Paul Chek, the Director's Cut

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

A philosophy professor I admire uses an amazing method of debate in his classroom.

First, he asks who are the atheists and who are the theists.

He then divides the class in two and asks each side if they have good and well-thought out arguments. They both say, emphatically, “yes.”

He then says, “if you don’t understand the opposing argument, you can’t really understand your own, right?” Everyone nods their heads yes.

Then, he he says: “okay, all of the theists now have to argue the atheist position; and all the atheists have to argue the theist position.”

Invariably, the atheists have no idea how to argue for theism. They sort of fall flat on their faces, repeating inane arguments that no theist would ever make. They understand nothing of theism.

But here’s the interesting part: the atheists are really surprised about another thing: the theists actually argue more strongly and deeply for atheism than the atheists can. The theists understand atheism better than the atheists. Not only does this mean that theists understand their own theistic arguments better; it also means that they have grappled with atheism at a deeper level than atheists. Obviously they found it wanting. LOL

We should start a thread doing the exact same thing. Judging by the posts so far, I think we’d have a similar result. [/quote]

Excellent post.

122

[quote]brauny96 wrote:
please pardon my noobness, Im alot younger than all of yous, but I have a few questions.

So since I’m a catholic and I am religious, I believe there is an afterlife after being on the earth is all said and done, Im doing something wrong? I should convert to Buddhism? (not that I will)[/quote]

Interesting thread huh? Before you even consider another religion (which you probably are not anyway) why don’t you rediscover your own? I’ve found that many people who have been brought up in one religion or the other simply take it for granted and have not delved as deeply into it as they can. If you are a Catholic then really be a Catholic, at least for a few months and see what you can learn.

All The Best,

Zeb

123

[quote]migrantworker wrote:
And for whoever said it above, I love the analogy of “faith” as being that box were we throw all those parts of Christianity that we can’t quite seem to reason out well enough - the way we deal with our cognitive dissonance.

Looking at the history of the Nicene Creed and the Analogy of Faith it’s a wonder people still at look at the Bible as anything other than a book of philosophies (many contradictory) and a loose retelling of random historical events relevant to a certain group of people at a certain time.

The funniest thing was taking Religion 101 in college, where you learn where everything comes from, and having the class be taught by a professor who was a practicing Christian, talk about faith (cognitive dissonance). Can we please utilize those positive aspects of Christianity of which there are many and discard the rest of the BS? I don’t think people are willing… we’re still talking heaven and hell, c’mon people - scare tactics to keep the illiterate peasants inline. Carrots and sticks, focused on societal stability. Reason this stuff out…[/quote]

That analogy has been debunked many times. Faith is not a matter of filling in gaps with God. That’s a bunch of bullshit that atheists tell people that Christian’s believe so they sound smart.
All of this is based in quite sound reasoning and we already have a thread discussing it so I won’t repeat here. Go here:

We beat the shit out of the topic, so there is no need to start over. I don’t expect you to read the whole thing. But if you are going to make the “God of gaps” argument. It’s better to do it there where it has been spelled out in nauseating detail.

124

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

He then divides the class in two and asks each side if they have good and well-thought out arguments. They both say, emphatically, “yes.”

[/quote]

I buy into the idea that atheists have as much faith as Believers, yet this has absolutely nothing to do with my comment that there seems to be an earth based historical reasoning behind religion. I agree neither Atheists nor Christians can be reasoned with, so having them debate is no more useful than two retarded one armed albinos beating each other with dull spoons.

125

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

A philosophy professor I admire uses an amazing method of debate in his classroom.

First, he asks who are the atheists and who are the theists.

He then divides the class in two and asks each side if they have good and well-thought out arguments. They both say, emphatically, “yes.”

He then says, “if you don’t understand the opposing argument, you can’t really understand your own, right?” Everyone nods their heads yes.

Then, he he says: “okay, all of the theists now have to argue the atheist position; and all the atheists have to argue the theist position.”

Invariably, the atheists have no idea how to argue for theism. They sort of fall flat on their faces, repeating inane arguments that no theist would ever make. They understand nothing of theism.

