is based on faith. How do you know you are you, and not, say, a computer program ?

Well, you should probably consider me more as a troublemaker than an expert, as I'm sharing what I understand to learn rather than teach, though my sentences haven't ended in question marks very much...

Your "Object of faith" drew me back to Kant again. What attracts me to Kant is his argument that one can never know what's going on in the world outside, that subjectivity is a permanent state and we'll never escape our heads. But he wants to assert that objective knowledge also exists. He's trying to get away from the question you're posing, by saying something similar to what Nietzche says about the existence God: it's simply a question that has no value. You are you in the world and there is nothing out there on "the outside" to shatter this conception or be concerned with.

Of course, he's not at all in interested in rejecting God or Christianity and goes through lengths to defend his faith and lifestyle, but I haven't explored that end with him quite as much. I only know that the weaknesses in his defense of God and Christianity got lots of people down the line motivated to offer good stuff in rebuttal.

I agree that Nietzche's attraction to passion, his really, really good argument regarding slave/master morality, and his thoughts on the Will to Power are very interesting. I just didn't want to stray too far from the issues you were raising and lose track.

And yes, I also agree also that faith is an essential ingredient in any conviction, no matter how elaborate...atheist, theist, whatever. But this being given, it's still fun to live, think and explore isn't it!

[paladinoflunaria]

subjectivity is a permanent state and we'll never escape our heads. But he wants to assert that objective knowledge also exists. He's trying to get away from the question you're posing, by saying something similar to what Nietzche says about the existence God: it's simply a question that has no value. You are you in the world and there is nothing out there on "the outside" to shatter this conception or be concerned with.


Thou art God. Kant got the idea of subjectivity and objective knowledge right.


How do you know you are you, and not, say, a computer program ?


Are you afraid that that might be the truth? Our perceptions are an illusion. Instead of focusing on subjectivity, we should concern ourselves with gathering the objective knowledge for it is the objective that is the only truth. Of course one is allowed to delude oneself.

[Johnny]

Well, unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that. Though Kant's writings in support of science are really good, don't forget that it's all colored by his ultimate goal to defend God, morality, and so on from attack by the methods of science. And again, for Kant subjectivity isn't something we can avoid - we are subjective in our nature. His argument for objective knowledge is an attempt to support his other love - science - and argue that it is relevant, the world is here, and we are in it whether we like it or not.

If computers existed when Kant was taking his habitual afternoon strolls through his neigborhood, he might suggest that we differ from computer programs (at a minimum) inasmuch as we possess free will, we are compelled to serve God as Protestants, and we can be held responsible for our actions. Beyond these cherished attributes, if I understand his musings and love for science correctly, I would predict that he would just shrug to whatever conclusions science offered us about ourselves.

And Kant did have an argument to distinguish illusion from reality...something to the effect of: if the mind is going off on its own, illusion is bound to creep in. But I can't recall the details right now.

And darn it, please forgive me for being so incessant with the works of these guys...

[KentOhio]

I think all of you atheists keep bringing up the subject of religion because you're insecure. After all, isn't it a sign of insecurity when you seek out others with the same beliefs just so you can have the comfort of not being alone in your ideas? If you were so sure the is no God, why would you need reassurance from others? You ought to be able to stand alone without seeking strength in numbers. If you really were sure atheism is right, you'd be secure enough to not have to talk about it with others.

[Division56]

Especially with all the shit we have to put up with from theists. I think it perfectly natural to seek out peers to vent with. After all, I found INTPs to vent my irritation caused by the other types didn't I?

[Johnny]

Hush:It's also healthy to discuss a topic in order to work with one's arguments, expand one's point of view, etc.

Yep, that's why I bother, and it's a hallmark of the INTP personality preference.


KentOhioYou ought to be able to stand alone without seeking strength in numbers.

There's a difference between "ought" and "is", but atheism can't claim strength in numbers anyway. Those who do believe in God are in the vast majority and do have strenth in numbers. To ask, "Can theism stand alone?", is compelling, isn't it?

[Division56]

Actually, recent polls show atheism has risen from 9% in the early 90s to 14% more recently. Those are exciting statistics. It also appears that the protestants are leveling off, after their scary levels of growth in the lattter half of the 20th century.

[paladinoflunaria]

To ask, "Can theism stand alone?", is compelling, isn't it?

Well because a God is required in theism, by both definition and practice, then the answer is obviously no. Theists are therefore dependent and not free. Is that a good thing? There is a good e-book for radical atheists out there with some arguments against theism (Christianity specifically). Theism simply isn't logical. I've been raised as a Christian, but the illogic turned me away.

[Johnny]

Theists are therefore dependent and not free. I've been raised as a Christian, but the illogic turned me away.

