HellOtaku said: I find it funny you want me to spell/grammar check every useless, pointless post I make on this forum that really at the end of the day is worth nothing. To sum up everything that you just said (which mind you is too long of a rebuttal for that type of statement), you accuse me of lying to myself, try to put into my mouth that people want to live forever. Also for some reason I must have hurt your feelings as you begin to personally attack me in your last paragraph. Hmm interesting, really sheds to light what type of person you are. But ignoring my rambling as for accusing me of lying to myself. I have only this to say by my lie the lord will seem that more divine. I do not think I am personally attacking you; I am merely trying to figure out why on Earth your posts barely make more sense than Gene Ray. Harsh wordings are necessary when someone is as impervious to complaint as you are; it seems neither that is a working tactic, though. And I do not mind bad grammar or bad spelling; I do mind when posts are absolutely impossible to decipher, such as yours. For they add nothing. Even worse is that you accuse people of "making up quotes": OF COURSE WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP, because at face value, we cannot comprehend what you are saying; it is tantamount to a foreign language. HellOtaku said: Precious time? Our existence is nothing, any time we do have is far from precious. In the grand scheme of things my time and your time are practically nothing. If the earth has existed for billions of years and perhaps will continue to do so, what difference does it make if you were to kill yourself now and not later. What possible relevance does the age of the Earth have with my enjoyment of life? I mean, apart from finding it quite beautiful to ponder. That was a rhetorical question of course, the answer is no relevance whatsoever. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Baman said: HellOtaku said: It doesn't matter at all, unless one has a meaning with life or something.Precious time? Our existence is nothing, any time we do have is far from precious. In the grand scheme of things my time and your time are practically nothing. If the earth has existed for billions of years and perhaps will continue to do so, what difference does it make if you were to kill yourself now and not later. Though I fail to see how this ties in with religion. Religions like Christianity with their afterlives are even more nihilistic in this aspect, and in the negative way, seeing how the life we have is nothing but a prelude to the glorious afterlife or whatnot. If one does not believe in any such things, and acknowledge the inherent pointlessness of existence, then at least one understands that one only has one chance at life, and thus being more likely to enjoy it without obsessing over afterlives and such nonsense. I don't see how it doesn't tie into religion. You mention Christian after life, in fact this current topic was the bastard child of an idea that occurred to me in order to test out how an atheist views his life after death. I wanted to understand why an atheist would continue to live in a world which both you and I described as "pointless". Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom. We are taught to gain access to this kingdom through strong faith and good works. Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person. I think I can safely conclude that atheists are at least human. They all share that hypocrite "I need to live my precious" as if our lives really are so valuable. To conclude my time spent here was ill spent, for if I was going to choose a place to die the last place I would choose would be here. |
DaimyoNov 25, 2009 2:52 PM
HellOtaku said: I don't see how it doesn't tie into religion. You mention Christian after life, in fact this current topic was the bastard child of an idea that occurred to me in order to test out how an atheist views his life after death. I wanted to understand why an atheist would continue to live in a world which both you and I described as "pointless". Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom. We are taught to gain access to this kingdom through strong faith and good works. Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person. So from what I understand you are an indoctrinated religious person...........and the only rules you see fit to follow are only that of GOD and probably the church but you may want to take a seat because this is going to come as a shock to you........Humans have made their own rules too and a SOCIETY (which yes of course was created by god in a flip of a finger but that's beyond the point) which follows those rules not to mention things as morals BTW you can google society or read on wikipedia |
 |
SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: I don't see how it doesn't tie into religion. You mention Christian after life, in fact this current topic was the bastard child of an idea that occurred to me in order to test out how an atheist views his life after death. I wanted to understand why an atheist would continue to live in a world which both you and I described as "pointless". Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom. We are taught to gain access to this kingdom through strong faith and good works. Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person. So from what I understand you are an indoctrinated religious person...........and the only rules you see fit to follow are only that of GOD and probably the church but you may want to take a seat because this is going to come as a shock to you........Humans have made their own rules too and a SOCIETY (which yes of course was created by god in a flip of a finger but that's beyond the point) which follows those rules not to mention things as morals They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. |
| At least you begin to make sense, so we can actually discuss. ....Hopefully. Okay first, this is something you do all the time: you assume all atheists are the same. They are not. Furthermore, intrisic pointlessness is irrelevant. Even IF I thought that life had an intrinsic meaning, I would think it was IRRELEVANT. The only relevant thing is the value we ourselves ascribe things. Which is more or less arbitrary. Furthermore, "Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom." That is false. SOME christian denominations believe this. Not all. "Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. " Not all atheists are nihilists, it feels good to help other people, and some may feel morally compelled to, due to arbitrary or reasoned moral conviction, having been taught that is what they should do, etc. One might as well ask why Christians feel compelled not to help other people. "Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person." Here you presume that egoism is the logical implication of the objectively amoral universe. This is false. Egoism is in itself a moral axiom. They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. Haha oh wow. Reap what you sow, eat the barley you sell, and so on. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
HellOtaku said: SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person. So from what I understand you are an indoctrinated religious person...........and the only rules you see fit to follow are only that of GOD and probably the church but you may want to take a seat because this is going to come as a shock to you........Humans have made their own rules too and a SOCIETY (which yes of course was created by god in a flip of a finger but that's beyond the point) which follows those rules not to mention things as morals They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. I rest my case So let me put it to you differently so you may understand you stated that you don't understand why an atheist would help another person because he doesn't believe in GOD and so on which made me believe that you believe in GOD which means you consider that an atheist is wrong in hes beliefs and your religion is right = indoctrinated As for the second part I think it's self explanatory or do you need me to break it down to you? |
SquareZNov 25, 2009 3:01 PM
|
