Welcome to Gaia! ::

Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

I_Write_Ivre
Maltese_Falcon91
SantaniasGirl

I just want to offer up a facepalm for the fact that this thread seemed to be wrapping up on a respectful note, when it got transferred from WF to the subforum it sort of belonged to from the beginning. And then all hell broke loose.

neutral

This is why I don't set foot outside of WF.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

5,450 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Kita-Ysabell
I_Write_Ivre
Maltese_Falcon91
SantaniasGirl

I just want to offer up a facepalm for the fact that this thread seemed to be wrapping up on a respectful note, when it got transferred from WF to the subforum it sort of belonged to from the beginning. And then all hell broke loose.

neutral

This is why I don't set foot outside of WF.


Yeah, so I've noticed. -_- I gotta say, it was a 9/10 victory until it placed here, and sadly, it went downhill from there... *sighs* Oh well, I suppose that's just how life goes, 'ay?
Whispertruth's avatar

Invisible Seeker

15,750 Points
  • Champion 300
  • Partygoer 500
  • Seasoned Warrior 250
You sound like you should be a Mason. Orthodoxy does say that it is the true religion and has the history to prove it is the oldest Christian tradition in the world. Religion doesn't bring destruction, ignorant men do. God has a perfect will for us, but allows us to use our free will (which is one of the 3 ways we were created in His image). There is also His permissible will. Spiritual things happen to spiritual people, which is why nothing other worldly has happened to you. Why do you think there are so many Christians? We do get proof. We have spiritual experiences. I wish you would read one book. The Lives of the Desert Fathers. It may challenge some of your thinking. The Philokalia is also an amazing collection of brilliant minds.
The Catfish Blues's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

5,600 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Tycoon 200
SantaniasGirl
Kita-Ysabell
I_Write_Ivre
Maltese_Falcon91
SantaniasGirl

I just want to offer up a facepalm for the fact that this thread seemed to be wrapping up on a respectful note, when it got transferred from WF to the subforum it sort of belonged to from the beginning. And then all hell broke loose.

neutral

This is why I don't set foot outside of WF.


Yeah, so I've noticed. -_- I gotta say, it was a 9/10 victory until it placed here, and sadly, it went downhill from there... *sighs* Oh well, I suppose that's just how life goes, 'ay?
ED isn't a hug box, its a debate forum. People have strong opinions but so what? You quoted me. And if you can't differentiate yourself from the discussion then maybe you should steer clear of ED.
The Catfish Blues
ED isn't a hug box, its a debate forum. People have strong opinions but so what? You quoted me. And if you can't differentiate yourself from the discussion then maybe you should steer clear of ED.


Problem is that they were complaining that the thread was moved to the ED. It was initially in the Writers' forum, it appears, so that debate wasn't exactly what they were looking for.

Honestly, the criticism that the OP levies against God can easily become a criticism against reason, for Reason becomes the embodiment of totalitarianism. What goes against reason is then subject to oppression. Whose "Reason" are we going by? How do we decide whose to enforce?
The Catfish Blues's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

5,600 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Tycoon 200
Kiumaru
The Catfish Blues
ED isn't a hug box, its a debate forum. People have strong opinions but so what? You quoted me. And if you can't differentiate yourself from the discussion then maybe you should steer clear of ED.


Problem is that they were complaining that the thread was moved to the ED. It was initially in the Writers' forum, it appears, so that debate wasn't exactly what they were looking for.

Honestly, the criticism that the OP levies against God can easily become a criticism against reason, for Reason becomes the embodiment of totalitarianism. What goes against reason is then subject to oppression. Whose "Reason" are we going by? How do we decide whose to enforce?
Quote:
when it got transferred from WF to the subforum it sort of belonged to from the beginning.

I think they wanted it moving here.

And isn't totalitarianism against reason, and I think reason is being contrasted against the irrationality of religion.
The Catfish Blues
I think they wanted it moving here.

And isn't totalitarianism against reason, and I think reason is being contrasted against the irrationality of religion.