But here’s the interesting part: the atheists are really surprised about another thing: the theists actually argue more strongly and deeply for atheism than the atheists can. The theists understand atheism better than the atheists. Not only does this mean that theists understand their own theistic arguments better; it also means that they have grappled with atheism at a deeper level than atheists. Obviously they found it wanting. LOL

We should start a thread doing the exact same thing. Judging by the posts so far, I think we’d have a similar result. [/quote]

He’s a good teacher.
I also find that many, but not all atheists know almost nothing about theism, religion, or what not. Some do and with them, a it easy to have rational discussion. But when they project on theists things that they haven’t believed since caveman clubbed the bitches they wanted to marry, it turns in to a ‘fuck you’ fest; which is useless.

126

You all seem to be making the assumption that every nonbeliever is an atheist. This is a straw man representation of many nonbeliever’s beliefs. Many of us come to terms with our spirituality as being an unknown unknown. Christians are the known knowns. Atheists are the known unknowns.

I happen to have no idea how any of it works (though history does seem to explain a good deal). And until anyone makes a good enough case to us we don’t see why we should be compelled to choose sides.

127


.

128

I don’t think anyone is going to make a good argument, there are the Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics. Those who believe, don’t believe, and those who would believe if given a logical reason. As far as what Katzenjammer is posting I don’t see any reason why an Atheist or an Agnostic would be able to argue the theists point because they are not part of the same religious hypocrisy that the Theists are.

The Theists are struggling with some aspect of their religion and look at it from different perspectives. In the end they come up with no logical explanation but continue to believe. The Agnostics and Atheists don’t believe and have not put as much thought into the argument because they have not been provided with a reason to believe. I don’t really see the need for Chek to antagonize Catholics and promote buddhism. When ultimately he is talking about self-worth and balancing of energy, some type of self actualization.

Buddhism may promote this type of stuff, but i’m sure a devout Christian could have the same result by simply following the set of beliefs set forth in his religion, with out concerning himself with those around him that did not believe. The guy looks like he’s in great shape and most of us could learn a thing or two from him, i’m sure. Too bad he comes across as being self involved and somewhat Neurotic.

129

Claiming conclusively that theists are more well informed than atheists is an overstatement and a bit of an untruth. A large amount of people growing up in a theistic setting are educated in it some degree, I took PSR classes as a Catholic growing up and bible studies and things of this nature are common.

Most of the times, reasons and unreasons for believing are brought up and taught, Pascal’s wager and so on. In essence, people indoctrinated into a theistic belief system are taught atheistic arguments and a formal response to them.

Indoctrination and parroting something you read, were taught, or the beliefs of your parents I think is more common than actually doing a study of all religous belief systems, engaging in serious introspection and thought, then settling on a belief system or lack of one based on your search for a true spirituality.

I would argue that the vast majority of people raised in theistic settings have never questioned their beliefs, and were simply indoctrinated.

These simple logical arguments work wonders on convincing children to believe something, simply because it is their first experience w/ logical arguments and they are children, but these won’t be enough as their worldview is augmented and their emotional and mental maturity increases.

130

[quote]rustey wrote:
I don’t think anyone is going to make a good argument, there are the Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics. Those who believe, don’t believe, and those who would believe if given a logical reason. As far as what Katzenjammer is posting I don’t see any reason why an Atheist or an Agnostic would be able to argue the theists point because they are not part of the same religious hypocrisy that the Theists are.

The Theists are struggling with some aspect of their religion and look at it from different perspectives. In the end they come up with no logical explanation but continue to believe. The Agnostics and Atheists don’t believe and have not put as much thought into the argument because they have not been provided with a reason to believe. I don’t really see the need for Chek to antagonize Catholics and promote buddhism. When ultimately he is talking about self-worth and balancing of energy, some type of self actualization.

