Tuesday, 07 August 2007
“Contra Pychen 4”
-Abstract Entities and Atheism (tediously written just for Pychen)
-My response to Pychen’s defense of Abstract Entities that he won’t respond to.
-The list of important questions Pychen won’t answer.
Pychen, in his never ending quest to stifle conversation for Jesus, decided that my last post dedicated exclusively to giving good answers to the issues he brought up was “just a rant,” and “not worth responding to.” This is roughly the equivalent of a slap in the face. I don't know what he was thinking:
He’s refused the rather simple avenues I’ve suggested for continuing the conversation and his reasons for that are not acceptable. While it is touching of course he’d rather talk to me on IM, we don’t get anywhere there either as I will get into later. I can’t as easily make a comprehensive case against his methodologies in the course of an IM conversation and he doesn’t have the right to distort what I’ve done here over his mere preference and pretend like I’m just going to bend over and take it. This post is entirely dedicated to comprehensively showing Pychen his own reflection without any apologies. He demands I return respect for his bigotry and that’s just not going to happen. Let’s see how long he can maintain his crazy denial of the obvious in the face of all I am about to present.
Pychen: Claiming that I accuse you of things that I did not, and taking my words out of context.
You can’t call what you are doing something else just because you don’t want to be saying that. I clearly defined what I meant:
“’Ontological bigotry’ means that as a theist you say that when people recognize the commonality of conscience that means something objective but when they are atheists it doesn’t exist and doesn’t mean anything. Therefore you are de-humanizing us with your negligent rhetoric *and* denying the obvious. I’m sure you have other motives in mind, but the end result is ontological bigotry and hairsplitting discrimination against atheist conscience for the sake of your *polemical* bigotry that absolutely excludes atheists from using their conscience to judge your God as good or evil without *any* discussion about content. Telling me that’s not what you mean does not make this go away from a logical standpoint.”
Notice how I already spearheaded what you just said…explained what ontological bigotry is and prophesied your response…
Perhaps you don’t recall all the things you’ve said? Fortunately I had some free time to go hunt for the context:
“Yes, the existence of God is like the nose on your face. You continue to over look him. No, everyone does know that they are accountable. Sure they don’t know God that clearly, but they know that they have wronged God.”
“I hope you don't own a gun or a knife, God help those around a person who say that morality is optional or a convention of their whim. There is an image of a person like that, look for him in the film "Schindler's List." maybe that is the best example of what you are saying about a guy with so much power that "don't have to be moral." You watch him as he sits out his patio with a gun firing at any one as he so pleased.”
Did you notice the consistent theme of arbitrarily defining atheists out of the equation? Do I say theists have no basis for morality? Do I say all theists are running from atheism? Do I say that everyone born innately knows they have a need for the scientific method? Do I appeal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to justify being a bigot and arbitrarily defining the opposition out of frame? What if I did? Would I get away with that crap? I think all of my rhetoric is consistent with the idea that people can be innocently mistaken in general while still maintaining the basic pretenses of being human. But I’m able to do that since my worldview allows for that pesky thing called nuance. Sure the non-existence of God puts a damper on the Christian’s basis for morality but it’s not like the Bible itself is absolutely devoid of moral content.
Oh yeah, while we’re on context, remember your previous nonsensical appeal to taking you “out of context”? Let me refresh your memory:
Notice that the context you said I was denying was already part of that post. And the first person who commented, commented again saying:
No one seemed to see things your way regardless because what you seem to be calling denied context is merely your pretension to being right no matter what:
“Don’t you get it, guys? I’m right. When I’m shown that I’m wrong that means I’ve been taken out of the context of always being right no matter what!” I think the fact you haven’t spoken even once on any of the content of my “God: Evil, Impotent, or Non-existent” settles your inability to be seriously critical about your own worldview and how easily you to just out of hand dismiss absolutely everything I say.
Pychen: I must say, that, as you know in person on our chats, thats you are not really talking with me as talking at me.
This isn’t about you, buddy. It’s about your arguments, ideas, and beliefs. Your refusal to take what I say seriously forces the discussion to be about your methodologies. If that reflects poorly on your competence or character, that's not my problem. I don’t have to be subject to your bigoted terms. Forgive me if I refuse to bow to your shell game. Just because that’s not what you want it to be doesn’t mean that’s not what it is. “I’m not racist. I just think black people are inferior to white people.” “I’m not an ontological bigot. I just think an atheist’s conscience isn’t a measure of morality unless he believes the same things I do about it.” You are not saying that we just believe different things about where the conscience came from and what it really is. You’re going a step further and saying there’s nothing moral in an atheist’s worldview. And that’s just not true.
