Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

You aren't a Christian, so what are you?


Blamtasticful

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

Wow I didn't realize how sensitive people were to being challenged on their points. Again how many people actually gave suggestions encouraged in the original post instead of simply denying the importance of the question? I guess it came across harsher then intended; it was just an attempt to hone in on what seemed to be a superficial point by re-phrasing it in a way that illustrated some of it's inherent naïveté. Sorry this conversation devolved to this point I was hoping it would turn more profound. If you wish to blame that all on my tone so be it but I think that isn't really quite fair. Hey on the Brightside at least you can't call me an asshole without labeling me :D. Again sorry about the road leading to nowhere productive. I wasn't planning on arguing semantic points on the difference between labels, descriptions, and definitions.

 

I am not being sensitive to having my points challenged. I am taking exception to the condescending and inflammatory tone in some of your posts.

 

And, judging from some of your posts, I would guess you came in looking for an opportunity to make the condescending statement that I have highlighted in your last post.

 

As for your comment about hoping that this thread would have more profound content and, instead, it devolved to a sort of pissing match...well...I'd say you took the lead there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

People ask me what I am, I simply reply: "I am a human being. Just like you." 

 

That usually leaves an abruptness that ends the conversation. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

Wow I didn't realize how sensitive people were to being challenged on their points. Again how many people actually gave suggestions encouraged in the original post instead of simply denying the importance of the question? I guess it came across harsher then intended; it was just an attempt to hone in on what seemed to be a superficial point by re-phrasing it in a way that illustrated some of it's inherent naïveté. Sorry this conversation devolved to this point I was hoping it would turn more profound. If you wish to blame that all on my tone so be it but I think that isn't really quite fair. Hey on the Brightside at least you can't call me an asshole without labeling me :D. Again sorry about the road leading to nowhere productive. I wasn't planning on arguing semantic points on the difference between labels, descriptions, and definitions.

 

I truly didn't mean to have your conversation devolve, I certainly wasn't trying to be petty, and I didn't plan on nitpicking either. I was just honestly surprised at your response to my perspective on labels. It went a bit downhill from there and I'm happy to apologize for overlooking your ultimate point, I just didn't expect your response and felt I should defend my perspective. 

 

I understand that you were likely looking for a more academic response and I'm happy to provide an attempt at such, though my experience and understanding of the concepts you mentioned are limited (sorry, homeschooled the christian way lol). I tend to view pragmatism and methodological naturalism very positively (pun absolutely intended), I just don't think they are 100% correct. I don't think it would be practical to assume that any theory or philosophy is 100% correct, how's that for a mindfuck. I think, personally, I have left a bit of wiggle room for the complex nature of what it is to be human. I'm sure this is "made in the image of god" leftovers, I'm still deconverting, but there just seems to be something a bit special about how humans have evolved. I think the capacity for our spirituality is fascinating, though it has certainly had repercussions. I find myself very curious as opposed to "decided" with regard to what I believe. I tend to reject impractical things and things that aren't scientifically/logically provable, such as ghosts, spirits, demons, miracles, etc....but that doesn't change how I feel when I'm alone on the beach with my toes digging in the sand, the wind in my hair, sun kissing my face, I feel that more is out there. I don't feel completely alone, though I reject most religions. I hope this makes sense. 

 

Also, to clarify, I am perfectly comfortable to tell you that you are behaving like an asshole. :) I think labeling you an asshole would negate all that you are that I cannot see, minimize all that you have to offer the world, and that you should not be put in a box. But I'm happy to label behaviors. :D

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MOHO said:

 

I am not being sensitive to having my points challenged. I am taking exception to the condescending and inflammatory tone in some of your posts.

 

And, judging from some of your posts, I would guess you came in looking for an opportunity to make the condescending statement that I have highlighted in your last post.

 

As for your comment about hoping that this thread would have more profound content and, instead, it devolved to a sort of pissing match...well...I'd say you took the lead there.

 

"And judging from some of your posts." What is that supposed to mean lol? I love debate and always have; no one on this site needs to apologize for that.  Several people just complained about how labeling is stupid in response to a thought out post. Please supreme overlord do tell me how this was me derailing things? I just challenged that approach simple as that. I didn't take the lead on derailing anything.

