User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive Oktober 2004 5

Talk:Atheism

Hey, sorry you got so stressed, that was not my intent. I'm not sure exactly why you felt I was being insulting, but that wasn't my purpose in saying what I did. I ment to express my position. IMO people like User:Adraeus are the problem, since they focus on ad hominem attacks rather than expressing either themselves, or generally respected sources.

You are right that I am militantly anti-atheist, but I don't mean to be rude or hurtful here, I want to make good encyclopedia entries. I'd appreciate if you explained what was so upsetting to you so that I might learn from the experience, but if you'd prefer not I can respect that, and again apologize for any distress I may have caused you. Sam Spade 19:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind apology. I found your accusations regarding atheist "propaganda" and "rhetoric" to be insulting, and I think it was reasonable for me to feel this way. Andre (talk) 19:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Atheist is a word like any other, and while it has a negative connotation among religious folks, this should be viewed as equivalent to the negative connotation of "Jew," not that of "Satanist." For, while Satanism centers around a deity that's seen as antagonistic by pretty much everyone, atheism is merely a religious view. The concept is pretty simple: a, meaning without, from the Greek, and theist, which I'm sure you know the meaning of. The state of being without theism is atheism. To make the distinction between the simple "without" sense and an active disbelief of God or gods, positive/strong and negative/weak differences exist.

Certainly. Actually with feelings there is never any need for justification, only understanding (sorry, I'm a shrink ;). Anyhow, I was sincere in those accusations, I see a meta-issue here (bigger than the wiki) of atheists attempting to gobble up non-religious folks (like me), agnostics, the confused, etc... under their label, a label which I (and many others) find equivalent to Amalek or Satanist. I hope you can see how this might be worrisome. Sam Spade 20:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You see, many self-professed weak atheists find strong atheism as unpleasantly illogical and dogmatic as theism, and do not want to be considered as such. As for you, if you truly lack theistic beliefs, you're a weak atheist, whether or not you like the label. Even secular folks are weak atheists. Of course, I don't mind mentioning in the article that this usage is less common, but it exists nonetheless. Andre (talk) 20:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Its interesting that we agree on the central issue, that all views should be present in the article (presented neutrally I hope?). However we disagree about what a weak atheist is, as well as what "non-religious" means. I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God. But I am not religious, as I do not go to church, and am not easilly labeled by denomination (I like to call myself "interdenominational"). A conversation regarding my theology can be found under "God and gender" in my talk. Anyhow, are we (the two of us) agreed that all verifiable views should be presented neutrally on Atheism, and clarified as far as who agrees with them and why? Sam Spade 20:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're clearly and quite obviously not a weak atheist... you sound like some sort of Deist to me (incidentally, the article of which is confusing and lacking). If you believe in God at all, you can't be an atheist. Atheism has nothing to do with ritual or church. Yes, I agree all views should be represented, but I do not agree with removing weak atheism. Andre (talk) 20:30, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I also don't agree w removing weak atheism, but it must be clarified that this term is not widely used outside of the community of those who call themselves "atheists", and that the term normally used is "agnostic", "non-religious", secular, etc... Oh, and I'm no deist, they think God is dead or absent, rather than immanent, omnipresent, imminent, etc...Sam Spade 20:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

amalek

Just to give you a hint of how many theists feel about the term "atheist", see Amalek#Rejection of God. I will also point out that the final battle lead by Christ in revelations is often described as being against Atheists by contemporary (and I assume historical) Christian preachers. Atheist is a very strong term, which (to me and many others) is synonymous with denying or rejecting God, Blaspheme of the holy spirit. I feel very strongly (hope at least) that very few people are accurately refered to by this term. Sam Spade 20:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and such, I reject any and all religious principles, including spirits, souls, gods, sins, heavens, hells, dharma, karma, moksha, nirvana, and so on and so forth. Presumably, so do many atheists. Andre (talk) 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well sure, the rejection of dogma and ritual is great, I may not go so far as iconoclasm myself, but that’s not the issue here. Atheism is not the rejection of the Church and its various ills, its nihilism, the rejection of God, existence, all that is good, etc... But back to the task at hand, are we agreed about the inclusion of all verifiable POV's in the atheism article? Sam Spade 20:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

correct meaning etymologically

I believe that it would be fair to say that the term is mainly used by atheists, but it must be said that this is the correct meaning etymologically. As for Deism, I know several, and they have a belief of God being a sort of everpresent force without many assigned characteristics - though on second thought, this doesn't really describe you at all. Andre (talk) 20:42, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

IMO this goes too far towards taking a POV stand. I would say that etymologically, my definition would be more correct (esp. if were going by historical usage).

