The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Nique]

Oh man. Thanks a lot. I needed that.

Hey guys! The Jehovah's Witness thinks he's smart!

Wow. I guess I can see why this thread went unmoderated now... So that krylo can show his true colors without fear of consequence.

Let me just quote the opening statment of this thread to illustrate the irony:
We, the Nuklear Power Forums moderators and administrators, are putting our faith in you the community, to be able to discuss faith, metaphysics, theology and belief, in a reasoned, civilized, adult manner.


I'm not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. No one here deserves that kind of mudslinging, and you know it. I wouldn't stand for it if it was directed at someone else, and I sure won't take it being directed at me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Have you explained why that is, by the way? Bullshit is bullshit.
I mean it's bullshit in that I would never claim that this is actually the case, since it's a pointless, convoluted hypothesis. But at the same time, it isn't expressly impossible, so it casts doubt on our observations. Or it would, if we didn't just always assume they were right.

If you mean that for some god awfully strange reason our eyes, from the beginning of recorded history, interpreted some color we define currently as yellow-orange as blue instead then you argument is pointless. Blue is a subjective measurement. Subjective measurements are never wrong. Well unless you purposely make them wrong. Blue is 475nm because we defined blue as 475nm. If we saw the same shade at the yellowish-orange part of the spectrum we would still have named it blue. The actual shade we interpret has no physical meaning beyond the human mind. So it could be that way but it doesn't matter because it is subjective fact not objective fact. Basically the spectrometer would still about the same length in nm as for what is currently yellow-orange light we'd just call it blue instead.
Oh, come on, now you're just trying to be difficult. I only described the photons are yellow-orange to avoid having to write "the wavelengths between where yellow and orange are." This should have been obvious based on the fact that I already used these long, precise terms to describe this problem, and was only clarifying it afterward.

No see because the effects of reality happen if we see them or not. As much as you might want to believe it when a try falls in the forest when no one is around it does make a sound.
I fail to see how this is at all relevant. It still seems like you're basically saying there's an inconsistency of some sort just because we happen not to see a particular tree fall. Yes... yes, I like that analogy.

Also:
Our senses can produce false information
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
are slightly logically incompatible but I forged on to find a more clear cut inconsistency.
Also no idea what you're talking about. Look, you said you had some implied definitions. Let's save ourselves the pain of shadow-appending your derivation and trying to see if it makes sense from there by your rewriting it it a more complete form without these hidden implications. Then we'll talk about it.

The meter is an arbitrary unit. The standard can't be wrong because the meter has no meaning outside of human society. We could make it as large or as small as we wanted and it wouldn't change anything. Its a tool so we don't have to use Universal, or Planck Units. They are hard as hell to do calculations in.
But the thing is, how do you know whether or not something is a meter in length? You'd need some sort of measuring machine in order to come to such a conclusion. Even if you were to make the comparison as direct as possible (by actually somehow comparing the length of something to the actual distance you observe some light travel in 1/299792458 seconds), what you're using is still technically a machine, and thus can still suffer from the same sorts of flaws I described earlier.

Well using the light example, if we measured the wavelength of light to be 450nm instead of 475nm then the predictions of the photoelectric effect would suddenly become meaningless. Since 450nm light should have more energy that 475nm light we would expect a greater power output. For that to suddenly not happen would invalidate the principle.
We only know the power output by observing an effect of it. That observation could, too, be an incorrect representation of reality, leading us to think the data is consistent, when in reality it is not.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Everything you know about the world (except maybe your own existence) you know because of observations of it, or from implications of those observations. Cite any possible observation you want that would expose these errors, and I can just say those observations are incorrect too; incorrect in just the right way to validate the other error(s). Having stated the overall pattern of my reasoning, I hope never to have to give another example of it again. I've done it like 10 times now.

There is such a thing as a logical assumption
My entire point is that they're necessary.

No. Deductive logic, they kind I've been using and talking about requires you start with indisputable facts and then come to a conclusion.
Let's go back to what you said a fact was. You said it was something anyone could confirm for themselves. You never stated the following explicitly, so if you disagree, please state it; but the only way for someone to confirm something is by sensing it somehow. Or by using a measuring machine, the output of which is also introduced to people via their senses. So this whole definition hinges upon our senses being something we can trust to give us true and reliable information. Hence the whole argument. Without the idea that our senses are reliable (assumed or derived), there is no guarantee that there even is such thing as a fact.

[Mesden]

Wow. I guess I can see why this thread went unmoderated now... So that krylo can show his true colors without fear of consequence.

Let me just quote the opening statment of this thread to illustrate the irony:


I'm not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. No one here deserves that kind of mudslinging, and you know it. I wouldn't stand for it if it was directed at someone else, and I sure won't take it being directed at me.


I think it was a joke, Nique. If you're just like saying this in satire, I guess I missed it, but I'm pretty sure Krylo doesn't label all Jehoavah's witnesses as stupid off the bat.

Just saying. He had italics and everything.

[Krylo]

I also had invisi-text.

[Nique]

I am going to kill you so hard. So very... very hard.

(So I guess everyone can ignore the 'bad post' report and also the PM I sent to fifth, and my general bent-out-of-shapeness.)

[Archbio]

My entire point is that they're necessary.

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are (everything but "something thinks therefore something is" is less than 100% certain). I'm under the impression that you're imparting some significance to that idea beyond that, but I don't see what it is.

The only hint is that you seem to imply some sort of negative quality to those logical assumptions, such as here:

But at the same time, it isn't expressly impossible, so it casts doubt on our observations. Or it would, if we didn't just always assume they were right.

It makes it sound as if these assumptions were a form of willful ignorance.

Also, obviously, the less probable something is, the smaller the doubt it casts., obviously.

[Krylo]

If it makes you feel any better, you missing the joke actually made it funnier to me. You know, considering the content of it. Good stuff.

I mean, it probably doesn't make you feel any better. But still. Hilarious.

No hard feelings, though.

[Nique]

As long as there's no hard feelings towards me - becuase of my, you know, kind of not wasting any time trying to get your ass in trouble - then I'm totally cool.

I am expieriancing a multitude of emotions right now. Embaressment, Anger, Relife, Joy... Quite the interesting sensation.

[Krylo]

I'd imagine embarassment is up there pretty high. If it was me it would be.

But, let me take a moment of everyone's time here to say something.

Guys: What just happened there? With Nique totally missing that joke and blowing his top (tried to get me in trouble with the other mods too)? Yeah, I don't blame him for that.

Rather, I'd like to use this as an object lesson for why religion is normally off limits on the forums. One of the reasons, anyway.

People can be very touchy about religion, because it tends to be rather important to those of you who, for whatever crazy reason, believe in a magical man in the sky.

As a result, off the cuff funny comments can be taken in ENTIRELY the wrong way and cause hurt feelings that they shouldn't cause.

Honestly, I'm more than a little surprised that it took about 500 posts for it to happen here... though I've no doubt that if we began seriously discussing other issues that religion pertains to (abortion, stem cell research, burkas...) we'd have had flared tempers much much sooner. I also have no doubts that we had some less public hurt feelings, already (in fact, I know it, as I've told a few people that this is unmoderated and I refused to step in as a moderator on some seperate occasions).

I knew, from experience, there was a chance Nique would take that the wrong way (thus the italics AND invisi-text, and even then I was really hoping he'd bother hitting the quote button or selecting the message), but I also figured I had put enough safeguards in there to make it as obvious as possible it was a joke, without ruining the joke.

Anyway, sorry for any hurt feelings, Nique. Though I am still laughing... uh... WITH you. Because, you know. From where I am? Pretty funny. You'll think it's funny in about a month too.

And absolutely no hard feelings on you.

P.S. I wasn't going to post the 'you trying to get me in trouble' thing, to save you some embarrassment, but you sorta already did. Silly.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It makes it sound as if these assumptions were a form of willful ignorance.
Okay, I see how you could interpret it that way. But that is totally not what I'm trying to say.

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are (everything but "something thinks therefore something is" is less than 100% certain). I'm under the impression that you're imparting some significance to that idea beyond that, but I don't see what it is.
I'm just defending the position. Sithdarth( SS) is disagreeing the crap out of me.

[Krylo]

Well, Zak, the real problem is, you aren't defending Rene Descartes, so much as you're defending some half-assed convulated version of his philosophical meandering.

You see, you're being too broad. We begin, merely, with the assumption that reality is real. That's it.

Now, when making logical deductions ABOUT reality, that assumption shouldn't even really be considered. I mean, if you assume reality isn't real then there's no point trying to figure out how reality works, now is there?


Remember: Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Meaning, entirely, that he could only prove that HE exists, because he knows that he is thinking.

He doesn't know that you're thinking, or that I'm thinking. He only knows that his senses TELL him that other people are there. However, he said, too, that his senses are falliable.

So, really, what you're arguing is that the real world doesn't exist and we all live in some dreamland.

And, yes, fine, that's a decent idea, that cannot be falsified. We DO have to assume the other.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.

And, FURTHER, that it does not mean that anything else we say is an assumption.

Every logical construct in science can be thought to have the prefix to it "In the context of believing that reality actually exists" for if reality actually exists then, well, it exists in the manner that we have measured.

[Sithdarth]

But the thing is, how do you know whether or not something is a meter in length? You'd need some sort of measuring machine in order to come to such a conclusion. Even if you were to make the comparison as direct as possible (by actually somehow comparing the length of something to the actual distance you observe some light travel in 1/299792458 seconds), what you're using is still technically a machine, and thus can still suffer from the same sorts of flaws I described earlier.
[...]
We only know the power output by observing an effect of it. That observation could, too, be an incorrect representation of reality, leading us to think the data is consistent, when in reality it is not.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Everything you know about the world (except maybe your own existence) you know because of observations of it, or from implications of those observations. Cite any possible observation you want that would expose these errors, and I can just say those observations are incorrect too; incorrect in just the right way to validate the other error(s). Having stated the overall pattern of my reasoning, I hope never to have to give another example of it again. I've done it like 10 times now.
[...]
Let's go back to what you said a fact was. You said it was something anyone could confirm for themselves. You never stated the following explicitly, so if you disagree, please state it; but the only way for someone to confirm something is by sensing it somehow. Or by using a measuring machine, the output of which is also introduced to people via their senses. So this whole definition hinges upon our senses being something we can trust to give us true and reliable information. Hence the whole argument. Without the idea that our senses are reliable (assumed or derived), there is no guarantee that there even is such thing as a fact.

Ok as clearly as humanly possible and in very few words.(or not) IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW WE HAPPEN TO PERCEIVE/DEFINE OUR UNITS OF MEASURE. There is objective fact underpinning all observations. In nature there is literally no such thing as a meter or a second. They simply do not exist. It doesn't matter what we call it our how we sense it. We could perceive a standard helium atom with 2 protons and 2 neutrons to have a mass of 50kg per mole instead of 4.00 g per mole. It does not change the amount of "stuff" that's there. If we suddenly observed its mass dropping to 4.00g per mole things would still not change. (This is assuming of course the change is due entirely to our flawed senses.)

To go back to the tree thing. If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound regardless of who is or is not around it. It makes a very loud crashing sound in fact. Even if an insane person happened to be standing there and heard music instead the basic physical effects of the sound are not changed by that.

In continuance, how we observe the world, and any flaws there of, effect only those arbitrary names we have for things not the things themselves. This is very easy to prove. Just click off your lights everything looks a lot less colorful in dimmer light. The pigments didn't change. The wavelengths of light that are reflected and absorbed are exactly the same. The only difference is that the receptors in your eyes that work best in low light suck at color. To reiterate, HUMAN OBSERVATIONS NO MATTER HOW FLAWED, DETAILED, ECT HAVE NO IMPACT ON ACTUAL REALITY.

Units are simply arbitrary constants that adjust for our limited ability to sense. They act as a translator from objective fact to subjective fact. For better or worse they fix the imperfection of our senses. If our senses where imperfect in a different way or suddenly became imperfect in a different way our units would simply change, or be changed to accommodate that.

So, you need not make the assumption that our senses are not flawed if you realize are measurements are in and of themselves meaningless. They are simply translations of the objective truth so that we may understand and communicate that truth. Once more, OUR SENSES BEING FLAWED HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE TRUTH OF ANYTHING; THAT INCLUDES THE MEASUREMENTS WE MAKE. This is because we define our measurements as, for lack of a better way to explain it, the difference between totally objective truth and our perception of that truth. This means that any change in the flaw is immediately accompanied by a change in the definition of the unit of measure preserving the truth of the measurement. Therefore we need not ever concern ourselves with this unknowable perfectly objective truth because our subjective view point continuously shifts to accurately represent it in the way best fit for our understanding.

I pull from a wiki:
Deductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning, where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that the conclusion is true.

Facts being:
act Pronunciation (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Induction or inductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

and if you really want to get complex:
Abduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning), or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning employed in the sciences in which one chooses which hypothesis would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:
There is objective fact underpinning all observations.
By simply stating this as a fact, you're doing exactly what I said must be done: assumption that observations accurately and reliably reflect reality.

We could perceive a standard helium atom with 2 protons and 2 neutrons to have a mass of 50kg per mole instead of 4.00 g per mole. It does not change the amount of "stuff" that's there. If we suddenly observed its mass dropping to 4.00g per mole things would still not change. (This is assuming of course the change is due entirely to our flawed senses.)

To go back to the tree thing. If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound regardless of who is or is not around it. It makes a very loud crashing sound in fact. Even if an insane person happened to be standing there and heard music instead the basic physical effects of the sound are not changed by that.
I'm very aware of all of this. I don't recall ever disagreeing with it.

In continuance, how we observe the world, and any flaws there of, effect only those arbitrary names we have for things not the things themselves. This is very easy to prove. Just click off your lights everything looks a lot less colorful in dimmer light. The pigments didn't change. The wavelengths of light that are reflected and absorbed are exactly the same. The only difference is that the receptors in your eyes that work best in low light suck at color. To reiterate, HUMAN OBSERVATIONS NO MATTER HOW FLAWED, DETAILED, ECT HAVE NO IMPACT ON ACTUAL REALITY.
I'm aware of this too. I haven't disagreed with it either. It still seems like you don't understand what I'm trying to say, because you keep using these barely relevant counterexamples. Here's what I'm trying to say: The fact that it seems darker is a reflection of the physical fact that there is less light being reflected around the room. What what if that's false? What if, when you sense yourself flipping a lightswitch, your senses begin to lie and behave as though there is less light in the room, when in fact the amount of light doesn't chance? Then you'd be out of sync with reality because your senses are lying to you. And you have no way of knowing this because it all seems consistent to you, what with the switch and all.

Units are simply arbitrary constants that adjust for our limited ability to sense. They act as a translator from objective fact to subjective fact. For better or worse they fix the imperfection of our senses. If our senses where imperfect in a different way or suddenly became imperfect in a different way our units would simply change, or be changed to accommodate that.

So, you need not make the assumption that our senses are not flawed if you realize are measurements are in and of themselves meaningless. They are simply translations of the objective truth so that we may understand and communicate that truth. Once more, OUR SENSES BEING FLAWED HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE TRUTH OF ANYTHING; THAT INCLUDES THE MEASUREMENTS WE MAKE.
Mostly true, but you make the mistake that measurements automatically reflect truth. If, for instance, all lengths we observed were "off" from reality by a factor of 100, then I guess there wouldn't be any problem. We'd always be relatively correct. What I'm saying is, what if every time we saw a length of exactly 8 meters, we perceived it as one meter? As well, every time we attempt to actually measure that length (with a big ruler or something), we would also see it match up with the one meter mark on the ruler, although in reality it would match up with the eight meter mark. If we could create tools which would simply make objective data appear in our head (for example, "this object is 8 meters long"), then you'd be in business. But, unfortunately, we still have to sense our machines in order to gain objective measurements, which means that even though they may present us with the truth, we can misperceive them as well as we can misperceive the truth itself in a more subjective form.

Facts being:
act Pronunciation (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
All the definitions are based upon reality. We know what's real by sensing it. If our senses can lie, we can't really claim to know what is or isn't real. Therefore we can't claim to know any facts. Therefore we can't use deductive reasoning.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

and if you really want to get complex:
Abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning employed in the sciences in which one chooses which hypothesis would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing.
Okay. Don't know what point you're trying to make. And what happened after that "such as...?"

krylo:
You see, you're being too broad. We begin, merely, with the assumption that reality is real. That's it.
I would have thought the very definition of reality is, "everything that is real." What is the definition of reality in the context you're using it? Hopefully not, "everything which we can sense."

Now, when making logical deductions ABOUT reality, that assumption shouldn't even really be considered. I mean, if you assume reality isn't real then there's no point trying to figure out how reality works, now is there?


Remember: Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Meaning, entirely, that he could only prove that HE exists, because he knows that he is thinking.

He doesn't know that you're thinking, or that I'm thinking. He only knows that his senses TELL him that other people are there. However, he said, too, that his senses are falliable.
That's all good and nice, but I don't know why you're expanding on this assumption that no one ever stated or question in this thread before.

So, really, what you're arguing is that the real world doesn't exist and we all live in some dreamland.
And I don't know how in the world you went from the above to this statement. I haven't said a thing about the reality or existence of... well, reality. All I've talked about is our ability to sense that which is real.

And, yes, fine, that's a decent idea, that cannot be falsified. We DO have to assume the other.
Well, hoo-rah, that IS what I've been getting at. Well... the assumption is, anyway.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.
Well, again, I haven't talked about whether reality is real or not (not even sure what that means), only about whether or not we can sense reality consistently. Furthermore, even if you change your statement to something that I've actually talked about (like if by "reality" you meant "things we observe"), I also never said we should assume that we can't sense properly, only that there's no way to discount the possibility. And the second part of that sentence is precisely my reasoning: if we don't make the assumption that what we sense is real, then we have no right to talk about what going on in reality. That's why we need that assumption: to make our observations useful.

And, FURTHER, that it does not mean that anything else we say is an assumption.
I'm actually very uncertain of what this sentence means...

Every logical construct in science can be thought to have the prefix to it "In the context of believing that reality actually exists" for if reality actually exists then, well, it exists in the manner that we have measured.
That's sort of exactly what I'm saying! In order to do most things, we make fundamental assumptions; assumptions so basic we never even bother to mention them. And then, in the last part of that statement, you are, perhaps inadvertently, making the very assumption I've been saying is necessary.

In fact, that whole "questionable senses" thing was just an example, anyway. If you can explain to me what "reality is real" means (as long as it doesn't mean the same as what I've been saying all along), then I'll just use that as my example assumption of necessity.

[Sithdarth]

I'm aware of this too. I haven't disagreed with it either. It still seems like you don't understand what I'm trying to say, because you keep using these barely relevant counterexamples. Here's what I'm trying to say: The fact that it seems darker is a reflection of the physical fact that there is less light being reflected around the room. What what if that's false? What if, when you sense yourself flipping a lightswitch, your senses begin to lie and behave as though there is less light in the room, when in fact the amount of light doesn't chance? Then you'd be out of sync with reality because your senses are lying to you. And you have no way of knowing this because it all seems consistent to you, what with the switch and all.

It wouldn't matter because as soon as you took a count of the photons, which you can do, you'd immediately notice that something is wrong. The fact your eyes happen to ignore some of them doesn't matter to the machine and the machine was created and calibrated in a well lit room where you're senses weren't "lying" for some abstract reason. Further, it wouldn't change the actual energy bumping around in the room all the real objective effects of having that much light in the room are totally unaffected. For instance a photovoltiac cell would produce exactly the same amount of power. Don't try to tell me you could also perceive that wrong as well because even if you did it would still continue to actually produce that power and hooking it to a device that runs on more electricity than you think it should produce at the light level you perceive. Thus the machine will operate. Of course you could misperceive this as well but if the machine was a fan air would be moving. You could misperceive this but the moving are could be rustling paper. You could misperceive this but the paper would be generating noise. You could misperceive this but the noise would raise the temperature of the room. You could misperceive this but the rising temperature would decrease the air density in the room. This chain literally continues on forever until there is just something you don't misperceive and it becomes clear something is wrong.

Mostly true, but you make the mistake that measurements automatically reflect truth. If, for instance, all lengths we observed were "off" from reality by a factor of 100, then I guess there wouldn't be any problem. We'd always be relatively correct. What I'm saying is, what if every time we saw a length of exactly 8 meters, we perceived it as one meter? As well, every time we attempt to actually measure that length (with a big ruler or something), we would also see it match up with the one meter mark on the ruler, although in reality it would match up with the eight meter mark. If we could create tools which would simply make objective data appear in our head (for example, "this object is 8 meters long"), then you'd be in business. But, unfortunately, we still have to sense our machines in order to gain objective measurements, which means that even though they may present us with the truth, we can misperceive them as well as we can misperceive the truth itself in a more subjective form.
Ok I think you are driving at the fact that we could potentially see all other measurements as we see them now but from some crazy unknown reason see 8meters as equal to 1meter. This case would be so obviously clear its not even funny. Simply put if you placed two mirrors so far apart that it took a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second for light to travel between then and then grabbed an actual one meter rod and placed it between them it would fit. The 8 meter rod that appeared one meter would suddenly not fit. Conversely if your mirrors ended up being 8 meters apart both rods would fit. However, the photons traveling through the 8 meters would have to travel further. But since you are seeing the same distance the photons traveling the 8 meters you see as one meter would appear to travel more slowly than the photons traveling one meter. Basically if you had two plates at 45 degree angles an actual meter apart and similarly angled plates at 8 meters, that looks like 1 meter apart, and dropped a ball onto one side of both distances the ball that has to actually travel 8 meters would travel more slowly as it traversed the apparent one meter to the other plate. Or if it was some strange spacial anomaly the ball traveling the 8 meters would appear to pass through the second plate travel for 7 extra meters and then suddenly reappear at that second plate. Either way it'd be really really clear that something was up. Especially if there was an obstacle behind the second plate of that 8 meters that looks like one meter in that extra 7 meters. Simply because that would stop the ball from ever arriving.

Further, you can't misperceive units precisely because units are how we perceive reality. The units we use always represent the difference between our subjective truth and objective truth because we define them in precisely that manner. The distance light travels in a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second never changes no matter how someone might subjectively view a second or the distance the light traveled. Hell take a look at general Relativity; even in the most crazy warped spacetime any measurement of the speed of light gives you the speed of light. Heck even someone outside of that crazy spacetime measure that same speed. (This is assuming no medium changes as that's a different story about how atoms can help or hinder a photon's progress.)

All the definitions are based upon reality. We know what's real by sensing it. If our senses can lie, we can't really claim to know what is or isn't real. Therefore we can't claim to know any facts. Therefore we can't use deductive reasoning.
Which is precisely the point. We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Okay. Don't know what point you're trying to make. And what happened after that "such as...?"
Follow those nifty little things called links for once and you'll figure it out as those are excerpts from an article. I just didn't quote them because I quote to much already.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.
The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true. Either reality is real or it isn't. There is no middle ground and since reality can't not be real, otherwise nothing should ever work, it must then be real. Further, just because we could be misperceiveing reality doesn't make the the statement we don't misperceive reality an assumption. An assumption is an assumption for lack of proof. We have loads of proof our measurements of nature are not wrong because we're sitting here using lots of advance technology built on top of those measurements. It is, on the other hand, and assumption to state we are misperceiveing reality because there is no evidence and it is also contrary to logic.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It wouldn't matter because as soon as you took a count of the photons, which you can do, you'd immediately notice that something is wrong. The fact your eyes happen to ignore some of them doesn't matter to the machine and the machine was created and calibrated in a well lit room where you're senses weren't "lying" for some abstract reason. Further, it wouldn't change the actual energy bumping around in the room all the real objective effects of having that much light in the room are totally unaffected. For instance a photovoltiac cell would produce exactly the same amount of power. Don't try to tell me you could also perceive that wrong as well because even if you did it would still continue to actually produce that power and hooking it to a device that runs on more electricity than you think it should produce at the light level you perceive. Thus the machine will operate. Of course you could misperceive this as well but if the machine was a fan air would be moving. You could misperceive this but the moving are could be rustling paper. You could misperceive this but the paper would be generating noise. You could misperceive this but the noise would raise the temperature of the room. You could misperceive this but the rising temperature would decrease the air density in the room. This chain literally continues on forever until there is just something you don't misperceive and it becomes clear something is wrong.
I'm very glad that you get the idea. Honestly, that's great. But I don't know where that last sentence is coming from. It's completely unbacked and in fact contradictory to what you wrote just prior. Why must the chain of misperceptions end somewhere? It just seems like you're clinging on with whatever tiny, unexplained bit you can...

Ok I think you are driving at the fact that we could potentially see all other measurements as we see them now but from some crazy unknown reason see 8meters as equal to 1meter. This case would be so obviously clear its not even funny. Simply put if you placed two mirrors so far apart that it took a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second for light to travel between then and then grabbed an actual one meter rod and placed it between them it would fit. The 8 meter rod that appeared one meter would suddenly not fit. Conversely if your mirrors ended up being 8 meters apart both rods would fit. However, the photons traveling through the 8 meters would have to travel further. But since you are seeing the same distance the photons traveling the 8 meters you see as one meter would appear to travel more slowly than the photons traveling one meter. Basically if you had two plates at 45 degree angles an actual meter apart and similarly angled plates at 8 meters, that looks like 1 meter apart, and dropped a ball onto one side of both distances the ball that has to actually travel 8 meters would travel more slowly as it traversed the apparent one meter to the other plate. Or if it was some strange spacial anomaly the ball traveling the 8 meters would appear to pass through the second plate travel for 7 extra meters and then suddenly reappear at that second plate. Either way it'd be really really clear that something was up. Especially if there was an obstacle behind the second plate of that 8 meters that looks like one meter in that extra 7 meters. Simply because that would stop the ball from ever arriving.
I don't even understand the latter part of this paragraph, but I highly doubt it matters; you've already admitted we can incorrectly sense just about anything. Why should these experiments be any different? Their results can be misperceived like everything else. Their setups also require measurements to be taken beforehand, and those measurements can also be misperceived in such a way that makes the experiment contrary to reality.

Further, you can't misperceive units precisely because units are how we perceive reality. The units we use always represent the difference between our subjective truth and objective truth because we define them in precisely that manner. The distance light travels in a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second never changes no matter how someone might subjectively view a second or the distance the light traveled.
Yes, yes, you keep saying this. I keep telling you it doesn't matter. Yes, that distance is a constant in reality. But if your senses lie to you, it can appear not so constant; or that which isn't constant can appear constant. Or both. This is because the only way to know if something is the length you've defined as a meter or not is to measure it, and as I keep saying, you can misperceive the results of the measurer.

Which is precisely the point. We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.
This is a fundamental fallacy on a number of levels. Here's two that I can think of:
-Even falsehoods can imply truths. You're actually inverting the logic, saying that because the implication is true, the premise must be as well. An example of this sort of thinking is, "Because gremlins have painted the sun yellow, it looks yellow. The sun does indeed look yellow. Therefore, gremlins must have painted it yellow."
-You are transcending the level of abstraction this issue is based in. Remember, both your premises and their implications are verified through observation. If you can observe a faulty premise, then you can observe a faulty yet matching event for the implication.