Kaiserpingvin said: At least you begin to make sense, so we can actually discuss. ....Hopefully. Okay first, this is something you do all the time: you assume all atheists are the same. They are not. Furthermore, intrisic pointlessness is irrelevant. Even IF I thought that life had an intrinsic meaning, I would think it was IRRELEVANT. The only relevant thing is the value we ourselves ascribe things. Which is more or less arbitrary. Furthermore, "Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom." That is false. SOME christian denominations believe this. Not all. "Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. " Not all atheists are nihilists, it feels good to help other people, and some may feel morally compelled to, due to arbitrary or reasoned moral conviction, having been taught that is what they should do, etc. One might as well ask why Christians feel compelled not to help other people. "Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person." Here you presume that egoism is the logical implication of the objectively amoral universe. This is false. Egoism is in itself a moral axiom. They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. Haha oh wow. Reap what you sow, eat the barley you sell, and so on. Kaiserpingvin said: At least you begin to make sense, so we can actually discuss. ....Hopefully. Okay first, this is something you do all the time: you assume all atheists are the same. They are not. Furthermore, intrisic pointlessness is irrelevant. Even IF I thought that life had an intrinsic meaning, I would think it was IRRELEVANT. The only relevant thing is the value we ourselves ascribe things. Which is more or less arbitrary. Furthermore, "Christianity teaches that our lives are spent in the joyful hope being granted an afterlife in God's kingdom." That is false. SOME christian denominations believe this. Not all. "Which brings me to another point, why does an atheist ever feel compelled to help another being. " Not all atheists are nihilists, it feels good to help other people, and some may feel morally compelled to, due to arbitrary or reasoned moral conviction, having been taught that is what they should do, etc. One might as well ask why Christians feel compelled not to help other people. "Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person." Here you presume that egoism is the logical implication of the objectively amoral universe. This is false. Egoism is in itself a moral axiom. They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. Haha oh wow. Reap what you sow, eat the barley you sell, and so on. I don't know where you based your knowledge of Christianity on but as far as I know the vast majority of Christians believe in an afterlife of some sort. This Christian belief dates back even to the council of Nicene were it clearly states in the Nicene creed "ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead." My knowledge of atheists is that they are people who only do things that benefit them. For example believing in God is of no benefit to them because they believe in he doesn't exist. You ask me why a Christian would refuse to not help someone, there are number of reasons and of course there is no definite one but I may as well ask you an equally pointless question why do some Muslims disobey the qu'aran and commit acts of terrorism. There is no standard or golden one shoe fits all, just like there are some Christians who do not follow the bible entirely there are Muslims who do not completely follow the qu'aran. These two groups however, do have these religious texts as their appropriate guidelines for what is morally right and what is wrong. What I want to ask you is how an atheist shapes his belief of good and bad, who does he look for as his source of inspiration. Go to any religious institution even none-Christian, in there you will see or hear about countless examples of people who are role models for the rest of their followers. SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: Often you don't gain from acts of charity you lose, why would an atheist feel the need to go so far to help another person. So from what I understand you are an indoctrinated religious person...........and the only rules you see fit to follow are only that of GOD and probably the church but you may want to take a seat because this is going to come as a shock to you........Humans have made their own rules too and a SOCIETY (which yes of course was created by god in a flip of a finger but that's beyond the point) which follows those rules not to mention things as morals They say I'm hard to understand but honestly that sentence of yours was very confusing even for me. You go all over the place and don't even address any of my points, read the last paragraph in my edited post just above you. I rest my case So let me put it to you differently so you may understand you stated that you don't understand why an atheist would help another person because he doesn't believe in GOD and so on which made me believe that you believe in GOD which means you consider that an atheist is wrong in hes beliefs and your religion is right = indoctrinated As for the second part I think it's self explanatory or do you need me to break it down to you? That's a bit of a wild conclusion. What does the indoctrination of my religion have to do with being superior over atheism? |
DaimyoNov 25, 2009 3:09 PM
HellOtaku said: What I want to ask you is how an atheist shapes his belief of good and bad, who does he look for as his source of inspiration. Go to any religious institution even none-Christian, in there you will see or hear about countless examples of people who are role models for the rest of their followers. My question is how does the bible which any religious person follows shape God and Evil ? And another question what defined God and Evil before that? And one last question what creature wrote the bible? HellOtaku said: That's a bit of a wild conclusion. What does the indoctrination of my religion have to do with being superior over atheism? I don't recall saying anything bad about your religion or about atheism.You jumped to conclusions when I said indoctrinated because you probably found yourself offended by that word but then again you can't say I'm not right about it the majority of people are indoctrinated in believing in God |
SquareZNov 25, 2009 3:17 PM
|
| Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in afterlife. They believe they will be physically resurrected at the End Times. That is just one example. And joyful hope, as you put it, is also not universal among Christians. Take Kierkegaards followers. To call his philosophy joyful is stark. "My knowledge of atheists is that they are people who only do things that benefit them." Your 'knowledge' is wrong. "For example believing in God is of no benefit to them because they believe in he doesn't exist. " This is stupid, and makes no sense. Atheists do not believe in god because they see insufficient reason to. Benefiting or not is irrelevant. Do you lack belief in orange turtles fighting inside the Sun because it has no benefit, or because there is not good reason to believe it? Furthermore, no, not all atheists are like so. "You ask me why a Christian would refuse to not help someone, there are number of reasons and of course there is no definite one but I may as well ask you an equally pointless question why do some Muslims disobey the qu'aran and commit acts of terrorism." It was a rhetorical goddamn question. It was to show the vapidness of asking why atheists would do purportedly good things. "These two groups however, do have these religious texts as their appropriate guidelines for what is morally right and what is wrong." And I have my own beliefs. This is different how? "What I want to ask you is how an atheist shapes his belief of good and bad, who does he look for as his source of inspiration. " Depends, atheists are different. Christians and other religious people also have different sources - the amount who take the Bible alone is low. Many choose certain interpreters, or interpret themselves, in ways which are not literal. This is no different. "Go to any religious institution even none-Christian, in there you will see or hear about countless examples of people who are role models for the rest of their followers." And some atheists also have role models, and some religious people have none. Why need role models? No reason to need them. I mean, I barely have any, and I am religious. (Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell and Emperor Norton might count, possibly.) stopped using "quote" because it is too boring. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: What I want to ask you is how an atheist shapes his belief of good and bad, who does he look for as his source of inspiration. Go to any religious institution even none-Christian, in there you will see or hear about countless examples of people who are role models for the rest of their followers. My question is how does the bible which any religious person follows shape God and Evil ? And another question what defined God and Evil before that? And one last question what creature wrote the bible? 1. There are the 10 commandments, the beatitudes, and various other teachings by prophets which help to define what is good and bad. Jesus himself emphasised love of one's neighbour it is debatable on whether or not most Christians follow this but the fact of the matter is that the teaching is still there. 2. As far as I know there was nothing that clearly shaped good and evil before before religious documents. That is to say before religion I doubt people had a highly developed sense of what was good and bad. Often at times strong societies also had a strong religious foundation. The romans/greeks had their gods and goddesses the Egyptians did the same. 3. I may be a little more liberal than I should be on answering that question but the bible was not written specifically by one person or to quote you "creature", the bible as I like to believe was written by man but inspired by God. That is why I believe when searching the bible for truths there are certain things you have to use your own wisdom to decipher. Obviously when the bible says the Earth was made in a couple days when science and my knowledge proves this to be untrue then it is probably true. But believe such as loving my own neighbour and being kind to others are universal truths you will find in almost any religion. As said earlier, atheism is not a religion and as such I don't think there is this universal theme of kindness for others you will find. Kaiserpingvin said: Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in afterlife. They believe they will be physically resurrected at the End Times. That is just one example. And joyful hope, as you put it, is also not universal among Christians. Take Kierkegaards followers. To call his philosophy joyful is stark. "My knowledge of atheists is that they are people who