Should prisoners be forced to work for society while in prison?
Jelrak TB
Society should have a right to demand some form of compensation from
those who seek to cheat the system or cause it damage. Prisoners
working could at least provide a means of compensating the victim or
could provide some income to offset the cost of keeping them
incarcerated.
Cons (no pun intended):
Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery. Also, forcing prisoners
into this situation may lead to abuses by those in power over them. If
the proceeds are lucrative enough, it might even lead to falsifying
reasons to detain prisoners longer instead of providing positive
feedback that might have otherwise led to an early parole.
Any opinions?
Captain Trips
and go ahead and get my feet wet in here. Replies below..
On 6/7/2011 5:49 PM, Jelrak TB wrote:
> Pros:
> Society should have a right to demand some form of compensation from
> those who seek to cheat the system or cause it damage. Prisoners
> working could at least provide a means of compensating the victim or
> could provide some income to offset the cost of keeping them
> incarcerated.
Those are good and sound reasonable. I'd add that keeping the prisoners
busy would likely help keep them out of trouble while incarcerated..
> Cons (no pun intended):
> Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery.
So what's wrong with slavery?
> Also, forcing prisoners
> into this situation may lead to abuses by those in power over them. If
> the proceeds are lucrative enough, it might even lead to falsifying
> reasons to detain prisoners longer instead of providing positive
> feedback that might have otherwise led to an early parole.
That's a lot of "might"s.
> Any opinions?
Fairly concrete Pros, and only imagined Cons. Sounds like the Pros have it.
Probably need to throw in some sort of motivation for the prisoners,
like positively graded work results in early release. Maybe scrap the
whole parole system even, that'd be a major cost savings in and of itself.
Not sure what this has to do with a religious debate though..
SM
JTB
Didn't see anyone replying to ya, so I figured I'd come out of lurk mode and go ahead and get my feet wet in here. Replies below..
Thank you.
Those are good and sound reasonable. I'd add that keeping the prisoners busy would likely help keep them out of trouble while incarcerated..
On 6/7/2011 5:49 PM, Jelrak TB wrote:
Pros:
Society should have a right to demand some form of compensation from
those who seek to cheat the system or cause it damage. Prisoners
working could at least provide a means of compensating the victim or
could provide some income to offset the cost of keeping them
incarcerated.
So what's wrong with slavery?
Cons (no pun intended):
Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery.
This is an interesting observation. Are you not opposed to slavery in general, or just for those who have wronged society?
That's a lot of "might"s.
Also, forcing prisoners
into this situation may lead to abuses by those in power over them. If
the proceeds are lucrative enough, it might even lead to falsifying
reasons to detain prisoners longer instead of providing positive
feedback that might have otherwise led to an early parole.
Any opinions?
Fairly concrete Pros, and only imagined Cons. Sounds like the Pros have it.
Probably need to throw in some sort of motivation for the prisoners, like positively graded work results in early release. Maybe scrap the whole parole system even, that'd be a major cost savings in and of itself.
Not sure what this has to do with a religious debate though..
I would like to know how people's religious views might affect their outlook on given topics.
For the record, are you religious or non?
JTB
Thank you.
I generally concur with all of CT's comments.Do you have a position, Jelrak?
I am exploring ideas at this point. I consider that our current penal system serves more as a breeding grounds for serious offenders to become stronger and make more connections than as a means of solving any of their real problems. Certainly there are some programs that are well meaning within the system, but these, in and of themselves, seem to be less than adequate.
It is my view that inmates have a large number of roadblocks in their path if they wish to later rejoin society and become productive members.
Perhaps what might work best is if sentencing were applied differently: rather than simply incarcerating a person for X number of years during which time their productive skills stagnate and their illicit ones multiply, what if we assessed the actual cost of their crime and then expected that the accused be required to repay that cost to the victim (be it an individual or society as a whole). A variety of jobs would be available to the incarcerated to earn his/her right to be returned to society in this manner.
The hope with such a program would be that it might give inmates useful skills with which to earn a livelihood when they leave prison as well as a sense of redemption since they actually repaid their wrong deeds (thereby entitling them to feel that they actually earned the forgiveness of society rather than simply its scorn). It might also get them regimented into good habits.
The value of this system is also that those not interested in redemptive activities would simply never leave prison since their participation would have to be voluntary in order for it to be redemptive instead of merely punitive.
What do you think?
Also, to relate this to the group at hand, are you of a religious leaning or not?
I should clarify that my position is chiefly agnostic.
Regards,
Jelrak TB
Captain Trips
So what's wrong with slavery?Cons (no pun intended):
Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery.
This is an interesting observation. Are you not opposed to slavery in general, or just for those who have wronged society?
Thinking it through a bit more, I can't say that I have a visceral negative reaction to the ideal of slavery that some people seem to have, no. I think perhaps I almost have a biblical view of slavery, which is to say that as long as the master isn't mistreating or abusing his slaves, there are worse situations in life. Better for the victorious army to bring back the survivors as slaves as opposed to genocidally wiping them out, for instance. The slave works for the master, but the master is then obligated to provide for the slave. Some would say many occupations are worse off than slavery because with the conditions or extremely low wages slavery would actually be a better deal. After the Civil War, I'm sure there were more than a few slaves who didn't necessarily want to be freed and did or tried to stay with their former masters in the same capacity as a slave. And so, for a less voluntary situation, such as for criminals serving the society in which they have forfeited their rights as full citizens, a form of slavery such as you propose is totally morally acceptable to me.
Mind you, I would be opposed to the kidnapping and forced subjugation of hundreds and thousands of people, such as happened in the colonial South in this country..
Not sure what this has to do with a religious debate though..
I would like to know how people's religious views might affect their outlook on given topics.
For the record, are you religious or non?
JTB
On 6/9/2011 11:18 AM, JTB wrote:Well, it was my gut reaction to what you wrote, so I went with it.
So what's wrong with slavery?Cons (no pun intended):
Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery.
This is an interesting observation. Are you not opposed to slavery in general, or just for those who have wronged society?
Thinking it through a bit more, I can't say that I have a visceral negative reaction to the ideal of slavery that some people seem to have, no. I think perhaps I almost have a biblical view of slavery, which is to say that as long as the master isn't mistreating or abusing his slaves, there are worse situations in life. Better for the victorious army to bring back the survivors as slaves as opposed to genocidally wiping them out, for instance. The slave works for the master, but the master is then obligated to provide for the slave. Some would say many occupations are worse off than slavery because with the conditions or extremely low wages slavery would actually be a better deal. After the Civil War, I'm sure there were more than a few slaves who didn't necessarily want to be freed and did or tried to stay with their former masters in the same capacity as a slave. And so, for a less voluntary situation, such as for criminals serving the society in which they have forfeited their rights as full citizens, a form of slavery such as you propose is totally morally acceptable to me.
Mind you, I would be opposed to the kidnapping and forced subjugation of hundreds and thousands of people, such as happened in the colonial South in this country..
Fair enough. So would it be correct to interpret that you would find slavery to be better than genocide, but inferior to freedom? Would it be correct also to assume that this type of slavery would be better still if there were means of redemption available to the slaves that they could pursue to end their subjugation? Or perhaps a time limit placed on their slavery?
Strong atheist, for the record..
Not sure what this has to do with a religious debate though..
I would like to know how people's religious views might affect their outlook on given topics.
For the record, are you religious or non?
Okay, thanks. I am a weak atheist, in case you have not already read as much.
Captain Trips
Well, it was my gut reaction to what you wrote, so I went with it.So what's wrong with slavery?Cons (no pun intended):
Forcing prisoners to work is akin to slavery.
This is an interesting observation. Are you not opposed to slavery in general, or just for those who have wronged society?
Thinking it through a bit more, I can't say that I have a visceral negative reaction to the ideal of slavery that some people seem to have, no. I think perhaps I almost have a biblical view of slavery, which is to say that as long as the master isn't mistreating or abusing his slaves, there are worse situations in life. Better for the victorious army to bring back the survivors as slaves as opposed to genocidally wiping them out, for instance. The slave works for the master, but the master is then obligated to provide for the slave. Some would say many occupations are worse off than slavery because with the conditions or extremely low wages slavery would actually be a better deal. After the Civil War, I'm sure there were more than a few slaves who didn't necessarily want to be freed and did or tried to stay with their former masters in the same capacity as a slave. And so, for a less voluntary situation, such as for criminals serving the society in which they have forfeited their rights as full citizens, a form of slavery such as you propose is totally morally acceptable to me.
Mind you, I would be opposed to the kidnapping and forced subjugation of hundreds and thousands of people, such as happened in the colonial South in this country..
Fair enough. So would it be correct to interpret that you would find slavery to be better than genocide, but inferior to freedom? Would it be correct also to assume that this type of slavery would be better still if there were means of redemption available to the slaves that they could pursue to end their subjugation? Or perhaps a time limit placed on their slavery?
But to answer your other questions then, should there be an option or choice to be able to remove oneself from the slave situation? Well, that would certainly make it more palatable, somewhat restoring the notion of "freedom" to the situation. And then in your case, the only difference for a convict would be the lack of that choice, and who they serve, of course..
JTB
Thank you for your answers. May I change the topic and ask what brought you to your atheism? And how did it come about that you are able to make a strong statement about it. As a weak atheist I am often curious how others come up with their decisions to believe or disbelieve--and how they determine the degree.
Captain Trips
> Thank you for your answers. May I change the topic and ask what
> brought you to your atheism? And how did it come about that you are
> able to make a strong statement about it. As a weak atheist I am often
> curious how others come up with their decisions to believe or
> disbelieve--and how they determine the degree.
indoctrinated into a religion as a child. We were C&E Christians at
best (that is, Christmas and Easter - and usually only Christmas at
that). So I, like everyone else on the planet, was born an atheist - I
just got to stay that way. No one has to be "brought" to atheism, but
some do have to be "brought back"..
As far as taking the strong atheist stance, I guess I just have no weird
(to me) hang up with making the belief-based claim that there is no
god. To me, it's no different than being a strong a-leprechaunist, or a
strong a-gryphonist, or a strong a-cyclopsist. If you weren't
indoctrinated from childhood to want to belief in these fairy tales,
there's no reason to even give them a second thought. Even the
sugar-coated children's bible version of god that most adults believe in
is obviously as nonsensical as any other mythological god or goddess.
Most self-declared weak atheists / agnostics are strong atheists with
regard to the so-called personal god of the Abrahamic religions and will
readily admit as much.
As for the fuzzy spiritual nonsense that other religionists hang on to,
I just don't see the point in trying to claim some sort of intellectual
high-ground by saying "we can't know". We can know, same as we can
know there are no leprechauns, gryphons or cyclops. The very notion of
god is irrelevant and unnecessary at best.
And besides, it just encourages them. You say "well, yeah, maybe, I
suppose" and they hear "you are absolutely right". Let's instead have
an actual intellectual conversation about things that are really truly
relevant to this existence and put the childish wishes on the shelf
where they belong, I say.
But hey, that's just me..
ornamentalmind
First thing, you must be using email to post here because you have
(accidently no doubt) changed the topic name of the current discussion
on the web interface version. It would be appreciated if topic names
weren’t changed. Thanks in advance!
