Posts by ironmarlin1

Mark Torres14 said:It exists in a "limbo" of possibility. Think quantum mechanics. Meaning—subjectivity—only kicks in once a human perceives it. I don't believe objective value judgments exist. Period. The whole concept of a "judgment" basically requires a conscious being aware of itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the foundation for making any judgment at all. Even if we run into another intelligence out there, I still don't think they'd have "objective" values. Essentially, claiming objective values exist implies the existence of God, if you define God as something sitting above and outside human consciousness.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say science itself becomes subjective; it only shifts into that territory if we decide that our value judgments are also subjective.

I suspect that objective value judgments simply don't exist. The very concept of a "judgment" is, at its core, something only applicable to a self-aware being capable of reflecting on itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the bedrock upon which all judgment is built. Even if we were to encounter some other form of alien intelligence, I doubt they would possess any form of "objective" values either. Ultimately, claiming that objective values exist is essentially an argument for the existence of God, provided we define God as something existing entirely outside and above human consciousness.

That logic only holds water if we insist on drawing a hard line between values and facts. But honestly, why should we be forced to accept such a rigid dichotomy in the first place?

Arthur Anderson49 said:I honestly don't see what's confusing about this or where the contradiction is supposed to be.

Nature just *is*. It’s an objective fact that exists completely independent of me. My perception of that nature, though? That’s necessarily subjective—it depends entirely on how my senses are working and how I choose to interpret all that incoming data.

The object itself and our perception of that object are two totally separate things.

EDIT:
Okay, I think I see where you're going with this; you're saying my idea—my actual belief that nature is objective and independent—is itself a subjective thing.

Alright, fine, on some abstract level, sure! I mean, maybe even your own existence is up for debate, right? Maybe I'm just sitting here in my own head having a conversation with myself, and you're just one of those little avatars of my consciousness.

But honestly, that kind of deep-dive thinking is totally impractical when you're trying to tackle moral questions. If I want to actually weigh in on ethics, I can't just spin around in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world is considered "real" or objective. Because let's face it: in a world where everything is purely subjective, morality just doesn't exist.

The standard (let's call it 'common sense') approach is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It's at that practical level that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' actually make sense and become useful.

But that right there is the contradiction. It couldn’t be more glaring. You’re essentially arguing that my statement—"Nature is an objective fact"—is itself merely a subjective judgment.

Alright, I think I follow your train of thought; you’re suggesting that my conviction—this belief that nature is objective and exists regardless of me—is, in its own right, a subjective notion.

That isn't what I'm attempting to say; rather, that is your interpretation of my position. My point is that value judgments are also objective, which allows me to sidestep the very "trap" of contradiction you seem to have fallen into. 😉

Fair enough, in a sense that holds true; though, one might argue even your own existence is debatable; perhaps I am just engaged in a mental monologue, debating myself while you exist merely as a digital avatar within the theater of my consciousness.

That said, leaning into that level of abstraction is utterly useless when one actually wants to grapple with moral questions. If I want to engage with ethics, I cannot afford to spin endlessly in a solipsistic loop where nothing in the world can be deemed objective. In a universe where everything is purely subjective, morality ceases to exist entirely.

The thing is, you're the one who drifted toward solipsism by creating this rigid divide between the subject and nature, not me. I am arguing that value judgments possess objectivity.

The standard, let's call it 'common sense' view, is that the world around us is objective, while our perception of it remains subjective. It’s at this level, naturally, that terms like 'objective' and 'subjective' find their footing.

Once again, you can't make claims about the world while trying to stand with one foot outside of it, as you are doing now; that is a direct path to solipsism. You claim your perception is that the world is objective, yet you immediately pivot to saying that very perception is subjective. 🤷

Arthur Anderson49 said:Look, nature isn't some set convention. Honestly? My whole perception of nature *is* the convention. That’s why I have to stay on my toes and be constantly mindful of that one specific fact: if I’m not careful, I’ll end up mistaking my own perception for actual reality. Think about a physicist for a second. They’re doing this dance every single day! They’ve got their perceptions, their concepts, and their conventions, but they’re constantly putting all of them through the ringer to test them out. Of course, even their testing has its limits—let's be real. Total objectivity is basically this unreachable North Star. But isn't that the whole point? You strive toward that ideal, you constantly doubt what you think you know, and you never stop questioning and refining your reach. We can't just take things at face value, right? We shouldn't treat anything like an absolute truth—not even stuff like "good" or "evil." Everything is up for debate!