Buddhism may promote this type of stuff, but i’m sure a devout Christian could have the same result by simply following the set of beliefs set forth in his religion, with out concerning himself with those around him that did not believe. The guy looks like he’s in great shape and most of us could learn a thing or two from him, i’m sure. Too bad he comes across as being self involved and somewhat Neurotic.[/quote]

Look around. There are lots of excellent arguments. Don’t project your lack of research on others as incapable of making them. Your obviously new here, but there are to other rather massive threads discussing the same thing…

Care to back this up? Because it’s bullshit.

131

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Claiming conclusively that theists are more well informed than atheists is an overstatement and a bit of an untruth. A large amount of people growing up in a theistic setting are educated in it some degree, I took PSR classes as a Catholic growing up and bible studies and things of this nature are common.

Most of the times, reasons and unreasons for believing are brought up and taught, Pascal’s wager and so on. In essence, people indoctrinated into a theistic belief system are taught atheistic arguments and a formal response to them.

Indoctrination and parroting something you read, were taught, or the beliefs of your parents I think is more common than actually doing a study of all religous belief systems, engaging in serious introspection and thought, then settling on a belief system or lack of one based on your search for a true spirituality.

I would argue that the vast majority of people raised in theistic settings have never questioned their beliefs, and were simply indoctrinated.

These simple logical arguments work wonders on convincing children to believe something, simply because it is their first experience w/ logical arguments and they are children, but these won’t be enough as their worldview is augmented and their emotional and mental maturity increases.[/quote]

Nobody made conclusive arguments about that, they were personal observations and stated as so.

132

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
What’s that whirring sound?

darrenrs wrote:
A sermon by a progressive Protestant pastor (referencing Ken Wilber’s ideas) that synthesizes the best of some of the differing viewpoints expressed on this thread: http://groups.gaia.com/ii/conversations/view/467593

[/quote]

The implication being that “mixing” ideas makes them illegitimate? Do you think that Christianity hasn’t absorbed many external influences since nearly its inception–incorporating Greek philosophy (eg the concept of the “Logos”), pagan rituals (Jesus sure wasn’t born in December), Roman imperialistic militarism, and modern science (Christians now accept that the earth revolves around the sun; many accept evolutionary theory)? If religion hadn’t evolved, spiritual folk would all still be sacrificing goats (or humans) and praying to their provincial god(s) to help them smite their enemies.

Aside from all that, if you had actually watched/read the sermon (which I assume you didn’t cause it’s 20 minutes long and your response came up 4 min after mine) you would see that the pastor wouldn’t have had to reach outside the Christian tradition to support the core of his sermon–his references to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart would have sufficed.

133

God doesn’t exist to make us feel better, be nicer, or to become super beings. He created us for His own pleasure, to bring glory to Him. He has revealed Himself through nature and His Word. We can create our own “religion” or “state of mind” all we want thinking that it will make us “better humans.” In reality we are nothing without His presence. Everyone has the choice to believe whatever they want, but in the end everyone will stand before Him. As for me, I don’t think I’m going to be able to out-research, out-smart or deny the creator of the universe right to His face…So I think I’ll take my chances being His Servant, not His commander…believing in His Son Jesus, and trying to become more like Him.

134

[quote]darrenrs wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
What’s that whirring sound?

darrenrs wrote:
A sermon by a progressive Protestant pastor (referencing Ken Wilber’s ideas) that synthesizes the best of some of the differing viewpoints expressed on this thread: http://groups.gaia.com/ii/conversations/view/467593

[/quote]

The implication being that “mixing” ideas makes them illegitimate? Do you think that Christianity hasn’t absorbed many external influences since nearly its inception–incorporating Greek philosophy (eg the concept of the “Logos”), pagan rituals (Jesus sure wasn’t born in December), Roman imperialistic militarism, and modern science (Christians now accept that the earth revolves around the sun; many accept evolutionary theory)? If religion hadn’t evolved, spiritual folk would all still be sacrificing goats (or humans) and praying to their provincial god(s) to help them smite their enemies.

