Albert Cipriani

D Wrote:
Clap. Clap. Clap. Well said. You’ll get no argument from me on the counts you’ve raised. And I extend my heartfelt sympathies to you and yours.

I continue to be amazed at the arguments made against me that are actually arguments made against a caricature of me. Of course it takes courage to be an atheist IN OUR NOMINALLY THEISTIC SOCIETY. You guys forget that I was an atheist. But that’s social courage, not intellectual courage.

Alas, the distinction is not worth pressing. Maybe I’m the only one here who is schizophrenic enough to be able to make such fine distinctions for having divided myself into both a social and an intellectual being. It’s easy enough for me to see that theism takes intellectual courage while atheism takes social courage. But so what? It’s not like this is a purple heart contest.

Let’s drop it. I’m more interested in reason than in courage.

On a personal note, d, what was the main question or two that you could not get answered when you were losing your faith. If you’d rather not talk about it, that’s OK. (He says with a gleeful smile, knowing that she’ll get her answer in hell!) – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

Albert:
Maybe I’m the only one here who is schizophrenic enough to be able to make such fine distinctions for having divided myself into both a social and an intellectual being. It’s easy enough for me to see that theism takes intellectual courage while atheism takes social courage.

Speaking from my own experience, Albert, I think it is better to try to unify yourself- socially, intellectually, emotionally, and physically. I don't claim to always act from a single center, but it's what I strive for.

And I must disagree that theism takes intellectual courage- I think it takes a certain disregard of intellect, to believe in things one cannot justify intellectually. In fact I would say that theism divides your emotional and social beings against your intellect.

Wyz_sub10

First off, you need to know that I did belive in god for many years. I went to a Catholic school from 5-19, and my parents remain devoted Catholics.

I think it was always somewhat satisfying to inject purpose into things - some little girl died, but it was for a reason. A close friend died, but I will see him again someday. I have a fear of 'x', but if I pray god will protect me from 'x'.

Plus, let's be honest, there is a certain satisfaction to thinking that a serial rapist who gets off free at his trial will "get his" come judgement day.

I can recognize all of the above as satisfying elements of belief. But I juest don't believe them anymore. And the reality is far less satisfying, in a way.

Yet, and this may surprise you, I was never as comfortable with my own mortality or the mortality of those around me, as I was when I first came to accept death as a final end.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jobar,
I am only too happy to admit agreement when I can, and on this count I can: Unity, that is, relating apparently disparate entities is the essence of knowledge, spirituality, and (for what it’s worth) poetry. It’s the central tenet of my metaphysics.

As a newspaper reporter, I was a courageous conservative in that I took on the entire office of liberals I was surrounded by and wrote editorials that pissed most everybody off at me. But would I die for my conservatism? Hell no. So I wasn’t as courageous as a conservative as I am as a theist, for I am willing to die for theism.

Yes. But only initially. Likewise, poetry is at first incomprehensible but, with due diligence is ultimately incomparable. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear IDS,
Your bromides and my responses follow:
Structures, like stones, are not the object of beliefs. Only things whose existence we cannot be sure of may be believed. In any case, if by neutral you mean neither hot nor cold, neither right or wrong, then nothing is neutral, for nothing is held in perfect balance between the dualistic vortexes of reality.

Oh how did we manage before GPS? As for making meaning of another’s experiences, you are conflating beliefs with empathy. I need not make Hitler’s experiences meaningful to me in order to believe he was evil.

Duh. That’s a slam dunk. Ut oh! Since I’m absolutely sure of the truth of your statement and not just partially sure of it, have I just disproved your statement?

I’m skipping the silly ones now:

There goes the server!. Without dualistic thinking we could not be communication through computers right now. Dualistic thinking is the basis of logic. Ergo, you’re suggesting we not be logical? How silly. My fault, I said I was skipping the silly ones. I’ll try again.

Hey, I dig the alliteration.

I think, ergo I am. Ergo, if I think I’m thinking I’m a box, I am a box. Ergo, if I am a box, I can neither think inside nor outside the box. Thus in one fail swoop I am in compliance with your #8 as well as your #10.

-- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic