A Few Thoughts In Defense Of Yoyo

[Grandpa Harley]

Open toed with Puce laces? That's the style Great Grandma Harley favours

 

Heavens no! The kind great-grandpa wore in the trenches, with whatever bit of string she might find for laces.

 

Mother always cuts the toes off in summer... and dyes the hairy string using chicken blood...

[Antlerman]

The things I hold with absolutely certainty I think of as truths, not The Truth. They provide small footholds with which we can get to a different place where we can talk about explicit understanding… the kind of explicit understanding we find in the natural sciences.

Are your premises you hold with absolute certainty open to question and examination, or the possibility they are in error?

 

I think people want to think of themselves as being correct Antlerman. That’s why they hold their beliefs as being true.

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

[white_raven23]

So, if yoyo is simply engaging in mental masturbation, what does he bring to the game? And more over why should I be more polite to him than I would someone whacking off on the bus next to me?

 

 

I suppose we could take "pictures"?

 

I'm serious. I was thinking of FSTDT. What if we had a section here JUST for dumb christian quotes experienced HERE, complete with their chosen pseudonym, and a direct link to the thread in which it appears? Maybe Ex-cers could also vote on favorites?

 

Put the wacking off on parade.

 

Bet it would work on the bus too: "OH HEY! LOOK AT THIS EVERYONE! THIS GUY IS YANKING ON HIS WILLY! SHOULD WE TIME HIM? HE DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE MUCH TO WORK WITH DOWN THERE...SURPRISED I EVEN NOTICED! IT BARELY EXTENDS BEYOND HIS PANTS EVEN WITH A STIFFY!"

[Legion]

The things I hold with absolutely certainty I think of as truths, not The Truth. They provide small footholds with which we can get to a different place where we can talk about explicit understanding… the kind of explicit understanding we find in the natural sciences.

Are your premises you hold with absolute certainty open to question and examination, or the possibility they are in error?

Absolutely open. Question away.

 

I think people want to think of themselves as being correct Antlerman. That’s why they hold their beliefs as being true.

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

I think you may be right. It stems from a desire that our knowledge and the decisions we base on it be secure.

[Eponymic]

I think that the emotion expressed against YoYo in the thread is evidence of what I'm trying to get at here. It is obvious that Ex-Christians FEEL that YoYo should submit to reason. YoYo on the other hand FEELS that he must maintain his faith, even in the face of reason. YoYo also feels that reason should have a place, but the feeling that directs him to maintain faith is stronger than the feeling that gives credence to reason. Thus he must maintain faith.

 

I've already state as much before to him. YoYo is just too married to his need for faith that he is not at a place to allow himself to see the reasons the Bible fails. No matter how much he wants to use reason, reason will always lose for him as long as he lets religion get in the way.

[Antlerman]

The things I hold with absolutely certainty I think of as truths, not The Truth. They provide small footholds with which we can get to a different place where we can talk about explicit understanding… the kind of explicit understanding we find in the natural sciences.

Are your premises you hold with absolute certainty open to question and examination, or the possibility they are in error?

Absolutely open. Question away.

If they're open, then they're not absolutely certain, are they? There's a difference between "certainty" and absolute certainty. Most people when they say "certainty" mean a high degree of confidence, or conditional certainty, or the dread word, 'relative' certainty. The fact that yours are open means you are not absolutely certain of them. If you were, the discussion would not be open.

 

I think people want to think of themselves as being correct Antlerman. That’s why they hold their beliefs as being true.

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

I think you may be right. It stems from a desire that our knowledge and the decisions we base on it be secure.

getting there... Where does that 'desire' come from? What is that desire based on? Something rational, or something irrational like anxiety?

[Legion]

The things I hold with absolutely certainty I think of as truths, not The Truth. They provide small footholds with which we can get to a different place where we can talk about explicit understanding… the kind of explicit understanding we find in the natural sciences.

Are your premises you hold with absolute certainty open to question and examination, or the possibility they are in error?

Absolutely open. Question away.

If they're open, then they're not absolutely certain, are they? There's a difference between "certainty" and absolute certainty. Most people when they say "certainty" mean a high degree of confidence, or conditional certainty, or the dread word, 'relative' certainty. The fact that yours are open means you are not absolutely certain of them. If you were, the discussion would not be open.

Not at all. I am certain that they will withstand strutiny and questions. I am open. I will entertain the possibility of error as a means to demonstrate their truth to you.

 

I think people want to think of themselves as being correct Antlerman. That’s why they hold their beliefs as being true.

