Oh, I know I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I came up with the perfect historical example of a society which encouraged the murdering of people (in this case Children specifically, such as infants). Of course, they no longer exist, but Jonestown Guyana I think fits the criteria well enough.
Oh yes, that's a good point- infanticide. Two things though... the exception makes the rule?... and also, I would just say that Red's logic makes a lot of sense to me. Like stealing-- it is universal or near universal because no one wants to be stolen from. Same thing with violence but of course there is violence in certain social systems (like prisons).Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
No, I don't think there is a rule. He challenged me to find a situation, and I found one. Though I found one before, I think this one has particular punch, given the circumstances.
But again - you've picked an exceptional situation - a cult that withdrew from regular society, led by a madman who set the society's rules. As well, the encouragement to murder was a one-time thing - a response to Jone's assertion that they would be invaded as a result of Congressman Ryan's visit. That's different than murder being an accepted part of day-to-day life - which is what I've been talking about all along (but maybe is only clear now): I've been asking for a society that encouraged murder, theft, lying, betrayal, cowardice, etc on a day-to-day basis within the "equal" members of a community (by "equal" I mean those members who are roughly of the same class, make-up, etc). I appreciate your example, but the circumstances are exceptional - the suicide was encouraged not so much as virtuous or good action, but a necessary final solution to a "threat" that Jones convinced his followers was imminent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I need a culture whose behavior is not due to exceptional circumstances; a culture whose day-to-day behavior shows a value and respect for the negative actions I've listed probably 10x over the last twenty posts.
Red, I think JBI has come up with nothing but good points and I don't understand your penelopean attempts at dismissing them. You started by claiming the commandments are natural, universal laws, and that I believe was proven wrong.
Are you now changing your premises in retrospect so you can challenge his examples? If these principles are now only to apply among "equal members", am I to believe that, as far as your natural laws are concerned, it's ok to steal from, lie to, betray or murder someone as long as you don't like them very much?
To add my own example, I invite you to read this article on human sacrifice in the Aztec culture.
The Aztecs believed the Universe is sustained by ongoing sacrifice, in which they felt it was their obligation to partake. This included self-flagelation, bloodletting and death.
Human sacrifice was pretty common and wide in scope, and it did not only include prisoners, but also willing (or indoctrinated) members of the society, the latter of which were revered by their peers. These people obviously thought ritual murder is an important part of their society, even a spiritual necessity. By what reasoning would you deny the imperatives of their culture?
No: I did not claim the 10 commandments were universal laws; I asked what was negative about them and how they didn't benefit society. Then I asserted that morality cannot be "relative" or self-defined because that way madness lies: behavior becomes undefinable in terms of its moral content because we can all then justify atrocious behavior based upon the claim that "it's my morality." I then asserted that some values, some behaviors were universal in their acceptance and rejection by the cultures of history and the world. All cultures have admired bravery, compassion, justice, love, loyalty; all cultures have rejected theft, lying, adultery, murder, betrayal as destructive things. That there are exceptional circumstances where a culture might engage in some of the negatives I've listed does not mean that the culture in general embraced those behaviors as virtuous, desirable and praiseworthy. All JBI's examples deal with exceptions that disqualify them from countering the argument I'm making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
No: my argument has been consistent. I keep trying to reword it to see if he'll understand what I'm looking for, because he (she - sorry?) keeps giving examples that contain an exceptional flaw within them - a circumstance that clearly explains the culture's support of a negative social behavior. I need a culture where the negative social behavior is viewed as good not on an exceptional basis, but as an accepted and praised cultural norm outside of special influences (religion, war, "marginalized cultural members" and such). I dare say neither of you will be able to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
Now there's a good example. Far better than any JBI has offered - but like the Jonestown example, it relies upon the misuse of religious belief to manipulate people. And even then, the people believed that their sacrifice did something positive for society. If their sacrifice was willing, then they believed they were contributing positively to their society; if they were sacrificed against their will, well that supports my position in that the society's members did not completely embrace the practice. You get one point for the ritual murder - but the fact that it is a part of religious ceremony taints it in my view because I'm seeking community values that are not from exceptional sources. You see, the culture didn't embrace the random murder of people by just anybody in the culture; there were specific rules about it, and it was done only by certain people, in certain ways, on certain days. It's a good example, but it's still shy of what I'm looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
:lol:. Okay. I've seen the law apply in more than just physics, but I suppose it depends at how one looks at it.
