Real World Philospohy [Archive]

Jack Simth

November 6th, 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
ah, but if God tells you something, it isn't an assumption. I said they all rest on an assumption somewhere - I didn't say where. Tell me - why should God's word be authoritative on the question of ethics? Don't get me wrong, it is - but why is it? For that matter, it is an assumption that good is inherently better than bad, or that better is something that should be sought, or ... - there are a zillion of them.

Originally posted by Loser:
Really?
Do you go with them all the way?Lutheran - expanded Version, encompassing data from the rest of the Bible as well as just those two sections in Exodus 20 and Deutoronomy 5. Originally posted by Loser:

What about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
Vegan?Technically, plants are alive, so when you eat them, you kill them. Fortunately, it's "Thou shalt not murder" not thou shalt not kill. There is a considerable difference. Originally posted by Loser:

Or "Remember the Sabath and Keep It Holy"?
Does one do nothing on Saturdays? Not use computers, or do math, or anything that could be 'work'?Ever read Mark 2:27? Originally posted by Loser:

Or (losing the exactness on this one) "No Graven Images and Stuff"?
Wouldn't that count photographs and even the image on a computer or television screen?
It would at least count 'action figures' and a large number of salt and pepper shakers.
They're even shaped like cows sometimes.
It's idol, not image; the key difference between an idol and your list is worshiping. Originally posted by Loser:

I try to live my life around forgiveness: Don't hold anything agaisnt anyone else; Don't hold things against yourself. Basically "Don't Be Hurt", which is not the same a "Don't Get Hurt" becuase that gets you nowhere fast. "Don't Get Hurt" sucks.

Guilt and Grudge are both burdens that prevent you from enjoying life or even living the life you'd like to live, from being the person you wish you were. This doens't mean that you shouldn't learn from your mistakes, or that you should let another wrong you again and again. It's more about the attitude you have toward the past.
Quite accurate; interestingly, the Ten commandments say absolutely nothing about revenge - directly, at least. The New Testament, and many places in the Old Testament, speak much of forgiveness. The Ten Commandments are the standard I try to measure actions by; after all, any system of ethics is primarily concerned with deciding "ought" and "ought nots".

[ November 06, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 6th, 2003, 07:43 AM

I said they all rest on an assumption somewhere - I didn't say where. Tell me - why should God's word be authoritative on the question of ethics? Don't get me wrong, it is - but why is it? For that matter, it is an assumption that good is inherently better than bad, or that better is something that should be sought, or ... - there are a zillion of them.
first question - answer's from God are athorative. can't explain it any better than that. second. good doesn't want you to die wailing in dispair. third. better is better. explains itself.

and now i must sleep.

[ November 06, 2003, 05:43: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Jack Simth

November 6th, 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
first question - answer's from God are athorative. can't explain it any better than that.A variation on "it just is" - one of the ways of identifing an underlying assumption. Don't get me wrong, the assumption is correct - but that can't be proven this side of Doomsday, so it remains an assumption for the duration.

Assumptions aren't inherently a bad thing. They are ultimately all any string of reasoning or logic has to rest on. Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
second. good doesn't want you to die wailing in dispair.That just leaves another why: Why should dying while wailing in dispair be something to be avoided? Don't get me wrong, it is something to be avoided; but sooner or later (if the chain is not infinite) there that chain can be followed back to a "feelings" argument, a circular argument, a variation on "it just is", or an an out and out assumption. All of the four classifications of possible eventuals are assumptions, of one guise or another. Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
third. better is better. explains itself.
Another variation on "it just is". Don't get me wrong - you are correct that better is better; but why better should be sought? That's a different question. There are some philosophies out there - of the fate variety, usually - that don't advocate seeking better as there is exactly nothing you can actually do to influence events. Mind you, they are wrong, and you are right, but that can't be proven.

I'm in an odd mood today....

Atrocities

November 6th, 2003, 10:36 AM

People spend their lives wondering why and what if. They hide, they duck, they go on wishing for good luck. But in time the dime is dropped and all that was twas no more. The joke is on us, and no matter how much we ignor the truth of our lives, in the end all that will matter is that nothing mattered at all.

Atrocities

November 6th, 2003, 10:37 AM

The average life span of 75 years is not enough time to live an average life.

deccan

November 6th, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
science has a lot of guesswork, scientists are priests. you speculate on the the nature of the microwave background, when as far as i know, we still havn't >taken a sample from another planet in our own solar system.<
I've done this many times, and I'm way too tired and busy to do this right now, but what the heck, once more into the fray in defense of science and against the enemies of organized religion!

Science is more than a collection of facts and theories (though it is also that). It is above all a methodology to discover facts and formulate theories. Though it is true that most of the general public regard scientists as high priests, that is only because most people have allowed that to happen, i.e. let themselves fall behind the research curve so much that the arguments, speculations etc. of scientists have become wholly unfathomable to them.

The most wonderful thing about science in my opinion is that in principle, anyone, limited only by their own time and interest, can follow in the footsteps of the work of scientists and verify scientific results on their own.

Narf seems to argue that science doesn't offer the same kind of certainty from which stems spiritual satisfaction that most forms of organized religion. I agree that this is probably true for the vast majority of people. But then science isn't "meant" to satisfy any spiritual urges. It doesn't have to be a bromide, to use a word beloved by Ayn Rand, it only has to be "true".

One of my conceptions of paradise is the world described by Greg Egan in his novelette "Border Guards". In it, humans are immortal, all but indestructible, with all but infinite powers at their disposal (though none have the power to truly hurt another being without his/her/its consent), and above all with constant access to the huge database of human knowledge. In this world, a talented few actually push back the frontiers of knowledge, but the vast majority only follow far, far behind, living lives not unlike that of many university students, studying for the raw pleasure of study, intersped by moments of play, conversation and love.

Atrocities

November 6th, 2003, 11:15 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Who the hell really knows?

Loser

November 6th, 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Ever read Mark 2:27?Of course. But I was responding to your claim that you follow the Ten Commandments, not the apparently implied claim that you follow the Ten Commandments as modified by certain later scholars and holy men. That would be different.

DavidG

November 6th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

oh, and death isn't as scary once you know it's not the end. Which probably contributes to the fact there is so much killing going on.

Erax

November 6th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Hmm... this is difficult to translate, but basically my motto is "Let others be if they let you be." Don't try to impose anything on people who are not being actively disruptive.

Conversely, don't try to impose anything on me. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.

At the same time, I try to be supportive of other people, help them whenever I can. Knowledge should not be hoarded.

DarkAngel

November 6th, 2003, 01:54 PM

my views are my views and your views are your views.it's only when everyone realizes that everyone's views are different and unique to their own and can look past that will mankind ever truly be able to move forward

Loser

November 6th, 2003, 03:33 PM

You are right, Narf, there are a lot of similarities between Science and Religion. The big difference between Science and all the other Dogma out there is that science is wrong. No other Dogma is willing to admit that it is wrong, if that ever happens, it is abandoned and people invent a new one, maybe giving it the same name, but the words of higher powers are never wrong.

Science, on the other hand, is wrong. It is allowed to be. It is constantly correcting itself, improving, and moving forward. True science does not require faith, because "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and science is not about hope, or the unperceivable. Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Some areas commonly associated with science are difficult to prove, but that doesn't stop people from trying, and from taking the results and forming new theories. The psychology of an individual and certain actions or trends of great scale, like astrophysics, evolutionary biological trends, or even economics, may still be highly theoretical simply because we do not yet have the technology to make the needed measurements, let alone to run or reproduce an experiment. So these might not be Hard Sciences, and these might, for now, require 'faith'. We're working on it.

Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally, the experiments on which many modern principles of Science depend. And you might claim this moves Science into the realm of faith. And you might point out that the lingua sancti of Science, Math, has grown so large that no one man can understand all its fields, in fact I believe that Last man to do so was John Herschel, who died in 1871. And you might have a point. But they can be proven, where faith is reserved for those thing that can't.

Erax

November 6th, 2003, 04:22 PM

While I agree with most of Loser's points, I believe there is a larger issue you are all missing.

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).

Cyrien

November 6th, 2003, 04:46 PM

I don't like arguing religion. Neither side can ever win because it is... faith. And faith by it's nature can never be proved or disproved.

But... as to misery on earth being created by humans and free will... Last I checked hurricans and tornadoes and earthquakes weren't caused by humans and their freewill.

Now you can use the old argument that such disasters give people a chance to show their virtues such as bravery etc... but doesn't that interfere with freewill? In addition aren't all the man made disasters, such as war, collapsing buildings etc enough for people to prove their virtues without having to cause great disasters that kill, maim, torture and otherwise do evil to those who possibly have done nothing to deserve that. (What does a 2 month old baby do to deserve something like that? Wasn't original sin taken care of already with Christ?)

I could go on and on with the problems in organized religion and unorganized and most of the religious texts (several of which I have read in several different translations) ....

There is no point to doing so however. Experience has showed me that people who believe believe regardless and arguments to the contrary, even ones they can't counter won't have any affect. That is the nature of faith.

Those who don't believe already don't believe so what is the point?

Let me just say that the God who talks to me is right and yours is wrong! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! My morale and ethical values are correct and you can either agree with me or you can be wrong! Fortunatly for you, you don't have to believe in my God to get the good afterlife or at least a second chance. Those who are deserving of punishment shall recieve it based on a code of ethics and morales to complex to be accuratly placed into words, but not having the faith isn't adequate cause to be eternally damned to torture and pain.

After all... what is the point of having free will and punishing for the wrong choices if you tell at least 5 different people that they have the one true path and all others are damned and can't agree on what is and isn't forgiveable?!?

Just my few cents worth or whatever other currency you want to use.

Loser

November 6th, 2003, 06:06 PM

Nice, Erax. I'll keep that point around for the next time I get in one of these.

TerranC

November 6th, 2003, 10:46 PM

My philosophy is to never discuss politics, sciences, religions, and world issues over the dinner table.

IMHO, it's the most solid one there is in this world of ours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 06, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Andr�s

November 6th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Of course, God existing is a pretty big assumption to begin with.Assuming there is no God is an equally big assumption.
It takes faith to accept God's existence, but it also takes faith to deny it.
Truly scientific thinking should give the benefit of doubt to something that although cannot be proven cannot be disproved either.

I like to think it's possible that there is somekind of superior being (or beings), although I doubt any religion is right about its nature.
If there is a god, He (or She or They) should be able to show himself in a way that even the most skeptic would have to admit He's real, and if He wants us to behave in any particular way He should give clear instructions of what He wants us to do.

The lack of such proof leads me to conclude that either 1- there is no god, or 2- He is powerless to affect our world or 3- He doesn't care what we do or what happens to us.

But those are just my personal thoughts. And it's not my intention to force my point of view on anyone else.

General Woundwort

November 7th, 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Andres:
I like to think it's possible that there is somekind of superior being (or beings), although I doubt any religion is right about its nature.Given that just about every logical possibility has been set forth by the world religions, it just can't be that they're all equally wrong. If logic and rationality hold true in the religious/spiritual sphere as they do in other areas (and I think they do), then somebody has to be right - or at least more right than the others. It is impossible that Bertrand Russell (atheist), Gandhi (pantheist/Hindu), and G. K. Chesterton (Roman Catholic) were equally right/wrong as to the nature of supernatural reality. The question is, "how do we tell"?

EDIT - name errors

[ November 06, 2003, 22:55: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Suicide Junkie

November 7th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Of course, if reality depends on your point of view, it would be possible that all three were perfectly correct.

You might say they're not in the same universe anymore, though.

spoon

November 7th, 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Andres:

The lack of such proof leads me to conclude that either 1- there is no god, or 2- He is powerless to affect our world or 3- He doesn't care what we do or what happens to us.
4- God is a Jerk and deserves our scorn.

I lean towards #1, but #4 is more satisfying.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 02:45 AM

first, Jack, while from the point of view of someone who hasn't gotten an answer from God such answer's appear as assumption's, they are not. it's a matter of perspective. as for why should better be sought? well, you have to have experienced better to know that. if you havn't, then an answer is meaningless, except to give you the theory. and any explanation of what better gives you would just go over that whole ground again.

The average life span of 75 years is not enough time to live an average life.
Atrocities, you seem very caught up with dying. let me assure you, God does not blame humanity for his Son's death. God and his Son are one and his Son said 'forgive them, for they know not what they do'. besides the fact that most of humanity wassn't there. second, the whole purpose of the Son's coming here was to die. there's a place in the bible where Jesus is talking to Moses and a couple of other people and there talking about Him accomplishing His glorious purpose. which was to die. so that your sins could be forgiven and so that you could live again in the resurection. which resurection is nessatated by our first parents, who ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, which incident, by the way, i beleive to have been both good and nessasary. God had commanded them to be fruitfull and multiply. and all will be resurected, rendering death irrelevent, besides any life after death. irrevelent, at least, as something to fear because of the loss of this mortal body, which i do view as a loss. God created man in God's image, and man has flesh and bones. and on a Last note, 500 years would not be enough time, nor would 5000.

second, Deccan, i argue that a lot of scientists today are very certain on what seems to me little evidence. plus, i don't think any religeon can offer true joy, anymore than any philosophy or science can. that is a gift of God. however, science, philosophy and religeon can help, so long as they are honest seeker's after truth. and a religeon set up by God would naturaly be the most reliable.

quote:Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

oh, and death isn't as scary once you know it's not the end.

Originally posted by DavidG:
Which probably contributes to the fact there is so much killing going on.
that is a specious arguement. i'm not entirely sure what specious means, but i think it means 'flimsy'. i could argue better that the knowledge that God exists is more likely to make someone obey the law.

Conversely, don't try to impose anything on me. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.
the problem is, Erax, and i'm not saying you do this, but some people won't allow you to tell them anything. apparently, i have no right to tell me beleif's to anyone. that doesn't explain how those same people feel free to tell people there belief that people don't have a right to tell people there belief's. have i confused anybody yet? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

but the words of higher powers are never wrong.
Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally,
yes, but the words of people purporting to speak for the higher power often are, which is why you should always pray to God. after all, if someone tells you that i said people should do this, that and the other, hopefully you'll ask me before you start spreading it around. uh, i'm not trying to imply i'm God. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
and there will be a religious expeirence that's scientifically provable. the second coming. nobody will be able to miss that, which is why your supposed to ignore anyone who says 'lo, here!' and 'lo, there!'.

no, Erax, true religeon exists to bring people closer to God. the why is just part of it.