But you're tripping over your own logic here, given what you said about nature earlier:

It just exists.

Yet, that’s just your specific interpretation of nature. And, if we follow your own reasoning:

My view of nature is a convention.

So, you aren't being particularly clear, are you? 😉

Mark Torres14 said:It exists.

But we aren't talking about some physical entity you can drop on your foot like a brick or point to on a map within the spacetime continuum. If it isn't a tangible thing, then where exactly is this supposed to reside, and if it lacks a physical footprint, why shouldn't we assume that objective value judgments don't exist either?

Arthur Anderson49 said:But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Wait, what kind of arguments against the existence of numbers are you even throwing at me? I’m just saying that in the natural world numbers don't actually exist. They’re just a human convention we cooked up. Sure, they’re a bit primitive and oversimplified compared to how nature actually works, but hey, they get the job done pretty well—especially after thousands of years of us tweaking and refining them.

We have tons of these blunt, subjective tools that humans created. A classic example would be things like centrifugal force. Or pressure.

And if you want to get really wild, look at social conventions like "good" and "evil." Those deal with phenomena that are way more complex than physical forces, so they're even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

If that's the case, I struggle to see why nature itself wouldn't be considered just another layer of convention.

We have plenty of those kinds of blunt, subjective human constructs. Take centrifugal force, for instance. Or even the concept of pressure.

So, if those are just tools, what exactly qualifies as an objective "tool" or object in your view?

There are even more glaringly subjective social conventions, such as our notions of 'good' and 'evil.' These attempt to categorize phenomena far more complex than any physical measurement, and as a result, they are even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

Based on everything you’ve laid out so far, I’m having a hard time spotting where you draw the line between a purely subjective category and something truly objective.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Hold on just a second there. We can define Pi or Euler's number with absolute mathematical precision; if we couldn't, the entire foundation of modern mathematics would have crumbled long ago. Now, if you're suggesting that it's impossible for us to "grasp" an infinite string of decimals, well, that’s a completely different conversation, but it certainly doesn't serve as an argument against the existence of numbers themselves. I mean, if numbers don't actually exist, how on earth is a physicist supposed to run any calculations?

Mark Torres14 said:Pi is an object, just like the equator. It only becomes a subject once a human mind actually perceives it.

I'm out of here. It's a full moon night in San Diego and I'm going out to live my life.😁

Which leads us down a rabbit hole: does the equator actually exist in any meaningful sense if there isn't a subject there to witness it?

I’ll leave you all to it for now. It’s a full moon night here in San Diego, and I’m off to go live my life.😁

I might just show up there tomorrow myself (finally 🙏).

Mark Torres14 said:I disagree. It’s one of the strongest arguments out there—clean, logical, and precise. It doesn't leave questions hanging because it establishes a clear starting point: the human being. The Old Testament is over 2,000 years old, and I still find it incredibly useful for making my case.
But let's get back to basics. What’s your take on the points made by me and Caveman? Do you honestly think Christianity is where all evil comes from?

Does man serve as the metric for the value of pi? Or is that constant just sitting there, perfectly indifferent to our existence?

But let's circle back to what we were discussing. What’s your take on the way the cave allegory and my own reasoning hold up? Do you truly believe Christianity is the root of all evil?

If you ask me, any religion carries the potential for darkness. Sure, religions have their moments of genuine good, but when you drop them into environments steeped in ignorance, you almost inevitably see a twisted, malevolent shadow emerge. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the most wicked versions of faith are simply the result of taking the messages found in "holy" books to their most literal, unyielding conclusion. If you consider the Old Testament de facto to be a manual for genocide, then a book containing those instructions is inherently evil. It’s an objective reality! 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Good grief, ironmarlin1. "Man is the measure of all things." Or do you disagree?