Oh, and thanks for the help w labeling me! Trying to label myself is actually a hobby of mine, Belief-O-Matic says I'm a Jain, Sikh or Hindu ;) Sam Spade 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, alright, not THE correct meaning etymologically, but a meaning that is, in fact, correct etymologically - by which I mean based on word origin. Andre (talk) 20:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

can you perhaps explain why you feel it is correct etymologically? I guess its a bit hard for me to understand. Sam Spade 20:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned, a literal translation from Greek would yield "without theism." The other meaning, of strong atheism, is technically a sort of ancient connotation. Andre (talk) 21:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

For me, "without theism" translates directly to "apart from God". Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal. 21:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not choose what I believe. I believe only what I deduce based on my observations and my understandings of the universe. My mind has come to the conclusion that God is a mythological construct. I cannot consciously cause it to believe otherwise, just as I cannot force it to accept that the object in front of my eyes isn't a computer. Even if I wanted to deceive myself, I am unable to do such a thing. Atheism is something I have believed my whole life, and I cannot see the reasoning in theism.

With that said, obviously atheism being a choice is your POV, and apparently that of Jung's as well. This does not make it so. At any rate, many other things are instinctual to humans: racism, war, or government, for example. Additionally, a large amount of the historical and current population of the planet has been atheistic: just look at Daoism, Confucianism, or Theravada Buddhism, just to name a few. These belief systems are considered religions yet lack gods or God, but have been deeply influential in, say, Han China. I do not know why religious memes like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism have been so successful, but their success alone isn't enough to prove them true, in my eyes.

Luckily, we don't need to write about this complex state of affairs in the atheism article; we've gone off on somewhat of a tangent. "Without theism" is a literal translation of atheism and as such is etymologically correct; I don't see how you can oppose this definition as one in the article. Andre (talk) 23:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Absoloutely not, I am an inclusionist, and insist that all verifiable POV be presented as such. Keep in mind that all of those asian systems of thought, while not requiring theism, were integrated with it. The more you learn about eastern philosophy, the more you discover how neatly it mixes w other ideas. Its very efficient. So is theism, Pascal listed many handy uses of theism (esp. organized religion). But I don't know God simply because it is useful, I deduced him as an obvious fact, the absolute infinite. Sam Spade

I, too, am an inclusionist, but whether or not atheism is a choice is really more a question about belief in general, and is too general to be included specifically in the Atheism article. Otherwise, it should need to be included in the articles of all other major religions and philosophies, or at least the more general ones. Andre (talk) 20:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Theology and logic

Premises:

I exist.
I am conscious.
There are things other than me, which are conscious.
God = All.

I also happen to know God is conscious, since I have a personal relationship w him (this is an extra bonus not everybody has, or so I hear).

Since God is all, and imminent within all things, all things are alive and conscious to me. Its called Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, Sanatana Dharma, lots of things, but it is in no way illogical or disprovable. Science is simply one way of reading Gods law. Anyhow, your right, this is off topic, but I wanted you to know that there are options, if you find "atheism" disatisfying (I thought I was an atheist once too ;) Sam Spade 23:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not disprovable, but this does not make it logical. I live by a skeptical philosophy (my IRC nickname is, in fact, Skeptic) with heavy employ of Occam's Razor. My specific application of Occam's Razor deals mainly with entities - the simplest and best explanation is that with the least entities involved. Anything I can verify with my memory or my senses does not need to pass through Occam's Razor, but other explanations must. Things being alive and conscious creates a hell of a lot of entities and there's no evidence for or against it, but, since there's no evidence for it, I eliminate it using Occam's Razor. Theism in general creates more entities that are not necessary if one uses scientific and naturalistic explanations for things instead.

Having "God = All" and "There are things other than me, which are conscious" as basic premises is awfully assumption heavy - it would be simpler to begin with "I exist" and "I am conscious" and deduce the rest from there. Which begs an interesting question: how do I know that other things are conscious? I don't know this. I can observe a few things, though:

There are other beings like myself in appearance here.
They act as though they think the same way I do.
They can communicate ideas to me.
If I ignore them or treat them as figments of my imagination they react hostilely and negatively.
If I treat them as I would want them to treat me, things in general are smoother.

So, then, it is beneficial for me to act like humans are conscious. It doesn't really help me in any way, though, to act like chairs or tape dispensers or plants or floppy disks are conscious. I am the reference point for everything that I believe, and inanimate objects don't show any evidence of being the same sort of thing as I am.

