|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
View Poll Results: Why do you accept the proposition that a deity exists? | |||
I know God through reason, science, etc. | 3 | 7.89% | |
I accept God through belief or personal revelation | 11 | 28.95% | |
Other | 12 | 31.58% | |
I am an atheist but want to vote in this poll because polls are dope | 12 | 31.58% | |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#217
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Everybody has "Others." Perhaps countless ones, for every person. Those from a different social group; a different religious group; any one of countless different cultural upbringings. It's not bad to have them; it's human nature. Even if I traveled to Hawaii and spent the rest of my days there, I'm sure I'd be perceived as an "Other" to the natives and I'd see them as something different for me to try to empathize with, as well.
All I advocate for is to be mindful and respectful when taking steps that address those differently from yourself (again, not you personally). I'm not even saying I do a good job; I'm just saying I try to be mindful. As for you personally, Aldin, I believe I specifically wrote above that you have always conducted yourself respectfully in these threads, and have always been respectful of honestly held differences of opinion. I've never felt like you were trying to sell me something I didn't want. On the contrary, we have the rare opportunity of open conversations here, where we can exchange ideas respectfully. Regardless, we can be done. I apologize (again) if any of my words stung. I didn't intend them to, but I know these are very delicate subjects, among the most delicate, and I may not have been as careful as I should have been. |
#218
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
~Aldin, enjoying common ground He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#219
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
@Aldin
I want to touch on this first quote, before I tackle the preceding paragraphs. Quote:
That said, I am making judgement calls based on objective standards, which yes, does allow me to determine how "good" someone is at a specific task. In the same way I can judge someone for being worse than me at riding a bike, or reciting the alphabet based on objective standards, so can I make a judgement call based on objective standards that someone is not making as rational decisions as I am. This doesn't necessarily entail that a person is "better" or "worse" as a whole, merely that in the given subject matter someone is better than the other. The final sentence I agree with in terms of morality, the ability for intellectual growth and so forth, but it's not useful when discussing the prowess one possesses in a given subject. Take a computer programmer and a pediatrician disagreeing on the diagnosis of a child. I would, as I am sure you would as well, take the authority of the pediatrician over that of the programmer as they do not have equality in the same field of expertise. Likewise, some people are better at rational process, and some people are worse. But just like the computer programmer and the pediatrician, where the pediatrician excels in pediatrics, the programmer excels elsewhere. Is one superior to the other? I would say not on the whole of it, but one is superior in one respect to the other, and vise-versa. Quote:
Quote:
Existential belief, as I define it, relates to the belief in the existence of a thing in a non-abstract manner. One has or lacks existential belief in their wife, one has or lacks existential belief in god, one has or lacks existential belief in the universe. The reason I exclude abstract concepts for my definition is that a unicorn exists abstractly, but not in reality. Existential belief is not a choice. On to Lucifer and the angels -- So do you hold that it is entirely possible that Lucifer and the fallen angels where created without freewill, and instead were forced into hell not of their own accord, but by god? I think to deny angels freewill (which you haven't explicitly done, but haven't rejected either) leads to a number of problems pertaining to the concept of hell, suffering, the intellect as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas. Finally, I retract my example of the avalanche, as you have rightly identified -- where I had failed to -- that the avalanche is correlation and not causation. (Oh boy. Maybe we should go into Hume and causation now ) Quote:
I do not believe I am allowing for non-deterministic knowledge. Non-deterministic choice I think is fine. I have been arguing that knowledge is not a choice, but rather a set of givens we use to inform choice. So choice is non-deterministic, but knowledge is deterministic (e.g. we know or do not know if god exists without choice, but given the knowledge of his existence, we can choose to love him). For my argument, I am granting that knowledge once obtained is not a choice. Choices are informed by knowledge. That said, I can also accept a purely deterministic worldview, as that just invalidates freewill all together and takes god down as well. But the argument I am presenting grants freedom of choice. Without freedom of choice the argument is no longer necessary as the god presented by most monotheistic religions becomes irrelevant. ~JS |
#220
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
Spoiler Alert!
We tend to accept the ability to recite the alphabet of those who are capable of meeting the minimum requirement without insisting that there is a single superior way to do so. I might prefer the sing-song way of reciting while someone else might prefer to simply state the letters without any associated rhythm. Someone might recite more quickly or slowly and with various regional accents without any of those reciting being "better" or "worse" than others at reciting the alphabet. I would propose that rationality is the same. Within the accepted basics of being rational, there can be variations which do not make those involved "more" or "less" rational based on those variations. If you were to subjectively claim that the recitation of the alphabet without intonation is superior to a sing-song recitation, you should realize that is subjective and I should be allowed to disagree without your claiming an objective judgment. It is the same with rational decisions. In my view, you are supplying subjective judgment against others based on whether or not they make decisions the way you do. On to knowledge! I kinda agree that you either know something or you don't. At the same time, I kinda reject the idea that you either know something or you don't. It seems to me that it is useful for us in our decision making process to know things. We tend not to leave a lot of things up in the air as "well, maybe" when we can determine what seems most likely, call it knowledge, and proceed from there. For example, I know I'm not in a computer simulation of some sort. Except I don't, not really. I couldn't prove to you that this is not some sort of elaborate simulation based on any sort of evidence. I observe reality and choose to "know" that my experiences are real. It isn't completely a matter of knowing whether or not this is reality, it is also a matter of needing not to regularly evaluate my actions on the basis of the possibility this is all some sort of simulation. We regularly assign things to the "known" column because it is not useful for us to constantly re-evaluate them. Given new information, many people will reevaluate those things (though some don't), but without new information it isn't useful. I used to know Pluto was a planet. Even after it was declared to not be so, I still knew Pluto was a planet for a while until I took the time to look at the new information and decide I needed to update what I "knew". In any case, it is not useful to me in general to think about whether or not Pluto is a planet and so I don't spend much energy putting my decision about it into the "known" section of my understanding. And in the question of things known, Pluto is interesting as an example because there are still any number of people who "know" it is a planet, while there are others who "know" it is not. Like I said - with the angels, I don't know. I do think you are anthropomorphizing them. Without being able to make an equivalency between people and angels, I don't believe any of the rest of your argument holds. Also, please note that I do not believe that God is unable, by His nature, to limit free will. I believe that He is generally unwilling to do so with regard to humans because of the relationship He desires to share with us. ~Aldin, choosing his words He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#221
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Not to be rude, but to be completely honest, why do people even bother with this debate? It has been going on for thousands of years, and there is still not even a remote basis for a consensus.
However, whether or not God exists, and whether or not people believe in him, or it, or whatever, "God" might be, seems to bear little meaning in the course that the world takes. People have shown again and again that they will believe in a God that fits THEIR interests, so what is the point of even believing in God? If a member of religion x gave you a solid argument for their God y, but said you had to abide by ridiculous rules a-z for the rest of your life, would you bother becoming a member of religion X? Highly unlikely, but you might take their argument into consideration and form a personal belief in God that is convenient for you and your life, personally. Ultimately, people just try to enjoy life in their own ways. And on occasion we need to have at least a few beliefs to rationalize our existence. So be it. However, actively arguing and debating about God in this life is about as ridiculous as logging on to your favorite video game server and then, instead of playing the game, spend the next hour debating with all the other players whether or not there is an active admin online. Why does it matter? Just play the game. It is the same for life. This is coming from someone who spent a few years absolutely drowning in philosophy, scientific inquiry, and every other imaginable pursuit during a search for meaning and truth. Even if you are a genius, eventually you just throw up your hands and say "screw it." And that is the exact moment you become locked in a certain ideology for (probably) the rest of your life. So be careful when and where you make that digression, I guess. |
#222
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities
Quote:
Also, at least in my opinion, philosophical discussions are downright fun. Fun is the reason we joined HeroScapers, right? (I've been uncomfortably busy in that whole "real life" thing, but before the month is through I'll probably post several paragraphs here and attempt to respond to everything I have a response to that I like.) Repaints My Maps Online Maps Customs CoN is FuN
Q3C Custom Contests How can you tell which kid at the playground is going to grow up to be a trombone player?
Spoiler Alert!
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FOOD | CAR_95 | General | 1 | March 31st, 2008 10:01 PM |
Pet food recall | bad_calvin | General | 16 | March 23rd, 2007 06:33 PM |
Junk food | monkeyfish | General | 86 | September 28th, 2006 05:20 PM |