Kosh

Can you present the evidence?

Layman

You guys never grow up.

Yes I can.

I've done so in many places, including right here on this forum. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Am I going to do it all again here, now? No.

Jayhawker Soule

I don't want to get personal, so let's start with the unheralded birth of Jesus on ... (what was that date again?)

godfry n. glad

Layman threw a juvenile tantrum and asserted the following quotes:

Please justify your judgement. Upon what standards do you condemn Acharya S as “crazy”?
I'm curious as to what standards you use to judge others in this manner.

No problem from me on this. Look at the number of Christians leading adequate lives. Proof positive of your assertion.

Nor did I say that it did. My point was that it's possible to hold ideas which you and I think are crazy or misguided and still be able to formulate a reasonable and coherent idea. For example, look at you, you usually manage to comport yourself with a modicum of reasonability, despite your holding those absurd Christian dogmas.

So…Are you _sure_ you’re a Christian? If so, I guess you missed the explication of Matt 7:1/Luke 6:37. I suspect you have condemned yourself.

And, as a new-age guru, Acharya S does not find anything unreasonable about new-age beliefs. You don’t see the similarities, do you? Typical….

But your reliance upon him and your beliefs as “Christians” are inconsistent with your judging another upon the rationality of their particular peculiar beliefs. Unless, of course, you are both hypocrites. That's the conclusion I draw from your tantrum here.

Well, “free-thinkers” are free to think what they will and draw their own conclusions. They make mistakes and, when given adequate guidance and help, often manage to correct those mistakes. “Critical thinkers” indeed need to review the material Acharya S has presented and draw their own conclusions, after applying the appropriate judgmental criteria. They, too, can be mislead or make mistakes. The process of argumentation and discussion helps revise missteps taken by most "critical thinkers". Of course, there's also the issue of those who are not particularly critical in their thinking and present themselves as "critical thinkers".

I personally would advise that the curious read her material and assess it accordingly. If you judge her as “crazy” upon the basis of her irrational beliefs about aliens, then I think you need to stop and take a long look at yourself and your “Christian” beliefs, because if they conform to most creedal commitments with which I’m familiar, then your beliefs are just as irrational as hers, if not more so.

As for "hardened biases against Christianity", I'd say those biases have been hardened by repeated exposure to the silly and irrational beliefs repeatedly expressed by those claiming to be Christians; belief as qualitatively moronic in nature to those "alien interloper" beliefs expressed by Acharya S.

(And...that's a revealing and amusing little spelling slip. "Mormonic", indeed. Heh...)

Well, I guess we just disagree. I don't see any qualitative difference between your absurd ideas and hers. Besides, the issue here was not her opinion on AIDS or aliens, but the historicity of Jesus. Even morons and imbeciles (or the misguided) get some things right, like knowing that saying one thing and doing another is wrong....That's a pretty easy one, but you got it wrong.

godfry n. glad

[Edited for clarity]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Layman

Well, you asked me why and I answered you. Whether you want to get personal or not is irrelevant to the fact that my personal experience is one reason I accept the truth of Christianity and reject some of the teachings of many other religions.

I never claimed that I knew what date Jesus was born on.

Layman

Nothing juevenline about it. Call it "farce fatigue."


I already justified my judgment by the original post. I've reviewed her website, found many outrageous, illogical, and weird beliefs there.

If you want to defend her, feel free.

There are moronic Christians and moronic "free-thinkers." I don't dispute that at all.

Saying that it is possible to be crazy and misguided while still making a true or reasonable statement does not mean that the craziness or moronism is irrelevant to an assement of the source. As I said, the poster had a right to now what a whacko Acharya S is.

Yeah, I'm a Christian.

I didn't say she thought she was a moron, I said I thought she was a moron. And, knowing that the audience here claims to be "critical-thinkers," I thought the fact she was a new age guru and AIDS denier and speaks to aliens would be of interest to the reputed critical-thinkers here.

Not at all. There is no inconsistency because I believe Christian beliefs are reasonable and believe that denying that AIDS exists and new-age sexual superconsciousness are unreasonable.

The tantrum is yours. You obviously agree that Acharya S is a moron, but seem upset that I would dare point out information most critical-thinkers would want to know before depending on her as a serious religious scholar.

Well, of course they are. We all are. That doesn't mean that the information I provided should be of no interest to a "free-thinker." I suspect that most "free-thinkers" would like to know that she's a new age guru, that she denies that AIDS exists, that she thinks the very notion of family is evil, and that she's on a mission from space aliens.

Rest assured I have taken many long looks at myself and my Christian beliefs and found them to be imminently reasonable. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant to me. I know most of you guys cannot bring yourselves to admit that any Christian has a rationale faith. I do not expect anything more.

You can say whatever you want. I'd say it's because you are steeped in your own dogmatic arrogance that you can't be impartial. The fact that so-called freethinkers would use Acharya S as an authority--knowing that she denies AIDS exists, blames the fall of the Western World on the big mac, and is a new-age guru on a mission from space aliens to promote sexual super-consciousness--can only be explained by hardened prejudice. Even disdain.