If it wasn’t bigotry on your part, you’d have already interacted with the 99% of other things I’ve said instead of holding out. If your intentions actually mattered, you’d see what you were doing and adjust course appropriately. “Oh, I didn’t mean it that way. I’ll try something else.” I’ve listed three very simple options for a different course to take that you found “unbelievable.” Instead, what do you do, Pychen? Ask the same damn un-clarified question over and over and over again. You don’t interact with any other material. You don’t give any other information that would help sort it out. You blame me for everything. You constantly call my motivations and competence into question because of your own inadequacies. I had to sort through all the comments on Astrocreep’s site to get just a little more information. And when it comes down to it on IM all you do is ask me to think about it again! YOU DON’T EVEN SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC! I’m just supposed to “know.” And if I’m in full agreement with my own position still, god forbid, what do you do? Ask me to “think about it” again. I’m a nice guy, Pychen and damn easy to get along with. But you have to have an iota of something to work with first. And even if not…I’m still easy to get along with no matter how many times you eff it up. But you never give it a test drive…so what can I do? All you gotta do is drop your defensive nonsense and talk. I’ll be the same guy I was before we hit rough water.
Pychen: NQbass7 is asking some very good questions and responding to what I wrote/the points made. I think it would help you to read it. Not because he is not doing a good job, it is because he is doing a good job, and real interaction.
Did you happen to notice that NQbass7 even said I’ve answered that question you dishonestly say is holding up our conversation? Let me refresh your memory:
And let’s see what you said to Caveat Towers:
You want me to go count how many times I’ve given you the answer to your loaded question? Here’s the long list:
The concept of morality “stands above you” but that does not mean anything. Guiding behavioral patterns that appear to “stand above you” make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The selfish gene can’t entirely allow goodwill to be a matter of absolute free will. It’s still all in your head no matter how much it strikes you otherwise. There are many emotional fallacies in the human experience that come to equally erroneous conclusions by being extrapolated and wrongly projected as such.
Morality can come from non-morality just as houses can come from non-houses (bricks aren’t houses are they?). You aren't going to lose any sleep over the fact that circles in Photoshop and MSPaint are really made up of little squares are you? All you appeal to is the solipsism of your emotional continuum. It’s not some magic transcendent property of existence that should be hallowed above all else. It’s just an intellectually organized and socially influenced behavioral pattern based concurrently on survival and empathy for others that manifests in all sorts of ways such as social contract theory and projected divine mandates that makes perfect sense in terms of preserving evolutionary constructs for posterity. So what is really going on is that a complicated system of contingency (the ins and outs of morality) comes from a simpler system of contingency (the rules of the molecular world). Thus there is no cosmic breach of reality in an atheist universe as you would like to imagine. Prove that morality has some extra special place beyond the evolved structures of the pancreas and the spleen…the digestive system and anything else about evolutures such as ourselves. And prove that it is absolutely worthless if your claims about it are not true. Any atheist knows you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. Theism popped your emotional cherry and you’ve wedded the concept to god…pure and simple…and you can’t fathom it being any other way…and yet there are those moral atheists that don’t see any contradiction. Don’t knock it till you try it.
There are only so many ways to make morality work for our species…so it’s universal in terms of humanity and given its inherent logical function in preserving evolutures we could expect alien races to likely be subject to very similar empathetic terms.
Such moral demands are conditional. If you want the benefits of living in a society then you will live by those mutually agreed on rules. If you want the benefits of being a husband, then you will treat your wife with respect. If you want to have friends, then you treat them as you would have yourself be treated. If you don’t want those things then you don’t have to do any thing and no demands are upon you. There may be consequences for that or there may not be. These are very simple observations of the way things actually work. To assert otherwise does not close any Pandora’s box as you would make believe…it would be called lying.
I think I said that the core principles of morality work the same for everyone of our species independent of our choice to participate or not. Science shows that even monkeys show moral behavior. Any normal person that says, “Your morality doesn’t apply because I’m fundamentally different” can get a DNA test and be proven wrong and thus be subject to my good moral advice after all. They must have been listening to Stan Lee and not Richard Dawkins.