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

I think you may be right. It stems from a desire that our knowledge and the decisions we base on it be secure.

getting there... Where does that 'desire' come from? What is that desire based on? Something rational, or something irrational like anxiety?

I have no anxiety. Only a desire to obtain explicit understanding.

[Grandpa Harley]

I think that the emotion expressed against YoYo in the thread is evidence of what I'm trying to get at here. It is obvious that Ex-Christians FEEL that YoYo should submit to reason. YoYo on the other hand FEELS that he must maintain his faith, even in the face of reason. YoYo also feels that reason should have a place, but the feeling that directs him to maintain faith is stronger than the feeling that gives credence to reason. Thus he must maintain faith.

 

I've already state as much before to him. YoYo is just too married to his need for faith that he is not at a place to allow himself to see the reasons the Bible fails. No matter how much he wants to use reason, reason will always lose for him as long as he lets religion get in the way.

 

It's just a shame the pansy can't FEEL that his world view would be more appropriate somewhere else...

 

HAs he ever said why he's here, other than to be irritating? It appears to be his raison d'etre, based on his profile and early posts... the other question is, why has he dragged his raddled carcase back after that hiatus?

 

I'm not seeing much by way of 'defence' for the turd...

[white_raven23]

It appears to be his raison d'etre, based on his profile and early posts... the other question is, why has he dragged his raddled carcase back after that hiatus?

 

There are some christians who get their ears boxed here...go away....and them come back. I can only suppose 2 possibilities.

 

1 we are like drugs. They know we are bad for them because we challenge their faith, but they cannot resist the "rush" they get from being 'persecuted' for their faith. Their churches talk big about christian persecution, but society in general is quite tolerant. This clashes with their worldview and what they are taught at church, so they seek out places (and people) who will persecute them properly. This way, they hide their own doubts, and don't need to question anything else about their religion.

 

2 Someone at their church has recently offended or rejected them in a disturbingly "un-christlike" manner. Witnessing unchristian behavior from fellow christians causes doubts and questions to rear their ugly heads. They come back here. They read. If they chime in on threads, they don't try to explain away the bible, or justify any behaviors therin. If they are feeling very brave, they may get to the point where they complain about their tri-squid (if they have one), but they may not quite be ready to kick the door all the way open and ask for it to be removed because they are at the point of deeply questioning their beliefs. They may have to retreat and disappear and reappear a few more times before ultimately deciding for themselves which side of the fence they belong on.

[Ouroboros]

I think Yoyo comes back here because he doesn't fit in with the other Christians.

[Antlerman]

The things I hold with absolutely certainty I think of as truths, not The Truth. They provide small footholds with which we can get to a different place where we can talk about explicit understanding… the kind of explicit understanding we find in the natural sciences.

Are your premises you hold with absolute certainty open to question and examination, or the possibility they are in error?

Absolutely open. Question away.

If they're open, then they're not absolutely certain, are they? There's a difference between "certainty" and absolute certainty. Most people when they say "certainty" mean a high degree of confidence, or conditional certainty, or the dread word, 'relative' certainty. The fact that yours are open means you are not absolutely certain of them. If you were, the discussion would not be open.

Not at all. I am certain that they will withstand strutiny and questions. I am open. I will entertain the possibility of error as a means to demonstrate their truth to you.

You are absolutely certain they will withstand scrutiny? Perhaps to the point it will become an irrational defense of that absolute belief?? Starting to see my point?

 

I think people want to think of themselves as being correct Antlerman. That’s why they hold their beliefs as being true.

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

I think you may be right. It stems from a desire that our knowledge and the decisions we base on it be secure.

getting there... Where does that 'desire' come from? What is that desire based on? Something rational, or something irrational like anxiety?

I have no anxiety. Only a desire to obtain explicit understanding.

loop the loop. Back to my question, what drives the desire for us to believe our beliefs are absolutely true, meaning what's true for me MUST be true for everyone?

[R. S. Martin]

To put you foot on a line and say "Here and no further", to me denies life, it denies our humanness, and is itself to use Dawkins term a "Delusion".

Cogitamus ergo sumus. Lingua est a secui nostrum. I will go no further.

Explain the context in which Desrcartes made that statement? Was he out to establish absolutes, or something else?

 

 

P.S. Once you've done that, answer if Descartes is the authoritative source of truth for modern man ever since the 1600's?

 

Can we have the discussion in English, please? I don't know Latin.

[Legion]

Can we have the discussion in English, please? I don't know Latin.

 

Ruby I have simply asserted that I know with absolutely certainty that we exist and that language is a part of us.

 

Cogitamus ergo sumus. - We think therefore we are.

 

Lingua est a secui nostrum. - Language is a part of us.

