Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   His Dark Materials
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 61 of 69 (440188)
12-11-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AdminNosy
12-11-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Topic! for nator and GDR
the topic is also about a book--in fact, originally about a book. The OP mentions nothing about the movie, and was written well before the movie came out (more than four years ago).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AdminNosy, posted 12-11-2007 7:14 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 62 of 69 (440190)
12-11-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AdminNosy
12-11-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Topic! for nator and GDR
AdminNosy writes:
The topic is a movie! It is not the definition of faith or atheism.
The topic is about fantasy books, not a movie.
Any reply to this message by AdminNosy will result in a 24 hour suspension... of me.
Anyway, I highly recommend Towing Jehovah by James Morrow. It's about god deciding to die in order to really save us. While the book is entirely fiction, the author does make a very convincing case for why god would want us all to be atheists.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AdminNosy, posted 12-11-2007 7:14 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 69 (440221)
12-12-2007 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kuresu
12-11-2007 6:41 PM


And when the crystal is broken, he floats away and disappears.
That's who I'm talking about. The God. They break his prison and he dies.
And the angels in rebellion certainly don't think of him as god, but an imposter.
Irrelevant. If I put on a Santa Claus mask, sure, I'm an imposter Santa Claus; but the fact that I'm referred to that way doesn't mean that there's a real Santa Claus. It is possible to be a copy of something that never existed in the first place.
And if god was able to be locked up and put away, he certainly doesn't seem like the god spoken of who is all powerful and all knowing.
Regardless, he is the God that everybody is talking about, and they kill him, and he dies. They kill God. Pullman doesn't really leave the interpretation open to their being some greater, better God who steps into replace him. The clear moral of the story is that we're all better off without.
It's like you're tap-dancing around the ontological argument. Just because God might be described by some as all-powerful doesn't mean that he is; similarly, just because the God that actually existed wasn't all-powerful doesn't mean that there must have been a meta-God who was.
The perfect island doesn't exist, no matter how perfect you imagine it to be. So too the perfect being. That's why the ontological argument fails.
The only thing killed in this book is a specific idea of god, a largely fundamentalist idea of god, not the complete idea of god.
Which is what? Why leave it unsaid?
So that you can always claim that your specific idea of God hasn't been refuted, because you never actually say what it is?
I'm quite familiar with the "God-as-cypher" dodge of so-called moderate theism. It's not going to fly, here.
I think it would be a little much to say that jar is the same as ray, except ray says things with courage.
That's not what I mean. What I mean is that Jar and Ray believe in essentially the same religion; it's just that Ray has the courage to follow that religion to it's natural, stupid conclusion; and thus the things he says are so totally stupid. Whereas Jar simply doesn't have a strong enough belief in Christianity to not also inflect it with the worldly, extra-Christian truths that he simply can't close his eyes to.
There's a clear difference between moderates and fundies of any stripe.
Not when you're an atheist, there's not. Not when you can watch, over and over again, as the so-called moderates close ranks with their fundamentalist co-religionists lest religious belief not be spoken of with all reverence.
There's no clear difference. It's just a difference in degree of how seriously they take their beliefs. There's no fundamental difference in the beliefs; there's just a difference in what they're willing to say and do for their beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2007 6:41 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 2:25 AM crashfrog has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 64 of 69 (440222)
12-12-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
12-12-2007 1:42 AM


So that you can always claim that your specific idea of God hasn't been refuted, because you never actually say what it is
Does the fact I'm atheist escape you somehow?
The clear moral of the story is that we're all better off without.
No. We're better off without the Authority, the guy who's second in command and has the real power in heaven. metatron, I think his name is. That is who they are rebelling against, not the guy in prison. That is the guy they are actively trying to get rid of, not the guy in the prison. In fact, if I recall the story correctly, Will and Lyra basically run across the guy in the crystal by accident. Further, they open the cyrstal to ease the guy's suffering, which is quite different from trying to get rid of him. Not exactly a great death for god. All that was killed was an ineffectual, suffering old man (by Lyra and Will. Coulter and Ariel kill a different being, who is definitely not god).