Aside from all that, if you had actually watched/read the sermon (which I assume you didn’t cause it’s 20 minutes long and your response came up 4 min after mine) you would see that the pastor wouldn’t have had to reach outside the Christian tradition to support the core of his sermon–his references to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart would have sufficed.[/quote]

The Catholic Church embraces all Truth wherever and whenever it is found. There has never been any mindless “mixing”; moreover, it has had often to divest itself of many false doctrines that various groups (who were themselves misled, however well-meaning) tried to tack on to the Church. I didn’t listen to the audio - I went straight to the transcript. Faster that way. To be honest, I don’t like Wilber; nor do I like Tolle; nor Lovelock. So right off that bat I was suspicious and began eyeing the blender. Then I got to this…

…and broke out said blender and into it I stuffed the entire universe, chanting “Everything is One…” Whirrrrrrrr.

Faux mystics exist in every age. That New Age gurus have nothing new to say and nothing to teach the Church. We’ve already considered and rejected their nonsense long before Wilber shaved his head. I’d be all-too glad to discuss.

As an aside: when considering true and false doctrine and trying to thread one’s way - it’s awfully complicated after all - one must always keep in mind St. Augustine’s dictum: “Nulla porro falsa doctrina est, quae non aligua vera intermisceat.” Quaest. ev. II 40.

…there is no false doctrine that does not contain some truth mixed in.

False doctrines can be very deceptive and alluring - especially where they contain a bit of truth.

135

[quote]nanthrax wrote:
God doesn’t exist to make us feel better, be nicer, or to become super beings. He created us for His own pleasure, to bring glory to Him. He has revealed Himself through nature and His Word. We can create our own “religion” or “state of mind” all we want thinking that it will make us “better humans.” In reality we are nothing without His presence. Everyone has the choice to believe whatever they want, but in the end everyone will stand before Him. As for me, I don’t think I’m going to be able to out-research, out-smart or deny the creator of the universe right to His face…So I think I’ll take my chances being His Servant, not His commander…believing in His Son Jesus, and trying to become more like Him.[/quote]

Peace be with you bro.

136

[quote]migrantworker wrote:
You all seem to be making the assumption that every nonbeliever is an atheist. This is a straw man representation of many nonbeliever’s beliefs. Many of us come to terms with our spirituality as being an unknown unknown. Christians are the known knowns. Atheists are the known unknowns.

I happen to have no idea how any of it works (though history does seem to explain a good deal). And until anyone makes a good enough case to us we don’t see why we should be compelled to choose sides.

[/quote]

You either believe in God (Theist); or you believe in yourself, or money, or what not (so-called “Atheist”) - what, exactly, is the third possibility?

137

[quote]rustey wrote:
I don’t think anyone is going to make a good argument, there are the Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics. Those who believe, don’t believe, and those who would believe if given a logical reason. As far as what Katzenjammer is posting I don’t see any reason why an Atheist or an Agnostic would be able to argue the theists point because they are not part of the same religious hypocrisy that the Theists are.

The Theists are struggling with some aspect of their religion and look at it from different perspectives. In the end they come up with no logical explanation but continue to believe. The Agnostics and Atheists don’t believe and have not put as much thought into the argument because they have not been provided with a reason to believe. I don’t really see the need for Chek to antagonize Catholics and promote buddhism. When ultimately he is talking about self-worth and balancing of energy, some type of self actualization.

Buddhism may promote this type of stuff, but i’m sure a devout Christian could have the same result by simply following the set of beliefs set forth in his religion, with out concerning himself with those around him that did not believe. The guy looks like he’s in great shape and most of us could learn a thing or two from him, i’m sure. Too bad he comes across as being self involved and somewhat Neurotic.[/quote]

This is so poorly reasoned that I wish you would have done a preview before posting. If so, you would have likely hit the reset button and saved us all the time.

138

It’s neat to hear more about his views. They’re not that controversial that I think it would have caused a storm to include them in the original article (or at least, to link to them, saying ‘in the PAWI forum’ is kinda vague since it gets a lot of topics…). I guess it could have… I can see the desire to separate it but in that case I probably would have moved more of the stuff leading into it here too since it almost seems short compared to the entire huge body of the original article which was a joy to read.