Firstly, I'm not sure how you are showing a connection between God and theists. Can they not exist independent of each other? Theism is restricted to belief in God. I can believe and be wrong. I could not believe and God could in fact exist too, right?

Secondly, if you are referring to miracles and fantastic stories, then you may have a point. But Christianity, at its core, can be regarded as a quite nice, compact package that's easy to understand. Try it for size: God (belief) & Love (way of life).

No, I'm not trying to convert you...just illustrating my point. It could work another way too: Will to Power (belief) & Self-realization (way of life). I'm talking about Nietzche here, of course, who got off on compelling readers to decipher his ideas from fantastic stories as well.

But see, with Love you have fewer steps to take in order to realize social benefit than with self-realization...and the majority of people on this planet simply aren't so dumb that they think rocks being pitched at them from others won't hurt them (though they may not be inclined to philosophical discussion regarding pain and rocks). Don't get me wrong, I think Nietzche wanted love too, but I also think he was very pessimistic about it and didn't in his heart believe it was much more than a pipe dream smoked up by people who couldn't get what they truly wanted in life without pity and charity. But on their faces, I currently consider these 2 systems to be equal.

Edit: I'm not backpedalling on the theism/stength-in-numbers issue. I just don't think it's fair to say that atheism doesn't have a leg to stand on because it's not the most commonly held belief, and I'm not sure I understand your answer clearly yet.

[paladinoflunaria]

the·ism [ th ìzzəm ] (plural the·isms)

noun

1. belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible

2. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods


If you are a theist, you are, by both definition and practice, required to believe in a god or gods.


Secondly, if you are referring to miracles and fantastic stories, then you may have a point. But Christianity, at its core, can be regarded as a quite nice, compact package that's easy to understand. Try it for size: God (belief) & Love (way of life).


That's why its so popular- it appeals to the unintelligent who aren't capable of very complex logic.


No, I'm not trying to convert you

Already been there, saw how stupid it was. No going back, unless you can proove to me that
1. A god or god-like beings exist
2. It or one of them is omniscient and omnipotent

Since 2. is impossible to prove, as it is simply impossible, I'll stick to something more logical (Ti).

[Johnny]

If you are a theist, you are, by both definition and practice, required to believe in a god or gods.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. Just was trying to offer that it doesn't follow that God is incapable of existing without theists.


That's why its so popular- it appeals to the unintelligent who aren't capable of very complex logic.
I wouldn't be so restrictive. Intelligence is comprised of more than the ability to construct and decipher complex logic.


No going back, unless you can prove to me that
1. A god or god-like beings exist
2. It or one of them is omniscient and omnipotent

Since 2 is impossible to prove, as it is simply impossible, I'll stick to something more logical (Ti).
Please remember, Paladinoflunaria, I'm not trying to change your beliefs or goals in life. It's entirely your business. Given this, Game On!

Socrates, a famous INTP'er, had the idea that the vast majority of us will in our lives remain lost in a cave of intellectual darkness, not knowing the truth and reality. On his deathbed he confessed to students hounding him about truth and the meaning of life that he didn't really know what they were either. He was just going with what seemed to work. Darn.

Descartes, a fellow famous INTP'er, tried to prove the existence of God. The "I think therefore I am" statement is really a setup for his argument for God, if I understand his writings correctly. But he didn't do a very good job of either establishing the connection between the thinker and God nor how we can have knowledge of the "world outside". Darn.

Spinoza tried another idea. If I remember correctly, it was something to the effect of us, the things around us, the planets, the galaxies as being subsets of God. God is the universe. Pretty neat, but of course such an idea has its problems too and isn't the most popular notion, especially if we're not questioning things like universal causation. Darn.

Kant, to me, has it going on. But even so, I think he would rely on superpowers like omniscience, omnipotence, and miracles to reveal God as well. Neither he in his lifetime of afternoon strolls through his neighborhood nor I can provide video footage of this for you. Sorry.

But it does not follow from these failures that God is an impossibility or impossible to prove. Perhaps Socrates' story of the cave has merit after all, and we just haven't seen the light yet.

In our country, our culture, diversity of beliefs is a pillar. I think it's one of our greatest successes, though it hasn't come with sacrifice along the way. But if we hold onto this, to respect and tolerance of this, then it is my personal belief that together we will be stronger for it. When you don't really know where you're going, how to get out of "the cave", why throw out maps in the process? If you agree with me that possibility shouldn't be thrown out the window because today it has not been found possible, then that's one more reason to motivate us to climb on the mental exercise machine and increase our mental fitness. To me, that's what God is about...a long winded way of saying "I want to know everything - I want to know God."