Why leave it unsaid
I didn't leave it unsaid. What do you think I mean by the complete idea of god? The complete idea would be the collection of every belief about god that exists. From every single sect of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all the quite different (from each other) eastern religions, the pagan gods, etc. All Pullman has done is say that this one type of god is false, he has yet to touch upon the rest. And in interviews (as GDR was so kind to provide), Pullman says he attacking Christianity, not theism in general. Could this perhaps be why he chooses what looks to be the Roman Catholic Church and then infuses it with a great fundamentalist streak?
It's like you're tap-dancing around the ontological argument. Just because God might be described by some as all-powerful doesn't mean that he is; similarly, just because the God that actually existed wasn't all-powerful doesn't mean that there must have been a meta-God who was.
That's not my argument at all. My argument was that if the god in HDM (not metatron, but the guy who's in the crystal) is supposed to be all-powerful and whatnot, and it's clear he isn't, then that god clearly isn't god. Because god, by definition, must have those qualities. What's interesting is that metatron doesn't take the title of god, but rules in god's name. Further, he can't be the christian god (as traditionally defined) because he was once human (I forget which), and unlike jesus, didn't come from god. So that knocks out the whole eternal part of god.
So I fail to see where any character is killing any god to be rid of him. That is, I only see people attacking a demagogue who has hijacked religion.
The rest of your post is essentially wrong. In that, I can sum it up to "I'm right, you're wrong, that's all there is to it". All you've done is say that Jar and ray are the same in their beliefs.
Jar and Ray believe in essentially the same religion
Well, that is quite clearly bunk. How do the two have the same religion? Because they're both christian (or at least, claim to be)? Or does the difference between the two in regards to science and how to look at the world mean something? Does Jar's religion support lying for Jesus? Does ray's? Does one support looking objectively at the evidence? Or does one support twisting everything to fit the bible? I think these are important differences between their two religions. Jar has the courage to follow his religion to it's logical conclusion. Further, he is actively campaigning against the fundies on the board (something you claim doesn't happen by co-religionists). Is RAZD, a deist, the same as ray? After all, both believe in god. There is a fundamental difference in there beliefs. And jar definitely takes his beliefs seriously.
What I find really funny is that you are mistaking me for a moderate theist (at all appearances, at any rate, when you claim I use the god-as-cypher argument to protect my idea of god), and this is essentially what ray says about jar, that jar is actually an atheist.
In less words, I find it funny that the fundies on both sides mistake people on their side who are less extreme for being on the opposite side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 1:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 12:40 PM kuresu has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 69 (440272)
12-12-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by kuresu
12-12-2007 2:25 AM


Could this perhaps be why he chooses what looks to be the Roman Catholic Church and then infuses it with a great fundamentalist streak?
I don't see that it was "infused with fundamentalism" any more than a generic religion already is, which is to say quite a bit. The authoritarian impulse is present in all religion, moderate or otherwise.
My argument was that if the god in HDM (not metatron, but the guy who's in the crystal) is supposed to be all-powerful and whatnot, and it's clear he isn't, then that god clearly isn't god.
But that's the ontological argument. "God is perfect; if God does not exist that's less perfect than existing; since God is perfect, God must exist."
It's nonsense. People in HDM may think that God is all-powerful, but the fact that the only Gods observed were not all-powerful doesn't prove that there must have been another God who was.
It simply proves that they were all wrong about God - which they were. And if they were wrong in the book, Pullman seems to be saying, why couldn't the theists in our world be wrong?
All you've done is say that Jar and ray are the same in their beliefs.
They both call themselves "Christians", right?
Because they're both christian (or at least, claim to be)?
Yes, exactly. Since they say they're the same religion, they must be. From what basis would you claim that they're not? From what basis would you claim that one of them must be wrong or lying?
