peripeteia

OK I will humor you this time..But in the future if you expect a response be so kind as to think out your thoughts more diligently..

Again and this time pay attention..My reference to postcolonialism was meant simply to expedite the superfluities of explaining and expanding on my critiques of ‘your’[oh this ‘your’ is a generic denotation delineating the conglomerate of people here} arguments for the digressive and exploitive potentials in religion..I merely balanced things out with the inverse perspective evident within history..

YOU SAID: So by what other metric am I supposed to judge them? Doesn't the bible say something like "They will know you are Christians by your love"? And in another place, by your works? Is what is important about a religion what is written about it or how it is practiced?


Listen and try to follow me..This is not very hard..Believe me..When you study continental philosophy you are required to use the language and frankly I cant fathom how you can ‘do’ philosophy or theology without it..Regardless this is a moot point and one I wont deal with..All I can say is you should expand your reading level…

Now listen…The aporetic opacity of texts[in this case the geneology of a particular religion]clearly affects the work of theologians, philosophers, and social scientists..It is not a problem that can be put aside..The intertwining of body,text, and imagination in the artifact of culture is a problem for thinking and valuation that is as universal as the cultural disguise[hegemonies] that permeates our world..But tell me please, since when did the consequences determine the viability of anything? Let me give you a simple example and one you might enjoy studying[yes he uses simple words with complex implications]..Foucault wrote several interesting ‘geneologies’: Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Clinic, Madness and Civilization, and a 3 volume History of Sexuality. In all these instances he explicated and describes the rise of ‘scientific’ forms of social control where the lives of individuals are to be strictly regimented and interpellated..Now tell me who would be foolish enough to use these instances of the exploitive powers of scientific methodologies to seek for the ‘end’ of science or its abject dismissal..

But its obvious your not familiar with the subject of ethics and the various issues between utilitarian, relative, absolute,contextualism, prescriptivism,and the junk going within the various gynocriticisms and postmodernism..And believe me I only mentioned a small number..Hehe take a class even a small undergraduate one and you will see what im talking about..



YOU SAID: I'm an atheist, and therefore am familiar with the subject.

OkOK I relent.. You being an atheist by definition suggest you know a whole hell of a lot on the subject..

And last thing stop delimiting the thread to your own ignorance..What the hell do you think this ‘General Religious Discussion’ forum was intended for in the first place..Just because you cant read my post doesn’t mean others are so limited..Give them the courtesy to make up their own minds and participate..

Enough said..And do please stop wailing to the moderator ‘he’ probably dealt with your kind before..Iv been reading this site longer then I have been an actual member so enough with such juvenile pleadings..I called you kiddo just because of such comport..


Enjoy..

King Rat

I can understand your post perfectly, you are being purposely obtuse IMHO. Using language that is direct and plain is a virtue. You are attempting to communicate the idea that the observation of a thing and the thing itself is not the same.

In the process of communication, having your point actually reaching the target is generally the desired outcome.

peripeteia

Asha'man..

IF you actually have a gripe spit it out..But don’t pretend otherwise..And second I used antiquated because you cried to the moderator about my language..Son since when is cussing so blatantly hurtful..Please..We watch movies with such ‘vile’ language and I don’t hear any problems with the marketability of the films themselves..

You SAID: I did look at your arguments. They clearly demonstrate a high level of obfuscation, but little actual argument. Your posting didn’t demonstrate an understanding of anything about your audience, the context of the conversation, or even basic civilized behavior. Perhaps your attitude was overly distracting?

Ok my intelligent friend why don’t you substantiate your claims and give me something to go on..Don’t just cut and paste some half witted generalizations and assume they speak for your sublimity..


I truly am sorry if your sensitive individuation towards maturation stumbled upon..


I’m sorry, could you please repeat that using a complete sentence?
Kiddo I give you this point because I should have taken it out.. but I couldn’t finish it since if I would have written what I wanted it would have really kicked me out of this forum with a legitimate reason..But I kind of hoped you understood where I was coming from just by looking at the tropic[a trope is a literary device] nature of the ‘half sentence’..Oh well..



