Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

16 Jan 2008, 1:58 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
MissPickwickian wrote:
I'm very logical, like you. That is why I'm a philosopher and not an artist or an astrologer.

You do snake a lot of respect by saying that.

Quote:
I'm a nonconformist, like you. Unlike too many people I have met, I cannot define religion as a community of people who go to Christian rock concerts and campouts. People regarded as true religious figures were often extremely solitary and eccentric.

Most people really don't define religion well and frankly, I don't think that concerts and campouts really are representative of a truly Christian faith too often. I disagree with your definition of a true religious figure. Neither being solitary nor eccentric seems to imply faith to me. Not only that, but I also don't see that really happening so much as many "true religious figures" as they were regarded were great leaders who pushed a different path. You could call them eccentric, but part of the real issue is really just a matter of identification. People see the eccentric man and then they notice his religion, or the religious figure goes down in history for embarking a different path, but really very few people get well known for being normal. Really though, I have an odd usage of the term religion.
Quote:
I am mathematically challenged, but I try to learn as much physics as I can with that handicap. The universe is both more chaotic and more ordered than people think it is.

I really don't think that snake is speaking of real science either. Perhaps I am just being a bit mean by saying these things, but I don't see snake as being the rationalist that I am, but rather an odd mystic who considers himself rational simply by not challenging his own assertions and eating of the fruit of skepticism. I dunno, I really don't think I hurt anything by arguing this point either as I know he has no respect for me and considers me practically the embodiment of evil.


Yeah, your right AG, rational means defending child molesters :roll:



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Jan 2008, 2:17 pm

snake321 wrote:
Yeah, your right AG, rational means defending child molesters :roll:

Nope, it merely means weighing each issue on its merits and approaching each issue calmly and without preconceived notion. Often this can include things such as not using emotionally loaded language or attacking arguments by attacking the individual making the argument.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

16 Jan 2008, 10:40 pm

So far, as long as I've been here, I've heard you defend sweat shops, child molester rights, and torturing house pets for fun. I don't find any of those things rational.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

16 Jan 2008, 10:45 pm

snake321 wrote:
So far, as long as I've been here, I've heard you defend sweat shops, child molester rights, and torturing house pets for fun. I don't find any of those things rational.


Ah. An argument from intuition? The most rational of all forms indeed...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

16 Jan 2008, 11:20 pm

twoshots, were you being sarcastic?



Triangular_Trees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,799

16 Jan 2008, 11:39 pm

"God Dies" by Frances Farmer

Quote:
No one ever came to me and said, "You're a fool. There isn't such a thing as God. Somebody's been stuffing you." It wasn't a murder. I think God just died of old age. And when I realized that he wasn't any more, it didn't shock me. It seemed natural and right.

Maybe it was because I was never properly impressed with a religion. I went to Sunday school and liked the stories about Christ and the Christmas star. They were beautiful. They made you warm and happy to think about. But I didn't believe them. The Sunday School teacher talked too much in the way our grade school teacher used to when she told us about George Washington. Pleasant, pretty stories, but not true.

Religion was too vague. God was different. He was something real, something I could feel. But there were only certain times when I could feel it. I used to lie between cool, clean sheets at night after I'd had a bath, after I had washed my hair and scrubbed my knuckles and finger nails and teeth. Then I could lie quite still in the dark with my face to the window with the trees in it, and talk to God. "I am clean, now. I've never been as clean. I'll never be cleaner." And somehow, it was God. I wasn't sure that it was … just something cool and dark and clean.

That wasn't religion, though. There was too much of the physical about it. I couldn't get that same feeling during the day, with my hands in dirty dish water and the hard sun showing up the dirtiness on the roof-tops. And after a time, even at night, the feeling of God didn't last. I began to wonder what the minister meant when he said, "God, the father, sees even the smallest sparrow fall. He watches over all his children." That jumbled it all up for me. But I was sure of one thing. If God were a father, with children, that cleanliness I had been feeling wasn't God. So at night, when I went to bed, I would think, "I am clean. I am sleepy." And then I went to sleep. It didn't keep me from enjoying the cleanness any less. I just knew that God wasn't there. He was a man on a throne in Heaven, so he was easy to forget.