[The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true.
We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.

[Archbio]

ZAK,

I would have thought the very definition of reality is, "everything that is real." What is the definition of reality in the context you're using it? Hopefully not, "everything which we can sense."

Why not?

And here there's a distinction to be made. When you say "everything which we can sense", you're suggesting that it would be foolish to restrain the definition of theoritical reality to what has been already experienced or sensed. But in this context, that's not what observed reality is set up against. You set up, in your example, observed reality against another reality in its place.

Observed reality is observed with consistancy. It's true that it could be inconsistant with actual reality, but if it was all of this is moot, so we do start with the assumption that observed reality is reality.

To quote Azisien:


To me the argument is similar to the "what is reality is all an illusion?" To which I reply, well, all right, then we have a definitional problem of the terms reality and illusion. If it's all an illusion, it isn't an illusion, that's what reality is.

If observed reality is parallel with actual reality, that is, if observed reality is consistant and the differences between observed and actual realities don't actually disturb observed reality then observed reality is actual reality, or at least a self contained subset of it.

[Sithdarth]

We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.
No, and if that didn't get the point across no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.
They can't both be right. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a reality that is both real and not real. It just doesn't work that way. Choose one or the other.

I'm very glad that you get the idea. Honestly, that's great. But I don't know where that last sentence is coming from. It's completely unbacked and in fact contradictory to what you wrote just prior. Why must the chain of misperceptions end somewhere? It just seems like you're clinging on with whatever tiny, unexplained bit you can...

No see the thing is that both chains can continue indefinitely. It is more likely though that you'll eventually hit something you simply can't misperceive. The chain of misperceptions is guaranteed to be infinite be causality guarantees an infinite chain of effects. Therefore, the effects must eventually win out over the misperceptions or the very least exactly cancel them.

I don't even understand the latter part of this paragraph, but I highly doubt it matters; you've already admitted we can incorrectly sense just about anything. Why should these experiments be any different? Their results can be misperceived like everything else. Their setups also require measurements to be taken beforehand, and those measurements can also be misperceived in such a way that makes the experiment contrary to reality.
It does not matter. Your misperceptions of reality have no impact on reality. In fact those experiments are predicated on that fact you are making those mistaken measurements. If you perceive 1 meter as one meter and 8 meters as 1 meter it is possible to construct two apparatus. One is actually one meter while the other one is 8 meters that look like one meter. Preforming the exact same tests on both immediately show this distinction.

Yes, yes, you keep saying this. I keep telling you it doesn't matter. Yes, that distance is a constant in reality. But if your senses lie to you, it can appear not so constant; or that which isn't constant can appear constant. Or both. This is because the only way to know if something is the length you've defined as a meter or not is to measure it, and as I keep saying, you can misperceive the results of the measurer.
You know I'm going to stop using flawed to describe senses now because they aren't flawed. They are limited but not flawed and you misperceive in the sense that you don't perceive everything not that you perceive things wrong.

This is a fundamental fallacy on a number of levels. Here's two that I can think of:
-Even falsehoods can imply truths. You're actually inverting the logic, saying that because the implication is true, the premise must be as well. An example of this sort of thinking is, "Because gremlins have painted the sun yellow, it looks yellow. The sun does indeed look yellow. Therefore, gremlins must have painted it yellow."
The difference here is that you aren't using mutually exclusive assumptions. That little diatribe was a setup for:
The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true. Either reality is real or it isn't. There is no middle ground and since reality can't not be real, otherwise nothing should ever work, it must then be real. Further, just because we could be misperceiveing reality doesn't make the the statement we don't misperceive reality an assumption. An assumption is an assumption for lack of proof. We have loads of proof our measurements of nature are not wrong because we're sitting here using lots of advance technology built on top of those measurements. It is, on the other hand, and assumption to state we are misperceiveing reality because there is no evidence and it is also contrary to logic.

and further I was more eluding to the fact that we have masses and masses of data and physical laws built on deductive reasoning that have never been wrong. (as long as the deductions hold true to the correct form). This is fundamentally different than gremlins and painting because if you tried to build laws on top of this they wouldn't hold up for very long.

[quote=-You are transcending the level of abstraction this issue is based in. Remember, both your premises and their implications are verified through observation. If you can observe a faulty premise, then you can observe a faulty yet matching event for the implication.[/quote]
Except not because even if you observe a faulty premise and a faulty observation there is always a way it could and most likely would bite you in the ass. Lets go back to the tree in the forest example. If you happen to be in the path of the tree and high on LCD and you think its a fluffy cloud coming down over you that doesn't prevent you from being crushed and dieing. Further, if while you are dieing your brain maintains the illusion that you are covered in a harmless fluffy cloud you still die. It doesn't change a damn thing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:
They can't both be right. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a reality that is both real and not real. It just doesn't work that way. Choose one or the other.
I know it has to be one or the other. That doesn't mean we must know which one it is. I guess with an issue this fundamental (this is, like, the issue), you might be forced to... Anyway, that's not the main point (notice the "but no matter?"). The main point is that you are forced to make an assumption in order to use a logic system (in this case the assumption is the state of reality), which is all I was trying to prove in the first place.

No see the thing is that both chains can continue indefinitely.
Good!

It is more likely though that you'll eventually hit something you simply can't misperceive.
I'm not saying any of this is likely. I've said about five times that all of these things I'm saying are ridiculously convoluted and unlikely. But they aren't impossible, which is all I need.

The chain of misperceptions is guaranteed to be infinite be causality guarantees an infinite chain of effects. Therefore, the effects must eventually win out over the misperceptions or the very least exactly cancel them.
Okay. So they cancel. What's the problem? You'd have a flawed system of observations and you have no way of knowing it. Is my point not proven at this time?

It does not matter. Your misperceptions of reality have no impact on reality. In fact those experiments are predicated on that fact you are making those mistaken measurements. If you perceive 1 meter as one meter and 8 meters as 1 meter it is possible to construct two apparatus. One is actually one meter while the other one is 8 meters that look like one meter. Preforming the exact same tests on both immediately show this distinction.
The tests can't be relied upon because you must observe them, and you can't trust your observations. How many times must I say it? The whole concept isn't even logical; your very test to see whether or not our observations are consistent by assumes beforehand that they are.

You know I'm going to stop using flawed to describe senses now because they aren't flawed. They are limited but not flawed and you misperceive in the sense that you don't perceive everything not that you perceive things wrong.
Seeing one meter when it's really eight is a limitation and not a flaw? Whatever you want; I'm going to try and argue as little semantics as possible. Just keep it consistent.

The difference here is that you aren't using mutually exclusive assumptions.
Gremlins painted the sun yellow or they didn't. Happy?

and further I was more eluding to the fact that we have masses and masses of data and physical laws built on deductive reasoning that have never been wrong. (as long as the deductions hold true to the correct form). This is fundamentally different than gremlins and painting because if you tried to build laws on top of this they wouldn't hold up for very long.
You're just attacking the example. The example isn't what matters; I was just demonstrating why the logic you're using is faulty. It doesn't matter how many times you do it; the fact is that you're just bending the laws of logic now. Falsehoods can imply truths; therefore your argument has no merit. Premises prove implications and not the other way around; therefore your argument has no logical grounding.

Except not because even if you observe a faulty premise and a faulty observation there is always a way it could and most likely would bite you in the ass. Lets go back to the tree in the forest example. If you happen to be in the path of the tree and high on LCD and you think its a fluffy cloud coming down over you that doesn't prevent you from being crushed and dieing. Further, if while you are dieing your brain maintains the illusion that you are covered in a harmless fluffy cloud you still die. It doesn't change a damn thing.
This is an extreme case in which sensory information certainly cannot be denied. There is no misperceiving the end of perception. However, this does not apply to all cases. Whenever senses are actually retained, any event can be made to seem like any other event by way of sensory misinformation. To recap, you are right in that there are some observations we can be certain about, but you've yet to show that we can be certain about every observation.

Archbio:
Why not?
Because then there is no distinction between krylo's confusing tangent and what I've been saying the whole time. Go ahead and replace "reality" with "everything which we can sense" in that context. It would read, "We begin, merely, with the assumption that everything which we can sense is real." That is exactly the assumption I've been arguing we must make, in order to prove that some assumptions are necessary. Krylo eventually seems to come to the conclusion that this assumption is indeed necessary (I think... I didn't fully comprehend his post). Something just told me he wasn't agreeing with my "half-assed convoluted" logic.

And here there's a distinction to be made. When you say "everything which we can sense", you're suggesting that it would be foolish to restrain the definition of theoritical reality to what has been already experienced or sensed. But in this context, that's not what observed reality is set up against. You set up, in your example, observed reality against another reality in its place.

Observed reality is observed with consistancy. It's true that it could be inconsistant with actual reality, but if it was all of this is moot, so we do start with the assumption that observed reality is reality.
Coincidently, this is a great way to introduce something else I recently thought up that makes my argument a bit easier. Inconsistent observations! The idea has been part of my "necessary assumption" since the first time I wrote it. Go ahead, look it up. Of course, Sithdarth would say that we would measure it and find that it's inconsistent, but no dice there. You look at something, see that it appears wrong (one meter where the should be eight, for instance), then you measure. Except when you measure it, it looks to you as if it is one meter. With this idea, observations only have to make sense when you can objectively prove that they don't. No need to even bamboozle the machines! And also, of course, our set of observations would be inconsistent even with itself, so that'd really be no good.

The other way to counter this was kindly provided by Sithdarth. You might see wolves as bunnies, but bunnies are never going to eat you. There's no crap your senses could possibly feed you to cover up the fact that you're dead.

[Sithdarth]

I know it has to be one or the other. That doesn't mean we must know which one it is. I guess with an issue this fundamental (this is, like, the issue), you might be forced to... Anyway, that's not the main point (notice the "but no matter?"). The main point is that you are forced to make an assumption in order to use a logic system (in this case the assumption is the state of reality), which is all I was trying to prove in the first place.If you have only two possible assumptions and you eliminate one as impossible the other one has to be true. As Holmes would say if you eliminate all other possibilities whatever is left has to be the truth. Not an assumption, the undeniable truth.

I'm not saying any of this is likely. I've said about five times that all of these things I'm saying are ridiculously convoluted and unlikely. But they aren't impossible, which is all I need.

No I'm saying that. I mean if you traced the chain of effects long enough it'll lead to a death or even your death. Which is something you can't misperceive and therefore the chain of effects wins.

Okay. So they cancel. What's the problem? You'd have a flawed system of observations and you have no way of knowing it. Is my point not proven at this time?
If they cancel all your observations would, as you say, be flawed in exactly the same way. Therefore, you'd be able to construct a consistent set of conversion to translate one to the other. In other words consistent units.

The tests can't be relied upon because you must observe them, and you can't trust your observations. How many times must I say it? The whole concept isn't even logical; your very test to see whether or not our observations are consistent by assumes beforehand that they are.
This is why you can't make the assumption that we receive "false" information because it only leads to logical inconsistencies.

Seeing one meter when it's really eight is a limitation and not a flaw? Whatever you want; I'm going to try and argue as little semantics as possible. Just keep it consistent.

No that would be a flaw. These types of flaws don't exists. Limitations do exist.

Gremlins painted the sun yellow or they didn't. Happy?

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.

You're just attacking the example. The example isn't what matters; I was just demonstrating why the logic you're using is faulty. It doesn't matter how many times you do it; the fact is that you're just bending the laws of logic now. Falsehoods can imply truths; therefore your argument has no merit. Premises prove implications and not the other way around; therefore your argument has no logical grounding.
They can however as soon as you try to build on implication everything falls apart and you know your premises were false. Which is my entire point. Anything at the base of logic has to be true or its not logic.

This is an extreme case in which sensory information certainly cannot be denied. There is no misperceiving the end of perception. However, this does not apply to all cases. Whenever senses are actually retained, any event can be made to seem like any other event by way of sensory misinformation. To recap, you are right in that there are some observations we can be certain about, but you've yet to show that we can be certain about every observation.

This is having it both ways. You can't have it both ways. Either our senses are limited but correct or they produce false information. They don't change to fit the situation.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:
If you have only two possible assumptions and you eliminate one as impossible the other one has to be true. As Holmes would say if you eliminate all other possibilities whatever is left has to be the truth. Not an assumption, the undeniable truth.
Fine, but I'm not done pressing this. Now I actually do need to know what's meant by "reality is real," if it's anything other than what I've been saying all along (as in, reality = observations).

No I'm saying that. I mean if you traced the chain of effects long enough it'll lead to a death or even your death. Which is something you can't misperceive and therefore the chain of effects wins.
Every single misperception possible will always chain back to a death? I find that preposterous, and I wish you good luck in proving it. And don't try to turn this around and make me prove that all those misperceptions are actually happening; all my position requires is that I cast doubt. You, however, seem intent on showing that observations are definitely consistent. So hop to it.

If they cancel all your observations would, as you say, be flawed in exactly the same way. Therefore, you'd be able to construct a consistent set of conversion to translate one to the other. In other words consistent units.
I'm not convinced of this. At least in the example we've been working on, with the lights, you end up relying on some properties that you basically have no way to measure a difference in but through measuring machines. In that case, it is not the units that have to be misperceived but your perception of the machine itself. At the same time, there are probably some cases where the entire chain could be vaguely observed without the need for mechanical aid. Once again, you are gaining ground. Not done yet, of course, but good job.

Alternatively, see the inconsistent observation concept which I directed at Archbio one post prior.

This is why you can't make the assumption that we receive "false" information because it only leads to logical inconsistencies.
First of all, no it doesn't. The inconsistency you seem to be referring to is the test itself, and there's no reason that the test has to make sense. Just because it does make sense in our current system doesn't mean it must be that way under a different assumption. Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.
Forget the example! The point is, you're using your own rules for logic and not the existing ones.

They can however as soon as you try to build on implication everything falls apart and you know your premises were false.
Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.

This is having it both ways. You can't have it both ways. Either our senses are limited but correct or they produce false information. They don't change to fit the situation.
You're polarizing my position. Your statement only makes sense if I were to claim that everything we sense was false. I'm saying some of it can be false. There's no reason we can't sense one thing right and another thing wrong.

[Archbio]

Inconsistent observations! The idea has been part of my "necessary assumption" since the first time I wrote it. Go ahead, look it up.

I'm pretty sure I took the exact wording from one of your posts.

Of course, Sithdarth would say that we would measure it and find that it's inconsistent, but no dice there. You look at something, see that it appears wrong (one meter where the should be eight, for instance), then you measure. Except when you measure it, it looks to you as if it is one meter. With this idea, observations only have to make sense when you can objectively prove that they don't. No need to even bamboozle the machines!

No, Sithdarth would be right.

Because then there is no distinction between krylo's confusing tangent and what I've been saying the whole time. Go ahead and replace "reality" with "everything which we can sense" in that context.

I don't think that's a good reason. It would be a good reason for me to bow out of this tangent, however, because I'm not really able to local the exact disagreement anymore and Krylo's not the one confusing me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Archbio:
I'm pretty sure I took the exact wording from one of your posts.
This is a concept that only recently came to me. It's been sitting there, really, I just never invoked it.

No, Sithdarth would be right.
I do hope you don't think I'll accept this without argument.

...I'm not really able to local the exact disagreement anymore...
That's almost a good thing, possibly.

Sith:
Note that my previous post is edited.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Hmm...let's see if I can get this thread at least close to "on track". Whatever that means.

[Attempt to turn the conversation away from the past 10 pages of repetition]

God doesn't want us to kill babies! Let's kill abortionists!*

[/Attempt to turn the conversation, etc, etc.]

*EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THIS PRODUCT AND IT'S POTENTIAL. EVEN THOUGH THIS INDUSTRY IS ONE OF THE FEW WHERE ONE CAN WRITE THEIR OWN CHECK IN TERMS OF EARNINGS, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL EARN ANY MONEY USING THE TECHNIQUES AND IDEAS IN THESE MATERIALS. EXAMPLES IN THESE MATERIALS ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A PROMISE OR GUARANTEE OF EARNINGS. EARNING POTENTIAL IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON USING OUR PRODUCT, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES. WE DO NOT PURPORT THIS AS A "GET RICH SCHEME".

ANY CLAIMS MADE OF ACTUAL EARNINGS OR EXAMPLES OF ACTUAL RESULTS CAN BE VERIFIED UPON REQUEST. YOUR LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN ATTAINING THE RESULTS CLAIMED IN OUR MATERIALS DEPENDS ON THE TIME YOU DEVOTE TO THE PROGRAM, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES MENTIONED, YOUR FINANCES, KNOWLEDGE AND VARIOUS SKILLS. SINCE THESE FACTORS DIFFER ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUALS, WE CANNOT GUARANTEE YOUR SUCCESS OR INCOME LEVEL. NOR ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS.

MATERIALS IN OUR PRODUCT AND OUR WEBSITE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES OR IS BASED UPON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS GIVE OUR EXPECTATIONS OR FORECASTS OF FUTURE EVENTS. YOU CAN IDENTIFY THESE STATEMENTS BY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT RELATE STRICTLY TO HISTORICAL OR CURRENT FACTS. THEY USE WORDS SUCH AS "ANTICIPATE," "ESTIMATE," "EXPECT," "PROJECT," "INTEND," "PLAN," "BELIEVE," AND OTHER WORDS AND TERMS OF SIMILAR MEANING IN CONNECTION WITH A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL EARNINGS OR FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.

ANY AND ALL FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS HERE OR ON ANY OF OUR SALES MATERIAL ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS OUR OPINION OF EARNINGS POTENTIAL. MANY FACTORS WILL BE IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING YOUR ACTUAL RESULTS AND NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE RESULTS SIMILAR TO OURS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S, IN FACT NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE ANY RESULTS FROM OUR IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES IN OUR MATERIAL.

This disclaimer came from one of Joshua Shafran's website, and was not an attempt to steal. It was an attempt at humour, even if ill-thought out. If Joshua Shafran and his people notice this, please note that I'm seriously considering purchasing a product, and that this was the first disclaimer I could find to use in this joking manner. To anyone else who is reading this, you are probably hurting your eyes because of the size of the font and the fact that it is on a computer screen. Go read a book, play outside, or respond to this thread, just stop reading this disclaimer. It goes on for quite some time about how you should stop reading it, but apparently you aren't paying attention. When your eyes are poked out by your petty "gods" for reading this for so long, you won't find me sympathetic.

Edit: Please don't kill me.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sorry to be a drag, but I'm... about to be a drag. Again.

Sith:
Okay, another general idea I thought of, that makes my life so Hades-damn much easier. Let's just say that your idea about the chains ending short proves true in all cases. The string of misperceptions doesn't run as long as it has to in order to fully cover all the "errors" that leak through from reality. Still, it can be a very long chain. Consider what it would take to discover that we're living a lie: you'd have to take all the dozens (?) of pieces of necessary data at the right time with respect to the right variable of the right observation. It could theoretically happen that we find there's an issue, but it's highly implausible that we ever would.

So, uh... how do we handle this? I've got a "filter argument" now; the thing we've been arguing over for a while now becomes irrelevant if you have nothing to say about what I've written about. It would make sense to approach this one first and save ourselves a whole lot of effort arguing something that might turn out irrelevant, but on the other hand we're liable to forget quite what we were talking about if this new argument turns out lengthy and in your favor...

[Archbio]

I do hope you don't think I'll accept this without argument.

Well, on the one hand there's Sithdath's explanations, and on the other there's your argument, which I'm not sure I can even make sense of as an argument. I really don't feel compelled.

In the same line of thought, I'm not sure how Sithdarth could feel compelled to supply proof against a claim that you yourself admitted is utter bullshit. The burden just isn't there.

The impossible proof/demonstration being nearly demanded in a flippant way ("So hop to it") just doesn't help. But I wouldn't want to talk for Sithdarth.

[Sithdarth]

Every single misperception possible will always chain back to a death? I find that preposterous, and I wish you good luck in proving it. And don't try to turn this around and make me prove that all those misperceptions are actually happening; all my position requires is that I cast doubt. You, however, seem intent on showing that observations are definitely consistent. So hop to it.

All casual chains are infinite. Things that are infinite never end and contain every possibility. Death is a possibility therefore death has to occur in every casual chain.

I'm not convinced of this. At least in the example we've been working on, with the lights, you end up relying on some properties that you basically have no way to measure a difference in but through measuring machines. In that case, it is not the units that have to be misperceived but your perception of the machine itself. At the same time, there are probably some cases where the entire chain could be vaguely observed without the need for mechanical aid. Once again, you are gaining ground. Not done yet, of course, but good job.

I never went with a machine that is designed for measuring. I went with a machine that produces an effect on the environment that is independent of any human observer.

First of all, no it doesn't. The inconsistency you seem to be referring to is the test itself, and there's no reason that the test has to make sense. Just because it does make sense in our current system doesn't mean it must be that way under a different assumption.
No the inconsistency I'm referring to is this:
If we assume it possible the some information our senses feed us is false then all of it is meaningless. Therefore, reality is meaningless and you can't create meaning from nothing.

Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?
I know. I'm saying there is no possibility because any possibility at all precludes reality being real. If your senses were capable of lying instead of just being limited then reality would cease to be real.

Forget the example! The point is, you're using your own rules for logic and not the existing ones.

No I'm using the rule of elimination which is a rule of logic. I could refer again to Holmes here but I won't. Suffice it to say if you first find all possibilities and then eliminate all but one then one left is truth. Your gremlin example is flawed because gremlin or nothing are not the only options.

Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.
A working system does imply true premises. True premises, when formed into a properly constructed argument, (and there are well defined improper structures) always lead to a true conclusion that is what deductive logic is. When you start with false premises it is impossible to come up with a logically consistent valid conclusion. You can accidentally come to a valid conclusion but only through illogic. Further, any attempts to expand on that base will eventually become contradictory.

Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.

No that's just your interpretation. Probably because I stated my argument backwards because sometimes I do that. Basically the main point is that: Its not an assumption to say our senses are limited but do not lie because the alternative is logically inconsistent. We see one aspect of the inconsistency when we examine the statement under the assumption our senses lie:

We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Which only works when our senses are limited but do not lie.

You're polarizing my position. Your statement only makes sense if I were to claim that everything we sense was false. I'm saying some of it can be false. There's no reason we can't sense one thing right and another thing wrong.
That's because this is the one issue where there is no gray area. Either are senses are able to lie and so lie all the time or they are just limited and can't lie. There is no middle ground.

Fine, but I'm not done pressing this. Now I actually do need to know what's meant by "reality is real," if it's anything other than what I've been saying all along (as in, reality = observations).

Reality is real means cause and effect happen independent of human observation. We know this is true because of the falling tree. We also know this is true because the universe got along just fine without us for billions upon billions of years.

edit:
Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

I know this. My entire point from the beginning has been its not an assumption because there are only two option and one is provably false the other is absolutely true. Therefore, no assumption.

Edit2:
Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

Because scientists have made billions if not trillions upon trillions of measurements to date and will make an ungodly larger number more in the future. We even have the technology to make really fine measurements down to weighing two atoms. If these leaks existed we'd have seen them by now. Plus the possibility senses capable of lying change reality from independent and objective into dependent and subjective thus subjecting us to a matrix like world were people can alter reality through force of will.

[Azisien]

Hey, no harm no foul I suppose. I wouldn't mind this tangent so much if I knew what the HELL was going on, or as I think I do, wouldn't mind getting to the meat (conclusion) of it since it doesn't seem very forthcoming. Just a lot of "I didn't say that" and "here's what I said originally, again, with the same words."

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.

Correct me on this now, but there is no third possibility in his example, other possibilies are kind of "concealed" but not explicitly mentioned in the negation of the gremlins. A v >A, right? It's the same premises you'd use for "Either God exists or God doesn't exist."

Now Zak, is a consequence of your point that, supposing your gremlin scenario, we were to use our senses and instruments to determine why the sun emitted yellow light. We could conclude through our observation that it emits yellow light of blah blah wavelength because blah blah fusion reaction emits blah blah wavelength. But that, this observation is actually inherently flawed, and the gremlins actually did it, without us being able to know at all?

Isn't that the same (irrelevant) logic behind some defenses of the existence of God?

Just, you know, trying to tie it all together if I can...

[Demetrius]

I wish to once more turn everyone's attention back to the ending of Time Bandits, watch it then come argue... This will be more fun that way.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:
All casual chains are infinite. Things that are infinite never end and contain every possibility. Death is a possibility therefore death has to occur in every casual chain.
I don't see why it can't be an infinite repetition of the same couple of elements. Also, have you considered the possibility of a loop? Note that this would not be the same as a causal loop, because this would not be a case of one event explicitly causing another, but instead influencing a variable. So, with the light example. One effect of the room being lit is that it would be warmer. It would also be activating a photoelectric cell, which would be sending electricity down a wire and back to some load, maybe, and friction would be caused by this, also raising the temperature of the room. So you'd need only one misperceived measurement to explain two different phenomena, possibly in such a way that they actually loop back onto each other. It's actually a pretty terrible example I gave, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

I never went with a machine that is designed for measuring. I went with a machine that produces an effect on the environment that is independent of any human observer.
And how are you ever going to know what effect it had? By having a human observe it.

No the inconsistency I'm referring to is this:
If we assume it possible the some information our senses feed us is false then all of it is meaningless. Therefore, reality is meaningless and you can't create meaning from nothing.
Okay, so reality is meaningless. I see no contradiction, just an undesirable state of affairs, which is precisely why we assume the opposite. And you CAN get meaning from out of "nothing" (meaninglessness, to keep proper to the terms); see below when I go into logical rules again.

No I'm using the rule of elimination which is a rule of logic. I could refer again to Holmes here but I won't. Suffice it to say if you first find all possibilities and then eliminate all but one then one left is truth. Your gremlin example is flawed because gremlin or nothing are not the only options.
That's not the argument you used, though. You haven't disproven the possibility of our senses being liars yet; that's why we're still arguing. The reasoning you used was that since we are getting back true implications, we must be using true premises. Which simply has no logical backing to it.

A working system does imply true premises. True premises, when formed into a properly constructed argument, (and there are well defined improper structures) always lead to a true conclusion that is what deductive logic is.
But that's not what you're saying! You're saying the logical converse: that true conclusions lead to true premises. Where premises are P and implication is I, P -> I is the deductive logic we've used. What this notation means is that if P is true then I is true. That's it. That is the only rule of conditionals: that truth implies only truth; and therefore that truth does not imply falsehood. Falsehood, however, can freely imply either truth or more falsehood, as shown by my gremlin example. What you're saying, however, is that since we know I is true, then P must be true. You are saying I -> P, which is the converse of the statement and therefore is not necessarily its logical equivalent.

When you start with false premises it is impossible to come up with a logically consistent valid conclusion. You can accidentally come to a valid conclusion but only through illogic. Further, any attempts to expand on that base will eventually become contradictory.
No, that's just not how logic works. See above. Falsehood can imply either truth or falsehood.

No that's just your interpretation.
Dude, I'm not making this up. This is how logic works. These are the rules.

Probably because I stated my argument backwards because sometimes I do that.
Well, do be careful. As you can see, it leads to fallacies. That means you fool yourself and frustrate everyone else.

