Jerk move on my part

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is quite obvious and you wouldn't have missed it unless you were in such a desperate hurry to be neutral.

"You're dumb!" *Throws sand in the sandbox*... "No! You're dumb and very ugly" *Throws some more sand and hits the other child with a plastic shovel*

You didn't add anything new to the exchange, you've simply 1uped what someone else was saying and you were quite hostile about it too. I know you're looking for a fight so I'll keep it short because I don't want to expend too much energy on you.

To clarify the whole situation:
Tannhauser said he rejects dogma and myth on the basis of his personal adherence to a superior epistemological position, basically a dogmatic embracement of scepticism/atheism.

That is firstly hypocritical and secondly it is an epistemologically short-sighted position because it makes undecidable claims about what is and isn't and what's more it is prescriptive in that it falsely presupposes that non-scepticism (since his stance is supposed to be superior) is harmful or biased even if only entertained at a personal level which it clearly is not.

So yeah, not sure why he went on to mention dogma and epistemology to validate his position in the instance when he contradicts himself.

There's nothing biased in being agnostic about the whole thing and letting people make believe in whatever they like as long as they don't get to influence others with that belief.


You raise a very stupid point about fighting the deluded narrative of the superstition. Sure it largely is superstitious and deluded (religious practice, fanaticism, etc.) but the only instance of fighting it that Tannhauser lent his support to was as I said a prominent example of a failure to do exactly that which was provided by the OP.

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

I admire your lack of fucks given but it seems a little too straight forward, it probably just made them hold onto their beliefs even stronger.

 

[redbaron]

So Blarraun you just made a big post about how Tannhauser is wrong to consider scepticism superior to religion and then you go and admit that religion is "largely superstitious and deluded".

Also I think you'd find that it's pretty normal for people to think their stance is the superior stance since that's usually how people form their stance in the first place - by determining what they think is the most reasonable (and therefore superior to other stances).

So I don't know why you're picking on Tannhauser saying that he finds one thing epistemologically superior to another since every single person ever does this and it's a natural part of forming conclusions about the world we live in. You're no different.

 

[Black Rose]

You're no different.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.

Indeed who is anyone to judge in self-righteousness but he who is without sin, a humble servant.

 

[Black Rose]

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh

Nightcore - Pirouette Prisoner (Lyrics)​

https://youtu.be/CvKePoU1k78

 

[crippli]

Did you reach the conclusion that they hate you because they will no longer talk to you, and by the look on grand fathers face? Isn't that far fetched? Couldn't there be other reasons?

I walked into the wrong apartment the other day( the one below, new owner), because I thought it was mine(drunk) and tried to throw out the person sleeping 'in my bed'. After a while I understood I had the wrong apartment and left. Poor person. I wrote an apology the next day and included a box of wine, 3 liters to smooth things over. I think it worked since the Police have not contacted me.

I agree with those that think good neighbor relationship is important. But who has got the right to be upset is a good question. In my case it is clear it was a jerk move on my part, even if I acted in good faith. Also I did a nice move with the apology and the gift I think.

I think you are in the clear. Apology not needed since you didn't trespass. But people seem to be upset. With no talking, hating etc. So someone may want to make an apology, maybe the one who upset the other first. If hostile relations is not what one wants. Sometimes that is what one want. But I have the impression this is not the case here.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Voltaire said that? I thought he was atheist.

 

[Sinny91]

More like hypocritical smart-ass bullshit.

Where's the hypocrisy?

I'd say kiss this smart ass, but I wouldn't have your face anywhere near it.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Voltaire said that? I thought he was atheist.

I could create an inventory of different dragons without actually believing that there are dragons.

Whether one believes in God or not, God is still something that people talk about, so is "real" in that sense even to an atheist.

Perhaps, based on what people are saying about God, Voltaire seemed to think that what his quote says is what God must be like, or perhaps felt that saying that that is what God is like would have some desired effect, whether that effect be to help others in their understanding of God, or even simply to amuse himself or make people laugh.

Whatever his motivation was, the quote gives no significant reason to believe that he is theist or atheist or agnostic.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So I don't know why you're picking on Tannhauser saying that he finds one thing epistemologically superior to another since every single person ever does this and it's a natural part of forming conclusions about the world we live in. You're no different.

You don't understand what I said.

I shared my hope that funtamentalists of any kind won't get to be in the position to enforce what others should do/think. Tann's post was about prescribing what's best for others considering that the topic of the op is influencing theist neighbors and Tann praised OP for it.

Anyway, this whole thing is largely irrelevant. I don't think I can be bothered to explain it further, I get what you mean and that was not what I was getting at.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I could create an inventory of different dragons without actually believing that there are dragons.

Whether one believes in God or not, God is still something that people talk about, so is "real" in that sense even to an atheist.

Perhaps, based on what people are saying about God, Voltaire seemed to think that what his quote says is what God must be like, or perhaps felt that saying that that is what God is like would have some desired effect, whether that effect be to help others in their understanding of God, or even simply to amuse himself or make people laugh.

Whatever his motivation was, the quote gives no significant reason to believe that he is theist or atheist or agnostic.

 

[Tannhauser]

To clarify the whole situation:
Tannhauser said he rejects dogma and myth on the basis of his personal adherence to a superior epistemological position, basically a dogmatic embracement of scepticism/atheism.

That is firstly hypocritical and secondly it is an epistemologically short-sighted position because it makes undecidable claims about what is and isn't and what's more it is prescriptive in that it falsely presupposes that non-scepticism (since his stance is supposed to be superior) is harmful or biased even if only entertained at a personal level which it clearly is not.

So yeah, not sure why he went on to mention dogma and epistemology to validate his position in the instance when he contradicts himself.

There's nothing biased in being agnostic about the whole thing and letting people make believe in whatever they like as long as they don't get to influence others with that belief.

To clarify something here btw: If I say that I am dogmatic about embracing skepticism, that is not an inconsistency, because: I am putting skepticism down as an axiom and derive everything else from there. To say that being agnostic about everything is a more "consistent" view is to forget that it will lead to paradoxes. I.e. if you are agnostic about everything, including the rules of the epistemological game here, then you can be agnostic towards agnosticism itself, as well as not even being able to consistently criticize my "dogmatic" stance.