I suppose there is a certain amount of truth to it, though I wouldn't exactly bank on it being a heavy-hitting argument that can carry much weight in a serious debate. Even so, that particular maxim tends to leave quite a few pressing questions hanging in mid-air, unanswered.

Mark Torres14 said:The equator exists regardless of us, but it only gains subjectivity once a human mind perceives it. Until then, it's just an object.
It’s no coincidence that Heidegger equated history—human history—with battle.

I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping what you mean by subjectivity being realized through human perception. Could you walk me through that? If you're suggesting the equator exists as an object entirely independent of us, what kind of object are we actually talking about?

Mark Torres14 said:Could we perhaps argue, in a much broader sense, that the entire concept of "evil" is nothing more than a sociological construct—a label whose intensity and application depend entirely on how advanced a society has become and, frankly, on whoever happens to be holding the trophy at the time?

I mean, does an equator even exist if there isn't a single human being there to measure it? Are our judgments about the equator objective truths, or are they just subjective interpretations forced upon the landscape? ☕

electrictiger70 said:And if there is heavy propaganda everywhere, I think we can agree on that. ☕ While it wasn't the majority burning down embassies, there is an entire network of fundamentalist organizations growing stronger by the day, fueled by a sentiment that is increasingly anti-Western. And honestly, the West's own actions are just pouring gasoline on the fire. Or should I say oil? 🤣 Meanwhile, over here, media conglomerates are piling up, condemning Muslims left and right, and God knows how far that goes. But whatever. Maya said the world was ending in 2012, so maybe we’ll all be gone before we even finish fighting each other over caricatures, oil, or whatever the next big topic is—water, perhaps? 🤣

The whole issue regarding the symbols of Muhammad applies to all Muslims. This isn't some gimmick; it's a fact that all Muslims acknowledge.

True, but not every Muslim was involved in those embassy attacks, like you mentioned earlier. When you use "they," you're implying all Muslims. Basically, we're just going in circles. 😉 I really just wanted to point out that you fell for your own linguistic trap...☕

I find this radical division between "Western enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own lens—to be ridiculous. The reality is that even in the most conservative Muslim societies, people revolt against such orders (take Iran, for example), regardless of Western enlightenment or values. So, claiming this is merely our enlightened perspective is wrong; they arrive at these conclusions independently of us.

But I never said those people don't exist there; I was focusing specifically on our perspective of the East. Is that really so hard to grasp? 🙄 I wasn't suggesting there aren't people there who see things that way; I am simply questioning whether anything today is truly value-neutral or untainted by some established system of values...
But still—the symbolic power of the West remains greater than the symbolic power of the East. Therefore, it stands to reason that the West played a much larger role in the media construction of "Islam" and "Muslims" than the reverse. It's not as if people in Iran aren't watching satellite TV. 😉While we haven't exactly seen 😉
here in America, let's be honest. The real issue remains how they interpret our policies through the lens of their own value systems... and that's a conversation that could go on forever. Relativism is a very convenient tool 🤣

It seems to me that we’ve reached a point where the West stands as the sole bulwark against fundamentalism. To suggest that our very opposition to such radicalism is what actually fuels its rise feels, frankly, a bit detached from reality. It’s like arguing that trying to put out a fire only makes the flames burn hotter—it just doesn't track with how things work on the ground. 🙄

Look, we really need to stop this circular logic because we’re just spinning our wheels at this point. You're making this sweeping generalization that implies every single Muslim was responsible for those embassy riots, which simply isn't the case—contrary to what you were claiming earlier. When you use "they" in that context, it creates this massive, unfair umbrella that blankets an entire population under the actions of a few. It's like blaming every driver in Chicago for one guy running a red light; it just doesn't hold up. We aren't actually moving the conversation forward if we keep falling back into these broad strokes. 😉 I really just wanted to tell you that you managed to trip me up with one of those linguistic cleverness tricks—the very same kind of rhetorical trap that ended up ensnaring you in the first place.☕

I didn't "fall for some linguistic trick," as some might suggest; rather, I was simply stating a truth that applies broadly to the entire Muslim community—to "them," if you will. 😉They’ll go out of their way to claim that their entire culture is essentially defined by the chaos we see unfolding in places like Iran, Libya, Somalia, or Saudi Arabia—as if those regions serve as some sort of cultural blueprint for them. It’s a peculiar kind of prejudice, really; they’re practicing a specific brand of racism that they themselves refuse to even acknowledge, much like the kind of "positive" examples you see popping up here on the forums all the time.