This is sort of related to my stance on theism. I can't deduce God from my self and my observations, and it doesn't help me to believe God exists. I know a lot of people find solace or comfort in the concepts of theism, but I can't find any there, for better or for worse. Pure intellectual consideration of matters gives me more pleasure.

Regardless of the state of Atheism, I am finding this conversation interesting and productive. Your discourse is refreshingly free of evangelicalism. Andre (talk) 20:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, their are three options most obvious when evaluating a given peice of information.

Simplicity (or occoms razor, IMO by far the least useful)
Compatability (the ability for the concept to integrate w other, previously accepted premises, like Logic for example)
Efficiency (of these three, the most important, by far and away)

But while all three of these are quite handy, they limit ones options necesarilly. I think when first interacting w a concept, it is best to retain an open mind, understanding that all things are possible, and that mistakes are especially likely ;) This policy of an open mind and an immediate (if temporary) acceptance of a given concept is in complete contrast to skepticism. I find skepticism so completely limiting that it can (and often does) lead to conclusions like existentialism, or even nihilism. I have a friend who is a skeptic (and an atheist, or so he thinks), and he doubts not only that communication is possible (he's a linguistics major, if irony amuses you ;), but he also doubts his own existence. Skepticism as to ones one existence is actually a central tenant of Buddhism, wherein they believe that it is only thru the understanding that one does not exist (enlightenment) that one can cease to exist (their stated goal). I find none of this remotely efficient.

As far as your focus on simplicity, what can be more simple than the God of monism? There is only 1 entity, God. All questions (where did the universe come from? How did we as humans end up here, what should I do with my life" can be answered "because of God and his laws", or "obey God and his laws", and so forth. All laws of science are Gods laws, unless they are false, and disproven, and then they are only ignorance.

In conclusion I am suprised that you find me so free of evangelicalism, I am simultaneously preaching to you, and some Jehova's Witnesses (they just left ;), but I am glad to be interesting and productive, progress is always a central goal to me. All of that said, I think this is still relevant to the atheism article, since if you understand the God of monism a bit better, you can more easilly comprehend why he is fundamentally different from the gods of paganism. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with some of the premises of nihilism, but I'm not an anarchist or a pessimist, as many nihilists seem to be. I don't see how nihilism "logically" goes from "existence is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value" (which I agree with, more or less) to "fuck the government, order, and staying alive" (which I don't, pardon my profanity). I'm in general rather libertarian in my political views, but I do believe that the government exists to protect, sometimes at the expense of freedoms (e.g. the freedom to kill). As well, I support some of the premises of existentialism, but I don't like its emphasis on the fact that there's no predefined nature of humanity. There is, in my view, a very simple nature for non-mutated and non-drugged humans: survival.

I also don't see how your friend has concluded that communication is impossible. What's his train of logic? And as for my own existence, this is the one thing that I am completely sure of. Like some sort of Cartesian Socrates, I cannot verify anything other than that I exist.

I can't say I understand Monism at all, at least based on the Wikipedia article on it. What's this "stuff" that it refers to? And what does it have to do with God or his laws? At any rate, "because of God and his laws" is a non-explanation: the laws must be elucidated before they can pass through Occam's Razor. And as for there being only 1 entity, I know this cannot be, unless that 1 entity is me. Andre (talk) 20:19, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

See Pantheism and panentheism. The idea is that all of everything is kinda like a single organism, a fractal, or aspect of God (absolutely everything, including you).

My friend basically makes a slippery slope argument, where he says that since something is always lost in translation, and communication is therefore limited / imperfect, that it is essentially meaningless (that coherent, comprehensive communication is impossible due to our inequalities of our ideosyncratic definitions, in other words). I don't know how much he believes that, but its his trump card in many debates (such as atheism vrs. theism, for example ;).

Gods laws are elucidated every day, in every way ;) Science is the attempt to document them, as are religion and philosophy (abeit with more limited success, generally). I should go work on the monism article from the sounds of it ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 20:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I understand pantheism and panentheism, and I reject them outright, because I know that I'm not an aspect of any sort of large organism, at least not in the biological sense. Or, if I am, there's no reason to know this: I'm obviously independent enough of this God fellow to be considered a parasite or a symbiote of some other kind.

Your friend's argument is flawed. While communication is imperfect, it's certainly not meaningless. 100% coherent, comprehensive communication I agree is impossible, but that's no reason not be satisfied with our current sort of fallible communication.