So, are you saying that murder still fits a sort of universal notion of morality as long as its ritualised? Is that why Aztec human sacrifice is not a good enough example? Because it still contains enough of the moral values we recognise as our own? I mean, sure, at least some of the people involved thought they were contributing positively to their society, but isn't that almost an a priori given in the context of different values? They have a different sense of what constitutes a positive contribution to society, ergo, a different sense of value. And you say it constitutes a misuse of religion. Well, according to you and I it does, but not them. Different values, see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Then you have to realize that the way values are interpreted in traditionally monotheistic cultures are also exceptional and may differ from what people would arrive at if they didn't believe. The reason we tend to agree on banning theft and murder from our social groups is an instinct of self-preservation (and preservation of our possesions in some, now dominant, cases). We simply agree not to apply the "survival of the fittest" law among eachother as an ensurance in case of weakness, but it's a rational conclusion we arrived at during our evolution, and one that doesn't apply on every case and scale. It's simply a more educated form of pack animals working together - but once killing eachother becomes an imperative for survival we would end up having little remorse doing it.
My main problem has been, however, with sexuality, given that christian principles tend to be prude, ascetic and patriarchal. I give you this little morsel on sexual equality in Sparta, from wikipedia:
"Women, being more independent than in other Greek societies, were able to negotiate with their husbands to bring their lovers into their homes. According to Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus, men both allowed and encouraged their wives to bear the children of other men, due to the general communal ethos which made it more important to bear many progeny for the good of the city, than to be jealously concerned with one's own family unit. However, some historians argue that this 'wife sharing' was only reserved for elder males who had not yet produced an heir"
Proof of a society where adultery was allowed or even encouraged, depending on interpretation, and jealousy condemned. Something much easier to balance one's principles with than mass murder. As far as special influences are concerned, on both my examples, I would argue that they would have to be consolidated within the culture in any case, otherwise there would be constant unrest and the society wouldn't last as long as both the aztecs and spartans did. In my orthodox country, there are many religion-linked traditions that are strongly valued, although their proponents understand little or nothing at all about their original spiritual symbolism.
Actually, the Sparta example doesn't rely on anything religious, but on society. The social norms of society created the wife-sharing trends, not the Divine Law. Either way, there was nothing wrong with my examples, except that you needed too specific a thing, like asking for the impossible and pretending to be right because that doesn't exist in history.
JBI
Are you familiar with compatibilism?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Yes, but that is a light form of determinism. In truth, it essentially means, though pre-determined, people still make choices, which I agree, but it still asserts the outcome of the choice is pre-determined, reducing everything to a linear time plot again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saladin
Yes, even if everything is pre-determined though, that doesn't end all thought of the matter. Even if free will is illusion; it is still the most gripping illusion that exists. There are causes for why I do what I do, and so my actions are dependent on all those causes. Yet everything I see, think, hear, and say are also causes. The fact that you and I are having this dicussion is part of the whole matter. The idea of pre-determinism is part of the causes, and whether it makes one act or not act is a part of it; and whether we believe in pre-determinism is a part of it, as well as what this makes us do then.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
What I am saying is the "illusion" of free will is so important, that by all standards of observation, it still appears that one thinks, one considers, and then one acts or not. Thus one thinks and considers and comes to a decision of whether to act or not. Those causes you mentioned which you say make everything pre-determined are part of it; but it's also vital what we think of this and how we react to it. So you might say that all of the past, and all of the future is pre-determined, but this doesn't mean much since just saying it doesn't change the way things actually are; or that, by all appearances, everything known or thought of free will exists and is legitimate.
The way I see the argument, is from a rather stranger perspective. Compatibilism seems to be the optimistic one, allowing humans to seem to have somewhat of a control of their lives, whereas incompatibilism seems to be a more dreary understanding, which ties in with the notion of meaninglessness, and other nihilistic thoughts. They both though, argue in a sense against free will as seen in Christian dogma. One merely says everything is but a pawn, being pushed around by the forces of time, whereas the other one says yes, that's true, but on a daily basis, one can still choose the chicken or the fish. The free will comes from a creation of personal meanings, rather than an actual ability to have a "free choice", in the sense of compatibilism. Either way though, they all essentially equal the same thing.