 

I was trying to offer an olive branch in the last post and admitted to poor communication until you had the nerve to impugn my motives. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't impugn my motives by projecting any attitude or insecurities you have onto me. I offered an olive branch and you spat on it so don't lecture me, so please go judge yourself thank you very much. I won't take responsibility for you getting butthurt. To reference the great Christopher Hitchens if you say that's offensive I'm still waiting for what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I truly didn't mean to have your conversation devolve, I certainly wasn't trying to be petty, and I didn't plan on nitpicking either. I was just honestly surprised at your response to my perspective on labels. It went a bit downhill from there and I'm happy to apologize for overlooking your ultimate point, I just didn't expect your response and felt I should defend my perspective. 

 

I understand that you were likely looking for a more academic response and I'm happy to provide an attempt at that response, though my experience and understanding of the concepts you mentioned are limited (sorry, homeschooled the christian way lol). I tend to view pragmatism and methodological naturalism very positively (pun absolutely intended), I just don't think they are 100% correct. I think, personally, I have left a bit of wiggle room for the complex nature of humanity. I'm sure this is "made in the image of god" leftovers, I'm still deconverting, but there just seems to be something a bit special about how humans have evolved. I think the capacity for our spirituality is fascinating, though it has certainly had repercussions. I find myself very curious as opposed to "decided" with regard to what I believe. I tend to reject impractical things and things that aren't scientifically/logically provable, such as ghosts, spirits, demons, miracles, etc....but that doesn't change how I feel when I'm alone on the beach with my toes digging in the sand, the wind in my hair, sun kissing my face, I feel that more is out there. I don't feel completely alone, though I reject most religions. I hope this makes sense. 

 

Also, to clarify, I am perfectly comfortable to tell you that you are behaving like an asshole. :) I think calling you an asshole would negate all that you are that I cannot see, minimize all that you have to offer the world, and that you should not be put in a box. But I'm happy to label behaviors. :D

 

 

Thanks I appreciate your understanding. To be fair you brought up an interesting conversation; it just wasn't one I was expecting to have on the subject lol. I'm sorry for ever seeming inflammatory :) I agree with your assessment of methodological naturalism and pragmatism. It is a good starting point but isn't at all comprehensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blamtasticful said:

 

Thanks I appreciate your understanding. To be fair you brought up an interesting conversation; it just wasn't one I was expecting to have on the subject lol. I'm sorry for ever seeming inflammatory :) I agree with your assessment of methodological naturalism and pragmatism. It is a good starting point but isn't at all comprehensive. 

 

I agree with something you said earlier about things coming off harsher than they would seem spoken. I feel like I came off harsher too, for the record. Would you mind helping to define some of the viewpoints you are interested in / reject? For example, some things you really believe or really loathe, maybe a summary sentence? I love to discuss philosophical concepts and challenge my own thinking, I'm just not as familiar with many of the definitions. I was familiar with the ones I mentioned in my other post. I'm sure I could google it too....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

"And judging from some of your posts." What is that supposed to mean lol? I love debate and always have; no one on this site needs to apologize for that.  Several people just complained about how labeling is stupid in response to a thought out post. Please supreme overlord do tell me how this was me derailing things? I just challenged that approach simple as that. I didn't take the lead on derailing anything.

 

I was trying to offer an olive branch in the last post and admitted to poor communication until you had the nerve to impugn my motives. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't impugn my motives by projecting any attitude or insecurities you have onto me. I offered an olive branch and you spat on it so don't lecture me, so please go judge yourself thank you very much. I won't take responsibility for you getting butthurt. To reference the great Christopher Hitchens if you say that's offensive I'm still waiting for what your point is.

 

See?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I agree with something you said earlier about things coming off harsher than they would seem spoken. I feel like I came off harsher too, for the record. Would you mind helping to define some of the viewpoints you are interested in / reject? For example, some things you really believe or really loathe, maybe a summary sentence? I love to discuss philosophical concepts and challenge my own thinking, I'm just not as familiar with many of the definitions. I was familiar with the ones I mentioned in my other post. I'm sure I could google it too....

