FaithFreedom.org

[Burning Zeppelin]

I thought "In God We Trust" was just an attempt to find supporters against the Atheist USSR?

[Radical_Dreamer]

I thought "In God We Trust" was just an attempt to find supporters against the Atheist USSR?

Initially, yes. It was supposed to rally the faithful Americans against those godless commies. But after the Soviet Union fell, the slogans stayed, and it's become a rather contentious issue. There are a lot of theocratic revisionists who feel very strongly (and very loudly) that the pledge and money should continue betraying the secular foundation of the country.

Fairly recently, the mint began issuing dollar coins with the faces of the presidents on them. While valid currency, they are mostly collectors items. The design called for the phrases "E Plurabis Unum" and "In God We Trust" to be on the edge of the coin. The theocrats threw a shit fit to such a degree that the cowards in Congress has told the mint to put the phrase back on the face as soon as is possible. When the faithful in the States talk about being persecuted, that is the type of thing they are referring to. An unconstitutional phrase putting their beliefs on a pedestal being moved from the face of what are essentially collectors edition coins onto the edge.

[Daniel Krispin]

Good points, RD.

The question really is, though, is it that much worse than any of the other institutions of mankind? Of course, theocratic governance is something that should be avoided because, when placed into a sphere of political power religion cannot help but be used in certain negative ways (nevertheless, I would be behind the retaining of old religious symbolism within a country, if it is certifiably old enough. As you cite that the mottos are only fifty years old - which I had not known - that is something open to debate. However, 'dei gratia regina' on our Canadian coins should be kept for the sake of tradition. In the same way that, were I to live in a predominantly Islamic country, I would urge them to retain their religious symbolism. The reason for this is that it is an inherent part of culture and art, and to remove it would be a detriment to society.) But anyway, you must remember, the politics of my country are not greatly influenced by religion, so it's tough for me to comment on that matter. We voted out the Liberals because they were, institutionally, corrupt, and rife with scandal. Our current Prime Minister is a stronger and generally more reliable sort.

Anyway, I agree that it is a lens that magnifies certain tendencies, though it must be remembered fairly that it can magnify certain good tendencies, too, and that there is much art and beauty that has come to be through religion (though we'll forget about that monstrosity of Saint Peter's... heh, okay, in my opinion, it's just far too gaudy.) Anyway, if you look throughout history, a lot of our art owes itself to religious thought, because it is inherently an attempt to understand ourselves in the context of the nouminal, and our place in the world. That sort of art and beauty is something that science, for all the awe it can instill, is incapable of (you must remember, I'm both scientist and artist, that is, engineer and classicist, so am speaking of personal experience. I'll on one hand talk about theme and words and all that, but also be inclined to working with stresses and what not.) A great part of what makes us human is that wonder which religion instills - not merely the wonder for the grandeur of nature, which is what ZeaLitY has said, but teleological thoughts, which are minds are prone to wander to. Anyway, most of our greatest literature has philosophical/religious thoughts, and so it cannot be denied that a lot of what is most high and beautiful has come about via it. True, not so much 'advancement', but advancement is not everything. Machines, too, can advance, but they aren't beautiful.

So I suppose the thing is, then, is that rather than throwing away that lens, why not assure that it is properly applied? Because in its proper application, it has given us a lot of good things as well, just like in misapplication it has led to the bad. So I suppose it is in error to make a blanket statement assuming it for bad, when it is plain that good has developed as well. Moreover, in certain characters, such as mine, religion in no way holds us back, indeed spurs us, to learn and to advance, because I feel it is my duty under God to better myself - much like the Stoics would say theirs was a duty under Nature to advance themselves. Anyway, I have been religious for, oh, 24 years now, and I've never once had a problem with being truly human, or acting vilely, because of it.

You call religion a lens. True enough, maybe. Hold a lens to the sun, and you can burn out your eyes, and cause fire and wreck. But use it to look at other things, and you can learn and perceive beauties that you never knew possible otherwise. It depends on what you magnify, you see, and how you use the lens.

Now I'll ask you a very silly post modern question (and though I hate post modernism, maybe this needs some thought.) Is the violent tendencies inherent to that it is religion, or to the old dichotomy of the 'self' versus the 'other' (which, indeed, manifests itself in a thousand different forms.)?

Further to this, should we not entirely disavow political structures as they, more than religion, have caused factional strife and violence? Look at all the great wars, and they're not caused by religion. They are caused by political ideologies, or the simple will to power that is inherent in every creature. And though religion may magnify it, to say 'remove religion, remove the lens, and we'll be better' is naive. If people use something as an excuse, and they then remove it, they'll just find something else. Some other way to excercise power over their fellows. And mark that science can be used in exactly the same way (not that it is, neccessarially, but that it is easily possible, especially if religion were banished.) You can easily have a hierarchy of knowledge, secret skills, and all that sort of thing, put into place (assuming, of course, that religion is like this. And if it once was, it is no longer, at least not in the circles I run. Everything is plain and obvious and out in the open.) But basically, science can be used as easily as religion as a means to power (and look only at those who control biological pharmeceutics, or military technologies, as examples of those who have used science in violence to their own gain.) What do you say to this? Technology and science, advancement, has exactly the same tendency and ability to magnify violence as religion does. Actually, that is one major example: the industrial revolution. The atrocities commited in the name of science and progress during that era rival the very worst ever done by religion. Science has shown itself an equal magnifier to religion. Yet should we disavow progress? And should we disavow religion? Is one truly more real than the other? It might seem more tangible, but ask yourself what benefit we gain, what happiness is in our lives, due to progress? That is a valid question (posed by Niel Postman), and indeed it might be claimed that that very science and technology has become self-perpetuating and rules our lives (again, put forward by Niel Postman... this is no religious claim, mark.) But the benefits, when the matter is really considered, are often illusionary. So it is difficult to single out religion as the one and greatest lens that magnifies human evils.

Just some thoughts. You bring up some good points, but I'm not confident that the analysis of the degree of impact is sound, though I think your analogy is. I would only say the analogy should be, as an example, applied to scientific progress, which can be shown to have as much of a varying positive/negative impact as religion. And, as such, if we are not to disavow the one, neither should we the other, at least if we're willing to fairly appraise the matter.

And by the way, ah, yes, programmer. I knew that once, but had forgotten.

Just thinking... I guess the reason I have such trouble is this. That it seems to me that nothing bespeaks fanaticism and stubborn bias so much as a belief that one side is absolutely wrong via a blanket statement. One thing I do know, and have found through the years (and yes, via study as well... people might disagree with me on this, but a lot can be learned via study, sometimes more than through 'real' experience, or at any rate it teaches on a larger scale... that's the importance of history), is that though I am a very strong absolutist, and do believe in right and wrong, especially in moral situations, that this is nonetheless not easily applied in practise. Nouminally, or ideally, or however you want to put it, yes, there is good and evil (these things are not relative), and all such, but as we perceive it, practically, in our day to day lives and within our societies, nothing is more dangerous than making a statement that entirely dismisses something, at least not without admitting there may be some truth to what the other side has to say. This is, as you know, the heart and root of what makes religion potentially dangerous, because it dichotomises it into an 'us versus them', with the 'us' being right.

Interestingly, ZeaLitY, this is what you have fallen into without even needing a religion (nb. and in regards to persecution of relgion, I do not mean persecution of freedom of expression, which does exist, but actually the global persecution, under, say, such atheistic states as China, which shows that religion is not needed for violence and supression.) Nonetheless, I will concede that it is often the case that such a stance IS taken via a religion, because in making faith based claims it is a very easy thing to do. Nonetheless, it does not solely require faith to do so, and you yourself have shown this. You are, actually, dehumanizing your 'enemies', or else they have been dehumanized for you, by whatever propoganda you've bought into.