only do things that benefit them." Your 'knowledge' is wrong. "For example believing in God is of no benefit to them because they believe in he doesn't exist. " This is stupid, and makes no sense. Atheists do not believe in god because they see insufficient reason to. Benefiting or not is irrelevant. Do you lack belief in orange turtles fighting inside the Sun because it has no benefit, or because there is not good reason to believe it? Furthermore, no, not all atheists are like so. "You ask me why a Christian would refuse to not help someone, there are number of reasons and of course there is no definite one but I may as well ask you an equally pointless question why do some Muslims disobey the qu'aran and commit acts of terrorism." It was a rhetorical goddamn question. It was to show the vapidness of asking why atheists would do purportedly good things. "These two groups however, do have these religious texts as their appropriate guidelines for what is morally right and what is wrong." And I have my own beliefs. This is different how? "What I want to ask you is how an atheist shapes his belief of good and bad, who does he look for as his source of inspiration. " Depends, atheists are different. Christians and other religious people also have different sources - the amount who take the Bible alone is low. Many choose certain interpreters, or interpret themselves, in ways which are not literal. This is no different. "Go to any religious institution even none-Christian, in there you will see or hear about countless examples of people who are role models for the rest of their followers." And some atheists also have role models, and some religious people have none. Why need role models? No reason to need them. I mean, I barely have any, and I am religious. (Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell and Emperor Norton might count, possibly.) stopped using "quote" because it is too boring. Jehovah's witness and their beliefs are far from mainstream Christianity. I have no idea who Kierkegaards, though I realise it doesn't negate your point. However, it should be evident just by me not knowing who he is shows how little of an impact he's made on overall Christian belief. You ask why do people need role models. Religious figures such as Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad among many others are examples for people who know they are not perfect and often commit mistakes to emulate the behaviours of people they consider righteous and morally just. As you said atheists are pretty much a less centralised group, only some atheists have role models I wanted you to shed the light on how the rest of atheists decide what is good and what is bad. |
DaimyoNov 25, 2009 3:27 PM
HellOtaku said: Jehovah's witness and their beliefs are far from mainstream Christianity. I have no idea who Kierkegaards, though I realise it doesn't negate your point. However, it should be evident just by me not knowing who he is shows how little of an impact he's made on overall Christian belief. That is not the point. You treat Christianity as homogenous. It isn't! And, err, Kierkegaard has had a humongous influence. That you have not heard of him is immaterial, you are not representative of Christian thought. Have you heard of Plato? St Augustine? Pascal? HellOtaku said: As you said atheists are pretty much a less centralised group, only some atheists have role models I wanted you to shed the light on how the rest of atheists decide what is good and what is bad. Buddhists are atheists. Raëlians are atheists. Satanists are atheists. Objectivists are atheists. Many kinds of socialists, nazis, conservatives, liberals, anarchists and apoliticals are atheists. Any reason for morality is possible. No one can speak for 'atheists' in any matter apart from the denial of gods, just like no one can speak for people who think that the Earth is round, except on whether the Earth is round or not. You do not ask a socialist if all socialists like pancake. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Kaiserpingvin said: HellOtaku said: Jehovah's witness and their beliefs are far from mainstream Christianity. I have no idea who Kierkegaards, though I realise it doesn't negate your point. However, it should be evident just by me not knowing who he is shows how little of an impact he's made on overall Christian belief. That is not the point. You treat Christianity as homogenous. It isn't! And, err, Kierkegaard has had a humongous influence. That you have not heard of him is immaterial, you are not representative of Christian thought. Have you heard of Plato? St Augustine? Pascal? HellOtaku said: As you said atheists are pretty much a less centralised group, only some atheists have role models I wanted you to shed the light on how the rest of atheists decide what is good and what is bad. Buddhists are atheists. Raëlians are atheists. Satanists are atheists. Objectivists are atheists. Many kinds of socialists, nazis, conservatives, liberals, anarchists and apoliticals are atheists. Any reason for morality is possible. No one can speak for 'atheists' in any matter apart from the denial of gods, just like no one can speak for people who think that the Earth is round, except on whether the Earth is round or not. You do not ask a socialist if all socialists like pancake. Buddhism broke off from a polytheistic religion aka Hinduism it inherited many of the same beliefs the major difference between the two would be the doing away of Gods. I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to say that a good portion of its morality also came from hinduism. I would be ashamed if no one heard about Plato, St. Augustine or Pascal. But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. We'll have to cut this short for today, I'll be going soon. |
HellOtaku said: Buddhism broke off from a polytheistic religion aka Hinduism it inherited many of the same beliefs the major difference between the two would be the doing away of Gods. I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to say that a good portion of its morality also came from hinduism. I would be ashamed if no one heard about Plato, St. Augustine or Pascal. But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. We'll have to cut this short for today, I'll be going soon. And Christianity broke off Judaism, which broke off polytheist thought, which broke off... Well, atheism, therefore all morality is atheistic. See how ridiculous your argument is? And Kierkegaard is on the same level of impact as Pascal, and in the same class as St Augustine in terms of fame. Existentialist christianity and all that jazz, it was all his fault. To large part. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Kaiserpingvin said: HellOtaku said: Buddhism broke off from a polytheistic religion aka Hinduism it inherited many of the same beliefs the major difference between the two would be the doing away of Gods. I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to say that a good portion of its morality also came from hinduism. I would be ashamed if no one heard about Plato, St. Augustine or Pascal. But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. We'll have to cut this short for today, I'll be going soon. And Christianity broke off Judaism, which broke off polytheist thought, which broke off... Well, atheism, therefore all morality is atheistic. See how ridiculous your argument is? And Kierkegaard is on the same level of impact as Pascal, and in the same class as St Augustine in terms of fame. Existentialist christianity and all that jazz, it was all his fault. To large part. Well, if you're looking for the root of things eventually you'll find everything has the same origin. However, Buddhism shares a directly descended history with Hinduism once again a polytheistic religion. Your speculation on the origin of Judaic based religions is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the belief system in Buddhism shares greatly from Hinduism. You said Buddhism was a non atheistic religion, yet at the same-time you fail to realise what it owes greatly to. I doubt the teachings of Kiekerkegaard who was a born in a post enlightenment 19th century Europe are even mainstream unless you took a philosophical thinking course which just happened to cover him in the curriculum. |
| One more thing. How could you set some distinct rules of course some rules that would help your people (lets say we're when the first concept of God in general appeared) that could easily spread among them and make them follow them at the same time? It's easy you talk about "religion" just think about it. At those times with a limited technology(nonexistent actually) and a bunch of stupid uneducated people roaming all over the world it would be easy to tell them there is "someone/something" always watching them and of course if they don't follow those rules they will go to "hell" and suffer tremendously The thing that I'm trying to say if you didn't understand it already isn't religion just a mean of spreading and enforcing some man made rules? Because if you ask me that's the best way of making sure "hell doesn't break lose" .Damn society is formed around it also what if there was no "hell" for example how many people do you think would have believed in God without the fear of eternal suffering and stuff like that |
|