Basically the main point is that: Its not an assumption to say our senses are limited but do not lie because the alternative is logically inconsistent. We see one aspect of the inconsistency when we examine the statement under the assumption our senses lie:

We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Which only works when our senses are limited but do not lie.
Well, your reasoning is still backwards. Addressed above. The truth of the implication does not imply the truth of the premises.

That's because this is the one issue where there is no gray area. Either are senses are able to lie and so lie all the time or they are just limited and can't lie. There is no middle ground.
Of course there's a middle ground. The middle ground, as I said, is when they lie some of the time and are accurate for the rest of the time. Why do you keep insisting that this is impossible?

Reality is real means cause and effect happen independent of human observation. We know this is true because of the falling tree. We also know this is true because the universe got along just fine without us for billions upon billions of years.
So the alternative, I take it, is that reality (all things that happen; cause and effect) is 100% in our heads, all made up? Your examples hardly disprove that. Indeed, I think it's an unfalsifiable position (krylo said so too, I think...). You don't know that the universe has gotten along or even been there for billions of years, because you might never have observed it at all; maybe it's all in your head. Anything could be all in your head, tree included. Damn, this is like a slightly easier version of my original argument. I guess this is what krylo was getting at...

Because scientists have made billions if not trillions upon trillions of measurements to date and will make an ungodly larger number more in the future. We even have the technology to make really fine measurements down to weighing two atoms. If these leaks existed we'd have seen them by now.
Trillions of measurements and observations account for jack squat if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact is, observations this meticulous have probably never been necessary. I mean, it's unlikely that they would have been, but if you have an example of where they would be that, would be real helpful.

Plus the possibility senses capable of lying change reality from independent and objective into dependent and subjective thus subjecting us to a matrix like world were people can alter reality through force of will.
Not necessarily. Our observations could just be fed into us one-way, without us having any control going in the other direction.

Also, your Matrix analogy is not particularly cogent, since the Matrix was still a system applied consistently to all its members. Some could tamper with it because it was artificial and dynamic, controllable by anyone with the right access method. [/geek]

Asizien:
Now Zak, is a consequence of your point that, supposing your gremlin scenario, we were to use our senses and instruments to determine why the sun emitted yellow light. We could conclude through our observation that it emits yellow light of blah blah wavelength because blah blah fusion reaction emits blah blah wavelength. But that, this observation is actually inherently flawed, and the gremlins actually did it, without us being able to know at all?

Isn't that the same (irrelevant) logic behind some defenses of the existence of God?
I'm not sure I know what you're saying, but... Maybe people argue for God that way, I don't know. Really weak stance, since the whole reason I'm using that logic is to show that it's fallacious...

Archbio:
In the same line of thought, I'm not sure how Sithdarth could feel compelled to supply proof against a claim that you yourself admitted is utter bullshit. The burden just isn't there.
But it is. My position is that the assumption is necessary. We agree that we have to arrive at this conclusion in some way, and those ways are two: assume it or prove it. My position is the first so naturally Sithdarth takes to the second. The way I go about showing that it can't be proven is by giving examples of possible situations where our senses lie but none of the methods Sithdarth provides for proving it work. The examples I give don't have to be in the least plausible; only possible, which is enough to create the doubt, the missing case, which would invalidate the proof.

[Archbio]

But it is. My position is that the assumption is necessary. We agree that we have to arrive at this conclusion in some way, and those ways are two: assume it or prove it.

I didn't mean that the burden was on Sithdarth to prove that he can prove that whatever bullshit you can come up isn't true. I was saying that there's no burden of proof on proving these things to be impossible. It's impossible to do so, these things are insignificant on their face or they lead to an utter dead end of nihilism.

So yes, I agree that the assumption is necessary.

What I still understand is why do you think that the fact that this assumption is necessary is significant, because you seem to put a lot of emphasis on it, which is what might be misleading Sithdarth.

[ZAKtheGeek]

As I've explained to you before, what I'm really emphasizing is that assumptions in general are necessary, which Sithdarth seems to disagree with. I show this through examples of necessary assumptions, which in turn must be satisfactorily validated as necessary in assumption form (as opposed to in proof or at all).

Logic is fun!

[Archbio]

[W]hat I'm really emphasizing is that assumptions in general are necessary, which Sithdarth seems to disagree with[...]

That really just doesn't follow from the fact that some total bullshit statements are unprovable. Unless "in general" is taken in another sense than usual.

But have fun with that.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, there's reason he has to prove some things impossible: because his proof has no argument for them. He's trying to prove that something is possible in all cases, and I'm pointing out cases where it isn't possible. He then is forced to show how that case is not to be considered because it couldn't ever happen.

Have I mentioned how fun logic is?

[Demetrius]

Dude logic need not apply when dealing with the supernatural. Just something for you to think on, especially considering the thread you are posting in.

[Sithdarth]

I'm just not going to go any further with this. If ZAK can't accept the simple fact that senses capable of lying to us, even if only a possibility, utterly destroys physical reality then I can't argue anything.

I will however restate my reasoning again.

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.

Hallucinations and optical illusions are not a lie by our senses. They are a misinterpretation by our brain of the limited information our senses can provide and nothing more.

[Azisien]

Dude logic need not apply when dealing with the supernatural. Just something for you to think on, especially considering the thread you are posting in.

Under the assumption you believe in anything supernatural, which I and probably many others don't. If you believe in, say, a rational universe.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I will however restate my reasoning again.

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.
You prove nothing because you assume the opposite of what you're arguing against. Namely, right here:
At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality.
By making that assumption, you in fact prove my point.

There are also some more problems with your reasoning, but I'm not going to bother with those, because you're not going any further, and also because I've already addressed them all at least once before.

[Sithdarth]

You prove nothing because you assume the opposite of what you're arguing against. Namely, right here:

It is not an assumption it is a conclusion. Here is were it comes from:
Whatever we sense is real by definition because that's the only definition there can be.
Then further there was reality before human observation therefore what we sense is only a subset of reality.

By making that assumption, you in fact prove my point. NOT an assumption and stop trying to make it one. In fact don't even comment further because its clear neither of us in going to give in on any point. Any further comments on this will prove nothing but the fact that we're so petty we can't even concede that it is ok for someone to disagree.

And also to clarify my position for the last time, we have two options. Everyone admits that one option leads down a deadend path that forces us to admit we know nothing. The other leads us to were we are today. So if we can't choose one then we must choose the other. SINCE we are forced to choose the other than it must be true.

This "discussion" has boiled down to an argument of semantics and you can't ever win an argument of semantics. My definition of assumption is different but no less valid than yours. So leave it be and move on because this is never going to resolve short of one of us physically rewiring the others brain so we think alike.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Whatever, dude. I did concede that you showed some cases where sensory information can definitely be trusted, though.

Oh, and also, like those logical rules I referenced, I'm fairly sure assumptions have a formal definition to them.

Okay. So. Reset.

In order to deduce anything, we need assumptions. Anyone else disagree?

[Sithdarth]

Oh, and also, like those logical rules I referenced, I'm fairly sure assumptions have a formal definition to them.
I was using a formal definition with an interpretation on top of it. My interpretation. You were doing the same thing. That's what humans do. Your interpretation is no better than mine.

Okay. So. Reset.

In order to deduce anything, we need assumptions. Anyone else disagree?
Please don't do that because nothing has been proven except that we have differing interpretations of the definition of assumption. People agreeing with you means nothing as well as disagreeing and any argument on this front is going to once again come down to interpretations.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Oh, please. Now you're the one taking the "why bother, it's all meaningless" position. Things aren't as open to interpretation as you make them out to be. Really, if you don't like it, don't discuss it (anymore). Some people might actually be interested.

[Sithdarth]

Oh, please. Now you're the one taking the "why bother, it's all meaningless" position. Things aren't as open to interpretation as you make them out to be. Really, if you don't like it, don't discuss it (anymore). Some people might actually be interested.
Today 06:40 PM
It is meaningless, they are open to interpretation and I highly doubt arguing semantics in the only place we can argue religion interests anyone.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The following sounds like and could lead to what sounds eerily like the argument we've already had, only over something else entirely... That's why I hate myself for writing it.

Nonetheless. If a clear-cut definition is open for interpretation, then I don't know what isn't. You could say that everything we could possibly talk about will inevitably boil down to silly semantics.

The fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions. With this in mind we could perhaps progress the discussion further, but no, you feel it's necessary to complain about the semantics of a discussion you're not even part of anymore.

[Sithdarth]

Nonetheless. If a clear-cut definition is open for interpretation, then I don't know what isn't. You could say that everything we could possibly talk about will inevitably boil down to silly semantics.
See this again is a problem of semantics. To be interpretation only modifies a definition and does not change it to the degree that it is falsified. You seem to think interpreting definitions makes them wrong. Fine you can believe that just don't discuss it here.

The fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions. With this in mind we could perhaps progress the discussion further, but no, you feel it's necessary to complain about the semantics of a discussion you're not even part of anymore.
Assumptions should be. We disagree on what the definition of an assumption is and therefore how basic of an assumption is needed for anything. This is a semantic debate and has no place here and I am sorry for having dragged it out. Not to mention if people have varying underlying assumptions it doesn't matter if they realize it they'll just try and change each others assumptions and it'll dead end again. So pointing this out is meaningless.

[TheSpacePope]

Honestly, I've stayed out of this conversation.
But I found an interesting site that translates phrases into different languages and then literally translates them back to english.
I just thought it was relevant as it returns to the writing and translation of the bible.

Original English Text:
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands
I have given you. And be sure of this:
I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Translated to Japanese:
従って、弟子を作り行きそれらにおよび息子および神聖な精神はすべての国家の父の名で洗礼を施す。これらの 新しい弟子を私が与えたコマンドすべてに従うように教えなさい。そしてこれ確実がありなさい: 私は年齢の終わりにあなたと、常にある。

Translated back to English:
Therefore, it makes the pupil and goes and reaches to those and the
son and holy mind administer baptism with name of the father of all
nations. In order the command to which I give the pupil where these
are new to follow entirely, teach. And this be a certainty: The end of
age comparatively you and, there is I always.

Translated to Chinese:
所以, 它做学生和去和到达对那些并且儿子和圣洁头脑执行洗礼以所有国家的父亲的名字。在有条有理我给学生这些是新 建整个地随后而来的指令, 教。并且这是把握: 年龄的结尾比较您和, 那里总是I 。

Translated back to English:
Therefore, it is the student and goes and arrives and the son and the
holy brains executes the baptism to these by all national father's
name. Gives the instruction in orderly me which the student these is
newly built entire afterwards comes, teaches. And this is the
assurance: The age ending compares you and, there always I.

Translated to French:
Par conséquent, c'est l'étudiant et disparaît et arrive et le fils
et les cerveaux saints exécute le baptême à ces derniers par le nom
de tout le père national. Me donne à l'instruction dans le planton
ce que l'étudiant que c'est nouvellement entier construit après
vient, enseigne. Et c'est l'assurance : La fin d'âge vous compare et,
là toujours I.

Translated back to English:
Consequently, it is the student one and disappears and arrives and the
holy son and brains carry out the baptism with the latter by the name
of all the national father. Give me with the instruction in the
orderly what the student that it lately whole is built after comes,
sign. And it is the insurance: The end of age compares to you and,
there always I.

Translated to German:
Infolgedessen ist es der Kursteilnehmer einer und verschwindet und
kommt an und der heilige Sohn und die Gehirne führen die Taufe mit
der letzten durch den Namen des ganzes nationalen Vaters durch. Geben
Sie mich mit der Anweisung in der Ordonanz was der Kursteilnehmer
kommt, daß es kürzlich vollständig nach aufgebaut wird, Zeichen.
Und es ist die Versicherung: Das Ende des Alters vergleicht mit Ihnen
und, dort immer I.

Translated back to English:
Consequently it is the class participant of one and disappears and
arrives and the holy son and the brains executes the baptism with the
latter by the name whole of the national father. Give me with the
statement into the Ordonanz which the class participant come that it
is structured recently completely after, characters. And it is the
insurance: The end of the age there always compares I with you and.

Translated to Italian:
Di conseguenza è il partecipante del codice categoria di uno e
sparisce ed arriva ed il figlio santo ed i cervelli esegue il baptism
con il posteriore dal nome intero del padre nazionale. Dialo con
l'istruzione nel Ordonanz che il partecipante del codice categoria
avviene che è strutturato recentemente completamente dopo, caratteri.
Ed è l'assicurazione: La conclusione dell'età là paragona sempre la
I voi e.

Translated back to English:
Consequently she is the participant of the code category of and
disappears and it arrives and the Saint son and the brains it executes
the baptism with the posterior one from the entire name of the
national father. It gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that
the participant of the code category happens that she is structured
recently completely after, characters. And it is the assurance: The
conclusion of the age compares always you here and.

Translated to Portuguese:
Conseqüentemente é o participant da categoria do código de e
desaparece e chega e o filho de Saint e os cérebros que executa o
baptism com posterior do nome inteiro do pai nacional. Dá-a com a
instrução no Ordonanz que o participant da categoria do código
acontece que está estruturada recentemente completamente após,
caráteres. E é a garantia: A conclusão da idade compara-o sempre
aqui e.

Translated back to English:
Consequently he is participant of the category of the code of and
disappears and it arrives and the son of Saint and the brains that
baptism with posterior executes of the entire name of the national
father. It gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that
participant of the category of the code happens that it is
structuralized recently full after, character. E is the guarantee: The
conclusion of the age always compares it here e.

Translated to Spanish:
Por lo tanto él es participante de la categoría del código de y
desaparece y llega y el hijo de Santo y de los cerebros que el
bautismo con el trasero ejecuta del nombre entero del padre nacional.
Lo da con la instrucción en el Ordonanz que sucede el participante de
la categoría del código que es structuralized recientemente lleno
después de, carácter. E es la garantía: La conclusión de la edad
la compara siempre aquí e.

Translated back to English:
Therefore it is participant of the category of the code of and
disappears and arrives and the son from Santo and the brains that the
baptism with the buttock executes of the whole name of the national
father. He gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that happens
the participant of the category of the code that is structuralized
recently full after, character. And it is the guarantee: The
conclusion of the age compares e always here.
http://www.tashian.com/multibabel/
the link.
Sorry for the interuption.
Continue.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, mechanical translations are never exact. Free translators to be found online are especially suspect. Not to say that meaning can't be lost in translation, just saying that this isn't a great example.

We disagree on what the definition of an assumption is and therefore how basic of an assumption is needed for anything.
The whole time I was using the definition commonly applied in logic systems: an assumption is a statement which we take to be true. We don't prove it, we just say it's true. It could be a hypothetical premise, it could be a way to "set up" the basic ideas the system analyzes. There; now that it could not possibly be clearer that I'm speaking in terms of logic, no one else will make the same mistake you did, and any nonsemantic objections can be voiced against the following statement of mine:

Assumptions are necessary in order to use logic.

Is that okay with you? Does everyone have your permission to talk about this now, in spite of your obvious unwillingness to be involved in the discussion yourself?

And then if no one else disagrees, can we move on to an actual discussion, instead of this discussion about how we should lead our discussion?

[Sithdarth]

The whole time I was using the definition commonly applied in logic systems: an assumption is a statement which we take to be true. We don't prove it, we just say it's true. It could be a hypothetical premise, it could be a way to "set up" the basic ideas the system analyzes. There; now that it could not possibly be clearer that I'm speaking in terms of logic, no one else will make the same mistake you did, and any nonsemantic objections can be voiced against the following statement of mine:

Assumptions are necessary in order to use logic.

Is that okay with you? Does everyone have your permission to talk about this now, in spite of your obvious unwillingness to be involved in the discussion yourself?

And then if no one else disagrees, can we move on to an actual discussion, instead of this discussion about how we should lead our discussion?
Dude go back like a page or two. No one really wanted to talk about this. Besides the fact you only have half the definition of assumption. Your missing the "without proof" part. My side of the argument asserted that the lack of any viable alternative constituted proof. Further I see no connection to assumptions being needed for logic and religion. That is unless you want to talk about how everyone should just stop making assumptions. Which would totally disable any use of logic at it very base according to you. That or you want everyone to be open to changing the most basic assumptions they make. Which isn't going to happen because they are so intertwined with our sense of self as to be inviolate.

Edit: This is a whole different argument than the one about assumptions being at the core of logic. This is about exactly how useful/possible it is to truly objectively question ones assumptions. I believe that to be quite impossible. Still neither of these seem really religion related.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Dude go back like a page or two. No one really wanted to talk about this.
I imagine people didn't feel like getting in the middle of our shitstorm.

Besides the fact you only have half the definition of assumption. Your missing the "without proof" part.
That's not explicitly part of the definition. But it's true that it makes no sense to assume something if you can simply prove it (it is, in fact, preferable to prove it and to make as few assumptions as possible). This has been your argument, and I have expressed very clear understanding of this fact.

Further I see no connection to assumptions being needed for logic and religion. That is unless you want to talk about how everyone should just stop making assumptions. Which would totally disable any use of logic at it very base according to you.
he fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions.
and
Hence my point... when you use logic to come to a conclusion, disagreeing with only ONE of your premises may lead me to reject your conclusion. To reiterate, an atheist might base a part of his argument on "the universe could have come about on its own". If I reject that premise as true, I may reject his ultimate conclusion that God does not exist. It does not mean his argument was not logical, as it may have been sound logic. There may not have been any fallacies in his reasoning. But if I don't agree with the premises, I have no reason to accept that conclusion.

That or you want everyone to be open to changing the most basic assumptions they make. Which isn't going to happen because they are so intertwined with our sense of self as to be inviolate.
Actually, the assumptions some people make in their arguments, sometimes without realizing it, are not necessarily as much a part of their "core beliefs" as the things we've been discussing are. It's the more tacked-on assumptions that often seem to accompany religious logical arguments that I aim to attack. Should we ever actually get back on track.

[42PETUNIAS]

I imagine people didn't feel like getting in the middle of our shitstorm.

I imagine that people don't like getting an email for a subscription notification, and then sighing when they realize it's just more of the same shitstorm.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.But Sith, Chinese scientists, using Western equipment, a qigong master and a glass of water, have proved just
that. (http://twm.co.nz/DrYan_qi.htm)

But no one will ever take them seriously. You know why? Because the Western scientists will want to verify the results, and western scientists will, without fail, piss off any qigong masters willing to help, and they'll withdraw aid. It's happened repeatedly. Some were even telling the qigong master that they tried working with what, exactly, they should make a human subject do, even after that master told them that once he transmitted the qi to them, the subjects would be out of his control.

Take from that article what you will, but I know you'll find something from the west that "disproves" it. I've felt the effects of qi, and I know first hand that it's not some "figment of my imagination". I, without prejudice either way, read of a way to induce qi flow in one of Wong Kiew Kit's books, and attempted it, even with warnings about practice without a living teach in said book. Needless to say from that statement and my current stance, you'll gather that I had some slight success. Let's just say that it's very improbable that those movements I felt were muscle spasms, or anything other than what Sifu claims they are.

[LordBalmung18]

Wow im gone for a few days and look what happens?

Anyway..someone asked so far back i cant remember what my specific disfunction was. I have multiple things, but the main things that interfere with my life as Aspbergers syndrome and MPD(Multiple personality disorder). It was only because of my little religous revelation that i have any degree of control over the latter.

And to be perfectly clear on that point, i am not taking any meds, im not engaged in therapy, im not in any kind of treatment for it period. I squashed it through willpower, and i gained that willpower through belief.

As for citing sources, How exactly am i supposed to relate personal experiences? They werent recorded, anyone who witnessed them has no interest in talking about it on a webcomic forum, and thus any value they have in this discussion is diminished cause i cant really prove any of it happened. I hope thats satisfactory. (If your wondering, i have some minor OCD too. I couldnt leave the damn questiosn unanswered >.<)

[Sithdarth]

But Sith, Chinese scientists, using Western equipment, a qigong master and a glass of water, have proved just that.

But that's not bending reality to your will just by thinking. That's thinking and using a natural consequence of your living body to effect change much like using an arm. Trust me I've taken a very traditional style of Karate for about 4 years now and I have had very powerful experiences with in my case Ki. Specifically during opening and closing of classes when we mediate for a few minutes. But also during breaking and during my last few promotions when I was forced to fight for about 20 minutes straight against 3 higher level brown belts and 2 black belts in succession. After the first 5 minutes of getting knocked on you ass every five seconds all you have left is Ki.

I imagine people didn't feel like getting in the middle of our shitstorm.
At least I realized stopped and even apologized for it.

Actually, the assumptions some people make in their arguments, sometimes without realizing it, are not necessarily as much a part of their "core beliefs" as the things we've been discussing are. It's the more tacked-on assumptions that often seem to accompany religious logical arguments that I aim to attack. Should we ever actually get back on track.
Sometimes they aren't but mostly they are. That's why they're so deeply hidden in the subconscious that people don't realize they are making them. This is especially true with religion the biggest assumption there being what we like to call faith.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Faith is just saying, "God (or insert other) exists." That's precisely why faith proves nothing: it assumes the conclusion we'd otherwise expect somebody to derive somehow. It's barely a logical argument at all, so it's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about *digs to start of this whole thing* things like infinite causal chains and creatorless universes.

How about instead of arguing about where we think this might lead, we stop, maybe end up with an argument from a lively soul, examine it, and see what happens?

[Elminster_Amaur]

But that's not bending reality to your will just by thinking. That's thinking and using a natural consequence of your living body to effect change much like using an arm.Well, Sith, most of the authoritative voices in qigong agree that there is qi in everything in the Multiverse. So, if you can use qi to alter anything, and if that article is correct and distance isn't an issue, then isn't using qi to alter things just another way of stating "bending reality to your will"? Sure, it's not "just by thinking", but I don't agree that it's like using a limb. A limb is a physical extension of your body, whereas qi is a mental and/or spiritual extension of your will. Yes, it takes a lot of practice, and yes, it is a natural part of you. But, it's also a natural part of everything else. There is qi in the rocks, the trees, the animals, the "heavens" (I assume that means space), the sun, and the weather.

Now, I'm not saying that just anyone could alter reality with their will. It takes a LOT of hard work to be able to do anything other than keep yourself healthy with qi. The shaolin had a saying: It takes 3 years for a small success, and 10 for a great one. And NOBODY I know more than passingly would stick to some of the training programs for learning to do certain things with qi. Not only that, but, in order to gain real power, you must refrain from sex (men, women are exempt), since any ejaculation cuts your body's qi by 40% of what's remaining.

[Sithdarth]

Well, Sith, most of the authoritative voices in qigong agree that there is qi in everything in the Multiverse. So, if you can use qi to alter anything, and if that article is correct and distance isn't an issue, then isn't using qi to alter things just another way of stating "bending reality to your will"? Sure, it's not "just by thinking", but I don't agree that it's like using a limb. A limb is a physical extension of your body, whereas qi is a mental and/or spiritual extension of your will. Yes, it takes a lot of practice, and yes, it is a natural part of you. But, it's also a natural part of everything else. There is qi in the rocks, the trees, the animals, the "heavens" (I assume that means space), the sun, and the weather.

Its still not bending reality to your will. Bending reality to your will indicates changing the fundamental laws that govern reality. Think if it like this, Ki is like a pool of water. Everything is sitting in this pool of water and those with proper training can cause ripples in the water. They don't change anything else but the natural movements of the water. They can achieve great effects but they can't transcend the most basic rules of the system.

Bending reality to your will would entail suddenly deciding a certain physical law no longer applied. That or randomly creating matter or energy out of nowhere. Basically doing things that reality expressly forbids from happening.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Basically doing things that reality expressly forbids from happening.Like, uh, how about stopping and restarting your own heart at will, and after days to months had passed? I don't know that anyone has reached that level recently, but I know that they (monks) practice(d) this in order to go on "spiritual journeys" to different realms of existance. (I'm glad we're away from the whole "logic" arguement, but there's not much discussion going on here)

Sidenote, to Sith: Do you only practice sitting meditation, or do you practice other forms of meditation? Did you know that sitting meditation is less useful to people with less experience directing their qi and quieting the mind? If you want, I can quote some of the Shaolin qigong exercises that I have gathered from various authors. I mean, I am always interested in hearing how different people practice martial arts and qigong, and am always willing to share. I've also just recieved a copy of Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming's book on the 8 Pieces of Brocade, so just PM me if you wish to discuss those subjects. (Don't want to put information out and get sued or anything)

[Sithdarth]

Like, uh, how about stopping and restarting your own heart at will, and after days to months had passed? I don't know that anyone has reached that level recently, but I know that they (monks) practice(d) this in order to go on "spiritual journeys" to different realms of existance. (I'm glad we're away from the whole "logic" arguement, but there's not much discussion going on here)

Again reality doesn't expressly forbid these things. They seem strange because everyone can't do them. Heck some of the crazy new theories in physics have been credited with adding plausibility to these things. If you ever have a long talk with a quantum mechanic or a string theorist you'll get all sorts of crazy shit out of them.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I think the provided examples count pretty well as "bending reality with will." I don't see why you'd have to totally shatter rules; just as long as you change something physical, outside of your brain, just by thinking. Okay, outside of your body.

Also I will probably write more later on totally unrelated things which I've been thinking a bit about.

[Sithdarth]

See you can't go with that definition or I could totally bend reality by using those new neural interface chips that they implant in the brain of paraplegics to allow them to move a mouse pointer. If you aren't doing something that reality says you can't then your working inside the rules. To use an Table top RPG analogy your twinking or power gaming. To actually be bending rules you'd have to be changing them outright or simply rewriting their meaning. Ki control doesn't do that. Its generally considered to be an actual form of energy that has all the physical properties of energy. Its just human minds can control how our bodies emit it to strange effects. Its about as reality bending as magnetokinesis or pyrokinesis, or any of the kinesis.

[ZAKtheGeek]

That wouldn't be thoughts changing anything, it would be the radio signal from the chip (I assume that's how it's done). Of course, if you were to run a wire that picks up an electrical signal in the brain and attach it to anything external, that would be the destruction of my definition. Until I clarify that it can't be the brain-contained physical manifestation of thought, but the thought itself.

It's a better definition, but it still probably doesn't apply here. Did I mention I don't know why I'm even talking about this?

[Sithdarth]

That wouldn't be thoughts changing anything, it would be the radio signal from the chip (I assume that's how it's done). Of course, if you were to run a wire that picks up an electrical signal in the brain and attach it to anything external, that would be the destruction of my definition. Until I clarify that it can't be the brain-contained physical manifestation of thought, but the thought itself.
But its never the thought itself. With Ki its the thought that translates into a emanation of energy from your body which then causes the effect. As I understand it you can't just change external Ki or Qi it has to interact with your own. It just so happens that its possible to do that over extreme distances almost instantly.

Also, for some more basic functions you don't even need the chip. Brainball (http://smart.tii.se/smart/projects/brainball/index_en.html) is a really nifty example of this. It picks up ambient brainwaves you give off anyway and translates them into movement. Its a great way to have fun and mastering the games requires you to master an ability to become, and stay, relaxed very quickly.