In essense, what is the nature of a fanatic? Someone who is unable or unwilling to concede that in their opponents there is some reason, and that at all costs they are right, and their opponents wrong, correct? They have made things black and white, and refuse to see otherwise. But that very much belies the complexity of the issue, and more than anything makes one ideal nothing more than a scape goat - which is very much what you are using it as. Your words, if not your actions, betray all the mood of a fantatic, you must understand, and if the actions of some churches are ludicrous because they cannot see the worth in what others believe, so too is your obstinance in not wanting to see that there can be good from religion as well. Indeed, ZeaLitY, I'd beg you to watch and examine yourself, as in some ways you're showing behaviour that's equivalent to some of the worse elements of religion: you are utterly closed-minded. Worse yet, you are thinking yourself for open.

I guess it astounds me that anyone can think themselves progressive and enlightened, yet still not even attempt to see the good in other beliefs, especially when said belief has shown itself not to be all evil. In the same way that though I have typically had very bad experiences with atheists (normally because I've found them to be the most stubborn and dogmatic, and often irrational, people I've come across), I am still willing to respect them and hear if they have something enlightening to say, most especially if it's something enlightening. I have no offence to my professor trying to take down the arguements for God, for example. He can and does do so, and at times it's very interesting to see where the flaws in our logics reside. Now, I, being of a very dogmatic sect, am able to approach those other views and see the merit in them. Can you not do the selfsame thing with religion? Yes, we've done some things badly in the past. But heck, half of the things you historically attribute to religion is because it's been taught in high-school texts: learn about it at higher levels, and it's just like learning that electrons don't really follow proper Bohr-like energy levels: the matters are far more complex. How many people learn that, in the Reformation, it was all about indulgences and how Luther was against their sale because they were promising salvation for money? And how many know that's not exactly the case? Luther was never a schismatic, and always tried to retain ties to the Roman church... indeed, considered himself nearer Rome than to the other schismatics (and to this day we Lutherans are more Catholic than we are Protestant.) He scorned the 'religious' wars, which were in fact uprisings against the aristocratic leaders of the area. And the indulgences... the matter of the Reformation was something entirely minute. See, indulgences never promised salvation. They promised the Pope would pray on a person's behalf, which is entirely different. It was only a rogue monk Tetzel that was claiming otherwise, and Luther's attempts to expose him as a rogue was misinterpreted. Of course, most of us don't know this, do we? I only know it because my father is a professor in the field. Most of us just get taught 'religious wars'. The politics of the area are entirely left out of it, when in fact they are very important.

Just as another example, people often bring up so called oppressions in the Bible, which to any student of history, any scholar of history (and this, ZeaLitY, is why you must read these things, because you seriously do NOT know your Greek or Roman history, and so don't have the first right to comment contextually about social implications in the Bible) is bunk. Why? Because most of the statements are made from a contemporary social context. For example, take a typical one: women are to have long hair, and men short. Now give this a moment's though. Why? After all, didn't the Jewish men often have long hair? Where is this coming from? Because the letter is being written to Romans, with Roman sensibilities in mind. That is what you call CONTEXT, which is important in reading any work, religious or simply classical, and which is, unfortunately, the biggest problem the layman has in reading these things (and by layman I do not mean simply religious, I mean also scholarly.) They read these things and go 'well, nowadays we think like this, so this doesn't make sense here.' It runs you into lots of trouble if you don't understand everything surrounding it.

What is laughable about so many of the comments about so-called moral statements in the New Testament, which is a very familiar gripe, is that they are, in fact, not quite so 'religious' as people would think them to be. They are put into the mouths of saints, to be sure, but whenever you're feeling up to it, read some Stoic philosophy, will ya? Read some Seneca, and you'll see that all these matters of self-control, most of the moral statements, are simply Stoic. Paul was versed in contemporary philosophy, and that's something not a lot of people would realise. He knows enough of Greek literature to be able to quote more obscure poets to the people of Athens, so was probably as well versed in the Classics as most of our professors these days. Anyway, so to anyone who is properly a Classicist such statements made supposedly showing doctrine for 'oppressive' are obviously nothing short of ignorant. In actual matter of fact, though they seem 'backward' to our eyes, they were extremely progressive for their era. The Stoics were the most moral and advanced of the philosophies, all told. Yet you arraign them because they do not equal the way we think in our current times. Now what sort of sense does that make? Your view is, to make a long story short, based very much on taking things out of context. And don't level revisionist stuff at me. There is nothing revisionist in this. Contextuality is, in fact, the modern trend in the field of antiquity... it is actually supplanting the old stiff forms of viewing things. And I mean this as a totally 'secular' scholar. Our generation of Classicists is trying to understand better how things were without mixing in our own sensibilities. Unlike those people of years past who tagged and studied pots because they were supposedly such high pieces of art. Hmph. (They're not, by the way. They're interesting, to be sure, but they're nothing more than the Sunday dishes of the common people to the ancients.) What I mean is, context is now understood to be eminently important. And that goes for literature as well, and the Bible is literature. Most of the time when statements are made about Biblical excerpts they are made with a very grievious lack of sensibility to context. Hopefully I've made it clear that you must understand this (and more than this, that 'context' isn't some sort of revisionist blunder, but is the current trend in all ancient studies.)

Similar things could be said for the Old Testemant, because most of the 'wrathful' segments aren't much different than the majority of what you get socially in the region. What you are, in fact, commenting on without knowing it is not religion so much as ancient society. But, of course, you don't know this. Because you have no will to understand or to know antiquity contextually. You're about as bad as the people who really don't want to put Genesis into the context of ancient Mesopotamian texts, and all that stuff.

Anyway, I've meandered a long way, but my point is, ZeaLitY, you're treading the ground of a fanatic in assuming by rote that those you are in disagreement with must be wrong because you, somehow, have all the light. I hope you can see how blindly dogmatic your position is. I am not telling you to convert to a religion, not by any means, but you must see how your view of religion is one based more on your own opinion and emotion, and less on evidence and reason. I know, I know, you can cite your evidence, but statistics can be made to say anything. I can also say that Stalin, who was against religion, murdered a heck of a lot of people, too. That doesn't mean that atheists are evil and mass murderers. I'd be stupid for saying that. Yet your statements are about of that calibre. So be careful.

[Burning Zeppelin]

@Krispin: Once when me and Ali Sina, creator of the thread's titular website, where arguing about the nature of Islam compared to other religions, he claimed that Islam was the only imperialistic and evil religion, while I argued back to him that destroying Islam will not help the worldwide problem, as another religion or ideology will rise up and take it's place. He replied:

We are not against religion. We are against Islam because Islam is not a religion but an imperialistic doctrine of hate disguised as religion. Destroying Islam will lead to better understanding as one of the most insidious doctrines of hate will be eliminated. It is foolish to say destroying Islam is not going to help. This is like saying eradicating malaria will not help because people will still get sick from other diseases. Islam is the deadliest belief. Other religions often hurt the believers but usually do not affect others. Islam is a threat even to the unbelievers. That is why Islam is uniquely evil and in this sense not comparable to any other religion that may also be false.

The bolded part relates to why Zealit feels religion ought to cease to exist. Even if other social evils will still prosper, it will take a large chunk of it away.

