2010-09-18, 12:06 | Link #2801 | ||
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
2. I'd say it's much, much more insulting to presume to know the person's limits in tolerating straight and low blows in discussion. In the first place, if both sides stayed civil and properly informed, you wouldn't even need to resort to such tactics. Think about it this way: I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'm not on the midnight flight over there to come to your house and asphyxiate you. 3. I was speaking about civil discourse and not an actual argument. If by argument we're talking about hostilities then it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Respect suggests tolerance than outright acceptance. You can still discuss and challenge issues without fisticuffs, at least the ones I had in college with atheists anyway. 4. Pride... bleh. Pride is often blinding. I prefer to learn how to throw away my pride, even temporarily, because there are things in life that Pride just gets in the way of Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-09-18, 12:36 | Link #2802 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Man, I used to be able to follow and even set the pace of this thread. Nowadays the discussion in here keeps running away from me; people keep posting replies before I even set finger to keyboard these days. I hypothesize that the act of getting a girlfriend is the best evidence of the existence of metaphysics; from my observations, such an event seems to directly lead to a significant fast-forward effect in the perception of time. I'm sure this hypothesis can be scientifically tested; anyone wants to try it?
Quote:
I never said I chose to believe that the "deity" has any of these ascribed characteristics. What I was getting at, is that just because someone believes in such a deity with these characteristics, doesn't mean I have to respect that idea any more than I would respect any other unproven concept. Additionally, you're trying to lure me away from my point with a red herring; notwithstanding whatever characteristics one may wish to ascribe to the concept of the deity in question, Dawkins was making the point that it is "infantile" for a person to assume that somebody else (omnipotent deity or otherwise) to take responsibility for giving meaning to his/her life, instead of taking responsibility for him/herself. In short, your argument has been one big ignoratio elenchi. Therefore, we need not pursue this line of discussion any further. |
|
2010-09-18, 13:29 | Link #2803 | |||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The straight-to-the-point part is the one that is often viewed as sarcastic - short and sharp. If the content emphasises on small details, it would be like shooting the person with an automatic needlegun - it stings to the point of irritating. People prefer to see it coming with the big details. Though it beats me why, a brick in the face hurts more than a set of needles, and yet people still prefer the brick. BDSM fetishism perhaps? Quote:
I think you mean ego. If you throw away your pride, you wouldn't have a passion, nor an aim in life, nor have anything to keep you from living life to its best. Quote:
A pragmatic version would be to shift left and right as the tides turn, but maintaining balance at all times. People would call it two-headed snake, but I say if the snake has compassion for everyone, it's fine. At least it is better than being a total carebear or big brown carnivore.
__________________
|
|||
2010-09-18, 14:01 | Link #2804 | |||
Me, An Intellectual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2010-09-18, 14:14 | Link #2805 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
Also I was making a comparison to Nicomachean Ethics with the concept of a balanced existence on everything we do in life so I'm not sure if we're even disagreeing on anything.
__________________
|
|
2010-09-18, 15:37 | Link #2806 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
If you once believed that God created the universe, the fact that you no longer believe doesn't necessarily mean you think the universe no longer exists. But if a person becomes a raving psycopath after having his/her faith shaken, I'd say the problem lies with the person, not in his/her original faith in God. It should not be used as a mark against people who do believe that God is the sole rightful judge of what is good and what is evil, for example. |
|
2010-09-18, 16:25 | Link #2807 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-09-18, 16:32 | Link #2808 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And, really, what kind of person do you have to be to have such a worldview? And what happens when you lose your faith, which, by your own admission, is the only reason you aren't eating babies? |
|||
2010-09-18, 17:20 | Link #2809 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
I guess another way to say it is that, in a world where morality is subjective, God's subjectivity triumphs over all. Of course, it also depends on the religion and the role that a deity (or deities) has in it. Quote:
|
||
2010-09-18, 17:35 | Link #2810 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
To them, it is. I'm not trying to claim that every religious person is like that, but I am talking about a specific subset. Which you're no doubt going to claim aren't truly religious.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(OK, there is the fear of earthly retribution. But the eye of Man (or its justice department, anyway) doesn't precisely reach everywhere, does it?) |
|||
2010-09-18, 17:42 | Link #2811 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Whether it's a matter for the justice department or the hospital, I wouldn't know. |
||
2010-09-18, 18:11 | Link #2812 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Now then... I find morals themselves to be meaningless. God or no God, what is the meaning? People tell us that this is "good" and this is "bad." But what does it all mean? Does good mean preserving life, and the emotion we call "happiness?" But do those two concepts by themselves have any meaning? Are emotions even important at all, at the very end? Lets say there really was some sort of God like in the Judo/Christian religions who really did lay out the rules of the Ten Commandments. Does it really matter if we follow them? Oh, there are punishments, like eternal suffering and damnation or whatever is told to us. But isn't this just like our society today where there are rewards and punishments for our actions based on what is considered "good" or "bad?" In the end, most of these morals seek to preserve life and certain emotions, that even with an eternal force in the universe, still doesn't matter. Are these two concepts themselves anything special? No, probably not. Then again what is meaning? Is meaning simply knowledge? It's unfathomable to me so see what could ever truly qualify as fulfillment in any human being. We seek to drown ourselves in certain kinds of emotions, and our set of rules or "morals" just aid that cause. If God exists like said above, then the creator of everything also seeks to drown us in these emotions for whatever reason. But why are these emotions even worth anything? Do we as humans just simply struggle with the fact that there is no ultimate goal to strive for? Because even if we were to reach the ultimate truth and meaning of the universe, does that bring us anything of worth? Are we all doomed to strive for such simple emotions that pleasure us?
__________________
|
|
2010-09-18, 18:12 | Link #2813 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
Which is a problem if one insists on a static and rigid interpretation of their faith.
__________________
|
|
2010-09-18, 18:27 | Link #2814 | |||
~Official Slacker~
Author
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 29
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well.... That is generally my opinion on everything you said Reckoner. Of course there are several other opinions that are gonna be posted later
__________________
Last edited by Hooves; 2010-09-19 at 00:55. |
|||
2010-09-18, 19:34 | Link #2815 | ||||||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
=================== Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is also a bit pointless to ask whether emotions are worth anything since we are, by nature, born with said emotions. That is not something we can do anything about. They are simply a major part of our human nature. Now, we can learn to live with our emotions, or choose to let them control our every action. That is an individual choice. In the end then, you will be judged not so much by your emotions, but by the choices you make in spite of or according to your emotions. Quote:
|
||||||
2010-09-18, 20:36 | Link #2816 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-09-18, 21:29 | Link #2817 | |||||
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2010-09-18, 21:35 | Link #2818 |
Banned
|
Morality is simply the end result of social evolution. Morals essentially allowed certain groups to survive, while the less-moralistic was naturally selected out. Just like genetic factors, social factors are the result of our evolution, too. They represent the best way to maintain a cohesive society which has the best chance of surviving and thriving.
The only problem is that a society only requires most people to be moral, not all of them. Thus, a society of 100 people can survive if 7 of them are moral, and the remaining 3 are a-hole douchebags. Religion evolved as a means to make people act moralistic when societies evolved into larger groups. You couldn't directly control groups farther away, so you literally put the fear of God into them so they'd stay in line. Tack some morals onto it, and whammo! You have religion. |
2010-09-18, 21:42 | Link #2819 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-09-18, 21:49 | Link #2820 | |
Knowledge is the solution
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 39
|
If you are a materialist, there's no intrinsic value to anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder/observer.
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
Thread Tools | |
|
|