SquareZ said: One more thing. How could you set some distinct rules of course some rules that would help your people (lets say we're when the first concept of God in general appeared) that could easily spread among them and make them follow them at the same time? It's easy you talk about "religion" just think about it. At those times with a limited technology(nonexistent actually) and a bunch of stupid uneducated people roaming all over the world it would be easy to tell them there is "someone/something" always watching them and of course if they don't follow those rules they will go to "hell" and suffer tremendously The thing that I'm trying to say if you didn't understand it already isn't religion just a mean of spreading and enforcing some man made rules? Because if you ask me that's the best way of making sure "hell doesn't break lose" .Damn society is formed around it also what if there was no "hell" for example how many people do you think would have believed in God without the fear of eternal suffering and stuff like that Whether all of that is or not completely true I don't know. What I do know is that you reinforced that idea in my previous reply to you that strong societies often had very strong religious systems. Religious morality and duty in a sense were the balance that kept order in society, in an atheistic world how would you enforce good will and civil duty to others. |
HellOtaku said: Kaiserpingvin said: HellOtaku said: Buddhism broke off from a polytheistic religion aka Hinduism it inherited many of the same beliefs the major difference between the two would be the doing away of Gods. I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to say that a good portion of its morality also came from hinduism. I would be ashamed if no one heard about Plato, St. Augustine or Pascal. But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. We'll have to cut this short for today, I'll be going soon. And Christianity broke off Judaism, which broke off polytheist thought, which broke off... Well, atheism, therefore all morality is atheistic. See how ridiculous your argument is? And Kierkegaard is on the same level of impact as Pascal, and in the same class as St Augustine in terms of fame. Existentialist christianity and all that jazz, it was all his fault. To large part. Well, if you're looking for the root of things eventually you'll find everything has the same origin. However, Buddhism shares a directly descended history with Hinduism once again a polytheistic religion. Your speculation on the origin of Judaic based religions is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the belief system in Buddhism shares greatly from Hinduism. You said Buddhism was a non atheistic religion, yet at the same-time you fail to realise what it owes greatly to. I doubt the teachings of Kiekerkegaard who was a born in a post enlightenment 19th century Europe are even mainstream unless you took a philosophical thinking course which just happened to cover him in the curriculum. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion? News to me, and my uncle is a Brahmin. As far as I know, metaphysical beliefs concerning the nature of God are not always shared between sects, and one could be a monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, or even atheist and still believe in Hinduism. Hinduism being strictly polytheist is an ignorant western conception of the religion. |
| All the mods fucking blow on this website except Kaiserpingvin, Cloudy-Sky, Baman and aero. PM me if you're actually good and I left you out. Oh, rule 8... (￣ー￣) |
Sin said: HellOtaku said: Kaiserpingvin said: HellOtaku said: Buddhism broke off from a polytheistic religion aka Hinduism it inherited many of the same beliefs the major difference between the two would be the doing away of Gods. I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to say that a good portion of its morality also came from hinduism. I would be ashamed if no one heard about Plato, St. Augustine or Pascal. But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. We'll have to cut this short for today, I'll be going soon. And Christianity broke off Judaism, which broke off polytheist thought, which broke off... Well, atheism, therefore all morality is atheistic. See how ridiculous your argument is? And Kierkegaard is on the same level of impact as Pascal, and in the same class as St Augustine in terms of fame. Existentialist christianity and all that jazz, it was all his fault. To large part. Well, if you're looking for the root of things eventually you'll find everything has the same origin. However, Buddhism shares a directly descended history with Hinduism once again a polytheistic religion. Your speculation on the origin of Judaic based religions is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the belief system in Buddhism shares greatly from Hinduism. You said Buddhism was a non atheistic religion, yet at the same-time you fail to realise what it owes greatly to. I doubt the teachings of Kiekerkegaard who was a born in a post enlightenment 19th century Europe are even mainstream unless you took a philosophical thinking course which just happened to cover him in the curriculum. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion? News to me, and my uncle is a Brahmin. As far as I know, metaphysical beliefs concerning the nature of God are not always shared between sects, and one could be a monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, or even atheist and still believe in Hinduism. Ok I should've somewhat expected this reply. Hinduism according to Hindu's is a monotheistic religion where all the numerous gods (over 300 thousand or millions if I recall) are reflections of the one same true god Brahman. It is easier for me when I speak about the religion which seems somewhat pagan in nature to be polytheistic though I suppose the same argument could be used for those against certain Christians use of the trinity. My previous statements are still in effect whether or not you consider Hinduism polytheistic or monotheistic. |
HellOtaku said: SquareZ said: One more thing. How could you set some distinct rules of course some rules that would help your people (lets say we're when the first concept of God in general appeared) that could easily spread among them and make them follow them at the same time? It's easy you talk about "religion" just think about it. At those times with a limited technology(nonexistent actually) and a bunch of stupid uneducated people roaming all over the world it would be easy to tell them there is "someone/something" always watching them and of course if they don't follow those rules they will go to "hell" and suffer tremendously The thing that I'm trying to say if you didn't understand it already isn't religion just a mean of spreading and enforcing some man made rules? Because if you ask me that's the best way of making sure "hell doesn't break lose" .Damn society is formed around it also what if there was no "hell" for example how many people do you think would have believed in God without the fear of eternal suffering and stuff like that Whether all of that is or not completely true I don't know. What I do know is that you reinforced that idea in my previous reply to you that strong societies often had very strong religious systems. Religious morality and duty in a sense were the balance that kept order in society, in an atheistic world how would you enforce good will and civil duty to others. Apparently you didn't get it.......let me break it down to you People and society have evolved and therefore the need for such a thing as religion is decreasing.Besides I didn't try to undermine the necessity it had until now and still does I was talking more about the concept of God.I don't think I attacked religion in any sort of way it has it's merits again I'm talking strictly about God |
|
SquareZ said: HellOtaku said: SquareZ said: One more thing. How could you set some distinct rules of course some rules that would help your people (lets say we're when the first concept of God in general appeared) that could easily spread among them and make them follow them at the same time? It's easy you talk about "religion" just think about it. At those times with a limited technology(nonexistent actually) and a bunch of stupid uneducated people roaming all over the world it would be easy to tell them there is "someone/something" always watching them and of course if they don't follow those rules they will go to "hell" and suffer tremendously The thing that I'm trying to say if you didn't understand it already isn't religion just a mean of spreading and enforcing some man made rules? Because if you ask me that's the best way of making sure "hell doesn't break lose" .Damn society is formed around it also what if there was no "hell" for example how many people do you think would have believed in God without the fear of eternal suffering and stuff like that Whether all of that is or not completely true I don't know. What I do know is that you reinforced that idea in my previous reply to you that strong societies often had very strong religious systems. Religious morality and duty in a sense were the balance that kept order in society, in an atheistic world how would you enforce good will and civil duty to others. Apparently you didn't get it.......let me break it down to you People and society have evolved and therefore the need for such a thing as religion is decreasing.Besides I didn't try to undermine the necessity it had until now and still does I was talking more about the concept of God.I don't think I attacked religion in any sort of way it has it's merits again I'm talking strictly about God There are still many religious institutions and organisations in the world today. I don't think religion is in the jeopardy you depict. People will always be religious as they always need to place their hope on one or more deities. More accurately, it would be to say that religion's role in everyday life is decreasing and the number of practising religious people is also diminishing. |
