@agnophilo - Does Hitchens get repetitive for you? Like from debate-to-debate.
@Celestial_Teapot - A bit perhaps, very well-spoken though. But it’s not like you can debate the same thing over and over and not repeat yourself, lol.
@agnophilo - lol. tru dat. Even repeated, I still enjoy the stock-Hitchens stories and jokes.
@agnophilo - I agree. I think he is very well spoken. I think Dawkins is also
Dawkins was full of shit about 5 minutes into his part. His views on consolation are absolutely worthless. Humans have emotional needs, whether they are adults or children and I find it illogical and small-minded to ignore or supress the necessity of emotional well-being. We may aspire to be beings governed by higher ideals than the functions of our emotional responses but for the time being that is what we are. We have an emotion and wish to express it and at times have deep desires which disrupt our state of being if left unsatisfied. Horse shit =
50 minutes of my time is a bit too much of an investment…..
“Why was the amish girl excommunicated? Too mennonite.”
@striemmy - We have emotional needs, but the idea that we can only meet them through faith is a con.
@agnophilo - He didn’t liken it to a con. He trivialized its possibility for consolation to an infant sucker. As I understand it, most all children have suckers until such time that they are weaned from the breast, when they are able to take on eating adult foods and at which point it would be unhealthy to continue drinking breast milk. It is a necessary move so that their teeth don’t get dissolved into nubs, making it extremely difficult for them to process food. He provided no backing ofr his comparison. There is no emotional necessity to ‘grow up’ or behave in a manner that he would consider dignified. Emotional needs are a persistent, life-long issue and the closer we get to the end of life, the more consistent the emotional toll of death will become. Learning to self-soothe is as brutal and unnecessary in this context as it would be for a wailing child. It’s traumatizing. We learn to self-soothe as a defense mechanism to be prepared for a world in which we should expect no comfort. Why should anyone ever give up on the easy solution just to perform to someone else’s standard of adulthood? That boils my blood.
@striemmy - So what are you advocating exactly? That we should just adopt every fantasy we think will be comforting to us?
@agnophilo - You mean like the idea of soul mates? That marriages are meant to be life-long? That adults should behave in a dignified manner unsympathetic to their realistic needs? Yep, sure. It appears to already be the case across the board.
What pisses me off isn’t just that he chose to take a chomp at that but that he ropes it into the umbrella of general reason without applying the same rigorous approach to other concepts. He just called several billion adults in the world, living their lives as they choose, emotional infants for no better reason than disagreement with him.
@striemmy - These are red herring arguments. If you want to debate the individual merits of each of those concepts then fine, but you can’t seriously suggest that the idea that an invisible omnipotent being is controlling our lives and the idea that I should only bang my wife or girlfriend are in any way comparable, as if one has anything to do with the other or if one is valid it validates the other.
@agnophilo - Whoa whoa whoa the concept I’m touting is that the same rigorous standards be applied across the board to all beliefs that are essentially full of shit. I”m suggesting that there’s no consistency. And yes, they are comparable in the way they are treated. I could have said any freakin idea and as long as it’s treated in fundamentally the same manner it’s comparable.
@agnophilo - More than that, hasn’t it always been the impact on human action and motivation that the belief in god has had that is the issue atheists have with the religious institution? Don’t bs me man.
@striemmy - Has dawkins been going on about fate and soulmates or something? If not it’s a strawman.
@agnophilo - No and I didn’t attribute such an argument to him which means there’s no strawman. I simply pointed out that he is curiously silent on the matter, despite numerous publications and speaking appearances he has yet to tackle the more mundane and commonly occurring myths of humanity. I mean, I’m pretty sure there are more people on the planet that are married then there are that are christians, jews and muslims combined. Just saying. =)
@agnophilo - My point was that the comparison is made even more valid by the endpoint of the criticism dealing directly with human action and not with a deity. We’re arguing supposedly senseless human action versus supposedly senseless human action, aside from just matching logically lacking idea against logically lacking idea. Btw, I noticed you jumped straight to strawman. Nothing to say about anything else i said?
@striemmy - Attacking a weaker but superficially similar argument is a strawman, whether you explicitly put those words in your opponent’s mouth or not. And he’s talked about a great many things, you simply not knowing his position on something doesn’t matter. I’ve heard him talk about secular weddings, funerals and other rituals on several occasions.
@striemmy - If you want to know my opinion on marriage etc, then ask. But don’t pretend that you’ve defeated dawkins’ position by bringing up things he never talked about and which are irrelevant to what he was talking about here.
@agnophilo - Horse shit. Use the word right or don’t use it at all. Next, the idea I was attacking involved consistency regarding application of such rigorous and unyielding logic across the board by proponents of logic. The fact that you’ve heard him speak about secular marriages substantiates the point, genius, which means that now I have impetus to find something to latch this argument to him, done, and can attribute the idea to him and now and only now would it be appropriate to attempt, and fail, to call what I’m doing,m and not what I did already, a strawman. The idea had nothing to do with religious rites but somehow I see you totally missed the part where I handed you the entire basis for comparison on a platter, broken down to its base components, which have jack shit to do with religion and only raw humanism. Thanks for strawmanning me though. I generally enjoy seeing you go on and on for several comments down a road into a topic completely aside from anything I ever said in a thread. I mean, you do it so often.