I don't like arguing religion. Neither side can ever win because it is... faith. And faith by it's nature can never be proved or disproved.
'if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth liberally and upbraideth not.' i forget which one that is.

But... as to misery on earth being created by humans and free will... Last I checked hurricans and tornadoes and earthquakes weren't caused by humans and their freewill.
no, that's weather patterns and techtonics. which God did set up. but one thing i forgot to say is the choices aren't just slavery or free will, it's also expeirence or innocence. innocence might sound great until you realise that your cat is innocent and, becuase of that, will never be anything more. growth tends to involve pain. otherwise, you would tend not to value it.
without natural disasters, i think people would be impelled to create more of there own. it's the destructive urge.

Those who don't believe already don't believe so what is the point?
After all... what is the point of having free will and punishing for the wrong choices if you tell at least 5 different people that they have the one true path and all others are damned and can't agree on what is and isn't forgiveable?!?
people change their minds. hopefully, for the better.
people can make up religeon's on their own. plus, i think a few religeon's are corruptions of ancient, God-given ones.

If there is a god, He (or She or They) should be able to show himself in a way that even the most skeptic would have to admit He's real, and if He wants us to behave in any particular way He should give clear instructions of what He wants us to do.

The lack of such proof leads me to conclude that either 1- there is no god, or 2- He is powerless to affect our world or 3- He doesn't care what we do or what happens to us.

But those are just my personal thoughts. And it's not my intention to force my point of view on anyone else.
God has given clear instructions. but if God presented Himself undeniably to you, wouldn't that force your point of view?

The question is, "how do we tell"?
ask God.

Of course, if reality depends on your point of view, it would be possible that all three were perfectly correct.

You might say they're not in the same universe anymore, though.
i've always thought that theory was arrogant.

Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.

[ November 07, 2003, 00:51: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 02:48 AM

So Narf, why is the particular religious doctrine that you believe in correct, whereas the other countless 1000s are not?

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 03:14 AM

well, Fyron, your going to really love this answer...because God told me it is. well, actually, he told me to join that church, and that church believes it is the true one. which chain of logic is strong enough for me.

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 03:21 AM

All religions believe they are the one true religion...

So when did you have a chat with God?

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Fyron, are you willing to consider the idea that someone may have a conversation with God and be sane?

Cyrien

November 7th, 2003, 03:27 AM

ask God.
Ok. I did. He said not to believe a word you say.

Guess that settles that one.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 03:28 AM

methinks Cyrien is making fun of me.

/me whacks Cyrien.

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 03:30 AM

Not if they are claiming it is the God of any particular arbitrary religion, as all religions are just inventions of man.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 03:35 AM

that's an arbitrary statement.

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 03:43 AM

Umm... sure. What is arbitrary about it?

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 03:48 AM

you have arbitrarly declared all religeons inventions of man. have you undertaken a rigorous study of all religeons and asked God?

Cyrien

November 7th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Yes. I have undergone a rigorous study of all the major religions in any event. I doubt it would be physically possible to gain even a basic understanding of ALL of them. To many small ones.
Based on my study of the major religions and their existing texts I have found that almost anything can be justified using religion, even things that are apparantly contradictory based on the interpretation given to what was written. This is only compounded as problem with ancient religions as they tend to use dead Languages in their original forms. Languages that few people speak and even then not as a basic language. Thus everything within them is not only subject to interpretation but also translation. Double whammy. As a general rule I am undecided on the issue of is their a God. I am quite decided however in my belief that organized religions are the earliest forms of government and means of limiting citizenry to acceptable rules of behavior often in the absence of strong central authority with other backing, that have grown out of control and taken on a life of their own once other authority did arise.

I also looked up arbitrary.

ar�bi�trar�y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.

4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

Based on definition 2 it seems that all statements could be considered arbitrary.

PS: I wasn't making fun of you. I asked God and this voice in my head answered. And told me that it disagreed with you. I can only assume that the voice was God. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 04:06 AM

There is nothing arbitrary about my "declaration". You seem to have missed this post...

Keep in mind that "religion" started with primitive man as a means to explain everything he could not understand (which was pretty much everything around him). The concept of "God" did not come along until 100,000s of years later. Before some people in ancient Babylon began claiming that there was only one God (the Jews), everyone believed in either multiple gods or some other belief in which everything (people, animals, rocks, etc.) was spiritual (with the occasional "other"). Of course, there were probably some minor pockets of monotheism before Judaism came along, but that is the one that got the whole notion of one God going strong (after quite some time, mind you). This is how religions have evolved over the millennia. It does not take a rigorous study of every single religion to realize this. Also, it is rather difficult to ask anything of a fictional character. It is of course possible that there is some sort of supernatural force (not necessarily likely, but possible). In any case, it is certainly not "God", or the deity of any other religion. The possibility of one religion being right and the other 1000s of them that have existed over the years (and that still exist) being wrong is so absurdly small that it can safely be ignored. Even if you want to go by weight of numbers, Christianity would come out wrong, as some 2.5-3 billion people on this planet are either Buddhists or Hindis, with Christians coming in at a measly 500 or 600 million. So why does "God" not speak to all those people, just a few in the West?

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 04:07 AM

Plus what Cyrien said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Loser

November 7th, 2003, 04:33 AM

This thread has grown far too fast for posting in it to be a good idea. Nonetheless.

Is the same God talking to you that talked to me and Muhammad and Orpheus and Joeseph Smith? There are good reasons for doubting whatever God is saying to all these people. If He's talking to any of them at all He's still got some explaining to do.

DavidG

November 7th, 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i could argue better that the knowledge that God exists is more likely to make someone obey the law.
Well you may be right but I only made the comment I did because It's always bothered me that some people seem to think a belief in God is required before one can have moral values and to know what is right and wrong. (and no I'm not it anyway accusing you of thinking or saying this but I have heard if often enough)

spoon

November 7th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.I'm not blaming God for any personal tragedy. I'm just saying He's a Jerk, which, I suppose, circularly, is His God-given right. But just because He is who He is, it doesn't follow that I have to pledge my soul to a Mass-Murdering Psychopath.

God has given clear instructions. but if God presented Himself undeniably to you, wouldn't that force your point of view?
Well, He could sure drop some bigger hints.

ask God.
He was strangely silent.

Fyron, are you willing to consider the idea that someone may have a conversation with God and be sane?
Hearing God once or twice is probably ok. Anymore than that, and I urge you to get a psychiatric evaluation. Hearing voices is a likely sign of schizophrenia, and it is treatable in some (or maybe most) cases.

Jack Simth

November 7th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that "religion" started with primitive man as a means to explain everything he could not understand (which was pretty much everything around him). The concept of "God" did not come along until 100,000s of years later. Before some people in ancient Babylon began claiming that there was only one God (the Jews), everyone believed in either multiple gods or some other belief in which everything (people, animals, rocks, etc.) was spiritual (with the occasional "other"). Of course, there were probably some minor pockets of monotheism before Judaism came along, but that is the one that got the whole notion of one God going strong (after quite some time, mind you). On what basis do you make this claim?

Atrocities

November 7th, 2003, 05:15 AM

Why did this thread degenerate into a religion thread? This is very frustrating people. God is not happy here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

DavidG

November 7th, 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Why did this thread degenerate into a religion thread? This is very frustrating people. God is not happy here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Cause we havn't had enough religous threads here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ November 07, 2003, 03:20: Message edited by: DavidG ]

TerranC

November 7th, 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
All religions believe they are the one true religion...

So when did you have a chat with God? Not all of them. Buddhism is one good example.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 7th, 2003, 05:30 AM

brain hurts. burp.

how do i know i'm not just hearing a crazy voice? well, crazy voices don't make sense.

[ November 07, 2003, 03:33: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Jack Simth

November 7th, 2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Why did this thread degenerate into a religion thread? This is very frustrating people. God is not happy here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif It often requires declared ground rules that people actually follow to keep a discussion of philosophy from turning into one of ethics, and to keep a discussion of ethics from turning into a discussion of religion. Such ground rules weren't present.

spoon

November 7th, 2003, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
Why did this thread degenerate into a religion thread? This is very frustrating people. God is not happy here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif It often requires declared ground rules that people actually follow to keep a discussion of philosophy from turning into one of ethics, and to keep a discussion of ethics from turning into a discussion of religion. Such ground rules weren't present. <hr /></blockquote>... and a lot of people derive their world-philosphy from their religion...

deccan

November 7th, 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science. Since everyone is picking on Narf and that is so boring, let me play Devil's advocate and revisit a point Jack Simth, I.F. and I have tangled with before.

You state that science deals with only that which can be proven. That is not quite true. Some of the things that science relies on cannot be proven, such as for example, that the rules of logic that we employ (i.e. "classical logic") is "true", that solipsism is false or that there is no Cartesian "deceiving demon", that causality can ever be proven to be truly present as Locke questioned etc.

General Woundwort

November 7th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is nothing arbitrary about my "declaration". You seem to have missed this post...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Keep in mind that "religion" started with primitive man as a means to explain everything he could not understand (which was pretty much everything around him). The concept of "God" did not come along until 100,000s of years later. Before some people in ancient Babylon began claiming that there was only one God (the Jews), everyone believed in either multiple gods or some other belief in which everything (people, animals, rocks, etc.) was spiritual (with the occasional "other"). Of course, there were probably some minor pockets of monotheism before Judaism came along, but that is the one that got the whole notion of one God going strong (after quite some time, mind you). This is how religions have evolved over the millennia. It does not take a rigorous study of every single religion to realize this. Also, it is rather difficult to ask anything of a fictional character. It is of course possible that there is some sort of supernatural force (not necessarily likely, but possible). In any case, it is certainly not "God", or the deity of any other religion. The possibility of one religion being right and the other 1000s of them that have existed over the years (and that still exist) being wrong is so absurdly small that it can safely be ignored. Even if you want to go by weight of numbers, Christianity would come out wrong, as some 2.5-3 billion people on this planet are either Buddhists or Hindis, with Christians coming in at a measly 500 or 600 million. So why does "God" not speak to all those people, just a few in the West? <hr /></blockquote>1) Lots of assertions here, little proof. What is the evidence that primitive man "invented" religion?

2) What is so absurd about one religon being true and all the others false? The Christian doctrine of human depravity (the idea that human nature has become corrupt and therefore hostile to the idea of God) is a rational explanation for the diversity of religions, from a monotheistic POV.

3) Truth is not determined by numbers of claimants, but whether a truth claim corresponds to reality.

4) The West has a decidedly atheistic bent nowadays. If your neighbor went around denying that you exist, would you be really that enthused to talk to him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

deccan

November 7th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Erax:

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does). Ah yes, the famous Gould evasion of the issue, "non-overlapping magisteria" was how he put it I believe.

Yet there are many good objections to this view. For example, if the view of science and physicalism is correct, then humans, including their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions etc. are either physical or supervenient on the physical, and this cannot help but overlap into the whys.

On the other hand, organized religion justifies its "whys" based on its "hows". How many people would be willing to accept the "whys" taught by religion if its "hows" were acknowledged to be wrong?

Atrocities

November 7th, 2003, 01:04 PM

New philosophy of mine. No matter how a topic begins, it will always end in a reglious discussion.

primitive

November 7th, 2003, 01:11 PM

An on-topic remark then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Favourite motto: Just do it !

Unfortunately, too often this turn in to: Why the f.. did I do that.
20 odd years of applying Just-do-it to my life has meant quite a few visits to the doctors office for treatment for bruises and broken bones (used to be into extreme sports) as well as some very unnecessary antibiotic cures and too many hangovers to mention.

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
brain hurts. burp.

how do i know i'm not just hearing a crazy voice? well, crazy voices don't make sense. That is not true. The majority of people with (less severe cases of) schitzophrenia hear perfectly normal sounding voices that make good sense.

Cyrien

November 7th, 2003, 08:21 PM

My nephew has in the past taken medications that caused him to hear voices. ADHD and Bipolar. One of the medicines they first tried had this side affect.

His paternal grandmother thought it was the voice of the devil and decided to take matters into her own hands. He no longer see's her but he did change medications for the ADHD and bipolar and it stopped.

From what he has told me the voices made a great deal of sense and it often involved instructions on what to do. He says he argued with the voices and is quite happy to have them gone.

PS: My mother is a councilor to help deal with a variety of issues and I can inform you that most voices people here are quite sensible and take on some quality of the persons personality taken to an extreme. Babbling or nonsensical voices are quite rare.

Loser

November 7th, 2003, 08:44 PM

A couple of the early symptoms of adult schizophrenia are delusions of incredible insight and personal empowerment. They take a lot of different forms, but all lead to very 'inconsistent' behavior, which is dangerous.

Insight always makes sense, that's what it's about. Even more dangerous is that personal empowerment and impossible insight feel really, really good. People take street drugs and prescription anti-depressants just to get a fraction of this experience.

If you had to chose between believing you were gifted and super-capable and believing that you were unstable and no longer able to care for yourself, which would you choose? Which would you want to be true?

Personally, I'd wait until the evidence against me was undeniable. I couldn't just give up. We would regard that as strength in many other situations, which just makes it more dangerous.

Fyron

November 7th, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
1) Lots of assertions here, little proof. What is the evidence that primitive man "invented" religion?Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them. So, the first people must not have had religious views, and they developed over time. Organized religions developed as a means to control people, just like organized governments. The fact that Judaism developed amidst a polytheistic culture, and later Christianity developed from it, with Islam sort of branching off somewhere afterwars, is good evidence that religions evolve. It is a pretty safe assertation that they all had to evolve from somewhere... and "the word of God" is not a good point, as EVERY non-animistic religion (with some form of deity...) can say that (not God, but whatever deity(ies) they worship).

There is a wealth of study and evidence out there about the evolution of religion, starting from the primitive to the modern. I am sure google will turn up some useful links. I just do not have hte time at present to wade through them all... Just make sure to use the site:.edu tag in your searches (assuming I remembered that correctly... check the advanced search formatting help page) so that you can restrict sites to being on .edu domains, thus eliminating the bulk of garbage sites (garbage for any sort of intellectual purposes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course, there are garbage sites on .edu domains, but at least you start off on better footing with university-owned web space... and they tend to have much better documentation.