HellOtaku said: But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. You can't be serious. I would laugh, but it's just so damn sad that I'm having a hard time... On his philosophy being joyful: It's supposed to be joyful if you overcome existential despair through faith in god, or at least that's my understanding of it. |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
| I'm agnostic thiest. Simple. I just agree that there's no way I can possitively know any biblical "truths"--but I'm not an athiest as that would be too boring for me, heh. |
| Music? Just choose one that gets you through the day.. Nobody is ever going to know if there is a God, so just fuckin' relax. Lol I agree with the musician Kevin Barnes: "The church is filled with losers, psycho or confused." "They're ringing the bells in the church to drive everybody insane." |
| I'm a atheist (I don't believe in God). The percentage of such persons in Sweden is around 85%. |
Tsukasa-sanNov 26, 2009 4:50 AM
 |
| Jashin-ism I kid. I'm an atheist I suppose |
 |
| Nihilist Singularitarian Does that even count? |
 |
Tsukasa-san said: Another bonus that you've got over No-way. We've still got a state church. The thought alone makes my stomach curl.I'm a atheist (I don't believe in God). The percentage of such persons in Sweden is around 85%. |
rTz said: HellOtaku said: But Kierkegaards barely evokes a response from me. You can't be serious. I would laugh, but it's just so damn sad that I'm having a hard time... On his philosophy being joyful: It's supposed to be joyful if you overcome existential despair through faith in god, or at least that's my understanding of it. Sorry, I have to be blunt and say I don't know too much about him. He's a post enlightenment era religious philosopher either you specifically took a course about him and those similar to him or you're European and covered him in your basic schooling. The fact I know or don't know who he is, doesn't change anything about the majority of Christians believing in some sort of afterlife. boomboomrama said: HellOtaku said: SquareZ said: One more thing. How could you set some distinct rules of course some rules that would help your people (lets say we're when the first concept of God in general appeared) that could easily spread among them and make them follow them at the same time? It's easy you talk about "religion" just think about it. At those times with a limited technology(nonexistent actually) and a bunch of stupid uneducated people roaming all over the world it would be easy to tell them there is "someone/something" always watching them and of course if they don't follow those rules they will go to "hell" and suffer tremendously The thing that I'm trying to say if you didn't understand it already isn't religion just a mean of spreading and enforcing some man made rules? Because if you ask me that's the best way of making sure "hell doesn't break lose" .Damn society is formed around it also what if there was no "hell" for example how many people do you think would have believed in God without the fear of eternal suffering and stuff like that Whether all of that is or not completely true I don't know. What I do know is that you reinforced that idea in my previous reply to you that strong societies often had very strong religious systems. Religious morality and duty in a sense were the balance that kept order in society, in an atheistic world how would you enforce good will and civil duty to others. I completely disagree. I believe our society is very capable of enforcing "good" without religions. Perhaps this world would be much better without them. If you believe that order can only be kept through religion, then I suppose you lack faith in the morality of atheists. However, atheists choose on their own to be "good." We don't get bribed by the promise of paradise or threatened by the wrath of hell to do the right thing. We receive no reward, except our dignity. Isn't that a better sense of morality? Just for the record I never said order can only be kept through religion, I merely noted the trend that often at times a fruitful society had some sort of religious practice. I suppose if I were completed devoted to religion which I have stated many times I am not 100% religious, I could go even further to say that since the wide-scale separation of the church and state we as humans have experienced two great world wars, a holocaust and many other conflicts that we did not experience when religion was in charge of the state. Atheists as you stated choose their own "good", there is no one good or one evil it is open to interpretation, in a society where many people live together that could lead to conflict. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain civil order in an atheistic society just that it would probably be more difficult, atheists are usually more free-thinking than religious people and may not obey civil order just because someone tells them they will be punished in the afterlife. I think today however, our legal system makes sure people don't disobey the law but it also doesn't push people the extra mile to do good. The dignity of doing good doesn't seem like enough incentive for people to do good deeds. |
HellOtaku said: Sorry, I have to be blunt and say I don't know too much about him. He's a post enlightenment era religious philosopher either you specifically took a course about him and those similar to him or you're European and covered him in your basic schooling. The fact I know or don't know who he is, doesn't change anything about the majority of Christians believing in some sort of afterlife. CS Lewis is also post enlightenment. He was quite important to Christian thought. The era does not judge the influence seeing as they have already lived; it merely influences the possible set of people they may have influenced. You are merely uneducated as to real theology and religious philosophy. HellOtaku said: Just for the record I never said order can only be kept through religion, I merely noted the trend that often at times a fruitful society had some sort of religious practice. I suppose if I were completed devoted to religion which I have stated many times I am not 100% religious, I could go even further to say that since the wide-scale separation of the church and state we as humans have experienced two great world wars, a holocaust and many other conflicts that we did not experience when religion was in charge of the state. Atheists as you stated choose their own "good", there is no one good or one evil it is open to interpretation, in a society where many people live together that could lead to conflict. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain civil order in an atheistic society just that it would probably be more difficult, atheists are usually more free-thinking than religious people and may not obey civil order just because someone tells them they will be punished in the afterlife. I think today however, our legal system makes sure people don't disobey the law but it also doesn't push people the extra mile to do good. The dignity of doing good doesn't seem like enough incentive for people to do good deeds. "I merely noted the trend that often at times a fruitful society had some sort of religious practice." Japan? Sweden? Norway? You know, some of the richest countried in the world? While we have countries like, I don't know, pretty much ever African country, where living conditions are dismal despite very high religiosity. Religion does not meaningfully correlate with "fruitfulness" (whatever that vague term may mean). "I could go even further to say that since the wide-scale separation of the church and state we as humans have experienced two great world wars, a holocaust and many other conflicts that we did not experience when religion was in charge of the state." Well first of all, the time when the Catholic Church was in charge of the state - in practice - was called the Dark Ages. We had Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, the murder of such free-thinkers as Bruno, and slavery. After that, it would be hard to call the Chruch in practical control, but it was certainly powerful. What did we get by then? Imperialization, even more and heavily institutionalized slavery, the destruction of the Mesoamerican and South American empires and the concomitant genocides of Native Americans, and so on. Religion does not correlate well there either. "Atheists as you stated choose their own "good"" How cute but that's WRONG. Not all atheists are the same. How many goddamn (aha!) times do I have to say this? Are you incapable of remembering such a simple, small sentence as that? What unifies atheists is one thing only: They believe there are no gods. Apart from that, any opinion can be had and you can still be an atheist. "I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain civil order in an atheistic society just that it would probably be more difficult, " Atheism and agnosticism has only been on the rise the last few hundred years... And along with it, violence has been greatly reduced. Science has flourished. "atheists are usually more free-thinking than religious people and may not obey civil order just because someone tells them they will be punished in the afterlife" The common deterrence, even for religious people, tends to be state violence, though, not afterlife being perhaps a tad bit worse. And you say that as if civil disobedience is a bad thing. I thought you would find standing up for what someone thinks is right would be a good thing. I for one think it is better than to give up on one's morals and acquiesce to power. "I think today however, our legal system makes sure people don't disobey the law but it also doesn't push people the extra mile to do good." It doesn't need to. Never before in history has so many rich people been so altruistic as they are today. They do not need to, they just do it, for whatever reason. The law should not, by the by, require us to do what the people who wrote the law thought good. The law should be minimal, for morals are arbitrary, and as thus imposed arbitrariness should be kept to necessary minimum. Or so I think, it's largely arbitrary. Now I must point this out for it is just waiting to be misinterpreted, as people like to do. While I frequently here pointed out that religion was correlated with bad things and atheism with good (to a common interpretation of the terms), this does NOT mean that they are causes. They may well be effects, or caused by a common cause, or just be randomly correlated. I have said nothing on this, and it is irrelevant to the current discussion. I merely disproved the starkly factually wrong claims you made, herr Otaku. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Kaiserpingvin said: HellOtaku said: Sorry, I have to be blunt and say I don't know too much about him. He's a post enlightenment era religious philosopher either you specifically took a course about him and those similar to him or you're European and covered him in your basic schooling. The fact I know or don't know who he is, doesn't change anything about the majority of Christians believing in some sort of afterlife. CS Lewis is also post enlightenment. He was quite important to Christian thought. The era does not judge the influence seeing as they have already lived; it merely influences the possible set of people they may have influenced. You are merely uneducated as to real theology and religious philosophy. HellOtaku said: Just for the record I never said order can only be kept through religion, I merely noted the trend that often at times a fruitful society had some sort of religious practice. I suppose if I were completed devoted to religion which I have stated many times I am not 100% religious, I could go even further to say that since the wide-scale separation of the church and state we as humans have experienced two great world wars, a holocaust and many other conflicts that we did not experience when religion was in charge of the state. Atheists as you stated choose their own "good", there is no one good or one evil it is open to interpretation, in a society where many people live together that could lead to conflict. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain civil order in an atheistic society just that it would probably be more difficult, atheists are usually more free-thinking than religious people and may not obey civil order just because someone tells them they will be punished in the afterlife. I think today however, our legal system makes sure people don't disobey the law but it also doesn't push people the extra mile to do good. The dignity of doing good doesn't seem like enough incentive for people to do good deeds. "I merely noted the trend that often at times a fruitful society had some sort of religious practice." Japan? Sweden? Norway? You know, some of the richest countried in the world? While we have countries like, I don't know, pretty much ever African country, where living conditions are dismal despite very high religiosity. Religion does not meaningfully correlate with "fruitfulness" (whatever that vague term may mean). "I could go even further to say that since the wide-scale separation of the church and state we as humans have experienced two great world wars, a holocaust and many other conflicts that we did not experience when religion was in charge of the state." Well first of all, the time when the Catholic Church was in charge of the state - in practice - was called the Dark Ages. We had Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, the murder of such free-thinkers as Bruno, and slavery. After that, it would be hard to call the Chruch in practical control, but it was certainly powerful. What did we get by then? Imperialization, even more and heavily institutionalized slavery, the destruction of the Mesoamerican and South American empires and the concomitant genocides of Native Americans, and so on. Religion does not correlate well there either. "Atheists as you stated choose their own "good"" How cute but that's WRONG. Not all atheists are the same. How many goddamn (aha!) times do I have to say this? Are you incapable of remembering such a simple, small sentence as that? What unifies atheists is one thing only: They believe there are no gods. Apart from that, any opinion can be had and you can still be an atheist. "I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain civil order in an atheistic society just that it would probably be more difficult, " Atheism and agnosticism has only been on the rise the last few hundred years... And along with it, violence has been greatly reduced. Science has flourished. "atheists are usually more free-thinking than religious people and may not obey civil order just because someone tells them they will be punished in the afterlife" The common deterrence, even for religious people, tends to be state violence, though, not afterlife being perhaps a tad bit worse. And you say that as if civil disobedience is a bad thing. I thought you would find standing up for what someone thinks is right would be a good thing. I for one think it is better than to give up on one's morals and acquiesce to power. "I think today however, our legal system makes sure people don't disobey the law but it also doesn't push people the extra mile to do good." It doesn't need to. Never before in history has so many rich people been so altruistic as they are today. They do not need to, they just do it, for whatever reason. The law should not, by the by, require us to do what the people who wrote the law thought good. The law should be minimal, for morals are arbitrary, and as thus imposed arbitrariness should be kept to necessary minimum. Or so I think, it's largely arbitrary. Now I must point this out for it is just waiting to be misinterpreted, as people like to do. While I frequently here pointed out that religion was correlated with bad things and atheism with good (to a common interpretation of the terms), this does NOT mean that they are causes. They may well be effects, or caused by a common cause, or just be randomly correlated. I have said nothing on this, and it is irrelevant to the current discussion. I merely disproved the starkly factually wrong claims you made, herr Otaku. Widespread philosophy was already at a decline by that era so unless they made a dramatic influence that could be felt all over the world like enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Rousseau or Voltaire I doubt he would've become very popular in a non specialized course or outside of a European influence. I would like to drop this issue because whether or not he was important to Christianity is of no interest to me as I doubt he has many direct followers remaining which was the original point you were trying to make. That is today but at the same time it doesn't negate my claim of the past having strong but religious societies. At the same time I could list examples of societies even today that are thriving yet religious. Though, it seems kind of redundant to me as it just loosely applies to what I was getting at. You'll have to elaborate on that point, if anything your reply was more vague than what I said. Never said I fully believed in this, there are arguments for both sides. Once again I am not a very religious person so I could careless about this information that is very double sided. It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. I agree with you on Science being on the rise but if anything violence being on the decrease is very debatable. If everyone did their best and worked in unison in society I think we'd have less problems but this is a personal point of view. |
DaimyoNov 26, 2009 1:31 PM