(of course, I disagree with the bolded part, as yes, eliminating malaria will be useful in the short term, it will not mean much in the long run)

[Radical_Dreamer]

@Krispin: Once when me and Ali Sina, creator of the thread's titular website, where arguing about the nature of Islam compared to other religions, he claimed that Islam was the only imperialistic and evil religion, while I argued back to him that destroying Islam will not help the worldwide problem, as another religion or ideology will rise up and take it's place. He replied:

We are not against religion. We are against Islam because Islam is not a religion but an imperialistic doctrine of hate disguised as religion. Destroying Islam will lead to better understanding as one of the most insidious doctrines of hate will be eliminated. It is foolish to say destroying Islam is not going to help. This is like saying eradicating malaria will not help because people will still get sick from other diseases. Islam is the deadliest belief. Other religions often hurt the believers but usually do not affect others. Islam is a threat even to the unbelievers. That is why Islam is uniquely evil and in this sense not comparable to any other religion that may also be false.

The bolded part relates to why Zealit feels religion ought to cease to exist. Even if other social evils will still prosper, it will take a large chunk of it away.

(of course, I disagree with the bolded part, as yes, eliminating malaria will be useful in the short term, it will not mean much in the long run)

Are you then saying that we should allow people to suffer and die from malaria because curing it would not cure other diseases?

Daniel, I will address your post later as I'm presently too tired to give a useful response.

[Burning Zeppelin]

No, I'm just saying that Ali Sina's logic against Islam fails, as he doesn't recognize the real danger in Islam: the fact that it is a religion. But of course religion will lead to some of problems. Democracy is a breeding ground for violence (look at Kenya), but the faults in these systems do not cause the problems, it is the corruption and abuse of power expressed by the people who exploit these faults that do.

And seriously, all these exits are a lot less dramatic when we come back, eh Krispin and Lord J?

[Lord J Esq]

O, there was a time when I would have loved this kind of conversation! How fearlessly I would have taken on this blizzard of words with a gale of my own, single-handedly if it came to that.

In some part I wish I still felt that way, because I do hate it when good ideas are left unchampioned in the face of a challenge, and, if I may be blunt, no one else here could beat our redoubtable friend Thought, except possibly the Radical Dreamer, who seems content not to engage. Thought, you are as out of place here as I always was.

In the past I have fought here loyally on behalf of the truth, and only rarely on matters of personal taste. But today I want simply to offer my own view. On the substance of the debate at hand, I have no comment. It is the people involved that interest me more.

Fiery ZeaLitY runs amok in the streets of his own city, flicking passions as though his burning desires cannot fit inside him. I think in the future he will sheepishly admit that, in these days, he was more zealous in manners and mindset than he ought to have been. I hope he says that with understanding and not regret, because we should all be glad to have some fire. He is the reason we are even here. We owe him this entire Compendium, and these pages are proof enough of how very intensely he works when his passions are stirred. Just try and find what other websites are out there, in the whole world, for any video game, that have achieved such detail and care. When it comes to these debates of religion and politics, ZeaLitY’s intention is the same as it always is: to burn everybody else’s shadow into the ground with the glory of his own ideas. He brings that same agog temper with him everywhere he goes; this is how he always is. He is an assertive, territorial creature who loves the absolute; he is utterly fascinated by the philosophies of self-determination and the will to power; and he is also one of those people who came of age by turning away from the culture in which he was raised. That, together with his remarkable intrinsic zeal, makes him a very flamboyant character, and I am sorry that he sometimes strikes the impression of being shrill, or shallow, because the volume of his mind is even more considerable than the volume of his tone.

Curious Zeppelin, who has come a long way from the child he was several years ago. I still remember his claim that husbands should hit their wives when they become too disobedient. I still remember him asking me how I would feel if I were wrong about his god. And I still remember answering honestly, and not having the heart to ask him the same question in return. But now our beloved, blazing blimp has finally begun to ask it of himself. He has come so far from the rigid dogma of his religion—and that suits his inquisitive character impressively. Today, Zeppy is honing a fine mind, and with it he is slowly deciding for himself what he is all about and what the world means to him. I personally admire his eagerness to question everything at least once, and I think he can go far with that. He is in a better position than most of you are. I only hope that he doesn’t fall into the trap of replacing one rigid worldview with another.

Miserable Krispin…I think I understand him better than he knows, because the truth is that we give ourselves away when we write, and he writes a good deal. What I see is an unhappy soul who lives under great pressure in a world full of self-doubt. He lacks all confidence, for which he compensates with the appearance of far too much. He is neither friendly nor curious. His sole strength is his intelligence, cultivated by a love of literary ideas, but he never uses it anymore. Read for yourself this very topic. Gape at his discursions into Greek minutiae. Boggle at his conceit in disciplines he barely understands. Totter at his mock humility. Seethe as he preaches without answering your arguments or supporting his own. Snigger as he accuses you of his own failings at intellectual discourse. Fillip as he distinguishes his sterling credentials of history and philosophy against your gross ignorance of the same. Cringe with embarrassment as he licks the boots of characters like Thought who warrant the greatest scrutiny but who from him receive none. What a shame! If Krispin wanted serious conversation, he would be respectful and inquisitive rather than dismissive and hostile, even while disagreeing brutally. And he could do it, too. He is very smart. But that’s not what he wants. Krispin participates in these debates because they help distract him for a while, lending him a cause toward which his restless passions might go to some use. I personally regret that he and I started off on the wrong foot, because what he really needs is a few good friends and an escape from the Christian world that ensnares him. To be honest, I think Daniel Krispin doubts his own beliefs far more seriously than he would ever admit, but is simply not able, psychologically, to cope with that.

Shrewd Thought, I only barely know you but already I see you. You are the only person here who could be in his twenties or his sixties, for you have a polished manner and a strong awareness of the need to keep things civil, but at the same time you are hanging out on a forum of mostly teenagers, conversing with them at length—shamelessly, I might add. Perhaps you are like Marle: some important figure who just needs a place to go to have fun and be a nobody. What I wonder about you the most is why you are here and why you bring such passion to these religious topics, but what I wonder about you the second most is how much of your affable persona is forged in genuine humanity, and how much of it is strategic. At least some of it must be forced, because you are no wishy-washy patch of human clichés. You are a partisan, and you are extremely confident. I perceive and understand both your intellectual elitism and your subtle condescension toward others, for those are my weapons and I know them intimately.

These were my thoughts as I read the thread and realized that I had absolutely no desire to participate in the actual argument. With that enveloping diversion neutralized, it was only natural that my gaze should fall upon the combatants themselves. Understanding the motivations that drive people into specific debates, and the intentions they have, once engaged, is another world of answers.

Let me be clear: Defending the truth is its own reward. If somebody is posting sexist garbage or the like, then you have to brawl. Sometimes even a benign argument is just too irresistible not to join. But, whenever contingency permits, I say it’s ten times more enlightening to look at the people themselves than whatever it is they’re saying. What makes them tick? What do they want to achieve with their actions? The same arguments will be around tomorrow, but people change—some do. Change into what, is the question.

To those of you, like Kebrel, who are interested in the educational value of these kinds of debates, I urge vigilance! There’s a lot of bogus information around here. Krispin’s posts in particular are a minefield; they might be verbose and full of factual references, but his ability to draw meaningful conclusions is a joke. If I could teach every person in the world just one academic virtue, it would be inquiry. Do not simply trust what you are told. Instead, question everything. If you hone a working mind, it is through inquiry that you will be able to determine for yourself which ideas are worth further consideration, and which are not.

Now you understand why I said at the beginning that all of this is but an opinion.

So, that’s it. I’m done. My short little visit to the Compendium has come to an end. If you’re lucky, I might stop by to say hello again at some point…but don’t hold your breath.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Lord J, you know you'll be back. I also "quit" the Compendium, and now I post more then ever.