Now, I wasn’t suggesting that those types of people don't exist over there at all; rather, I was focusing my attention specifically on our own perspective regarding the East. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? 🙄 I never actually claimed that there aren't people over there who view things through that specific lens; I was simply posing a question about whether anything truly exists anymore—whether there is any ground left that isn't inherently value-neutral or, more importantly, untainted by some pre-existing system of values.

You’re making that same point again—that there are people who view things through "that specific lens"—but you’re failing to mention that this isn't some exclusive Western perspective. In fact, the very fact that they arrived at these conclusions entirely independently of Western influence proves just how flawed that radical relativism is. It’s the kind of intellectual dodge you see naive leftists using to justify, say, the expansion of a nuclear program in Iran. Their logic always follows the same tired pattern: they either lean into this extreme relativism where everyone is supposedly on equal footing, or they start deifying Western propaganda, treating it like an all-powerful God while completely ignoring the actual, tangible dangers staring them in the face.

But let’s be real—if the symbolic weight of the West still carries more punch than anything coming out of the East, then it stands to reason that the West has played a far larger role in constructing the media narrative surrounding "Islam" and "Muslims" than the other way around... As if people over in Iran aren't sitting there watching Western satellite broadcasts 😉 while we haven't even caught a glimpse of what's playing on Iranian TV 😉
The truth is, we have to consider how they interpret our programming through the lens of their own value systems... and we could go on like this forever. Relativism is a very convenient tool 🤣

Even when you're looking at television programming from Iran, it isn't hard to find clips on YouTube. You can actually find footage from their national broadcaster where a Jew pours water over a swastika, only for it to transform into the Star of David. Unfortunately, this kind of relativism is exactly what we should be avoiding, because it ends up throwing all Muslims into the same basket as those murderous regimes in the Middle East or Northeast Africa.

electrictiger70 said:No, that is simply your interpretation of what I meant. When I used the terms "us" and "them," I was referring to the West versus the East in terms of Muslim nations and cultures. I was not implying that I view them all as fundamentalists.

You are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. You are conflating all Muslims with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you attempt a symbolic analysis of two contradictory cultures, even though you are confusing rioters with actual Islamic culture.

Look, you cannot tell me that Muslim countries share the same value system as the West—which is what you seem to be suggesting now. Are you claiming that most Muslims didn't react to those caricatures and that it was just a small group of thugs? That is a convenient thesis, but I fail to see what evidence you have to support it. It is even harder to believe when you consider how pervasive fundamentalist propaganda is in the Middle East, and there is a reason for that. I am not justifying them; I am merely stating that there is logic to what is happening when you apply a Western context to it.

The situation is paradoxical because they lack symbols. The reality is that the absence of symbols has itself become a symbol, because they are forbidden from having them in an effort to prevent idolatry.

And who exactly are you referring to as "them" now? 🤣 You have just fallen into the exact trap you accused me of—you generalized all Muslims into a single group that "is not allowed to have symbols." 😁 See how easy it is to get caught in that logic? :P
There is a certain truth to your point about the absence of symbols becoming a symbol in itself. They are not permitted to question these symbols, yet we analyze this through our own lens—that of a liberal, rationalistic legacy born from the Enlightenment, where the very concept seems absurd because it strikes at the core of the Enlightenment order.
Anyway, I don't know. It is getting too late for me to untangle these complex Muslim-Western questions. ☕

The propaganda isn't just heavy in the East; it’s quite potent in the West as well. If you actually take a moment to See who is footing the bill for many of the Muslim communities here in America, you'll find they are largely funded by the most reactionary elements coming out of Saudi Arabia. And regarding the embassies, the reality is that the vast majority weren't the ones setting fires. Most people acted much like Americans did during the debates over joining the EU. It was all very much "What does the West want from us, those filthy liberals?"—that classic, tired rhetoric.

