Rufio, have the good manners not to address me--i've long ago pointed out to you that you argue from shakey to no basis, and deny writing what you've patently written as soon as someone shows your errors. My statement was clear, your inability to understand it is of no interest to me and i'll not waste any more posts, after this, responding to you.
Ahhh, to be young enough again to think you know everything...<sigh>
I used ta know everthing, but ma head hurt allatime, so i quit . . .
rufio wrote:Setanta, a "theist" by definition only belives in God. Why do you think this implies a lack of responsibility?
lol...disagreeing would be one thing but asking why he thinks that, when he's just finished explaining his reasoning for it, shows what I see as either a blind refusal to listen to another's opinion or a serious lack of basic reading comprehension on your part.
I favor Jung's ideas over these.
I am Jung at heart myself, edgar. I also figure, if one accepts the idea that there is a god, who is both all-knowing, and also granted humankind free will, said god is most likely well on their way to a new project.
Weeeeeeeeeeeee're off to see the lizard . . .
Monger, i think i just found a career opportunity for Rufio. The accounts receivable manager for one of our suppliers sent me a fax last week wanting to know when we would pay invoice 88716. I said we had sent check number so and so, and he replied that they hadn't received it. I contacted our bank, who told me it had been presented for payment. I obtained a copy of the check, and faxed it to this joker. Today, i received a fax, the burden of which was "thanks for your effort and the information, but my message referred to invoices 92916 and 92917." I sent a fax just now to state that we had paid those invoices with our check number so and so. I fully expect to recieve from this joker a denial that the check has ever been posted. At which point, of course, i'll have to contact our bank, get a copy of the check, and fax that off to him. This is what Rufio does here constantly. She states that A is so. When challenged, she says, no wait, i meant B is so. When challenged again, she claims that she is willfully misunderstood.
"Theism is a form of irresponsible moral cowardice by which one evades one's responsibility for the quality of the world which one inhabits"
I'm sorry, but I don't see any logic in that statement.
Not having read the book I would have thought that since thesism is not universal it is difficult to claim that it is "hard wired", but the predisposing conditions for "catching the virus of theism"(Dawkins) are another matter. These are 1. tribalism (as in other primates) 2. propensity to seek pattern or "external order" and 3. a maturational process with the cognitive end products of concepts of "causality" and "time". The virus feeds on such dispositions by 1. providing the rationale/authority behind devisive social hierarchies 2. providing an ultimate architect for observed patterns and 3. insuring against the opaqueness of the "reasons for existence" and the "certainty of our mortality".
fresco is on the right track here, rufio is not.
"Theism is a form of irresponsible moral cowardice by which one evades one's responsibility for the quality of the world which one inhabits. "
Let me be the devil's advocate here: Theism is not necessarily a "moral cowardice or evasion of responsibility." To be theist implies nothing other than your belief in a g-d or g-ds. This doesn't say anything about how the theist percieves their g-d (individual viewpoint.) To make assumptions about -all- theists is absurd because there is no consistent definition of g-d/g-ds and their qualities, or of the way individuals percieve them.
I agree with your reasoning about the article: "Whereas a thesis that a belief in god is simply a genetic product or by-product evades the issue of that irresponsibility, the issue of the hunger the spiritual have to make sense of that which we know only superficially and often inferentially (the universe) by reduction to an absurdity. "
-That reducing theism to unalterable genetic terms evades individual thought responsibility. But this doesn't make sense to assume that theists are automatically thoughtless or cowards by association.
Why is everyone beating up on me? I am not alone here:
Rufio:
"Setanta, a "theist" by definition only belives in God. Why do you think this implies a lack of responsibility?"
Portal Star:
"Theism is not necessarily a "moral cowardice or evasion of responsibility." To be theist implies nothing other than your belief in a g-d or g-ds."
Rufio:
"From what I know, there are at least a few different cultures that either have no principle deity or no deity at all, or a deity radically different from what we would think of as one."
Fresco:
"Not having read the book I would have thought that since thesism is not universal it is difficult to claim that it is "hard wired""
Hmmm, see, I didn't read this at all, but I did read the title so:
The media and the outside world teaches you to believe in God. Without thought we begin to believe that a god is possible, or necessary. Those alienated or in some feeling think that this is to illogical become atheist. Many people I have talked to think that atheism is impossible, they say it's to engraved into your brain to be COMPLETELY without some archaic thought of god. I don't believe in God, but the whole god subject has been in me since my first memories-
rufio, nobody is beating up on you. Some of us are simply trying to clarify. All I meant regarding fresco's comment was that indeed, the author is not trying to discover a gene for 'theism', just a gene for a basic human instinct to create 'god-culture', however basic or sophisticated. You took fresco's quote out of context, btw, and that also is not beating up on you. Also, Portal Star prefaced her post by mentioning she was playing devil's advocate.
Humans have a tedency to think we're superior in the animal kingdom, so the normal outcrop of our ability to communicate invariably brings us to the question of god - or something superior to us homo sapiens. Since we have no evidence of any gods, man creates them (in his own image) out of what is visible. Sun gods, water gods, tree gods, mountain gods..... Many cultures created their own gods in the form of statues - many with forms that are part human and part animal. I guess it's the next thing to hard-wired - whatever that means.
The context of fresco's comment doesn't change what was said, and neither does the context of PS's. But when I say anything, I get insulted:
"lol...disagreeing would be one thing but asking why he thinks that, when he's just finished explaining his reasoning for it, shows what I see as either a blind refusal to listen to another's opinion or a serious lack of basic reading comprehension on your part."
Actually, the context of both statements does indeed affect their meanings, but that notwithstanding, I have not insulted you in any way. Incidentally, I hear you are doing a minor in linguistics. Well, my wife did a master's in linguistics, and my brother is doing one now at UPenn. One thing I have learned as a lowly chef from both of them is that context and clarity are everything when it comes to proper communication.