I have many apprehensions about the extreme duality in the Abrahamic faiths but at the same time, I try to be open to them because I know much good has been done, and they have formed such a strong part of culture. I mean, I freakin’ love nuns, or at least the good ones… I mean they’re in Rumiko Takahashi’s One Pound Gospel after all and boxing is cool and so is love and caring for orphans.

It’s just like, what he explains, how some sects of them get very extreme and divisionistic and violent. Islam’s gotten that way too and I’m sure if I knew more about Judaism I’d know some examples of that as well. It’s not just them though, as really anything can get extreme if it gets political enough. Even the Zen Buddhism with an enlightened image had some bad habits among certain Japanese, some Taoists have gotten selfish ideas rooted in immortality involving leeching yin energy from women during intercourse, and Confucius could be a bit of a sexist =)

Basically, I think it’s good if we think independantly, engage in discourse with our fellows, and strive for friendship. We can pick at all these old philosophies and religions and figure out what parts are good and reinvent them as we need, along with drawing upon our own modern real world and fiction heroes like Eugene Sandow and Clark Kent.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote: please point me to the civilization similarly indebted to Santa claus or the flying spaghetti monster.

Finally, it seems to me that the people I know who are devout Christians are the most realistic, the most grounded, the least self-deceptive, the most caring people I know. Far from being self-involved, they are intensely absorbed in the people and things and events around them. I cannot say the same of so-called “atheists” (who really aren’t atheists at all because such a thing isn’t really possible.) And I sure as hell can’t say that about new agers.[/quote]
I do think it is wrong toe equate them, and please understand, I really don’t think people who make the comparison with FSM/Santa/Invisible Pink Unicorn/etc. are meaning this in every single respect.

Rather, it’s a means of insulting it, basically, by comparing the evidence behind belief in the reality described by the holy books. The thing about most forms of christianity is while they are not apparently self-involved, when the end-interest is to emulate Christlyness so that you can enter heaven, this makes the inevitable purpose of these endeavours self-involved due to that self-serving interest of pursuing paradise and fleeing torture.

People can be grounded, realistic and avoid deceiving themselves in certain areas of life very well, while being unable or unwilling to do one or all of these things in other areas. Indeed many of the movers and shakers, the greatest scientists and discoverers and leaders, etc. moving us forward have been Christians of various faiths or other forms of theists.

One thing that happens with a lot of atheists common to any human grouping (and I’ll respectfully disagree that it ‘isn’t possible’ to not believe in a deity…) is that there can be a lack of politeness towards those we disagree with, in this situation that is theists. Theists can be the same way in being frustrated with atheists. Similarly, as people hold varying philosophies (or various theologies) there is inner squabbling as well.

But we can get past it and discuss manners. Consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be the equivilent of jabs such as “no atheists in fox holes” and the like. Consider that you should take it in stride while practicing holy humility. Indeed that’s a merit many atheists as well as christian theists treasure as it has so much value in science and peacemaking.

[quote]ZEB wrote: Begin by actually reading the (Christian) Bible.[/quote] Which one would that be? If you check out http://bible.cc you can see there’s a LOT of different translations. By ‘Christian Bible’ I assume you’re referring to the ‘New Testament’ half and not the Torah or rest of the Old Testament?

[quote]brauny96 wrote: I’m a catholic and I am religious, I believe there is an afterlife after being on the earth is all said and done, Im doing something wrong? I should convert to Buddhism? (not that I will)[/quote]Well you’re not really ‘doing’ anything, we’re talking about beliefs here. Now beliefs can be right or wrong… unfortunately when it comes to stuff like this, due to our limited sensory perceptions (not being omniscient like these hypothetical supernatural entities) we don’t really know for sure… so basically you analyze your thinking and how logical it is and decide this for yourself. I don’t think Buddhism has any sort of ‘conversion’ process though. Some of Buddha’s teachings contradict Christ’s and vice versa, but nobody’s saying you gotta listen to everything, or anything, lol.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote: A philosophy professor I admire uses an amazing method of debate in his classroom. First, he asks who are the atheists and who are the theists. He then divides the class in two and asks each side if they have good and well-thought out arguments. They both say, emphatically, “yes.”