Next, I’ve been watching your discussion with some interest and have
an impulse to jump in a bit…hope you don’t mind.
At the end of this last post of yours you say: “…Let's instead have an
While a laudable goal, I’ll do my best to include this group’s main
focus, things religious, in my probing of how you approach such
things.
Earlier in your post you said: “…The very notion of god is irrelevant
and unnecessary at best.” While for now I’ll accept you at your word
and conclusion(s), I’d be interested in seeing if you could combine
these two apparently different thoughts. No doubt you hold beliefs as
to what others (and you by extension) think about god(s) and things
divine. Are there absolutely no attributes so associated that you
would consider to be ‘truly relevant to this existence’? I don’t mind
how you approach it…whether from a list of attributes you associate
with god(s) and how they aren’t relevant to us…or, from a list of what
you personally consider to be ‘really truly relevant to this
existence’ and then show how these notions have nothing to do with the
divine, … or some other way that works for you, OK?
I hope my query is clear. I know I rambled a bit.
Captain Trips
> Hi Captain�welcome aboard!
>
> First thing, you must be using email to post here because you have
> (accidently no doubt) changed the topic name of the current discussion
> on the web interface version. It would be appreciated if topic names
Actually, it was quite on purpose, though not arbitrary or anything.
Since it seemed we were changing subjects pretty drastically, it seemed
appropriate to change the thread as well. This new subject really has
absolutely nothing to do with the old subject line. I don't see how
preserving a horribly improper thread title serves anyone's best
interests. YMMV, of course..
> Next, I�ve been watching your discussion with some interest and have
> an impulse to jump in a bit�hope you don�t mind.
Not at all..
> At the end of this last post of yours you say: ��Let's instead have an
> actual intellectual conversation about things that are really truly
> relevant to this existence ��.
>
> While a laudable goal, I�ll do my best to include this group�s main
> focus, things religious, in my probing of how you approach such
> things.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I obviously wouldn't be here if I didn't find
the discussion and exploration of religious beliefs of interest. And,
unfortunately, important to have..
> Earlier in your post you said: ��The very notion of god is irrelevant
> and unnecessary at best.� While for now I�ll accept you at your word
> and conclusion(s), I�d be interested in seeing if you could combine
> these two apparently different thoughts. No doubt you hold beliefs as
> to what others (and you by extension) think about god(s) and things
> divine. Are there absolutely no attributes so associated that you
> would consider to be �truly relevant to this existence�? I don�t mind
> how you approach it�whether from a list of attributes you associate
> with god(s) and how they aren�t relevant to us�or, from a list of what
> you personally consider to be �really truly relevant to this
> existence� and then show how these notions have nothing to do with the
> divine, � or some other way that works for you, OK?
Well, let's say we bundle beliefs into one of two camps. There's the
god takes an active roll in the universe camp, and god as the prime
mover and nothing more camp. Pretty much most believers seem to fall
into one or the other, in my experience. For the active rollers,
despite their claims to the contrary, there just doesn't seem to be any
evidence of god's influence here in the physical world. In fact, the
evidence that there is seems to point to a universe that rolls along
pretty well without god, like clockwork, so to speak. God =
unnecessary. In the other camp, god "lives" beyond the veil. He set
things in motion, tweaked the physical laws perhaps, but he doesn't, or
in most cases, can't enter our universe and affect things. You might
get to meet god in the next life, but not so much in this one. God =
irrelevant.
Thus my statement above. Maybe I should have use "or" instead of "and".
Somehow though I doubt that was what you were trying to get at..
> I hope my query is clear. I know I rambled a bit.
Not at all. Hope my answer is clear..
ornamentalmind
As to the thread name change, if you ever go to the Google Groups site
and actually see what occurs when you attempt to change the name, you
will see why most group moderators ask for it not to be done. In most
cases, people either start a new topic or just continue a discussion
wherever it leads. Yes, it would be nice if all topic names were clear
and actually indicative of what lies therein but reality doesn’t
match. It looks like you are new to Google Groups thus my advice and
counsel here…
Now to the meat of your presentation…yes, your answer is quite clear
and actually quite succinct and well presented…much better than most
that I see.
As to what I ‘was trying to get at’, I was mostly just probing. I tend
to use Socratic questioning quite often and hope for all, me included,
to learn in the process.
While your ‘two camps’ do appear to cover the majority of believers
even though they may not agree (we will see if any others here respond
or not), I’ll ask a few more questions.
I agree that all rolls along ‘like clockwork’. However, I’m not sure
what sort of evidence you require for an ‘active god’. Mind sharing
and/or unpacking a bit more?
For your other ‘camp’ – the prime mover and nothing more one
(oversimplification by me of course), shall we explore a bit more too?
You say that such a deity would be ‘irrelevant’. You also seem to be
implying that to be relevant one would have to be able to meet god. Am
I accurate here? Is this the basis of your argument?
In any case, you do seem to be using an anthropomorphic god as a foil.
This is fine for debate; however, to explore more deeply, what
qualities do you attribute to this non-existent deity? Further, even
though it may have been tongue in cheek, you said about meeting god in
this world “not so much”. Were you implying that it ever happens for
anyone at all?...or not? In either case, a little more depth might
prove to be interesting… perhaps including your evidence and/or
reasons for whatever stance you actually take.
In advance, I appreciate your willingness to have an actual ‘civil’
discussion about it. I say this even though no doubt some of the firm
believers here might consider your previous analysis a tad harsh.
Considering your basic tenets, which I hope we can continue to
explore, you haven’t been too flip nor insulting as far as I can tell.