Edit: Oops, I mean to add in my last paragraph that I totally respect the atheist viewpoint and am not trying to kill it. Without considering it, I believe my own personal growth is diminished. I guess that's what this is icon's supposed to be for: :cheers:

[paladinoflunaria]

Socrates' deathbed? Hemlock?

Rene Descartes also argued for reincarnation.

Tolerance is excellent.

God-like beings may exist, but they have no bearing upon my enlightenment. All truths must be internalized by the individual.

[jimkopelli]

I've decided on the opinion that "anything is possible, but many things are so stinking improbable that they can safely be ignored." I figure I'm about equally likely to sprout wings out of my arse and fly around the moon as I am on the likelyhood of the existience of some supreme whatever. I don't worry about keeping an oxygen tank handy, and likewise.

[paladinoflunaria]

Very well said.

[Johnny]

I've decided on the opinion that "anything is possible, but many things are so stinking improbable that they can safely be ignored."

This is precisely the kind of thinking that has helped to ground the space shuttle missions, you know. There truly are real-world benefits to keeping the mind open and healthy.

[jimkopelli]

Um... right. I was under the impression that political stupidity and lack of funds grounded the shuttles... Oh, wait, they're not grounded any more. Silly me. Thinking of as many possibilities as you can is almost certaintly what got us into space in the first place. Cultural lag has screwed up more advancements, and few things have caused more cultural lag than outmoded beliefs, under-informed public (Duck and Cover! A standard issue school desk will shield you from an atomic bomb!) and what has caused these evils? Repressive religions. Suprise. That kind of thinking has held back biology (ban on dissections) and thereby medicine. The Vatican only admitted that they were wrong about Galileo and his theories a few years ago. I can't be having with that kind of thing.

[Johnny]

Thinking of as many possibilities as you can is almost certaintly what got us into space in the first place.
Here is where we are on the same page. Going into space hasn't come without disaster and loss of life either, but what better can we do but use our heads to mitigate such events?

I don't disagree with you that people have used religion to wreck people's lives and spread misery, but that's a people problem. Condemning religion treats the symptom without treating the cause, and the Vatican is simply striving to maintain an institution in the world. Pardoning Galileo is an advertisement for Catholicism and increasing the Catholic Church's membership, and it does not support the assertion that religion is backwards very well.

[Miss Padfoot]

Forget Catholicism. Consider Protestant fundamentalism. Thanks to it, Americans are ignorant as hell. According to miscellaneous Gallup polls that have been conducted in 2001 or later (I'm using the most recent data I can find) 61% of Americans believe the 7-day creation story was meant to be taken literally (that's the scariest one IMHO), and 59% believe that religion can solve all or most of today's problems. These people would rather trust faith than reason, it seems.

There are all kinds of juicy statistics like those at http://www.pollingreport.com/religion. It's 1 AM, more on this tomorrow.

[jimkopelli]

Communisim has people problems, too. It's a great system, but it only works for bees and ants. Try it on people... Hah.
Why believe in something that can't be proven? Yes, I know the knee-jerk reaction is "Because it's faith"... but that doesn't answer the question. I have an idea. Instead of having people subscribe to a religion where the chief tenets include "Play nice, or God will smite thee! and incedentially, if your life seems to suck for no reason at all, either it's your fault or it's God's will, so don't question it!", why not go the route of a religion that says something like "Play nice, or other people will smite thee! Repeatedly, and with force!" It seems to make more sense to me. Create an over-arching father figure that sees you do anything wrong... and sure, you'll get a peaceful mass of citizenry. You'll also get people who discover that they can buck the system without reprecussion, most of the time.


And I'll bet you've heard this before, but even so... 79% of all statistics are made up. Even this one.

[CosmicDust]

Re: Communism: it looks to me like just about every stable large-scale government is some form of oligarchy. Even a dictator has an inner circle; nobody can rule entirely by himself/herself. In a republic, you get to choose among the oligarchs, but generally only an elite class of career politicians and celebrities runs at all.

[Claverhouse]

Communisim has people problems, too. It's a great system, but it only works for bees and ants. Try it on people... Hah.
Why believe in something that can't be proven? Yes, I know the knee-jerk reaction is "Because it's faith"... but that doesn't answer the question. I have an idea. Instead of having people subscribe to a religion where the chief tenets include "Play nice, or God will smite thee! and incedentially, if your life seems to suck for no reason at all, either it's your fault or it's God's will, so don't question it!", why not go the route of a religion that says something like "Play nice, or other people will smite thee! Repeatedly, and with force!" It seems to make more sense to me. Create an over-arching father figure that sees you do anything wrong... and sure, you'll get a peaceful mass of citizenry. You'll also get people who discover that they can buck the system without reprecussion, most of the time.