[ZAKtheGeek]

If you read closely, you'll note the Brainball machine is still picking up on electrical signals.

And you don't even have to read that closely to see that I admitted my definition doesn't apply already.

[ZAKtheGeek]

So, those things I said I'd write about.

I'll be talking about things I don't know too well, so if you do, feel free to tell me I'm on the right track and/or talkin' crazy. Hopefully this will get something interesting started.

First. Some would claim that the creation of the universe, as well as anything that happened "before" it, is not subject to the same laws and rules of the universe itself. That would defeat, for example, the argument that the universe couldn't have ever been created, by conservation of matter and energy. Okay, but wouldn't the effects of a "lawless" event like that propagate its nonsense throughout all that exists? Basically, if one thing contrary to laws happens in a setting that otherwise abides laws, then the effects of that one action would ripple through everything it affects, making it evident in many, if not all, places that something "isn't right." I don't really know how to explain this, so if someone thinks they see what I'm getting at, please try to explain it better for everyone's benefit.

Second. A somewhat less abstract matter. So, what we've observed is that the acceleration of universal expansion is positive. It seems inevitable that everything will spread out and ice over. But, think of black holes. As far as I can determine, black holes never cease to be black holes (except small ones, which Wikipedia tells me can disintegrate, although the explanation makes no sense to me). So any sizable black hole will continue to absorb matter and become more massive, thus increasing its gravitational attractiveness and bringing even more objects closer to it. You'd think that if a black hole managed to attract objects more quickly than they moved away, it could balance the outward motion in a way. Things wouldn't necessarily be moving back towards the center, but towards some point, where a particularly massive black hole is located. Also, I imagine the result of two nearby black holes attracting each other would end in a combined black hole. So all in all, it seems plausible that much of the universe's matter could eventually end up in very massive black holes, and those black holes could attract each other and fuse, eventually ending in one ridiculously massive black hole. At which point all matter in the universe would be in a singularity. Which sounds like a familiar situation.

I reiterate that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Well, I'm going to take a bit of a stab at the first one, and not the second, because frankly, quantum theory has never been my strong suit. I'll leave black holes and how they die, or Gravitational Units and the uses thereof to people with a better background in physic *cough*Sith*cough*

Have you ever read anything by Deepak Chopra? I have. One book. It was about Merlin. See in this book, he uses Merlin as a euphamism for an enlightened being, and Arthur as a representation of all of the rest of mankind. The "quest for the holy grail" and Alchemy, as described in this book, are merely more terms for trying to turn the impure human soul into a more pure substance. Basically, at least, this is what I assume, considering the Buddhist stance that most of the teachings Merlin gives young Arthur in the book, the only real problem that mankind has is his sense of self as a completely separate entity.

Don't worry, this is going somewhere.

In the Christian religion, several monks, and priest(less often), would have an experience that they could not define with words. So, what did they do? Attempt to define it with words, of course. These experiences would come about after days of constantly chanting a single verse of the bible in their head or walking around counting the beads of a rosary, and finally (probably the most important part) seated prayer in a private area (most likely a monk's cell). They finally termed this experience "Returning to the Kingdom of God" and said that they felt as though God were "both within them, and around them" and that at that point in time they were indeed "one with the Almighty".
*above quotes are from memory, but I'm usually fairly accurate at obscure quotes, just not attributing them to the proper names

Anyone familiar with the Buddhist religion, or at least familiar with various meditation techniques, would recognize that all of those things that the monks do (verses, rosary, prayer) are considered a form of meditation in the east (mantra, I forget the name, and meditative prayer, respectively).

Certain people in the Jewish religion have also had those same experiences, as well as people of the Muslim, Daoist, and several other faiths.

Why do they seek this state of oneness with divinity/the universe? It is an inherent need in humans. Want an example? Look at this thread. 57 pages of people either trying to help each other find that state, or athiests saying that such a state should not exist. If it weren't such an inborn need to find that peace with all of existance, athiests wouldn't be posting in this thread, because they wouldn't care except in cases where there is some personal stake (i.e. someone lied to them before, and stole all their money, so now they wish to tell everyone that religion is dumb. That doesn't happen often, since people who get their money stolen are often still quite happy to give it to the guy who's taking).

I know, I know, it's taking too long. I'll try to wrap up.

There is some incongruity sometime in the past, where the universe didn't follow its own rules for some reason or another. That's why we all seek to return to a state that does not contradict itself. Did you know that there are over 6 billion people in the world today? Well, consider that number, when you also consider that almost all of them have felt lonely for extended periods of time. How does one feel lonely with 6 billion other people out there to talk to? The key word there is other. See, as Merlin told young Arthur, "as long as there are other people in this world, there will be loneliness".

Do you understand the depth of that statement? I'm really tired right now, so I'll let you think on it, while I sleep, and if anyone wants me to answer my own question, I'll do so when I get home tomorrow.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sorry, but like much of what I've heard from Chopra, a lot of what you're saying just sounds like various unrelated metaphysical ideas cobbled together to form an appealing statement. Like here:
There is some incongruity sometime in the past, where the universe didn't follow its own rules for some reason or another. That's why we all seek to return to a state that does not contradict itself.
You really don't explain how this other state doesn't "contradict itself" at all. This one part doesn't seem to be connected to the rest of your writing in any way; like it's just inserted so it seems like a more specific answer.

One more poke...
Did you know that there are over 6 billion people in the world today? Well, consider that number, when you also consider that almost all of them have felt lonely for extended periods of time. How does one feel lonely with 6 billion other people out there to talk to? The key word there is other. See, as Merlin told young Arthur, "as long as there are other people in this world, there will be loneliness".
Sounds like another appeal to "depth" without much actual substance. 6 billion people. It's a big number, but it's also a big planet. And, everyone is not in touch with everyone else. Factor in ideological and personality compatibility, and it starts to make sense that there might not be anyone around you'd feel like talking to at some point.

I will, however, address this:
Why do they seek this state of oneness with divinity/the universe? It is an inherent need in humans. Want an example? Look at this thread. 57 pages of people either trying to help each other find that state, or athiests saying that such a state should not exist. If it weren't such an inborn need to find that peace with all of existance, athiests wouldn't be posting in this thread, because they wouldn't care except in cases where there is some personal stake (i.e. someone lied to them before, and stole all their money, so now they wish to tell everyone that religion is dumb. That doesn't happen often, since people who get their money stolen are often still quite happy to give it to the guy who's taking).
Well, there certainly is a stake, at least that's what religions would claim. I do see the evidence as providing little reason to believe in any of this afterlife/ID/superbeing stuff, but if I were conceited enough to think I considered everything perfectly, I wouldn't be bothering with this. The fact is, I could have made a mistake or overlooked something, so I let myself be challenged and see how well I can defend my views against opposing ones.

I assume people believe for a reason (sometimes a faulty assumption...), so I ask. Maybe their reason will work for me; maybe I hadn't seen it before. Obviously I've yet to be convinced as such. But I keep trying, since the claims of these religious are quite tantalizing. Plus I like to argue anyway.

[Sithdarth]

Second. A somewhat less abstract matter. So, what we've observed is that the acceleration of universal expansion is positive. It seems inevitable that everything will spread out and ice over. But, think of black holes. As far as I can determine, black holes never cease to be black holes (except small ones, which Wikipedia tells me can disintegrate, although the explanation makes no sense to me). So any sizable black hole will continue to absorb matter and become more massive, thus increasing its gravitational attractiveness and bringing even more objects closer to it. You'd think that if a black hole managed to attract objects more quickly than they moved away, it could balance the outward motion in a way. Things wouldn't necessarily be moving back towards the center, but towards some point, where a particularly massive black hole is located. Also, I imagine the result of two nearby black holes attracting each other would end in a combined black hole. So all in all, it seems plausible that much of the universe's matter could eventually end up in very massive black holes, and those black holes could attract each other and fuse, eventually ending in one ridiculously massive black hole. At which point all matter in the universe would be in a singularity. Which sounds like a familiar situation.

A few things:

All blackholes are basically destined to die at some point. They all lose mass to Hawking's Radiation. Its just the more massive they are the slower that rate of loss is. I think for the supermassive blackholes in the center of galaxies the time span is something on the oder of several hundred times the current age of the Universe. Don't quote me on that precisely all I can remember at the moment is that its a freaking huge number. (And of course they have to spend all that time not sucking crap up.)

Its not very accurate to say the Universe is expanding. The only thing expanding is the relatively empty space between galactic clusters. Though I think there may be some small expansion between galaxies in a cluster but I'm not sure. Anyways, galactic clusters are already so far apart that there gravity wells don't really interact. And because gravity strength doesn't really depend on concentration of matter nothing changes by concentrating all the matter of a galactic cluster into a single point. (A blackholes gravity my be infinite at the even horizon but out side of its actual gravity still depends solely on its mass. Blackhole are funny beasts that way.)

Basically the only way all matter is going to go back into a singularity is if empty space between galactic clusters suddenly decides to contract on us. That or despite current evidence the universe happens to be curved in on itself.

[42PETUNIAS]

Why do they seek this state of oneness with divinity/the universe? It is an inherent need in humans. Want an example? Look at this thread. 57 pages of people either trying to help each other find that state, or athiests saying that such a state should not exist.
I don't think anyone is really talking abou this state, but the specific existence of a god. Personally, it's obvious to me that such a state exists that can be easily attributed as "religious, oneness with the universe, etc". My opinion is that this results from chemicals or something in the brain, and when people go through certain processes like you mentioned, their brain does something funny, and the have a "religious" experience. I don't say that this state doesn't exist, but that it is caused by the brain, and not by "returning to the kingdom of god".

[Elminster_Amaur]

I don't say that this state doesn't exist, but that it is caused by the brain, and not by "returning to the kingdom of god".You misunderstand me. I am not completely Christian any longer. In fact, I am far closer to Buddhist in practice. That "returning to the kingdom of god" state is merely the human consciousness reuniting with the rest of itself. I believe that during this state, the mind is finally in unison with every other living and nonliving thing in the universe.

Zak, before I address your points, I'd like to point this little part of my own post out to you:
...I'm really tired right now, so...That would be why my post was long, rambling and seemingly disconnected.
Well, there certainly is a stake, at least that's what religions would claim.I'm sorry, my post should have said "most athiests". See, I have found that there are very few (both thiestic and athiestic) people who will discuss this particular subject openly. Yell there own position at you, maybe, but discuss openly, no. And on to the subject of what is at stake. Inner peace. Very often, people are drawn into religions because they lack inner peace. The problem is that practicing only the physical aspects of a religion will never give you inner peace, it will only give you a small fix (i.e. As long as I go to church every week, God will protect me). Most people don't seem to realize that a person is not the random thoughts that your conscious mind spits out rapid-fire. A person can't even be considered the sum of their actions, so why would thoughts, things that, very often, last a few seconds, make up a a person? Even if there is no link between the subconscious mind and the mind that makes up everything in the universe, getting in touch with your subconscious would still go VERY far toward bringing a person inner peace. Now, say what you will about everything else in religious tradition, but meditation is probably the greatest thing that ever came out of it.
You really don't explain how this other state doesn't "contradict itself" at all. This one part doesn't seem to be connected to the rest of your writing in any way; like it's just inserted so it seems like a more specific answer.Here, I probably assumed that you had more background than you do with Buddhism. In my explanation here, I will attempt to fill in what I left out, and also attempt to explain the lesson Merlin was trying to bestow upon young Arthur.

Understand that the following is merely an attempt to properly explain how Buddhism views the universe/multiverse. This is entirely based upon my understanding of that religion, and what their religious writings are trying to convey.

In Buddhism, it is assumed that this state that we are in is what is unnatural. The Buddhists believe that the entire multiverse is made up of one consciousness. This consciousness, for some reason or other, decided to create a delusional world to explore itself and how multiple, lesser, consciousnesses would interact with each other. It created multiple planes of existance for these consciousnesses to move through, and then shattered a portion of itself off, but left a small bit of attachment that these "new" conscious minds would not be able to sense so that it could observe what happens. (This is pretty hard to distill into a non-rambling, nonpsychotic format) Unfortunately, this super consciousness did not realize the vast amount of pain that doing this would cause it. So, now every being in the multiverse is trying to get back into a state of union with the super consciousness, but can't because they are tainted in some way and not pure enough to reunite.

That's where they get that whole rebirth cycle thing from, though they believe that after this earth you will be reborn in a heaven or a hell. That's also the reason for loneliness. See, because the "universal consciousness" longs to be completely whole again, all of its pieces feel its pain, and we have called this pain loneliness. So, Merlin was trying to tell Arthur that, until he reached a point in his spiritual journey where he no longer considered himself a separate entity, he would be lonely, even surrounded by friends, lovers and kin. I hope that was clear enough for you, because I don't know how to make it much clearer.

[ZAKtheGeek]

A few things:

All blackholes are basically destined to die at some point. They all lose mass to Hawking's Radiation. Its just the more massive they are the slower that rate of loss is. I think for the supermassive blackholes in the center of galaxies the time span is something on the oder of several hundred times the current age of the Universe. Don't quote me on that precisely all I can remember at the moment is that its a freaking huge number. (And of course they have to spend all that time not sucking crap up.)

Its not very accurate to say the Universe is expanding. The only thing expanding is the relatively empty space between galactic clusters. Though I think there may be some small expansion between galaxies in a cluster but I'm not sure. Anyways, galactic clusters are already so far apart that there gravity wells don't really interact. And because gravity strength doesn't really depend on concentration of matter nothing changes by concentrating all the matter of a galactic cluster into a single point. (A blackholes gravity my be infinite at the even horizon but out side of its actual gravity still depends solely on its mass. Blackhole are funny beasts that way.)

Basically the only way all matter is going to go back into a singularity is if empty space between galactic clusters suddenly decides to contract on us. That or despite current evidence the universe happens to be curved in on itself.
Thank you.

Although Wikipedia told me that fairly massive black holes couldn't be depleted through Hawking's radiation. Maybe it was wrong. *shrug*

Elminster_Amaur:
Okay, I understand the things you're saying. However, they still seem to me to:
1. Be fairly wild claims without much substantiation
2. Have little to do with the idea they were supposed to address

I shouldn't blame you for the latter, though, since, as I said, I haven't explained the matter very well.

[42PETUNIAS]

You misunderstand me. I am not completely Christian any longer. In fact, I am far closer to Buddhist in practice. That "returning to the kingdom of god" state is merely the human consciousness reuniting with the rest of itself. I believe that during this state, the mind is finally in unison with every other living and nonliving thing in the universe.

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. I just used "returning to the kindom of god" because it was one of the phrases you used in your post, and I was looking for a term to use. I wasn't putting a christian spin on it or anything, I was trying to speak across all religions.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. I just used "returning to the kindom of god" because it was one of the phrases you used in your post, and I was looking for a term to use. I wasn't putting a christian spin on it or anything, I was trying to speak across all religions.Even if it is "just caused by the mind", isn't everything else humans do and percieve?

[BitVyper]

Myself, I'm an atheist. I've always found Hinduism a little seductive though. It seems a little more optimistic than Buddhism, with a strong focus on the self. I like how it seems to be more about self-discovery than trying to be something, and it looks pretty open too. Of course, my knowledge on the subject is fairly limited, so I could be way off. Taoism is pretty interesting too.

That said; I would never believe in a god. At least, not in the sense of a sentient being who defines reality at its whim, or at least isn't bound by it, and I wouldn't call anything else a god anyway. Could you even call something like that "real?"

It seems to me though, that Hinduism doesn't really require faith in a higher power, but like I said, I'm not particularly well-read on the subject. Would anyone care to elaborate?

[42PETUNIAS]

Even if it is "just caused by the mind", isn't everything else humans do and percieve?

Well, in my opinion, yes, what we do is deined by how our brain reacts to different events. But what we percieve isn't caused by the brain, just as much as a sports game isn't started by a camera filming it.

[Sithdarth]

Although Wikipedia told me that fairly massive black holes couldn't be depleted through Hawking's radiation. Maybe it was wrong. *shrug*


I suppose you could have one so massive that after the radiation escapes it eventually gets sucked back in but I think it'd have to be freaking huge. Like Hundreds of thousands of times more massive than the most massive ones we've found. I'm not even sure its possible.

Then there is the whole thing about it having to not feed for the entire time. Which I think is several times the theoretical maximum lifespan of the universe making it effectively impossible. (That is unless we're wrong about the lifespan of the universe.)

[ZAKtheGeek]

Even if it is "just caused by the mind", isn't everything else humans do and percieve?
No; human perception comes from external reality. Unless you wish to jump a page or two back...

I suppose you could have one so massive that after the radiation escapes it eventually gets sucked back in but I think it'd have to be freaking huge. Like Hundreds of thousands of times more massive than the most massive ones we've found. I'm not even sure its possible.

Then there is the whole thing about it having to not feed for the entire time. Which I think is several times the theoretical maximum lifespan of the universe making it effectively impossible. (That is unless we're wrong about the lifespan of the universe.)
To quote:
It was later found that energy can escape from black holes in an unexpected way, and that therefore black holes can evaporate. In space, virtual particles are continually coming into existence and vanishing on a microscopic scale that is so small they cannot easily be detected. This is a consequence of quantum physics and only works on a subatomic scale. Conceptually, these particles can be imagined to appear in pairs and vanish a tiny fraction of a second later again. For this reason they are not readily noticed. But close to the black hole's event horizon, the intense gravitational field separates the two particles even in the fractional second that they exist. One particle may be absorbed into the black hole, the other escapes. From an external perspective all that is seen is the second of these, giving the appearance of energy being radiated outward, escaping from its gravitational field beyond the event horizon. In this way, paradoxically, black holes can evaporate. This process is thought to be significant for the very smallest black holes, as a black hole of stellar mass or larger would absorb more energy from cosmic microwave background radiation than they lose this way. The radiation emitted is referred to as Hawking radiation.
Sounds like "feeding."

Still makes no sense to me, though. *shrug*

[Sithdarth]

The thing is that background radiation is finite. At some point it runs out and things start evaporating. Oh and that particle that escapes only escapes because it absorbs some of the blackholes mass to give it the umph to travel faster than light and escape the event horizon. Which is why the blackhole gets lighter as time goes on. (Well in the absence of food.)

[ZAKtheGeek]

See, Wikipedia didn't explain that at all.

[Sithdarth]

Its also how this whole process manages to go on without violating several laws of physics. Well without violating to very many laws. It does require particles to travel faster than light and escape from a gravity well that nothing should escape. Apparently that's not as big a deal to the universe as actually creating energy/mass.

[Elminster_Amaur]

No; human perception comes from external reality. Unless you wish to jump a page or two back...No, that is not true. Human perception comes from the brain interpereting senses. So, everything you percieve is coming from your subconscious mind's processing. External reality MAY be what your mind is interpereting, but that's not always the case. You can percieve different events occuring in dreams, but that is not external reality, now is it?

It seems to me though, that Hinduism doesn't really require faith in a higher power, but like I said, I'm not particularly well-read on the subject. Would anyone care to elaborate?Very well. I'll attempt to digest some information on Hinduism. Now, with this I'll take no responsibility for its correctness, since I'm just drawing from online sources at the moment, mostly Wiki.

"Hindu" was originally a mispronunciation of a Sanskrit term by Persian invaders. It refers to a location, and until the Indian people decided to use it as a term to describe their religion, it was a rather meaningless term. The name of the religion you are referring to is "Vedic" and the name of their spiritual path is called Sanatana-Dharma.

There are six schools of Hindu philosophy: Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa and Vedanta.
Modern Hinduism has as its values rational thought, modern education and the ideals of humanism, rationalism and religious universalism. This has meant combating the conservative and obscurantist elements, imbibing modernity, modern education compared to classical Sanskritic education system, and countering Christian missionary criticism.

The positive consequences of modernity in Hinduism is most visible in the status of women and the dalits. Also, ritualism has declined.
.
.
.
Started by Arya Samaj in early 20th century to bring back to Hinduism people converted to Islam and Christianity. Dayananda claimed to be rejecting all non-Vedic beliefs altogether. Hence the Arya Samaj unequivocally condemned idolatry, animal sacrifices, ancestor worship, pilgrimages, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, the caste system, untouchability and child marriages, on the grounds that all these lacked Vedic sanction. It aimed to be a universal church based on the authority of the Vedas. Dayananda stated that he wanted ‘to make the whole world Aryan’. That is, he wanted to develop missionary Hinduism based on the universality of the Vedas.

To this end the Arya Samaj set up schools and missionary organisations, extending its activities outside India. It now has branches around the world. It has a disproportional amount of adherents among people of Indian ancestry in Suriname and the Netherlands, in comparison with India.

And here's some more for ya.
Prominent themes in Hinduism include Dharma (ethics and duties), Samsāra (rebirth), Karma (right action), and Moksha (liberation from the cycle of samsara). Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism share traits with Hinduism, because these religions originated in India and focus on self-improvement with the general aim of attaining personal (first hand), spiritual experiences. They along with Hinduism are collectively known as Dharmic religions.
.
.
.
dvaita philosophy declares that ultimately Brahman (the impersonal God) is beyond mere intellectual description and can be understood only through direct spiritual experience, where the 'knower' and the 'known' are subsumed into the act of 'knowing'. The goal is to "wake up" and realize that one's atman, or soul, is really identical to Brahman, the uber-soul.

On the other hand, monotheistic (typically Dvaita Vedanta) and related devotional (bhakti) schools, understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality. In these conceptions, Brahman is associated with Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti depending on the sect. Brahman is seen as fundamentally separate from its reliant souls (humanity) so, in achieving liberation, individual beings experience God as an independent being, a living personality, and retain their individual identities.
.
.
.
The devas are an integral part of Hindu culture and are depicted in art, architecture and through icons. In their personal religious practices, Hindus worship primarily one or another of these deities, known as their iṣṭa devatā, or chosen ideal. The particular form of God worshipped as one's chosen ideal is a matter of individual preference and needs, influenced by regional and family traditions.

Mainstream Hindu philosophy talks about the existence of God, being heavily influenced by the Vedanta school, the dominant philosophical school of Hinduism. Nonetheless, there were earlier atheistic schools such as Samkhya, which did not acknowledge the existence of God.

Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul, the true "self" of every person, called the ātman, is eternal; as is Brahman, which may be seen as either the greater Self or as God, depending on the outlook. According to the Advaita (non-dualist) schools of philosophy, the individual self and greater Self are not fundamentally distinct. They argue that the core spirit, or "Self", of every individual person is identical with the greater Spirit. Referring to 'brahman' unequivocally as God may reveal problems of semantics, where certain traditions understand God to be a motivating agency with personality and others that it is without personality and form, beyond any sort of definition and thus non-equivalent to the 'God' as understood by dualist schools of Hinduism or Abrahamic understandings of God. According to the Upanishads, whoever gains insight into the depths of his own nature and becomes fully aware of the ātman as the innermost core of his own Self will realize his identity with Brahman and will thereby reach Moksha. According to the Dvaita (dualist) school, (often associated with Vaishnavism), the ātman is not identical with Brahman, which is seen as being God with personality (though not limited); instead, the ātman is dependent on God. Moksha depends on the cultivation of love for God and on God's grace.
.
.
.
Samsara provides ephemeral pleasures, which lead people to desire rebirth to enjoy the pleasures of a perishable body. However only escaping the world of samsara through moksha (liberation) is believed to ensure lasting happiness or peace. It is thought that after several reincarnations, an atman eventually seeks unity with the cosmic spirit (Brahman/Paramatman).

The ultimate goal of life, referred to as moksha, nirvana or samadhi, is described as the realization of one's union with God; realization of one's eternal relationship with God; realization of the unity of all existence; perfect unselfishness and knowledge of the Self; liberation from ignorance; attainment of perfect mental peace; or detachment from worldly desires. Such a realization liberates one from samsara and ends the cycle of rebirth.
.
.
.
Someone who practices yoga is called a yogi. The chief texts dedicated to Yoga are the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika and, as their philosophical and historical basis, the Upanishads. Paths one can follow to achieve the spiritual goal of life (moksha, samadhi, or nirvana) include:

* Bhakti Yoga (the path of love and devotion),
* Karma Yoga (the path of right action),
* Rāja Yoga (the path of meditation) and
* Jñāna Yoga (the path of wisdom).
.
.
.
As in every religion, some view their own denomination as superior to others. However, many Hindus consider other denominations to be legitimate alternatives to their own. Heresy is therefore generally not an issue for Hindus.I think that the selected passages from those three articles (I got tired of paraphrasing by the end of the first one, once I realized it was the shortest of the three) pretty much sum up the answer to your questions on Hinduism.

Yes, Hinduism does not require a belief in a higher being. Buddhism and Hinduism have the same self-improvement aspect, and generally use the same methods, since Buddhism was very largely influenced by Hinduism. Just like Buddhism, Hinduism is mainly about trying to purify the soul, in order to escape the cycle of rebirth. Hinduism is pretty much just a grouping together of ideals from several dozen ancient religions with various interperetations on how to practice (like all major religions), and has had a great influence over many of the religions with origins near or in India.

[ZAKtheGeek]

No, that is not true. Human perception comes from the brain interpereting senses. So, everything you percieve is coming from your subconscious mind's processing. External reality MAY be what your mind is interpereting, but that's not always the case. You can percieve different events occuring in dreams, but that is not external reality, now is it?
Our disagreement seems to stem from the ambiguity of the term, "caused by." All I'm trying to maintain is that not everything humans perceive is entirely of their own invention.

[Shugok]

Yeah, so I just picked up the Bible. Pretty good read. I can actually see why people would give their lives to this, in the hope of an eternal happiness when you abandon this world. See, I was kind of the child of renounced faiths, and I never really looked at religion by myself. But seriously, it would be lovely if I could believe it.

[42PETUNIAS]

Yeah, so I just picked up the Bible. Pretty good read. I can actually see why people would give their lives to this, in the hope of an eternal happiness when you abandon this world. See, I was kind of the child of renounced faiths, and I never really looked at religion by myself. But seriously, it would be lovely if I could believe it.
Wow, it all makes sense now... Off I go to worship Rand, the dragon reborn.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Wow, it all makes sense now... Off I go to worship Rand, the dragon reborn.What....what in the Creator's name does Rand have to do with the bloody Bible? Sheep swallop! Sheep swallop and bloody buttered onions!

Yeah, so I just picked up the Bible. Pretty good read. I can actually see why people would give their lives to this, in the hope of an eternal happiness when you abandon this world. See, I was kind of the child of renounced faiths, and I never really looked at religion by myself. But seriously, it would be lovely if I could believe it.That's bolded text there ^ that's the problem portion of Christian and Islamic Extremist beliefs that causes things like 9/11 and the Crusades to happen.

Much of the Old Testament is practical (sometimes outdated) information on how to live a better life ON EARTH. You follow the rules set down (except the whole stoning people and blood sacrifices thing) and you'll live a long and healthy life (barring accidental death). The Old Testament is fairly accurate and hasn't been alterred much. The New Testament, however, is a completely different story. Of the four gospels, two of them were copied down from the first-hand accounts of two of the twelve. The other two of the gospels were copied off of, and slightly altered from, one of the two originals.