All these thoughts are rhetoric driven constructs, and arguments over semantics more than actual arguments, I find. Either way though, determinism isn't shaken off one way or another. The best argument I can think of against it is also agreeing with it, in that the future is not determined, but is on a linear line. That concept again disregards free will, but goes off to say that the actual plot isn't written yet.
I would rather be happy than right. I am happy. I guess that means your point view has no bearing on my beliefs.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...fjlakdjfls.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
"i cant wait for this act to be over, cause i have a roll of lifesavers in my pocket and pineapple is next" :thumbs_up
I seem to forget, is this thread on dogma, commandments, or trying to help someone who is non-religious see a different point of view? The topic jumps around a lot. If someone doesn't even see God in nature, how can one convince that person of a God? That hurdle is shocking hard to get through to those who cannot conceive what "Faith" really is. :wave:
Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.
This is interesting... I believe there's something to that, but again it doesn't change the way things are. If I cannot distinguish or perceive the "illusion" of free will. That is, with all my faculties at their clearest and most sober, if by all my reasoning I cannot tell that my free will does not exist, then I must assume it does, or that the fact that it doesn't does not mean very much. I mean it's the issue of "You can't fool fate," right? Whatever happens, happens. And once it happens it can't be taken back; but then if you really consider, it must have happened anyway and it is pre-determined. There is the question then of how this affects us. Whether it makes us sad, or if we recognize it doesn't change things at all. The worst mistake anyone could make is to think that this matters, that it affects things. It may be true but it's also not true. If someone thinks that fate is guiding all his actions, then he becomes very dangerous. It's not fate guiding his actions but the fact that he has resigned himself to it. Then he might think his actions don't matter, but then he could really mess up his life or the lives of others. Let's say, he goes on a robbing spree, and then gets locked up for many years. All because of his reaction to what he thought was fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Basically one thinking that fate is guiding all his actions is about as bad as thinking God is guiding all of one's actions. Then one surrenders responsibility. If one does this, and then commits atrocious actions, they might think they are not responsible for their actions-- but they are responsible; their mind and heart are responsible for their actions. It's their mind thinking that fate is controlling them that controls them, and this is why they're dangerous. They are responsible- no one made them do their actions. And the power of both negative and positive thoughts, beliefs and faith is very great. It can completely paralyze someone if they think they cannot act, they cannot change things, and it can also give one strength if they have faith and are sure that they can. Often we don't realize how our thoughts are limiting us; thoughts which are nothing more than habits.
You said - I believe it was you - you disliked how movies and stories followed unbelievable plot lines. But don't forget about people who do things under the influence of some kind of thinking, and then sort of wake up from it later in shock and repulsion at what they'd done. I've dealt with people who are like this. For instance if someone is paranoid and thinks that everyone is wanting to kill them. They are suffering very greatly although it is their own choice to repeatedly reinforce this fantasy. They are trapped by their thinking until they can break out of it and realize it was only in their head. They are mistaking the rope for the snake.
I think the best way to portray the free will vs determinism problem is by bringing the former into statistics - if free will existed and there was nothing to guide it but the individual's spiritual ego, then any number of occurances deriving from free choices would have assigned a probability to them. Such, interactions of humans in society would have the makings of a stochastic process, such as the Brownian motion, with individuals being the particles and the world the body of water.
However, wether we consider the Brownian motion model stochastic or deterministic is a matter of the observer's perspective. The phenomenon consists of the "seemingly random movement of particles suspended in a liquid or gas".
It says seemingly because if we have complete information/control on the forces involved between the moving particles and the particles in the body of liquid/gas, then we can predict/repeat the patterns within physical law. The process becomes stochastic through perception; the ordinary observer knows nothing of these infinitesimal forces at work, or if they do they have no interest in measuring them, and by convention dismiss the deterministic equations and, in the name of a wider scope, analyze the process as being random. However, there is no process to date that is purely random; chance exists only in the perception of observers who lack information.
From personal perspective, we will never have complete information, because everything us humans percieve and process goes through our brains. Thought process can not totally step out and analyze itself (even when you think of yourself thinking there is a lag, a loop of unprocessed information), just like the eye can't see inside itself. This gives, in a wild chase around one's own tail, the appearance of a mind outside the body, or a soul outside the mind. It also gives the illusion of "freedom of choice" because we can't dose our body's propreties at the same time they reach a decision - we suffer from a latency that blocks from our minds the simulatenous percieving of its own commands.