Cosmicdust is right re oligarchies. Any dictatorship, including, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Saddam etc. have to abide by the rules of the gang they represent. One of the reasons I believe in divine right monarchy is it is the only way of having a single ruler. I can stand one person telling me what to do: I cannot stand a class or group of people telling me what to do...

Aristocracies, wealthy merchants, communist vanguard, liberals, parliaments, teachers...

But jimkopelli, I regret this because I only discovered it two days ago and found it so sweet and funny I am keeping it for my own web-site if I ever get one. True story apparently, coterminous with the writer Maurice Baring, about 1905 from 'What I Saw In Russia' during the Russo-Japanese war roughly. I think it is perfect.

A Socialist arrived in a village to convert the inhabitants to Socialism. He wanted to prove that all men were equal and that the Government authorities had no right to their authority. Consequently he thought he would begin by disproving the existence of God, because if he proved that there was no God, it would naturally follow that there should be no Emperor and no policeman. So he took a holy image, and said, "There is no God, and I will prove it immediately. I will spit upon this image and break it to bits, and if there is a God He will send fire from heaven and kill me, and if there is no God nothing will happen to me at all." Then he took the image and spat upon it and broke it to bits, and he said to the peasants, "You see God has not killed me." "No," said the peasants, "God has not killed you, but we will," and they killed him.


:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :D :D :D :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

Ah, the standard uninformed rabble... Is there nothing they won't see as heresy?
Even in a divine right monarchy you will still have more than one ruler. Kings may be kings, but they're still only human, even if they say they're not. There will always be delegation in any political structure beyond, say, a one parent family, and there will still be some there. People are herd animals, and there is nothing wrong with letting a small group be responsible for a larger group. The thing that usually goes wrong with the system is that the people who want power aren't always the best equipped to handle it. Therefore, one of the problems with people in communism.

[CosmicDust]

Go figure...AFTER they make separate categories in Flamethrower for politics and religion, a religion-based flamethrower thread turns to politics. (Or did this start before the new categories? I'm not sure.) Anyway, I've always been a tangent-chaser (ADDers are notorious for it), so I don't mind. And hey, we're all (mostly) P's here.

[Johnny]

It's important to distinguish politics and religion, to know what they really mean. To me, the issue deserves discussion on this thread.

Religion is about a way of life that supports a belief, while politics is about people having control of other people. But wouldn't one rather practice a religion in an environment that embraces it, such as a church, rather than out on the street and invite possible fear or ridicule from people who don't know there is a difference between politics and religion - that, where religion is concerned, the source material is belief regardless of the number of people who share it?

And so where there are people, ignorant or informed, there are politics to obscure religion's purpose and value. Sigh...

[paladinoflunaria]

Religion is scarred by politics? Religion is a form of politics; of business. Think about all of the advertising that's done.

[paladinoflunaria]

You can roll everything into an economic system. Marx was no dummy.

[CosmicDust]

Religion and government are both social organization structures, and traditionally were united or at least related in tribes. Separation of church and state was one of those experimental Enlightenment ideas, I think.

[jimkopelli]

I'd be willing to bet some mighty important organs that religion started as a form of politics, a form of control. Imagine the following, if ye please...

Setting: some village from very slightly before the dawn of some form of civilization
Characters: Innocent village child (IVC), Insecure old headman (IOH), Villager with a bit part (VWBP)

IVC: Old man, I was contemplating my navel this morning, and I realized that I have some questions that maybe you can answer.
IOH: Like...
IVC: Like... where did we come from?
IOH: Easy enough. You see that next valley over? Right there, between those hills.
IVC: No, no, I mean, well, where did people come from, as a people?
IOH: Ah, one of those questions. Let me see... standard going rate on deep philosophical discussion is... you gather enough wood to fill up my wood rack... and a squirrel.
IVC: Ok! (runs off to get those)
IOH: Crap. Ok... how can I use this to my advantage? (thinks to self) I can't admit that I don't actually know... because that will ruin me politically... but if I make something up, it has to be either totally believable, so they'll almost think it's natural, or so off the hut that there can be no other explanation. Maybe a combination? Hmm. Maybe I'll say that there is some great over-chieftan of everything... who created everything... and that he can do anything... except, for some reason, speak to anyone but me. I could say that if you don't do as I... I mean, as He commands, bad things will happen. Hey, this sounds almost workable! Let's see those brutes who think they can take my job merely because they can hunt really well try and come up with a religious system off the top of their sloping foreheads. Now, where's that IVC? I think it's time to indoctrinate the village kiddies...
VWBP: (running in) Oh, no, IVC has been chased by wolves and fallen in a hole and run through a giant briar patch causing him to lose most of his skin but he made it back!
IOH: Praise the Lord!
VWBP: Say what?
IOH: I'll explain later. Just do it.
IVC: I got you your squirrel... ::cough:: but I think I'm done for...
IOH: Don't worry. You'll go to a happy place, where there's lots of other boys who did nice things for old men who told them to...
IVC: That's good to know. ::dies::

[paladinoflunaria]

:rofl:

You get a proverbial gold star!