So, who exactly is saying "they" now?🤣 You’ve essentially fallen right into the trap you just accused me of—you've generalized all Muslims into this single group that "isn't allowed to have symbols," using that very concept as a symbol itself.😁 See how that feels when someone uses your own logic against you? :P

Well, this whole issue concerning the symbols of Muhammad applies to the Muslim community as a whole. That isn't some clever rhetorical trick; it is a fundamental fact acknowledged by Muslims everywhere.🤷

There is a certain truth to what you're saying about their absence of symbols becoming a symbol in its own right. They aren't permitted to question these icons, yet we end up viewing the entire situation through our own lens—specifically, that liberal-rationalist legacy of the Enlightenment, where the mere thought of such restrictions seems utterly absurd because it strikes at the very foundation of Enlightenment order.

To me, this radical binary you're drawing between "Western Enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own biased perspective—strikes me as rather silly. The simple truth is that even in the most traditionalist Muslim societies, people rise up against such rigid orders (take Iran, for example) entirely independent of any Western Enlightenment or American values. Therefore, claiming this is merely our specific Enlightenment viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, because they are reaching those same conclusions on their own terms, without us.

electrictiger70 said:That is true, though I am certainly not defending fundamentalism; I made that distinction clear. My point is simply to examine the various ways meaning is constructed and to question whose definitions we are using when we judge Islamic perspectives.
It is obvious that no ideology violating basic human rights should be tolerated, but that leads to a secondary question: who defines those basic rights, and by what authority? Is it the West? (Which is essentially the critique leveled against the UN conventions).
If you want my personal stance, I am absolutely opposed to everything you mentioned above. However, that does not mean I won't interrogate the premises upon which certain values are labeled as universal. The West frequently tends to view these issues within Islam in isolation from their actual context, or through a purely Western lens. This prevents any meaningful dialogue, which is the only thing I am trying to emphasize here.
There is also a tendency to view extremists as the statistical average 😉, leading to the assumption that all Muslims are uneducated fundamentalists, which is simply not an accurate representation.

That isn't true. You call them backward because you identify them with the people who burn embassies and flags while cheering for Hitler because he was killing Jews. That is the only condemnation being offered, and it comes from quasi-intellectual leftists who equate everyone with fundamentalists and then label that behavior as their "culture."

You haven't fully read or understood my post. I am not calling them backward; rather, I am questioning the very framework by which we—as Western culture—label them as such based on our own specific context. This does not mean I support fatwas or the stoning of women for adultery; it just means the issue is far more complex than the black-and-white rhetoric currently dominating public discourse. In fact, I believe we actually agree on this point.

As I stated, there are plenty of decent Muslims who condemn what you are labeling as their "culture" and reject such stereotyping.

I suspect you might have misunderstood me. ☕ And frankly, I don't quite follow your last objection either.
I didn't even present a definitive personal opinion here; I merely attempted to analyze whose perspective is being prioritized and what the consequences of those viewpoints are. All I am saying is that matters aren't simple enough to slap a "backward" label on Muslims just because they were outraged by the Danish cartoons. Yes, fine, they may be viewed as backward because they don't respect certain free speech principles, but from their perspective, we don't respect their symbols either. That is where the breakdown in communication occurs. This is a much too layered issue for me to draw any profound conclusions in just two posts. 🤷But if you've got some ideas—please, lay them on me 😉

Even though we've drifted completely off-topic here 😁

I have my doubts. 😁The core of the issue here is that the moment you start drawing those sharp lines between "us" and "them," you’re essentially grouping everyone together and painting them all with the same brush as the extremists. It’s a bit ironic, really, because by doing that, you end up falling right into the very trap you claim to be trying to avoid—which is labeling an entire community based on the actions of a few radicals, while acting as if we somehow lack the capacity to grasp the nuances of their actual culture.