Cheers!
On Jun 14, 12:40 am, Captain Trips <catnapspi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 12:39 AM, ornamentalmind wrote:> Hi Captain welcome aboard!
> > First thing, you must be using email to post here because you have
> > (accidently no doubt) changed the topic name of the current discussion
> > on the web interface version. It would be appreciated if topic names
> Actually, it was quite on purpose, though not arbitrary or anything.
> Since it seemed we were changing subjects pretty drastically, it seemed
> appropriate to change the thread as well. This new subject really has
> absolutely nothing to do with the old subject line. I don't see how
> preserving a horribly improper thread title serves anyone's best
> interests. YMMV, of course..
>
> > an impulse to jump in a bit hope you don t mind.
>
> Not at all..
>
> > At the end of this last post of yours you say: Let's instead have an
>
> > While a laudable goal, I ll do my best to include this group s main
> > things.
>
> Oh, don't get me wrong. I obviously wouldn't be here if I didn't find
> the discussion and exploration of religious beliefs of interest. And,
> unfortunately, important to have..
>
> > and unnecessary at best. While for now I ll accept you at your word
> > and conclusion(s), I d be interested in seeing if you could combine
> > to what others (and you by extension) think about god(s) and things
> > divine. Are there absolutely no attributes so associated that you
> > how you approach it whether from a list of attributes you associate
> > with god(s) and how they aren t relevant to us or, from a list of what
> > you personally consider to be really truly relevant to this
> > existence and then show how these notions have nothing to do with the
> > divine, or some other way that works for you, OK?
JTB
On 6/13/2011 9:54 AM, JTB wrote:
Thank you for your answers. May I change the topic and ask what brought you to your atheism? And how did it come about that you are able to make a strong statement about it. As a weak atheist I am often curious how others come up with their decisions to believe or disbelieve--and how they determine the degree.Well, for one thing, I have the immense benefit of not having been indoctrinated into a religion as a child. We were C&E Christians at best (that is, Christmas and Easter - and usually only Christmas at that). So I, like everyone else on the planet, was born an atheist - I just got to stay that way. No one has to be "brought" to atheism, but some do have to be "brought back"..
Good point.
As far as taking the strong atheist stance, I guess I just have no weird (to me) hang up with making the belief-based claim that there is no god. To me, it's no different than being a strong a-leprechaunist, or a strong a-gryphonist, or a strong a-cyclopsist. If you weren't indoctrinated from childhood to want to belief in these fairy tales, there's no reason to even give them a second thought. Even the sugar-coated children's bible version of god that most adults believe in is obviously as nonsensical as any other mythological god or goddess. Most self-declared weak atheists / agnostics are strong atheists with regard to the so-called personal god of the Abrahamic religions and will readily admit as much.
As for the fuzzy spiritual nonsense that other religionists hang on to, I just don't see the point in trying to claim some sort of intellectual high-ground by saying "we can't know". We can know, same as we can know there are no leprechauns, gryphons or cyclops. The very notion of god is irrelevant and unnecessary at best.
And besides, it just encourages them. You say "well, yeah, maybe, I suppose" and they hear "you are absolutely right". Let's instead have an actual intellectual conversation about things that are really truly relevant to this existence and put the childish wishes on the shelf where they belong, I say.
But hey, that's just me..
My take on it is that though I lean towards atheism in general, my religious upbringing was strong and so I am forever having a superimposed vision of reality both as it is and as I once considered it. Such duplication makes for some fairly interesting observations about my own character and surroundings. I feel something like a former alcoholic who may once have viewed everything through a drunken haze, but who now glimpses reality in an ever-widening arc. Sometimes those glimpses are troubling though. For instance, it can be difficult to find life's trivialities all that relevant when one's reality is so suddenly confined to the present after decades of always considering the distant future.
Captain Trips
> As to the thread name change, if you ever go to the Google Groups site
> and actually see what occurs when you attempt to change the name, you
> will see why most group moderators ask for it not to be done. In most
> cases, people either start a new topic or just continue a discussion
> wherever it leads. Yes, it would be nice if all topic names were clear
> match. It looks like you are new to Google Groups thus my advice and
Huh, I guess I thought I *was* starting a new topic. I wonder how it
knows the message I was replying to. I'll endeavor to make a cleaner
break in the future..
> As to what I �was trying to get at�, I was mostly just probing. I tend
> to use Socratic questioning quite often and hope for all, me included,
> to learn in the process.
Ditto..
> I agree that all rolls along �like clockwork�. However, I�m not sure
> what sort of evidence you require for an �active god�. Mind sharing
> and/or unpacking a bit more?
Hmm.. Well, this is *god* we're talking about, right? I mean, if such
a being were truly active in this existence, I don't think we'd be
having this conversation. Frankly, we wouldn't be *able* to have this
conversation, right? We'd all just know it. Incontrovertibly. (Of
course, then we would move on to the conversation about whether or not
this creature was worthy of our worship and such.)
But, for sake of argument, let's say there is some legitimate reason for
god to hide its presence from us. Again, this being *god* we're talking
about, if it wants to hide its presence from us, then we don't stand a
chance. It'd be like a 2 year old playing hide and go seek with David
Blaine. So again, no point in even having the conversation.
Given these two possibilities, it doesn't even make sense to bother
thinking about what evidence I, as a puny mortal, might require of god.
Either we know because it wants us to know, or we don't because it
doesn't. We definitely don't have the former case, and unfortunately
for the believer, the latter case also strongly resembles god not
existing at all. And there we are again, staring at the words
"irrelevant" and "unnecessary".