Everything AFTER the gospels is very likely to be complete fabrications by Saint Augustine and his Bible Congress, or whatever he called it. There are several other problems with the Bible, one of which being that Jesus' closest follower was not one of the twelve, and her gospel was completely removed by Augustine.

It is my firm belief that the Romans took a great man with a very good message, and perverted it to keep themselves in power.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It is my firm belief that the Romans took a great man with a very good message, and perverted it to keep themselves in power.
I agree, Christianity is indeed a religion.

[Fifthfiend]

Okay so here's something I'll just throw out there about fundamentalist religious beliefs regarding sex (which are really just fundamentalist beliefs regarding sex, since the particular religion involved typically has fuck-all to do with the beliefs being espoused), which is: They are fucking retarded and insane.

I mean yeah maybe it made sense to have a bunch of restrictive rules about sex, like, three thousand years ago when there were countless life-threatening harms that went along with sexual activity, it's just that at this point it seems most major religions are mainly dedicated to preserving all the life-threatening harms that go along with sex, so they have an excuse to go on having the restrictive rules. Ostensibly because the Invisible Sky-Man wants it that way, but mainly because they're just terminally pissed off at the idea that somebody might have an orgasm without feeling guilty about it.

[Ryanderman]

Here's something I'll throw out about the modern view of sex (which isn't really "modern" seeing as how it's been around since sex was invented, it's just more accepted now than in many previous generations) which is, it's freaking retarded and insane.

I can see how it would have been fine to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want in a tribal village in the jungle somewhere, where everyone knows each other, and no one has exotic STD's that'll spread through the population like wild fire, and where you can't rape someone without the whole village knowing about it, and taking appropriate action, and where any children left without a father or mother due to the breakup of a family would be cared for by the rest of the village with no trouble.

But in modern times it doesn't make sense to be so free about sex, where free sex has in quite a large part caused the epidemics of Aids, HPV, etc. Where we don't yet have cures for many of them. Where you can rape another person anoymously. Where families are destroyed all the time due to adultery and the like, and children are left without fathers. Where 1 million + abortions happen each year in the United States alone (even if you don't believe that each one of these abortions is a murder of an innocent child, you have to agree that such an invasive medical procedure isn't all that healthy for the 1 million + women that get it each year) All in the name of free choice, because they want to have an orgasm without the responsibility that comes with it.

[42PETUNIAS]

But in modern times it doesn't make sense to be so free about sex, where free sex has in quite a large part caused the epidemics of Aids, HPV, etc. Where we don't yet have cures for many of them. Where you can rape another person anoymously. Where families are destroyed all the time due to adultery and the like, and children are left without fathers. Where 1 million + abortions happen each year in the United States alone (even if you don't believe that each one of these abortions is a murder of an innocent child, you have to agree that such an invasive medical procedure isn't all that healthy for the 1 million + women that get it each year) All in the name of free choice, because they want to have an orgasm without the responsibility that comes with it.


So we should just abolish sex, rather than work on making it safer (Increased use of condoms, birth control, etc. most of which the church has a problem with) That doesn't make any sense. Sex isn't just going away, especially in todays society. What we can do is make it much more safer, so instead of preaching futily, we could actually make things safer. Also, you say that the million + abortions every year are a bad thing? What about all those women who no longer have to take on an extra child that they can't afford? Yes, a lot of abortions happen, but it has also lowered the crime rate (as argued in freakonomics) made many fewer children and families live in poverty, and has lead to giving women more freedom in today's society.

[Ryanderman]

Also, you say that the million + abortions every year are a bad thing? What about all those women who no longer have to take on an extra child that they can't afford? Yes, a lot of abortions happen, but it has also lowered the crime rate (as argued in freakonomics) made many fewer children and families live in poverty, and has lead to giving women more freedom in today's society. It's also killed over 1 million people every year. In my mind, that outweighs any good it's done.

But honestly, you missed entirely my point. I was not trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint, or agure for the abolishment of sex (I mean, seriously, WTF?). I was trying to illustrate the absolue absurdidty of Fifthfiend's statement. Yah know, show that all us fundies aren't "fucking retarded and insane." But that our views are reasoned, and well thought out, even though they disagree with other reasoned and well thought out beliefs. They may ultimately be based on what the Invisible Sky-Man says, but we also use reason and logic to find the validity. We don't always operate on blind faith.

[42PETUNIAS]

It's also killed over 1 million people every year. In my mind, that outweighs any good it's done.

But honestly, you missed entirely my point. I was not trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint, or agure for the abolishment of sex (I mean, seriously, WTF?). I was trying to illustrate the absolue absurdidty of Fifthfiend's statement. Yah know, show that all us fundies aren't "fucking retarded and insane." But that our views are reasoned, and well thought out, even though they disagree with other reasoned and well thought out beliefs. They may ultimately be based on what the Invisible Sky-Man says, but we also use reason and logic to find the validity. We don't always operate on blind faith.
Then maybe it would be nice if you supported your statements with reason and logic, instead of just stating what the Invisible Sky-Man says.

[Ryanderman]

Then maybe it would be nice if you supported your statements with reason and logic, instead of just stating what the Invisible Sky-Man says.
Nowhere, in either of these posts ,have I quoted the Bible. Nowhere have I used anything but examples from the real world. Not once did I tell you what God says.

[Archbio]

Nowhere, in either of these posts ,have I quoted the Bible. Nowhere have I used anything but examples from the real world.

That should be your first clue that what you said doesn't really have to do with the "fundie view of sex" but rather with some point in the planet-wide middle ground between what you present as "free sex" and the "fundie view of sex".

I think that what Fifthfiend was driving at is that safe-sex is now a much closer possibility that in times past, and it has no necesary link to religion, but I doubt that what Fifthfiend implied about ancient religion and sex is accurate.

[Azisien]

But 42, his counterargument was reasoned. It's actually quite valid, whereas I see you as the one whose simply trying to pooh-pooh his argument.


Firstly, I don't see rape and sex as the same thing, and I don't see why anyone else should either. One involves consent, the other does not. Sure, with a larger society it's easier to commit rape, but I view that as a drawback of...well, a larger society, one that has to be accounted for like many other inevitabilities. Though if you can draw a clearer link between rape and sex, by all means I'm willing to understand.

Second, the spread of STDs is twofold. Part of it is carelessness, yes. I agree, actually, I imagine a great deal of the STD problems in the West are carelessness, because education and contraceptives are more availible here. I don't know the stats, but correct me if I'm wrong, the true HIV epidemic is in Africa, where sex education can come at a premium and religion often bars the use of contraceptives, or they're just not availible, allowing the disease to spread like wildfire.

Abortion, I'm not so sure I feel like touching on that one. Slippery slopes huzzah. I will say, at least in Canada (and I imagine the situation can't be much different in the US), the majority of abortions are very early on, and although I admit my knowledge of abortion procedure is a bit sketchy, I'm not sure labelling all one million plus US abortions as terribly invasive. In Canada, about 2% of abortions occur in the third trimester, the vast, vast majority occur probably not long after the fetus is even visible. Obviously, if you reject abortion outright, there's nothing I can really say to dissuade you.

[42PETUNIAS]

Nowhere, in either of these posts ,have I quoted the Bible. Nowhere have I used anything but examples from the real world. Not once did I tell you what God says.
You stated the common religious opinion. You did not show the path of logic that led to those beliefs, so I said that you had not supported your statements with reason and logic.

[Elminster_Amaur]

The issue that the Catholic church HAD against abortion (the current issue is just a matter of being stuck in tradition) was the soul of the child. Up until fairly recently in the history of the Catholic church, they viewed abortion as perfectly acceptable, as long as it occured before the fetus reached human shape (supposedly, that's when the soul forms, so killing it before-hand is like slaughtering an animal you can't afford to keep and would die without you). Then (I don't remember when, exactly), someone says to the Catholic church, hey, the fetus is completely formed from conception. The Catholic church, not having science to draw upon, took that as fact and decided that the fetus would have a soul starting from conception. Once they found out that they were wrong, they got obstinant and decided that the Papal decree was above the truth (and above God, apparently) and stuck to the whole "fetus is a fully formed human" idea, calling any form contraception evil because it prevents humans with souls from having life.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Honestly, people, try to make sense. Ryanderman's arguments were:
-spreads STD's
-destroys families
-leads to abortions

[Archbio]

Honestly, people, try to make sense. Ryanderman's arguments were:
-spreads STD's
-destroys families
-leads to abortions

Again, this doesn't point to a "fundie view of sex" (however Ryanderman cares to define it) as a solution and doesn't equate with all of the "modern view of sex" as the cause. Ryanderman also threw in rape for an unspecified reason.

These aren't arguments. Neither is your superfluous recap.

[Edit for the less perceptive]

Yes, "total abstinence" prevents two out of three (excepted for rape, of course), but Ryanderman claimed that they didn't endorse the "abolition of sex", so again that leaves contraception as the only other preventive measure against abortion, condoms and/or care in choosing sexual partner (which doesn't automatically correlate with monogamy which doesn't automatically correlate with religion) as preventive measures against STDs.

As for families being destroyed, well, families can very well destroy themselves without any sex at all and some families do survive "free sex", so again I don't see where this is supposed to point toward religion except in the most superficial reading possible.

No argument: simply a false dichotomy meant to be powered by scarecrows.

[Ryanderman]

Again, it doesn't matter. I wasn't trying to argue my point. I was not trying to make anyone see my view as vaild. I frankly don't give a damn if you think my view is valid. I've stayed out of this thread most of the time, because I don't see much of an effort from anyone to actually understand each other's view point. It's a lot of, "I rely soley on Science, so since your view point is not scientific, it's wrong." and "That's not really logic so I dismiss your arguement, try another" and "I have faith and you won't change my mind, so there." So I don't really care if you agree with my viewpoint, and nothing I said in any of my posts was an arguement for my viewpoint.
I said what I said to counter fifthfiend's inflamitory post. That is all. Don't bother jumping at what I said to try to disect it and counter everything I said. There's nothing to discet.

Oh, and I threw in rape, because it seems to me that in general, an increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in sex related crimes. Not that it matters in the context of what I was trying to say.

EDIT: what's so hard about this. I'm not trying to prove anything, or "point to religion." It's really quite simple. I'm a Christian fundamentalist. I hold certain beliefs. Fifthfiend called those beliefs "retarded and insane" and threw up an empty illustration of his point. I countered by stating my views the way he stated his in an attempt to throw into light the ridiculousness of what he said. Obviously I failed. The fault is mine I suppose. I didn't think I'd have to explain myself this much. You're finding holes and strawmen all through my arguement, because there never was a real arguement in the first place. Congrats!

[Elminster_Amaur]

Honestly, people, try to make sense.I hope that doesn't referr to me, because I was responding to:
It's also killed over 1 million people every year.

And about this:
Oh, and I threw in rape, because it seems to me that in general, an increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in sex related crimes. Not that it matters in the context of what I was trying to say.What? No, no, no. An increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in KNOWLEDGE about crimes that would have been committed anyway. That is, if you're taking the 1900s as an example for your statement. Before then, there's no possible way of knowing anything about it, because either people weren't supposed to talk about it in public, or (just before THAT age) history was not recorded in any way that could possibly resemble objective OR honest.

Edit: To be fair, it [history] still isn't recorded objectively or honestly, except (and this is only occassionally) in purely academic circles. I mean, they're [historians and news reporters] getting closer, but there's still massive slanting, and I believe that there almost always will be, at least as long as someone can profit from skewing the truth.

[Archbio]

because there never was a real arguement in the first place

That sounds about right.

[Azisien]

Again, it doesn't matter. I wasn't trying to argue my point. I was not trying to make anyone see my view as vaild. I frankly don't give a damn if you think my view is valid. I've stayed out of this thread most of the time, because I don't see much of an effort from anyone to actually understand each other's view point. It's a lot of, "I rely soley on Science, so since your view point is not scientific, it's wrong." and "That's not really logic so I dismiss your arguement, try another" and "I have faith and you won't change my mind, so there." So I don't really care if you agree with my viewpoint, and nothing I said in any of my posts was an arguement for my viewpoint.
I said what I said to counter fifthfiend's inflamitory post. That is all. Don't bother jumping at what I said to try to disect it and counter everything I said. There's nothing to discet.

Oh, and I threw in rape, because it seems to me that in general, an increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in sex related crimes. Not that it matters in the context of what I was trying to say.

EDIT: what's so hard about this. I'm not trying to prove anything, or "point to religion." It's really quite simple. I'm a Christian fundamentalist. I hold certain beliefs. Fifthfiend called those beliefs "retarded and insane" and threw up an empty illustration of his point. I countered by stating my views the way he stated his in an attempt to throw into light the ridiculousness of what he said. Obviously I failed. The fault is mine I suppose. I didn't think I'd have to explain myself this much. You're finding holes and strawmen all through my arguement, because there never was a real arguement in the first place. Congrats!

Apologies, for a second there I thought you were posting in the Discussion forum to discuss. Boy, where could we have gone wrong there.

To think, we might have to actually explain things, which in itself is a scary thought.

[Ryanderman]

Yes, discussing is good. And if you want to discuss, I'll discuss. but not based off what I said to Fifthfiend. That's a horrible starting place to discuss, because that wasn't it's purpose. That's what I didn't think I'd have to explain.

[42PETUNIAS]

Oh, and I threw in rape, because it seems to me that in general, an increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in sex related crimes. Not that it matters in the context of what I was trying to say.

So how about soldiers in the middle ages who would think nothing of raping women after they pillaged a town. This happened back when the church was pretty much everything, and sex was bad, so thats not really a valid point at all.

[Elminster_Amaur]

So how blah blah blahI think I already addressed that using modern times, AND he said that his posts were meant more to show how ridiculus Fifth's arguments were, using the same style. And that's why you shouldn't have gouged your eyes out with buttons. XD

[Darth SS]

I fail to see what Ryanderman's position is.

Fifthfiend made a statement that I think was logical, and well backed up. Ryanderman went off on some crazy tangent trying to show that Fifth's position was crazy. In response a whole bunch of us said "What? You've got no basis for what you've said."

In reply, he is now saying "Well...there's no basis because I wasn't arguing!"

To put this in perspective. Someone is standing in front of a whole bunch of cops, whips out a gun, and shoots someone. When the cops all shoot the original gunman, the gunman says "Why'd you shoot me? I wasn't trying to kill that lady. If you want, I will kill that lady and then we'll see how good you can shoot me."

[Archbio]

I fail to see what Ryanderman's position is.

1: Fifthfiend calls some "fundie" beliefs retarded.

2: Ryanderman calls himself a "fundie". Yeah, I know, I'm surprised too.

3: Ryanderman doesn't think his beliefs are retarded.

4: Hence, Fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded.

That seems to be the gist of it. Of course, the "free pass" rule has been invoked, and so all is moot.

I suppose that the specific argument that arose out of that (but it's not an argument, really, lest it be countered) is the assumption that what Fifthfiend was saying is that in contemporary times all potential and actual negative consequences of any sexual activity have been eliminated, which is not how I read it at all.

I assumed that that argument "pointed toward religion" because Fifthfiend's point was that certain religious beliefs were now superfluous (which is generous) and that holding them and insisting on their supremacy (which is normally understood in the term "fundie") in this day and age is retarded. It followed that a response to that would somewhat try and establish the relevance of these religious beliefs.

Of course, I was wrong. Because there was no argument. No argument. No argument. No argument.

[Ryanderman]

I didn't say fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded, I said his statement about my beliefs was retarded. but I can see howit can be seen otherwise.

And yah, it's a free pass rule in effect on what I said. If by "free pass" you mean "torn to shreds already." I'm just saying why it was so easy to tear it to shreds, and why I don't think you should bother. But whatever.

EDIT: Just to clear up any confusion, though I thought I had already, I don't actually think modern views on sex are retarded and insane. I disagree with a lot of them, but not to the extent of insulting them with undefendable generalities.

[Archbio]

I didn't say fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded, I said his statement about my beliefs was retarded. but I can see howit can be seen otherwise.

It's all my phrasing's fault, really. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that you were reasoning that all of Fifthfiend's belief were retarded, but that some of his beliefs are retarded: specifically the beliefs expressed by his statement.

Still ambiguous, I know.

I'm just saying why it was so easy to tear it to shreds, and why I don't think you should bother. But whatever.

Well, you offered a counter to Fifthfiend's argument. Several posters offered counters to your counters. I think all of this was warranted.

I probably should stop beating that dead horse, though. I still blame either Fifthfiend using the term "fundie" or you self-identifying as a "fundie".

[Ryanderman]

So how about a real discussion on something. I think a lot of strife has definitely arisen of out differing interpretations of the term "fundamentalist" (deragatory slang - fundie) as it applies to Christians.

The general assumption here seems to be (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) that fundamentalists believes in the superiority of Christian beliefs, holds extremely strict views of those beliefs, and thinks that everyone should be subject to those beliefs.

In relality, your general fundamentalsit Christian does believe in the superiority of Christianity. That kind of has to come with the territory. I think the Bible is the one, authoritative word of God, and any other religious book is highly flawed. And yes, I hold a pretty strict interpretation of my beliefs, though what is seen as series of highly restirctive rules from the outside, actually flows from a desire live a Godly life, from the inside, and actually aren't as restrictive, or as universal as they are interpreted to be from the outside.

Where the general belief about fundamentalists and reality differ is the idea that Fundamentalists think everyone should be subject to the same rules they are. That's just not true. I stand up for my beliefs. I support them when they're attacked. And that's interpreted as forcing them down everyone elses throat. But the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians don't have a problem with other people living their lives the way they want to. Have all the sex outside of marriage that you want, I won't try to stop you. yes I think a lot of what is accepted today is wrong. And it saddens me to see so much of what I consider immorality in the world, but that's my problem. Not yours.

I think people see the reaction to issues such as gay marriage as an attempt by fundamentalists to force their views on society. But fundamentalists see the issue as a purposeful attack on their way of life. So they try to defend against it. Each side thinks the other is out to get them, and that's what causes the strife, and the hatred. (Personally, I don't have the problem with gay marriage that most of my contemporaries have, so maybe I'm not as "fundie" as I think)

Beyond the talking heads claiming to represent the Christian right, there aren't that many people who actually want a de-facto theocracy imposing our views on the rest of the country. But neither do we want everyone else's views imposed on us. As it is, political correctness has the effect of not allowing fundamentalist Christians to state their opinions, for fear of being called bigoted. This also leads to anger and resentment.

I guess I see myself as a fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word, sticking to the fundamentals of my belief. And Fifth sees it as a definition of the blowhards on the 700 Club, who are in it for the money and the fame, and don't represent real Christians. I suppose that when most people attack what they call "fundies" they're attacking a phantom target that doesn't really exsit, so I shouldn't get offended.

Much

EDIT: I use way too many commas. Sorry about that.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I think the Bible is the one, authoritative word of God, and any other religious book is highly flawed. And yes, I hold a pretty strict interpretation of my beliefs, though what is seen as series of highly restirctive rules from the outside, actually flows from a desire live a Godly life, from the inside, and actually aren't as restrictive, or as universal as they are interpreted to be from the outside.
How much of a literalist are you? Or, to be more direct, how do you deal with biblical contradictions?

[Ryanderman]

I'm mostly a literalist. With the exception of obvious metaphors, parables, and pretty much any prophecy about the end times. That last one was left quite vauge on purpose, to prevent anyone from knowing when it will happen (one reason I get quite annoyed at people who say we're living in the end times, and Christ will come soon. We can't know that, we're not supposed to know that. It bugs me that people claim to know)

Anyways, back on track. If I come across a contradiciton, or someone brings one up to me, I try to work it out. To figure out what it really means. Most of the time, apparent contradictions are really misinterpretations, or taken out of context. I know you've got a whole list ready to spring on me if I give you a window, so go ahead. If I'm going to get in this discussion any deeper, I might as well get all the way in.

On another tangent, I wrote all my previous posts at school. While driving home just now, I thought about stereotypes. All sorts of groups of people have been stereotyped now and in the past. Africans, Asians, Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, etc... Practically every group of people that can be stereotyped has been stereotyped. And practically all those stereotypes are hurtful and damaging to the people affected (with the exception, perhaps, of geeks. We revel in the stereotype, but I digress).

In relatively recent times, most of those stereotypes have been questioned, found to be wrong, and fought against. What I consider one of the few good effects of political correctness has been to bring about an understanding of the hurt stereotypes bring. But one of the few stereotypes not questioned by the very people who fight against the others is that of the Fundamentalist Conservative Christian. Why was Archbio so surprised when I identified myself as fundamentalist? Was it because my viewpoints that I expressed during my time here don't exactly match his idea of a "fundie?" Or because I don't act or express myself with the intolerance he expects? (If I do, please let me know so I can stop) I don't know what the reasoning is, but I was just as suprised by his surprise as he was by my claim. Why can I not be fundamentalist? We don't all think the same, or act the same. That's as bad as lumping all Jews or Homosexuals together. So why is it so accepted and completely unquestioned?

And the term "fundie." It's become just about as offensive as any low grade term for any other stereotype. Though, definitely not as offenseive as other terms. But anyways, I'm not saying it should be banned, but maybe it's use should be questioned. No one seems to notice that they're using offensive slang, because the stereotype their referring to is never questioned. And it should be.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Okay so here's something I'll just throw out there about fundamentalist religious beliefs regarding sex (which are really just fundamentalist beliefs regarding sex, since the particular religion involved typically has fuck-all to do with the beliefs being espoused), which is: They are fucking retarded and insane.

I mean yeah maybe it made sense to have a bunch of restrictive rules about sex, like, three thousand years ago when there were countless life-threatening harms that went along with sexual activity, it's just that at this point it seems most major religions are mainly dedicated to preserving all the life-threatening harms that go along with sex, so they have an excuse to go on having the restrictive rules. Ostensibly because the Invisible Sky-Man wants it that way, but mainly because they're just terminally pissed off at the idea that somebody might have an orgasm without feeling guilty about it.

Harmful things just 3000 years ago? Okay lets look at this one for a second... lets imagine a world where every marries one and stays with that one person, so everybody is faithful to their partner. That means every single person has sex with only one other person.

Does the world get better or worse? No STDs, no unwanted teen pregnancies (also no unjustified abortions), no divorce, no broken hearts...

The flaw in the Christian view of sex is in the world itself, not in the Christian view. I'm a virgin, and I've been going out with the same girl now for three years. If I get married to her and we have a happy life and only give ourselves to each other, I don't see how we've harmed ourselves. But we sure as all hell kept ourselves from a lot of harm.

I mean seriously fifth, you can't say that fidelity and monogamy doesn't have some clear benefits. In fact, I don't think there are any clear negatives.

[Sithdarth]

I don't know if anyone has pointed it out but even with the church's whole sex out of wedlock being evil thing it still happened a hell of a lot through the ages. Same thing with STDs, though not the same ones we have today. (This is not counting rape too.) The only thing that's changed is how crazy public damn near everyone's sex life has suddenly become. I mean there might have been a time in the 50s or around the Victorian era when premarital sex was way down but through the time of Christ and the Dark Ages I'd say it was nearly as prevalent per person as it is today. (Also we have a crap load more people.)

((The whole connection between sailors and prostitutes and/or nonprostitute girls in every port didn't start in the 60s. If I'm remembering my history right even royalty tended to end up with a crap load of illegitimate children.))

[Archbio]

I_Like_Swordchucks,

Okay lets look at this one for a second... lets imagine a world where every marries one and stays with that one person, so everybody is faithful to their partner. That means every single person has sex with only one other person.

Does the world get better or worse? No STDs, no unwanted teen pregnancies (also no unjustified abortions), no divorce, no broken hearts...

The big question on this "thought experiment" is: do you mean to posit a "perfect" world, smoothing out some realities of individual will; or a world in which everyone agrees with you or a world ordered according to your opinion. Perhaps this is injecting too much realism in what is obviously a flimsy mental exercice, but what the hell.

Yes, if people never had any want, desire, cause or necessity for divorce then no one would get divorced. At this level the thought experiement has no meaning. In reality, however, there are many factors that lead to people divorcing. In reality, yes, you could convince people that divorce is a bigger evil than any of these factors (or outlaw or restrict divorce, as was the style not so long ago), then yes, they might not get divorced but they would still suffer for these other ills.

As for pregnancy and abortion, the tortured phrasing is confusing me. Is this a fantasy world in which every pregnancy in marriage is wanted; or a world where married women are convinced that their wanting the pregnancy or not doesn't matter; or a world in which abortion is controlled in such a way as to make their agreeing with your opinion on what is a "justified abortion" uncessary?

And as for no heartbreak... well, this is the most stupendously circular portion of a circular thought experiment. If every marriage is happy enough to avoid heartbreak, there is no heartbreak. Not only is this is not reality, it's not possibility.

In the real world, or at least a world that isn't the fantasy construct possibly implied, safe-sex conduct can be the equal in protection against these problems than religious minded monogamy (which can include non-virgins, once we strip down the fantasy presupposition). Or at least roughly on the same scale of safety. A similar fantasy world could be imagined, with safe-sex (without the religious emphasis) as a model. It would also be much better than the real world, which is fallible and uncertain.

Only total abstinence is on a truly higher level of safety. Also, total abstinence would also be superior if injected in a similar fantasy scenario. No downsides, as long as we don't consider people's individual desires. I think you wouldn't even need to ignore pesky material realities with this one.

So I agree: the problem with your view is reality.

I'm a virgin, and I've been going out with the same girl now for three years. If I get married to her and we have a happy life and only give ourselves to each other, I don't see how we've harmed ourselves.

I don't know that you have, and you might never harm yourselves. The real problem is when that sort of thinking is applied, to the whole of society. Conversely, I hope you don't take my deconstruction of your counter to Fifthfiend as a personal attack.

Ryanderman,

Why was Archbio so surprised when I identified myself as fundamentalist? Was it because my viewpoints that I expressed during my time here don't exactly match his idea of a "fundie?"

You're totally going in the wrong direction with this.

I wasn't surprised that you would call yourself a fundamentalist, but rather that anyone would call themselves a fundamentalist. That is, I had just read Fiftfiend's post, and as I had interpreted the term in the way it was used then, I was still interpreting the term, in your posts, in the way that Fifthfiend had used it. I was surprised at what I intrepretated as someone taking a strictly negative label to describe their personal view.

I wasn't thinking at all of the original, concrete use of the term. It's a term of self-identification and it has a fairly straightforward, if still broad, definition.

Fifthfiend's use wasn't as a term of self-identification, not at all. I think both operate as completely different definitions of the same word, as nearly different concepts (not that there's no conceivable overlap between the two). There are several reasons why I don't like the word "fundamentalist". Even if we strictly take fifthfiend's use of it; it's a very ambiguous term. Not to mention superfluous. There are no shortage of terms for religious literalists, bigots and hegemonists. Not that I'm concerned that using "fundamentalist" to describe policy's or statements of the Catholic Church would offend by making it seem like I'm trying to insult the Catholic Church by calling it too strict in its interpretation of scriptures, but just for clarity's sake.

Also, now I'm concerned that "fundamentalist" is too much associated with one very particular religious tradition, where it is meant to be used across several religions.