2) What is so absurd about one religon being true and all the others false? The Christian doctrine of human depravity (the idea that human nature has become corrupt and therefore hostile to the idea of God) is a rational explanation for the diversity of religions, from a monotheistic POV.That requires assuming that Christianity is correct... the fact is that pretty much all religions have the exact same claims of divine revelation and all that stuff, and so all have the truth. But how can you pick which one has the real truth? Quite simply, you can not. Any arguments you could come up with to justify your choice apply equally to many other religions as well.

3) Truth is not determined by numbers of claimants, but whether a truth claim corresponds to reality.Exactly. That sentence or two was not part of my argument, just an absurd answer to any possible absurd claims along the lines of "but everyone around me believes this..." and such. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Though, I can see where your apparent confusion on my post came from... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

4) The West has a decidedly atheistic bent nowadays. If your neighbor went around denying that you exist, would you be really that enthused to talk to him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Sure I would! That would be one interesting conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The west has a decidedly atheistic bent nowadays because atheism is the next step in religious evolution...

Loser

November 7th, 2003, 09:18 PM

I have heard people make interesting claims about the growth of atheism, it is not as big as you think. Check out these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html" target="_blank">U.S.A.

Religions: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989) </a>

<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html" target="_blank">U.K.

Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million, Muslim 1.5 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 500,000, Hindu 500,000, Jewish 350,000

(Total 60,094,648)</a>

<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html" target="_blank">Germany

Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3% </a>

Atrocities

November 8th, 2003, 02:25 AM

The "WTF am I doing?" question is by all means one of the staple self questions of man kind.

"I just asked my self that about five minutes ago. WTF am I doing here still? I mean WTF am I doing?"

"I have spent an ungodly amount of time in this bar and for what? I don't know perhaps to be a part of something that other people enjoy? Maybe to share in a common place where people of like intrests hang out? I don't really know why I hang around, I simply do. However, if the time comes to move on, I will do so without looking back, because I know that this great social monster will continue to live on long after my interest in this place has gone."

Another one would be: "one should not be where one is not wanted unless it is where you want to be."
"Never take a personal attack personal until you have had a few hours to think about it."
"Once those who you know think lowly of you, there is no point in knowning them at all."
"Follow the money."
"Not all rumors are rumors, not all facts are facts, however a rumors and facts often lead to logical conclusions that are as much a rumor as they are a fact."
"Never shop while your hungry."

And finally

"Treat others as you would have them treat you."

"If there was an simely face expression for 'Read my expression' I would post it here now for amused I am not, but confused I am."

[ November 07, 2003, 13:31: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Atrocities

November 8th, 2003, 02:57 AM

Debating about religion is highly over rated IMHO. But believe what you want, tis the only true freedom any of us truly have.

[ November 08, 2003, 00:59: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Andr�s

November 8th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Argentina:
nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing), Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%, other 4%Curious, according to that page there are no atheists in my country, or they must be included in the "other".
It's interesting to see in numbers what I see that most people is Catholic but only step into a church for weddings.
It's also curious that the practicing % is not mentioned in the countries you quoted. Does that mean that all people mentioned actively practice their religions?
Would it be too wild to extrapolate this "less than 20% practicing" ratio to other religions and other countries.

[ November 08, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: Andres ]

Erax

November 8th, 2003, 01:26 PM

Ah yes, the famous Gould evasion of the issue, "non-overlapping magisteria" was how he put it I believe.

Yet there are many good objections to this view. For example, if the view of science and physicalism is correct, then humans, including their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions etc. are either physical or supervenient on the physical, and this cannot help but overlap into the whys.

On the other hand, organized religion justifies its "whys" based on its "hows". How many people would be willing to accept the "whys" taught by religion if its "hows" were acknowledged to be wrong? Taking knowledge about how our thought processes work (for example) and extrapolating that into an explanation for spirituality is still an extrapolation, which (as I said) is apt to fail. There are many people who will do it regardless, but I think it's ill-advised.

For the second part, that's the very reason why Christianity has taken such a beating in Western society. Their 'hows' have consistently been proven wrong, starting with Copernicus. They should drop them altogether and stick to the 'whys'. The Catholic Church, incidentally, tends to evade certain scientific questions with religious implications. For example, "Will sentient aliens have souls like we do ?" "Um, let's wait until we know if there are sentient aliens first." The anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, are just setting themselves up for a fall.

To sum it up: just because many people will get their science and religion mixed up doesn't mean that they should. And science is a poor teacher of moral values anyway.

Edit - this is from further back in the topic, but it merits an answer.

The problem is, Erax, and I'm not saying you do this, but some people won't allow you to tell them anything. Apparently, I have no right to tell my belief's to anyone. That doesn't explain how those same people feel free to tell people their belief that people don't have a right to tell people their beliefs. Have I confused anybody yet? For the record Narf, I don't think you are 'imposing' your views on anyone. You definitely have them and you defend them whenever necessary, yet you do not criticize anyone who disagrees with you (and you keep your good humor too). I admire your behavior.

[ November 08, 2003, 13:29: Message edited by: Erax ]

General Woundwort

November 8th, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them.Well, I also know few babies that start life with a conscious knowledge of mathematics or history either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif - the fact that something is *learned* does not make it false.

Organized religions developed as a means to control people, just like organized governments.That religion has been used in such fashion is not in dispute. What I dispute is the assertion that that is religion's foundational and only use.

It is a pretty safe assertation that they all had to evolve from somewhere... and "the word of God" is not a good point, as EVERY non-animistic religion (with some form of deity...) can say that (not God, but whatever deity(ies) they worship).Well, I fall back on what I originally said - if religion has any relation to reality, then some religious system must be closer to that reality, because just about every possible option has been set out by the various religions, and by sheer logic they cannot all be equally right/wrong.

Just make sure to use the site:.edu tag in your searches (assuming I remembered that correctly... check the advanced search formatting help page) so that you can restrict sites to being on .edu domains, thus eliminating the bulk of garbage sites (garbage for any sort of intellectual purposes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And of course, higher education on religion is totally unbiased. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Spare me.

Of course, there are garbage sites on .edu domains, but at least you start off on better footing with university-owned web space... and they tend to have much better documentation.

Whether .edu, .org., or .nuts, the same rule applies... caveat emptor.

That requires assuming that Christianity is correct... 

It does. But my point is that there are logical/reasonable explanations *within religious systems* for the things you use to denounce religion in general. The question of the viability of religion must be answered on the basis of the validity of their truth claims. The number of such truth claims just makes the task less easy.

the fact is that pretty much all religions have the exact same claims of divine revelation and all that stuff, and so all have the truth. But how can you pick which one has the real truth? Quite simply, you can not. Any arguments you could come up with to justify your choice apply equally to many other religions as well.

Only if one takes the assumption that all religious claims are of an ethereal/subjective/detached from reality nature. That is patently not so. All three of the monotheistic religions make very dogmatic assertions about religious events in actual history. I think you may be generalizing things too much.

Sure I would! That would be one interesting conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The west has a decidedly atheistic bent nowadays because atheism is the next step in religious evolution... Devolution, you mean? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The problem with atheism is that, if the premises of atheism are true and taken to their logical conclusions, you are left with nihilism. I don't much like Nietzsche and Foucault as persons, but I admire the consistency and forthrightness in their writings. They were atheists who took atheism seriously. And you can see where it led them...

DavidG

November 9th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them.Well, I also know few babies that start life with a conscious knowledge of mathematics or history either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif - the fact that something is *learned* does not make it false.
<hr /></blockquote>Mathematics and history? Not really a good comparison. If mom and Dad taught you < insert historical or mathematical fact here > and then you found out a hundred other cultures disagreed with the alledged fact would you not begin to suspect mom and dad were wrong?

[ November 08, 2003, 23:43: Message edited by: DavidG ]

General Woundwort

November 9th, 2003, 03:29 AM

FYI - don't try to login to this board while it's displayed in a frame - it won't work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Originally posted by DavidG:
Mathematics and history? Not really a good comparison. If mom and Dad taught you < insert historical or mathematical fact here > and then you found out a hundred other cultures disagreed with the alledged fact would you not begin to suspect mom and dad were wrong? Depends on the circumstances. If say, 100 years or so, many other cultures thought the world was flat, would that make my belief it was round invalid? No, because good observations and proofs exist for its being round - and I would feel obligated to share that information. Again, it's *evidence*, not nose-counting, that is the determining factor.

oleg

November 9th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
...Mathematics and history? Not really a good comparison. If mom and Dad taught you < insert historical or mathematical fact here > and then you found out a hundred other cultures disagreed with the alledged fact would you not begin to suspect mom and dad were wrong? if you want to protest to the modern science ideas and conclusions - insert your Christian/Muslim belives here - you should also give up on internet and the very fact I can communicate to you thanks to these Boards http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif that only exist due to the indifatigable progress of physics and mathematics you apparently question. (sorry if I misunderstood you - not for the first time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Atrocities

November 9th, 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Debating about religion is highly over rated IMHO. But believe what you want, tis the only true freedom any of us truly have. I say it again.

Jack Simth

November 9th, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
if you want to protest to the modern science ideas and conclusions - insert your Christian/Muslim belives here - you should also give up on internet and the very fact I can communicate to you thanks to these Boards http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif that only exist due to the indifatigable progress of physics and mathematics you apparently question. (sorry if I misunderstood you - not for the first time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) That would depend on what ideas and conclusions you are protesting - e.g.: if you don't believe electronics work, you are being silly; If you don't believe in modern Big Bang theory, you can be quite cognizant on it.

For example, If all the mass in the current universe was once pressed into a ball smaller than the black hole thought to be at the center of our galaxy, then the universe shouldn't have ever gone bang - the escape velocity from a black hole (by definition) is in excess of c, which is currently thought to be the speed limit. Any such theory would need to propose one of a number of things to get around this:
1) Modern physical law (or some portion thereof) did not apply at the time
- in which case, the theory needs to also explain where modern physical law came from, why we can't seem to change it, et cetera; besides, such altering of the laws of the universe isn't exactly something that has been observed by what the scientific community would recognize as a reliable source; it requires much speculation based on assumptions - a leap of faith.
2) An as-yet unrecognized force to overpower the super-gravity at such an event, such as "dark energy"
- "dark energy" is a cop-out; it's an unobserved something (reason for the "dark" in the name) thrown in as a correction factor to fix the problem; it's only thought to exist because the universe hasn't collapsed in on itself over the timeframe the universe is thought to have been around. This energy is unobserved; it is required to make certain models work, so it is assumed. Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Such a force is also an act of faith.
3) Hesienburg uncertainty allowed things to pop out
- while hypothetically possible, modern QM theory suggests that the probability of at least one particle jumping out of a black hole in a given timeframe is inversly proportional to some power (4, I think it was - I don't recall) of the black hole's mass; more massive -> lower probability. In order to get most the particles in the universe to jump out of the black hole at roughly the same time requires an event of truly negligible probability (if they don't come out at about the same time, all one would get is a bunch of flying particles spread out over zillions of years, too far apart to have a meaningful probability of interacting - no bang, no galaxies, no stars, not even hydrogen). Again, this requires a considerable leap of faith.
4) reserved for future expansion - I'm not all knowing, as far as I know.

There are other severe difficulties with Big Bang theories - current models predict equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which would quickly annhiliate each other; yet we seem to be made of matter, our galaxy seems to be made of matter, and astronomers can't seem to find any evidence of any anti-matter galaxies to balance us out, to name one.

Of course, now someone is likely to make a faith statment about science, which is likely to go something like "give them time, they will answer all objections" or some such.

DavidG

November 9th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
...Mathematics and history? Not really a good comparison. If mom and Dad taught you < insert historical or mathematical fact here > and then you found out a hundred other cultures disagreed with the alledged fact would you not begin to suspect mom and dad were wrong? if you want to protest to the modern science ideas and conclusions - insert your Christian/Muslim belives here - you should also give up on internet and the very fact I can communicate to you thanks to these Boards http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif that only exist due to the indifatigable progress of physics and mathematics you apparently question. (sorry if I misunderstood you - not for the first time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) <hr /></blockquote>Wooah I was not questioning science or math in any way. I was questioning the comparison between learning math and history and learning a religion. Everyone learns the same math and history (and I mean the basic facts here). If I found out that that 75%, 80 90%? of the world learned a different history (and again I'm talking basic facts here like WW2 ended in 1935) I think I'd begin to question what I learned.

DavidG

November 9th, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

2) An as-yet unrecognized force to overpower the super-gravity at such an event, such as "dark energy"
- "dark energy" is a cop-out; it's an unobserved something (reason for the "dark" in the name) thrown in as a correction factor to fix the problem; it's only thought to exist because the universe hasn't collapsed in on itself over the timeframe the universe is thought to have been around. This energy is unobserved; it is required to make certain models work, so it is assumed. Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Such a force is also an act of faith.
Isn't that the way physics works? The theoretician makes some theory which has some unobservable element. Then the applied physicists design experiments to attempt to observe those elements thus proving the theory.

Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Thus implying there may be no better theory. if like religion a large majority had different theories then you would have to question it much more.

[ November 09, 2003, 13:15: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Atrocities

November 9th, 2003, 03:20 PM

Real World Philospohy & Relgion

I thought this was an interesting read.

==========================================
God hurts, God scars, God wounds and mars
Any heart not tough nor strong enough
To take a lot of pain, take a lot of pain
God is like a cloud holds a lot of rain
God hurts, ooh, ooh, God hurts

I�m young I know but even so
I know a thing or two I learnt from you
I really learnt a lot, really learnt a lot
God is like a stove burns you when it�s hot
God hurts, mmm, mmm, God hurts

Some fools dream of happiness
Blissfulness, togetherness
Some fools fool themselves I guess
But they�re not fooling me

I know it isn�t true, know it isn�t true
God is just a lie made to make you blue
God hurts, ooh, ooh, God hurts
============================================

primitive

November 9th, 2003, 03:43 PM

Stop messing with the classics, Atrocities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It's: Love hurts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

General Woundwort

November 9th, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
You seem to be implying that there is 'good observations and proofs' for whatever particular religion you believe. So why have so many people got it wrong? Well, Freud got something right in that religion can be used for substantiating our desires (his mistake was reducing religion to only that). I tend to be a pretty rational and logical person (sometimes to a fault), but on many issues I'm sure we've all noticed that people aren't totally rational. One of my favorite quotes from Nietzche goes something like "If you were to prove God to me, I would believe in Him all the less." Hardly sounds like a detached observer to me. In conservative Christian circles today there is an arugment over whether God knows the future. A main proponent of the position that God does not, bases his drive for that position on his not wanting to blame God for his brother's death in a motorcycle accident. Again, hardly a detached starting point. Any number of reasons could be given for why people hold to wrong beliefs, but they do - and religion hardly has the corner on this market...

spoon

November 9th, 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Of course, now someone is likely to make a faith statment about science, which is likely to go something like "give them time, they will answer all objections" or some such. That's because science has a great track record at solving problems. You call it a "faith statement", I call it betting with the odds on favorite.

Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does."

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Stop messing with the classics, Atrocities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It's: Love hurts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I did not mess with it, I found it. ALong with a lot of other modified love songs that replaces one or two key words with the word GOD. I think I have stumbled along the key to how all of those religious bands make their music now.

DavidG

November 10th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
FYI - don't try to login to this board while it's displayed in a frame - it won't work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
Mathematics and history? Not really a good comparison. If mom and Dad taught you < insert historical or mathematical fact here > and then you found out a hundred other cultures disagreed with the alledged fact would you not begin to suspect mom and dad were wrong? Depends on the circumstances. If say, 100 years or so, many other cultures thought the world was flat, would that make my belief it was round invalid? No, because good observations and proofs exist for its being round - and I would feel obligated to share that information. Again, it's *evidence*, not nose-counting, that is the determining factor. <hr /></blockquote>You seem to be implying that there is 'good observations and proofs' for whatever particular religion you believe. So why have so many people got it wrong?

Fyron

November 10th, 2003, 03:57 AM

They had that on South Park 2 weeks ago... Cartman formed a christian rock band and just copied a bunch of love songs, inserting God or Jesus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They had that on South Park 2 weeks ago... Cartman formed a christian rock band and just copied a bunch of love songs, inserting God or Jesus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Really? Perhaps this site had something to do with that. I will see if I can find it again and provide a link.

Fyron

November 10th, 2003, 06:28 AM

Well South Park is a show of political satire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities

November 10th, 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well South Park is a show of political satire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Oh really, I did not realize that. I thought is was a kids show. Hummmm, I guess all those adult jokes and humor should have tipped me off. Guess I will have to forbid the kiddies from watching it. Heaven knows we don't want our childrens mind to be poluted by such evil as this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

General Woundwort

November 10th, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They had that on South Park 2 weeks ago... Cartman formed a christian rock band and just copied a bunch of love songs, inserting God or Jesus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Ouch. Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in that... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

deccan

November 10th, 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Erax:
For the second part, that's the very reason why Christianity has taken such a beating in Western society. Their 'hows' have consistently been proven wrong, starting with Copernicus. They should drop them altogether and stick to the 'whys'. The Catholic Church, incidentally, tends to evade certain scientific questions with religious implications. For example, "Will sentient aliens have souls like we do ?" "Um, let's wait until we know if there are sentient aliens first." The anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, are just setting themselves up for a fall.Once you go down this route, why choose religions at all? Personally I'd advise people to study history, philosophy and be well read generally, to travel and visit different cultures if possible, and sample as much of the fine arts as you can.

deccan

November 10th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
One of my favorite quotes from Nietzche goes something like "If you were to prove God to me, I would believe in Him all the less." Hardly sounds like a detached observer to me. In defense of Nietzsche, I think he might have meant "believe" in a different sense. One can say believe as in "believe in the existence of", or believe as in "have trust in". I think the statement refers to the latter sense of believe.

General Woundwort

November 10th, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
In defense of Nietzsche, I think he might have meant "believe" in a different sense. One can say believe as in "believe in the existence of", or believe as in "have trust in". I think the statement refers to the latter sense of believe. Possibly, but this is also the fellow who said "If there is a God, how could I bear not to be one?" Also, his whole argument was similar to what is seen here - religion was a human construct which allowed the 'slave' caste to gain the upper hand over the 'masters'. Even the very existence of God would undermine his whole project.

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
That's because science has a great track record at solving problems. You call it a "faith statement", I call it betting with the odds on favorite.They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place. Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does." Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:

2) An as-yet unrecognized force to overpower the super-gravity at such an event, such as "dark energy"
- "dark energy" is a cop-out; it's an unobserved something (reason for the "dark" in the name) thrown in as a correction factor to fix the problem; it's only thought to exist because the universe hasn't collapsed in on itself over the timeframe the universe is thought to have been around. This energy is unobserved; it is required to make certain models work, so it is assumed. Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Such a force is also an act of faith.
Isn't that the way physics works? The theoretician makes some theory which has some unobservable element. Then the applied physicists design experiments to attempt to observe those elements thus proving the theory.
<hr /></blockquote>To an extent - but you can't properly experiment on the universe to test things.

Also (this is just nit-picking on language use, feel free to ignore): Technically, no theory is ever "proven by" observation or experimentation - only "supported by" or "contradicted by". Originally posted by DavidG:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Few suggest that there may be a more fundamental flaw in the model. Thus implying there may be no better theory.<hr /></blockquote>Not when there is a loosly organized power structure which pretty much controls what gets funding/equipment access for research and publishing space in credited journals that has much work invested in specific theories. Anything too terribly contradictory to those theories gets quietly suppressed; papers/textbooks don't get published (they don't fit with what the review board "knows" is right, so they are deemed "wrong" and left unpublished), grants aren't granted (again, they don't fit with what the review board "knows" is right, so it is deemed a waste of money to research), with the net effect being that there are extreme difficulties involved in researching anything which might threaten the status quo, which in turn means it is neigh impossible to flesh out any potentially better theory to the point where they can be tested against each other (not that one can properly test anything about the distant past in any event).

Sure, that is the peer review system, and it does filter a fair amount of bull - but an amount of bull still makes it through, and it is functionally impossible to determine how much non-bull it also filters, and difficult to tell exactly how much bull successfully masquerades as non-bull. Originally posted by DavidG:
if like religion a large majority had different theories then you would have to question it much more. As compared to the current state of the larger scientific community where any creditable voice that dissents too much or too loudly on certain topics is discredited and left out of the conversation?
If you were in, say, one of the early North American puritan settlements, and those voicing different beliefs were exiled, you'd almost never hear an argument (much less a coherent, well-reasoned one) against that particular settlement's belief system, regardless of how reasonable or outlandish that particular belief system was. By your implied theory count method of the reasonableness of questioning something, it would not be reasonable to question that belief system under such circumstances, and hence unreasonable to construct an alternative.

[ November 10, 2003, 23:20: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 01:34 AM

Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...". Not very well. Your statement had a totally different effect than what Spoon proposed...

spoon

November 11th, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place.
That is simply untrue. Science has a track record of proposing theories that are uncheckable at the time, and then prove out to be true when the means to check them becomes available. And when those theories don't match the observed data, they are modified or replaced with better ones. Popular politics does not even figure into it, except to create a degree of inertia for new ideas to overcome before they are taken seriously.

Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does." Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".Just wanted to make sure your straw man was properly stuffed...

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
They have a great track record for stuff that can be locally checked, and repeatedly done (physics, electronics, chemestry, et cetera). On things that happened in the distant past, science has a track record of primarily agreeing with popular politics of the day and place.
That is simply untrue. Science has a track record of proposing theories that are uncheckable at the time, and then prove out to be true when the means to check them becomes available. And when those theories don't match the observed data, they are modified or replaced with better ones. Popular politics does not even figure into it, except to create a degree of inertia for new ideas to overcome before they are taken seriously.
<hr /></blockquote>On repeatable, locally checkable stuff (a few decades of tech lag doesn't preclude the currently unspecified definition of local I'm using), they do have a good track record. I'm not contradicting orbital mechanics, relativity, or quantum theory here; I'm referring to extrapolations into the distant past. For those, the ones considered credible do pretty much correspond to the politicical winds; one example: From http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch29b.htm
LYSENKO�Trofim D. Lysenko (1893-1976) rose to power in the 1930s in the U.S.S.R. by convincing the government he could create a State Science that combined Darwinian evolutionary theory with Marxist theory. With *Stalin's hearty backing, Lysenko became responsible for the death of thousands. Many of the best Russian scientists were put to death.

Long after Lamarckian inheritance had been abandoned elsewhere, Russia retained this belief. Refusing to accept that each generation must be educated anew, Marxism felt that Marxist revolution principles would enter the genes and transform society into thorough-going Communism! Under Lysenko's dominance of Soviet science, "Mendelist" genetics was a forbidden doctrine, a bourgeois heresy. Lysenko was finally ousted in 1965 when his theories produced agricultural disaster for the nation. (He claimed to be able to change winter wheat into spring wheat through temperature change, and wheat into rye in one generation.) The russian regeme needed a quick change theory, and so accepted the guy on the spot - it wasn't until he caused a famine with his experimentation, and hence his theories became politically untenable, that he was finally thrown out.

Originally posted by spoon:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
Of course, the statement should have a conditional in there, like, "...they will LIKELY answer all objections, or provide a new model that does." Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Such an alteration fits under the heading of "something like...".Just wanted to make sure your straw man was properly stuffed... <hr /></blockquote>Not exactly a straw man, as the clauses I didn't include weren't in the post I had been half-refering to when I listed the faith statement earlier:
Originally Posted by Imperator Fyron (Member # 1794) on March 17, 2003 08:15 in a long-dead thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008427)

[...]
Once all of the evidence can be taken into account, the theory will be adjusted to fit.
[...]
There were no clauses in there about "likely", nor replacement, as your Version would have it include.

deccan

November 11th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Possibly, but this is also the fellow who said "If there is a God, how could I bear not to be one?" Also, his whole argument was similar to what is seen here - religion was a human construct which allowed the 'slave' caste to gain the upper hand over the 'masters'. Even the very existence of God would undermine his whole project. Few people would probably try to argue that Nietzsche doesn't contradict himself on various points at different times in his life. Nietzsche even kept diaries of private writings that differ markedly from his published writings and have academics scratching their heads ever since over which Version represented the true Nietzsche, if there ever was one.

I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.

spoon

November 11th, 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I'm referring to extrapolations into the distant past. For those, the ones considered credible do pretty much correspond to the politicical windsSo what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not exactly a straw man, as the clauses I didn't include weren't in the post I had been half-refering to when I listed the faith statement earlier:
...
Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no?

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
So what are the political winds behind evolution and the big bang? The example you cited seemed more anecdotal than anything else. The fact that a dictator was pushing a doctrine doesn't discredit science, it discredits the dictator.
That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened. For other such cases, it isn't usually laid out in documents from the time, but it is possible to make reasonable inferences based on things they were immediately used to justify, that had been happening beforehand anyway. Whether or not those inferences are accurate is a different matter, but a correlation is there.

For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification: they aren't evolved as much as we are; they are naturally stupid. As such, they could be considered less than human; animals for test subjects:
copied from A web page (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hsabor.htm) (Am I legally allowed to do this? There doesn't appear to be any note on the site about it one way or the other....)
Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."
For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them). Those running sleazy megacorps are free to make sleazy practices, as they won't really suffer for it any time soon and it helps them personally in the short run. Those in office can do the same. There's no real accountability. Strong incentive for anyone thirsting for power, and most of those in power anymore thirst for it to some degree.

The Big Bang is possibly a consequence of those in power needing lots of time for evolution, combined with the observation of a near universal redshift of distant stellar objects and Einstien's theory of relativity, which predicted that objects moving away from each other would cause a redshift. Putting those together, it becomes reasonably clear that the universe is expanding (unless another reason for the redshift is postulated, as some do). Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor, or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.
Originally posted by spoon:

But with the qualifiaction in there, you agree with the statement, or no? For the stuff that can be tested locally (chemistry, physics, electronics, et cetera), sure they do, as I've mentioned a number of times.

For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises (that doesn't look right; what's the plural of thesis?); at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals usually considered credible.

DavidG

November 11th, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it (GW mentioned something about that as well, as I recall). This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught (and the sad fact is, most don't unless they make a career out of it, and even then, it may well take thirty or forty years to catch up with them). WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

deccan

November 11th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.

General Woundwort

November 11th, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.There's a lot of truth to this. Nietzsche would probably have disparaged the very idea of trying to formulate rational trends in his writings. But there are those who have followed him, in spirit if not exactly to the letter (Foucault comes to mind immediately), and I believe that the conclusions they draw from him are well-founded in his texts

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.Again, there's a lot of truth here. Nietzsche was not an idiot - far from it. But, speaking as a rationalist, that's exactly where his arguments fall to the ground. The anthropological proofs of his "slave-caste" origins of religion are - to put it charitably - thin.

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one. Which is why I am very grateful to my teachers for not just telling me about Nietzsche - but actually having me read him for myself.

General Woundwort

November 11th, 2003, 03:43 PM

DavidG

November 11th, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite. I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Sure standards of what is right or wrong vary sure, but my point is it IS possible to know what is right or wrong without religion. And it is not even hard to figure out why these things are wrong. Would I be pissed if John Doe stole my car? Yea. So would it be wrong for me to steal his? Yea.
The implication that all athiests don't know it is wrong to rape or murder and don't know why is just ridiculous.

Andr�s

November 11th, 2003, 04:47 PM

It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.

Erax

November 11th, 2003, 04:50 PM

It is possible to develop morality without religion, but it is definitely harder. It is much easier to do it by instilling supernatural fear in people, but that does not mean that this is the only way.

The main incentive for behaving morally is that everyone profits from it. Supposing everyone in my immediate area began to behave morally tomorrow, there would be huge savings - less taxes, less insurance, no expense with private security services, and so on.

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work.He was bound to do something like that sooner or later. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Wildly misquoting an old argument out of context that has nothing to do with the current debate is certainly not good work.

spoon

November 11th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened.Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification.

Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes: ..."
This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it

Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught
 Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.
 You see conspiracy, I see deduction...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor

Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.
 which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises, at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals.