He then says, “if you don’t understand the opposing argument, you can’t really understand your own, right?” Everyone nods their heads yes. Then, he he says: “okay, all of the theists now have to argue the atheist position; and all the atheists have to argue the theist position.”

Invariably, the atheists have no idea how to argue for theism. They sort of fall flat on their faces, repeating inane arguments that no theist would ever make. They understand nothing of theism.

But here’s the interesting part: the atheists are really surprised about another thing: the theists actually argue more strongly and deeply for atheism than the atheists can. The theists understand atheism better than the atheists. Not only does this mean that theists understand their own theistic arguments better; it also means that they have grappled with atheism at a deeper level than atheists. Obviously they found it wanting. LOL

We should start a thread doing the exact same thing. Judging by the posts so far, I think we’d have a similar result. [/quote]Wow, didn’t that turn out just special? I’m sure the opposite has never happened, since theists all understand the atheist position so well and atheists are all a bunch of idiots who don’t know the first thing about theist beliefs rolleyes

You criticize the atheists for not arguing well for their position, but did they then flip back and instead of arguing the others’, then argue their own? You can’t really well fault atheists for not providing a good argument for theism unless proving that the good argument exists that they overlooked.

139

I thought the article was good and I plan on reading some of P.C. writing, but I have not read all the relies to the article but what I have I come out with the same conclusions I come out with after reading any article that the vocal masses disagree with.

There is a point has caused the vocal masses to disagree with part of the article and the masses lack the objectivity to take the good parts and leave the parts they disagree with.

140

[quote]tyciol wrote:
Consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be the equivilent of jabs such as “no atheists in fox holes” and the like. [/quote]

There is zero equivalence here. The former is a simply a sophomoric sneer; the latter is a simply an undeniable reality - albeit, one that must be truly experienced. Which few do or ever will.

[quote]tyciol wrote:
Consider that you should take it in stride while practicing holy humility. Indeed that’s a merit many atheists as well as christian theists treasure as it has so much value in science and peacemaking.[/quote]

The concept of humility has been misunderstood for a long time. Humility is forgetting oneself; it means not comparing oneself to others.

Humility as in being a kind of a weak “milk-sop” is not only a misunderstanding of the word, it is a misunderstanding of Christ. Humility is perfectly compatible with judgement and even harsh judgement; we are, in fact, commanded to discern, hate, and root out sin wherever we see it; we are also commanded to love the sinner. The “thou shall not judge” concept refers to not judging another’s soul - that’s up to God.

[quote] tyciol wrote:
Wow, didn’t that turn out just special? I’m sure the opposite has never happened, since theists all understand the atheist position so well and atheists are all a bunch of idiots who don’t know the first thing about theist beliefs rolleyes [/quote]

You don’t really understand: the theists HAVE to understand the atheist position well; atheists are not forced to understand atheism, much less theism. And this is born out experientially on these threads, in my own personal life, and in the 30-year teaching experience of this professor.

This should not really be all that surprising. So-called “Atheism” is relatively passive; it is the perennial “set point” of every human being; it is extremely easy to simply stay put. Theists have no such luxury; they must understand atheism through and through in order to be Theists - I cannot emphasize that enough, and if it’s not clear why, ask me and I’ll explain.

[quote] tyciol wrote:
You criticize the atheists for not arguing well for their position, but did they then flip back and instead of arguing the others’, then argue their own? You can’t really well fault atheists for not providing a good argument for theism unless proving that the good argument exists that they overlooked.[/quote]

If atheists cannot argue well for theism, then they don’t understand their own atheist position; this is true with any argument: the better you understand the opposing position, the better you understand your own. This is why it’s such a good and interesting test. If that’s not clear why, let me know and I’ll explain.

The point is: the atheists are usually rather surprised at the force of the “atheist” arguments that the theists themselves were able to marshall. The reason why theists know atheism so well is simple: in order to believe they have been forced to plumb deeper the atheist position. Does that make sense?