I have a nagging suspicion that you might have missed my point entirely. ☕ I have to say, I’m truly struggling to wrap my head around that last point you made; it's just one of those arguments that seems to drift quite far from the actual heart of the matter, leaving me somewhat adrift.
I wasn't actually attempting to stake out a definitive position here; rather, I was merely trying to untangle the various perspectives at play and examine what kind of fallout occurs when one particular viewpoint clashes with another. My only real point is that we shouldn't fall into the trap of oversimplifying things by slapping a "regressive" label on Muslims just because they were deeply offended by those caricatures in Denmark. It isn't quite that black and white.

You’re essentially doing exactly what I warned you about earlier. You keep conflating the entire Muslim population with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you pivot into this grand, symbolic analysis of two inherently contradictory cultures—all while failing to distinguish between actual hooligans and the core tenets of Islamic culture itself.

Sure, I suppose they’re retreating because they feel like their right to free speech is being trampled on, but if you step back and look at it from their point of view, there’s a certain logic to it—we aren't exactly out here flying their flags or posting their symbols either, are we?

It’s a bit of a paradox, really, if you stop to think about it. They don't actually possess any symbols of their own, which sounds like a void, but the reality is far more layered than that. You see, the very absence of those symbols has effectively become a symbol in itself—a sort of silent statement. It’s all driven by this rigid desire to steer clear of idolatry, a belief that by stripping away the outward imagery, they can somehow safeguard their spiritual purity. So, in an attempt to avoid worshiping an object, they've turned nothingness into their most defining icon.

Lila Sun said:On the flip side, look at the logic here—Europeans tend to view the Muslim perspective on women as inherently offensive; they label it regressive, claim it violates women's rights, and so on...

I suppose defending fundamentalism requires a healthy dose of cynicism, doesn't it? You seem to have conveniently left out the parts about hanging journalists, homosexuals, and victims of sexual assault (who are assaulted precisely because their culture forbids hanging virgins).

I am in complete agreement regarding the rights aspect, but if we elevate this discussion to the level of semantics—why exactly do we expect them to tolerate our mockery of their sacred symbols, much like those controversial cartoons in Denmark, when we spend all our time dismissing them as backwards? It feels like two distinct cultures that simply fail to grasp one another, yet we feel entitled to pass judgment on them, while the moment they criticize us, we hide behind the shield of "tolerance." Are we actually being tolerant toward their values? We aren't, are we? It’s simply because we view them through the lens of Western discourse and deem them outdated.

That isn't quite right. The reason you call them backward is that you are conflating an entire group with the individuals who burn embassies and wave flags for Hitler because he was a murderer of Jews. That is the crux of the condemnation, and frankly, it stems from these quasi-intellectual leftists who lump everyone together with fundamentalists and then insist that such behavior constitutes their actual "culture."

I agree with Zizek, though I wanted to emphasize what I consider the core driver of this friction—setting aside political realities and assuming it can't all be reduced to mere linguistics, though this touches on that semantic dimension—it is the fact that these two cultures lack any mutual understanding because they don't share a common vocabulary of meaning, largely because one side is incapable of viewing the other without a heavy layer of value judgments.
This brings us back to the idea that meaningful communication necessitates at least a minimal baseline of shared definitions. ☕

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of perfectly decent Muslims who would find your labeling of this behavior as "their culture" just as objectionable as anyone else.

James Lee77 said:Well, if that were true, it would mean Sisyphus totally misread what those "proof-seekers" are actually after. 😉
See, their whole goal isn't really to prove God doesn't exist. It’s more about making believers look irrational so they can feel superior. Most people coming out of those debates walk away thinking, "Ha! Look how stupid they are" (or, let's be real, "Heh, look how smart I am"). So, I guess their behavior is actually pretty calculated—it's all about feeding that ego and feeling intellectually superior.