I really, really don’t. You’re some guy on xanga. You could think that it’s okay to marry sheep and fuck them in the middle of town hall and no one would care because no one is compelled to listen to you. No one looks to you for their arguments. No one looks to you for quotes. No one is going to stop you in the street and tell you you changed their lives with a speaking tour you did. Don’t pretend you’ve defended his position by strawmanning an argument towards the consistency of his thinking and representation. And yeah, consistency to a position does matter. If you support a position that weakens another position you take then it definitely matters and draws this issue right into the spotlight. Now, if you you’d like to discuss that I’m on board but if you’re going to start spouting nonsense I’m out.
@striemmy - I have to say that you are the one that has been rude and swearing and all sorts of stuff since your first comment on here. I think Mark has tried to discuss nicely with you.
@Kristenmomof3 - Do you truly mark a discussion’s content and direction by curse words? The form my refutations, objections and statements are marked by colorful language and sarcasm where I see appropriate and not to be determined by anyone else’s standards of supposed decency, literary or otherwise. Agnophilo already knows well the form and function that my writing here on xanga takes as we often get into it, on his site, on my site, and abroad. Language is for expression and I feel I’ve expressed what I intended to with some modicum of accuracy. Now, if you’d like to discuss the relevance of courtesy in logic, I’m totally down for it.
@striemmy - I will say that I try to extend courtesy in my comments to everyone on their posts. At least I try to start out that way in my comments. I do not mark a discussions content and direction totally by cursing. I do not have an issue with people who curse or anything of the sort. But I was raised in the belief that it does show a bit about a persons intellect if they feel the need to throw in unnecessary cursing when they talk.
@Kristenmomof3 - Cursing is not a distinction of intelligence, but one of intimated class. Classless individuals just tend to not be particularly smart, in general, or so the statistics propose. That and elitists like to promote ideas that defame individuals they perceive as being beneath them in seemingly innocuous fashions. That said, it isn’t a need. I sometimes find myself in the mood to express my ideas with a more gentle literary voice and even have discussions where I may not even remotely insult a person. I generally carry on discussions conversationally though, and I do so like to curse like a sailor irl, so it does bleed over. No matter how extensive a person’s vocabulary is I doubt they ever find anything as universally understood and pithy as a good curse word.
Comments (24)
Interesting debate : )
@agnophilo - Does Hitchens get repetitive for you? Like from debate-to-debate.
@Celestial_Teapot - A bit perhaps, very well-spoken though. But it’s not like you can debate the same thing over and over and not repeat yourself, lol.
@agnophilo - lol. tru dat. Even repeated, I still enjoy the stock-Hitchens stories and jokes.
@agnophilo - I agree. I think he is very well spoken. I think Dawkins is also
Dawkins was full of shit about 5 minutes into his part. His views on consolation are absolutely worthless. Humans have emotional needs, whether they are adults or children and I find it illogical and small-minded to ignore or supress the necessity of emotional well-being. We may aspire to be beings governed by higher ideals than the functions of our emotional responses but for the time being that is what we are. We have an emotion and wish to express it and at times have deep desires which disrupt our state of being if left unsatisfied. Horse shit =
50 minutes of my time is a bit too much of an investment…..
@Celestial_Teapot - : )
“Why was the amish girl excommunicated? Too mennonite.”
@striemmy - We have emotional needs, but the idea that we can only meet them through faith is a con.
@agnophilo - He didn’t liken it to a con. He trivialized its possibility for consolation to an infant sucker. As I understand it, most all children have suckers until such time that they are weaned from the breast, when they are able to take on eating adult foods and at which point it would be unhealthy to continue drinking breast milk. It is a necessary move so that their teeth don’t get dissolved into nubs, making it extremely difficult for them to process food. He provided no backing ofr his comparison. There is no emotional necessity to ‘grow up’ or behave in a manner that he would consider dignified. Emotional needs are a persistent, life-long issue and the closer we get to the end of life, the more consistent the emotional toll of death will become. Learning to self-soothe is as brutal and unnecessary in this context as it would be for a wailing child. It’s traumatizing. We learn to self-soothe as a defense mechanism to be prepared for a world in which we should expect no comfort. Why should anyone ever give up on the easy solution just to perform to someone else’s standard of adulthood? That boils my blood.
@striemmy - So what are you advocating exactly? That we should just adopt every fantasy we think will be comforting to us?
@agnophilo - You mean like the idea of soul mates? That marriages are meant to be life-long? That adults should behave in a dignified manner unsympathetic to their realistic needs? Yep, sure. It appears to already be the case across the board.
What pisses me off isn’t just that he chose to take a chomp at that but that he ropes it into the umbrella of general reason without applying the same rigorous approach to other concepts. He just called several billion adults in the world, living their lives as they choose, emotional infants for no better reason than disagreement with him.