No I enjoy the discussion as well! (Btw I was homeschooled to and am happy to make up for lost time :) )Here is my woefully inadequate attempt at summarizing a lot of complex subject material but here goes! 

 

I will start with methodological naturalism. I specifically mention methodological naturalism and not just naturalism general because methodological naturalism is by it's definition simply a practical method to effectively and efficiently analyzing things; it's almost a better form of Occam's razor in my view. Naturalism in general however seem to fall into the same trap as logical positivism. In the first place because we just don't know any weird quirk of reality that may or may not be out there in reality. In the second place because implying that we can only know what we can prove in and of itself seems to be almost self-refuting in nature. This is the problem of not being able to use axioms to prove the reality axioms. That's why I think it's a helpful process for scientific inquiry but not a comprehensive philosophy. For the sake of brevity I will lump Empiricism in with this point of view. I think Sean Carrol in his debate with William Lane Craig accurately stated how if scientists were to see lots of phenomena that really looked like what the Bible describes that they would study it and if necessary update their view of what the natural world is. They wouldn't refuse to study it because of methodological naturalism. This to me represents the power of pragmatism. 

 

I think Moral Realism (the belief that morality actually exists and isn't subjective) compared with anti-Moralism is actually a fairly defensible position. I think most people here can agree that appealing to god for objective morality is a non-sequitur anyway. Basically something isn't moral simply because god said so which is Divine Command Theory. If morality exists it does so independent from god. If one is a moral realist it allows a person to fully reject with prejudice any claim that atrocities such as killing the Amalekites, the Holocaust, or deaths under communism are actually not really morally repugnant and disgusting but simply subjective. Morality is contextual to intelligent life but photosynthesis is contextual to plants that doesn't mean it isn't an objective phenomenon. Morality ultimately comes from the same universe that makes everything else in reality. I think people underappreciate the work of Sam Harris in the moral landscape making the case for objective morality. I will add one link that helped me a lot on this particular topic. 

 

I have already rambled way to much so I will try to highlight some other things quickly.

 

Preference Hedonism is the belief that we should pursue the things in life that gives some sort of pleasure to the person who is pursuing it. This is apposed to asceticism which sees pain as an end in itself.

 

Individual Liberty keeps preference Hedonism from infringing on the preferences of others so does rule Utilitarianism. This is apposed to deontology which defends universal moral absolutes such as not lying which cannot change during certain contexts.

 

Existentialism allows someone to create their own meaning in life even if it isn't literally true as an act of freedom against a world which gives no clear direction on life choices such as career, life partner or joining the military because you can not possibly know which choice is actually right due to chance and because you cannot see the results until after the fact. Post-modernist Continental philosophy can take this to an extreme where facts themselves are not objective. This is ludicrous to me personally.

 

Lastly while much of the world is deterministic or mechanistic I believe defining free will as the ability to change ones behavior to meet goals or to change ones desires is a fact proven through psychology. In that sense I am a compatibilist. 

 

So yeah that was a lot of blathering lol. Hope it was somewhat enlightening. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of leading us back down a road that nobody wants to travel, I have to say that I sympathise with those who reject labels as unhelpful. The thing is, people don't fit into predefined boxes. To say, for example, "I'm an atheist" does not convey any real information about me, and can lead people to form incorrect conclusions about what I believe. As such, claiming these labels is often counter-productive. This is why I don't actively claim any labels for myself. But I also don't refuse to wear a shoe that fits.

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I don't believe that any philosophical approach is comprehensive (or perhaps even can in principle be comprehensive). The underlying principle that I rely on the most is pragmatism. Methodological naturalism is also helpful. I'm also something of a nihilist. I reject the notion of objective morality, and some days I'm not even sure about the reality of objective truth. I'm happy to discuss this further if anyone is interested, and I'm certainly open to persuasion on all of these positions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

No I enjoy the discussion as well! (Btw I was homeschooled to and am happy to make up for lost time :) )Here is my woefully inadequate attempt at summarizing a lot of complex subject material but here goes! 