 

Antlerman seems to have an issue with this, which I don't understand.

[R. S. Martin]

Can we have the discussion in English, please? I don't know Latin.

 

Ruby I have simply asserted that I know with absolutely certainty that we exist and that language is a part of us.

 

Cogitamus ergo sumus. - We think therefore we are.

 

Lingua est a secui nostrum. - Language is a part of us.

 

Antlerman seems to have an issue with this, which I don't understand.

 

 

Thanks for the translation. I haven't been following all of AM's posts because I tend to get lost. However, I've heard Decartes's saying many times. It's simply absurd so far as I am concerned. I am, therefore I think. I exist first, and think secondly. Language is not me. It is a mere tool. That's from a psychological perspective as I know myself. I don't know enough philosopical treatises.

[Legion]

Alrighty then.

[Antlerman]

Thanks for the translation. I haven't been following all of AM's posts because I tend to get lost. However, I've heard Decartes's saying many times. It's simply absurd so far as I am concerned. I am, therefore I think. I exist first, and think secondly. Language is not me. It is a mere tool. That's from a psychological perspective as I know myself. I don't know enough philosopical treatises.

No offense taken. I understand the cultural subtleties that can lead to difficulties in getting what's being said. It's how I choose to communicate through them. But a point of correction, Descartes' statement was not I am, therefore I think. It was the other way around. "I think, therefore I exist" It's a matter of reductionism in the face of doubt. To strip away all other questions in philosophy that lead to doubt, to start with some basic premise on which to build. Descartes is really the father of modern of Western philosophy. But my argument has been that to tout that premise as an absolute, is to miss Descartes' point in it. It's out of context. A philosophical postmodern relativism came much later thought in philosophy. Descartes was not countering that, and his statement to be used to support absolutism against that is a bit of an anachronism.

 

 

P.S. LR, I've tried to be both leading and explicit. I don't know how at this point to be clearer.

[Ouroboros]

But a point of correction, Descartes' statement was not I am, therefore I think. It was the other way around. "I think, therefore I exist"

I think Ruby actually know that, but I think her point is that she believe the correct way should be the reversed; that the "thinking" ability is an emergence from the "existing" and that Descartes was wrong.

 

Did I understand you right Ruby?

[Internet Jesus]

I have no problem with Yoyo selling his snake oil by the gallon... however why not do it where it's just more oil in a festering vat of it rather than here?

 

ATM we have God boy calling people Fundamentalists and then getting pissy when I call him a cock-sucker...he wants to play name calling, I can do it better than he can without a blood pressure rise and probably come up with things most people find here vile if pressed... and HE IS PRESSING.... Basically anyone coming here selling snake oil is a troll, since they are after making an emotional response (someone going back to their vicious, nasty, blood-soaked, demon worshipping, stink hole faith)

 

If I wanted dog shit in my head I'd go to a Christian site...

 

Unless someone has a better reason for Yoyo to be here... then I'd be interested to know what they think it is the arse hole wants... Why the FUCK does he want to maintain his faith to us, if not to be irritating?

 

 

he's a shit gargling dickweed yes.

But remember the best of us and our position.

[Alice]

Seems like there are a number of interesting conversations happening in this thread ...

 

(1) AM and LR - I'd like to pitch in with a response to this question ...

 

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

 

and

 

Where does that 'desire' come from? What is that desire based on? Something rational, or something irrational like anxiety?

 

Doesn't this 'desire' come down to the balance between the evolutionary requirement of not being duped by another, plus the evolutionary need to hold fast to recieved truths? We are wired to be 'cautious' and 'careful' about adopting potentially erroneous beliefs and wired to keep on believing thoses things that have had useful applications for us.

 

(2) Chef, I think you have raised some interesting points about emotions and the essential part they place in our functioning. I'm with your sentiments in the OP and your subsequentl comments ... absolutely 100% ( ) Any examination of the endocrine system and the limbic systems of the body demonstrates how utterly intertwined our emotions are in all our thinking and doing.

 

I find it interesting that people object to be called 'emotional' - The problem we have with this is the connatations that come with certain words and the picture this conjures up. Emotions - bad. Reason - good. Rational - good, irrational - bad.

 

This then links back to the conversation between AM and LR - no one likes to think they are being called insecure and rarely do they feel better if this is replaced by neurotic.

 

(3) Gramps and WR

 

Gramps - I love you ... but yawn yawn yawn.

 

It appears to be his raison d'etre, based on his profile and early posts... the other question is, why has he dragged his raddled carcase back after that hiatus?

 

There are some christians who get their ears boxed here...go away....and them come back. I can only suppose 2 possibilities.