@striemmy - These are red herring arguments. If you want to debate the individual merits of each of those concepts then fine, but you can’t seriously suggest that the idea that an invisible omnipotent being is controlling our lives and the idea that I should only bang my wife or girlfriend are in any way comparable, as if one has anything to do with the other or if one is valid it validates the other.
@agnophilo - Whoa whoa whoa the concept I’m touting is that the same rigorous standards be applied across the board to all beliefs that are essentially full of shit. I”m suggesting that there’s no consistency. And yes, they are comparable in the way they are treated. I could have said any freakin idea and as long as it’s treated in fundamentally the same manner it’s comparable.
@agnophilo - More than that, hasn’t it always been the impact on human action and motivation that the belief in god has had that is the issue atheists have with the religious institution? Don’t bs me man.
@striemmy - Has dawkins been going on about fate and soulmates or something? If not it’s a strawman.
@striemmy - Yes, what’s your point?
@agnophilo - No and I didn’t attribute such an argument to him which means there’s no strawman. I simply pointed out that he is curiously silent on the matter, despite numerous publications and speaking appearances he has yet to tackle the more mundane and commonly occurring myths of humanity. I mean, I’m pretty sure there are more people on the planet that are married then there are that are christians, jews and muslims combined. Just saying. =)
@agnophilo - My point was that the comparison is made even more valid by the endpoint of the criticism dealing directly with human action and not with a deity. We’re arguing supposedly senseless human action versus supposedly senseless human action, aside from just matching logically lacking idea against logically lacking idea. Btw, I noticed you jumped straight to strawman. Nothing to say about anything else i said?
@striemmy - Attacking a weaker but superficially similar argument is a strawman, whether you explicitly put those words in your opponent’s mouth or not. And he’s talked about a great many things, you simply not knowing his position on something doesn’t matter. I’ve heard him talk about secular weddings, funerals and other rituals on several occasions.
@striemmy - If you want to know my opinion on marriage etc, then ask. But don’t pretend that you’ve defeated dawkins’ position by bringing up things he never talked about and which are irrelevant to what he was talking about here.
@agnophilo - Horse shit. Use the word right or don’t use it at all. Next, the idea I was attacking involved consistency regarding application of such rigorous and unyielding logic across the board by proponents of logic. The fact that you’ve heard him speak about secular marriages substantiates the point, genius, which means that now I have impetus to find something to latch this argument to him, done, and can attribute the idea to him and now and only now would it be appropriate to attempt, and fail, to call what I’m doing,m and not what I did already, a strawman. The idea had nothing to do with religious rites but somehow I see you totally missed the part where I handed you the entire basis for comparison on a platter, broken down to its base components, which have jack shit to do with religion and only raw humanism. Thanks for strawmanning me though. I generally enjoy seeing you go on and on for several comments down a road into a topic completely aside from anything I ever said in a thread. I mean, you do it so often.
I really, really don’t. You’re some guy on xanga. You could think that it’s okay to marry sheep and fuck them in the middle of town hall and no one would care because no one is compelled to listen to you. No one looks to you for their arguments. No one looks to you for quotes. No one is going to stop you in the street and tell you you changed their lives with a speaking tour you did. Don’t pretend you’ve defended his position by strawmanning an argument towards the consistency of his thinking and representation. And yeah, consistency to a position does matter. If you support a position that weakens another position you take then it definitely matters and draws this issue right into the spotlight. Now, if you you’d like to discuss that I’m on board but if you’re going to start spouting nonsense I’m out.
@striemmy - I have to say that you are the one that has been rude and swearing and all sorts of stuff since your first comment on here. I think Mark has tried to discuss nicely with you.
@Kristenmomof3 - Do you truly mark a discussion’s content and direction by curse words? The form my refutations, objections and statements are marked by colorful language and sarcasm where I see appropriate and not to be determined by anyone else’s standards of supposed decency, literary or otherwise. Agnophilo already knows well the form and function that my writing here on xanga takes as we often get into it, on his site, on my site, and abroad. Language is for expression and I feel I’ve expressed what I intended to with some modicum of accuracy. Now, if you’d like to discuss the relevance of courtesy in logic, I’m totally down for it.
@striemmy - I will say that I try to extend courtesy in my comments to everyone on their posts. At least I try to start out that way in my comments. I do not mark a discussions content and direction totally by cursing. I do not have an issue with people who curse or anything of the sort. But I was raised in the belief that it does show a bit about a persons intellect if they feel the need to throw in unnecessary cursing when they talk.
@Kristenmomof3 - Cursing is not a distinction of intelligence, but one of intimated class. Classless individuals just tend to not be particularly smart, in general, or so the statistics propose. That and elitists like to promote ideas that defame individuals they perceive as being beneath them in seemingly innocuous fashions. That said, it isn’t a need. I sometimes find myself in the mood to express my ideas with a more gentle literary voice and even have discussions where I may not even remotely insult a person. I generally carry on discussions conversationally though, and I do so like to curse like a sailor irl, so it does bleed over. No matter how extensive a person’s vocabulary is I doubt they ever find anything as universally understood and pithy as a good curse word.
whaaaat… the video no longer available? sigh…