[Johnny]

For shallowness...

[paladinoflunaria]

That was shallow?!

[jimkopelli]

You know, sometimes, things are exactly as they seem. Things may seem different to different people... but that's how they seem to me. How do you think religion came around, eh? Man made God in his own image, only better, so he would have someone to look up to, not the other way around.

[paladinoflunaria]

If god is perfect, then why in the hell did he need to create anything?

[jimkopelli]

Ah, an omnipotent being might get bored creating infinitely large rocks that he couldn't lift after a while... and decide to play a game that he could win for a while.

[paladinoflunaria]

Omnipotent isn't a full description of Jehova. He's supposed to be omniscient and omnibenevolent too. In fact, he's supposed to be perfect.

[Claverhouse]

If god is perfect, then why in the hell did he need to create anything?

Why not ? :ph34r:



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[MacGuffin]

If god is perfect, then why in the hell did he need to create anything?
To screw with your head.

[Strephonade]

Lol!

Perhaps it is more that mankind creates God in its image, rather than the other way around. A universe without anybody but yourself to answer to might be kinda scary, unless you like it that way.

[int]

A universe without anybody but yourself to answer to might be kinda scary, unless you like it that way.

So God isn't an introvert then.

[Vagabond]

Hmm. What would be the point of existing as a God if not?

[jimkopelli]

A universe without anybody but yourself to answer to might be kinda scary, unless you like it that way.
Exactly. Sometimes, people need something to curse. It takes a very strong minded atheist to say, when they've hit their thumb with a hammer, "Arrgh, random space-time fluctuations damn it!" or "Primitive and outmoded concept on a crutch!" (Thank you, Terry Pratchett.)
But we should still move on.

[int]

Hmm. What would be the point of existing as a God if not?

You're not trying to make me justify the mind of an extravert, are you? :)

[Vagabond]

You're not trying to make me justify the mind of an extravert, are you? :)
Hmm... yeah... :D

[antireconciler]

Exactly. Sometimes, people need something to curse. It takes a very strong minded atheist to say, when they've hit their thumb with a hammer, "Arrgh, random space-time fluctuations damn it!" or "Primitive and outmoded concept on a crutch!" (Thank you, Terry Pratchett.)
But we should still move on.

It's easier to just damn the hammer than any higher power. Blame the hammer! Tell it you'll smite it if it does it again. Hammers hit people's thumbs and they think the universe is out to get them and start making references to God, like he had anything to do with it. How illogical! It's the hammer that's out to get you, not God! Better smite the hammer now. Then throw it in a lake and forsake it.

[jimkopelli]

But, isn't it your own fault for not paying more attention to what you were doing? If you had taken the time to line up your shot better, you'd still have a three-dimensional thumb. Why blame yourself, when you can blame some imaginary higher power that caused you to screw up or caused bad things to happen to you that surely weren't your fault? It's about not having to take complete responsiblity for yourself.

[antireconciler]

If I blame myself when the hammer decides the smush my thumb, then the hammer gets away with it! Besides, that would be like saying "I just hit myself with a hammer", and you would either be percieved as stupid or massocistic by other people, and even worse, by yourself!

[jimkopelli]

Who cares? You've learned from the experience, and now (hopefully) you know better. People need to take responsibility for themselves, and religion takes some of that away. I mean, sure, too much responsibility can be a bad thing, too, but, if you think that you're being looked after and don't have to worry about things, that's just dumb.

[Johnny]

People need to take responsibility for themselves, and religion takes some of that away. I mean, sure, too much responsibility can be a bad thing, too, but, if you think that you're being looked after and don't have to worry about things, that's just dumb.
I agree with your conclusion, though I do not agree with your argument. Religion must be constructed to reveal free will and morality for us, or it does not serve its purpose. Both Kant, a giant among intellects in the service of God, and Sartre, perhaps the greatest champion for the cause of Atheism, believed that free will and personal accountability were vital attributes for the human condition - and along with you, it is my conviction as well.

[antireconciler]

Who cares? You've learned from the experience, and now (hopefully) you know better. People need to take responsibility for themselves, and religion takes some of that away. I mean, sure, too much responsibility can be a bad thing, too, but, if you think that you're being looked after and don't have to worry about things, that's just dumb.

Two possibilities:

(1) You're taking me much too seriously.

(2) You're joking around and I'm taking you much too seriously.