 

1 we are like drugs. They know we are bad for them because we challenge their faith, but they cannot resist the "rush" they get from being 'persecuted' for their faith. Their churches talk big about christian persecution, but society in general is quite tolerant. This clashes with their worldview and what they are taught at church, so they seek out places (and people) who will persecute them properly. This way, they hide their own doubts, and don't need to question anything else about their religion.

 

2 Someone at their church has recently offended or rejected them in a disturbingly "un-christlike" manner. Witnessing unchristian behavior from fellow christians causes doubts and questions to rear their ugly heads. They come back here. They read. If they chime in on threads, they don't try to explain away the bible, or justify any behaviors therin. If they are feeling very brave, they may get to the point where they complain about their tri-squid (if they have one), but they may not quite be ready to kick the door all the way open and ask for it to be removed because they are at the point of deeply questioning their beliefs. They may have to retreat and disappear and reappear a few more times before ultimately deciding for themselves which side of the fence they belong on.

 

Isn't this the kind of reasoning too many christians apply to our deconversions and that tends to really piss people off? - the suggestion that changing views are a response to ' being hurt or let down by the church', or beguilement by the devil and a giving in to addictive temptation.

[Grandpa Harley]

Then how do you suggest I handle the grinning leper? Turn the other cheek while he tries to tell us that horse shit taste good?

 

and welcome back... drop me a PM to let me know how things went!

[Alice]

Gramps,

 

thanks for the welcome - the exam was awful and non of the area's I'd learnt inside out came up. Still waiting on results.

 

what would I suggest?

 

-if you don't like reading what someone has written - pop them on ignore pops.

-if you enjoy wording those insults just a' carry on doing what you are doing, and ignore my yawning

-if you want to influence your target's thinking, have a think about how their emotions and thinking might be interlinked and maybe shape your responses accordingly.

[Grandpa Harley]

Influence his thinking? That presupposes that the idiot think in the first place...

[Antlerman]

Seems like there are a number of interesting conversations happening in this thread ...

 

(1) AM and LR - I'd like to pitch in with a response to this question ...

 

Why do they want to think of themselves as being correct? That's my point. Why? What drives that?

 

and

 

Where does that 'desire' come from? What is that desire based on? Something rational, or something irrational like anxiety?

 

Doesn't this 'desire' come down to the balance between the evolutionary requirement of not being duped by another, plus the evolutionary need to hold fast to recieved truths? We are wired to be 'cautious' and 'careful' about adopting potentially erroneous beliefs and wired to keep on believing thoses things that have had useful applications for us.

 

{{{{Alice}}}} You've been missed!

 

Thank you for your input here. Yes, there is an evolutionary drive built into us to be guarded and protective about the 'rules', basically stemming from the idea of fairness I suppose which is seen in other primates in their social interactions. This would then seem to exert itself from the self to others in saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" when the sense of fairness is violated. What drives that sense of exertion of 'truth' is an emotional response to a cognitive processing that the rules have been violated. So as you say next to Chef, it's both rational and emotional. I agree.

 

But the next point I was getting to in this is that of taking that basic idea of rules of fairness when they encounter another tribe with their own fully developed system of social rules or "truths", and then responded to them with that same process of a rational recognition that the order is wrong, then respond emotionally by trying to exert their rules as the right ones.

 

Here's my thoughts. When smart primates (humans) are confronted with this array of truths from the vast array of social groups outside their personal Monkeysphere (the Social Brain Hypothesis ) all sorts of interesting things happen, not the least of which is they feel an inherent sense of unbalance or 'anxiety'. They see the 'other' monkeys outside their group as 2-dimensional monkeys archetypes, rather than the more 3-dimensional monkeys archetypes of their closer order, and they apply filler 'signs' to these 2-D monkeys in order to attempt to relate to them.

 

They then project their ideas of order and truth onto them, and respond emotionally with anxiety to them not following their ideas of the rules, or notions of truth! That projection of one group's developed rules or 'truths' as absolute for all monkeys everywhere to me seems driven by an emotional need to process how they see the importance of their own rules of order and bring a certain equilibrium to that stress. Some are more driven by this need to find balance than others following along the lines of the standard distribution curve. Everyone fits somewhere on the line.

 

This is neurotic behavior as a whole species. It's not a criticism of any individuals, it an evaluation of the entire species. Imaging ourselves as hairy and naked living in a vast wild forest of billions of monkeys. Do you hear the chattering and clattering, screaming and jumping around, shaking branches, throwing leaves, all frantically trying to find balance in that vast forest filled with millions and millions of little groups? It's a mess. How can they not be neurotic? All in all we do pretty well, but my point was that underlying all of it is an inherent anxiety and neuroses about it all.