[Thought]

Aw, Krispin, I like the Stanley Lombardo translation of the Iliad. It isn't the best translation, but it is a rather fine Saturday-morning read.

… what interpretation can there be but one of savage intolerance towards nonbelievers?

What interpretation can there be but one of savage intolerance? Well, another option is always a correct interpretation (or at least, an interpretation that is less biased). Indeed, the very words of the bible are questionable, as we aren’t reading it in the original language (and even if we were, we can’t view the same shades of meaning that those words had for the original writers). The exact same verse can translate into English as God saying “I will savagely and intolerantly slay your enemies” or “I will peacefully and ecumenically save you from your enemies” (not direct quotes, mind you).

When other interpretations can and do exist, what reasons do you have for insisting that your particular interpretation is Truth?
 

if religion is held culpable, so must our myriad other institutions.

Well said, that is indeed my point. It isn't that I am trying to say that religious people have never done any wrong, or even that religion as an institution has never done any wrong (though I would maintain that the status of these grievances against the religious and religion are not anywhere near as clear cut as ZeaLitY presents); rather, the point is that it is irresponsible of us to blame the institution when the individual is at fault. By all means, blame the institution when the institution is as fault, but assign that blame properly.

I control myself, I am a dieing breed, I am an American.

If that first part is totally true, then I'll start referring to you as Mahatma Kebrel. But I am curious, have you never had an experience where what you want to do, you don’t do, and what you do, you don’t want to do?

ZeaLitY, Thought has put forward a lot of clear and reasonable points.

Lord J, Radical_Dreamer, and I disemboweled them on the operating table.

Firstly, no, none of you disembowled him. His arguments stood fast.

First, you need to work on your analogies, ZeaLitY. You just compared Lord J, Radical Dreamer, and yourself to surgeons who utterly failed at their appointed task and butchered a patient. Leaving someone disemboweled on an operating table is never a good thing. But I got your point, nonetheless.

Second, Krispin, I appreciate you defending me, but to be honest, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

This is for everyone: ZeaLitY, myself, and indeed anyone who seriously engages in these sorts of arguments are not going to be changed by if I (or Zeality, or anyone else) is right or wrong. The arguments are more for impartial third parties than for the participants; it is they that we might be able to sway. As such, any intelligent third party would look at the original arguments and judge for themselves. I think my arguments in the atheism thread easily withstood the opposition, but this is to be expected regardless of their actual merit (if I wasn’t confident in them, I wouldn’t have posted them). ZeaLitY thinks he addressed them sufficiently so as to relegate them to the status of a butchered slab of meat; again this is to be expected regardless of their actual merit (if he wasn’t so confident in his refutation, he wouldn’t have posted it).

I do not mean any offense to Krispin or ZeaLitY, but the amount of space devoted to such tertiary assertions as if this argument was successfully countered or not doesn't seem justified by the assertions importance (or lack of importance, really). The arguments speak for themselves.

First Thought: If you are living in a small country where theft is punishable by death. Now you and your Children are literally starving to death, all else fails so you steal food. Soon you are then caught and put to death because the ruler said that was the law. But hey according to you what you did was wrong and therefor your death is understand able.

First, under such a system my death would be understandable (though I think you meant to be addressing an issue of if that death would be good). Secondly, sorry Kebrel, I am not quite following you. "According to you..." which part that I said is this "according to" being attributed? I think you may be referring to my definition of Justice. If this is the case, then I would like to point out that such a definition was reached because if Religion is in question, then the Moral Law is also in question. As it makes no sense to use something in question to prove itself, it had to be discarded, leaving only regular laws as a measuring tool. Thirdly, this would actually seem to be a case of comparative evils. It is not good that one would need to steal, but it is worse that one should allow one’s dependents to starve. It is the lesser of the evils that I would steal to feed a family, but that doesn’t make it good.

Thought, the leader is not wrong.

Sorry, again I am not following you. What leader and who said he was wrong?

What use is there for all the evidence of religiously-motivated violence and hatred in the world if it is to be dismissed as fiction?

Who dismissed it as fiction? To my understanding every time it has been address it has merely been pointed out that violence is not limited to religion (or that it isn't all bad, or that the violence wasn't as bad as you are trying to make it look, or that the violence pointed out should not be attributed to religion at all, etc). Therefore, if we reject religion because of violence, we should likewise reject anything with violence. As every human institution has violence, such an argument would result in us rejecting all institutions.

He mentions that religion is not the only force that has caused unnecessary evil in the world. He is absolutely correct to make this statement, but he misses the mark. The evil done by one does not justify evil by another.

Quite right. However if the assertion is made that religion is an origin of violence, then it is perfectly valid (and on the mark) to offer the counter-point that, since violence exists in other institutions as well, the common factor between them all is more likely to be the origin of violence. This is not a matter of justifying violence, just of placing the responsibility for that violence on the proper individual (in this case, humanity, not religion).

The notions of race and country have caused unforgivable misery throughout human history, but they should be dealt with individually, as should religion, as they have circumstances, and there are different means of dealing with them.

This I must disagree with. Let us deal with the cause, not the symptoms. If a man has leprosy, don’t cut off his fingers since they lack feeling and proclaim that you’ve cured him. You’ve done nothing of the sort and indeed he is worse off than when you started.

The disagreement on this topic then seems to be whether the lens of religion is a net magnifier or reducer of violence. ZeaLity and I assert that the religion has caused more unjust and unnecessary suffering than it has averted, and so it would be a good thing for man kind on the whole if the lens of religion was peacefully cast aside.

Quite well said.

You see, we do not want to persecute the religious. We simply want them to stop recieving special deference and consideration in the society in which we live.

This is a sentiment I can sympathize with, but I would also request understanding on the opposing side. When people say things like “think of religious thought as a poisonous seed,” “the root is ultimately rotten,” and “it would be a good thing for man kind on the whole if the lens of religion was peacefully cast aside,” it makes religious people uncomfortable. It creates the air of hostility, even if hostility isn’t there.

Now it is quite possible to be opposed to something but still support its right to exist (the classic “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with my life”), but such sentiments aren’t often made clear.

The question really is, though, is it that much worse than any of the other institutions of mankind? […] But anyway, you must remember, the politics of my country are not greatly influenced by religion

Actually, that first part isn’t really the primary question (though it certainly is a very good secondary question that should be considered). A Krispy Kream Burger isn’t as unhealthy as eating straight lard, for example, but that doesn’t mean you should still eat it. However, it is good to consider the possibility that if one were to remove religion from society, a different institution might come along and fill the nitch.

Certainly, if we are to base our own behavior towards an institution on how bad that institution is, then we should use the same measure for all institutions. This would then act as a control. If our measure demands certain behavior towards one institution and when that same measure is applied towards another institution demands the same behavior, then the same behavior should be likewise applied. If we then find that behavior towards one institution unacceptable, we aught also find it unacceptable towards the other. To provide an example to put that in context: if we are to reject religion if it is a bad influence on society and find in the process that another institution, such as equality (I use this only as an example, not as an actual claim; such a claim I believe would be indefensible), was just as bad or worse of an influence on society, and provided that we are unwilling to dispense with equality, then neither should we be willing to dispense with religion. The measure, in such an instance, would be revealed to be faulty.

Anyway, I agree that it is a lens that magnifies certain tendencies, though it must be remembered fairly that it can magnify certain good tendencies, too, and that there is much art and beauty that has come to be through religion

To expound on this idea, and as I indicated in the atheism thread, the movable-type printing press is one of the world’s greatest inventions, on a similar level with the discovery of fire and agriculture. Religion provided a fertile ground for this invention to propagate; without religion the printing press would have been a novelty at best (we know this as Guttenberg was not the first to invent the printing press; earlier version were used in Asia expressly for political purposes and failed). That alone, in my mind, has earned Religion its keep as an influence for good on humanity. Everything from penicillin to refrigeration, from computers to basic human rights, came about because of the change that the printing press made in society. Without Religion, that change would not have occurred.