Jar has the courage to follow his religion to it's logical conclusion.
Except that he doesn't. Jar tries to walk a line between skepticism and doubt and faith in the God of Christianity and the life of Jesus as described in the Bible.
But that's insupportable, except by half-assing it in both directions. A true skeptic believes in neither God nor in taking the life of Jesus at face-value. A true believer doesn't allow skepticism to interfere with his belief in either.
Ray is a much more honest Christian than Jar. You don't like Ray, you like Jar, so naturally you object, but it's true. Ray has the courage of his convictions; the courage that leads him to say stupid crap in defense of his religion, regardless of how ridiculous it makes him look. Ray takes his beliefs and runs with them, lets them take him wherever he leads. Jar doesn't have enough courage in either skepticism or faith to follow either to their obvious conclusions. And quite frankly it showed up in his moderating.
Further, he is actively campaigning against the fundies on the board (something you claim doesn't happen by co-religionists).
Oh, "campaigning" my ass. The "campaigning" of moderates has accomplished precisely jack shit for standing in the way of religious oppression. Moderate religionists universally stand in the way of us deploying our greatest weapon against religious oppression - the fact that religions are objectively false. No, instead we have to make back-bending arguments about "respecting faith" and "secular society" and the like, when really the strongest argument against religious oppression is that it's based on things that just aren't true, like "there's a God and he wants you to live in a certain way."
What I find really funny is that you are mistaking me for a moderate theist (at all appearances, at any rate, when you claim I use the god-as-cypher argument to protect my idea of god),
I don't see why you can't be an atheist and still have an idea of God. Clearly you have an idea of God in mind that you don't think Pullman argued against.
I just find it instructive that you couldn't seem to tell me what that God was supposed to be. It's very convenient. It's like playing Battleship without putting down any of your boats.
In less words, I find it funny that the fundies on both sides mistake people on their side who are less extreme for being on the opposite side.
Oh, God. Not "fundamentalist atheism" again. As if there were any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 2:25 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 1:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 66 of 69 (440283)
12-12-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
12-12-2007 12:40 PM


"fundamentalist atheism" again. As if there were any such thing
If there is, you're a prime example of it.
They both call themselves "Christians", right
And yet Protestants and Catholics have warred against each other (famously in the thirty years war). They have a long history of enmity. Would you call the eastern orthodox church the same religion and the roman catholic or the thousands of protestant branches? I wouldn't. Especially when you start talking about unitarians. You're making an argument based off of a vast generalization, trying to fit more than a billion people into the same little box. It doesn't work.
You don't like Ray, you like Jar, so naturally you object
That really has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with your faulty analysis. There are clear differences in the two's religion. If believing in god is enough for you to classify them as being in the same religion, then Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and numerous other religions are all just the same. And that is to ignore the cultural and theological differences that separate them.
The "campaigning" of moderates has accomplished precisely jack shit
And now you've changed the goal posts. You first said that moderates weren't campaigning against their fundamentalist counterpoints. Now you are saying they aren't being effective in it.
I think Jar and others of his ilk are far more honest christians than people like ray. I'm just not certain you accept that fact that a line can be walked between the two while being honest.
doesn't prove that there must have been another God who was.
Well, since I haven't been arguing this, I cannot see why you'd bring it up.
And if they were wrong in the book, Pullman seems to be saying, why couldn't the theists in our world be wrong?
Of course, but Pullman was attacking a specific idea of god, one that most christians seem to have. How would destroying the all powerful god affect the possibility of of the numerous creators in the native american mythos, who are not claimed to be allpowerful? All he's said is you could be wrong about this one type of god.
Clearly you have an idea of God in mind that you don't think Pullman argued against
No, I don't. I just don't think he argued against more than one type of god, which you seemed to disagree with.
you couldn't seem to tell me what that God was supposed to be
Actually, I did. You just can't seem to read.
A true believer doesn't allow skepticism to interfere with his belief in either.
