Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PaulS last won the day on September 7 2017

PaulS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

113 SAGE

About PaulS

  • Rank
    Alternate Administrator & Site Sponsor
  • Birthday 08/20/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mandurah Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,323 profile views
  1. PaulS

    The Power of Now - By Eckhart Tolle

    I don't see the difference though - he is using his mind to watch his mind - I don't think there are two separate entities (although I appreciate that's probably not what Tolle thinks). I do wonder if this identity shift is just the ego changing (i.e. the mind now aligns the ego with a different name for itself). That doesn't necessarily detract from the effectiveness of what he is suggesting but it just makes me question his description of how it happens. Yet I think you use your mind to put yourself into that position. I can't question your personal experience but to me it seems the benefit comes from knowing how to use our mind rather than allowing it to run itself, muck like what we do with the rest of our body and cells - we manage ourselves a certain way or we suffer the consequences. Agreed. I look forward to continuing the read.
  2. PaulS

    The Power of Now - By Eckhart Tolle

    Chapter Three for me: If I read this book as a tool for how to feel better by living in the moment, by not being burdened by my past or feeling anxious about my future, no problem. In fact, I think Tolle makes many good points about how to use our mind to make us feel alive and in the moment. He doesn't say we are using the mind, in fact he says the opposite, but I don't accept what he's saying and to me he seems to just be using different words for what I would say is the mind being used. If I read it as a more mystical text then I think it loses its way and talks a bit of gobbledygook about mind, time and being. It seems to me that Tolle requires us to use our mind and our ego to release ourselves into the Now. I have no problem with that but I don't see our mind in any way being separate to our consciousness. In fact, it seems to me personally that my consciousness only exists because I have a mind - i.e. me as consciousness did not exist before my mind developed and I believe my consciousness will cease when my mind (brain) ceases working as it should. As yet, I haven't seen Tolle verify anything different. But I do agree that past and future can cause us angst and worry so parking those and focusing on the present seems a good tool for happiness. However, if I don't keep a mind out for the future then I would probably starve to death and my mind would no longer allow my consciousness to exist.
  3. Still too dramatic a description of somebody for me, personally.
  4. I try not to take myself, or others, too seriously. Sorry my joke annoyed you. I do think you commenced this thread too strongly defining bigot (and continue to do so), but obviously we disagree.
  5. I don’t agree with what Dawkins said and I find it detracts from his message because people then focus on a couple of sentences from an entire rational speech (and kazillions of other rational, thoughtful, non-bigoted speeches and debates he participates in). As I agreed with Thormas, his comments lean toward intolerance in those instances. But I cannot label him a bigot because he sometimes says those things. You seem to. Your choice. I think you are lowering the bar as to when we do and when we don’t label somebody a bigot. You don’t. Oh well then.
  6. Now you're just being an intolerant bigot!
  7. You disagree with me, but your example agrees with me. I am saying that when we start calling people bigots because they strongly, even vehemently, disagree with other beliefs, then we are lowering the bar to what should rightly be called bigotry i.e. where bigots are not just 'intolerant' because they don't accept another's beliefs (or even refute it), but where that intolerance is associated with hate and desire to harm the other side. That is what a bigot is. We start calling people who disagree as 5% bigots then you are indeed scaling down the seriousness of the word bigot.
  8. We're going off topic a bit but if I were to consider the history of atheism (which existed long before Christianity) and the best examples of persecution by atheist dates as recently as early 20th century, I'm going to go with Christianity being the bigger offender. I think if you were to consider the 'settlement' of other countries and continents and the total displacement of the indigenous inhabitants by Christians, the impact of those persecutions far outweighs what you cite against atheism. But again. maybe we should just agree to disagree.
  9. Thanks. I'm glad we've sorted that. This goes to my case in point - the fact that you would even consider the Soviet Union & China's deadly oppression of religion and Richard Dawkins as comparible bigotry indicates to me that you are using a far too precious interpretation of the word bigot. Bigotry involves hate and I don't think Dawkins is hating even though he vehemently disagrees with religious belief. We are gong to have to agree to disagree I think. I base this on my overall viewing of Dawkins and how I have seen him act and talk. Hence why I argue that we need to very carefully choose and use our words and the definitions of those words - of which I have no doubt I am often an offender myself! But as others should call me out, so too will I (without bigotry though I would suggest).
  10. Yes, I think the comment does go to the intolerant side of things but I struggle with judging the man as a bigot because he gets carried away sometimes. I mean, to the contrary of this 2012 speech, he apologised to Christians in 2015 for mocking their beliefs because he acknowledged he can’t prove there is not a God. I find it hard to label the man as a bigot in the face of such. That and the way I have seen him conduct himself in debates, TV interviews and conferences - always tolerant of the others views whilst strongly disagreeing with them, but allowing them their say fairly. And his book the God Delusion does not contain bigotry or intolerance but simply presents a case for its beliefs and refutes others - again, that is not bigotry or intolerance. But I’m sure there will be times when RD lets some of his strongly felt beliefs get the better of him. It’s no excuse, but Christianity has been so much more bigoted throughout history, yet many Christians have no truck with that because such is on their ‘side’. Indeed some of the bible includes the most horrendous, bigoted words one could read, yet the tolerance granted religion is incomparable with the tolerance granted in other beliefs.