:blink:

I really do agree with what you've been saying. happppy

(seriously!)

[jimkopelli]

I think everyone probably takes everyone else way too seriously.
Free will, morality, and responsibility are good things (building blocks of civilization, you might say) but you don't have to have religion to have them!!! I have free will, and people have always had free will, even before they invented religion. Ogg could hit Ugg with a big rock any time he pleased, but he didn't, because that would be bad for the tribe, and wrong. He was showing self-restraint, and responsibility. However, if Ogg caught Ugg mackin' on Oggina, then he would be justified in kicking some Ugg, because it would be even worse for the tribe if he let Ugg stay. What I don't get is how you say that religion tells people that they have free will. Come again? "Thou hast free will, and these are the things thou shalt not do with it. Number 1..." Yes, you've got it, and now you'd better decide, of your own free will, to do these things and not do these things, otherwise you'll get smited? Does that make any sense at all? Why does that even need a deity figure to back it up? It shouldn't, if it's constructed right.

[Johnny]

Ogg could hit Ugg with a big rock any time he pleased, but he didn't, because that would be bad for the tribe, and wrong. He was showing self-restraint, and responsibility. However, if Ogg caught Ugg mackin' on Oggina, then he would be justified in kicking some Ugg, because it would be even worse for the tribe if he let Ugg stay.
I need to ask here, is monogomy necessary for the solubility of Atheism? If so, how?


"Thou hast free will, and these are the things thou shalt not do with it. Number 1..." Yes, you've got it, and now you'd better decide, of your own free will, to do these things and not do these things, otherwise you'll get smited? Does that make any sense at all?
Yes, in order to understand the story of Ogg, Ugg, and Oggina. Otherwise, where is the injustice, why such harsh punishment, and (most importantly!) what is the necessity in ignoring a grey-bearded giant, resting on a cloud with a lightning bolt in one hand, rooting obnoxiously for Ogg?

[antireconciler]

Where is the injustice? Why not simply in the eye of the beholder? Why not all morality in the eye of the beholder? People trying mold the world after thier beliefs by trying to impose a universal set of morals is just disintigration, just people in permanent survival mode.

As if things like morality and justice existed without humans there to complecate simple things.

[Johnny]

Hey, no fair to answer questions with more questions!

O.K., as a freebie (and because I'm still a sucker for this thread), I'll say that it is in the eye of the beholder. That's why it's so important for us all to consider our free will with respect and the wonderful vision of consequence. Such freedom can be messy business, both for the individual and society. Not clean, like a scripted movie or a fiction novel, but very dirty, like the daily New York Times updates on the self-destruction of Yugoslavia.

Morality is the balancing mechanism for such disintegration, not the reason for it.

[jimkopelli]

Questions with questions is perfectly fair. I still ask, though, where does it say that you have to have religion to have morals or free will or any of those lovely little inventions that make us human?

[paladinoflunaria]

I agree that free will is required for life to have any meaning- that is obvious. I will say that obeying the commands of something other than yourself reduces your freedom, so you're right Jim, it doesn't follow impersonal logic. Ogg would probably fight Ugg for dominance, not over jealousy/revenge though. Back in those days when humans were much wilder, it was just for survival of the species. There aren't many animals in nature that mate for life. Monogamy is another limitation, and it causes more problems than it solves. But if you loosen the strings to much, the instrument won't play- being helplessly addicted to sex does more harm than good, too.

[jimkopelli]

You have been reading Time Enough for Love, right? It's one of the many books in which Heinlein tells convention to go stick its thumb up its ass and hold itself out at arms length. It should all be personal choice. ALL. Granted, most decisions would be pretty much a consensus, and there you have the basis for morality. Religion factor? Nada.

[Johnny]

I still ask, though, where does it say that you have to have religion to have morals or free will or any of those lovely little inventions that make us human?
It was your story, not mine. If you don't want to explain it and offer your own free-will/responsibility theory for examination, I can't force you to do otherwise.

It's a tough proposition to offer free will to people, to explain free will's inner workings, without then discovering that you haven't offered free will at all.

[jimkopelli]

Hear that noise? (swish... SWAP!!!)
Of course it's not written in the story, it wasn't relevant at the time. That is my theory. You don't need religion to have free will or morals or a sense of duty or any of that. That last sentence... could you clarify?

[Johnny]

I'm sorry this thread is coming to insulting one another for not agreeing rather than stretching out. I've deleted my own insults in return, as they will just distract from the issues of free will and morality further and do neither one of us good.

Best of luck with Heinlein!

[jimkopelli]

Anyway, back to the original topic. Why is it so hard for the religious to convert?