YOU SAID: So, you presume to come into a forum of thousands of atheists and tell us what we believe? It’s not like we haven’t have this discussion every week for years on end. Oh wait, we have! (Talk about presumptuous…)

Son..I see now I must harangue you with that stupid statement ‘that this is not the place for it’ or the off-topic claim..But listen..I don’t presume anything..You have it in your head-I don’t know how- that I intend to apologize for something or someone..Dude I have no such singular ‘agenda’ your ‘souls’ mean so little to me that whatever hell you make your reality in would be a waste of my time to even ponder..And second don’t pretend to assume that longevity or time somehow evinces the integrity and knowledgability of your position..If its atheism you want to discuss then so be it but I warn you no Amazon.com recommendations will help you since for the most part you cant even use them for reference in any reputable academic institution[besides Mackie and Martin and maybe I couple of others-- im to lazy to go check if the store carries them]..

And no im not going to tell you what you believe..Come on how the hell would I do that since I neither know you nor your education levels..But I do make my judgments according to what you present and so far im not impressed..

Since some here enjoy playing with generalities let me add to the confusion..Do you know what religionists and atheists have in common? It’s the futility of their convictions..Both groups enjoy playing with mud but cant seem to stomach the taste..Hehe you should witness some debates that universities love setting up for the entertainment of the students..

All righty..

Mageth

OK I will humor you this time..But in the future if you expect a response be so kind as to think out your thoughts more diligently..

And if you expect responses, you'd be better off dropping the condescending attitude. I've read your posts, and so far I've seen no justification for your apparent lofty opinion of yourself. "Big" words don't an intelligent argument make.

Oh, and maybe you could work on expressing your thoughts less obtusely and more comprehensively.

My reference to postcolonialism was meant simply to expedite the superfluities of explaining and expanding on my critiques of ‘your’[oh this ‘your’ is a generic denotation delineating the conglomerate of people here} arguments for the digressive and exploitive potentials in religion..I merely balanced things out with the inverse perspective evident within history..

Once again, this is, IMO, irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Who cares what postcolonialism has or hasn't resulted in? It has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a statement of a lack of belief in god(s).

Listen and try to follow me..This is not very hard..Believe me..When you study continental philosophy you are required to use the language and frankly I cant fathom how you can ‘do’ philosophy or theology without it..

You used words that I, for the most part, already know the definition of. I know how to look up words that I'm not familiar with. That's not the point. The point is that, on a public board like this, your obfuscations are all but unintelligible to many if not most readers. You're not in a "continental philosophy" class. And even though I understand the words, or can look up the ones I don't, I still can't make heads or tails of much of what you've said.

Regardless this is a moot point and one I wont deal with..All I can say is you should expand your reading level…

You won't deal with it, yet you already "dealt" with it.

And you should contract your obfuscation level.

But tell me please, since when did the consequences determine the viability of anything?

Aah, actuall a point we can discuss. Pretty much every time, IMO. How can something be considered "viable" if it's next to useless, or harmful in practice? If its undesirable consequences outweigh its benefits? Note that often consequences are not predictable, and can only be detected through application. (And note that I didn't need any "high-falutin'" philosophical terms to make that point).

But its obvious your not familiar with the subject of ethics and the various issues between utilitarian, relative, absolute,contextualism, prescriptivism,and the junk going within the various gynocriticisms and postmodernism..And believe me I only mentioned a small number..Hehe take a class even a small undergraduate one and you will see what im talking about..

Who'd a thunk one needed all that for this relatively simple topic? Well, I guess if one is going to ramble off-topic, you might.

I'm familiar with the subject of ethics, but you're right in that I'm not that familiar. But that doesn't mean I can't carry on a sensible conversation on the subject. That's one purpose of this board, to allow all the members of the community to carry on preferably civil and intelligible discussions of such.

OkOK I relent.. You being an atheist by definition suggest you know a whole hell of a lot on the subject..

I know that "atheism" means lack of belief in god(s), and neither means nor implies nothing more. Apparently you don't.

And last thing stop delimiting the thread to your own ignorance..

I suggested keeping the thread on topic, and hopefully reducing the obfuscation, not "delimiting" it to my own "ignorance".