But we're having fun here and don't want to just stall out the
conversation, so what's left? A god that wants to be known, but wants
us to.. I dunno.. work for it, or be mature enough to handle the
knowledge, or some other such "reason" such a being might have for
hiding itself but leaving us a trail of breadcrumbs. So what kind of
evidence would such a god leave for us to find? Hmm.. It's hard to
even get my head around such a god and what its thought processes, or
the metaphysical equivalent thereof, might be. Maybe a bible verse
buried in code in the billionth decimal places of pi? Or write out "GOD
WUZ HERE ;)" on a nebula cloud that only our newest space-based
telescopes could see?
I mean, if for whatever bizarre reason god doesn't want to just make
itself known, it's really up to god what kind of clue it wants to give
us. I guess to my way of thinking, it'd have to be kind of the opposite
of Asimov's law (or was it Clarke): something so magical that it
couldn't be mistaken for technology. Not just cure a case of cancer
here and there, but make cancer disappear from the face of the Earth
entirely. Or make it so that no one dies on the entire planet for a
day. But again we have to ask, if god can do that, then why not just
incontrovertibly make itself known and be done with it?
> For your other �camp� � the prime mover and nothing more one
> (oversimplification by me of course), shall we explore a bit more too?
> You say that such a deity would be �irrelevant�. You also seem to be
> implying that to be relevant one would have to be able to meet god. Am
> I accurate here? Is this the basis of your argument?
Well, I don't suppose I'd have to meet god directly. There are plenty
of people relevant to my existence that I'll never meet in person in my
lifetime. What I'm really saying is that there would have to be a
possibility for god to have an effect on this universe after the initial
creation event. If god can get ticked off at mankind and flood the
world, wiping out every man, woman, child and animal, then viola, god
becomes relevant to my life for sure.
But if god doesn't affect this universe, either by limitation or by
choice, then yeah, god is irrelevant to my existence. Nothing in my
life is going to change based on his existence or lack thereof, apparently.
> In any case, you do seem to be using an anthropomorphic god as a foil.
Most believers personify god to the point of ridiculousness, so I often
follow suite. Of course, I usually refer to god as "it" instead of as a
"he" or "she", because really, if such a being existed, it wouldn't be
anything like us. Or anything else that we know of, for that matter.
> This is fine for debate; however, to explore more deeply, what
> qualities do you attribute to this non-existent deity?
Interesting question, and I have been giving it some thought since your
last reply before this one. But I kind of think I don't really have an
answer. Depends on which type of believer I'm talking to, as I don't
have any real personal concept of such a creature, beyond what I've read
and heard in stories, same as any other mythological creature. It
usually seems to be credited for creating the universe. Most times
credited for creating life in said universe as well or as a result. It
may or may not dabble in said universe there after. If it does, it's
powers/knowledge are apparently unbounded.
The problem is, attribute #1 for me has to be existence. Existence in
the real, physical world. Near as I can tell, that attribute doesn't
apply to god, except in as much as it exists in the physical minds of
believers or in the tools they use to extend said minds (i.e. books,
computers, etc.).
> Further, even
> though it may have been tongue in cheek, you said about meeting god in
> this world �not so much�. Were you implying that it ever happens for
> anyone at all?...or not? In either case, a little more depth might
> prove to be interesting� perhaps including your evidence and/or
> reasons for whatever stance you actually take.
I don't believe so, no. Because of what I said above. I you think it
through, you're left with the conclusion that there can't be a god,
because we'd know or we wouldn't. The only other option is this weird
kind of sneaky god that hides its existence from us by essentially
cosmic deceit. A god that makes the universe look very much so like it
doesn't need a god, and then goes around revealing itself to humans
onesie twosie. To what purpose? Would a god really play favorites and
single out one tribe of humans, or one individual human over another?
Would a god really allow us to make up hundreds to thousands of
different stories about it and then fight monstrous wars against each
other over those stories? I just find the whole idea inconceivable.
> In advance, I appreciate your willingness to have an actual �civil�
> discussion about it. I say this even though no doubt some of the firm
> believers here might consider your previous analysis a tad harsh.
> Considering your basic tenets, which I hope we can continue to
> explore, you haven�t been too flip nor insulting as far as I can tell.
Not trying to be, just being frank. More than willing to hear out
points to the contrary of anything I've said. Would love to, in fact..
ornamentalmind
Thanks again for such a well thought out and extensive response. I
won’t promise to provide a comparable one today.
First, in most relevant ways, I don’t embrace an anthropomorphic god
as the notion commonly is understood to exist. Further, even though
I’m more inclined to approach these topics in the realms of negative
theology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology ), I’ll
continue in a similar vein as we have been working so far… for now.
I’ve added these disclosures even though they can all too easily be
misunderstood at surface level so that you at least have some idea of
my personal view.
In my last post, I asked about what type of evidence you required re:
god primarily to help flesh out preexistent and perhaps unexamined
suppositions as to what the actual nature of god is… of course I did
ask this latter question directly later on too. I find that in most
discussions with atheists ( not all of course) that assumptions are
made as to what god is without having either reached agreement upon
its nature and/or without much personal examination, evaluation and or
exploration. Thus, my general tact here…as a way we can both explore
this topic in a way that might be mutually educational and/or
enlightening.
You have been quite forthright with what you believe and what you
don’t know, something I greatly appreciate. Cases in point:
“… It's hard to
“… Nothing in my
“…Most believers personify god to the point of ridiculousness, so I
follow suite. Of course, I usually refer to god as "it" instead of as
a
"he" or "she", because really, if such a being existed, it wouldn't
be
anything like us. Or anything else that we know of, for that matter.