As a bit of an aside, to speak from the person rather than the mind (as it were), one particularly disturbing aspect of this discussion is that let us suppose for a minute that ZeaLitY is correct in his assessment of religion and we, as a society, should do away with it. Regardless of the means employed to bring this about, that is a form of genocide and intellectual eugenics (a bit of a melodramatic conclusion, but not utterly beyond reason).

yes, there is good and evil (these things are not relative), and all such, but as we perceive it, practically, in our day to day lives and within our societies, nothing is more dangerous than making a statement that entirely dismisses something, at least not without admitting there may be some truth to what the other side has to say.

Quite true and possibly one of the better points made in this thread.

Are you then saying that we should allow people to suffer and die from malaria because curing it would not cure other diseases?

Actually, that is a very interesting question. Humans do not have the ability to eradicate malaria from the face of the earth and it is questionable as to if we should try. Currently, the world is poised for a pandemic unlike anything seen in history exactly because modern medicine has been hobbling our most powerful weapon against disease; our own immune systems. We do so much to prevent ourselves from getting sick that when something comes along that medicine can’t handle, our bodies will be less able to defend against it. Should we have a few deaths along the way and allow some diseases to exist, or should we try to stamp out those diseases and open ourselves to civilization-toppling pandemics? I have no idea the answer.

Shrewd Thought [...]

Gah, I am too prideful not to at least acknowledge this.

However, you said one thing that, though totally off topic from the discussion, I feel I should address. That I could be in my 20s or 60s (ye darn kids, always gettin' on my intellectual lawn!) but visit a "forum of mostly teenagers." I address this because I remember the rage that such a comment would have created in me if I were younger and if the comment were directed a little differently. Intelligent debate and keen minds are not limited to age ranges; there have been better debates here, in a forum of "mostly teenagers," than can be found in many gatherings of Ph.D.'s and MD's (and I am speaking from personal experience). Age only helps one a little in debates (mostly in that one then has had more time living to amass more knowledge; but the accrual of time certainly isn't something to be prideful of), and I have generally found that youth can help one a great deal (being that youth grants one a flexible mind, more suited to learning and capable of leaps of inspiration that the elderly can only envy). This I believed in youth and I continue to believe in age (though I am not so aged yet). So why am I here? My alias implies it. There is thought here, and so Thought is here. As for passion; I see the question of God as the most important one a human can address. If I am not going to be passionate in this matter, I might as well be dead.

But now that you’ve patted my ego and I’ve shamefully indulged for a moment, I must turn to your “analysis” of the other participants. You are too kind to ZeaLitY, far too harsh (and rude) on Krispin (though it does make me wonder why you are underestimating him to such a degree), too interesting about Zepplin (there is history there and my love of history makes me curious to it and indeed the general history of the society this forum represents). How should I react to your analysis of myself, then? You are too generous by a good deal and slightly insidious.

Of course, the truly interesting thing is that your own analysis of us in the debate reveals something of your own character. I won’t say what that is; no matter your analysis of me, I won’t be too hasty in my own

...

Now, it seems that most of what is occuring here is just our reactions to other people's reactions to other people's reactions. Ah well.

Just a reactionary,

Thought

EDIT: And that is why one should always preview something before posting. Two missing / were enough to mess up the formating something aweful.

[Daniel Krispin]

Lord J, can't you do ANYTHING but ad hominem? Not that it means anything really (why would my own personal state matter?), but actually I'm not at all unhappy. Actually, I just had a wonderful evening enjoying the Epicurean pleasures of beer, cigars, and conversation. I couldn't be more content, come to think of it. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, but it's not working very well. Pressure? Self-doubt? Wherefrom? I am the sort that knows life has joys in good and bad times alike. Nor does life pressure me too greatly. Nor, for that matter, have I a lack of friends who do not share my beliefs - I live very comfortably in the secular world, nor ever has that caused me any doubt in what I believe. Why should it? Heh. My passions are all so diverted, whether it be the study of antique language or philosophy, why should they be so restless as to require this? Indeed, what sparked my interest here is that my very classes are touching upon this matter, and it was from there to here the spark lept, and it was not born here, as you might think. Storm all you want, but there's no cause nor truth in anything you say.

I compliment Thought because I respect the man. I always compliment those whom I respect, for that I think it to be right and proper. If someone says something that has been beyond my thought, is it not right to admit that one my superiour? I have no qualms of taking second or third rank, and no need or desire to be first. Indeed, what you see is me gladly giving way to someone who has superiour intellect. That is entirely within my nature, because I am only a leader and teacher in so far as I think I have something to say that none other might be capable of saying. I gladly take a follower position if there is something to be learned in the process. This is in fact the direct opposite of misery, because it demands a strong knowledge of who and what oneself is... the old Delphic adage of know thyself. I know who I am, and what I know, and attempt to neither throw myself too high or too low. Note that you yourself are excercising flattery upon Thought, though your mannerisms are far more that of a fawning courtier - to subdjugate others with petty epithets is entertaining, to be sure (and, certainly, I could bear a worse than miserable!) but doesn't do more than exemplify your own predjudice and, moreover, dire insecurity. It is true, Thought is highly confident... but you miss your mark in thinking me not the same. And you betray your own lack of the same in your incessent neccessity to strike at the hearts of others... with rather shaky aim, I must add. Might I suggest a better bowyer? Or is it your arrows are crooked?

Indeed, I can account for your attempts as nothing else. You claim me for miserable only for that you cannot fathom me. Deign to understand me as you wish, but there is not a whit of depression or misery in me, and even amidst my darkest hours, which indeed each life can at time possess, I bear myself in a tragic mode which demands resolve and determination... and if I be melodramatic, that is for the entertainment of my own spirit. Do you mistake that for misery? For it is said truly, my Lord, that none who hates life, none who is miserable, can be truly tragic. And for that I think heroically, and moreover haven't a whit of care for if you think me happy or unhappy, how can I be miserable? Indeed, my Lord, it is often the surest sign of a person's own fears, doubts, and state, that they attack others with the same that besets them. Each and all that read what you say know very surely you to be uncertain, and you unhappy. For only an unhappy man would storm as you do, and draw such fiery lines, and make petty attempts to attack his opponent's persona. A persona, I must add, that you attempt to read far too much into. Know this for truth: that I am who I show myself to be, neither more arrogant nor more humble; more reserved or more fiery. Anyone can see precisely who I am in what I write without disguise. You look for depth that simply isn't there.

It is for this I know you to be a sure rhetortician, but no intellectual - but ware, my Lord, you speak of a rhetortician that, at his best, can match or outmatch you. You are an engineer, not a philosopher, and a yet poorer psychologist. I do not know what you lack in your life - unlike you, I will not deign to guess at what you truly are, and can only guess at from what you attempt to crudely paste over me - but something troubles you. If it gives your spirit solace to think of me as one unhappy and beset by dogmatic doubts, feel free to do so. I know myself, and if it's to your comfort, it'll be nothing the worse for me however you choose to consider me. But this is so that these others know. And it is true, I can say whatever I wish about myself, even as you can, and perhaps it is that I can weave clever lies and belie my true nature. I cannot say anything absolute that can dispell such thoughts. But I'll trust that in the form of my writing, that in what is said between words through which a writer conveys his soul, who I am is clearly exemplified, even as do you of yourself. In truth, I think nothing of this needed to be said, but for that I am melodramatic, and a touch fiery, and quick to speak in my own defence, I've said it.