[Utopmk]

I'm so tired of seeing this thread on the main page. :devil:

[Johnny]

I'm so tired of seeing this thread on the main page. :devil:

If you need help, I'm glad to assist. :D

[Vagabond]

Anyway, back to the original topic. Why is it so hard for the religious to convert?
Unwillingness perhaps...? Why is it so hard for you to change *your* beliefs?

[paladinoflunaria]

I've actually undergone a recent change. I've been a devout Christian for about 5 years, and now I'm a devout atheist.

Write me a mathematical proof that there are god-like beings that ultimately influence (as in make-or-break) my existence (as in, does the meaning of life have anything to do with some super-powerful entity), and you've got me. Unfortunately, given an amount of time equal to the cardinality of the Reals, you couldn't do it. You would be trying to pick out a 42 from the set of Reals. That's very stupid.

[jimkopelli]

I know that I should understand whatever it was that you just said... but it be early and I be groggy. (Yes, I see the timestamp. Shut up.) Could we have sentences 4 and 5 in some format that is understandable to the lurching dead?

Let's see... If someone became an atheist after being raised in a religious household, they probably have a good reason. Mine was that I thought going to church every week and giving perfectly good money away to support the guy who got up and was boring at us was kinda dumb. I was kinda young to get the whole picture, but now I see a bit more and have my own personal philosophy that doesn't need a supreme being (Other than the self, of course. You grok?)

[Vagabond]

Fair enough. What makes you think that those that decided to be religious haven't gone through mental process and analysing their options first as well?

(I take it you don't mean that everyone that is not an atheist should step forward and actually unfold their theories for the board to judge...?)

[Melody]

lol! Vagabond, you sound like me at other forums. Socrates' methods rubbed off on me and I use them liberally to screw people over with their own logic. :rofl:

[jimkopelli]

Ah, but wouldn't you say that some portion is simply raised religious, and stay that way because it's easier than changing their mind? (Mom, Dad, I have something to tell you...) What portion doesn't question? How many aren't given the opportunity to see if there is some other system they like better, merely becaue they weren't raised in it?

(Of couse not. That's their preogative, though, if they want to.)

[Vagabond]

Ah, but wouldn't you say that some portion is simply raised religious, and stay that way because it's easier than changing their mind? (Mom, Dad, I have something to tell you...) What portion doesn't question? How many aren't given the opportunity to see if there is some other system they like better, merely becaue they weren't raised in it?
Sure, I see your point. But doesn't this go both ways? I have known people raised atheists that simply remained atheists because they didn't care to change their current situation. I mean, someone that doesn't care for searching will not search regardless of their family environment, right?

But I agree with your general point - settling for the "trained" values only leads to fanatism or/and ignorance... I just can't see it in portions, because portions change constantly...

Oops, I disagree with the opportunity thing though; whoever searches, finds. You don't have to be fed with different ideas to embrace them.

[Johnny]

...whoever searches, finds.
In my case it's closer to say "whoever searches, searches." But yes, as a child at the supermarket says "NO!" in response to the mother who says "Put that candy where you found it. You can't have it.", so can even the youngster who is bored with going to church respond likewise.

What is found can be many things perhaps not predicted, such as more questions and alternatives like, "Why do I have to put the candy back? Let's put the oranges and apples back instead for it." But these are exercises we all go through as we grow, and things certainly don't get found otherwise.

I'm certainly no exception.

[paladinoflunaria]

I know that I should understand whatever it was that you just said... but it be early and I be groggy. (Yes, I see the timestamp. Shut up.) Could we have sentences 4 and 5 in some format that is understandable to the lurching dead?


The cardinality of the reals, according to the continuum hypothesis, is equal to just that, continuum. Continuum is a larger number than the cardinality of Natural numbers, etc.. If you were to put every real number (natural, whole, integers, rational, irrational) into a bucket, and then draw a random number out of the bucket, the probablility of drawing a natural number is 0. You can draw infinitely many numbers out of the bucket, but you will never draw a number from the naturals (1,2,3,4,5,...), even though there are infinitely many natural numbers.[/quote]

[paladinoflunaria]

I see a bit more and have my own personal philosophy that doesn't need a supreme being (Other than the self, of course. You grok?)

I grok. Thou art god.

[antireconciler]

In my case it's closer to say "whoever searches, searches."

Me too. Whoever searches is going to find things that work better for them than what is fed to them, but it's not at all static. I think fear or maybe just no sense of adventure/no curiousity keeps people from changing or looking for ideas that work better for them. Some people "grow up" and decide they know thier path and blaze through life making it happen. They place the desination above the journey. I wonder if they feel fulfilled when they arrive, if they arrive.

Why is it so hard for the religious to convert? Maybe because they are religious. They know their path already. They've grown up, and search no longer. Is this reversable? Why do people do this in the first place?