If we both acknowledge that "God's" laws already exist, what is the purpose of having them be the creation or subject of an otherwise useless entity? Andre (talk) 20:38, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Its clear to me that each of us is either symbiotic, altruistic, or parasitic. Its our own decision how we choose to operate (assuming we agree on free will). As far as "what’s the point of having a God", that’s a nonsensical question to a believer in an immanent God. We might as soon ask “why exist?”. God is more than efficient; he is the only basis for reality. His absence leads to a removal of existence. In other words, without him there is nothing. Oh, I overhauled the monism article, hopefully its a bit more coherent. Let me know what you think, Sam Spade 20:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Come join the AIW

You are currently listed as an honorary member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. We encourage you to become a full-fledged member, by listing yourself as such on the AIW page. Posiduck 04:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/River Oaks Elementary School

You have fogotten to sign your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/River Oaks Elementary School. anthony 警告 20:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanx Sam Spade 21:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hindu saints

Sam, I have made edits to saints. I have made changes to articles on two great Vaishnavite saints,Kanaka Dasa and Tukaram. Hope you find the articles interesting.

Raj2004

Great articles, keep up the good work, please! I love to see such fine additions as these :) Sam Spade 16:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem, Sam Raj2004

Hitler

Mussonili was biased, and an admitted propogandist. Maybe he's not the best source of info on himself and his politics ;) Sam Spade 22:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So was Hitler - keep that in mind before you claim Nazism is socialist because Hitler said it was. AndyL 18:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was talking about Mussonili, Hitler was more honest. ;) Sam Spade 20:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hitler was the better propagandist. Anyway, I'll take your wink as an admission that I'm right. AndyL 21:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever been right? Sam Spade 21:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was right about you;) AndyL 15:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like hell. Sam Spade 15:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on, I was *so* right when I told you you wanted to be an administrator and were just declining nominations because you didn't think you'd win - and then the rather shameless way you tried to pump for votes showed that your real thoughts on the matter. I know, I know, you'll just say you weren't serious, you just wanted some sort of dialogue but we both know what you were really thinking. :)AndyL 16:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell your talking about, but don't you have something better to do than try to harass me about elections past, like say... working on an encyclopedia? Sam Spade 16:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, you were going on people's talk pages practically begging them to vote for you. I certainly didn't do any campaigning any of the times I was nominated and I've rarely seen anyone else campaign for votes. Your need for affirmation from others was absolutely craven. Anyway, if you have nothing better to do than to stalk wikieditors then don't be suprised if some of them turn around and make fun of you;)AndyL 17:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Get thee behind me, deceiver. Sam Spade 17:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hard to do when you keep following me around;)AndyL 17:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Besides, it's hardly good etiquette to accuse someone of being Satan. AndyL 17:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No such luck, you deserve no such lofty a title, but it is indeed telling how you twist my words. Maybe you should try writing up a new RfAR / RfC against me, since your apparently too obsessed w my fine self to work on encyclopedia articles. Sam Spade 18:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frivolous RFCs are your stock in trade, not mine. AndyL 18:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I am a counselor, salesman, sociological researcher, father, husband, and psychology student. I have no idea what you do w yourself in your off hours (praise God). Sam Spade 18:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess being a pscychology student is why you can define false analogy without being able to explain why something is or isn't one:) That would only earn you part marks on an exam, I'm afraid. AndyL 18:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think misspelling "psychology" would lose you a point or two, on a fifth grade spelling test, that is. Now bugger off, will ya? Sam Spade 18:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I misspelled psychology once in this exchange, you misspelled Mussolini as Mussonili twice ;)AndyL 19:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go correct the spelling in an article, mr. sass. Sam Spade 19:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you mean *spelling*. You know you're a bad speller when you misspell "spelling":) AndyL 19:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better a bad speller than a bad person, oh immodest deceiver. Sam Spade 19:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know, the above could easily be mistaken for a stand-up comedy routine! :p I get the impression, that in a way, both of you seem to enjoy this banter. I realize that there's a history there, and that some of the responses might be driven by a defence mechanism, but still... Well, if you ever need a mediator that would side with AndyL on all points that count (regardless of objectivity), but would give Sam some token victories, look no further! ;) Yours, the worse speller in Wikipedia, El_C

Well, I think I'm funny when I put andyL in his place, but to be frank I have grown to rather dislike communicating w the guy. I've reviewed his edits tho, and out-side of being obnoxious on talk pages and POV, (like the above), he's generally a good editor. If not I'd devote more time to wrangling w him. As is, I think he's best off editing articles, and not blowing hot wind at folks like WHEELER and I. Sam Spade 20:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Add topic