That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory. There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
(what's the plural of thesis?)
theses

Fyron

November 11th, 2003, 07:22 PM

[ November 11, 2003, 17:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Bill Door

November 11th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spoon:
[qb]For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification: they aren't evolved as much as we are; they are naturally stupid.Anyone saying that reveals their bias on the subject. They are stating that they are not as highly evolved. Why are they not as highly evolved? Maybe because the person holds the belief that "white is better"?
There is no scientific evedence that any sub-division of humanity is less well adapted to their original environment.

As for God being the source of all morality, just look at the 10 commandments (from the King James Version):
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Why is 'Thou shalt not kill' number 6? does that mean that its less important than the ones before?

Also, the (supposed to be the same) 10 commandments again:
1. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
That any better?

Wardad

November 11th, 2003, 09:48 PM

Real World Philosophy -

"Sc--w them, or don't."
- Good looking blond friend -

spoon

November 12th, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Erax:

I stand by my previous statement; science will tell us how humanity came to be and religion why. Only problem with this is that it seems to put religion in the same cart as science. Difference being that science actually tells us something tangible, whereas religion is mostly make believe.

Erax

November 12th, 2003, 04:42 PM

Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, but you understood the opposite of what I meant, they are two separate carts. There is a lot in religion - creation myths and so on - that used to take the place of science back when there was no science as such. That part has been taking a beating from science for the Last 470 years (starting with Copernicus). But there is another part of religion that deals with moral codes, with choice and consequence, and that part cannot be substituted by science.

Another common mistake is to assume that science explains why things happen. But in fact, it only explains how they happen. Science does not attempt to answer the Big Question - "why are we here ?", unless you choose the ultimate nihilistic answer - "for no reason at all, it's all random".

I'm sorry if most of this is unclear, I didn't get much sleep Last night. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Erax

November 13th, 2003, 02:13 AM

Christian denominations have different takes on evolution theory. Some are openly against it, some are nominally against it but do not actively pursue the subject and others just avoid talking about it.

I stand by my previous statement; science will tell us how humanity came to be and religion why.

deccan

November 13th, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Erax:

But there is another part of religion that deals with moral codes, with choice and consequence, and that part cannot be substituted by science.
Not by science per se, but what about philosophical systems informed by science? Or are you going to say that these systems then become religions of a kind? And of course, traditional religion indisputably deals with "moral codes, with choice and consequence", but does it deal with it well?

Originally posted by Erax:

Another common mistake is to assume that science explains why things happen. But in fact, it only explains how they happen. Science does not attempt to answer the Big Question - "why are we here ?", unless you choose the ultimate nihilistic answer - "for no reason at all, it's all random".
My individual, personal and highly subjective opinion:

That IS my personal answer to that question. I do not believe that there is any ultimate reason for my existence. I exist, as a physical construct, due to a long chain of physical effects, that is itself due to the mechanical inevitability of physical cause-and-effect, devoid of ultimate reason or meaning.

I do have personal emotions, reasons for doing the things that I do, for wanting to live, for valuing things in the way I do, in the closed, finite context of myself. But I agree that "existence precedes essence". That I have those emotions, reasons, values and meanings is subsequent and consequent upon my physical existence, not the other way around.

Does it bother me that my emotions, reasons, values and meanings are finite and consequent of physical effects? Not often. Most of the time, I find great joy and satisfaction in doing the things that I like, playing computer games, reading, watching intelligent movies, walking my dogs, playing with children etc., and musings of whether such interests and actions are meaningful in any ultimate sense seem unreal, contrived and immaterial.

On rare occasions, particularly when I am sick, lonely or depressed by some personal tragedy, the fear of my "finite-ness" grows to nightmarish proportions. I worry whether or not my life is worth living and flirt with the idea of suicide. But these moments are brief and pass quickly.

Even at the lowest depths of the abyss, I have only to ask myself some simple questions in order to return to a semblance of sanity. These include:

Do I believe that being immortal gives my emotions, actions and values any more meaning than it already does? No. Would the existence of a God who sets down iron laws of absolute meanings and values make me happier? No, it would only make me more depressed and make me want to tear that God down. Would killing myself resolve any questions? No, but it will make me miss out on new games to play, new holidays to come, new books that I will enjoy etc.

That such episodes, rare as they are, occur at all, is in itself, of course disturbing. But as a physicalist, and someone who is sympathetic to the ideas of the evolutionary psychologists, I realize, understand and accept that my brain is not a perfect engine of rational thought. I know that it is riddled with hacks, short-cuts, inefficiencies and inconsistencies due to reasons of evolutionary history. Knowing this helps me understand and deal with these episodes better when they occur.

[ November 13, 2003, 09:51: Message edited by: deccan ]

spoon

November 13th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Erax:
Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, but you understood the opposite of what I meant, they are two separate carts. No, your phrasing was fine, my metaphor was off. By "the same cart" I meant that your definition seems to make them equivalent in their ability to answer their respective questions. I'm saying they aren't. Or, to rephrase your statement:
Science tries to explain How, and does a good job.
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.

Also, I'm with Deccan here, religion in this sense is really just a subset of philosophy.

[ November 13, 2003, 17:22: Message edited by: spoon ]

Jack Simth

November 13th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Bill Door:
Anyone saying that reveals their bias on the subject. They are stating that they are not as highly evolved. Why are they not as highly evolved? Maybe because the person holds the belief that "white is better"?Well, yes, I didn't say it was right - I said it was a simple, straightforward justification for racisim - a seemingly reasonable way to continue the bias. Originally posted by Bill Door:

There is no scientific evedence that any sub-division of humanity is less well adapted to their original environment.
Interesting that you added the clause. But consider: When europeans encountered the natives of what are now Austrailia, North America, South America, and Africa, very few of them had writing, iron working, steam engines, et cetera. This suggested they were short in the brains department - and then they didn't check for the very important distinction between ignorant and unintelligent. Later, it was also noted that after generations of racial slavery, most still couldn't speak English except with a very thick accent - and nobody seriously considered the possibility that they couldn't speak straight because few straight to them, and those that started to had a tendancy to be punished for not knowing their place.

There was much scientific evidence - it just needed a little more looking to refute, and few was seriously interested in refuting it.

Oh, and I did forget to mention that they considered things like dark skin to protect from the sun, long legs to run better, smaller bodies for sqeezing through places, et cetera, as sideways, not up. Originally posted by Bill Door:

As for God being the source of all morality, just look at the 10 commandments (from the King James Version):

...

Why is 'Thou shalt not kill' number 6? does that mean that its less important than the ones before?

Also, the (supposed to be the same) 10 commandments again:
...
That any better? From where and where in King James - or is that supposed to be New King James (the King James Version was the first known serious attempt at an English translation, done by commitee (primarily be sectioning it up), with a note from the comittee that they were trying to avoid disputes and wanting people to look more at the spirit of the thing rather than the exact precision - it's not exactly reasonable to expect consistency on word choice and labeling under such circumstances)? The second looks as though you are referencing the wrong section as the ten commandments, mixing with several ceremonials which, while still commanded by God, are not part of the Ten Commandments.

Jack Simth

November 13th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide[/QUOTE]... and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs.... Originally posted by spoon:
, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...
... and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded, to a similar effect overall (barring the personal perspective of 'but they got killed!' - either way, they still suddenly have very little impact on the community anymore) Originally posted by spoon:
Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad. Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as). Originally posted by spoon:
This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.
Again, not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as). Originally posted by spoon:
Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.
Not all, but most have their lists of imperitives, and most do have their Version of "be good," however "good" is defined for them. Originally posted by spoon:

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.
That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Besides, any secular system ultimately relies on most people wanting to follow the rules, as any enforcement system (barring things like field executions) can be overwhelmed by a sufficient number of rule breakers. The US seems to be having a touch of that problem at the moment. Originally posted by spoon:
Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)
With most, there is a catch to that - God wants a repentant heart. Someone confessing primarily to avoid consequences is not likely to get forgiveness. Also, the Bible is actually very clear on temporal consequences as well as the ultimate variety, and the ultimate variety is usually the only sort God forgives when someone repents.

Also, not all interpertations are correct. Originally posted by spoon:
You see conspiracy, I see deduction...
There's a pretty big string of if's on that, several of which are pretty far from proven. Originally posted by spoon:
Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...
Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time? As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models. Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off? Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

Also, it puts them in the interesting position of not needing to properly defend their position, as any problems are part of the "being evaluated" segment. I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time. Originally posted by spoon:

That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory.Not really. There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree.... Originally posted by spoon:
There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile. It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity. Originally posted by spoon:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
(what's the plural of thesis?)
theses <hr /></blockquote>Good to know.

Other's Posts later, as I have time.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

spoon

November 13th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....
Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
...and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded.
By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics. If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it. You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by Spoon:
In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted). 
How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.
Easy does it, buckeroo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Also, not all interpertations are correct.Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time?
 Don't you hate that!

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models. 
Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes. Other models are welcome, but few make the cut. Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off? Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time..And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile. Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.True for secular scientific endeavors as well. Too bad. (I don't mean that facetiously, it really is too bad).

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!
That was not my intent, but I do see how someone could come to that conclusion as being my intent. Originally posted by DavidG:

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong. Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story. Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

At least, that's the Version I read in one piece of creationist literature, anyway.

Fyron

November 20th, 2003, 11:24 PM

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct. Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

November 20th, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.
I did specify "strongly disagree" - which you quoted! - but it doesn't require an "absolute extreme" to get such things - one modern in progress example would be the abortion issue - one side views it as murder, the other as women's rights with their own bodies (broad generalizations there - there are many shades between; but that is the "standard" characterization of the two sides). Not everyone involved feels strongly enough about it to resort to violence, but enough do that violence ensues. As far as I know, it has yet to run full course.

Also, those three options I listed have differeng shades of degree (the reason I used unpleasantness, rather than violence in the original) - mutual isolation might be a matter of "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business" - usually the case with adultery, for example; suppression might be a matter of illegalizing the activity and letting the police deal with it - the case with pot usage in the US, for example. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do. Can you name such a system and give details on it?

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 12:15 AM

Can you name such a system and give details on it? I can't name one, as that would be silly... but here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions. They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

spoon

November 21st, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

spoon

November 21st, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before. And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003, 01:00 AM

Fyron: The possibility you site is not, in and of itself, an assumption, but your method of getting there and analyisis of it has underlying "feels-right" assumptions:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.Assumes other people are fundamentally important (and presupposes some assumed definition of person); without that assumption, harming another would be no more wrong than killing a potato plant to eat the potatos. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.
Same basic underlying assumption as the Last, with an addition of freedom being a feature it is fundamentally right for others to have. Moreover, there is an additional underlying assumption of what freedoms are(n't) to be included on the list - I doubt very much, for example, that you would include the freedom to take things from people in there. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions. Sure they do - the "feel-right" assumptions simply aren't stated in them. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies. Ah, but to go from your "source data" to the conclusions above requires a "feels-right" assumption: personal consequences are fundamentally important in ethical considerations. Also, without the other underlying assumptions I listed earlier for your conclusions, you can only arrive at a "for the most part" conclusion from the data and "personal consequences are important" assumption; specific cases may very well be otherwise. E.g., under social stability is important because of personal consequences, a buisness mogul might find it acceptable to murder someone to prevent certain business pratices of his from coming to light, if such a happenstance would financially crush the mogul - the risk of the mogul getting harmed from the societal instibility generated by the murder being considerably less than the highly-probably consequences of letting the person bring those practices to light, with ensuing loss of the mogul's financial standing.

Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 01:03 AM

Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

spoon

November 21st, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others). Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others). Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part. <hr /></blockquote>Well, yes. I did use "Every". I thought that was clear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself. A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do.

spoon

November 21st, 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others). Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part. <hr /></blockquote>Well, yes. I did use "Every". I thought that was clear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>This line makes it seem like you are saying your particular belief system operates differently: Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions It appears to me that you are saying a belief in God means that your moral assumptions don't rely on a "feels-right" assumption.
But I am glad to hear that you don't actually believe that. Though it does, I suppose, beg the question as to why you brought it up to begin with.

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do. A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time.

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time. Do you realize that you are essentially relying on your own authority in the matter, presuming that other people will just automatically assume your statements are correct? Do you have any idea how that makes you look to someone that recognizes the tactic?

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 02:34 AM

No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will. You -said- you delivered, he's taking issue with that. Fyron, you haven't proved a thing..

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 02:47 AM

Of course I didn't "prove" anything. Neither did Jack. He just asserted a bunch of things and expects everyone to take his statements on authority. I did not set out to prove anything here because this topic is not worth the time to discuss it at this juncture. Enough said.

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by spoon:
Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

...

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics. The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along. Originally posted by spoon:
If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.
Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.
Originally posted by spoon:
You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?
I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds. Originally posted by spoon:

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.
When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

True, one could also apply this to the Bible...

Originally posted by spoon:
How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?
You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.
Originally posted by spoon:
Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Ya's pay's yer money and ya's makes yer choice.[/Bad accent] You can't be objectively certain this side of doomsday, true - but that could be said about anything, really. You do your best to read it yourself and see which one is the best fit. Originally posted by spoon:
Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway). Originally posted by spoon:
Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes. The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't. Originally posted by spoon:
Other models are welcome, but few make the cut.I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased. Originally posted by spoon:
Do you have a better model? Please tell!
Not fleshed out well enough to debate properly, anyway Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
[b]which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off? Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth.
...
<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed. Originally posted by spoon:
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.
In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory. Originally posted by spoon:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile. Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<hr /></blockquote>Since when has everyone been entierly rational? I missed that memo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

DavidG

November 21st, 2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do. Can you name such a system and give details on it? <hr /></blockquote>Sure, it's called "DavidG's code of ethics" You want details on everything I think is right and wrong and why? Well maybe If I got a few weeks to spare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003, 03:11 AM

*a less-sick Narf charges back into the ring. and first, i'm going to pick on Fyron.*

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.
my own belief is that every action is either right or wrong; however, that's my assumption. you are assuming that something cannot harm someone without being wrong. what about surgury, which harms and may KILL the person surgury is being performed upon, but is nessasary, perhaps even for the continued survival of that person. you need some if modifier's.

ere is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.
so, then, a twenty-four hour lockdown to search for a murdurous person or people is immoral? i'm not saying it couldn't be argued, just wondering if you've thought of contingency's or principle's to cover them.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.
at the risk of being redundant, they do.