Are you so sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 1:22 PM kuresu has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 69 (440292)
12-12-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kuresu
12-12-2007 1:03 PM


If there is, you're a prime example of it.
Except that I'm not; I'm just someone who doesn't take bullshit reasoning and fallacious arguments at face-value.
Kuresu, don't confuse your complete impotence in proving your points with some kind of intractability on my part. I'm perfectly able to be convinced. You just have to marshal enough of an argument to do it, and you haven't, yet.
And yet Protestants and Catholics have warred against each other (famously in the thirty years war). They have a long history of enmity.
And, yet, when it comes down to hating pagans, and Muslims, and gays, and atheists - that's something they find common ground over. Hell, you can even get Muslims, Christians, and Jews to agree on something in fellowship - as long as that something is "how much we all hate the queers":
quote:
Orthodox Jews, Moslems and Christians have banded together to try to prevent this convergence of gays and lesbians from all over the world for a week of activities in Israel’s capital.
Believers in Jerusalem have held several citywide prayer meetings regarding the parade, while rabbis and Moslem sheikhs held a mutual news conference decrying the event, including Levin and Arab party Knesset Member Ibrahim Sarsur. At least 45 parliament members signed a petition against the parade.
“This is the holy land, not the homo land,” Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a moral activist from America, who came to Israel to stir a charge against the parade, told Israel Today. “The militants are as dangerous as Hamas. And they’re every bit as dangerous as Nazis to religious people.”
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
It'd be hilarious if all three of these religions didn't agree that I deserved to die for my beliefs. (Kind of puts a damper on the levity.)
Would you call the eastern orthodox church the same religion and the roman catholic or the thousands of protestant branches?
Yes. Different flavors, but it's all ice cream. It's all based on the same thing - the perversion called "faith."
You first said that moderates weren't campaigning against their fundamentalist counterpoints.
Did you provide an example of them doing that? I missed it, I guess.
I'm just not certain you accept that fact that a line can be walked between the two while being honest.
I just can't accept that the Bible, for instance, supports a moderate reading. I think a lot of moderate Christians are that way because they don't know what the Bible actually says. The large percentage of them who think the Bible says things like "The Lord helps those who help themselves", for instance, is something I find consistent with the polling that indicates that moderates tend to be a lot less familiar with the Bible than either atheists or fundamentalists.
There's a saying - "an atheist is a moderate who started reading the Bible." There's a whole lot in the Bible that contradicts the idea of a "moderate" faith.
Read your Bible, Kuresu. On point:
quote:
[38] And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[39] But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
[40] For he that is not against us is on our part.
[41] For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
"For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me." In other words - people who say they are Christians are Christians. Professing to follow Christ is the sole qualification, regardless of whether or not they the same as other Christians. Forbid them not. Jar and Ray are of the same religion according to the Bible they both read. That they'd both like to kick the other person out is irrelevant. They're members of the same religion.
All he's said is you could be wrong about this one type of god.
And that, in your view, is a different type of God? I don't see it.
Actually, I did.
Actually, you didn't. You hand-waved it by recursion to other beliefs. You didn't actually explain what, in your view, all those other religions add up to.
Are you so sure?
According to them, sure. According to good sense. Faith is the opposite of doubt. The more doubt you have, the less faith. To have so much doubt that you reject the position in its entirety is clearly the opposite of having faith, because to have faith in something is to believe that it is true, not that it is false.
Faith contends that something is true, but enough doubt leads to the opposite conclusion. Doubt is clearly the opposite of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 1:03 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 1:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 68 of 69 (440304)
12-12-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
12-12-2007 1:22 PM


Kuresu, don't confuse your complete impotence in proving your points with some kind of intractability on my part
I'm not.
Did you provide an example of them doing that? I missed it, I guess
Look at any number of Jar's posts. Especially in the current thread on fulfilled prophecy.
And, yet, when it comes down to hating pagans, and Muslims, and gays, and atheists - that's something they find common ground over.