It's a very flawed term.

On the other hand, the things it means to describe are very real (and I can't sympathize with the people involved), so that's not one of the reasons I dislike it.

PS: You used the wrong pronoun.

[Ryanderman]

I apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I'll be sure to remember that in the future.

I tried to be sure to specify Christian fundamentalist in my posts, though I didn't use the full term every time after establishing what I meant. I agree the label is flawed (see my post on stereotyping, though I know that's not in the same way you feel it's flawed).

I identified myself as a fundamentalist, because even though Fifth painted it in an incredibly negative light, he was aiming it at me, my friends and my family. Just because he's completely wrong doesn't make his intent or aim any different.

EDIT: you know, every time I come back to this thread, I get more and more offended, even though there's really no need to. I need to step away for now.

[ZAKtheGeek]

If I come across a contradiciton, or someone brings one up to me, I try to work it out. To figure out what it really means. Most of the time, apparent contradictions are really misinterpretations, or taken out of context. I know you've got a whole list ready to spring on me if I give you a window, so go ahead. If I'm going to get in this discussion any deeper, I might as well get all the way in.
Right you are! (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) There are plenty, and I do know that most of them can probably be sorted out through their context, or by noting an ambiguous translation (though that's a whole other can of worms), but then there are some that provide clear, plain, one-interpretation, contradictory information. Stuff like how many sons Abraham had (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html), how many of Arah's kids returned from Babylon (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/arah.html) (a whole bunch of issues there, really (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Ezra/2.html#5)), how old Ahaziah was when he took the throne (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html) (and therefore whether he was born 2 or 22 years before his own father (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/22.html#1)), David's kill count (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/chariots.html), when the floodwaters dired (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/dry.html), the genealogy of Jesus (or Joseph if you want) (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html), some crazy army size numbers (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/soldiers.html), and so on.

I need to step away for now.
......this took me a while to write...

[Ryanderman]

First off, I can discount the floodwaters and genealogy contradicions myself.
The Floodwaters one, discribes two different stages of "dry." The two verses quoted occur one right after the other. Noah looked out of the ark and saw dry land the first time. The second time was when the flood waters had actually finished recedeing.

The genealogy is explained, because one is the line of Joseph, the other is the line of Mary. I know it says Joseph in Mary's line, but that's just because of the patriarchal naming conventions. Jesus was decended from David through both Joseph and Mary's lineage (though only genetically through Mary's)

I had to look up the answers to the contradictions for the rest, but it seems that the site you linked to has already done my work for me. Beneath each comparison of verses is a response from various Christian sites. Most common is lookinguntoJesus.net

Is there something about the responses on that site that don't work for you? I know that in some of them, the concensus is that the contradictions are due to copy errors. Which I think definitely happened over time. People aren't infalible. I know that throws in to question the trustworthiness of the Bible, but all contradictions due to copying have been found to be quite small, numbers of armies or age when taking the throne, etc. Even the similarity between the numbers that contradict each other indicates a copyist error. But there aren't any contradictions larger than small copyist error that I know of.

So I guess the Bible isn't entirely infalible, like God isn't entirely omnipotent - he can't act against his nature. But for all practical purposes, the Bible is accurate.Besides small errors, the Bible has proven itself many times over. If you feel that small copy errors are enough to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

Sorry if that response dissapoints you in my lack of trying to disprove every contradiction. I can't

EDIT: Oh, and the 2 or 22 years older. The question actually is was he 2 years older or 20 years younger. I think that in particular was an example of copyist error.

[42PETUNIAS]

First off, I can discount the floodwaters and genealogy contradicions myself.
The Floodwaters one, discribes two different stages of "dry." The two verses quoted occur one right after the other. Noah looked out of the ark and saw dry land the first time. The second time was when the flood waters had actually finished recedeing.

The genealogy is explained, because one is the line of Joseph, the other is the line of Mary. I know it says Joseph in Mary's line, but that's just because of the patriarchal naming conventions. Jesus was decended from David through both Joseph and Mary's lineage (though only genetically through Mary's)

I had to look up the answers to the contradictions for the rest, but it seems that the site you linked to has already done my work for me. Beneath each comparison of verses is a response from various Christian sites. Most common is lookinguntoJesus.net

Is there something about the responses on that site that don't work for you? I know that in some of them, the concensus is that the contradictions are due to copy errors. Which I think definitely happened over time. People aren't infalible. I know that throws in to question the trustworthiness of the Bible, but all contradictions due to copying have been found to be quite small, numbers of armies or age when taking the throne, etc. Even the similarity between the numbers that contradict each other indicates a copyist error. But there aren't any contradictions larger than small copyist error that I know of.

So I guess the Bible isn't entirely infalible, like God isn't entirely omnipotent - he can't act against his nature. But for all practical purposes, the Bible is accurate.Besides small errors, the Bible has proven itself many times over. If you feel that small copy errors are enough to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

Sorry if that response dissapoints you in my lack of trying to disprove every contradiction. I can't

EDIT: Oh, and the 2 or 22 years older. The question actually is was he 2 years older or 20 years younger. I think that in particular was an example of copyist error.
I'm going to have to agree with you. Not many of these things seem like big contradictions, just small things that would obviously happen over time. A lot of it also seems to be taken out of context (for Abraham's sons, my understanding was that he had only one son, and was said because of this, but then had another son, with a slave or something. So it seems like more of a matter of only having that many sons at one time, but as the story progresses, he has more.) What matters to me is the contrdictions in gods powers, etc. This thread hasn't gone so low to discuss clerical errors.

[Ryanderman]

Contradictions in God's powers, I can discuss, I think. What do you mean? The idea that he's supposed to be Omnipotent, but can be shown to be not really? Or something else?

[42PETUNIAS]

Contradictions in God's powers, I can discuss, I think. What do you mean? The idea that he's supposed to be Omnipotent, but can be shown to be not really? Or something else?

It isn't omnipotence that raises problems for me, it's more the idea of omniscience, and all the problems that it raises. Apparently, God knows everything. Everything. This means, that when he created Adam, he knew that the fruit of knowledge would be eaten, and that adam and Eve would be expelled from the garden of eden. He knew exactly what would happen by creating adam, he knew that the world would be as it is now, right this moment. He knew that millions of people would go to hell every year, simply because they were not exposed to the christian faith. God essentially created Adam knowing that he would send millions of people to hell, simply because God didn't spread his word around well enough.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Which I think definitely happened over time. People aren't infalible. I know that throws in to question the trustworthiness of the Bible, but all contradictions due to copying have been found to be quite small, numbers of armies or age when taking the throne, etc. Even the similarity between the numbers that contradict each other indicates a copyist error. But there aren't any contradictions larger than small copyist error that I know of.
But that's the thing. We're only finding these errors because they make themselves clear by being contradictory. Who knows what other issues there could be with the texts?

It isn't omnipotence that raises problems for me, it's more the idea of omniscience, and all the problems that it raises. Apparently, God knows everything. Everything. This means, that when he created Adam, he knew that the fruit of knowledge would be eaten, and that adam and Eve would be expelled from the garden of eden. He knew exactly what would happen by creating adam, he knew that the world would be as it is now, right this moment. He knew that millions of people would go to hell every year, simply because they were not exposed to the christian faith. God essentially created Adam knowing that he would send millions of people to hell, simply because God didn't spread his word around well enough.
I would just like to point out that I am in total agreement with these views.

[42PETUNIAS]

But that's the thing. We're only finding these errors because they make themselves clear by being contradictory. Who knows what other issues there could be with the texts?

Well, a couple hundred posts back, Krylo mentioned some major difficulties with the hebrew language. Considering the fact that there are over 600 posts, im obviously not going to find it, but I think it mentioned that the word we interpret as eternity, really just means a time.

That's an enormous problem right there. A lot of my problems with christianity stem from the idea that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus gets to live in hell for the rest of eternity. If the bible had that down as "a time", I'm sure the views would be much more understandable.

Krylo also mentioned something about the word we interpret as "hell" was actually a burning pit (or something) where they would discard of the bodies of criminals.

Again, this isn't very accurate, but those are two huge differences that you wouldn't find just looking for contradictions.

[ZAKtheGeek]

There is a "Search Thread" function...
Accurate/Ambiguous: Just for STARTERS, there's how many different translations of the bible? Only one of them can be correct. Oh and how about that crazy hebrew language? Here's a fun fact, there's no word in hebrew for eternal or eternity. The word used to describe either eternity in heaven OR hell, actually means 'a time'. Let's take it a bit further, the hebrew word for hell is Gehenna. Gehenna is a small valley north of mesopotamia, where the jewish people threw their garbage to burn. They also threw the bodies of their criminals there, and, as that human fat is a complex carbon chain, it burns slow and never goes out. Thus you spend a time in the ever burning fires of the valley of gehenna if you were a sinner. This is a LITERAL phrase in the old testament. Not spiritual.

[Elminster_Amaur]

About the whole "number of Abraham's sons" thing. Yeah, even as written it's not contradictory.

See, that phrase "only begotten" does not mean that it's the only child/son, it means that that's the only child who is recieving inheritance, or only legitimate child. The rest are bastards and are not counted in the those times.

That is also why Jesus can be called the "only begotten son" of God. Everything else is a creation, not a direct offspring. That entire site you listed is as bad with their arguments as most of them "christian science" websites I used to quote. My Engineering Ethics teacher is fond of saying, "if you pay someone to prove something, what do you think they're going to do? They'll go and prove it."

[Mirai Gen]

Part of the giant contradiction of ideas that I truly can't wrap my head around is the fact that people can read the Bible and not have it make sense, and instead of walking away from it with an expression that said you got thrown out of the car halfway through a blowjob, they just seem as happy as can be that something didn't make sense.

I'm not saying that people who don't care about thinking are the only religious ones...But I am questioning exactly why it is we can have things in the Bible that just don't make any kind of sense and yet be totally okay with it. Or even be more okay, since that means that there's something you get to think about for a while. Anyone?

[ZAKtheGeek]

But I am questioning exactly why it is we can have things in the Bible that just don't make any kind of sense and yet be totally okay with it. Or even be more okay, since that means that there's something you get to think about for a while. Anyone?
Dude, that's how art and literature work...

[Solid Snake]

Man, I'm really interested in this topic of discussion, but at the same time, I'm also scared shitless of what getting involved will actually entail.

I'm sure, however, merely announcing the fact that I am an evangelical Christian, who was an atheist a mere three years ago and has since been "born again," will launch a firestorm here.

I fully expect Locke to have desecrated on my corpse by this time tomorrow.

[ZAKtheGeek]

*unzips*

What caused you to be "born again?"

[Nique]

But I am questioning exactly why it is we can have things in the Bible that just don't make any kind of sense and yet be totally okay with it.

What seems to happen, is that people will do one of two things at this juncture: 1) ignore what they don't understand, or 2) walk away from it completely, assuming that becuase of some apparent contradictions, the Bible is compeltely bunk.

Understanding linguistics and context is crucial to understanding the Bible and realizing that, whether or not it is the inspired word of God, it actually doesn't contradict itself. You wouldn't know it from a study of typical "christian" doctrines and church history, unfortunatly... But the Bible itself isn't really the problem when it comes to this.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It depends which bible you're talking about. Perhaps not the very most original set of documents, but any version you might read today is going to have indisputable contradictions in it, as demonstrated. Which doesn't mean the entire thing is a load of holy crap, but certainly that you shouldn't assume everything in there is absolutely right, since you know for sure that some of it simply cannot be.

[Nique]

It depends which bible you're talking about. Perhaps not the very most original set of documents, but any version you might read today is going to have indisputable contradictions in it, as demonstrated.

Since these parts require some understanding of the original writings, as I mentioned, I'm not sure what you mean.

Maybe you could give an example and we can take it from there?

What caused you to be "born again?"

I can't speak for Solid, but I was born right the first time.

I keed! I keed!

[ZAKtheGeek]

Since these parts require some understanding of the original writings, as I mentioned, I'm not sure what you mean.

Maybe you could give an example and we can take it from there?
Just a couple of posts back.
Stuff like how many sons Abraham had (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html), how many of Arah's kids returned from Babylon (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/arah.html) (a whole bunch of issues there, really (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Ezra/2.html#5)), how old Ahaziah was when he took the throne (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html) (and therefore whether he was born 2 or 22 years before his own father (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/22.html#1)), David's kill count (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/chariots.html), when the floodwaters dired (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/dry.html), the genealogy of Jesus (or Joseph if you want) (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html), some crazy army size numbers (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/soldiers.html), and so on.
Granted, some of these have been shown to be erroneous accusations, but the rest (and more) are quite clearly errors, even by admission of believers.

[Nique]

Just a couple of posts back.

Just kind of an apology here: I am sorry for not catching that earlier, but I am sort of refusing to participate in this thread religiously (pardon the pun!), so I am kind of just jumping in on points I can comment on. I can refrain if this approach is overly irritating, but I don't think I'm the only one doing this.

I can't comment in depth on every one of those issues at the moment, however, on cases where there appear to be serious contradictions in numerical values; In some instances, it is merely different items being counted, or only part of a group being numbered. Again, recognizing that modern translations don't give us every detail as well as they could as well as understanding the context of what was being done is huge here. I will do research on those however.

Jesus family line is an extremely basic misunderstanding that critics like to throw out there. What we have here is the geneology of both of Jesus' earthly parents. One is Mary's geneology expressed in a patriarchal format (thus, Joeseph's name replaces her in the family line) and the other is Joeseph's actual family line.

Granted, some of these have been shown to be erroneous accusations, but the rest (and more) are quite clearly errors, even by admission of believers.

I'm willing to concede only that modern translations of the bible don't express things the way they should be understood at times, and very rarely does this prevent us from finding an explination. Any contrary information in the bible that I've encountered has been met with a satisfactory explination.

I will examine some of those other points and get back to you on what I find soon!

[ZAKtheGeek]

I'm not necessarily saying there are "unexplainable issues" to be found among the contradictions (although I'm also not going to claim there aren't any); I'm saying there definitely is data contradiction, so it's quite wrong to claim that there isn't. If you want to argue about whether or not it matters, we could go from there.

Now that I think about it, it is fairly disturbing that numbers might ever be improperly copied over. You'd think that numbers would be the only things that could survive translation among languages.

[Nique]

Now that I think about it, it is fairly disturbing that numbers might ever be improperly copied over. You'd think that numbers would be the only things that could survive translation among languages.

There was an PBS special on the development of numbering systems - Consider the almost completly outdated roman numerals, and how complex those symbols get. Now imagine systems of calulation even worse than that, and you have, probably, a better chance of retaining accuracy in the words vs. the numerals? Don't take modern numerals for granted!

I'm saying there definitely is data contradiction, so it's quite wrong to claim that there isn't.

But, since most of these can be explained (not always easily, but actually, usually, pretty easily... esspecially big issues like Jesus' geneology) then there is, effectivly, no contradiction. Merely a misunderstanding.

[ZAKtheGeek]

But, since most of these can be explained (not always easily, but actually, usually, pretty easily... esspecially big issues like Jesus' geneology) then there is, effectivly, no contradiction. Merely a misunderstanding.
You're just mincing words. Or I am. Both of us are! When it says that Ahaziah was 42 when he took the throne, I'm not "mistaking" the number 42 for the number 22, as it also says elsewhere. In no way is that a mistake on my part; that's a mistake in the bible. Or two mistakes, for all I know. But again, semantics; instead we should discuss the ramifications of these issues, if anything.

There was an PBS special on the development of numbering systems - Consider the almost completly outdated roman numerals, and how complex those symbols get. Now imagine systems of calulation even worse than that, and you have, probably, a better chance of retaining accuracy in the words vs. the numerals? Don't take modern numerals for granted!
So you trust the translation of somebody who was too lazy to check their math when it comes to the "word of God?" More shady business. And for the record, what I meant was that numbers actually have precisely, perfectly translatable meaning; unlike words.

[Nique]

So you trust the translation of somebody who was too lazy to check their math when it comes to the "word of God?"

I was merely pointing out how difficult ancient numeral systems were. This was information for you. Not a part of the argument.

In no way is that a mistake on my part; that's a mistake in the bible.

Since in this case, '42' is so obviously incorrect added to the fact that the numbers were apparently very similar in appearance in the original writing, I don't really see how this is an issue. This "error" isn't present in the translation of the Bible I use, except for a referance explaining the discrepancy.

The ramifications of this would be, I guess, that realitivly unimportant errors are possible, are pretty rare, and are correctable? The Bible's word-for-word translation and over-all meaning is extremely well preserved for it's age. Essepecially with some of the very early copies that have been recovered for comparision. I can imagine that it would uncomfortable for critics to address this point though, eh?

As far as the "lazy" translator jab... does that really need to be entertained? I mean, that small numerical errors are possible, as even occurs at times in modern printing, means we discredit the entire work? Plus, we have had many more diligent, skilled, and correct translations available since the KJV v. 1.0 came out. This "error" has been corrected, ostensibly, some might claim under God's guidance.

On the other hand, I think it would be foolish to claim that God puts a magic shield around the Bible - If it was entrusted to imperfect humans, even under 'inspiration' and the best of intentions, small errors have likely crept in (and in some cases, out) over the course of the Bible's translation.

Also! There's a big issue certain fundamentalist groups have with using anything but the KJV or even claiming that KJV might not be as correct as they think. I'm going to hell for using a translation partly derived from Westcott & Hort texts, apparently.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The ramifications of this would be, I guess, that realitivly unimportant errors are possible, are pretty rare, and are correctable? The Bible's word-for-word translation and over-all meaning is extremely well preserved for it's age. Essepecially with some of the very early copies that have been recovered for comparision. I can imagine that it would uncomfortable for critics to address this point though, eh?
I imagine so as well. Of course, such an argument only needs to be used if one actually thinks the original texts were divinely inspired in the first place. :D Keep reading to see why I used it...

On the other hand, I think it would be foolish to claim that God puts a magic shield around the Bible - If it was entrusted to imperfect humans, even under 'inspiration' and the best of intentions, small errors have likely crept in (and in some cases, out) over the course of the Bible's translation.
That's basically my whole point. I just don't want people to think they're dealing with a perfect reference. That's plain delusion.

As far as the "lazy" translator jab... does that really need to be entertained? I mean, that small numerical errors are possible, as even occurs at times in modern printing, means we discredit the entire work?
Well, first of all, what original modern content deals with matters nearly as important as those purported in the bible? There's an entirely different level of certainty I would think people would want in their infallible divine text. That's just me though. Second, again, I aim not to discredit the work entirely, but to remove it from the pedestal of perfection, as though it really could be the word of God, verbatim. What also really annoys me is when people use a single line from the bible to try to support some idea, or use the semantics and basic meticulous grammar of a particular sentence as though it carries significance. That's really what bothers me. "Hey, check out Matthew 4:10. Notice how that's worded kinda weird? Maybe it means something!" *actually looks up Matthew 4:10* Hm.

[Kikuichimonji]

That's an enormous problem right there. A lot of my problems with christianity stem from the idea that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus gets to live in hell for the rest of eternity. If the bible had that down as "a time", I'm sure the views would be much more understandable.I can't really believe I'm posting in this, but...

At least for Catholic social teaching(I can't speak of other denominations), Hell isn't as much a punishment as a choice to forever be separate from God. In fact, Hell's existence would represent an act of God's love - he would allow a person he loves to reject him and live in isolation. I don't buy into the whole 'pain for eternity' thing, either, though. And that's not really pushed that much anymore other than individual priests, as far as I know.

If you're going to criticize the idea of an eternal Hell, then you need to understand that Hell would actually be outside of time. Which makes no sense to us, because we are beings that exist in and through time. It could be best described as a state of being away from God where constancy is an infinite understatement, the same way that Heaven would be a state of being together with God.

I'm a senior at a Jesuit (Catholic) high school, so I consider myself mildly authoritative on Catholic social teachings.

[BitVyper]

Hell isn't as much a punishment as a choice to forever be separate from God.

But whether you accept or reject God is still decided in life, right? So it really has more to do with whether or not you accept an imperfect, mortal institution's interpretation of God. A mortal institution that has been shown to be corrupt. No, you can't really blame religion or the church for its corrupt members, but it certainly does colour one's view, and if you're deciding whether or not to isolate yourself from God in this life, that image is really all you have to go on.

Of course, Romans something something tells us everyone starts with that faith, but in that case it really comes down to God's personal choice.

And that's not really pushed that much anymore other than individual priests, as far as I know.

It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.

[Kikuichimonji]

But whether you accept or reject God is still decided in life, right? So it really has more to do with whether or not you accept an imperfect, mortal institution's interpretation of God. A mortal institution that has been shown to be corrupt. No, you can't really blame religion or the church for its corrupt members, but it certainly does colour one's view, and if you're deciding whether or not to isolate yourself from God in this life, that image is really all you have to go on.

Of course, Romans something something tells us everyone starts with that faith, but in that case it really comes down to God's personal choice.Actually, from what I know, it's at the point of death. The thing, though, is that you could actively make steps towards isolation from God in life, i.e. sins, especially mortal. The reason that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin would go to Hell is that they have made a full, free decision to do so. This freedom is obviously restricted by knowledge. Therefore, anyone who honestly has never made a statement (through thought or action) of full contempt and disregard for God is not automatically damned. (In fact, in my personal opinion, such an act is impossible for any rational being, because it would be completely illogical to deny a true God in order to follow a less-fulfilling worldview. Although the option for that would still be open, no one would ever take it.)

No earthly individual or family is perfect. The material Church is not. However, saying that imperfection would seriously deter a person from experiencing an intense and meaningful spiritual connection or admitting it would be like saying you can't love your wife because she has an annoying voice. Any inability to love her in this situation stems from personal problems moreso than from the Church's imperfections. Do they inhibit the connection from forming? Yes. Do they make it impossible? No.

Saying the Church is corrupt because of the evils it proliferated in the past would be like saying Europe is corrupt because of Nazi Germany.


It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.That could potentially be part of it.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Saying the Church is corrupt because of the evils it proliferated in the past would be like saying Europe is corrupt because of Nazi Germany.You're right. That's not why the Church is corrupt. The Church is corrupt because of its doctrine of power hungry warmongering. And Europe is not corrupt because of Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany was corrupt because of the state of Europe and THEIR lust for power.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't blame the Church for what it did in its past. I do blame them. St. Augustine and his fellows made the conscious decision to take the teachings of a great man, and change them to create a deep-rooted seat of power for themselves. And THAT is why the Church will ALWAYS be corrupt. THEY wrote the first copies of the bible, so THEY decided what went into it. Before then, it was learned by rote like much everything else. Of course, some of the gospels that got excluded have resurfaced, and they're almost completely illegible, so there's no knowing how much damage the Church caused, and how much was caused by the oral tradition preceeding Augustine.

[Ryanderman]

I'm curious. Maybe it's been said in the thread earlier, but where does this idea that Augustine and his people wrote most of the New Testament come from? As far as I know, and as far as any research into the origin of Bible I've seen concludes, the New Testament was actually written by the people it says it was written by. Mostly by Paul - the first well know missionary to non Jews, John - Jesus's right hand disciple, and Luke - a Doctor who traveled with Paul and used interviews with people who witnessed the life of Jesus first hand to write his gospel. Matthews - another of Jesus's disciples wrote his gospel, and Mark - another traveling companion of Peter and Paul wrote his gospel. Peter wrote several letters, as did James and Jude - two of Jesus's younger brothers.

These authorships aren't just taken on faith. In modern times they have been and continue to be thouroughly researched and confirmed. The writing styles of many of the authors, most notably Luke, match the other writings attributed to the same authors that are not part of the Bible. Other historical writings have been confirmed that reference books in the New Testament. Yes, Augastine decided which books to include, but I would argue that he did not make anything up. Please, let me see where you're getting the theory that he did.

[Content]

I'm curious. Maybe it's been said in the thread earlier, but where does this idea that Augustine and his people wrote most of the New Testament come from? As far as I know, and as far as any research into the origin of Bible I've seen concludes, the New Testament was actually written by the people it says it was written by. Mostly by Paul - the first well know missionary to non Jews, John - Jesus's right hand disciple, and Luke - a Doctor who traveled with Paul and used interviews with people who witnessed the life of Jesus first hand to write his gospel. Matthews - another of Jesus's disciples wrote his gospel, and Mark - another traveling companion of Peter and Paul wrote his gospel. Peter wrote several letters, as did James and Jude - two of Jesus's younger brothers.

These authorships aren't just taken on faith. In modern times they have been and continue to be thouroughly researched and confirmed. The writing styles of many of the authors, most notably Luke, match the other writings attributed to the same authors that are not part of the Bible. Other historical writings have been confirmed that reference books in the New Testament. Yes, Augastine decided which books to include, but I would argue that he did not make anything up. Please, let me see where you're getting the theory that he did.

I dont think it matters so much that he may have created entire sections as much as he had editing power of the New Testiment. Which brings us to taking things out of context as wel las omitting things that would be hard to explain or didn't fit into whatever he believed is right.

[Nique]

That's basically my whole point. I just don't want people to think they're dealing with a perfect reference. That's plain delusion.

In an academic study of the Bible, I can completely agree with this. The sheer number of translations available today and they varied critisism of them means that some are weak(er) at points in conveying literal word-for-word meaning from the original documents... numerical mistakes, infrequent as they are, even crop up as we've seen.

Where religious belife in conerned, however; I've yet to encounter a "version" of the bible that explictly or really even indirectly teaches a different doctrine or princeple than another. I'm not saying apocriphal writings aren't included in some versions, or that these teachings aren't interpreted differently between different sects of christianity, but translations that are generally more legitimate don't really disagree between each other. In this way, I think that the Bible does provide perfect instructions and lessons.

What also really annoys me is when people use a single line from the bible to try to support some idea, or use the semantics and basic meticulous grammar of a particular sentence as though it carries significance.

As opposed to, say, a cohesive teaching that is supported throughout the Bible? Although we come from very different viewpoints, I know exactly what you mean here.

As an aside, what were your thoughts on Matthew 4:10? I mean, 'Satan' is a pretty insulting label for a follower of Chirst :sweatdrop

If you're going to criticize the idea of an eternal Hell, then you need to understand that Hell would actually be outside of time. Which makes no sense to us, because we are beings that exist in and through time. It could be best described as a state of being away from God where constancy is an infinite understatement, the same way that Heaven would be a state of being together with God.

Can you show me what support this line of reasoning finds in the Bible? I've never encountered anything that supports this notion.

It's not pushed because everyone already assumes it. It's still there. It's just something you don't really have to say. It's also a lot less socially acceptable to talk like that too, which is kind of nice.


I'm not sure how I feel about this fact. On the one hand, I don't belive in the hellfire doctrine so it's kind of cool that people have stopped telling me that I'm going to hell... But on the other hand, the fire and brimestone concept is still officially accepted by many major denominations.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Therefore, anyone who honestly has never made a statement (through thought or action) of full contempt and disregard for God is not automatically damned. (In fact, in my personal opinion, such an act is impossible for any rational being, because it would be completely illogical to deny a true God in order to follow a less-fulfilling worldview. Although the option for that would still be open, no one would ever take it.)
There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.