They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.
which could easily justify actions i would call wrong if they could be said to stabilize society.

Spoon
And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...
creationism is a semi-science, the only science that comes into play is the science that concludes that it might have happened. actual beleif in creationism generally comes from or with beleif in god. do you want to hear my arguement that dinosaur's where, in fact, our pre-mortal spirits figuring out what traites worked best for survival? (i wonder how many people can guess my religeon now...)

Spoon
This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.
so, if a burning bush that isn't consumed told you something that contradicted your own feeling's, would you completly ignore it? or would that depend on how deep your feelings on that matter where?

Jack
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.
the media is liberal.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.
interpretation of the bible. something like 2500 christian sects, i've heard.

that's page 1

Will

November 21st, 2003, 03:13 AM

"See the cat? See the cradle?"

Fyron

November 21st, 2003, 03:16 AM

Note that my post explicitly stated that those were the basics of such a system of morality...

the media is liberal. In general, yes. But, there are conservative portions of the media...

[ November 21, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003, 03:38 AM

page 2.

How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?
punishment in the afterlife is appropraite and you can't wiggle out of it on a technicality.

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.
occasionally, i wonder what reading the original, un-edited Version would reveal.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.
in the meantime, i, for one, am not going to worry about wether my left foot is connected to my left leg, because i know it is. why question a basic assumption without competing facts to question it on? i'm not saying it's wrong to look for competing facts, just that anti-theorizing without them isn't something i'm interested in.

Spoon
And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.
he. he. he.

Spoon
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.
and my responce to them? look down.

Spoon
Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.
so, a theory is better than a religeos beleif? what if god told you your religeos beleif? yeah, i know i said that before. but it's appropriate here, to.

Spoon
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.
i would say that an un-aided human does a poor job of explaining why.

Deccan
Not by science per se, but what about philosophical systems informed by science? Or are you going to say that these systems then become religions of a kind? And of course, traditional religion indisputably deals with "moral codes, with choice and consequence", but does it deal with it well?
science is machinery, and people in machinery would most likely be ground up unless the machinery was constructed very carefully. with more care than would be required by a referendum process.

Deccan
That IS my personal answer to that question. I do not believe that there is any ultimate reason for my existence. I exist, as a physical construct, due to a long chain of physical effects, that is itself due to the mechanical inevitability of physical cause-and-effect, devoid of ultimate reason or meaning.
and where back to the difference between people and windmills, which didn't seem to be understood very well the Last time i tried to explain it.

Only problem with this is that it seems to put religion in the same cart as science. Difference being that science actually tells us something tangible, whereas religion is mostly make believe.
any science that tries to insist religeon is make believe is make believe, because science can't say.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
[QB]The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.I'd love to see any proof of this. Especially since you can't say anything is superior evolutionarily without considering enviroment. Evolution does not require any specific origin, BTW, just one that allows suficient time between Start and Now.

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.Errr..uh-huh.

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.Again, do you have anything to back this up? The earliest I've seen for any kind of proto-evolution that even partially resembles the modern Version is Lamarck (SP), which was the same century as Darwin.

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.What it means is that the people supporting it either way were applying the theory incorrectly. If I remember right, most of the "social darwinists" were not scientists and quite possibly had a distorted view of what the idea was all about. It's pretty easy to do.

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?That is the perspective a lot of non-belivers get, certainly. And how long kind of depends on which sect you're measuring from, hmm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.Which also means that if the all-knowing judge is an *******, you're screwed. At least our legal system has more than one. Certain Christian extremeist positions- or I'd hope they're extremeist- present a picture of a God I'd like to spit in the face of. The Old Testament doesn't do such a nice job either. Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.Which makes sense, simply because if you change extremely basic assumptions what you have is a different model. Since we've already agreed that didn't happen, what you do have is details.

And again it doesn't trend toward improvement. It trends towards reproductive success in a given habitat. A species that is superbly adapted to an enviroment can be wiped out easily if the enviroment changes. A species may trend DOWN in intelligence, speed, or other featues because they aren't helping survival and individuals without them do better.

It is often described as improvement because it's simpler and in most cases good enough.

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.I suppose this is why you had no response to the "the alternatives are flawed" comment above?

Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.If there is a discrepency between theory and observations, the model needs to be adjusted.

Also, Newtonian physics utterly -fails- under certain conditions, that's why relativity was developed. This doesn't make the Newtonian model useless, or inaccurate in the other conditions. More likely to be those, yes. But sometimes a model is useful because it is wrong..

There's a simple model which predicts what will happen if a species is under no evolutionary pressures at all. In the real world, this fails repeatedly. Its still useful to test if the population is undergoing evolution though.

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.Continusing the analogy, if that document also has numerous points that have been proven false, then its a pretty good idea to keep the foot theory until its proven wrong by a better source.

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from. So you're relyng on faith alone, and calling the best-guess model which is based on real-world observation EVIL? Excuse me?

If you're thinking of the racism argument, try again, because your Bible was used to support slavery, and occaisonally genocide. Score, if evolution did in fact support racism (which I kind of doubt), equal. And one is still based in reality, the other not.

Will you be denouncing physics because it can be used to design weapons, next?

[ November 21, 2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003, 04:16 AM

page 3. i have a lot to catch up on.

Spoon
Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)
my own beleif, backed up by personal experience, is that you will pay for those crimes before you are forgiven.

Andres
It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.
my own beleif and, i think, the beleif of my religeon, is that i'm free to think whatever i want until God says what the answer is. yes, that answer can come from the established heirarchy, but that sam heirarchy tells my to pray to see if what their saying comes from God.

page 4.
page 5

Atrocities, i wouldn't give away my pain. i learned to much from it, and i'm going to learn even more as i work through it. without the pain i've had in my life, i suspect i'd be shallow and always want things my way.

Debating about religion is highly over rated IMHO. But believe what you want, tis the only true freedom any of us truly have.
as well as the freedom to act and thus, choose our consequences.

Fyron
Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them.
free will. requires we be born that way.

It is a pretty safe assertation that they all had to evolve from somewhere... and "the word of God" is not a good point, as EVERY non-animistic religion (with some form of deity...) can say that (not God, but whatever deity(ies) they worship).
so, every single scientist in the world is wrong, because they all say science backs them up. and, yes, you can check to see if God backs something up. pray.

Erax
For the record Narf, I don't think you are 'imposing' your views on anyone. You definitely have them and you defend them whenever necessary, yet you do not criticize anyone who disagrees with you (and you keep your good humor too). I admire your behavior.
thanks. i was talking about some people in general, not anyone here in particular. personally, i beleive that it's best to build up your own beleifs and not critisize anyone elses, because that way, your beleif wins on content. and, on a review, i did say something in a manner i shouldn't have.

Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.
that was an arrogant statement, and i apologize for the assumption.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003, 04:29 AM

oh, wonderfull. someone posted, and now i have even more stuff to debat. i like debating, as long as where not going in circles. that's a cat or dog thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Pheonix-D
Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.
first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.
i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?
well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003, 05:42 AM

first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?1. Maybe.
2. No.
3. No. Especially odd given that he's purpordly setting moral laws based on his code, but doesn't bother to give concrete proof of his presence to everyone. (not even his code- just existance at all, period)

i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.I belive that might be a cop out, since neither of us knows the original Languages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Point taken, but I think the problems would still be there.

well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know. Which doesn't mean that in the absance of those reasons I won't think its a really stupid idea, especially if you follow the "follow these teachings or go to vicious hell" school. Rather unfair to stack the deck like that; to me it sounds like someone pointing a gun at your head and saying "Answer me yes or no. Four." Its a crapshoot, with everything at stake, and you don't even understand the game..

There may be a valid reason to drive a car through a wall, but my first thought is always going to be "Ok, how they'd screw up?"

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003, 06:36 AM

ok, your point seems to be 'how can someone play the game if they don't know the rules'. well, i beleive that God always gives sufficient warning of a civilization's destruction, although not nessasarily warning that it's downfall is His idea. i beleive that the warning signs present sufficient proof of the reason for the civilization's destruction.

second, my religeon beleives in varying levels of heaven and that, in order to go to 'hell' one must both know the rules and know that one is breaking them. on that scale, i'm more likely to end up in 'hell' than you, because i know God's rules better. plus, one must commit murder for even a temporary stay in 'hell'. that is not to say that there aren't other punishments than total exile from all that is good.

would anyone be interested in a longer explanation of my religeos beleif's?

[ November 21, 2003, 04:37: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

deccan

November 22nd, 2003, 12:55 PM

To Jack Simth:

Many of your objections to Imperator Fyron's statements seem to stem from the fact that secular systems of morality rely on assumptions that cannot be proven, correct?

However, there is one way around that. Sometimes assumptions don't have to be proven if everyone accepts them.

For example (just an example of course), if we can agree that every human life is important, then we can use that as a foundation stone on which to logically build other moral truths.

The general idea is that we might be able to agree on a relatively small core set of moral truths that the vast majority of people can agree on, without it having to be proven or justified by reference to some external source, and then slowly extend that core by an exercise of applying logical reasoning to accepted facts.

Granted, some proportion of people will always disagree with this core. Too bad, but this IS how the real world works, and while nitpicking of these sort bothers people who want philosophically pure systems, it doesn't really matter to ordinary people.

Yes, I realize that this is a feel-good approach as well, but I have no problems with it, and I doubt that most people do as well.

deccan

November 22nd, 2003, 12:58 PM

To Narf:

I would be very interested in hearing more about your religious beliefs.

And I sincerely have no idea of what you meant earlier about machinery and windmills. I'm afraid you're going to have to be a lot more literal and clear. Sorry.

Here's an exercise, Narf: try to imagine a world in which Christianity is literally true. In which, say miracles and appearances of supernatural entities like angels and demons are relatively rare, but indisputable events, in which the literal, never-changing, law of the Bible unquestionably sends people either to Heaven or Hell as appropriate, and God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments.

I can think of at least two science-fiction stories which describe such worlds. I'll give you the links to them later.

I don't know about the rest of you, and I'd see it as the worst possible universe to live in.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 22nd, 2003, 11:14 PM

Primitive, do you mean that a: a person would never be that degenerate, or b: that it doesn't matter how degenerate a person is, they still have a right to live? because i would say that God, having given someone life, has the right to take that life away. and for me, if God has the right to take one person's life away, then that logically extends to all people.

Deccan
Here's an exercise, Narf: try to imagine a world in which Christianity is literally true. In which, say miracles and appearances of supernatural entities like angels and demons are relatively rare, but indisputable events, in which the literal, never-changing, law of the Bible unquestionably sends people either to Heaven or Hell as appropriate, and God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments.

I can think of at least two science-fiction stories which describe such worlds. I'll give you the links to them later.
first of all, a writer can write a scenario any way they want. second, you seem to be describing a world where God pushes people past there limits. God doesn't do that. He pushes people to there limits and at those times i have grown faster than at any other time in my life.

as for my religeos beleif's, i'm a mormon, for those who havn't guessed. since i don't know what sort of preconceptions you might have, i'll start with the most obvious. no, the missionares aren't supposed to be pushy, and if they are, complain. now, as for Mormon views on the final judgement, there's the celestial kingdom, which has the presence of God. this is where a lot of non-mormons have a problem, because only mormons can go to the celestial kingdom. but, as i said earlier, knowing more of God's law also means more chances to break it.
then, there's the telestial, which has the presence of Jesus. that's where all the good people go who aren't mormons and all the mormons who didn't go to the celestial kingdom.
then, there's the terrestial kingdom, which has the presence of the Holy Ghost. the average person goes there. the average person will undoubtable include mormons. that's not to say that because the average person goes there that it's a bad place to be, it's only in comparison that it pales.
then, there's outer darkness. that's what i was refering to when i said hell. as i understand it, there is nothing good there. even murderers don't stay there forever. you might think of it as to much punishment, but as i understand it, someone who's there would be in more pain in a higher kingdom, simply because they would always be comparing themselves and always be coming up short.
my own beleif is that initialy, we'll do some of the deciding of where we go simply because of who we feel comfortable with - which will be people who made the same type of choices we did and with whom we feel comfortable.

[ November 22, 2003, 21:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003, 01:45 AM

Our burden in life is to be the cannon fodder for those who order the cannons fired.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 23rd, 2003, 01:56 AM

a lot of happiness is attitude. and i've found that i tend to find what i'm looking for.

[ November 23, 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

primitive

November 23rd, 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?
No !
No !
No !

I'll take my chances of eternal damnation rather than bowing to any divinity capable of drowning the whole world.

And so would many others. Which is probably why many variations of christianity, including the dominant Protestant variation over here, dismiss the whole story as a fable.

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003, 02:21 AM

Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.

DavidG

November 23rd, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation. Wow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Hey cheer up. Someone get this man a drink. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 23, 2003, 01:31: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Kamog

November 23rd, 2003, 04:37 AM

I think that it is normal and natural for people to be happy. Look at young children: they naturally laugh and play and they don't need a reason to be happy. Somehow, as we grow older, we get conditioned by society to be serious and 'mature', and therefore don't allow ourselves to be happy as often as we could be.

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003, 05:31 AM

The mind is never truly asleep, it fakes you into believing that it is at rest when in fact it is only plotting new ways to over come lifes problems.

deccan

November 23rd, 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
first of all, a writer can write a scenario any way they want. second, you seem to be describing a world where God pushes people past there limits. God doesn't do that. He pushes people to there limits and at those times i have grown faster than at any other time in my life.
Judge for yourself.

One is Living in Sin (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/livsin.htm) by Ian R. MacLeod, available for free at the Infinityplus archive.

The other is not available for free, but is available for purchase as an e-book. It's Hell is the Absence of God (http://www.fictionwise.com/servlet/mw;jsessionid=Wr1FlujCSluy8pQ00y47Z9bOvS4?a=rewrit e&url=/ebooks/eBook4145.htm) by Ted Chiang, one of my favourite authors.

Will

November 23rd, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments. If you replace "God" with "Big Brother", it also sounds a lot like Oceania.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 24th, 2003, 08:17 PM

Atrocities
Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.
my mind is free, my imagination is boundless and my potential is infinite. what have i got to be sad about?

DavidG
Wow. Hey cheer up. Someone get this man a drink.
isn't alcohal either a depresent or a mood enhancer? either way, might be a bad idea.

