Atheists... Your life is pointless

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

"Background noise" is an excellent description for the idiosyncratic and tangential comments you often produce, ( notably on the theme of "ladies"). It is nothing to do with one party "occupying the intellectual high ground". Dialogue requires a negotiated semantic field involving subtle courtesies of common reference even if those are negative in form. If you fail to observe such courtesies, dialogue will break down.

Excellent statement! It is somewhat frustrating and boring to debate the likes of Spendy and MM, the latter being the biggest literalist I have ever dealt with. (MM will probably reply that he is only a medium-sized guy.)

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Dear spendi, we both know that a woman would slap your cheek red before even entertain the notion of giving you a kiss. Your self flattery borders on masturbation at times.

I have not spent midnight on New Year's Eve outside of a pub since I was about 21 and I got to hiding in the bogs until it passed to avoid the lips pouting at me. They got looking like the suckers on the tentacles of an octopus.

Now that I am a mature shagged-out old has-been those terrible trials and tribulations are behind me.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Excellent statement!

It is not an excellent statement at all. What fresco means by dialogue requiring " a negotiated semantic field involving subtle courtesies of common reference" is that one is expected not to undermine any of his fondly held intellectual positions or to plough a semantic field he is not in charge of. Do that and he then declares what you say to be "bilge" (his word) or "background noise".

You are too easily hypnotised Ad by blurts utilising long words.

2 Replies

@spendius,

In all fairness Spendius, if a person you are discussing something with does not respect the mutual agreement of what the word "up" means, his use of that particular word would not promote meaningful discussion.

That said, I haven't followed all the particulars of this discussion, so I make no judgments on if this is going on here. I can admit, though, that I have been guilty of twisting definitions of words in other threads, and I haven't always remembered to state it clearly before entering a discussion. Sometimes we assume way too much..

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I tend to think of it in Wittgensteinian terms. Debate involves "language games" in which each party may either (a) insist on pedantic rules (b) attempt to negotiate small modifications to the rules (c) argue for a major modification of the rules or (d) play another game entirely. I recognize myself as oscillating between (b) and (c) , with Spendius predominantly in (d).

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

blurts utilising long words

Especially so when the blurter can't spell pejorative.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I'm not that familiar with Wittgenstein, but can a person discussing any subject can be a little bit of all of a, b, c and d? Some rules set, others modified and still others changed entirely?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I have not spent midnight on New Year's Eve outside of a pub since I was about 21 and I got to hiding in the bogs until it passed to avoid the lips pouting at me. They got looking like the suckers on the tentacles of an octopus.

I just want to clarify this. Did you mean to say you have not spent a midnight on New Year's Eve OUTSIDE a pub or did you INSIDE a pub since you were 21? In other words, did the pouting lips look like tentacles of a sucker before you were 21 or after you were 21?
Laughing

(I can't find an emoticon that communicates confusion so I'll just chuckle).

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The fact of your having recourse to such a mode of debate should be quite sufficient to create the opposite effect in the mind of any intelligent person and what effect it creates in other minds is not of the slightest interest to me.

I'm surprised and dismayed to hear you give voice to such a sentiment. That seems shockingly close to something Peter Singer might say in an effort to justify abortion. 'They don't have a preference - so they don't matter' is not so far from, 'Their preference is of no interest to me so they don't matter.'

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A bad atheist is someone who tries to persuade others to be atheists without considering that his persuasion might be good enough to convert everybody to atheism.

But can a believer be 'converted'? I've been thinking about this an awful lot since I started participating on this thread. What is the nature of belief? I think I believe because I do, plain and simple - - because I can't NOT believe as a function of who I am. I know that there hasn't been anything anyone can say that has been able to nullify the function of my perception and experience which leads lme to believe.
There has never been any question thrown at me by any questioner which has given me a moment's pause - no matter how much more convenient and acceptable it would be for me not to believe- and believe me, many times I've thought of my status as a believer as an embarrassment and encumbrance socially - something that clashed with who people perceived me to be and as such would be a relief to be able to throw off.

But the truth is, I really can't visualize anyone convincing me of the falsity of something I KNOW for myself. So I don't really see atheists as a threat to my beliefs.

The fact that you see them as a threat to belief makes me wonder about the nature of belief in and of itself for other, if not, most people.

2 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

I just want to clarify this. Did you mean to say you have not spent a midnight on New Year's Eve OUTSIDE a pub or did you INSIDE a pub since you were 21? In other words, did the pouting lips look like tentacles of a sucker before you were 21 or after you were 21?

It is a double negative Rebecca. "Not" and "outside a pub at 12.00 on New Year's Eve" are both negatives.

But to be sure you are clear. I have been inside a pub at that time every year since I was 21. Before 18 I wasn't allowed in pubs and I was in the Arabian deserts doing my bit to keep petrol prices down for two years after that.

The serried pouting lips were after I was 21. I might say they were usually accompanied by that "lambent delicious fire, furtively shooting out" which trick Laurence Sterne claims Widow Wadman's eyes performed in Tristram Shandy and warns can undo the strongest philosophical mind and put Reason's feet to the fire.

As Henry Fielding wrote in honour of Charlotte Cradock--

Quote:

Courtiers would quite their faithless Skill,
To be thy faithful Dog Quadrille.
[Pulteney], who does for Freedom rage,
Would sing confin'd within thy Cage;
And [ Walpole], for a tender pat,
Would leave his Place to be thy Cat.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

I'm surprised and dismayed to hear you give voice to such a sentiment.

This statement Rebecca -

Quote:

The fact of your having recourse to such a mode of debate should be quite sufficient to create the opposite effect in the mind of any intelligent person and what effect it creates in other minds is not of the slightest interest to me.

is a species of irony. Meditate on the phrase "any intelligent person". Your unconscious elitism is showing Madam.

It has no similarities with anything Mr Singer ever said because he has not one ironic cell in his body.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

I think I believe because I do, plain and simple

Yes, but the topic is not about you my dear. It is about preventing future generations from ever having the chance to believe.

We have already seen on this thread that the N. Korean kids have no way of coming to any Christian beliefs. The atheist cause cannot but embrace the same idea.

0 Replies

@aidan,

I agree, Aidan, belief and disbelief are more the function of who we are than of arguments presented to us.

0 Replies

JLN, i'm pretty sure that your life is pointless . . . unlike my own.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Set, not quite but thanks for the good thought. I do meditate every morning in an on-going effort to remove points.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

hehehe

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Aspects of "self" may indeed fluctuate across such a spectrum, but there seems an "average" position occupied. However, in transcendental terms, "communication" may be considered to be problematic for it generally involves "sleepwalkers" talking past each other.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, it seems to me that not all communication is conscious in the "awake and actively percieving" sense of the word.

0 Replies

Our judicial system just took a huge beating due to two decisions.

In one, a CA appeals court, in a two to one vote, said that the pledge of allegiance did not violate the first amendment, which prohibits the state establishment of religion. It also held, amazingly, that the pledge did not discriminate against atheists. There was a 123-page dissent.

In the other case, the court ruled that the mention of a god on coins did not violate the first amendment.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know