I "search", but what I mean is that I admit I do not know the answers. Are there answers? ARE THERE?

(edited for spelling)

[antireconciler]

Why is it so hard for you to change *your* beliefs?

Maybe we attach ourselves emotionally to our beliefs. The open-minded can change thier beliefs easily. If that's true, open-mindedness is not attaching ourselves to our beliefs.

[Johnny]

Some people "grow up" and decide they know thier path and blaze through life making it happen. They place the desination above the journey. I wonder if they fill fulfilled when they arrive, if they arrive.

Yes, I wonder the same thing myself. It's likely why I am labeled a perceiver in the MBTI system.


"The road is always better than the inn." These words by the great Spanish writer, Cervantes, mean a way of living. In my younger days I often aimed too hard to reach some goal, finish some job. "When this is done," I'd say, "I shall find real satisfaction and reward." But later I came to realize that each achievement, like each inn, is only a point along the road. The real goodness of living comes with the journey itself, with the striving and desire to keep moving. Now I find that I can look back on my eighty-four years with pleasure and, what is even more important to me, that I can still look to the future with hope and desire. I have learned to take each inn along the way with a traveler's stride - not as a stopping point, but a starting point for some new and better endeavor. - Maurice Materlinck

Our challenge, as Percievers, is to see value in roadmaps and destinations and give them a shot. As a more secular example, look where it got Jung?

[paladinoflunaria]

Maybe we attach ourselves emotionally to our beliefs. The open-minded can change thier beliefs easily. If that's true, open-mindedness is not attaching ourselves to our beliefs

Then I am open-minded.

[Crazy]

Why is it so hard for you to change *your* beliefs?

Maybe we attach ourselves emotionally to our beliefs. The open-minded can change thier beliefs easily. If that's true, open-mindedness is not attaching ourselves to our beliefs.

A belief is the realization of a fundamental truth. When we change our belief, we are changing the foundation by which we live our lives. We are altering our perception of the world around us by altering the truths by which we gage the experiences we experience. All things are relative to the logic by which we filter our perceptions. Our personal logic is governed by the fundamental truths we hold. When we change a fundamental truth, we change the perception of any experience that was governed by the truth that was changed. People, on the whole, don't like change, and are happy with the world the way they see it. Therefore, the more important the particular belief is to thier perception of the world, the more it will change the world for them, past, present, and future, and the more likely they are to resist said change.

[Crazy]

I also must point out the deceptive nature of humans in general. A change in belief may not actually be a change, just an admission to the fact that said belief was not actually held by said person, but was a way to fit in, decieve, or fill in a gap.

The word believe has been missused to the point where it can almost be defined as a thoery, or filler for something that you are unsure about, rather than a personal truth.

[Strephonade]

Hm--it's difficult to know exactly what is meant by the word 'belief'--there are certain principles by which I choose to live my life, and barring any extreme circumstances, they work rather well as guidelines.

Also, as a way of exploring one's understanding of another perspective with a variation of the Socratic method, the questions being implied, I can see that circumstances may have many iterations in one, each slightly varied--the shape of many are clear to me, and I can easily argue these viewpoints without concern that the original intent would become clouded. Responses are regarded with some subjectivity, but also a lot of objectivity. The source of the response may or may not be giving his or her personal view, and this view may or may not reflect anything relevant to things in one's own life except in the most coincidental of ways.

We can have a lot of interesting discussions this way, and challenge each other's ideas enjoyably, no?

[Crazy]

Hm--it's difficult to know exactly what is meant by the word 'belief'--there are certain principles by which I choose to live my life, and barring any extreme circumstances, they work rather well as guidelines.

Also, as a way of exploring one's understanding of another perspective with a variation of the Socratic method, the questions being implied, I can see that circumstances may have many iterations in one, each slightly varied--the shape of many are clear to me, and I can easily argue these viewpoints without concern that the original intent would become clouded. Responses are regarded with some subjectivity, but also a lot of objectivity. The source of the response may or may not be giving his or her personal view, and this view may or may not reflect anything relevant to things in one's own life except in the most coincidental of ways.

We can have a lot of interesting discussions this way, and challenge each other's ideas enjoyably, no?

Of course we can. That is the whole point, is it not?

Anything discussed is always regarded with at least a modicum of subjectivity, for to be completely objective takes away any reason to discuss the topic in the first place. It can even go as far as having subjectivity from the original source of the information, and from the way an individual would process the information, and then how they would present the information in regards to the position said individual takes when presenting (or leaving out) evidence to discuss.

It is amazing how subjective a discussion can be even when the available information is presented in the most objective manner possible.

Take for example the title of this thread. One can't even begin to discuss the topic without having an understanding of the posters deffinition of "cool".