Now, shall we speak about the matters at hand, rather than guessing at the characters that our personas protect? If, indeed, there is guile at all in any of us. It is all so fascinating to guess at the natures that lie behind these words, but it aids us very little in understanding these issues... not unless it is you are taking issue with the person, rather than the matter. And that is a fashion of argument that no true intellectual should stoop to. Attack the end; attack the form; but not the speaker. Ever. That betrays the sacrosanct nature of debate, and sends us in harsh spirals back to those dismal ages you abhor in which we were tried not for truth or falsity, but for who it was spoke the words. You have levelled me arrows, but I've the adamantine Aigis, my Lord... a Gorgon's glare of harsh certainty and tasselled in truth. This battlefield you've taken with me I bestride like grey-eyed Athene, and you but stark Ares who seeks to tear the hearts from lesser heroes. Then like that god you see my approach, taking me for mere Diomedes, but do not see me, in truth, for all that I am. And so might you bellow your war cry, and think an easy prey near to snatch out some fickle heart in uncertain dismay. But your spear is glanced harmless aside, butcher; my own sends you in agony to heaven's throne. For it is that you have all the bluster of a malevolent fighter; but I the tactic resolve of the grey-eyed goddess. Do not underestimate my rehetoric when I'm in good form. Heh.

(The great irony is, the storm and bluster of most of what I wrote was not for the neccessity of defence, but for that the words merely came to me, and I couldn't but write them. Could I truly pass up comparing myself to harsh Athene, that wrecker of battalions? I am laughing, and deeply, as I write this, for the comedy of your styled psychology, and at myself for my entirely too overdone melodrama, and antique allusions. We're both a pair of fools, you know. Ha!)

But one thing I will say: you speak well of ZeaLitY. I will not disparage him, for all that I disagree with him, because this forum his his child. And more than this, there is something commendable in the fire of his nature, which you say rightly. For that, I give him credit. He can be driven in great variance between Helios and Aidoneus (to be rightly pendantic... me loving my Classical minutae to such a great extent), and is for that an excellent artist. You speak of his glory, and indeed there is something of that to his nature, and for all that I do not ideologically agree, I do respect it, and in part admire it.

But tell me, you all who read this, who has had the better, me or the Lord of rhetoric? Whose foils have found their marks more truly in the skirmish? You're the judges. Has this been a plapable hit? I daresay it has, or at least I had great enjoyment of the attempt even if I've lost the day. That Lord and I have strutted about each other like two fighter's on Troy's old plain, and cast our spears. His took an off turn from my shield's edge, or so I figure it. Mine... well, I'll leave that for others to discern. Ah, tell me, you goddess, you who hold in your memory the knowledge of all things, of that struggle between haughty J, prince of the Compendium, and miserable Krispin... such would be our epic, I think. But really, you all, look at this, and tell me who's having more fun, and who's got the better of this. Because I'm bloody tired of trying to be all too serious all the time with the Lord. It's time I had some fun. And hence, my melodrama and rhetorical storm. Take it how you will, frown, laugh, or disdain. I'm going for the middle one.

[ZeaLitY]

your particular interpretation is Truth?

Interpretations are meaningful in how they are applied. But this is not a matter of interpreting little statements about salvation and sanctification. How liberally can you interpret these? So, let's ignore, for a second, all the instances of God utterly snuffing out nonbelievers with purging fire, and promising an eternity of hell to those who don't believe in him. Let's assume that people will magically not infer an attitude of intolerance from those examples, and move on to specific admonitions in the Bible. Now, let's consult the lists you shrugged off:

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.

6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Why, thank you, John! I should be a good Christian in this tradition and turn anyone I suspect who is part of another denomination away from my total hospitality.

1:10  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:     (1:10-11)

1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Whoa! Blank check to hate the Jews, here.

6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

This just in: science is bunk. If it goes against Christianity, it is to be avoided as babbling.

13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Those without Jesus are reprobates. No, not nonbelievers, not harmless citizens, not mere bystanders. They are reprobates. There are many more verses like this one.

6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Crap! Consentual sex is out, and I guess born homosexuals have to roast whether they like it or not. Aww, and here I thought that in 2008, we were out of the Dark Ages. Silly ol' me.

2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Faith is exempt of criticism?

1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Atheists are fools. No, not nonbelievers, not harmless citizens, and not mere bystanders. Nevermind that calling someone a fool is a sin worthy of hellfire; I guess God gave him a free ride since he was rooting for the home team, here.

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

Well, that seals it. It's not as the first amendment would have you to believe; you are not free to practice another religion than Christianity and be neutral. You are against Christ. This is a wonderful argumentative fallacy, but also the epitome of intolerance in religion.

And now, after those excerpts (I didn't bother going into the Old Testament, which is decisively more intolerant), you question that people who read the bible and partake of religion such as this will not be intolerant because of interpretation? How exactly do you interpret "against me", anyway?

Who dismissed it as fiction?

Do you mean to allege that your eyes were completely closed during the numerous times Krispin denied religion's placement in the Dark Ages? Wait, wait; nevermind. I forget your dim view of humanity as hopeless in a world it cannot understand, subservient to a God for its advancement. My mistake.

It creates the air of hostility, even if hostility isn’t there.

Hostility is inherent to religion, per intolerance. My words are apt for something which conveniently excuses itself from accountability, scrutiny, and reason, rationalizing its shortcomings as divine will.

(we know this as Guttenberg was not the first to invent the printing press; earlier version were used in Asia expressly for political purposes and failed).

Not so fast. You may thank the Latin alphabet for that. That is why the Chinese are still struggling with several methods of inputting characters, exemplified by this experimental keyboard:

Regardless of the means employed to bring this about, that is a form of genocide and intellectual eugenics (a bit of a melodramatic conclusion, but not utterly beyond reason).

No one mourns the loss of phlogiston and flat earths. Religion was a theory about what caused phenomena in tribal times, now invalidated. Relief efforts, scholarships, service projects, youth centers, hospitals, and charities need not be religious to be effective, nor will suddenly evaporate without God telling people to help each other.

Actually, that is a very interesting question. Humans do not have the ability to eradicate malaria from the face of the earth and it is questionable as to if we should try.

DDT might have eradicated malaria, or relegated it to negligible, trace levels. Unfortunately, cabinet politics in the United States under the veneer of environmentalism squelched its use (despite no evidence of its accused effects), and thanks to localized (but not global) usage, yes, natural selection is leading to some resistant populations. Regardless, we had the power to eliminate malaria, just as we have eradicated other diseases from the earth. For every massive possible pandemic, there is a huge medical advancement on the horizon. Eugenics will be precluded by gene therapy.

You are too kind to ZeaLitY

Ah, yes, ZeaLitY, who began posting in this very forum in 2003 as a supporter of George W. Bush, an ardent believer in Christianity, and a red-blooded neocon:

I read a statistic that said the US only received about 5% of its oil from Iraq. This is my primary bastion against the bush-haters.

I prefer personal research, experience, and directed discussion as a path to learning versus argumentation. But something as inherently evil as religion -- something which burdens humanity all around me in this wretched Bible Belt, does much worse in the rest of the world, and threatens to defer or hamper my own dream and principal ambition -- inspires passion and contempt.

[Daniel Krispin]

Um, ZeaLitY, if you're going to quote the Bible, quote something a little more modern, will ya? NIV is a little more current than something using archaic 'ye' forms, and isn't the most accurate to the Greek (and that I CAN prove... if you want, I can give you literal renderings of those verses.) Anyway, that serves very well to prove the point of your lack of contextual understanding.