  11. If you want to call yourself a bigot and intolerant of other people's views, knock yourself out, but I would appreciate it if you don't lump me (or others) into that category (the category where Burl and you seem to agree that everyone is an intolerant bigot). You are both simply misusing and exaggerating the terms. I actually don't really mind if somebody wants to consider me a bigot (for inadequate reasons in my opinion) but what irks me the most is this very ordinary justification of a term which is so wrong. You actually belittle the real seriousness of bigotry and intolerance when you replace it simply for instances of people holding and or arguing opposing or disagreeing beliefs. In regards to justice, you also must apply justice correctly and in accordance with the law, not simply the populism of the day or how you favour the understanding of a term such as bigot. The real injustice would be that you think a crime is committed when in fact you are not even understanding the definition of the so-called said crime. You've actually made up a crime where no such offence existed.
  12. If you're talking context, are you also considering the context of you stating that I said something bigoted before then going on to say that this thread reminds you of a book that you call bigoted? Maybe you didn't consider your previous accusation of bigotry or realise that drawing a similarity between this thread and bigotry somewhat places me as a bigot, so in your mind you weer just accusing Dawklns of being a bigot? Okay then. But to answer your question, yes, I do think it is inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot, unless you don't want to use the word bigot as per its written definition. Dawkins strongly refutes a Christian ideology there is no doubt, but as I have already pointed out, bigotry is intolerance and is usually regarded as a spiteful and hateful intolerance at that. I don't know if you've seen many Dawkin's debates but he is usually absolutely tolerates others opinions and points of view and gives them every chance to present their side of the story - he just strongly refutes them as he is entitled to do. Refusing to accept somebody else's beliefs is not bigotry. By your standards it would seem that anyone who strongly refutes another's belief is a bigot. This is a misuse of the word entirely. Dawkins is not intolerant of religious opinions - he thinks they are wrong and is prepared to speak out about them particularly against the framework of these beliefs taking pride of place (for some) in law (10 Commandments be displayed in Courthouses), in schools (the insistence to teach creation or intelligent design instead of the science of evolution) and in the area of politics mixing with religion. As much as you might not like what he and so called 'militant atheists' believe, it is not bigotry to refute other people's beliefs. Just as you have a right to tell my why your beliefs are true, I (and Richard) have a right to tell you they are not true and why we thinks so. Again, this is not bigotry or intolerance.
  13. Yes, that's what i said ("a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"). So I am curious as to where you see the 'intolerance' part of the definition of the word being displayed in any way here. Do you think the title of this thread (one thing VERSING another) displays intolerance? There was a repertoire of exchanges in this thread and the other, much like a formal debate on a stage. When debating as such, is it typical to accuse the other of intolerance when putting forward and/or defending their argument/points of view? If so, you seem to be setting a very low bar for intolerance. The synonyms used for intolerance such as bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, parochialism, provincialism, insularity, fanaticism, dogmatism, illiberality etc are all pretty strong words to use against anyone who may debate an opposing point of view (or who may agree on some differences but debate the similarities). I'm just trying to clarify for future discussion if this is how you see intolerance and bigotry.
  14. Burl, when you say "well said Jack", is this really the position you adopt around the term bigot and bigotry also?
  15. Just on this word 'bigotry' - I think we need to understand what we are talking about here. The word bigot, as I understand it, means a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (Oxford dictionary). Another definition (Cambridge Dictionary) describes a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs (people can fee l free to say that about my side of the argument if they want) and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: The key to bigot and bigotry is intolerance and dislike of others because of their views. I don't think a few interchanges or disagreements on views in a thread or two can or should be labelled as bigotry. Otherwise it would seem to me that everyone who disagrees or refuses to accepts the others opposing view would seem to be a bigot by your understanding. I have displayed no such intolerance, even though I may disagree and debate others beliefs and points of view.. Indeed by titling this topic psychopathy VERSUS belief I was acknowledging there are differences (accepting others views to a degree), but acknowledge I was primarily discussing similarities. Now I have no intention of discussing the topic any further per se, but I think I need to address your charge of bigotry as I don't think that is an appropriate description and I think your explanation above doesn't correctly understand the definition of the word. Ignorance is one thing, equating religion with mental illness is another, but neither are of themselves, bigotry. Disagreeing with others beliefs is not intolerance