What the hell do you think this ‘General Religious Discussion’ forum was intended for in the first place..

For topical, intelligible discussions of religion, not rambling obfuscations.

Just because you cant read my post doesn’t mean others are so limited..

I can read your posts (I've never said otherwise), and I can even glean an occasional bit of comprehensible content from them. I would imagine I'm about average for the readers of your posts on that score. Don't blame your apparent lack of communication skills on my reading ability.

Give them the courtesy to make up their own minds and participate..

I've never tried to limit "them" in that regard.

Enough said..And do please stop wailing to the moderator ‘he’ probably dealt with your kind before..

Huh? When did I "wail" to the moderator?

Iv been reading this site longer then I have been an actual member so enough with such juvenile pleadings..

What "juvenile pleading"? And what difference does it make how long you've been reading this site?

I called you kiddo just because of such comport..

And you accuse me of "juvenile" behavior?

I can think of a name that fits your "comport", but I'll refrain from using it, as to do so would be juvenile, as name-calling always is.

peripeteia

Finally someone intelligent..Welcome your very refreshing and im not being sarcastic i truly mean it..But yes i do have a tendency for convolutedness and i apologize but you try spending years in a certain subject and hope to get out of it unscathed..

Also what i wanted was to filter out all the mental midgets out there and just converse with those interesting enough for an intelligent and entertaining discussion..Eventhough this is a forum that doesnt mean the monolithic nature of the medium cannot be somehow prejudiced into alienating incoherency and still allow for the purposes intended without condemning it..

King Rat your always welcome..

Mageth

Finally someone intelligent..

Note that that intelligent person, King Rat, pointed out that you are"being purposely obtuse" and "In the process of communication, having your point actually reaching the target is generally the desired outcome. " Something that both I and Asha'man also pointed out.

Learn from the intelligent person, peripeteia. Learn...

peripeteia

Oh man…You said: Don't blame your apparent lack of communication skills on my reading ability.

Of course not. I merely blame my ‘lack of communication skills on your reading inabilities..

You said: I'm familiar with the subject of ethics, but you're right in that I'm not that familiar. But that doesn't mean I can't carry on a sensible conversation on the subject. That's one purpose of this board, to allow all the members of the community to carry on preferably civil and intelligible discussions of such.

Correct and another purpose is to both teach and entertain..Though you are very entertaining the teaching thingy needs some work on..I really love your statement of the’ relative simple topic’ thingy.. My god if some of my teachers would hear you they would double over..Since when was morality and ethics so simple and so straightforward..Sheesh 2500 years of ethical philosophy down the tubes…

And your other points are below me so I wont deal with them..If that sounds arrogant then so be it..Make of it what you will..

I always enjoy a mutual balance in my discussions but so far im arguing freshman philosophy..That seizes to be emtertaining..

peripeteia

Thanks for the permission..But i think we well both choose to disagree and you might too after you pay a closer attention to what i actaully wrote..

Mageth

the observation of a thing and the thing itself is not the same

Note that Christianity, if that's what we're talking about, is not simply a "thing", but is a "thing" intended as a guide to living one's life, and only as such a guide. The application of Christianity (or any system intended as a guide to life) is the only reliable way to judge the worth of the system. If the evidence presented by the lives lived by Christians indicate it is not a particularly reliable way to lead a "good" life, whatever that is, then this speaks volumes about the "thing" called Christianity.

In other words, you cannot separate Christianity from its application. They are one and the same.

Mageth

Correct and another purpose is to both teach and entertain

If you're interested in teaching, then you'd lay off the obtuseness, insults, and condescending attitude. You really do have a lot to learn. Methinks you've had your head buried in the rarified air of continental philosophy a bit too long. You seem to have lost touch with the real world.

I really love your statement of the’ relative simple topic’ thingy.. My god if some of my teachers would hear you they would double over..Since when was morality and ethics so simple and so straightforward..

I don't see any particularly deep moral or ethical questions in the OP, and thus the topic of this thread. But apparently that's due to my reading "inability".

I think if any of your teachers heard you, they'd groan.