For example, there is nothing about hating the Jews in that line. Yes, if you look at that line in seclusion, but you can make picked quotes like that say anything. I could have you say some pretty troubling thing by picking and choosing what you say out of context, mark. Anway, what it is, if I recall (I don't want to bother looking it up) is because there was in fact trouble at that point because some of the Jews were annoyed that gentiles were being allowed into fellowship, and were saying they should be excluded. This is speaking against them, not against the Jews as a whole. There were very many Jews within the fellowship, but some were thinking that what was preached was only for them. As such, he is saying that there are troublemakers amongst the Jewish Christians who are trying to keep the gentiles away. However, since you didn't know the context, you entirely misread that. That is typical to what I'm saying.

About being yoked... are you just picking off these lines and interpreting them in seclusion? Seriously, you can't do that with anything... how can you with this? This is talking about marriage, ZeaLitY... it's warning about marrying outside the faiths simply because, well, look at what kind of conflict this topic causes. Think it would go for a good marriage?! That's just common sense. It has nothing to do with hospitality. Of course, you didn't read the surrounding verses, did you?

The comments about the sinful people having no part of things... hey, that's what I said... it's typical of the Stoics. This isn't unique, nor does it even originate, with Christianity. Again, your comment is entirely out of line, because you're saying 'this is 2008'... which is precisely the mistake in view that I have pointed out. You are reading these things as though they were written in the current times. Some social context must be understood, and as such to read it as you are is utterly flawed, and it is only understandable that it would seem awkward. After all, without understanding context you'd read any of the heroes of the Iliad as being utterly psychopathic killers. If you approached literature as you do the Bible, you would never actually be able to understand anything about the past.

What you have said there is precisely the reasons I think you do not have the ability to read and understand what the Bible says. Of course, you do not have to be a believer to understand, even as I do not have to believe in the Greek gods to understand the Iliad (more or less), but you have to understand context, which you don't. Worse yet, you take lines entirely in seclusion, which scholarly speaking is an abominable practise.

[ZeaLitY]

Ah, I see. So hating various people was A-OK in those times, but would be out of place in a modern society.

Then tell people to stop believing in it.

[Daniel Krispin]

Ah, I see. So hating various people was A-OK in those times, but would be out of place in a modern society.

Then tell people to stop believing in it.

As absolutely literal at all times? I do. I've had arguments with the more evangelical sorts that rival my disputes with Lord J.

[Lord J Esq]

What interesting responses I have elicited! I think I like Burning Zeppelin’s the best, because he was spot on:

BZ wrote:

Lord J, you know you'll be back. I also "quit" the Compendium, and now I post more then ever.

Indeed, here I am! I’m not back for good, mind you. I only came back for the Atheism thread and then got distracted into this one as well. But I’ll take my leave soon enough, and indeed I have three limbs out the door already. The only thing keeping that last foot in this place is a suggestion from my passions that it is easy enough to leave a place with no commitments, but altogether harder to leave in the midst of a live discussion. I should have known better than to ponder about the four of you, because surely I was guaranteed to get a response.

To Thought, who wrote:

Of course, the truly interesting thing is that your own analysis of us in the debate reveals something of your own character.

Yes, it does. Too bad you haven’t got the recklessness to offer your own interpretation of what that might be, because it would be very interesting. I was, apparently, correct about your age. You have doubtlessly encountered all kinds of people in your travels, and surely you have an opinion about me, even if you aren’t brazen enough to share it. Too bad; my loss.

Firstly, no, none of you disembowled (Krispin). His arguments stood fast.

You mean they stood fast for you. You show strange judgment, Thought. I smell bias.

That’s one characteristic in which we diverge. Honesty. I know how to tell a good argument from a bad one, regardless of which side of the debate it comes from. ZeaLitY’s arguments in the Atheism topic were bad. I admit this even though he is on my side and his conclusions are noble. His reasoning, where he bothers to explain it at all, is simply poor and aggressive. Radical Dreamer’s arguments were good, but very narrow and thus of limited use.

Your own arguments were good, but not great, which is disappointing because your style is delicious. Krispin’s were horrible; I don’t see how you can honestly suggest that they stood fast.

My arguments were okay. I know I made straight work of explaining why faith is inherently unreasonable. Better still, I think I did excellent work on the defense of an atheistic stance against specific divine claims. There may well be fault to be found in it, but I don’t expect anyone here to be able to work at that level of analysis. However, for all my pride thus far, much of the rest of my post was merely okay and is certainly vulnerable to attack. I am particularly unsatisfied with the section I wrote discrediting Christianity on the merits. As a student of history myself, I will be the first to admit that there is more history out there than I can easily survey, let alone master. If you have truly devoted your many years to the pursuit of history, you can probably beat me—or at least stymie me pending further research—in my criticisms of institutional Christianity during the Middle Ages.

In comparison to me, you have not demonstrated a single concession for anything your opponents have written, which, again, is strange judgment, because Radical Dreamer and I have both made some very strong points.

However, you said one thing that, though totally off topic from the discussion, I feel I should address. That I could be in my 20s or 60s (ye darn kids, always gettin' on my intellectual lawn!) but visit a "forum of mostly teenagers." I address this because I remember the rage that such a comment would have created in me if I were younger and if the comment were directed a little differently.

You’re right. As I as writing the paragraph about Zeppy, I remember thinking how much I would have resented it if, at that age, older people had dismissed me on accounts of my age. I almost wrote that into the paragraph, to show him that I sympathize with his position because I was there myself once. So your observation is well-taken.

Still, in the bustle of your response, I notice you declined to offer your real age. I can only guess that it embarrasses you, or else I think you would have freely and perhaps even proudly offered it up, if for no other reason than to defuse the subject and get back to the topic at hand. I’m willing to go out on a limb and guess that you are north of 34 and south of 70, but I can’t do any better than that.

I, myself, am a precocious little brat of 25.

Oh, and if you should decide to indulge me, let’s also have your credit card number and billing information. =)

How should I react to your analysis of myself, then? You are too generous by a good deal and slightly insidious.

Insidious, eh? No, I’m pretty straightforward about what I want. Chrono Trigger itself—have you played that?—has a few remarks that sum up large swaths of my philosophy. Go check out my poll on the Poll board about Chrono Trigger quotes to see a few of my favorites. (They aren’t all my favorites, but, if you do know a little about me, you will be comfortable picking them out.)

As for you…I was right about you, wasn’t I? “Too generous” indeed. You’re too modest.

You are too kind to ZeaLitY, far too harsh (and rude) on Krispin (though it does make me wonder why you are underestimating him to such a degree), too interesting about Zepplin (there is history there and my love of history makes me curious to it and indeed the general history of the society this forum represents).

I would enjoy your explanation as to why you drew those conclusions.

One final request: Fix your formatting!

The Miserable Krispin wrote:

Lord J, can't you do ANYTHING but ad hominem?

Sure. I also do bar mitzvahs.

Since I am being contemplative in this thread, maybe I should explain for the rest of you, once and for all, why I so seriously dislike this guy:

Mr. Krispin has a storied tradition of accusing me of ad hominem. The thing is, he’s half right. I do use personal attacks, sometimes, in my writing. Not always, of course, and never without the company of a substantive argument…but I do use them. What he doesn’t understand is that I only use them where they work: I attack tactically, not rhetorically. Just look at how whipped up Krispin has become, every single time I have posted at the Compendium over the past several weeks. It makes him look ridiculous. This is a studied tactic that I have learned from observing human interaction, and from having had a few “interactions” of my own, earlier in life: Use the enemy’s own energy against them.