Sometimes I found he was useful to remember; especially when I lost things that were important. After slamming through the house, panicky and breathless from searching, I could stop in the middle of a room and shut my eyes. "Please God, let me find my red hat with the blue trimmings." It usually worked. God became a super-father that couldn't spank me. But if I wanted a thing badly enough, he arranged it.

That satisfied me until I began to figure that if God loved all his children equally, why did he bother about my red hat and let other people lose their fathers and mothers for always? I began to see that he didn't have much to do about hats, people dying or anything. They happened whether he wanted them to or not, and he stayed in heaven and pretended not to notice. I wondered a little why God was such a useless thing. It seemed a waste of time to have him. After that he became less and less, until he was…nothingness.

I felt rather proud to think that I had found the truth myself, without help from any one. It puzzled me that other people hadn't found out, too. God was gone. We were younger. We had reached past him. Why couldn’t they see it? It still puzzles me.



Triangular_Trees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,799

16 Jan 2008, 11:43 pm

I look at my life, and I look at others who have had it worse, and I know one thing for certain. Even if god is real there is no way I would even consider supporting someone who is so cruel to so many completely innocent children. I wonder how others can go and praise him, when according to their own definitions, there are children painfully starving to death because he choose to have them born in an area with no food where its not possible for food to be brought to them in their lifetime, even if there were people who wanted to help and were helping.

But then I guess its easy to jsut overlook the suffering of others when you have parents who tuck you into bed at night and feed you three meals a day. Instead of parents who raise you in such a way you have to sneak down to the barn at night to dig food out of a pig trough, and hide in garages to keep them from seeing you.



matrix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 585
Location: between glitches

16 Jan 2008, 11:57 pm

MissPickwickian wrote:
snake321 wrote:
Even still, the arguments that religious people use to prove god are often emotionally loaded and lacking logic. This is because moreso than their actual belief in god, it's more about fitting in with their peers and believing what their peers believe, conforming to society. So in a way, theyr really worshipping society and authority more than theyr worshipping god, even if they can never admit this.
My evidence comes from studying and digging into the real world beyond the matrix, and experiencing mathematical proofs. I opened up to "super natural" stuff when considering energy flow and energy mechanics and what not, a purely scientific force that has barely been scratched upon as of yet.


I'm very logical, like you. That is why I'm a philosopher and not an artist or an astrologer.

I'm a nonconformist, like you. Unlike too many people I have met, I cannot define religion as a community of people who go to Christian rock concerts and campouts. People regarded as true religious figures were often extremely solitary and eccentric.

I am mathematically challenged, but I try to learn as much physics as I can with that handicap. The universe is both more chaotic and more ordered than people think it is.


I've been to maybe ten or twelve campouts. I've also read A. W. Tozer and know he is antisocial, but one of my favorites. I still question this "unshakable faith" thing.


_________________
You are not submitting the post
The post is submitting you


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Jan 2008, 1:39 am

snake321 wrote:
So far, as long as I've been here, I've heard you defend sweat shops, child molester rights, and torturing house pets for fun. I don't find any of those things rational.

Actually, I only was semi-serious for the 2 on the ends rather than the one in the middle. Really though, given that expert economists defend sweatshops(you know, the people actually studying this phenomenon) and that people have historically (including the Founding Fathers for the US if I remember correctly) enjoyed animal cruelty. I really don't think that I was pushing towards anything even close to irrational. Heck, the first one IS soberly rationalistic.
twoshots wrote:
Ah. An argument from intuition? The most rational of all forms indeed...