Kamog
I think that it is normal and natural for people to be happy. Look at young children: they naturally laugh and play and they don't need a reason to be happy. Somehow, as we grow older, we get conditioned by society to be serious and 'mature', and therefore don't allow ourselves to be happy as often as we could be.
hey, that's what i think!

Atrocities
The mind is never truly asleep, it fakes you into believing that it is at rest when in fact it is only plotting new ways to over come lifes problems.
i have two types of dreams. one type is a metaphor for life's problems. the other type is my subconcious having fun.

Deccan
Judge for yourself.
well, i didn't read all of the first one, just enough. like i said, a writer can write it any way he wants. and it seems to me that the writer still didn't get something. the main character chose his life. nobody forced him. aside from that, God is rational and his responses always fit the situation. what the writer has done is the same sort of thing if i had wrote a book about you, Deccan, and portrayed you as a bloodthirsty tyrant. that book would be baseless slander, since i don't think your a bloodthirsty tyrant. so, the book is both innefective and a mockup.

Atrocities

November 24th, 2003, 11:45 PM

A free mind only thinks it free like an insane mind thinks it is normal.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 12:46 AM

prove it.

DavidG

November 25th, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
prove it. prove he's wrong.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 01:56 AM

i'm happy. it's better than sad. why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

i truly don't see the need. any way you slice it, happy IS better than sad. i know i can't prove it in any more than a 'feel good' way, but he can't prove his on a 'feel bad' way, simply because he'd have to prove why that'd be better. so as far as i can see, the burden of proof is with him.

Fyron

November 25th, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
prove it. prove he's wrong. <hr /></blockquote>Actually... it is up to Atrocities to prove that he is right first...

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 05:14 AM

You proved it yourselfs by asking me to prove it.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Fyron

November 25th, 2003, 05:22 AM

Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best...

Taera

November 25th, 2003, 05:26 AM

it is, actually
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 05:37 AM

Your proved it yourselfs by asking me to prove it.
ok, maybe i just need more sleep. but i fail to see how asking you to prove a point amounts to even circular logic, which at least backs itself up.

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i'm happy. it's better than sad. why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

i truly don't see the need. any way you slice it, happy IS better than sad. i know i can't prove it in any more than a 'feel good' way, but he can't prove his on a 'feel bad' way, simply because he'd have to prove why that'd be better. so as far as i can see, the burden of proof is with him. First off I am not passing judgement. I have no right to do so and would never attempt to do so. I am discussing philospohical concepts and nothing more. I can prove what I say to be true, but no one here would want to read such a dark and depressing post. Read further for a taste of what I could post.

Keep in mind that philosophy is often a depressing and mood ruining experience.

I never sad feeling sad is better, I said that
"Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation."

"The illusion of happiness never Lasts. It is created by the mind as it attempts to escape from the imprisonment of its own misery." - Depression 101

By its very nature happiness is a rare and short lived phenominon. For every thing that makes you happy, there is three things that make you sad.

If you are happy, truly happy, and can see nothing wrong with the world around you as nothing in it effects your happy mood, then your sanity is in question.

IE if nothing makes you sad, and you are always in a state of happiness then how do you know what unhappiness is? True happiness is not a Lasting emotion. A person who says they are always happy and never find any reason to be unhappy are hiding from something.

It is easier to be in a good mood and have faith when your comfortable and have money, but when you have nothing, and every day brings more and more bad news, and bad luck, faith and happiness are things that come in short supply.

I ask you to consider what true Lasting happiness really is? Prove that happiness is Lasting and I will concede to your philosphy, otherwise, I chose to follow my own path as I know the truth about my life, and the world that I live in. And unfortunetly that world is not always a happy place. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But if I could make it one, I would.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:45: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best... A free mind should have no problem with this concept. Circular logic is still logic, and my point is still valid. Proof you asked for and proof you gave yourself. I don't need to say a thing. You'll eventually figure it out on your own.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 05:52 AM

ok, well, i'm not always happy. but i can have joy, even during the bad times. why? because i know that everything is right with the universe at large. things will either get better or get cleaned up. right always wins in the end, and any reason for sadness will pass. that's something you don't seem to understand, even from your own philosophy. if you view happiness as a brief period between periods of sadness, then couldn't sadness be veiwed as brief periods between happiness?

oh, and i didn't think you where trying to put anybody down.

and that whole 'you'll eventually figure it out on your own?' invalid in a debat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 25, 2003, 03:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Phoenix-D

November 25th, 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best... A free mind should have no problem with this concept. Circular logic is still logic, and my point is still valid. Proof you asked for and proof you gave yourself. I don't need to say a thing. You'll eventually figure it out on your own. <hr /></blockquote>Circular logic is logic but not valid logic. Proof must stand on its own, or it is no longer proof.

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 06:05 AM

Proof is only valid if those who requested it accept it as such. Otherwise no proof is valid.

Ask an insane person, somone that is truly insane, if they are insane, and they will tell you; "No I am fine." They have no concept of insanity. To them they are normal.

A mind that truly belives it is free can not grasp the concept that it is not free. It will ask for proof, even though the proof that it is seeking has already been provided by asking the question itself.

"Am I insane"? If you can ask the question then your open to the possiblity that the answer might be yes, or even no. An insane person will never ask if s/he is insane, because to them there is no question, the very concept of insanity is unthinkable.

Ask yourself if your mind is truly free. By asking such a question, you acknowledge that your mind is open and therefore knows that the possablity that it is not actually free my in fact be the answer. A mind free of unhappiness and incapbled of experiencing any other emotion would not want to accept any emotion other than happiness. A mind that knows that it is not free from saddness understands that happiness is a tempory emotion that is a pleasent part of life. It knows that life has its ups and downs and that it will experience from time to time complete joy and utter despair. Our minds are only truly free when we realize that such freedom does not come free from cost.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 06:14 AM

oh, 'free from sadness, or other emotions'. no, that isn't the type of freedom i talk of. the type of freedom i talk of is the freedom to choose what i value, what i try to feel, to do and be. and most importantly, who i worship. i suspect that even God feels sadness, but i also beleive that, if so, that sadness is drowned out in the joy of his children. because no amount of sadness can match one instant of happiness. how could it? sadness is a negative emotion. -3,000,000 is less than 1.

i do beleive, however, that i can acheive freedom from evil emotions. i have a theory that each emotion has a good Version and a bad Version and that, with enough practice, a person can only feel one.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 06:20 AM

Narf, you are truly an inspiring person to know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I like the way you think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Taera

November 25th, 2003, 06:37 AM

optimism is a great quality, as i have come to know. However, the very definitions of sadness and happinness are human in nature, and thus subject to every single person in their meaning.
Atrocities, your logic in that question lacks one major point - sadness is not lack of happinness.
Sadness and happinness result from unusual circumstances, even if those unusual circumstances mean no unusual circumstances. Everything inbetween is a grey area, a feeling of contempt i guess.

I hope im not repeating anyone's opinions, but thats mine.

EDIT: however, its nature's way to balance everything. if a person is always happy, or always sad, its time to question his/her sanity - sometimes, at least, i think.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:39: Message edited by: Taera ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003, 06:40 AM

Atrocities, your logic in that question lacks one major point - sadness is not lack of happinness.
Sadness and happinness result from unusual circumstances, even if those unusual circumstances mean no unusual circumstances. Everything inbetween is a grey area, a feeling of contempt i guess. That was kinda the point I was trying to make, but I guess I just didn't do a good job at it. But well said my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 06:48 AM

Narf, you are truly an inspiring person to know. I like the way you think.
thanks...but now you got me feeling all sheepish. and i suppose i should add that y'all are some of the nicest people i've met.

Atrocities, your logic in that question lacks one major point - sadness is not lack of happinness.
Sadness and happinness result from unusual circumstances, even if those unusual circumstances mean no unusual circumstances. Everything inbetween is a grey area, a feeling of contempt i guess.
it is my own opinion that contempt is one of those evil emotions. it encourages negative feelings without thought about wether there should be negative feelings. plus, it is emotionally damaging to spend life in a state of contempt. plus, although there are plenty of bad things going on, like i said, contempt is an unreasoning emotion.

[ November 25, 2003, 05:20: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Kamog

November 25th, 2003, 07:29 AM

Happiness, sadness, and the other emotions are all part of life and I feel that it is important that we experience both joy and sadness. Of course, nobody is happy 100% of the time. The 'negative' emotions like anger and sadness aren't in themselves negative; we need to experience them. What is positive or negative is how we choose to act on those feelings. The feelings are part of the life experience, and if we suppress our emotions and always feel neutral, we aren't living life to the fullest. Having said that, it is unhealthy to spend long periods of time feeling anger or hate, and not letting go of the emotion. I guess we need to feel the anger or sadness, but we also need to let go of it after we have experienced and felt it.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 07:47 AM

well, i feel that there are emotions, or at least Versions of emotions which are completly bad and which one should try not to feel. although some of that, at least, is circumstance and strength. for example, enjoying say, computer games is good. enjoying them to the point where the restrict your ability to live a full life is bad. and that doesn't take into account the computer games themselves. i can see nothing good in GTA, for example. and for an emotion that's entirely bad, how about the urge to kill?

Fyron

November 25th, 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Circular logic is logic but not valid logic. Proof must stand on its own, or it is no longer proof. Yes, what he said. You can not proove something with circular logic! It is a major pitfall that is used to show proofs as being invalid (such as any alleged proof about pretty much anything relating to the truth of a religion... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

i can see nothing good in GTA Then you are not looking hard enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It allows people to live out such actions in fantasy, mitigating some potential desire to go out and live them out in reality. EVERYONE without exception has many fantasies about doing illegal stuff (a lot of them might well happen in your subconscious, especially while asleep, but they are still there). Expressing them in a video game is preferable to expressing them in reality, eh?

[ November 25, 2003, 06:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Then you are not looking hard enough. It allows people to live out such actions in fantasy, mitigating some potential desire to go out and live them out in reality. EVERYONE without exception has many fantasies about doing illegal stuff (a lot of them might well happen in your subconscious, especially while asleep, but they are still there). Expressing them in a video game is preferable to expressing them in reality, eh?
having a bad temper, i know there's been times when going onto half-life and virtually blowing something to pieces has helped. at the same time, those times are few and far between. most of the time, what helps is calming myself. so, i can't see much good there, and, as is perhaps more correct, in most cases, for most people, most of the time, it's bad. children shouldn't play it, those with criminal tendency's and not enough self control shouldn't play it and i really don't see the point for the average person.

Kamog

November 25th, 2003, 09:45 AM

Well, every emotion must have some useful purpose, or else why would we have them?
...
OK, I'm assuming that emotions have to have a purpose, and that purpose is helpful in some way. I suppose that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way...

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003, 09:49 AM

well, yes. as a challenge.

you know, Atrocities, someone could take your arguement to mean that if someone asked if they have a tail, that means they have a tail. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 25, 2003, 08:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Loser

November 25th, 2003, 03:17 PM

Narf is a Mormon?

I am strangely disappointed. Somehow your impressively persistent support of your beliefs is less surprising, more expected.... I'll have to think about why it seems that way.

I'm also surprised I didn't see it. I thought I was awfully familiar with the patterns and idiosyncrasies particular to Mormons arguing religion Online.

Kudos on sticking to your principles and avoiding the more abstract and distracting points of doctrine. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

Fyron

November 25th, 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
having a bad temper, i know there's been times when going onto half-life and virtually blowing something to pieces has helped. at the same time, those times are few and far between. most of the time, what helps is calming myself. so, i can't see much good there, and, as is perhaps more correct, in most cases, for most people, most of the time, it's bad. children shouldn't play it, those with criminal tendency's and not enough self control shouldn't play it and i really don't see the point for the average person. I think you missed the point... it is not about living down a temper or anything like that, it is about expressing subconscious desires in a harmless way (as is playing SE4 and blowing up billions of people, subjugating billions of others, sending whole crews of people off to their deahts, etc.). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

gregebowman

November 25th, 2003, 07:32 PM

I know playing computer and video games does having a soothing effect on me. I don't really have a temper (I let my wife have hers, though), but a good game of SEIV or Civ or SimCity or any of the multitude of "god" games out there does perk me up. I haven't really like arcade-type games since I was a young teen and they first started coming out. GTA and Half-life and other gorefest games just don't appeal to me. I might play the occassional game when I happen to be in a place that has them, like this past Saturday when I was Chuck E. Cheese for my son's birthday party.

Atrocities

November 26th, 2003, 12:22 AM

I used to enjoy playing Tribes for hours on in as my escape from reality. Sitting in a good place picking off players who thought they were good snipers or trying to steal our flag. Ohhhhhh the hours I would spend base raping and killing my opponents. God how I miss the good old days before the game became deluted with cheaters, hackers, and buggy mods. When all the old players played it was like a party on line every night, and most of the day. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is hard to let go of the good things in life that had brought you so much fullfilment.

To bad real life isn't more like Web Life.

deccan

November 26th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Narf,

A note: you haven't provided any rational arguments for believing the things that you do, and I haven't provided any for believing the things that I do as well. I don't think either of us expects to be able to convince the other to change his views, and so that's not the point of my Posts to you.

The point, for me at least, is to be able to better understand your emotional attachment to your religion, why it's personally comforting to you and why it makes sense to you, while on the other hand, I feel like recounting why most forms of organized religion seem so instinctively abhorrent to me.

It would be better if you had read "Living in Sin" in its entirety, especially the afterword by the author that explains how he'd always had a love-hate relationship with Catholicism and even pleads that he's written a novel that he thinks presents Catholicism in a rather sympathetic light. So, please don't think of this as your typical anti-Christian story. Instead, this is a story by someone who is truly in awe of the potential power of religion to fulfill the spiritual needs of people, while being perpetually frustrated by the gulf between religion and reality.

I happen to believe that "Living in Sin" captures quite well the imaginary scenario of an Old Testament style god existing in the world. God sets down rules yes, and the narrator of the story knowingly breaks them, partly because those rules don't seem to make sense to him (and of course, in Catholicism, God's rules don't need to make sense to humans, they only have to make sense to God and humans must accept that), because he thinks that bending those rules doesn't seem to cause any harm and of course, because the flesh is simply weak. Like me, he also deeply resents the thought that God gave humans free will solely for the purpose of being able to freely choose to worship God and sees that as a kind of anachronism.