| As for religions being pleasing even if one may not consider them true: I would suggest considering to convert to discordianism. You are already a pope in it, so it can't hurt, can it? Gnosticism and Wittgenstein's... peculiar view of God are very beautiful. I also find pantheism attractive, especially Spinoza's. So yes, there is a lot to get from religion, no doubt about that. But one does not need to believe to appreciate, of course. HellOtaku said: Widespread philosophy was already at a decline by that era so unless they made a dramatic influence that could be felt all over the world like enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Rousseau or Voltaire I doubt he would've become very popular in a non specialized course or outside of a European influence. I would like to drop this issue because whether or not he was important to Christianity is of no interest to me as I doubt he has many direct followers remaining which was the original point you were trying to make. Philosophy has been incredibly lively after the enlightenment too. Heck, formal logic didn't exist until way after it was over. Some small problems and ideas of latter times: The Gettier problem, positivism, falsificationism, philosophy of mind, Rawls' theory of justice, Nozick's theories, modal logic, possible worlds, Frege-Geach problems, set theory, existentialism, absurdism, holistic definitions of truth, Principia Mathematica, Turing tests and Turing completeness, Gödel's theorems, natural language philosophy á la Wittgenstein... The list is absurdly long, many of these things have been largely superseded already! Modern philosophy is in many ways vastly superior to enlightenment - I would choose Russell, Quine and Wittgenstein over Hume any day, and then Hume was absolutely fantastic. And I totally skipped romanticism, which was also very lively. Nietzsche, natch. And a few thousand other German dudes with massively cool facial hair. Oh and Continental philosophy, too. Zizek would be able to blow Voltaires mind with his phallic fist. So no, enlightenment philosophy was not the end of philosophy. It was the rebirth. HellOtaku said: That is today but at the same time it doesn't negate my claim of the past having strong but religious societies. At the same time I could list examples of societies even today that are thriving yet religious. Though, it seems kind of redundant to me as it just loosely applies to what I was getting at. Yes, it does negate it, as it ames your observation meaningless at best. Besides, what is strong about them? You cannot vaguely state nonsense and then expect it to float. One might as well say that autocracies are strong, that genocide makes countries strong, or what have you, the term is so vague as to say little without proper context. It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. Nor is there a uniform set of good among theists either. And no, not all atheists think that it is up to interpretation. There are plenty of atheist moral realists. I agree with you on Science being on the rise but if anything violence being on the decrease is very debatable. It isn't debatable, it is a fact. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
HellOtaku said: It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. So... do you like democracy or not? |
 |
| Kaiser, how does one become a philosopher, and then have people name-drop them in the future? Do you just have to write books that catch on with people? Or do you need a ~personality~ and possibly fabulous facial hair? Man, I always wonder how someone becomes some sort of influential character. Um, anyways. Religion, yeah. Baman said: Tsukasa-san said: Another bonus that you've got over No-way. We've still got a state church. The thought alone makes my stomach curl.I'm a atheist (I don't believe in God). The percentage of such persons in Sweden is around 85%. Seriously? I had no idea Norway has a state chruch.. That is.. Pretty sucky. :< Does this mean part of your taxes go to the church? Or have they at least got rid of that part? :< |
corbenic said: HellOtaku said: It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. So... do you like democracy or not? How does this relate to anything..? Anyway, religion eh. Well let's see, I've always felt like being my own god, so I guess i'll go with either Discordianism (a certain individual converted me) or Solipsism. On the other hand, anyone that invents a reasonably working version of Virtual Reality will be to me what Alexander III was to Hellenic civilization. I don't like organized religion; although I might consider it if I created it myself. Hubbard must be laughing in his grave. |
Kaiserpingvin said: But see, I think your definition of atheism is different than the general definition of atheism.I wrote something stupid about agnosticism vs atheism a while ago. Basically, negating the "I believe" is different from negating the fact itself due to very different-looking truth tables. Which is why I am agnostic, I have not and cannot negate the variable in all possible theisms. Rather than (B¬γ), it is (¬Bγ). Wikipedia agrees with me, so it must be true. Source of all that is true said: In the broadest sense, it (atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is still not the same thing as agnosticism, since not all atheists are agnostics, but all agnostics are atheists by this definition. Thus I refer to myself as atheist, even though I am both. |
Choosy_Green said: Kaiser, how does one become a philosopher, and then have people name-drop them in the future? Do you just have to write books that catch on with people? Or do you need a ~personality~ and possibly fabulous facial hair? Have a cool name, be French or German. Bonus if you write so that you are impossible to understand. Personality is not a requirement; people will use you to superimpose their own ideas upon anyway. Unless we are talking analytical philosophy, then you just have to be meticulously boring in proving every single small part of your argument, and people will admire you for that. Or fall asleep and then feel ashamed and lie about liking you. Choosy_Green said: Kaiser, how does one become a philosopher, and then have people name-drop them in the future? Do you just have to write books that catch on with people? Or do you need a ~personality~ and possibly fabulous facial hair? Man, I always wonder how someone becomes some sort of influential character. Um, anyways. Religion, yeah. Choosy_Green said: Seriously? I had no idea Norway has a state chruch.. That is.. Pretty sucky. :< Does this mean part of your taxes go to the church? Or have they at least got rid of that part? :< If it is anything like Sweden, then yes, one percent tax to the church. It has to live off something, and donations ain't gonna pay enough. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Sohei said: corbenic said: HellOtaku said: It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. So... do you like democracy or not? How does this relate to anything..? What? He just described democracy and put it in a negative light. If a 'uniform set of "good"' is desired, at least an authoritarian rule would be required - someone to tell everyone what's good and what's bad. Hence my question. |
|
corbenic said: Sohei said: corbenic said: HellOtaku said: It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. So... do you like democracy or not? How does this relate to anything..? What? He just described democracy and put it in a negative light. If a 'uniform set of "good"' is desired, at least an authoritarian rule would be required - someone to tell everyone what's good and what's bad. Hence my question. it's not the form of government that matter to determine what morality society will adopt, simply having a government is enough. A democracy opresses you with its morals just as much as an autocracy. And anyway, since when are liberty and freedom solely associated with democracy? By the way, when I said, "How is this related", I meant, how is this related to religion. But i'll give you time to clarify. |
Kaiserpingvin said: As for religions being pleasing even if one may not consider them true: I would suggest considering to convert to discordianism. You are already a pope in it, so it can't hurt, can it? Gnosticism and Wittgenstein's... peculiar view of God are very beautiful. I also find pantheism attractive, especially Spinoza's. So yes, there is a lot to get from religion, no doubt about that. But one does not need to believe to appreciate, of course. HellOtaku said: Widespread philosophy was already at a decline by that era so unless they made a dramatic influence that could be felt all over the world like enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Rousseau or Voltaire I doubt he would've become very popular in a non specialized course or outside of a European influence. I would like to drop this issue because whether or not he was important to Christianity is of no interest to me as I doubt he has many direct followers remaining which was the original point you were trying to make. Philosophy has been incredibly lively after the enlightenment too. Heck, formal logic didn't exist until way after it was over. Some small problems and ideas of latter times: The Gettier problem, positivism, falsificationism, philosophy of mind, Rawls' theory of justice, Nozick's theories, modal logic, possible worlds, Frege-Geach problems, set theory, existentialism, absurdism, holistic definitions of truth, Principia Mathematica, Turing tests and Turing completeness, Gödel's theorems, natural language philosophy á la Wittgenstein... The list is absurdly long, many of these things have been largely superseded already! Modern philosophy is in many ways vastly superior to enlightenment - I would choose Russell, Quine and Wittgenstein over Hume any day, and then Hume was absolutely fantastic. And I totally skipped romanticism, which was also very lively. Nietzsche, natch. And a few thousand other German dudes with massively cool facial hair. Oh and Continental philosophy, too. Zizek would be able to blow Voltaires mind with his phallic fist. So no, enlightenment philosophy was not the end of philosophy. It was the rebirth. HellOtaku said: That is today but at the same time it doesn't negate my claim of the past having strong but religious societies. At the same time I could list examples of societies even today that are thriving yet religious. Though, it seems kind of redundant to me as it just loosely applies to what I was getting at. Yes, it does negate it, as it ames your observation meaningless at best. Besides, what is strong about them? You cannot vaguely state nonsense and then expect it to float. One might as well say that autocracies are strong, that genocide makes countries strong, or what have you, the term is so vague as to say little without proper context. It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. Nor is there a uniform set of good among theists either. And no, not all atheists think that it is up to interpretation. There are plenty of atheist moral realists. I agree with you on Science being on the rise but if anything violence being on the decrease is very debatable. It isn't debatable, it is a fact. You like to runoff into various subtopics with your points. I'll humor you and continue down this road of off topic thought. I'm not arguing on which age is superior modern or enlightenment because the future almost always improves on the ideas laid down in the previous era. Just that it is easier to identify and observe the predecessor than the offspring that came afterward. I wonder if you're a trolling me when you say that my observation between strong societies in the past having a strong sense of religion is meaningless. The Greeks the Romans had many and numerous gods, their culture was centered around these gods as such they had a very strong sense of unity, many great classical works of art were also created in this era. The philosophers from this era are some of the most identifiable names ranging from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Religion strengthens society with religion people are able to create and imagine many abstract things, for example people developed cosmology in order to understand god and humanity's role in the universe. You can say religion creates flaws, it creates weak people, it leads them to a false belief but is it so wrong to dream, to imagine, to in vision a world where humanity plays an important role infront of the creator. Humans will always use religion to try grasp things they don't understand. Even in science people try to grasp what was once thought un-graspable. And why is your statement on violence decreasing in the last few hundred years true, besides the I bolded it so it must be true, you're trying to push onto me. corbenic said: Sohei said: corbenic said: HellOtaku said: It is precisely because they are not the same there is no uniform set of "good" among them. Everything is open to individual interpretation. On one side you get more liberty and free opinion and the other-hand you're more likely to get conflicting views opposing each other. So... do you like democracy or not? How does this relate to anything..? What? He just described democracy and put it in a negative light. If a 'uniform set of "good"' is desired, at least an authoritarian rule would be required - someone to tell everyone what's good and what's bad. Hence my question. Many places thrived under an absolute authoritarian rule, France with Louis 14th, Spain with Philip II and some would even argue Germany during Hitler's reign. I am not saying I would prefer an authoritarian rule just that are some benefits to it. No, given a choice I would without a doubt choose a democracy. Unfortunately, even in our beloved democracy there are people who tell others what is good and what is bad, instead of calling these people monarchs or dictators we call them politicians and law makers. |
DaimyoNov 26, 2009 4:53 PM
naikou said: Kaiserpingvin said: But see, I think your definition of atheism is different than the general definition of atheism.I wrote something stupid about agnosticism vs atheism a while ago. Basically, negating the "I believe" is different from negating the fact itself due to very different-looking truth tables. Which is why I am agnostic, I have not and cannot negate the variable in all possible theisms. Rather than (B¬γ), it is (¬Bγ). Wikipedia agrees with me, so it must be true. Source of all that is true said: In the broadest sense, it (atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is still not the same thing as agnosticism, since not all atheists are agnostics, but all agnostics are atheists by this definition. Thus I refer to myself as atheist, even though I am both. Regardless, they're both categorized as "unbeliever". |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
| Yes, well... So what? |
HellOtaku said: Widespread philosophy was already at a decline by that era so unless they made a dramatic influence that could be felt all over the world like enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Rousseau or Voltaire I doubt he would've become very popular in a non specialized course or outside of a European influence. I suppose existentialism, logical positivism, and phenomenalism don't ring a bell? Also, for the record, you can be an atheist and believe in unicorns, UFOs, the afterlife, objective morality, and ESP. |
rTzNov 26, 2009 10:40 PM
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
Kaiserpingvin said: Choosy_Green said: Kaiser, how does one become a philosopher, and then have people name-drop them in the future? Do you just have to write books that catch on with people? Or do you need a ~personality~ and possibly fabulous facial hair? Have a cool name, be French or German. Bonus if you write so that you are impossible to understand. Personality is not a requirement; people will use you to superimpose their own ideas upon anyway. Unless we are talking analytical philosophy, then you just have to be meticulously boring in proving every single small part of your argument, and people will admire you for that. Or fall asleep and then feel ashamed and lie about liking you. Uh, false. Saul Kripke has some of the most interesting and avant-garde views on arguably one of the driest areas of philosophy (philosophy of language), but his papers are never boring nor is he boring (he's quite the character). Try reading "A Puzzle about Belief", an amazing paper about such a dry subject. In fact, it seems to me that he goes out of his way to hold views contrary to everyone else, but unlike many others, he actually makes sense with his arguments. |
| All the mods fucking blow on this website except Kaiserpingvin, Cloudy-Sky, Baman and aero. PM me if you're actually good and I left you out. Oh, rule 8... (￣ー￣) |
| After all that pointless debating, how much closer are you to the truth? Lmfao, fuckin losers |
| Eid Mubarak |
 |
Sin said: Uh, false. Saul Kripke has some of the most interesting and avant-garde views on arguably one of the driest areas of philosophy (philosophy of language), but his papers are never boring nor is he boring (he's quite the character). Try reading "A Puzzle about Belief", an amazing paper about such a dry subject. In fact, it seems to me that he goes out of his way to hold views contrary to everyone else, but unlike many others, he actually makes sense with his arguments. it was a joke, so yeah, can't argue with you there. I don't agree much with messir Kripke but he's a joy to read. naikou said: But see, I think your definition of atheism is different than the general definition of atheism. Rather than (B¬γ), it is (¬Bγ). Wikipedia agrees with me, so it must be true. Atheism is still not the same thing as agnosticism, since not all atheists are agnostics, but all agnostics are atheists by this definition. Thus I refer to myself as atheist, even though I am both. But agnosticism is also congruent with ¬B¬γ. Which atheism is not. Oho! Of course, agnosticism is more an epistemological stance while atheism is more a metaphysical one. So they are very much compatible. I go with agnosticism since there are far more gods I do not know whether they exist or not than gods I know do not exist. pipedreams said: After all that pointless debating, how much closer are you to the truth? Lmfao, fuckin losers Closer than you bro. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
pipedreams said: After all that pointless debating, how much closer are you to the truth? Lmfao, fuckin losers The best post in this thread it's like after all that ranting it's likely they will reach a dead end |
 |
Kaiserpingvin said: I wouldn't say atheism is incongruent with ¬B¬γ. For instance, consider someone who has never heard of God at all, so obviously has no opinion either way. This person would be an atheist by default, yes? Also an agnostic, naturally, but that's fine since agnosticism is a subset of atheism using these definitions.But agnosticism is also congruent with ¬B¬γ. Which atheism is not. Oho! Of course, agnosticism is more an epistemological stance while atheism is more a metaphysical one. So they are very much compatible. I go with agnosticism since there are far more gods I do not know whether they exist or not than gods I know do not exist. If you don't accept that, then it's a matter of how you define atheism - 1. (¬Bγ) 2. (¬Bγ) && (B¬γ) or 3. (B¬γ) Which is semantics, so I guess that's where we call it a day. |
More topics from this board
» lowercase chat thread v.23 our little sekai can't be this cute edition ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-DxP- - Jul 16 |
6600 |
by Bee-Sweet
»»
3 seconds ago |
|
» Why did you break up with the person above you v4 ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kunii - Mar 4 |
1658 |
by DanzFcc
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» The Last Person To Post In This Thread Wins!!! ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Bee-Sweet - Jun 10 |
8116 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Say something about 1 of the 3 users above you ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )marinara-sauce - Nov 18, 2020 |
9970 |
by anime
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» You wake up in hell with the user above next to you. What do you say? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )3miL - Oct 1, 2023 |
626 |
by OniMage
»»
4 minutes ago |