As an aside, what were your thoughts on Matthew 4:10? I mean, 'Satan' is a pretty insulting label for a follower of Chirst
Nothing in particular. It was sort of interesting.

[Kikuichimonji]

Can you show me what support this line of reasoning finds in the Bible? I've never encountered anything that supports this notion.The first part's based on Tradition and logic. I'm going to paraphrase because I'm lazy.

-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
-Time and space are tangible things, as is increasingly shown in current study evolving from the theory of general relativity
-Therefore, God created time and space.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space
-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)
-Therefore, Heaven is outside of time and space

If you're asking about the whole 'isolation from God' thing, please say so.

There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.No, I believe you're understanding me. I am saying that at the point of death, everyone would gain knowledge of God and be able to decide on Heaven or Hell, or have already decided in life with adequate knowledge.

My argument is that it makes no sense for a rational being to deny a loving God if you were faced with his existence. Therefore, everyone who denies God has not fully, rationally experienced or understood him.

This may come off as arrogant, but it's not really any more arrogant than assuming that if you offer someone 5 bucks on the street, barring all complications, that they're going to take it.

I'm not going to address the part about belief in God being infantile because it's based on materialism, and discussion would only lead to a pointless cyclical argument.

I'm not even trying to argue for the existence of God here. I'm just trying to argue that the Catholic social teaching is not illogical, if it is alogical at times.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't blame the Church for what it did in its past. I do blame them. St. Augustine and his fellows made the conscious decision to take the teachings of a great man, and change them to create a deep-rooted seat of power for themselves. And THAT is why the Church will ALWAYS be corrupt. THEY wrote the first copies of the bible, so THEY decided what went into it. Before then, it was learned by rote like much everything else. Of course, some of the gospels that got excluded have resurfaced, and they're almost completely illegible, so there's no knowing how much damage the Church caused, and how much was caused by the oral tradition preceeding Augustine.The Church synthesized the teachings closest to the doctrines of Jesus. Before they did this, there were an insane number of apocryphal texts that contradicted each other and many suggested things directly in opposition with Jesus's teachings. Therefore, they took the ones they decided truly represented what he said. It would be the same as a teacher taking sound bytes from a class discussion instead of the whole thing because he knew parts of it were bogus.

In a side note, Death Note is freaking awesome.

[ZAKtheGeek]

No, I believe you're understanding me. I am saying that at the point of death, everyone would gain knowledge of God and be able to decide on Heaven or Hell, or have already decided in life with adequate knowledge.

My argument is that it makes no sense for a rational being to deny a loving God if you were faced with his existence. Therefore, everyone who denies God has not fully, rationally experienced or understood him.

This may come off as arrogant, but it's not really any more arrogant than assuming that if you offer someone 5 bucks on the street, barring all complications, that they're going to take it.
Okay, so there's that assumption. All that's fine with me, really.

[Nique]

If you're asking about the whole 'isolation from God' thing, please say so.

I thought it was pretty clear from what I quoted that this is what I was shooting for... But I guess not. Sorry.

-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)

I, for one, would appriciate it. Again, I'm looking for biblical references to the 'hell' thing.

The Church synthesized the teachings closest to the doctrines of Jesus. Before they did this, there were an insane number of apocryphal texts that contradicted each other and many suggested things directly in opposition with Jesus's teachings.

Some of which the church adopted? Also, you seem to be ignoring a lot of ugly, ugly things that happened at the hand of the church after it established itself as a power. I don't recall 'burning folks who read the bible for themselves' as one of the things on Christ's 'to-do' list.

I don't mean to make this sound like an attack on your faith, but I take issue with any positive spin put on the activities of the early Catholic Church as an organization.

[Elminster_Amaur]

The first part's based on Tradition and logic. I'm going to paraphrase because I'm lazy.

-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
-Time and space are tangible things, as is increasingly shown in current study evolving from the theory of general relativity
-Therefore, God created time and space.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space
-Heaven is supposed to be a communion with God (do I really have to reference?)
-Therefore, Heaven is outside of time and space
There is no God, nor any gods, and such concepts are ridiculous and infantile.

There.

The underlying assumption in your statement, of course, is that there is a god that everyone is somehow totally aware of. That certainly would be difficult to deny. But as it stands, in terms of fulfillment, I'd prefer inconvenient knowledge over blissful delusion.I think you just agreed with each other. Want me to point out the exact points where your statements began to be the same?
-God created all of creating from nothing(Genesis)
.
.
.
-No system can be created by something inside itself
-Therefore, God is outside time and space
There is no GodSee how that works? I'm not saying that I agree with Zak, it's just that from any perspective, God = Nothingness, therefore, there is no God. See? The Buddhists and Hindus got there first, but it agrees with your statements.

The Church synthesized the teachings closest to the doctrines of Jesus. Before they did this, there were an insane number of apocryphal texts that contradicted each other and many suggested things directly in opposition with Jesus's teachings.Some of which the church adopted? Also, you seem to be ignoring a lot of ugly, ugly things that happened at the hand of the church after it established itself as a power. I don't recall 'burning folks who read the bible for themselves' as one of the things on Christ's 'to-do' list.However true both of those things may be, there are several verses that were ADDED to the modern Gospels by the Church at some point. Some of them don't even show up in the Church's usage until the time of Augustine. Example? Mark 16:9-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#The_Longer_Ending), John 7:53 - 8:11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6), and 1 John 5:7b-8a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum)

Those are just some of the things that the Church has played with. Probably to make their power base stronger. And if they've added things, what could have they left out that would have given a far less favorable view of the Church?

[Mirai Gen]

Sorry for coming in late...

Dude, that's how art and literature work...
I wouldn't think that the bible would classify as literature to that degree. The Bible is a history/premonitions/guide to life for those who are religious, and I just don't understand it. It's like using Yahoo Maps and liking the fact that it takes a long time to figure out where you're going.

[Althane]

Sorry for coming in later.

As such, I think I'll sum up my religious beliefs in one quick paragraph:

There is a force outside of human recognition, which caused this universe to exist. Until scientifically found and proven to be something else, I will call this force "God", and assume that it had an active role in the creation of our universe. This does not mean that I assume unsolved mysteries are acts of God, it just means that I don't discount that there may not be an answer that we can prove right now. I call myself a Christian, just because out of all the religious I've studied and seen in action, I think it has the best grip on the world, and how to act in it (which may be because it's a western religion, but go with what you know). I wouldn't be horrified if, somehow, God was proven not to exist, but nor would I be sure if someone proved God exists (that's just because of the type of person I am. I have to see things myself, in a way).

As a Christian, I don't believe that we should be doing any violence to anybody else, but I also believe that Christians should not be in the government. We should have a voice, yes, but we should not have the responisibility of the people on our hands (not in that way, at least), because for a Christian, to go to war is a bad thing. It's not the end of the world, but it is a thing to cause great sorrow. I don't think we should be telling others how to live their lives (Re: Abortion and Gay Marriage (the gay marriage thing is more of an economic than religious thing anyways, so if I object to it (which I don't exactly, just object to it being in a church with a minister))) but rather, setting an example and letting others see.

Wow, does that sound odd for me?

Oh, and I'm deeply interested in the sciences, specifically physics and chemistry, the two that would mostly deal with "disproving" God. Is that odd too? =P

[ZAKtheGeek]

I wouldn't think that the bible would classify as literature to that degree. The Bible is a history/premonitions/guide to life for those who are religious, and I just don't understand it. It's like using Yahoo Maps and liking the fact that it takes a long time to figure out where you're going.
I was speaking in jest, pointing out how people enjoy such ridiculous things quite a bit. Of course, people don't often base their whole lives and worldviews around a piece of art or literature...

See how that works? I'm not saying that I agree with Zak, it's just that from any perspective, God = Nothingness, therefore, there is no God. See? The Buddhists and Hindus got there first, but it agrees with your statements.
Well, postulate as many "nonexistant" things as you want, I really don't care, because it doesn't matter. But when you start saying they affect things that do exist (which most religions do say), then I start disagreeing.

There is a force outside of human recognition, which caused this universe to exist. Until scientifically found and proven to be something else, I will call this force "God", and assume that it had an active role in the creation of our universe. This does not mean that I assume unsolved mysteries are acts of God, it just means that I don't discount that there may not be an answer that we can prove right now. I call myself a Christian, just because out of all the religious I've studied and seen in action, I think it has the best grip on the world, and how to act in it (which may be because it's a western religion, but go with what you know). I wouldn't be horrified if, somehow, God was proven not to exist, but nor would I be sure if someone proved God exists (that's just because of the type of person I am. I have to see things myself, in a way).

As a Christian, I don't believe that we should be doing any violence to anybody else, but I also believe that Christians should not be in the government. We should have a voice, yes, but we should not have the responisibility of the people on our hands (not in that way, at least), because for a Christian, to go to war is a bad thing. It's not the end of the world, but it is a thing to cause great sorrow. I don't think we should be telling others how to live their lives (Re: Abortion and Gay Marriage (the gay marriage thing is more of an economic than religious thing anyways, so if I object to it (which I don't exactly, just object to it being in a church with a minister))) but rather, setting an example and letting others see.

Wow, does that sound odd for me?

Oh, and I'm deeply interested in the sciences, specifically physics and chemistry, the two that would mostly deal with "disproving" God. Is that odd too? =P
The whole thing here, it seems to me, is that you use the term "Christian" very, very lightly. From your description you seem to be a theist with a want for a different title.

[Mirai Gen]

I was speaking in jest, pointing out how people enjoy such ridiculous things quite a bit. Of course, people don't often base their whole lives and worldviews around a piece of art or literature...
Exactly. I don't get why it is people are willing to have a lifestyle that is tied inexorably to a single book, and everything that's supposed to be your guide to life is, at times, completely nonsensical.

I am pleased that my "yahoo maps" crack earned a spot in Fifthfiend's signature...

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, then there are Catholics... I'm still not sure where how it is the Catholic clergy convincingly claims to wield authority...

[Althane]

I was speaking in jest, pointing out how people enjoy such ridiculous things quite a bit. Of course, people don't often base their whole lives and worldviews around a piece of art or literature...

But is it so wrong to? If it provides a good and strong world view, one that will bring good to yourself, and prevent you from harming others, is that a bad thing?

Some people aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and say that they are alone. If it helps them live a strong and right life, then is it a bad thing to base their worldview on a piece of art/literature?

Just a quesiton.

The whole thing here, it seems to me, is that you use the term "Christian" very, very lightly. From your description you seem to be a theist with a want for a different title.

Well, there's certain things that I like about Christianity, such as how, in its uncorrupted form (I.E: Most forms today), it's a religion that doesn't seek to become part of the state, rather it seeks to somewhat serve itself, while giving to the state what the state wants. I disagree with several things that sections of the church are doing, such as allowing gay ministers/women ministers/gay marriage, because they go against the teachings, and to go against that, is to deny the base of your religion. So I go to a church that stays as true to the Bible as it can. It pays its taxes (well, doesn't, due to that silly tax exempt thing), is loving of others, but we will not allow certain things to happen. Is this hatred? Some may say so, I say that what they want is just silly. Go get married in another church, one that will go with you, otherwise...

Hinduism is not appealing to me, mostly due to the way that it's pretty much just become a religion of "What do you want your God to do today?".

Buddhism is not appealing to me, because it makes a man a god. A man is not god, and sometimes we are driven to become the devil himself (Hey, Trigun, but it's a good quote all the same).

Islam, I shouldn't even have to explain. A religion is depending upon what it shows to the outside world, and Islam has showing too much violence lately. Plus, their Koran depends upon Mohammed's word. I find the authorship of the Bible to be more consistent (thus trustworthy) than that.

Judiasm. Do I really have to say it? >>

Yeah, that about covers the local world religions. And I'm not an Athiest because I believe that there's more to me than the sum of my parts, which is all that athiests can really believe.

[GARUD]

Okay, first off there are a few things that need clearing up. The tone that some people are taking is that Christians and their beliefs are represented by their priests. Not true. There are so many corrupt people out there, but there are also devout followers who stay true to the core beliefs.
Also, Christians in history aren't how they should be. It is a complete misinterpretation that it is taught that we should kill or main those who do not convert. Again, not true. Jesus teaches that to believe in him is up to the individual's choice. He's there if you want him, and his arms will always be open. However, Christians SHOULD respect all other religions based on love, and even Atheists who live lives that have less negative impacts on the surrounding people (ie, having honesty and integrity, being a nice and fair person, etc). We have to be tolerant of others.

So if you re going to make a criticism on the Christian faith on how it works, understand that the beliefs have been misunderstood for generations and the acts of some Christians do not actively represent what we believe in.

With all of this being said, Christianity is a faith, and faith is... faith. It means we have little to no proof that this is the way everything works, but we follow it anyway as it is what we believe in. Just take into account when making a statement that saying either 'There is God' or 'There is no God' are both found less statements which we have no direct proof of. We only have secondary sources, in both Darwin's theory and the bible. If you were not there when the world was created, well don't assume you know what happened.

Just saying is all.

[Fifthfiend]

Well, I guess this is where this'd go.

From Conservapedia, the Conservative Encyclopedia You Can Trust (http://www.conservapedia.com/Moon):

Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.

WTFsville?

No wait better - the entry on unicorns (http://www.conservapedia.com/Unicorn):

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

Anyway I found that hilarious and thought I would share.

[42PETUNIAS]

Post-Noachian references[1] to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.
There is no way this site is serious. However, it did manage to make my day.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Anyway I found that hilarious and thought I would share.

I seriously doubt you're going to get much argument from any Christians on this forum that this website is dumb. Because it is dumb. And it also means very little other than the fact there's a few dumb Christians out there.

[Elminster_Amaur]

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.
Post-Noachian references[1] to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.Wow. Just...wow. First off, even IF Unicorns were in existance in pre-flood Biblical times, they didn't even read their own Bible. It specifically states that Noah takes 14 of each variety of clean animal and 4(or maybe it was 6, I don't have a Bible with me) of each variety of the unclean animals, not 2 of every species. That'd be preposterous. There would be no room whatsoever for 2 of every species, but for 14 from the feline family, 14 canine, 14 bovine, etc. in a ship the size that is specified there would be just barely enough room. I imagine that IF Unicorns were in existance, they would be considered in the horse family, and were probably not included, due to there being none in the area at the time.

The Bible also makes specific reference to a creature that fits the description of a Stegosaurus, but that doesn't mean they're still alive. There are even certain books in the Bible that I will take at their face value, because the things written have been proved to be plausible. Job is one of them. I just want to know whether Job was hearing God or was psychizophrenic(sp). The Greek oracles often heard voices in their heads, and those voices were often correct, but the brain is built so that if a child is raised in the proper conditions, the language that the right-brain uses will be "heard" inside the head, and those conditions were often experienced by illiterate peasants outside of society (i.e. farmers, and the oracles).

[ZAKtheGeek]

But is it so wrong to? If it provides a good and strong world view, one that will bring good to yourself, and prevent you from harming others, is that a bad thing?

Some people aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and say that they are alone. If it helps them live a strong and right life, then is it a bad thing to base their worldview on a piece of art/literature?

Just a quesiton.
A number of things.
1. "Bad" is subjective. The answer to the question is probably "no."
2. I'm not sure what a "good and strong worldview" is, but it doesn't seem to be one quite aligned with the evidence...
3. Is it "wrong?" Yes. In all likelihood.

I don't know, I just think it's a good policy to live in the world around you...

Buddhism is not appealing to me, because it makes a man a god. A man is not god, and sometimes we are driven to become the devil himself (Hey, Trigun, but it's a good quote all the same).
Let us take a moment to brush up on the etymology of the word, "Christianity?"
Plus, their Koran depends upon Mohammed's word. I find the authorship of the Bible to be more consistent (thus trustworthy) than that.
The word of a prophet is better than the word about the word about the word of a prophet? I don't really get this.

Judiasm. Do I really have to say it? >>
Please do.

Yeah, that about covers the local world religions. And I'm not an Athiest because I believe that there's more to me than the sum of my parts, which is all that athiests can really believe.
What I meant was that there's a pretty big leap from that to most of the religions you listed. Least of all Buddhism, depending on who you hear it from.

[Fifthfiend]

Incidentally:

I disagree with several things that sections of the church are doing, such as allowing gay ministers/women ministers/gay marriage, because they go against the teachings, and to go against that, is to deny the base of your religion.

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.


Thats pretty much why I try not to waste a whole lot of breath on it either. Its their lives, and as long as they don't try to change my life its between them and God. To be honest, the Bible speaks against pre-marital sex and adultery much more often than it does against homosexuality, so I find it amusing that many churches are full of cheaters and players yet they all look down on gays.

Personally, I think God isn't that thrilled with any of it, but like I said, thats between them and God.

[Althane]

A number of things.
1. "Bad" is subjective. The answer to the question is probably "no."
2. I'm not sure what a "good and strong worldview" is, but it doesn't seem to be one quite aligned with the evidence...
3. Is it "wrong?" Yes. In all likelihood.

I don't know, I just think it's a good policy to live in the world around you...

I'd define a good and strong worldview as one that A: Isn't going to end up with anyone but you dead, and B: One that you can sustain. Crisis of faith aren't useful.

I live in the world around me, it doesn't interest me much, that's why I get on the internet and play games. OR were you speaking in a less literal term?

Let us take a moment to brush up on the etymology of the word, "Christianity?"
"O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863."

Christianity: One who follows the teachings of Christ. Mostly they were around being good people, not killing anyone, and generally not really being in anyone's way.

The word of a prophet is better than the word about the word about the word of a prophet? I don't really get this.

Muhammed went into the desert, got these tablets, supposedly, and recited them. Alone.

Christ traveled around Israel, preformed miracles in front of crowds, and got written down by numerous followers.

Please do.

Judiasm is the "before" of the Christian religion. If Christianity is true, then there's no point in being a Jew (not that you, y'know, can really become a Jew, unless you're born one). If it's not, then, well, we're all going to hell anyways. (assuming that the Christ hasn't come yet) If that's not right then, well, the afterlife of oblivion is an easy way for me to get out of hearing you guys laugh at me, right?


What I meant was that there's a pretty big leap from that to most of the religions you listed. Least of all Buddhism, depending on who you hear it from.

Can't a guy be a little bit irrational? We all have our quirks, right? =P

Sure, if by "teachings" you mean "extremely minor parts of the Old Testament." Christ was awful concerned about moneylenders in the temple, but I don't recall him wasting a lot of breath on queers.

So you have a problem if I want to say no to them marrying ONLY IN A CHAPEL? There is no issue about them being married, as a purely economic standpoint, but if people who go to a church that believes that homosexuality is wrong, then don't they have the right to say "Hey, yo, we don't agree with your lifestyle. We're not going to condemn you or anything, but please, just don't do it in our private property?" (Really, only the pastors/minsters could say that, but hey, you get the idea, right?)

Thats pretty much why I try not to waste a whole lot of breath on it either. Its their lives, and as long as they don't try to change my life its between them and God. To be honest, the Bible speaks against pre-marital sex and adultery much more often than it does against homosexuality, so I find it amusing that many churches are full of cheaters and players yet they all look down on gays.

I don't really have a problem with gays, it's just that if my religion condemns homosexuality (a man shall not lie with a man, I mean, how much simpler can you get?), then I can't agree with them getting married in a church that I go to. If my pastor disagrees, then I can see we've got very different standards, and so I'd leave.

Personally, I think God isn't that thrilled with any of it, but like I said, thats between them and God.

Meh, I don't think God's particually thrilled with anything that's come with this world.

[ZAKtheGeek]

"O.E. cristen, from L. Christianus, from Gk. christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26. Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303. Christian Science is from 1863."

Christianity: One who follows the teachings of Christ. Mostly they were around being good people, not killing anyone, and generally not really being in anyone's way.
Yes, tell me of this Christ fellow. And see how it contrasts to your complaint about Buddhism.

Muhammed went into the desert, got these tablets, supposedly, and recited them. Alone.
I take it you're not a big fan of the commandments, then?

Judiasm is the "before" of the Christian religion. If Christianity is true, then there's no point in being a Jew (not that you, y'know, can really become a Jew, unless you're born one). If it's not, then, well, we're all going to hell anyways. (assuming that the Christ hasn't come yet) If that's not right then, well, the afterlife of oblivion is an easy way for me to get out of hearing you guys laugh at me, right?
You know, there's a Judaism 3.0 now. Been for a while, actually. It's called Mormonism. Now, I haven't looked very deeply into it, but it seems that you haven't either. Maybe you should.

Can't a guy be a little bit irrational? We all have our quirks, right? =P
I only point these things out because you started so very rationally.

I live in the world around me, it doesn't interest me much, that's why I get on the internet and play games. OR were you speaking in a less literal term?
Interesting comparison. How much would you respect the decisions and opinions of people that base much of their lives around things they've seen in video games? That's how religious people are, in my view.

Edit: Forgot to say. Since I've thought about it a bit more, yes, it is bad to believe things even if they make you feel better. There are healthier ways of dealing with your problems than to delude yourself into a world where they don't exist. I think we're back to comparing religion and alcohol like we did some 500 posts back.

[Nique]

I think we're back to comparing religion and alcohol like we did some 500 posts back.

This comparison is, as Mr. Ford might say, 'Completely bunk'.

The exsistance of God aside, if someone is taught something as fact, or has learned it to be fact through study, however inncorrect/correct the conclusion may, then this is, or is part of, their worldview. This is not a shot of whiskey to ease the jitters, it is what, in part, defines their perception of exsistance.

Yes there are aspects to religion that make a lot of people feel better - it provides a level of hope, of purpose. But unlike the temporary 'easing' of uncomfortableness that alchohol provides, the proper application of religion provides fullfillment and satisfaction in life (other things do this as well, but few things portend to be of as much importance as religion does, so there's a potential for more motivation there). Is there a danger here? Yes. But the way this danger manifests itself typically goes beyond the express intent of any given religion, and is instead a by-product of social flaws (power hungry, greed, fear of change, etc).

I guess if we were going to run with that analogy despite this, then we should be fair to alchohol - I mean, you have your dumbass alcoholic college kids downing a whole keg night after night, follwed by the deadly freshman hazing... And you have your cultured (but not extremely pretentious) wine-taster whose affinity and drive for fine wines does not get in the way of his better judgement - indeed, his balenced behavior allows him to enjoy drinking all the more.

Hey. Maybe it is like religion.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Consider the original context, though.
But is it so wrong to? If it provides a good and strong world view, one that will bring good to yourself, and prevent you from harming others, is that a bad thing?

Some people aren't strong enough to stand on their own two feet, and say that they are alone. If it helps them live a strong and right life, then is it a bad thing to base their worldview on a piece of art/literature?
We're basically only talking about the merits of religion as something to make you feel better. Motivation, purpose? I don't care. Simply: Is it a bad thing to believe something just because it makes your life better? Yes.

Nor was my comparison meant to be taken so literally. The wine taster doesn't have any problems he's trying to get away from; he just likes being a little buzzed. What I was referring to were people that completely drink their problems away.

[Nique]

What I was referring to were people that completely drink their problems away.

I got that, hence I furthered the analogy to be more encompassing in it's comparison to religion. Yes some people use it as a 'crutch', but if these belifes are percived as truth in an almost academic sense... I mean, those who act on their faith, typically, can see logical benefits and reasons for adhereing to a paticular moral code, for instance.

I guess there's kind of two different types of religious people we're talking about here. One needs to belived they've 'been saved' or soemthing, but not nessicerily to any real benefit in 'salvation's' affect on their life, whereas the other chooses and acts on that path becuase they've reasoned it out, and they've determined that it is better for them.

Which isn't to say that the latter doesn't feel like they need God, but neither are they prone to blind faith, and require some convincing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

First of all, to be crystal clear: You're not actively disagreeing with me when I say it's improper to solve one's problems by ignoring them, even through religion?

Onward to your new-ish point(s).

I got that, hence I furthered the analogy to be more encompassing in it's comparison to religion. Yes some people use it as a 'crutch', but if these belifes are percived as truth in an almost academic sense... I mean, those who act on their faith, typically, can see logical benefits and reasons for adhereing to a paticular moral code, for instance.

I guess there's kind of two different types of religious people we're talking about here. One needs to belived they've 'been saved' or soemthing, but not nessicerily to any real benefit in 'salvation's' affect on their life, whereas the other chooses and acts on that path becuase they've reasoned it out, and they've determined that it is better for them.
But the faith is there to give incentive to the moral code a religion dictates. If the code's apparent benefits are convincing in themselves, then the faith is extraneous. Therefore:
Which isn't to say that the latter doesn't feel like they need God, but neither are they prone to blind faith, and require some convincing.
Maybe not blind faith but certainly a great leap here: "This religion's moral code makes sense to me, so I guess that means they're also right about all these great unknowable mysteries." Simply put, the efficacy of the morals has very little connection to the validity of the overall claims. Even given that one finds the morals right, that alone shouldn't move them very far from the default atheism. So, "The religion's claims are correct because their moral code is" is still about as rational as "The religion's claims are right because they make life easier to cope with."

[Nique]

First of all, to be crystal clear: You're not actively disagreeing with me when I say it's improper to solve one's problems by ignoring them, even through religion?

Basically.

"This religion's moral code makes sense to me, so I guess that means they're also right about all these great unknowable mysteries."

I meant for this argument to be a little more encompassing than just morals. I guess I got sidetracked with that as my example. It would be more like "this religion's overall teachings about life, morality, exsistance, makes sense to me and appear to be pretty coherent".

But the faith is there to give incentive to the moral code a religion dictates. If the code's apparent benefits are convincing in themselves, then the faith is extraneous.

You know, in a way, I agree with this. You would no doubt agree that faith in any claim should come after proof of some kind.

[ZAKtheGeek]

You know, in a way, I agree with this. You would no doubt agree that faith in any claim should come after proof of some kind.
Sure. And what I'm saying is that nice morals are weak proof at best.

I meant for this argument to be a little more encompassing than just morals. I guess I got sidetracked with that as my example. It would be more like "this religion's overall teachings about life, morality, exsistance, makes sense to me and appear to be pretty coherent".
It's probably best not to lump too many things together here. Morals, unlike some things, are subjective. Following certain morals leads to a certain society. If that sort of society is what you think society should be like, then you agree with the morals. Something like existence, on the other hand, is an objective matter. That means that there isn't much room for "makes sense to me;" just "makes sense" in general. As in, "is rational." So then what you're saying becomes equivalent to, "If the religion says rational things about the world (etc), then it must be right." Something of a tautology, really...

What's my point again? I'm not sure. I think it's that, if people believe in their religions due to such reasoning, it should be exceedingly easy to convince others as well. Seeing as there's hardly any world religion, it means either people just aren't trying to be convincing or their faith is not based on these things.

[Nique]

I think it's that, if people believe in their religions due to such reasoning, it should be exceedingly easy to convince others as well. Seeing as there's hardly any world religion, it means either people just aren't trying to be convincing or their faith is not based on these things.

Conforming to a doctrine/teaching that is uncomfortable, even if it is, let's assume, completely rational, leads to, I guess, a kind of manufactored doubt as to it's validity. This is not an uncommon human trait, in any aspect.

And I wouldn't claim that all religions, attempts to appeal directly to rational thinking. One of the reasons I am so satisfied with my faith, is not only becuase I have done research on my own, but I was always actively encouraged to understand the reasoning, rather than merely to accept.

I mean, the Bible tells us as much;

(Proverbs 18:13) When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.

I hope it's understood, and I think it is, that my defense of religion as a concept (or also on a personal level) does not amount to granting amnesty for wrongs/ socially unhealthful influences accomplished under it's banner.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Conforming to a doctrine/teaching that is uncomfortable, even if it is, let's assume, completely rational, leads to, I guess, a kind of manufactored doubt as to it's validity. This is not an uncommon human trait, in any aspect.
I'm sorry, have we just gone from religion as a crutch to help cope with life's problems to it being uncomfortable?

And I wouldn't claim that all religions, attempts to appeal directly to rational thinking.
I would say that few do. That's why I was trying to make the point that people don't usually believe in their religions because they make any sense (I think that was my point, anyway). You, however, seem to, so:

One of the reasons I am so satisfied with my faith, is not only becuase I have done research on my own, but I was always actively encouraged to understand the reasoning, rather than merely to accept.
Then convince me?

[Nique]

Maybe you're misunderstanding my usage of the word uncomfortable? it was said in reference to 'converting' by reason - I guess, it's like... If someone really liked to drink too much, so kind of took issue with biblical ideas about not over-indulging, even though following such a path would be clearly to his benefit? The idea of conforming to this behavior is 'uncomfortable', regardless of it's being rational.

Then convince me?

Sure. That sounds like a healthy exercise. But I'd rather have that conversation in a pm. If we wanted to repost it here later, that would be fine. I'm just not totally willing to open myself up to incoming arguments from every person here all at once if we're going to get very specific. Too overwhelming.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Maybe you're misunderstanding my usage of the word uncomfortable? it was said in reference to 'converting' by reason - I guess, it's like... If someone really liked to drink too much, so kind of took issue with biblical ideas about not over-indulging, even though following such a path would be clearly to his benefit? The idea of conforming to this behavior is 'uncomfortable', regardless of it's being rational.
No, I understood that. But you'd think that in light of knowledge about great confounding mysteries (knowledge which is supposed to be making sense at this point), people would prioritize better.

Sure. That sounds like a healthy exercise. But I'd rather have that conversation in a pm. If we wanted to repost it here later, that would be fine. I'm just not totally willing to open myself up to incoming arguments from every person here all at once if we're going to get very specific. Too overwhelming.
Fine... although "private sessions" have happened here too (see validity of perception subdebate).

[GOD OF IRONY]

i have no place to talk (ie was not reading other posts this is basicly post suiside) but it comes to my attention that religoin was the personification of the vast and crazy place that we call home. with out this said personifcation we'd be long dead before we evolved the lasting effects is that the kind*(*evil) people used this as a way of law promising rewards in the after life forhard work and law abiding in there long*(*drasticly short do to over use of said "law") and needed* (meaningless) lives

[Nique]

I tried to post something the other day... internet went down just as I hit "post" apparently.

Fine... although "private sessions" have happened here too (see validity of perception subdebate).

True. Just would rather not have the overwhelming amount of arguments coming from both sides in this disscussion, as is natural to happen when we get to the specifics of doctrine. I mean, maybe it wouldn't be too bad. I just wouldn't nessecerily want to monopolize the thread with a specifically one-on-one discourse.

ie was not reading other posts this is basicly post suiside

Not really. The thread is huge, so new comments are probably welcome?

Your post is pretty illegible though. I'm going to introduce you to this little fellow "here (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000064.htm)". His name is 'Capitalization'. Maybe once you get to know him, he will introduce you to some of his other friends (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/11/03).

I am joking a bit here, of course, so I don't mean to discourage your participation... But seriously, if you want us to understand what you're saying on a conceptual level, the structure has got to conform at least loosely to some normal grammer rules. I mean, the asteriks alone...

I guess what you're saying is that religion is just a means to control and advance the populace? Can you give us an example of this, maybe to better understand what you mean?

[Demetrius]

Morals, unlike some things, are subjective.

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

[Nique]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

This is assuming that there is a creator who made us to work better within a system of morals that he defined and further that as creator he has a right to determine what those are.

Which I do, but that issue has to be resolved before we can move on to the subjectivity of morals. Don't let the tail wag the dog.

[Demetrius]

Morality is expressed in terms free of religion in many cases (medicine and law chiefly). If something is right it cannot be wrong and if something is wrong it cannot be right; they are mutually exclusive, encompass all actions and therefore absolute. A person may take something and try to shade it in one direction or the other, but in the end any and all things fall into one category or the other.

[Elminster_Amaur]

A person may take something and try to shade it in one direction or the other, but in the end any and all things fall into one category or the other.That sounds suspiciously...You're dealing in absolutes, Anakin! Only the Sith deal in absolutes.That's right...I just brought the Jedi into religious discussion.

They are actually very good for drawing examples from when it comes to religion, but that's not my point. My point here is that there are certain situations where your actions can fall in neither of your categories. Sure, there are quite a few that are absolutely good or absolutely evil. Murder is always evil, where killing doesn't have such a narrow definition. A child steals an apple to feed a sick parent, because child labor is illegal here and no one will help him. Is the child doing an evil act? Stealing is bad, but if it's the only way the child can help, is it a bad act? There are almost always shades. There are some times when you have a choice between committing a greater evil or a lesser evil, where failing to act or acting in a different manner will cause an even greater evil to occur.

[GOD OF IRONY]

I guess what you're saying is that religion is just a means to control and advance the populace? Can you give us an example of this, maybe to better understand what you mean?
Thank you for understanding back when the jews could still eat pork. The leader realised that pork spoled easly and that it didnt change much when it spoiled. Basicly the jews got sick form eating pork so the leader said "God says pork is a unclean meat" and the jews follow this rule now even with our new ways of perserving our food. this is my example

[ZAKtheGeek]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.
Fatal flaw: "right" and "wrong" are not at all absolutes. They have no objective meanings (well, they do in the sense of "true" and "false," but that's how their used when discussing morality); they are subjectively defined, and therefore the entire concept of morality is itself subjective.

Even in spite of that, you seemed to misunderstand, because I wasn't talking about whether there is subjectivity within a system of morals, but whether whether any system of morals could itself be considered objectively or if it was subjective. The only way to objectively judge a moral system is to declare some sort of overall goal beforehand, then consider whether those morals lead to that goal (a bit of a hairy process in itself). Since the goal chosen is in no way an absolute but instead depends upon the individual, the judgment of morality(ies) is subjective.

Nique: Like I said, PM's are fine.

[GOD OF IRONY]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

this is the bigest pile of crap the world has ever seen. there is a nutral there is a slightly damned and a slightly blessed the "fact" of right and wrong is diffrent than fable or KOTOR its not just good and evil light and dark ETC.ETC.

the world forgets and memorizes there is no complety good person anyway we all have done wrong (my spelling for exaple) here is a true fact there is darkness unless there is light

[Tendronai]

There are no moral absolutes - a person can act in any way which they deem necessary. As a Jew, whenever I see someone eating/buying pork, some part of me declares it an evil (okay,wrong) act. However, there is no doubt that the person with the pork does not think that it is evil/wrong in any sense. This is kind of a stupid example, but I think you all get the point. There cannot be any moral absolutes because every person has their own moral code.

[Content]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

QFT.

Sorry, but morality is an absolute. If you think an act is wrong and someone else thinks its right, then someone is wrong.

Stealing an apple is wrong, he comitted a morally reprehensible act. The means never justify the extremes.

Doing nothing can ini fact never be an act of evil. Letting evil pass is not in itself evil. Supporting Evil is evil. Supporting good is good. Doing good is good.

Doing nothing is not, and I repeat, not evil nor good.

Civilized people help one another out. Working collectivly to help one another in keeping evil at bay and good within. For the price of raising and protecting you the community then asks you do the same in turn for others.

Somewhere along the lines this got intertwined with morality.

[Azisien]

I can definitely disagree there. Non-action is an action, in the realm of choice as it comes to morality. You can be wrong, or right, to do nothing.

[Sithdarth]

I would like to point out that Socrates very clearly pointed out the problem with absolute morality. Well really he pointed out the logical paradox with defining morality as separate from humans and their perceptions. Any objective morality would exist as separate from humans and their perceptions thus making the system logically flawed at the most basic level.

Here is how he did it. (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm#eut)

[GOD OF IRONY]

There are no moral absolutes - a person can act in any way which they deem necessary. As a Jew, whenever I see someone eating/buying pork, some part of me declares it an evil (okay,wrong) act. However, there is no doubt that the person with the pork does not think that it is evil/wrong in any sense. This is kind of a stupid example, but I think you all get the point. There cannot be any moral absolutes because every person has their own moral code.

That had nothing to do with the moral thing but what a nice way of mixing it in. I was saying that relgion is only a means of controling a large group of people. but you did a much greater job of showing that morals are said controling... thing-thingys. ANYWAY morals are just ways relgion controls the followers of said relgion

[Azisien]

There's a big difference between moral absolutism and some of the skepticism that just hurts my ears. There are absolutes to the extent of doing what morality sets out to do, in general, protect people, drive social cooperation for the better of the species, however else you like to rationalize it. There is a human and cultural norm. There is also a degree of cultural relativism, and there can be people that deviate from the norm in small and large (rare) ways.

[Tendronai]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that there is ever a true "good" or "evil". People are both too biased within their own experiences and too varied in opinions for there to ever a concrete definition of either. Take murder. Most people agree it is an evil act. But (and here gets kind of weird, but bear with me, it helps me make my point) if it were possible to murder Hitler before his rise to power, would it still be evil? The point that I'm trying to make is that circumstance, more often than not, can morph an evil act to good or good to evil. As such, there can't be any objective morality system, since they all depend too much upon circumstances.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It seems to me that people are being all too vague in this and that this vagueness causes them to be arguing over fairly differing issues. Thus no one gets anywhere because no one fully understands what anyone else is really saying.

One thing people seem to be arguing over is the "shades of gray" idea: is there anything in between moral right and wrong? The answer is that there is no answer; it depends entirely on the moral system. Usually a complicated set of morals will have overlaps where doing something (or not doing something) can be considered both good and bad, because most actions affect multiple things in multiple ways. Of course, it's also (probably) possible to have a system where this never occurs - although this system is probably a relatively simple code.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Take murder. Most people agree it is an evil act. But (and here gets kind of weird, but bear with me, it helps me make my point) if it were possible to murder Hitler before his rise to power, would it still be evil?Yes. It would be. The problem with killing someone before they did something important in the past could disrupt the entire time-space continuum. Killing Hitler before his rise to power would likely have caused a global government run by the soviets. Not that communism is bad, but forced communism will always fail, and I don't know about you, but the world under Stalin would have been far worse than letting Hitler rise and WWII occur. It is very likely that without Hitler, there would have been no America to rise to power to counter the Soviet Union.

[Tendronai]

Well, I agree with that historical analysis. But the point I was trying to make was that it is possible for even the most morally reprehensible act to have its own beneficial properties, therefore meaning that there could be no action which would be considered completely and irredeemably evil.

[Elminster_Amaur]

But the point I was trying to make was that it is possible for even the most morally reprehensible act to have its own beneficial properties, therefore meaning that there could be no action which would be considered completely and irredeemably evil.Lets take Hitler as an example again. The Holocaust. I can see no beneficial property to it. Merely invading other nations would have caused WWII, since as long as it wasn't THEIR families, no one was willing to get involved. What were the benefits of the Holocaust. If you can come up with some that at least make up for the loss of 1 life, I'll concede your point.

[Tendronai]

Remember, I'm Jewish, too, so don't try any of that "I'm a racist" crap. What I am about to say is done solely to prove my point, and not because I believe six million people had to die. It was an evil act in my point of view, but that doesn't mean it was evil to everyone.

From the point of view of the Germans : This act rejuvenated their country as a whole. Their economy was rescued by the new government. Even more important, it restored faith in the country as a whole. People were proud to be German again. With the subsequent restoration of pride, the Germans were willing to try to prove to the world that they were the best. Such arrogance inspired the other countries to take action, to varying degrees of success. The mobilization which followed was enough to pull these countries out of their economic recessions. Without such a flash point, it becomes less likely that the Depression would have ended as it did, which could then have led to the collapse of the Capitalist system worldwide. This would have led the USSR to grab the reigns of power, and it has been well documented how bad Stalin and the following leaders were in regards to the people of their country. Had they both been unchecked by any other power, and had free reign over the world, it is highly probable that Stalin's current records would pale in comparison to what he would have done had he thought he had no one else to worry about.

Therefore, it can be said that the deaths of those in the events leading up to and during the second world war protected us from the potential slaughterhouse that could have been created.

[Elminster_Amaur]

I suppose that is one way to view it. I said I'd concede you your point, and I do. But these exercises in past actions aren't very good, because a single, seemingly insignificant change would cause a drastically different outcome this many years in the future. We both agree that there are, at the very least, some actions that cannot be atributed to pure good or pure evil.

I'm now going to make the case that neither exists. I'll try from a monotheistic perspective(i.e. Judiasm or its several spawned religions).

God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God exists in all things.
Varying Good and Evil are varying degrees of separation from God.
If even the highest Good is still separated from God by Imperfection,
And God is everywhere and in all things,
Then Good and Evil are not in anything. They do not exist at all.

I couldn't get to that conclusion from athiestic assumptions. The closest I could get are "Good and Evil are electrical impulses". I suppose I'm running out of juice.

[Tendronai]

I'll agree with that statement. There doesn't seem to be that much room for argument, and I'm sure the fact that I've been arguing the same thing doesn't help me in finding places to dispute it.

[ZAKtheGeek]

There's about as much a need to prove that good and evil exist from an atheist perspective as there is one to prove that gods exist. First somebody has to give reason to think there is any such thing as good and evil (or at least define them, for Zeus' sake...), then we can work on showing they don't exist.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Fine, I'll try to define good and evil from the athiest perspective.

Good - Any action or inaction that promotes the growth of the individual or society, without stagnating the growth or continued survival of the species.

Evil - Any action or inaction that causes harm to befall the individual, society or species, from least evil to greatest.

Are those broad enough definitions for you athiests? I am finding it hard to think from that point of view.

[ZAKtheGeek]

What is individual growth? Is that literal? What about societal growth? Does that mean population increase?

What is a harm to society? Is species harm a reduction in population?

[Tendronai]

It also fails to answer whether an evil act occurs when the individual is promoted over the society, or vice versa.

[Elminster_Amaur]

You guys are free to make additions, revisions or just plain re-writes of my definitions. Those were just what I thought the broadest possible definitions of good and evil could be, from a stance where good and evil are not defined by a god.

[Tendronai]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure how you can create a definition of Good or Evil without having some figure which can represent one of the extremes. For the sake of the argument, I'd be willing to accept the possibility of a God who represents ultimate Good.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It's not so much that as it is the connotations of "good" and "evil." By that, I mean it's considered that people should act "good" and should not act "evil." Objectively, there's no reason to ever do anything, though.

[Tendronai]

I personally think that there's more reason to act evil than good, since evil is generally for ones own benefit. To be good usually requires some sacrifice (giving your things to charity instead of selling them) whereas being evil benefits just you (lying about a job to get paid, then have someone else do the work).

[Elminster_Amaur]

I disagree. When it comes to giving things away, generally, people who give more recieve more in return. This doesn't even have anything to do with forces outside humanity itself. You see, people's attitudes toward you tend to reflect your attitude toward them. Most of the wealthiest people in the world understand this principle and tend to give away massive amounts of money, only to have money come back to them ten-twenty times. That's major incentive to do good deeds. I personally consider it an evil act to not even attempt to bring yourself into wealth, because you can't give away something you don't have.

[Azisien]

Evil might seem like a good idea on a very small scale, but in making Tendronai's claims you essentially ignore all the possible bad consequences of doing evil deeds, that would be detrimental to you. Plus what Elmin said.

As for defining good and evil, well to me it's identical to defining moral and immoral. And how do you define those? Obviously you need a reference, pretty much anything does. I've personally substituted something like "Cuz God said so" with "Because it benefits me and everyone else to act in such and such a way/because it creates order/what have you."

Objectively, yes we can be nihilists. I don't think it's an avenue that needs entertainment.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Most of the wealthiest people in the world understand this principle and tend to give away massive amounts of money, only to have money come back to them ten-twenty times. That's major incentive to do good deeds.
Could you elaborate on this? I can interpret this two ways, and neither make sense. One way is the philanthropist interpretation, that extremely rich people give a shitload to charities. This, however, doesn't have a thing to do with the money flowing back towards them. Indeed, the fact that they are so ridiculously rich is quite a big piece of why many give so much, I imagine... they just don't have much else to do with their riches.

The other interpretation is the capitalist interpretation, where the rich dude invests in something and a lot of money comes back. This is also not even close to being relevant, as this person enters into an agreement where they are able to gain money if the venture succeeds. No such thing happens with a "random act of kindness;" you might get kindness back, but regardless of the efficacy of your gesture, there are no promises. So no, every person that tries to strike it rich on the stock market is not a saintly humanitarian.

--

As for defining morals, like I said, the first thing to do to that end is to establish some sort of goal. The best kind of goal, I think, is objective, simple and obvious. It should be something extremely difficult for anyone to disagree with, so the morals derived from it can have some claim to absoluteness.

[Tommathy]

The standard definitition of evil is selfishness, wanting and needing for yourself in exclusion for others. Thus did Lucifer fall (wanting the light and power for himself), and thus the conjecture that all human beings born into sin (what could be more unmindful and selfish than a baby?).

Good is doing works for the benefit and exaltation of others, and it is something into which one must grow, something which one must learn.

[Tendronai]

Just on the whole, I don't believe that there could be any absolute definition of good and evil. Even if you accept selflessness as inherently good, if you give up your gun so someone else could kill someone, I don't think that your generosity makes that a good act.

[ZAKtheGeek]

To further the example, what if all your actions are to the benefit and exaltation of somebody who acts mainly in an evil way? Are your actions still good? Even if so, they're probably leading to evil results, creating a paradoxical situation where, even if we strive to spread good and not evil, actually doing good and abstaining from evil might not be the best ways to do so. In other words, even if you accept this system, you still wouldn't be bound to act by it.

[Tendronai]

So we either have the problem now that the definitions which we have been giving each other for good and evil are incorrect or otherwise inaccurate, or we can agree that there cannot really be a concrete definition of morality. I'm in favour of the second one, but if anyone wants to try again I invite them to do so.

[Zuzak]

This may be going backwards a bit, but I'd like to elighten everyone on my personal way off deciding if something is always moraly good: The Bomb in the Orphanage Test. Take an "absolute" moral truth, and decide if you would sacrifice an orphanage for it.

Ex: Denying your faith is a sin. There's some crazy guy with a bomb in an orphanage. He says "I hate [insert your religion here]! If I see another [person of your religion], I'm going to blow us all up! Are you a [insert your religion here]?"

If the proposed moral truth passes, replace the orphanage with, say, the U.S.

In my opinion, this clearly proves that there can be no absolute moral truths.

[Azisien]

Your test sounds oddly like a Kantian universal maxim test. It's good in many practical applications, but like any normative theory it still tends to fall apart at the extremes.

Which I guess is a good thing, otherwise us philosophers wouldn't have jobs.

[Tendronai]

Yup, thank God that my minor still has a purpose. There cannot be any example which encompasses all extremes. Nothing stops us from trying, though, because it passes the time.

[Zuzak]

The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint:

Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy

Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy

[42PETUNIAS]

The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint:

Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy

Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy
Well, thats a good general framework, but it doesn't always work, at least by many arguements. For example, take white lies. They generally don't hurt anyone, and both sides win, but many people would argue that telling a white lie is wrong because you are deceiving people. The same goes for things like giving people false hope.

[Zuzak]

Well, thats a good general framework, but it doesn't always work, at least by many arguements. For example, take white lies. They generally don't hurt anyone, and both sides win, but many people would argue that telling a white lie is wrong because you are deceiving people. The same goes for things like giving people false hope.

The only arguement I have for white lies and false hope would be that eventually, if discovered, they would make the person unhappy. I guess this is pretty weak, but, like I said, people have different standereds for what is good and evil.

[GOD OF IRONY]

ok lets say one of my firends is a total villen fan (ie Sepiroth) she thinks that the villen should always win for thay are better than the hero. Another friend likes Heros more but thinks evil shuld atleast get a tie. so who is good and who is evil? answer: none there is no good there is no evil there is no right and wrong also there is no normal and purfect. ALL. IT.OF.IT.IS.POINT.OF VIEW. ie if hitler won ww2 than the jews would be "evil" but he didnt so there.

[Azisien]

The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint:

Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy

Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy

Another problem we face is perspective, and also overdemanding moral schemes. A moral code is useless if a layperson can't apply it in practical situations. This is a common objection to many types of consequentialism; an act can seem good, but have you considered all the angles? If it was good, but caused something evil down the line, does it remain good? Vice versa? Exactly how far ahead of time can we expect someone to plan when it comes to moral concerns?

I mean, I'm not sure of it, but it would seem that the very life I lead is the cause of much suffering for other impoverished people in third world countries. I don't think I'm doing anything particularly evil, I'm just living in my society, and I was lucky to be born here. I happen to live in a rich, greedy, unaltruistic country. On reflection, maybe I am doing some evil in my non-action.

[42PETUNIAS]

It also depends on how dying is placed on your scale, as well as the value of a human life. For example, killing a very evil person to save a very good person would be treated as neither good nor evil by your scale, while pretty much everyone else would see it as heroic.

Also, people technically aren't really unhappy when they die. Does that mean killing people for my own personal amusement is advocated as good by your system?

[Tendronai]

Furthermore, adding to what everyone else said, it is nearly impossible to define good and evil unless one has some sort of point that can be judged as either wholly good or wholly evil. I'm willing to accept the concept of a God who could be entirely good, but even then I believe that there are too many gradation's of any event to ever judge it as good or evil.

[Zuzak]

What if you inserted other things for "happy" in my definition? Ex: Equality, truth, knowlage, freedom, order, and intellegence (and their oppisites replacing unhappy). Granted, to include every value in it would make it very long, and wouldn't define good universally (by which I mean, for everyone).

By the way, I just sort of jumped in here without reading the majority of the tread. Could someone explain why we need to define good/evil?

Also, I believe in God, mainly because I think it's too risky not to. The risk of a possible eternal paradise being replaced with eternal suffering is great enough for me to follow my religion. I'm Catholic, by the way.

I do, however, disagree on a few points. Most importantly, I was baptized before I could speak for myself. I don't see how that can help my soul. If someone is another religion because of their parents and their upbringing, I really don't see why they should be punished eternally.

Anyway, I don't understand how the universe (and life) could have been created without God. As for God's creation, I assume that he exists on a seperate, for lack of a better word, dimention.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Yeah, I've been gone for a week. Don't shoot me. I'll just jump right back in.

I mean, I'm not sure of it, but it would seem that the very life I lead is the cause of much suffering for other impoverished people in third world countries. I don't think I'm doing anything particularly evil, I'm just living in my society, and I was lucky to be born here. I happen to live in a rich, greedy, unaltruistic country. On reflection, maybe I am doing some evil in my non-action.Circumstances cannot be good or evil in themselves. Without human consciousness to give an event meaning, an event merely happens. Therefore, if you have caused someone harm merely by being born in a rich country, it is not evil to have survived your mother's pregnancy, since we have no proof that human sapience exists in fetuses(feti?).

But the point I really wanted to bring up was your assumption that what you (and most) people call "altruism" is beneficial to those you are "helping". Sure, giving someone who is starving to death food to survive until they can hunt/harvest/buy their own food is helping them, but a lot of the "altruistic" help that nations like the US give to third-world nations merely brings the US further into debt and it brings those nations further from self-reliance. Some countries have actually gotten to the point that, without hand-outs, their country would either starve or fall into anarchy. That's why most rich people don't like democrats(or the current administration, for that matter). By giving handouts regularly, we make people less strong.

There was actually a character who shared my views in a video game I played last year, but this character took it to the extreme, maybe to the point where any action at all could be considered evil. That character? The old hag from KOTOR2. See, the way she explained the Sith philosophy, they [i]were[i] far better people than the Jedi, until they became power-hungry. See (pay attention to this, because the difference between the view the Sith take, and that of the common people on the actions of Jedi is the difference between the people who have everything they want in life, and those who stay in a rut for years on end), when a person is "trapped" in a "situation", there are three basic ways out. The first is the most common: the person will react to, and run from, the situation, which will not go away, and will continue to have the problem until they die. The second way creates dependancy upon people like the Jedi: ask someone stronger for help. The third way, is the way the Sith and the Jedi would act if faced with insurmountable odds: Grow stronger by overcoming this problem, because many like it will make their way to you. The more you consentrate on the avoiding the problem, as opposed to solving it, the more you attract similar problems to you.

Well, I suppose that's enough "Jedi vs. Sith/Poor vs. Rich" ethics lecture for my first day back from da Bahamas that didn't involve space-ships and a bomb threat.

[Tendronai]

Also, I believe in God, mainly because I think it's too risky not to.

I don't think that's really a justified reason for believing in God. That's more playing along for the sake of dodging a potential problem, rather than actual belief.

Coincidentally, I also share many of Kreia's beliefs. I'm not as extreme as she is, but I still think she has many good points. She's also a really good demonstration of the fact that any action can be construed as evil.

[Zuzak]

You have a point. But really that's more of a reason not to change my faith more than to come to it. Maybe I should have said "I still believe in God..."

[Azisien]

Circumstances cannot be good or evil in themselves. Without human consciousness to give an event meaning, an event merely happens. Therefore, if you have caused someone harm merely by being born in a rich country, it is not evil to have survived your mother's pregnancy, since we have no proof that human sapience exists in fetuses(feti?).

It's not so much this, but that now I'm certainly rational and developed, and while I'm not going out of my way to try and harm others, however proximal or distant they might be, I'm also not trying to help others when I know there are people I could help. I suppose under many moral frameworks, I'm not breaking any codes...Except for perhaps virtue ethics, which would classify me as rather mediocre. :p

But the point I really wanted to bring up was your assumption that what you (and most) people call "altruism" is beneficial to those you are "helping". Sure, giving someone who is starving to death food to survive until they can hunt/harvest/buy their own food is helping them, but a lot of the "altruistic" help that nations like the US give to third-world nations merely brings the US further into debt and it brings those nations further from self-reliance. Some countries have actually gotten to the point that, without hand-outs, their country would either starve or fall into anarchy. That's why most rich people don't like democrats(or the current administration, for that matter). By giving handouts regularly, we make people less strong.

Well I don't think I said we should just throw money at our problems, especially worldwide poverty issues. And hopefully you didn't take it that way. No, direct cash has some uses (urgent times, these people need some food now, etc etc), but the longer term the development, the better. Instead of giving them large stockpiles of food, it would be better to educate their farmers in useful agricultural techniques, give them farming equipment, blah blah blah, so they become at least partially self-reliant. Anyway, more of a side point.