 

Gives it an interesting perspective, doesn't it? I guess to me realizing something like helps to put things into a light where we shouldn't take ourselves and our notions of truth too seriously. To laugh at one's own folly is the quickest way to not feel a need to go to war.

 

This then links back to the conversation between AM and LR - no one likes to think they are being called insecure and rarely do they feel better if this is replaced by neurotic.

But doesn't it lessen the blow to our illusions about ourselves to include every human who has ever lived, is living, and will live into that pile?

 

Again, I'm sorry if any one individual took that as me calling them personally neurotic, as in the way we speak of those with greater aberrations on the standard distribution curve. To me the whole curve has neurotic as a baseline and everyone fits on there somewhere, some more neurotic, some less, but still neurotic nonetheless.

 

What really is salvation, but maybe an escape from our natures?

 

 

Nice to have you back. Let the party begin!

[Alice]

But the next point I was getting to in this is that of taking that basic idea of rules of fairness when they encounter another tribe with their own fully developed system of social rules or "truths", and then responded to them with that same process of a rational recognition that the order is wrong, then respond emotionally by trying to exert their rules as the right ones.

 

And maybe an example of this might be deciding that someone from another tribe with their own set of 'truths' - is an idiot incapable of thinking (this comment's for you to consider Gramps)

 

Here's my thoughts. When smart primates (humans) are confronted with this array of truths from the vast array of social groups outside their personal Monkeysphere (the Social Brain Hypothesis ) all sorts of interesting things happen, not the least of which is they feel an inherent sense of unbalance or 'anxiety'. They see the 'other' monkeys outside their group as 2-dimensional monkeys archetypes, rather than the more 3-dimensional monkeys archetypes of their closer order, and they apply filler 'signs' to these 2-D monkeys in order to attempt to relate to them.

 

They then project their ideas of order and truth onto them, and respond emotionally with anxiety to them not following their ideas of the rules, or notions of truth! That projection of one group's developed rules or 'truths' as absolute for all monkeys everywhere to me seems driven by an emotional need to process how they see the importance of their own rules of order and bring a certain equilibrium to that stress. Some are more driven by this need to find balance than others following along the lines of the standard distribution curve. Everyone fits somewhere on the line.

 

This is neurotic behavior as a whole species. It's not a criticism of any individuals, it an evaluation of the entire species. Imaging ourselves as hairy and naked living in a vast wild forest of billions of monkeys. Do you hear the chattering and clattering, screaming and jumping around, shaking branches, throwing leaves, all frantically trying to find balance in that vast forest filled with millions and millions of little groups? It's a mess. How can they not be neurotic? All in all we do pretty well, but my point was that underlying all of it is an inherent anxiety and neuroses about it all.

 

I see what you are saying here - about us being neurotic as a species. - Still a hard topic to broach - and probably for this very reason!

 

Gives it an interesting perspective, doesn't it? I guess to me realizing something like helps to put things into a light where we shouldn't take ourselves and our notions of truth too seriously. To laugh at one's own folly is the quickest way to not feel a need to go to war.

 

 

I like this. Once we are able to laugh at ourselves - we are at our least neurotic. I have found my ability to laugh at myself is dependent in part on how 'secure' and confident I feel and how much I am 'in control' of my own predicament. So I think I would say - it is not so much the ability to laugh at one's own folly that averts war - but the factors that make it possible to laugh. I'm not sure that we can laugh at ourselves whilst we feel threatened?

 

What really is salvation, but maybe an escape from our natures?

 

Now rather than 'escape' from our nature being the route (or root even) of salvation - I'd suggest LR's favourite 'U' word here - understanding. I guess the two would go hand in hand, for we cannot escape or leave behind what we do not understand. My concern about the notion of 'escape' is that maybe this incorporates too much negativity about human nature.

 

Nice to have you back. Let the party begin!

 

It's nice to be back. I've been immersed in anatomy, physiology and pathology for weeks. It's good to have conversation again! Seems that emotions are key in all spheres!

[sojourner]

I tend to see it like Ruby. We are not our thoughts nor the thinker but the awareness that makes all that possible. I am therefore I think.

 

But, when we see ourselves AS our thoughts and AS the thinker then thoughts become who we are and who we are is very threatened when someone doesnt agree with us or challanges us. We cant be too open to being wrong or our thoughts not being absolute or our ego is threatened.

 

PS Ruby I dont know if you would see it this way or not, just went off your one stmt of turning that around.

 

sojourner