Yeah, there is a reason I don't call the guy very logical. He asserts his intuition and acts as if it is divine revelation. Trust me, I don't truly enjoy sweat shops, child molesters, or animal torture, but I do function off of a rational basis when arguing those things or more often simply placing doubt on those who assert truths.
snake321 wrote:
twoshots, were you being sarcastic?

Yes, he obviously was. Intuition is not a part of most rationalistic epistemology and the trail of dots was telling too.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 12:51 pm

Excuse me but I think empathy is rational. All sentient life has certain unalienable rights, the right to be left alone to live a comfortable life free from victimhood. If you wanna see where greed and selfishness and ignorance will lead society, look at ancient rome. America was modeled of of Rome. Greed is why the people are getting shafted in this fascist twist our economy is taking. It is because the people pushing it are greedy, selfish, ignorant.
Any point of view can be rationalized, that doesn't mean it's rational. Ask 90% of the free thinking people in society and they'll defend empathy. Morals are needed to keep a working society. I don't view a cut throat "f**k them before they f**k you" system as progressive, because all you'll have is a chain reaction of people trying to f**k over one another for their own selfish benefit and nothing ever gets done, more problems are created, and in the end, everyone suffers for their own ignorance.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 12:52 pm

Dry logic is illogical when dealing with sentient life, a proper balance of logic and empathy are needed.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 12:57 pm

I mean, what would give you a right to molest children, or torture an innocent being who has done no harm to you, or to enslave innocent people? Even if they agreed to the conditions for the only fact being that they had to in order to feed their families?
AG, twoshots apparently also, your not really human, you do not understand what humanity is. The basic values I speak of are at the heart of every society, they are the basics that all religious morality of almost any religion consciously agree on or strive for, even if sub-consciously they've been unable to obtain it due to being too rigid in their world views.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 12:58 pm

To make that easier for you to grasp, it's basic secular common since morality that anyone should be able to agree on.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 Jan 2008, 2:04 pm

snake321 wrote:
Excuse me but I think empathy is rational. All sentient life has certain unalienable rights, the right to be left alone to live a comfortable life free from victimhood.

Intuition claim.
Quote:
If you wanna see where greed and selfishness and ignorance will lead society, look at ancient rome. America was modeled of of Rome. Greed is why the people are getting shafted in this fascist twist our economy is taking. It is because the people pushing it are greedy, selfish, ignorant.

A variant of rational egoism?
Quote:
Ask 90% of the free thinking people in society and they'll defend empathy.

consensus gentium.
And define "free thinking".
Quote:
twoshots apparently also, your not really human, you do not understand what humanity is.

:lol: Yes perhaps. I do need to read the newspaper in order to feel anything at all...
"Pity in a man of knowledge seems almost ludicrous, like sensitive hands on a cyclops."


_________________
* here for the nachos.


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 3:27 pm

twoshots wrote:
snake321 wrote:
Excuse me but I think empathy is rational. All sentient life has certain unalienable rights, the right to be left alone to live a comfortable life free from victimhood.

Intuition claim.
Quote:
If you wanna see where greed and selfishness and ignorance will lead society, look at ancient rome. America was modeled of of Rome. Greed is why the people are getting shafted in this fascist twist our economy is taking. It is because the people pushing it are greedy, selfish, ignorant.

A variant of rational egoism?
Quote:
Ask 90% of the free thinking people in society and they'll defend empathy.

consensus gentium.
And define "free thinking".
Quote:
twoshots apparently also, your not really human, you do not understand what humanity is.

:lol: Yes perhaps. I do need to read the newspaper in order to feel anything at all...
"Pity in a man of knowledge seems almost ludicrous, like sensitive hands on a cyclops."


It is not intuition to stand up for what is morally right. Egoistic victimization of innocent beings is wrong, period. They have done nothing to you to deserve to be victimized. How would you feel if someone did it to you?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 3:28 pm

Also I don't need the newspaper or the media to tell me how to think, having basic human empathy does not equate to being brainwashed you idiot.