From a universal perspective though, just like the full-information Brownian motion, an ecuation (a very complex one at that) can define the course of entire existence, and an entire human life as part of it. But any attempt to change this would be pre-determined as well, but in flux not as end results (you can't say that no matter what you do fate will push you to a certain end for example). Of course it is pointless to assume that God or fate control our lives, because even the process of thinking that and our response to it is source of linear influence.
I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Do you mean that maybe the believer doesn't know that faith is nothing more than imagination (thus indicating that perhaps the non-believers know more about faith than the believers)? Or are you saying that in addition to the non-believers not knowing what faith is, that the believers also do not know what faith is (possibly because it is very complicated)?
Because believers are known to be the people who have faith, and non-believers are known to be the people who do not have faith (at least faith in God). Therefore the believers would naturally be the only ones who know anything about faith, while the non-believers would have merely hunches about what faith is.
It seems analogous to love. One who does not have love may think he knows about it, but he really doesn't.
A mechanic may not own a certain car, but he perhaps knows more about it than someone who does. The I Believe therefore I'm the authority on the subject is rhetoric, a mere sophism.
I deliberately left my point vague, in order to create a thoughtful aporia. In the sense, I read the line the unbeliever doesn't understand faith, and I realized that to be pure rhetoric. I merely pointed out that perhaps the loss, or non-belief in God can come from a realization of the nature of faith, an understanding, rather than an ignorance, as the rhetoric of the post was suggesting.
None of the above. I thought the original intention was simply to find out what would convince an atheist to accept that god/s exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I think there were even some posts on that score! I've seen the same thread idea many times, and there's not much ever comes out of it, because the atheists have only one option: they will believe when it's possible to prove god/s exist.
Theists have the habit of jumping in at that stage and saying, "but a god is already known to exist, because.............." Fair enough, but it never advances the original thought.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Hey, it's a thread in "Religion" involving atheists and theists, what else would you expect?
You'd agree with a friend of mine who recently explained to me that one is only able to see god with "the eyes of a god" (paraphrased badly), which I think is what you mean - we either "see" god, or we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I can't say it's a doctrine which makes any sense to me - but maybe that means it's right!
:D
God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I will not be the first to say that "Faith is belief without proof." Faith is what allows one to believe what one can never prove. If then I don't know what "Faith" is, I trust you will be able to tell me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
"God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite."
That is possibly the most vague, ambiguous, desparate, impotent, and hastily contrived rationalization I have seen defending the existence of God.
Well, Jilvin, despite your rather glib dismissal of Nikolai's statment, it does not appear to be an argument/defense for the existence for God so much as it is a commentary about how we "see" God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jilvin
Really, you might want to be clear on the nature of a post before you simply attempt to define it as meaningless. Nothing Nikolai said indicated that he was in process of "proving" the existence of God - he was merely talking about the difficulty finite beings have of comprehending that which is infinite.
If you believe something it's a belief. How much science have we actually seen firsthand, actually looked at the original documents, at the original research?
I believe even the atheist knows much of faith, because he practices it on a daily basis. He has proven nothing to himself or anyone just as a religious man has proven nothing to himself. Life is a product of faith.
EDIT:
Isn't the belief in an absence in a religion a belief in itself? and what proof is there that there is no God at all? Asking a person to prove something that is beyond their means is a hard task, so why don't you (as in everyone engaged in this argument) just accept your beliefs and accept the beliefs of others as it is something that has no real merit besides in the view of the subject and how they percieve what they believe.
Well said, except that atheists apparently believe that because God can't be proven that He can't exist - though - as you correctly state - much of what we take for granted as "reality" has not been conclusively proven to us in an empirical manner. Many people subject God to a much more stringent "proof standard" than anything else in life that they easily accept on the basis of faith (like abiogenesis, for instance).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
There is a story, of a monk and a mathematician. The mathematician and the monk were friends, they enjoyed discussions and meals; the mathematician said he enjoyed the monk's company and many things about the religious life he led, but he was never convinced, and he remained a skeptic. The monk did not press him. But then, the mathematician invited the monk to the opening of a building which he had designed. When they got there, the monk said he would not go in. He did not trust the design, which he said might collapse. He asked the mathematician to prove to him that the building was stable. The mathematician said it was, in fact he could prove it. However, the monk did not have enough background in math to understand the proofs, it was far beyond him. The point is that there is proof of God, but we must have a great deal of background, wisdom, knowledge or understanding before we can understand it.
why is it than whenever i hear one of these religious stories, they have some of the most ridiculously flawed logic I've ever heard? The one about the barber is even worse than this though.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
the monk does not need an ounce of imagination or hallucination for that matter to see that the building, is, in fact, standing.
Who writes this stuff?
The question was not is it standing now, but will it stand in the future? The monk wanted proof that it would stand in the future, that it would be safe, that it could be trusted. The mathematician had the proof, and began to explain it, but the monk didn't know the requried mathematics to understand it. In the same way, there is proof of God, but it isn't obvious. It requires devotion to see God. For instance, a murderer might say he is with God, but he is only having a hallucination, for one must be pure to know God.
If you believe in God, or not, why does it matter to you if someone believes the opposite? Does the opposite view threaten your belief or make it stronger? Is your belief nothing but a wall you hide behind, a safe little cocoon you must protect at all cost? Is it a place to throw stones from, go on the offense if an infidel should pass by?
What is the advantage of taking a stance in a belief? When you sit quietly in your own thoughts, who is it that is attacking your beliefs? Are your thoughts just concerned with proving why others are wrong? If so, that is hardly a belief worth living a life for. What a waste of precious time.
Well if nobody gives a **** then why do you get a bunch of lame people trying so damn hard to convert people who don't believe what they believeQuote:
Originally Posted by JBI
i would assume it takes devotion as well to understand the mathematics and architecture of the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
God is Truth. God is Love. God is the source of all that exists. It's an interesting question of whether God exists or not. I don't come to these threads in the forum to prove others wrong, grotto. I do because I wish to encourage people to enquire about God, and the soul, etc. If people can come to know what they truly are - which is more than an ego - they are that much closer to knowing God.
But most of what you say applies to many of the atheists too. Why are there so many atheists going on the religious section of the forum with the clear and express intent of starting fights with religious people (usually Christian)?Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
I thought JBI's frustration with what he felt were posts trying to convert him was an interesting point. Yet . . .
No one is trying to convert you if you aren't reading the posts in the first place. How hard is it to just ignore a post and not come to the religious forum if it bothers people so much?
In the NT the Pharasees ask exactly that of Jesus, who refuses on the grounds that they are non-believers. I betcha if they had asked David Copperfield, he would have showed them his magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by jilvin
I know this wasn't for me but, I thought I would add, I didn’t single out any sect, atheists, agnostics, Christian, it doesn’t matter; my question was why and what is the reason you need so hard to express your personal belief? It’s a valid question. I have no axe to grind, no horse in this race, I’m just asking a question. The vocal atheist is no different than the vocal Christian; they validate the existence of God by trying to prove that no God exists. Think about it, are there any special meeting groups for the “Truth Against Tooth Fairies”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I have no interest in converting anyone to anything. I don’t care if this battle rages for months on this forum. I asked a different type of question, that’s all, I picked no side. I usually do ignore these types of threads, but hey, I was bored at work so I thought I would see what the fuss was about. Low and behold! It’s the same fuss that I have been hearing all of my life. I still think it’s a waste of precious time, but it’s slow at work right now, so I have the time.
So, this is a polite way to push your beliefs on people then. If you truly believe this, then you know, no matter how much you try, you will never be able to convince someone who doesn’t believe your idea. In one sentence, you describe what God is, then, you go on to say “I wish to encourage others to enquire about God”. Why do you feel the need to encourage anyone? I’m not being insulting, I’m asking, who are you? Why should anyone do as you? If their enquiry finds something different than yours, are they wrong then? My enquiry has gone far beyond what your ideal is, does that make me wrong in your eyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Dressing God up as Truth, Love and all that exists sounds all nice, warm and fuzzy I agree, but if in your words, “God is the source of all that exists” Than how do you explain, hatred, greed, envy, famine, war and every other so called thing that causes us pain in our lives? You can’t conveniently separate those things and say they are man made when in the previous sentence you say God is the source of all that exists. Setting the good against the bad keeps the dualism alive, attaching to one validates the other. You can’t separate them, that is the illusion.
I did not say you were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by grotto
God is Infinite. I do not have time now, but I will write more later.
Please show respect. I will do the same.