In the story, God punishes sinners in clear, undeniable ways, though not in such a way that makes God seem like a mechanistic, automatic force, and the punishments are always personal and appropriate. In the story, the narrator expected that the punishment for having a child out of wedlock would be a deformed or retarded child, and is relieved when the child is physically okay. But then he finds out that the child is born to be a prophet, the living voice of God on Earth, utterly pure, powerful and inhuman, and in some ways that is an even worse punishment for the narrator.

My questions are: are you a Mormon mainly because you believe that the "hows" that it teaches are true, or mainly because the values and truths of Mormonism are comforting to you (or "feel right" to you)? If the latter, then which truths and values, and why those? If you truly believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God who has a specific purpose for you personally, have you ever, even once, felt resentful of that, or felt yourself running out of "elbow room" to create and define values and purposes for yourself?

I'll detail some of my own feelings and attitudes in a later post.

Loser

November 26th, 2003, 06:26 PM

I prefer the 'wins' in RL over the virtual ones. And the losses aren't too bad. People really have a lot less to lose than they think.

Fyron

November 26th, 2003, 08:27 PM

So you prefer the wins of stealing cars, murdering people, etc. in RL to the virtual ones? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Loser

November 26th, 2003, 08:37 PM

umm... yes?

While RL 'wins' like talking to strangers, having a clean house, hitting on a girl, or nailing a job interview would seem trivial if you set them in the virtual world, they are nonetheless more satisfying.

And RL provides 'wins' that the virtual world just can't compare with, like owning a house, getting the girl, or talking your way into the job of your dreams.

So yeah, Real Life all he way.

Fyron

November 26th, 2003, 08:54 PM

I think you too missed the whole point...

Loser

November 26th, 2003, 08:57 PM

eh?

Go ahead and try again.

Fyron

November 26th, 2003, 09:06 PM

The point was that such video games allow subconcious desires (that EVERY human being has...) to be expressed in a non-harmful way, rather than a harmful way in the real world. It is just like playing cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians, or other such games as a child. Incidentally, that is why such games are so popular. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There was never anything about living in a virtual world over a real one or anything of that nature.

[ November 26, 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Loser

November 26th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Actually, I was responding to Atrocities. Originally posted by Atrocities:
To bad real life isn't more like Web Life.

Atrocities

November 26th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Actually, I was responding to Atrocities. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
To bad real life isn't more like Web Life. <hr /></blockquote>I should clarify:

Have you ever dreamed that you were doing something that you really enjoyed doing? Say flying a fighter or perhaps just jettting around breath taking landscapes with your own personal flight pack?

Or haven't you ever wished that people were more like they are when they chat on line. The barriors between race, appearance, other are broken down to the fundamentals, humor, intelligance, etc.

I enjoy what little life I have been blessed with, and am thankful for a lot of the things I have been able to do in life, but I would also enjoy jetting around the country side flying free as a bird without being cooped up in an airplane. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for the darker side of things, I have no desire to hurt any one, and I do think that violence breads violence, and when parents use violent video games and television as a babysister, then they are asking for the demented little twisted s*** f***s they end up with.

Believe me when I say that counsolers in the near future will have to deal with more and more youth and try to help them sort out what is real in life, and what is not. Its a normal, breif, human emotional reaction to want to kill someone when your mad, but 99.99% of the time, we don't. In the near future, the kids of today are going to have a real tough time decerning this. It has already begun to happen, and we all know how television, music, movies, and games effect us. Some more than others, but t hey DO effect us.

Fyron

November 26th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Loser

November 26th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The few people that are that violent are not violent because they play violent video games, but because they are violent by nature. Aw, don't excuse them that way. I'm guessing it's just a stray implication, but no matter what someone's background is, they are responsible for their own actions.

Fyron

November 26th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Umm... I wasn't excusing anyone! Where did background come into this? I was talking about violent by personality with "by nature".

Atrocities

November 26th, 2003, 11:06 PM

This is an OPINIONATED post by me. It is not meant to offend.

Normally Fyron you would be correct, a violent person is just violent. Did you know that most violent people seldom if ever play video games, but they do enjoy violent tv and movies?

The thing is that over the Last decade our society has seen a dramatic increase in violent behavior. From Road rage to school shootings. We have also seen an incredible influx of panzy assed behavior from people who want to protect everyone from their rights. Politically correctness has swamped us resulting in normal behavior being labeled as violent.

This is a mask to hid the truth behind. Have you noticed that cartoons such as the Road Runner and Bugs Bunny have been edited and watered down? Even the older cartoons have been Banned or protested because they are too violent. WTF!

Just a few weeks ago a six year old boy took his GI Joe action figure to school, and the school called the police on him because they have a zero tolerance to gun violence. The GI Joe had a pLastic m16 about two inches long.

So the term violence is now being wielded by every panzed assed sissy in America as a catch all term for anything that they don't like.

France was just like this before the war... well they are still like this, no offense.

The French taught their children to go and tell on other children that were being mean, while the Germans taught their children to be aggressive and competitive. If memory serves, France was beaten in a very short amount of time. I know this has really nothing to do with the debate about violence, but I do feel that it has historical significance when compared to the debate about violent tv, movies, music, and video games.

I am like you, I know that these things do effect people, it desensitizes them to violence, thus making violent acts less shocking. A few sick twisted neglected bent individuals who are incapable of understanding the basic concept that we should not kill each other, have no conscience and go off to exact revenge upon the innocent for no GD reason.

Those twisted low life�s are the ones that make the news, especially if the Police find a video game or rap song in their homes.

Lets not blame the criminal, it was not him doing it, it was the violent TV, the video games, the gun industry, ford motors, McDonald, etc. Lets blame everyone and everything for our own pit falls except the individual who is really to blame, the person doing the blaming.

Sure violent video games, and TV do have an effect on people, they do effect some more than others, but over all, most of us are smart enough to know what is real and what is not. However, more and more young parents are using tv, movies, music, and games as baby sisters for their kids, and these kids are the ones growing up with twisted morals and bent psycho logic. To them it is perfectly ok to go to school and kill the kid who called you weird because that is what do on tv and in a video game, you kill your enemies.

These are the ones that need protection, not from violent entertainment, but from their unknowing parents who are often to busy to take notice of what it is their young kids are watching, listening to, or playing.

My dad had a good cure all for this, he'd shut the tv off and tell us to go outside and play. I think if more and more parents chose activity over non activity, then we would have fewer violent people in the world.

Fyron

November 27th, 2003, 05:58 AM

Television is the late 20th/ early 21st century opiate of the masses.

Cyrien

November 27th, 2003, 06:23 AM

I keep on hearing about the rising crime rates in the US. I wonder how many are aware that almost all forms of crime in the US have been on the decrease since 1993 after a brief flareup in the early 90's of increased youth violence.

Crime Rates (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime)

Note that it isn't crime increasing. It is conviction rates increasing. You could make a healthy case that that is due to the perception of increased crime and a hard on crime attitude.

[ November 27, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Fyron

November 27th, 2003, 07:48 AM

The reason why people are deluded into thinking that crime rates are increasing is because the news media's coverage of crime has been steadily increasing over the Last decade. Every year, more and more of the news is devoted to reporting on crimes, though there are fewer each year. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cyrien

November 27th, 2003, 07:57 AM

Do what I do and watch less TV. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Even when I do watch it it tends to either by a history or discovery type of channel or the cartoon network. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'll take my opiate straight up thank you very much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I get my news Online and from friends and family. Much better than watching an overly biased 1 hour news program covering lots of things that I could care less about.

Besides checking 12 Online biased accounts of something gives you a much better overall view of something than a single biased view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 27, 2003, 05:59: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Atrocities

November 27th, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The reason why people are deluded into thinking that crime rates are increasing is because the news media's coverage of crime has been steadily increasing over the Last decade. Every year, more and more of the news is devoted to reporting on crimes, though there are fewer each year. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Are you calling me deluded? Why thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Those statisics are inaccurate. They are customized to reflect information that is desired, and not true at all.

Look at the Governments unemployment reports, they list say 1 million poeple out of work because they are collecting unemployment when the number is closer to 11 million because 10 million people have lost, or used up their unemployment benefits.

So simply put, don't believe anything published by the US Government that reflects a positive. After all, these are the same guys who led us to believe that Iraq had huge stock piles of WoMD, and non have been found yet. (Side not, I could care less about the Iraq thing, but still, it just goes to show you, those putting out the info are not always honest about it.)

Cyrien

November 27th, 2003, 04:50 PM

The figures can actually be verified from other areas as well. And several attempts to artifically reduce crime rates have been uncovered in the past. These were pretty much all the work of local areas such as cities trying to get a better reputation and the figures for those years and those cities were adjusted accordingly. By increasing the crime rates.

If an organization is willing to do that rather than look the other way I am willing to give them a benefit of the doubt.

PS: You can take caution to far as well. Just because one thing from someone is bad doesn't make everything from them bad. If we used that reasoning then after the debut of the Virtua Boy by Nintendo nothing else they made would ever be good ever again. And countless other similiar comparisons and analogies.
IE: Until they do something to lose my trust I tend to trust them, but always with an eye watching for them to do something to lose it. I may be trusting, but not naive. Optimistic Realism.

Cyrien

November 27th, 2003, 04:50 PM

I knew it. A double post. Whenever it Posts my Messages that slow it is always a double post. How I hate you double Posts.

[ November 27, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

narf poit chez BOOM

December 3rd, 2003, 01:28 AM

i will post again here, it's just that i've been tired the past week *whine* *whine*.

anyway, it's not the job. i had to quit because i had health-related problems there, which i am kinda dissapointed about. i'm just not getting enough sleep, and posting here takes mental energy, which requires sleep.

Atrocities

December 3rd, 2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i will post again here, it's just that i've been tired the past week *whine* *whine*.

anyway, it's not the job. i had to quit because i had health-related problems there, which i am kinda dissapointed about. i'm just not getting enough sleep, and posting here takes mental energy, which requires sleep. I hope your feeling better soon man. Health should always come before some thankless job.

narf poit chez BOOM

December 3rd, 2003, 04:59 AM

thanks, i am feeling good. i'm just feeling tired all the time.

Loser

December 3rd, 2003, 05:08 AM

If you haven't got your health, what have you got?

narf poit chez BOOM

December 3rd, 2003, 05:17 AM

well, generally, some sort of disease.

Loser

December 4th, 2003, 02:32 AM

And a smart mouth, apparently.

[ December 03, 2003, 12:32: Message edited by: Loser ]

narf poit chez BOOM

January 6th, 2004, 12:11 AM

yes, i'm horrible at posting here.

Deccan:
My questions are: are you a Mormon mainly because you believe that the "hows" that it teaches are true, or mainly because the values and truths of Mormonism are comforting to you (or "feel right" to you)? If the latter, then which truths and values, and why those? If you truly believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God who has a specific purpose for you personally, have you ever, even once, felt resentful of that, or felt yourself running out of "elbow room" to create and define values and purposes for yourself?
first, i'm a Mormon because i prayed and got an answer. i've also found that the hows, values and truths are generally comforting and all the truths of it which i have examined, i've found to be either true or needing more study to determine, on a logical basis, if their true. i do believe that the truth's of the Mormon religeon are true. they also feel right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mormonism emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability, charity, patience, love...all things i beleive in.

well, i have had resentfull thoughts, but...God's my father. setting down values and goals is what a parent does, as well as administering punishments...although i don't beleive that everything bad that happens is a punishment. i can also follow whatever set of value's and goals i want, and i believe that i will be rewarded for the good i do, but, suppose my dad said 'take out the trash and i'll give you $20.' unlikely, but this is theoretical. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif now, supposing i went and swept the kitchen floor. i couldn't expect to get the $20, although i could expect to get a reward of some kind, perhaps money, perhaps a 'thank you'. and i could expect my dad to be a little dissapointed in me.

the story certainly criticises Catholocism, but i'm not catholic and i don't beleive that God gives out unexplained punishments, so that story is at best irrelevent to me. God's rules make sense; Mormon's beleive in an understandable God.

L:
I am strangely disappointed. Somehow your impressively persistent support of your beliefs is less surprising, more expected.... I'll have to think about why it seems that way.

I'm also surprised I didn't see it. I thought I was awfully familiar with the patterns and idiosyncrasies particular to Mormons arguing religion Online.

Kudos on sticking to your principles and avoiding the more abstract and distracting points of doctrine. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
perhaps because you beleive that Mormons are especially dedicated to their faith, so it's less suprusing. if so, thanks for the compliment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

well, i'm weird.

if i don't stick to them, there not my principles, are they? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

can't remember well enough to remember avoiding abstract things.

Fyron:
I think you missed the point... it is not about living down a temper or anything like that, it is about expressing subconscious desires in a harmless way (as is playing SE4 and blowing up billions of people, subjugating billions of others, sending whole crews of people off to their deahts, etc.). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
well, actual evil overlord's need a psychiatrist, not SE, in my opinion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron:
Bah. The few people that are that violent are not violent because they play violent video games, but because they are violent by nature.
early childhood does shape a person and can make a person more or less a certain way.
i certainly had a temper before i went through school, but it was an undefined tantrum thing that may well have gone away as i grew up. after i went through school, it was worse.

Atrocities:
My dad had a good cure all for this, he'd shut the tv off and tell us to go outside and play. I think if more and more parents chose activity over non activity, then we would have fewer violent people in the world.
my own personal complaint is people that couldn't beleive that their little angel could possible do that! or who just don't care. or actively encourage it. makes me want to find a 2/4.

Cyrien:
I keep on hearing about the rising crime rates in the US. I wonder how many are aware that almost all forms of crime in the US have been on the decrease since 1993 after a brief flareup in the early 90's of increased youth violence.
that is certainly interesting.

Besides checking 12 Online biased accounts of something gives you a much better overall view of something than a single biased view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
yep.

Atrocities:
Those statisics are inaccurate. They are customized to reflect information that is desired, and not true at all.

Look at the Governments unemployment reports, they list say 1 million poeple out of work because they are collecting unemployment when the number is closer to 11 million because 10 million people have lost, or used up their unemployment benefits.
so, how would you find accurate statistics?

L:
And a smart mouth, apparently.
just figured that out, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif