|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st November 2012, 03:52 PM | #321 |
New Blood
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
|
The only thing which science, etc, put in this sense, "owes us" is a "fair shake" and an explanation. But it's up to each of us to properly avail ourselves of that and to try to understand its gist.
The only way to end up with any sort of a "unified field theory" is to begin with that, however rudimentary/complex. As must the universe, itself, which can only try as we, a part of it after all, to consistently sort out the absolute/paradoxical perspectives through a series of disjoint theories, or themes, (which, ironically, limits out at us in our observation and understanding of it. Someone asked me about that "cat in a box" the other day. Perhaps we're the somehow less-than-real ones in such a box, that we put the cat in it to justify our own baseless insecure beliefs. I mean, show me one thing which is for sure, and i'll show the every thing would which then immediately follow from it. Eg, has anyone really died yet, to, perhaps, be in a position to tell the rest of us what is death? Eternity doesn't start when we "think" we die... it's just eternity.) Einstein had the right idea to stubbornly pursue such a "theory", even knowing that there were still many more such "fields" to be studied, but he could not give up on, his own, Relativity's many shortcomings... in the absence of firm data to strictly prohibit the existence of an infinity of such themes. That's the thing. If you can see all of this from also a philosophical stance, nay, fundamentally explain also philosophy, itself, then your own ideas can't be reworked, stolen, however you want to look at it... nor would those be so-based on others'. Well then, at least one of us is confused. Well, don't expect the philosophers to "blow everything up" before then. But, joking aside, neither am i here to argue perspectives. It's only not a waste of time when you can use this to such an "advantage". |
21st November 2012, 03:53 PM | #322 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
21st November 2012, 03:54 PM | #323 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
21st November 2012, 04:57 PM | #324 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
21st November 2012, 05:43 PM | #325 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
No, I don't think you got it. It's a joke, because of the inherent paradox.
As proposed in this thread, saving people from fatal illness "causes" more death (because they survive to give birth to children who wouldn't have lived to die otherwise). Similarly, raising turkeys to be killed "causes" more life (because people breed new young turkeys for market each year that wouldn't have been born otherwise). If we let people die young, we prevent the death of their never-born children. If we save domestic turkeys, we cause the non-existence of their never-born offspring because no one wants to eat them, and not eating them might therefore perhaps drive them to exictinction. Death prevents death. Life prevents life. |
21st November 2012, 06:16 PM | #326 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
Avalon ignoring inconvenient questions, and conveniently disappearing when a co-religionist appears. Shocker.
|
21st November 2012, 06:29 PM | #327 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 06:40 PM | #328 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
21st November 2012, 06:43 PM | #329 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
21st November 2012, 07:05 PM | #330 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
21st November 2012, 07:20 PM | #331 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 07:51 PM | #332 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
21st November 2012, 09:15 PM | #333 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
So good and evil are, according to AvalonXQ, arbitrary, open to interpretation, and by that reasoning I expect he'll agree this argument is just plain foolish... I don't think religious people even realize how hypocrisy is as much a requirement for keeping the faith as dishonesty is. |
21st November 2012, 09:26 PM | #334 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 09:41 PM | #335 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
However much you subjectively believe what you've said is true, objectively it is untrue. Even you can't describe good and evil, right and wrong in terms that aren't arbitrary, yet you take the position that it's not. The notion that good and evil or right and wrong somehow rely on the existence of a higher authority is inconsistent, hypocritical, and self serving, very much like the belief in invisible magical beings. |
21st November 2012, 09:51 PM | #336 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 09:52 PM | #337 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
So just to keep this straight -- killing millions of people is neither good nor bad and good and bad are neither arbitrary nor open to interpretation.
I honestly am having trouble discerning the main thrust of these statements. |
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
21st November 2012, 09:55 PM | #338 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 10:07 PM | #339 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
21st November 2012, 10:10 PM | #340 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
Since I'm in the confessing spirit (see previous post above), I will also say that I'm confused of this response.
Science is either a body of knowledge or a method of discerning the world and our reality. All I can gather at this point is a massive anthropomorphizing of 'science'. Can anyone elucidate? |
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
21st November 2012, 10:11 PM | #341 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
21st November 2012, 10:18 PM | #342 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
22nd November 2012, 02:04 AM | #343 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
This is not worth replying to (it‘s also largely incoherent). And neither is it some sort of childish “fight” between science and philosophy. If you can show that important scientific papers in say QM, GR, or Evolution, typically reference earlier key publications from philosophers, then just post them. Or else admit that scientific papers do not normally rely on any earlier philosophy, and do not normally cite any reference to it. |
22nd November 2012, 07:50 AM | #344 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
22nd November 2012, 08:43 AM | #345 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
22nd November 2012, 09:52 AM | #346 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 10:18 AM | #347 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
In a purely logical, cold-hearted sense, I can see that. If doing what God says is defined as good, then of course, whatever God says is good, no matter how cruel, unreasonable or downright horrible and disgusting it would sound in any other context.
It's not arbitrary, because it always goes back to God to set the standard. It's not open to interpretation because it doesn't need reconciled for consistency. If God killed a baby, then killing a baby was good. If he said to love your neighbor, then loving your neighbor was good. Period. No need to interpret it to try to find some outside consistency. But I think the problem that a lot of people have with that is the desire to scream out, "Don't you have any morals of your own? Don't you know those things are bad? What' wrong with you?" It's the same kind of disgust and frustration that most people would feel listening to a sociopath calmly explain why it's okay for him to murder people who are rude to him, if he feels like it. There's a deep instinctive feeling in the majority of people that some things are simply wrong, regardless of explanations and justifications. Most people are born with at least some kind of moral compass, defective and quirky and subject to social influence though it may be. Religion becomes palatable when it's disguised with all the benefits and disclaimers, but for atheists who don't feel the need of it and so look clearly through the trappings, it sounds bizarre for a person to claim that their moral compass is based on the whims of a being who once committed mass murder and could do it again if he felt like it. Because that's just wrong. If I've misunderstood, hopefully you can clarify. |
22nd November 2012, 10:18 AM | #348 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
22nd November 2012, 10:24 AM | #349 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
22nd November 2012, 10:26 AM | #350 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 10:29 AM | #351 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
How is playing the victimized Christian working out for you? I notice you jump right to that defense every time you can't defend your position, which is every time.
Where does morality come from for atheists? How about people who believe in more than one god? Which of their gods' moral trumps? Happy Thanksgiving to you, sir. |
22nd November 2012, 10:33 AM | #352 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 10:51 AM | #353 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
How's willful ignorance working out for you? It must be boring talking to people without bothering to actually listen to anything they say. I guess the satisfaction you get for tripping them up with your simplistic questions makes up for it.
Quote:
He shouldn't be. |
22nd November 2012, 10:56 AM | #354 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 11:00 AM | #355 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
And you are clearly not trustworthy, as you fail to keep your own commitments.
|
22nd November 2012, 11:02 AM | #356 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 11:04 AM | #357 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
22nd November 2012, 11:05 AM | #358 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 11:13 AM | #359 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
22nd November 2012, 11:37 AM | #360 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
''Our Father, who art in heaven....'' atheists didn't make that up. I wonder who did?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|