As I said, the difference is that I suspect most skeptics would be very distrustful of any reputed scholar who ascribes to the beliefs of Acharya S (or a Christian for that matter). The fact that Acarya S holds to so many crack-pot ideas is relevant information to those who are considering relying on her as an authoritative source on anything.

There is no inconsistency. Since I believe Christian beliefs to be reasonable, my judgment that Acharya S is a crackpot because of her wierd beliefs is not inconsistent. However, for "free-thinkers" who regularly pummel Christians and theists as being unreaonable to accept someone like Acharya S--who holds so many patently unreasonable and absurd beliefs--as an authority does suggest some inconsistency.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

There is no inconsistency. Since I believe Christian beliefs to be reasonable, my judgment that Acharya S is a crackpot because of her wierd beliefs is not inconsistent. However, for "free-thinkers" who regularly pummel Christians and theists as being unreaonable to accept someone like Acharya S--who holds so many patently unreasonable and absurd beliefs--as an authority does suggest some inconsistency.

You've actually got the "inconsistency" sort of sideways, Layman. Archaya S would be OK to reference, regardless of her particular nutty beliefs, if her book were thoughtful, well-written and so on. What makes her unacceptable is that her thinking is sloppy, not that she believes wacko things.

If we really operated on the principle that you suggest, Layman, we'd have to reject every book by every religious individual, since there is no difference in wackiness between believing in aliens and believing in virgin births and resurrections. Rather less, in fact, since there is some possibility that aliens exist, but none at all that gods exist. Religion is unreasonable, too. So when we read, the beliefs of the author cannot be at issue, just her arguments.

So the issue for freethinkers should be that her book is a mess, not that her ideas are unreasonable.

But let's go one step further. Freethought is not a doctrine but a critical stance toward the world and claims made about it. It is entirely possible that after consideration of all factors, one could develop a sober belief in aliens. Freethought may imply skepticism, but only as a stance, not a doctrinal commitment. Thus, it may be appropriate for some freethinkers to agree with Acharya after due consideration of her claims. That may also be true of Christianity, at least in those sects that are relatively low in dogma, like UUs or Quakers.

Freethinkers reject dogma; skeptics reject the supernatural. While there is considerable overlap between the two groups, they are not coterminus. You seemed to have confused the two terms, Layman.

Vorkosigan

Layman

She's fine to reference, but for freethinkers to insist that her moronic beliefs are irrelevant to her authority is rather disengenous.

You are having problems keeping track of whose point of view you are arguing from. If operated on the principles that I have been expressing we would accept that Christian beliefs are reasonable. I do not share your view that there is no evidence that God exists and find that notion erroneous. I do share your view, however, that denying that AIDS exists is moronic. And that--presumably--blaming the degradation of western civilization on fast food is moronic. And that new age guru sex superconsciousness is moronic. From that common basis, I wrote what I did about Acharya S.

I just don't believe you that freethinkers would find all her nutty beliefs irrelevant to determining whether to even read her book, much less whether to treat her as the exhaustive authority on religion.

You have (conveniently) ignored all of Acharya's S' nutty religious claims (new age guru of sexual superconsciousness) to focus on a distorted presentation of one of her positions--the aliens. But she does not just believe in aliens (not an unreasonable proposition and not what I attacked her for) but she believes that they have spoken to her and given her a mission to spread the word about her new age supersexual consciousness anti-Christian views (and presumably that AIDs does not exist and the big mac is a big threat to the world).

So, I am not confused at all. But I'm always impressed with the lengths that so-called "freethinkers" (or "skeptics" if that term makes you happier) will go to justify even the most obviously idiotic of Christian critics.

Tharmas

Sorry to come to this discussion late, but it’s Friday afternoon and I have way too much to do so I’m surfing.

So I followed the link above to the Acharya S website and right there on the home page I see flashing at me a GOD IS BORG RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Church of Subgenius flashing icon.

Amusing…

Oh, sorry for interrupting…

Vorkosigan

You are having problems keeping track of whose point of view you are arguing from.

That reflects your misunderstanding, not mine....

If operated on the principles that I have been expressing we would accept that Christian beliefs are reasonable.

Yes, and if we operated from the principles Acharya S operates from, we'd have to believe that aliens talked to her. Fortunately we operate on evidence and argument, and so reject both viewpoints as equally wacko.

I do not share your view that there is no evidence that God exists and find that notion erroneous.

Just as Acharya S doesn't share your view. Or my view. That's why we appeal to evidence and argument, instead of subjective inner convictions.

You have (conveniently) ignored all of Acharya's S' nutty religious claims (new age guru of sexual superconsciousness) to focus on a distorted presentation of one of her positions--the aliens.

I haven't ignored them. I've simply pointed out that the fact that she is nutty is no reason to reject her book. That can only be rejected by reading it. Should I reject the Principia because Newton held beliefs about alchemy and religion that are nutty?

But I'm always impressed with the lengths that so-called "freethinkers" (or "skeptics" if that term makes you happier) will go to justify even the most obviously idiotic of Christian critics.

Neither will make me happy. I was only trying to clear up your confusion. A freethinker is not necessarily a skeptic; a skeptic is by definition a freethinker. The two are not the same.

Since you are not confused, let me ask you: when are we justified in rejecting a book on topic A because of the author's wacky beliefs on topics B, C, and D?

Vorkosigan