“…Depends on which type of believer I'm talking to, as I don't
read
Perhaps there are numerous other examples, but did want to be explicit
and give examples.
Hopefully, over time, we can examine much of the above; however, being
expedient, for now I’ll point in a specific direction. You said:
“…The problem is, attribute #1 for me has to be existence. Existence
the real, physical world. Near as I can tell, that attribute doesn't
apply to god, except in as much as it exists in the physical minds of
believers or in the tools they use to extend said minds (i.e. books,
You had also elsewhere mentioned metaphysics…yet here you appear to be
taking a fairly doctrinal and materialistic approach. Am I at least
close?
For the record, I’m quite interested in epistemology and ontological
explorations.
In light of what little I’ve been able to say/share this time perhaps
you can understand why I don’t quite buy into your bifurcation of “We
Know/We Don’t Know”. While there are situations where a binary
approach can add some clarity and the words Gnostic/agnostic arise for
me, I suspect you can do a lot more exploration in these areas for
yourself to learn and gain knowledge rather than taking the easy way
out and merely responding to theists in a reactive way. In fact, your
words “…More than willing to hear out
Here’s hoping the discussion continues!
Captain Trips
> First, in most relevant ways, I don�t embrace an anthropomorphic god
> as the notion commonly is understood to exist.
> Further, even though
> I�m more inclined to approach these topics in the realms of negative
> theology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology ), I�ll
> continue in a similar vein as we have been working so far� for now.
> I�ve added these disclosures even though they can all too easily be
> misunderstood at surface level so that you at least have some idea of
> my personal view.
Which is precisely why I almost never visit links other people give me,
no offense. I much prefer to hear it in the person's own words.
Besides, if they can't express it in their own words, you have to wonder
if they really believe it or not, ya know?
Though I am now curious what "negative theology" is. The study of what
god is not?
> In my last post, I asked about what type of evidence you required re:
> god primarily to help flesh out preexistent and perhaps unexamined
> suppositions as to what the actual nature of god is� of course I did
> ask this latter question directly later on too. I find that in most
> discussions with atheists ( not all of course) that assumptions are
> made as to what god is without having either reached agreement upon
> its nature and/or without much personal examination, evaluation and or
> exploration. Thus, my general tact here�as a way we can both explore
> this topic in a way that might be mutually educational and/or
> enlightening.
Definitions are always good. Though I'm fairly confident my atheism
will apply, whatever the case..
> Hopefully, over time, we can examine much of the above; however, being
> expedient, for now I�ll point in a specific direction. You said:
> ��The problem is, attribute #1 for me has to be existence. Existence
> in
> the real, physical world. Near as I can tell, that attribute doesn't
> apply to god, except in as much as it exists in the physical minds of
> believers or in the tools they use to extend said minds (i.e. books,
> computers, etc.). ..�
>
> You had also elsewhere mentioned metaphysics�yet here you appear to be
> taking a fairly doctrinal and materialistic approach. Am I at least
> close?
I believe by the standard philosophical definitions, I'm probably a
materialist, yes. I'm not much for the labels and all, and can't claim
any real solid understanding of them though..
> For the record, I�m quite interested in epistemology and ontological
> explorations.
>
> In light of what little I�ve been able to say/share this time perhaps
> you can understand why I don�t quite buy into your bifurcation of �We
> Know/We Don�t Know�.
Alas, your particular set of beliefs remain an enigma to me, at the moment.
But as far as "we know / we don't know", first of all, are you referring
to when I said we can know about the existence of god in the same manner
that we can know about the existence of leprechauns, gryphons and
cyclops? Or god wanting / not wanting to be known to us? I think the
former would be more of a sliding scale, with that particular type of
knowing being almost completely to the "know" side but perhaps not quite
all the way to that edge. If the latter, I think that would be more of
a dichotomy. Unless, of course, "want" is a concept that doesn't apply
to god.
> While there are situations where a binary
> approach can add some clarity and the words Gnostic/agnostic arise for
> me, I suspect you can do a lot more exploration in these areas for
> yourself to learn and gain knowledge rather than taking the easy way
> out and merely responding to theists in a reactive way. In fact, your
> words ��More than willing to hear out
> points to the contrary of anything I've said. Would love to, in
> fact.. .� support this belief of mine.
Such exploration is exactly why I refer to myself as a strong atheist,
vice simply an atheist.
> Here�s hoping the discussion continues!
Absolutely. I believe the ball is in your court..
Captain Trips
> My take on it is that though I lean towards atheism in general, my
> religious upbringing was strong and so I am forever having a
> superimposed vision of reality both as it is and as I once considered
> it. Such duplication makes for some fairly interesting observations
> about my own character and surroundings. I feel something like a
> former alcoholic who may once have viewed everything through a drunken
> haze, but who now glimpses reality in an ever-widening arc. Sometimes
> those glimpses are troubling though. For instance, it can be difficult
> to find life's trivialities all that relevant when one's reality is so
> suddenly confined to the present after decades of always considering
> the distant future.
do you resent your religious upbringing?
ornamentalmind
whatever way you will ;D ) that ‘most relevant’ means not to worry
about the exceptions for now. I can’t explain the possible exceptions
in a short response so won’t try. Perhaps over time, the current
vagueness of my meaning will become clearer.
Oh, perhaps a simple example would do the trick for you? Say that god
is consciousness. Is that god anthropomorphic?