It doesn't look like the person who you were arguing against did.

Reason becomes the new regime. If someone was doing something we consider "unreasonable", wouldn't we want to suppress that action? But then that merely brings up a new question:

Whose reason should we accept as Reason?
The Catfish Blues's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

5,600 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Tycoon 200
Kiumaru
The Catfish Blues
I think they wanted it moving here.

And isn't totalitarianism against reason, and I think reason is being contrasted against the irrationality of religion.


It doesn't look like the person who you were arguing against did.

Reason becomes the new regime. If someone was doing something we consider "unreasonable", wouldn't we want to suppress that action? But then that merely brings up a new question:

Whose reason should we accept as Reason?
mine smile ,

you realise I was agreeing with the OP on his beliefs on religion being a blight on society right?

any way's reason is a way of critiquing and logically working something out based on rational and critical thinking, as opposed to just accepting something because God said so, which means society cannot grow and adapt and change to fit its own needs. It doesn't have to be totalitarian, wheras a society based on an unchanging deity's laws is. Look at gay marriage for example, religion, specifically Christianity, Islam and bahai'sm state that gay marriage and homosexuality are wrong because God says so. Now there is no democratic way to debate this because god said so, and thats it. Whereas using reason and logic, one can look at all the aspects of it critically and justify why it is ok/wrong. You can't just say "because" using reason. It also involves using logic and using rational thinking, rather than irrational listening to a bronze age tribe. It was thanks to reason that we had the enlightenment and we have come a lot further in europe thanks to this. Reason is a far more democratic process than just listening to God.

Now it can bring in intuition, as you can see from my mbti i'm an intuitive feeler(INFP), I operate through my intuition and decide using my feelings, but you still have to justify them, you still have to back up what you want and justify it which is why using reason is far far better. It shouldn't matter in today's society because reason in our society has shown itself to far far outshine bronze age "shellfish is bad because" reasoning.
The Catfish Blues
Kiumaru
The Catfish Blues
I think they wanted it moving here.

And isn't totalitarianism against reason, and I think reason is being contrasted against the irrationality of religion.


It doesn't look like the person who you were arguing against did.

Reason becomes the new regime. If someone was doing something we consider "unreasonable", wouldn't we want to suppress that action? But then that merely brings up a new question:

Whose reason should we accept as Reason?
mine smile ,

you realise I was agreeing with the OP on his beliefs on religion being a blight on society right?

any way's reason is a way of critiquing and logically working something out based on rational and critical thinking, as opposed to just accepting something because God said so, which means society cannot grow and adapt and change to fit its own needs. It doesn't have to be totalitarian, wheras a society based on an unchanging deity's laws is. Look at gay marriage for example, religion, specifically Christianity, Islam and bahai'sm state that gay marriage and homosexuality are wrong because God says so. Now there is no democratic way to debate this because god said so, and thats it. Whereas using reason and logic, one can look at all the aspects of it critically and justify why it is ok/wrong. You can't just say "because" using reason. It also involves using logic and using rational thinking, rather than irrational listening to a bronze age tribe. It was thanks to reason that we had the enlightenment and we have come a lot further in europe thanks to this. Reason is a far more democratic process than just listening to God.

Now it can bring in intuition, as you can see from my mbti i'm an intuitive feeler(INFP), I operate through my intuition and decide using my feelings, but you still have to justify them, you still have to back up what you want and justify it which is why using reason is far far better. It shouldn't matter in today's society because reason in our society has shown itself to far far outshine bronze age "shellfish is bad because" reasoning.


Did I say something to make you question that I realized that you were agreeing with the OP? I, personally, don't think that simply embracing logic and reason would fix everything. For all of the Enlightenment values that we hold, we hold the seeds for a new totalitarian idealism. A sort of Hegelian vision of pure reason, pure logic, and pure rationality (or should I say Reason, Logic, and Rationality?) where everything can be neatly categorized, documented, understood, and dissected into human Knowledge for our utilization of these categories to refine ourselves towards this Perfection is only making a new God.