Why do I do it? I do it because I loathe intellectual dishonesty, particularly at the hands of an intellectual. I will explain that in greater detail later, because it is the core of my problem with the guy, but for now I must confess that it brings me a good amount of pleasure to see an odious character like Krispin suffer a deep emotional toll for committing his many intellectual profanities in my presence. He would do so much better for himself to simply ignore me outright, because when he reads me he obviously cannot help himself from going into conniptions. But the weak do strive to be weaker.

Krispin is also half-wrong, though. Something I have noticed from him over the years is that he projects, in the psychological sense, his own problems and behaviors onto others.

When Krispin accuses me of making personal attacks, it usually isn’t because of anything I wrote. It is because he is about to make a personal attack of his own. This is the man whose main line of defense against my arguments, on whatever the subject, is that I am a pseudo-intellectual rhetorician, incompetent and incapable of winning arguments on merit. He often compares me to Hitler and Stalin, with a straight face. He calls me a fundamentalist, even though my native stance of skepticism is antithetical to the very notion. He says my posts are not even worth his time to read, yet he always manages to read them anyway and, of course, condemn them brutally. Amid all those personal attacks, he never—never—answers the substance of my arguments. He simply dismisses them summarily, and then suggests that the substance never existed to begin with…even though it is still right there on the screen for everybody to see. He lives in a world of hatred, and projects this onto those who challenge him.

Do you know why I call him just “Krispin” and not “Daniel Krispin”? It is because I once asked him to call me Josh, in a gesture of respect to him, and instead he settled on “Lord J,” meaning an insult by it. Nowadays he doesn’t even bother with the J; he just calls me “The Lord,” an obvious mockery. He goes out of his way to put me down, with personal attack after personal attack. And the punchline? He accuses me of ad hominem!

The wise ones say we should listen to our enemies, and goodness knows I tried listening to him for a long time. Even today I still answer his principal arguments, but I have given up on taking him seriously or connecting with him personally.

Krispin projects compulsively. I don’t think he can help it, and it isn’t limited to personal attacks directly.

He describes me in terms that imply I am closed-minded. He, the man who never bothers to mount a counterargument. The man who simply declares victory rather than earning it. During my time here I have always gone to the trouble of refuting his claims comprehensively. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t even bother with the pretense of caring anymore, because I have proven myself to be persistent. Closed-minded? Me? Good grief, he could not have picked a worse line of attack! Open-mindedness is the single greatest virtue in my entire philosophy, so to be accused of practicing the very opposite, by a closed-minded dunce no less, is shameless of him. I may be forceful in those opinions that I care to defend, but my entire life is built upon the love of questions.

I don’t yet know why, but I am a serious threat to Krispin’s worldview. It is his own antipathy for me that causes my speculation about his personal demons—which brings me to yet another instance of projection on his part: In this very thread, when I suggested that he had personal problems, what was his response? To assert that his life is great, beer, cigars, and all, and that in fact I am the one with the problems. Just look at what he wrote:

Indeed, I can account for your attempts as nothing else. You claim me for miserable only for that you cannot fathom me. Deign to understand me as you wish, but there is not a whit of depression or misery in me, and even amidst my darkest hours, which indeed each life can at time possess, I bear myself in a tragic mode which demands resolve and determination... and if I be melodramatic, that is for the entertainment of my own spirit. Do you mistake that for misery? For it is said truly, my Lord, that none who hates life, none who is miserable, can be truly tragic. And for that I think heroically, and moreover haven't a whit of care for if you think me happy or unhappy, how can I be miserable? Indeed, my Lord, it is often the surest sign of a person's own fears, doubts, and state, that they attack others with the same that besets them. Each and all that read what you say know very surely you to be uncertain, and you unhappy. For only an unhappy man would storm as you do, and draw such fiery lines, and make petty attempts to attack his opponent's persona. A persona, I must add, that you attempt to read far too much into. Know this for truth: that I am who I show myself to be, neither more arrogant nor more humble; more reserved or more fiery. Anyone can see precisely who I am in what I write without disguise. You look for depth that simply isn't there.

I’m sure he believes that himself, but what do you think? I think I hit a nerve. And do you know how I think that, since I don’t have access to his mind? Because, in fact, I do have access. When we write, we reveal the contents of our character for all to see. Not even I could conceal myself completely behind a persona, even if I dared to try. Krispin himself has explained his personal problems, at various points during his tenure on the Compendium, to me and others, and I do not forget, because this knowledge has done so much to help me understand where he is coming from, and that sort of thing is important to me.

As for myself, I’ll tell you my worst problems, straight from the horse’s mouth: I am slothful and a perfectionist, which means my ambitions outstrip my dedication. Everybody should be so fortunate to have no greater troubles in their life than those.

It might sound like a joke at this point: Josh says “You!” Krispin says, “No, you!” Josh says, “No, really, you!” And anyone who doesn’t bother to scrutinize these words in greater detail will be left to conclude that we’re both crazy. But I point all of this out for two good reasons: One, because I have turned this into a psychology thread, and Krispin is enough of a case to fit on the Bob Newhart Show. He brings it upon himself, and frankly he deserves the worst.

But why does he deserve the worst? That brings me to my second reason for this little exposition: It is very frustrating to encounter someone like Krispin, who is obviously smart and wears all the garb of one who lives for the pursuits of high intellect, but who, underneath this beautiful raiment, is a traitor to the virtues I hold most dear.

If you loved soccer, and a good player on your favorite team were exposed as a serial cheater, how would that make you feel? Disappointed, yes? It is an even greater disappointment than it would be, because you cared so much in the first place.

An intellectual should be open-minded, honest, critical, curious, thoughtful and disciplined. Krispin is none of those things, and that seriously disturbs me, because on the outside he looks like the spitting image of a philosopher king. For one so immersed in literature and the study of golden Greece, and thus so studied and articulate a man, Krispin is among the most uncritical, incurious, dishonest, egotistical, and closed-minded fools I have ever seen. And I admit this vexes me, because, like I said, on the outside I perceive a kindred spirit. My emotion tells me that he is someone who went badly wrong. Again, everything I have written in this thread is an opinion, just as I disclaimed in my previous post, but I would never cast aspersions without some confidence in what I say.

He is almost, almost, the sort of person to whom I could be a wonderfully close friend, because we share a lot in common. I remember my own excitement when I studied formal philosophy for the first time. I remember my love of Tolkien, and I admire his ability to reproduce that style so well. I can’t do that, not yet! By all outward appearances, he and I should be at the center of the strongest alliance this Compendium has ever known.

But his spirit, his center, is completely rotten. And every so often he will come to the Compendium and post these horrible ideas, hatefully, spitefully, and, at some level, he must expect that he is going to get away with it. It is a perversion of intellectualism. He lives in his own world, the very epitome of insularity. He disregards challenges and rebuttals. His ways are a personal insult to anyone like me who treasures the pursuits of the mind, because he is no mere anti-intellectual or petty idiot. He is a great person gone greatly astray. And the clincher is, he is smart enough to fool most. Even Thought, apparently, has some affection for this traitor of an intellectual, this cerebral scab, this man for no season.

I have had great arguments in my lifetime. In a great argument, victory and defeat become meaningless; the presence of beautiful ideas seizes all passion, humbles all ego. I know what a beautiful argument is like. Not only have I never had one on the Compendium, but Krispin in particular has given me the very opposite kind of argument, the argument which is a chore and not a joy to make, the argument against one who has no intention of considering new possibilities, wishing only to achieve validation.

You will all meet people like Daniel Krispin in your lifetime, people who are so similar to you, and who share some of your deepest interests, yet who went very wrong inside. When you meet such people, then you will understand my effort here.