Don’t visit the link if you wish otherwise. The topic is extremely
complex and covers a very very wide range of similar and perhaps
actually apparently different concepts, practices, beliefs, approaches
etc. Perhaps you will use ‘god google’? :D
And, no, I don’t know…about providing a link implying one doesn’t know
about a topic. An analogy would be handing someone who wanted to know
about WW2 a copy of Churchill’s 6 volume boxed set of “The Second
World War” and them saying I didn’t really believe it! And, your guess
is the core of it…almost. In general and pertaining *only* to some of
the traditions listed at the link, negative theology is the
recognition that one cannot say what god is…only, if anything, what
god is not. However, you will do your own research I guess….or not.
As to labels, yes, they can be problematic. Yet, *all* words we use
are in one sense or another a label for something. So, until we can
mind-meld, we are stuck with them. Hopefully, over time, you will
become more conversant with a larger variety of terms. I continue to
learn and as many before me have said, the more I know, the more I
know I don’t know! No joke!
Now to the ‘we know/don’t know’ issue… what I was referring to was
your entire presentation in your post just previous to my mentioning
it. It was your presentation, even though you did add one small
possible caveat at the end of a ‘sneaky god’…something you claimed as
inconceivable to you, so I didn’t include it in my question.
When you said “Such exploration is exactly why I refer to myself as a
strong atheist,
vice simply an atheist. “, are you saying that you purposefully
present a total no belief view as sort of a straw man to be struggled
with?
Lastly, you shared that my beliefs are opaque to you…something I would
be surprised if things were otherwise. In the current context of
deities etc., I hold few if any beliefs. Warning, the term ‘belief’ is
a loaded term.
On Jun 15, 10:43 pm, Captain Trips <catnapspi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/2011 3:04 PM, ornamentalmind wrote:> First, in most relevant ways, I don t embrace an anthropomorphic god
>
> What do you mean by the caveat of "in most relevant ways"?
>
> > Further, even though
> > theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology), I ll
> > continue in a similar vein as we have been working so far for now.
> > I ve added these disclosures even though they can all too easily be
> > my personal view.
>
> Which is precisely why I almost never visit links other people give me,
> no offense. I much prefer to hear it in the person's own words.
> Besides, if they can't express it in their own words, you have to wonder
> if they really believe it or not, ya know?
>
> Though I am now curious what "negative theology" is. The study of what
> god is not?
>
> > In my last post, I asked about what type of evidence you required re:
> > god primarily to help flesh out preexistent and perhaps unexamined
> > discussions with atheists ( not all of course) that assumptions are
> > made as to what god is without having either reached agreement upon
> > its nature and/or without much personal examination, evaluation and or
> > enlightening.
>
> Definitions are always good. Though I'm fairly confident my atheism
> will apply, whatever the case..
>
> > Hopefully, over time, we can examine much of the above; however, being
> > The problem is, attribute #1 for me has to be existence. Existence
> > in
> > the real, physical world. Near as I can tell, that attribute doesn't
> > apply to god, except in as much as it exists in the physical minds of
> > believers or in the tools they use to extend said minds (i.e. books,
> > computers, etc.). ..
>
> > close?
>
> I believe by the standard philosophical definitions, I'm probably a
> materialist, yes. I'm not much for the labels and all, and can't claim
> any real solid understanding of them though..
>
> > explorations.
>
> > In light of what little I ve been able to say/share this time perhaps
> > you can understand why I don t quite buy into your bifurcation of We
> > Know/We Don t Know .
> Alas, your particular set of beliefs remain an enigma to me, at the moment.
>
> But as far as "we know / we don't know", first of all, are you referring
> to when I said we can know about the existence of god in the same manner
> that we can know about the existence of leprechauns, gryphons and
> cyclops? Or god wanting / not wanting to be known to us? I think the
> former would be more of a sliding scale, with that particular type of
> knowing being almost completely to the "know" side but perhaps not quite
> all the way to that edge. If the latter, I think that would be more of
> a dichotomy. Unless, of course, "want" is a concept that doesn't apply
> to god.
>
> > While there are situations where a binary
> > approach can add some clarity and the words Gnostic/agnostic arise for
> > me, I suspect you can do a lot more exploration in these areas for
> > yourself to learn and gain knowledge rather than taking the easy way
> > out and merely responding to theists in a reactive way. In fact, your
> Such exploration is exactly why I refer to myself as a strong atheist,
> vice simply an atheist.
>
Captain Trips
> As to anthropomorphic god(s), I�ll ask you to take it on faith (or
> whatever way you will ;D ) that �most relevant� means not to worry
> about the exceptions for now. I can�t explain the possible exceptions
> in a short response so won�t try. Perhaps over time, the current
> vagueness of my meaning will become clearer.
>
> Oh, perhaps a simple example would do the trick for you? Say that god
> is consciousness. Is that god anthropomorphic?
Do you mean a separate, pure consciousness entity, or the sum of the
consciousness of all sentient creatures? If the latter, do you include
only humans, or other animals (and other possible sentient life in the
universe)?
> Don�t visit the link if you wish otherwise. The topic is extremely
> complex and covers a very very wide range of similar and perhaps
> actually apparently different concepts, practices, beliefs, approaches
> etc. Perhaps you will use �god google�? :D
>
> And, no, I don�t know�about providing a link implying one doesn�t know
> about a topic. An analogy would be handing someone who wanted to know
> about WW2 a copy of Churchill�s 6 volume boxed set of �The Second
> World War� and them saying I didn�t really believe it!
Hmm.. Perhaps. But again, someone hands you an article about something
they believe in, and inevitably when you start holding their feet to the
fire a bit on the points contained therein, they casually mention that
oh by the way they don't exactly agree with everything in that article.
I think, as a general rule in these types of discussions, it's just all
around better to get it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak..