Are all atheists the same? That's essentially what you're claiming, except with theists. Again, that's purposefully ignoring all the differences in order to prove your point that ray and jar are the same, when clearly, they aren't. Just as you and I, atheists, are not the same. I'm not saying that they don't have common beliefs, I'm saying that there's enough of a difference between the groups to put them on different sides. Do you really want to pull a Huntington and say all of Africa is one civilization? Because that is total bullshit, and that is what you're doing.
Another point--what of Deism? Is that the same as the Abrahamic religions to you? You know, because they belief in god?
Another problem with your example--different sects within Christianity have different views on homosexuality. Ever hear of the split that's happening in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church? The only single thing these religions agree on is that god exists, but then each and every single one has a different idea, and each sect within the religions have different ideas from the rest. Your statements are to the effect that 1,000 plus ideas of God = one idea of god, which is some pretty funny math. Didn't realize god was a scale issue.
On to your quoted passage. It also seems like all one has to do is not be against Christ, which means that those neutral would also then be christians, by your argument. And I dare say people can be neutral about Christ.
There's a whole lot in the Bible that contradicts the idea of a "moderate" faith
Well, given that the bible contradicts itself in the very beginning, I'm not sure what significance your statement is supposed to have. I mean, if it can contradict itself on the story of creation, that doesn't leave much hope for it not contradicting other things. Further, the bible isn't even in a single version (either through [mis]translations or the number of books within it, or both combined). So using the bible to disprove moderate christianity is kind of ridiculous.
You didn't actually explain what, in your view, all those other religions add up to.
Again, maybe you can't read? I said that clearly enough. All those ideas of god add up to the complete idea of god. Sure, it makes god this unwiedly, ungainly, contradictory thing, but that's a recognization that god means something different to practically everybody.
Faith contends that something is true, but enough doubt leads to the opposite conclusion
That's a dangerous statement. That's awfully close to calling evidence faith. Evidence contends that I exist, and that this is true. Doubt would say I don't exist. Perhaps you could be a little more specific?
And if doubt is simply questioning the validity of something, what does it rely on? Because in order to get to the opposite conclusion, I would hope you had some evidence or faith has been used to maintain the opposite position. In which case, faith equals faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2007 6:13 PM kuresu has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 69 (440344)
12-12-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kuresu
12-12-2007 1:55 PM


Again, that's purposefully ignoring all the differences in order to prove your point that ray and jar are the same, when clearly, they aren't.
Well I'm pretty sure they're not the same person, Kuresu, but I don't see that as being informative. Sure, they profess different things. But they claim to be the same religion. Their religion says they're of the same religion.
From what basis do you conclude that one of them is wrong? And which one is it, Kuresu? Which one is the Christian and which one is the liar? How would you claim to know?
It also seems like all one has to do is not be against Christ, which means that those neutral would also then be christians, by your argument.
Look, I told you what it said. Even (the fictional character) Jesus doesn't believe in second-guessing people's Christianity. From what basis do you?
Well, given that the bible contradicts itself in the very beginning, I'm not sure what significance your statement is supposed to have.
I don't see the significance of the contradictions. I don't think the Bible is true but that it forms the basis of the Christian religion is surely indisputable.
I said that clearly enough.
No, you didn't. You just said that you added them up. You didn't say what the result was - not in any way that would be helpful to this conversation.
You just hand-waved it. That's why I called you on the dodge, because that's what it was.
All those ideas of god add up to the complete idea of god.
That's the hand-waving I'm talking about. What do you get, though, when you add them up? I'm asking you what you get when you add 2+2, and you're telling me "the sum of 2 and 2" when the answer I'm looking for is "4." It's a dodge because you can't answer the question. What else am I supposed to conclude?
Perhaps you could be a little more specific?
I'm talking about doubt and faith, not evidence. Is that specific enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kuresu, posted 12-12-2007 1:55 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024