 

I will start with methodological naturalism. I specifically mention methodological naturalism and not just naturalism general because methodological naturalism is by it's definition simply a practical method to effectively and efficiently analyzing things; it's almost a better form of Occam's razor in my view. Naturalism in general however seem to fall into the same trap as logical positivism. In the first place because we just don't know any weird quirk of reality that may or may not be out there in reality. In the second place because implying that we can only know what we can prove in and of itself seems to be almost self-refuting in nature. This is the problem of not being able to use axioms to prove the reality axioms. That's why I think it's a helpful process for scientific inquiry but not a comprehensive philosophy. For the sake of brevity I will lump Empiricism in with this point of view. I think Sean Carrol in his debate with William Lane Craig accurately stated how if scientists were to see lots of phenomena that really looked like what the Bible describes that they would study it and if necessary update their view of what the natural world is. They wouldn't refuse to study it because of methodological naturalism. This to me represents the power of pragmatism. 

 

I think Moral Realism (the belief that morality actually exists and isn't subjective) compared with anti-Moralism is actually a fairly defensible position. I think most people here can agree that appealing to god for objective morality is a non-sequitur anyway. Basically something isn't moral simply because god said so which is Divine Command Theory. If morality exists it does so independent from god. If one is a moral realist it allows a person to fully reject with prejudice any claim that atrocities such as killing the Amalekites, the Holocaust, or deaths under communism are actually not really morally repugnant and disgusting but simply subjective. Morality is contextual to intelligent life but photosynthesis is contextual to plants that doesn't mean it isn't an objective phenomenon. Morality ultimately comes from the same universe that makes everything else in reality. I think people underappreciate the work of Sam Harris in the moral landscape making the case for objective morality. I will add one link that helped me a lot on this particular topic. 

 

I have already rambled way to much so I will try to highlight some other things quickly.

 

Preference Hedonism is the belief that we should pursue the things in life that gives some sort of pleasure to the person who is pursuing it. This is apposed to asceticism which sees pain as an end in itself.

 

Individual Liberty keeps preference Hedonism from infringing on the preferences of others so does rule Utilitarianism. This is apposed to deontology which defends universal moral absolutes such as not lying which cannot change during certain contexts.

 

Existentialism allows someone to create their own meaning in life even if it isn't literally true as an act of freedom against a world which gives no clear direction on life choices such as career, life partner or joining the military because you can not possibly know which choice is actually right due to chance and because you cannot see the results until after the fact. Post-modernist Continental philosophy can take this to an extreme where facts themselves are not objective. This is ludicrous to me personally.

 

Lastly while much of the world is deterministic or mechanistic I believe defining free will as the ability to change ones behavior to meet goals or to change ones desires is a fact proven through psychology. In that sense I am a compatibilist. 

 

So yeah that was a lot of blathering lol. Hope it was somewhat enlightening. 

 

That's weird, I responded yesterday and said I needed to sift through this. Will respond in depth soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, disillusioned said:

At the risk of leading us back down a road that nobody wants to travel, I have to say that I sympathise with those who reject labels as unhelpful. The thing is, people don't fit into predefined boxes. To say, for example, "I'm an atheist" does not convey any real information about me, and can lead people to form incorrect conclusions about what I believe. As such, claiming these labels is often counter-productive. This is why I don't actively claim any labels for myself. But I also don't refuse to wear a shoe that fits.

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I don't believe that any philosophical approach is comprehensive (or perhaps even can in principle be comprehensive). The underlying principle that I rely on the most is pragmatism. Methodological naturalism is also helpful. I'm also something of a nihilist. I reject the notion of objective morality, and some days I'm not even sure about the reality of objective truth. I'm happy to discuss this further if anyone is interested, and I'm certainly open to persuasion on all of these positions.

 

I guess I can understand that. I actually think it is interesting that you brought up nihilism. While I don't fully agree with Nietzsche I appreciate the school of existential philosophy from which he comes. I think his idea of man vs. superman can be quite inspiring while others find it nefarious. I think a lot of good philosophers appreciate his contributions. Pragmatism does seem to be the best approach that I can see so far that can fit other philosophical ideas under it's umbrella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.