> And, your guess
> is the core of it�almost. In general and pertaining *only* to some of
> the traditions listed at the link, negative theology is the
> recognition that one cannot say what god is�only, if anything, what
> god is not. However, you will do your own research I guess�.or not.
I read a little bit of the article. That's weird, I'm not sure I
understand the point of it, saying what god isn't, that is. Kind of an
agnostic theism, I suppose? And I would still imagine most "negative
theologist" have a core of positive beliefs about what they think god
is. Probably differing from each other more wildly than most, since
they can't declare out loud what those are to each other to compare notes..
> Now to the �we know/don�t know� issue� what I was referring to was
> your entire presentation in your post just previous to my mentioning
> it. It was your presentation, even though you did add one small
> possible caveat at the end of a �sneaky god��something you claimed as
> inconceivable to you, so I didn�t include it in my question.
I suppose the dichotomy of god wants us to know so we do vs god doesn't
want us to know so we don't, which I would still so far maintain is
pretty sound by most people's definition of god, would break down if god
was not an all-powerful entity. Or wasn't an entity at all, of course.
There could be a god who wants to make itself known, but is somehow
powerless to do so. Or a "god" that's really just the sum of all life
in the universe, so it doesn't really have "wants" per se. Both cases
bring us around to the "is that really a god at all" question pretty
quick though.
> When you said �Such exploration is exactly why I refer to myself as a
> strong atheist,
> vice simply an atheist. �, are you saying that you purposefully
> present a total no belief view as sort of a straw man to be struggled
> with?
Oh no, not at all. I meant that doing a lot of exploring and not merely
responding to theists is something I've been doing for a very long time
now..
> Lastly, you shared that my beliefs are opaque to you�something I would
> be surprised if things were otherwise. In the current context of
> deities etc., I hold few if any beliefs. Warning, the term �belief� is
> a loaded term.
I suspect there are few positive beliefs buried in there somewhere that
we could get at and explore..
Maybe a starter question would be, if you hold few if any beliefs
regarding the convention notions of god, why do you not consider
yourself an atheist?
JTB
I was brought up in a "no questions are forbidden" household so when I started questioning the inconsistencies about God's character, rather than shut me down, my parents simply engaged in the discussion and tried to find plausible answers. It was a very comfortable scene and though religion was stressed as important, God was presented as being reasonable and understanding about doubts.
It was only later on, after having my own family and re-reading the Bible (which I had not done since childhood) that I realized what an absolute monster God was. Here he was supposed to be a personal, understanding, friendly type of god and yet nowhere was that extant. I was trying to be a strong theist at that time and was quite involved in church activities, but I suddenly came awake to the realization that no one I talked to in my church community spoke of God in a way that was compatible with his characterization in the Bible. Almost none of them had read the Bible and of those who had, they had focused primarily on New Testament readings.
So here we all were, well meaning people, handing down verbal narratives of how we thought God behaved while not noticing how the story was getting sweeter with time as we became more distanced from the source.
And what a source it was! Full of hatred, pettiness, and contradictions. The unlikelihood of any such god existing became more and more glaring until I could no longer sustain the lie.
Still, it is hard because I have had to maintain relationships with all of those people in my life who did not follow me on this journey. Much of this research and discovering was done on my own, so my spouse, my children, and my friends were ignorant of my new-found revulsion to our religion. Though some of them are aware of it now, I am still cautious about how much to reveal since I do not really wish to upset everyone's worldview if that is what motivates them to keep going. And as a weak atheist, I do not really have anything nearly as imaginative with which to replace their image of reality.
ornamentalmind
discussion. Also, it is exactly why I’ve been attempting to extract
from you what qualities you would attribute to god along with what
sort of evidence you would accept…(in order for there to be one). It
also is one reason I shared my general acceptance of negative
theology. And, since humans seem to have understood the nature of and
existence of the ineffable all along, most if not all cultures seem to
have groups who support some form of negative theology.
By the way, most if not all of your examples so far of what type of
evidence you would accept…such as a big celestial sign, miraculous
cures etc. have been too glib to discuss further as I see it...just
wanted you to know why I haven't responded to your 'specifics'.
As to your questions about what I meant by the term ‘consciousness’…
apparently intending to limit what I asked you, I meant exactly what I
said. “Say that god is consciousness. Is that god anthropomorphic?”
You questioned if it was god or not…something I don’t see an opinion
offered by you. So, perhaps you won’t respond to the original question
either even though I too would rather “get it straight from the
horse’s mouth, so to speak”.
Oh, and I do note your beliefs about negative theologists. Perhaps
here, if it is of interest to you, we could attempt to deconstruct any
and/or all of the specific examples given…seeing if your analysis so
far may be accurate?...just a thought.
Since you brought up the possibilities of:
“…[a] god …[who] was not an all-powerful entity. Or wasn't an entity
There could be a god who wants to make itself known, but is somehow
powerless to do so. Or a "god" that's really just the sum of all
life
Is it your position that all (or specific parts of) the above are not
actually god? Or is your question (“is that really a god at all”)
merely rhetorical and nothing more? If it isn’t clear, I ask these
types of questions of hard atheists attempting to see what it is
exactly that they don’t believe in.
Now on to perhaps less contentious issues – you ask of me:
“… if you hold few if any beliefs regarding the convention notions of
god, why do you not consider yourself an atheist?...”
You jump the gun a bit here. Your question implies that I don’t so
consider myself, to which I respond that for many many years I’ve said
that in some ways I am an atheist. This record remains online in
numerous sources no doubt. For discussion’s sake, I would often say,
when asked what I was (something not really possible to respond to
accurately in this context of either/or) that I was a gnostic/atheist.
(please note the ‘for discussion’s sake’ starter)