My theory: Morality is a communally externalized internal system that is universal in the average person and is subject to the voluntary contexts that individuals choose to participate in…and is ultimately a common behavioral pattern that was cultivated and refined by evolution as it happened to preserve our species over the long haul. Oh yeah...and all of this is based on the physical world in albeit abstract ways. And the physical world is an inevitable incidental part of the Allverse.
I inherited my mental system of moral buoyancy from my parents and ultimately from the process of evolution. It is an innate part of me. I didn’t put it there. It just is there. And if you deny that I have direct objective access to it you cripple your own worldview since the Bible makes the same basic LOCAL observation (as opposed to a GENERAL observation that perhaps God made it that way). In other words atheists point to the internal moral compass, and the Bible does as well. That’s common ground. The difference is what it is (physical or non), and how it got there (creation or evolution).
Good and evil are systemic tautologies of our inherited behavioral patterns common to our entire species…and to many other mammals as well at a base emotional level. The most significant difference seems to be our ability to intellectually compute moral circumstances conceptually.
How many times is the concept going to bounce off your thick meta-slammed skull that atheists are appealing to hardwired empathetic sensibilities that are already generally pre-established and are analogous to what you say is the “law of god in our hearts.” How we conceptualize that intellectually is the only difference…whether in social contract theory…or externalized in divine command theory…or what have you. They are all symptoms of the same inherited behavioral pathways that are universal in our species…because we’re the same species…that can be found permeating our wing of the tree of life that is the mammalian kingdom. If atheists who wanted to be moral couldn’t figure it out on their own on this basis, why wouldn’t they all come running back to theism?
Perhaps they meant, “ways of going about morality are made up” and not that the gist of morality itself is entirely arbitrary whim fulfillment but is constrained by the natural terms of being inherently moral prone evolutures.
Switching terms again. Just because there is no absolute ontological basis that transcends reality does not mean there is no basis whatsoever...or that that basis is too flakey to do the job. My ontological basis for morality has been field tested and refined by the trial and error of evolution over millions of years. Your basis is just some random ontological proposition you don't think you need to prove even exists much less how it came to be that way or why.
All humans in general have inherited solidarity that is immutable from a practical standpoint as it is genetically prescribed by evolution to be that way. It is not a “shot in the dark” as you would like to imagine. Pretending that you are more in touch with the arbitrary nature of the “image of god” is much more a shot in the dark than one’s own conscience. Thus however subjective you find atheism’s basis for morality to be…yours can only be that much worse.
Looks like at least 13 times. Where were you? Am I to believe NQBass7 is giving you a completely different answer? I don’t think so.
Pychen: I did not see real intreactions to what I was talkingabout.
More conversational bigotry as though my entire post, Contra Pychen 3 is devoid of all content and relates zilcho to anything you said (oh look, polemical bigotry). So we have ontological bigotry (atheist’s consciences are no good unless they believe what you do about them), polemical bigotry (we can’t talk about your god’s evils no matter what), conversational bigotry (ARU hasn’t tried, responded, interacted, answered anything), and lastly let’s not forget the moral bigotry (atheists are immoral for not accepting a god who doesn’t exist). And this all because it has to be emotionally true to you that you understand atheism and that its wrong no matter what and I’m not playing that game. I even deliberately skipped all interpersonal conflicts and tangents and hit all issues:
“For this round I’m going to avoid the personal confrontation issues, internal redundancy, and all the tangents and try to focus solely on Pychen’s latest misconceptions of atheism that he’s been posting on The_Astrocreep’s site.”
Didn’t matter did it? Its almost like atheists aren’t real people to you and as a result you can treat them like shit because they believe something differently than you do. What do you think? Don’t worry, God thinks that’s okay:
“Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
But those non-Jews can be ruled over ruthlessly…they have different arbitrary beliefs about what’s in heaven. That makes them inferior…not just different and worthy of equal respect on an individual case by case basis.
I’ll close by referencing another conversation of mine that is going much, much better (and that’s an understatement). I’ve gotten farther in two comments with Dan (not to mention infinity8ball in xanga messaging as well) than I have in 20 comments/posts with you, Pychen. How many people over on Astrocreep’s site did you cock block with your ever growing portfolio of Christian bigotry? Half a dozen? Is one wittle success for whatever reason with NQBass7 really that impressive? Reading over what he’s said…I can’t help but notice I’ve said the virtually the exact same things and covered virtually the exact same territory.