A conversation only really matters when both sides are actually willing to question what they believe. 🤷

I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening here. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest there’s a certain counterproductive element to aggressive argumentation; when you hammer home your side too hard, the other person immediately feels cornered, which triggers a defensive reflex that shuts down any real dialogue. 🤷

restlessgull11 As if I haven't heard this all before—it’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the conductor's hat instead of jumping off the tracks. Honestly, it feels like we're stuck in some sort of endless loop, much like that old myth of Sisyphus and his boulder, only the boulder is made of bureaucracy and bad decisions. You try to make progress, you push with everything you've got, and then—boom—you're right back at the bottom of the hill, staring up at the same problems, wondering why anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. It’s exhausting, really. One would think that after all these years, we might have learned a thing or two about efficiency or common sense, but apparently, that's asking too much from the powers that be. We just keep spinning our wheels while the world moves on without us.
I suppose I should have expected that, really. It’s almost poetic in its predictability, isn't it? Much like watching a slow-motion replay of a missed field goal in a Sunday afternoon football game—you see the trajectory failing long before the ball actually hits the turf. There’s an inevitable sort of heaviness to these things, a sense that we are all just circling the same drain, waiting for the inevitable splashdown. It’s quite something, if you stop to think about it for more than a second.😁But then again, if you look at it from a different angle, it hardly seems worth anyone’s time to actually try and prove the non-existence of something like a little man living in a cloud. I mean, why would anyone even bother attempting to demonstrate that something isn't there? It feels entirely futile, almost a fool's errand, don't you think? And honestly, just imagine the sheer, overwhelming scale of all those things that simply aren't there—it's an endless, dizzying list of nothingness.😁

We actually attempted to apply a bit of scientific logic during our theology seminar—you know, the old principle that the burden of proof lies squarely with whoever is making the positive claim—but so far, we haven't seen any actual evidence presented. It’s all just talk.

But you see, this isn't merely about questioning the existence of God; it goes much deeper than theology when you start looking at the actual evidence—or rather, the glaring lack thereof. Take, for instance, the work of the Israeli archaeologists who have been tirelessly scouring that desert for nearly fifty years now, and what have they actually turned up? Absolutely nothing. Not a single bone, not a stray shard of pottery, not a piece of jewelry—nothing at all to substantiate the idea of a massive population wandering through the wilderness for decades on end. It’s quite a curious thing, really, because even when you look at the claims being circulated by the CIA regarding those years of wandering, we find ourselves spiraling right back into the same old pattern of irrational debate. It’s a different kind of problem entirely when the physical reality just refuses to align with the narrative.😁

It’s all quite futile when you’re dealing with hardcore believers. Even if you actually manage to win someone over, they just pop up again by the dozens like mushrooms after a heavy rain. At the end of the day, even if they finally concede to the theory of evolution, they just find a way to wrap the whole process in some layer of divine intent or other similar fairy tales. It honestly fascinates me to watch Olivia Evans8 struggle against creationists in those religious PDFs, acting as if any kind of meaningful breakthrough is actually going to come from it. I mean, really, what is the point of even trying? 🤷 )
It’s an undeniable truth that perspectives around here shift quite frequently—at least from where I’m sitting—though I suppose that really depends on how deeply you choose to engage with the subject matter at hand. Take the Philosophy subforum, for instance; what used to be a space for rigorous thought has somehow morphed into little more than a hollow digital watercooler, drifting aimlessly through endless chatter without a shred of substantive content to anchor it.

Olivia Evans8 said:Oh, totally. When it comes to people and how they think... 😬

Man, forget God for a second! I'm talking about anything you hold to be true about this world: God, intuition, aliens, New Age stuff, the speed of light, the Large Hadron Collider, the existence of HIV, whatever... The whole point is that everyone just holds onto their own little version of the truth and feels like they're 100% right, no matter what you say to them...

P. S. It’ll be interesting to see who knocks on the door first 😉

Take me, for instance; I’ve completely shifted my stance on the existence of free will. Lately, I’ve also been reconsidering the whole concept of intentionality—specifically, the degree to which things actually possess beliefs, desires, and those other various mental attributes.☕

What I truly struggle to wrap my head around is how anyone could even attempt to argue against the existence of God through the lens of religion. It seems fundamentally flawed to me. Honestly,
Sisyphus would probably just laugh at those kinds of futile efforts.