The new Absolute. The new Supreme. The new Good.

Yes, we can say that we can make it a democratic process, but that only runs into the problem of why we should accept what the majority dictates as the best. It would be an imposition of someone's idea that we should do what the majority says that we should do. Reason is our tool and we shouldn't forget that. And it's a tool that wasn't crafted with everyone's consent. There will always be those who are oppressed and those who we are somehow disenfranchising.

And this is why I am weary of simply scrapping religion and clinging onto science, reason, and Enlightenment values. We're merely supplementing one Ideal for another at that point. We are trying to fill a hole that we perceive to be there. Yet can we truly fill that hole with Reason, Rationality, Logic, and Science? Who dictates these ideas? Whose ideas of those Ideals should we accept? We should take a closer look at these things. How do we construct our ideals? How do we implement them? And who will we end up oppressing because of it?
Kiumaru
The Catfish Blues
Kiumaru
The Catfish Blues
I think they wanted it moving here.

And isn't totalitarianism against reason, and I think reason is being contrasted against the irrationality of religion.


It doesn't look like the person who you were arguing against did.

Reason becomes the new regime. If someone was doing something we consider "unreasonable", wouldn't we want to suppress that action? But then that merely brings up a new question:

Whose reason should we accept as Reason?
mine smile ,

you realise I was agreeing with the OP on his beliefs on religion being a blight on society right?

any way's reason is a way of critiquing and logically working something out based on rational and critical thinking, as opposed to just accepting something because God said so, which means society cannot grow and adapt and change to fit its own needs. It doesn't have to be totalitarian, wheras a society based on an unchanging deity's laws is. Look at gay marriage for example, religion, specifically Christianity, Islam and bahai'sm state that gay marriage and homosexuality are wrong because God says so. Now there is no democratic way to debate this because god said so, and thats it. Whereas using reason and logic, one can look at all the aspects of it critically and justify why it is ok/wrong. You can't just say "because" using reason. It also involves using logic and using rational thinking, rather than irrational listening to a bronze age tribe. It was thanks to reason that we had the enlightenment and we have come a lot further in europe thanks to this. Reason is a far more democratic process than just listening to God.

Now it can bring in intuition, as you can see from my mbti i'm an intuitive feeler(INFP), I operate through my intuition and decide using my feelings, but you still have to justify them, you still have to back up what you want and justify it which is why using reason is far far better. It shouldn't matter in today's society because reason in our society has shown itself to far far outshine bronze age "shellfish is bad because" reasoning.


Did I say something to make you question that I realized that you were agreeing with the OP? I, personally, don't think that simply embracing logic and reason would fix everything. For all of the Enlightenment values that we hold, we hold the seeds for a new totalitarian idealism. A sort of Hegelian vision of pure reason, pure logic, and pure rationality (or should I say Reason, Logic, and Rationality?) where everything can be neatly categorized, documented, understood, and dissected into human Knowledge for our utilization of these categories to refine ourselves towards this Perfection is only making a new God.

The new Absolute. The new Supreme. The new Good.

Yes, we can say that we can make it a democratic process, but that only runs into the problem of why we should accept what the majority dictates as the best. It would be an imposition of someone's idea that we should do what the majority says that we should do. Reason is our tool and we shouldn't forget that. And it's a tool that wasn't crafted with everyone's consent. There will always be those who are oppressed and those who we are somehow disenfranchising.

And this is why I am weary of simply scrapping religion and clinging onto science, reason, and Enlightenment values. We're merely supplementing one Ideal for another at that point. We are trying to fill a hole that we perceive to be there. Yet can we truly fill that hole with Reason, Rationality, Logic, and Science? Who dictates these ideas? Whose ideas of those Ideals should we accept? We should take a closer look at these things. How do we construct our ideals? How do we implement them? And who will we end up oppressing because of it?


I have examples of what the value of Reason oppress if you need them.

They're are quite easy to find though. All you need to do is take how Reason considers something and reverse it, as the valuing of Reason commits violence against what is effectively infinite number of positions.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games