Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you believe in GOD?

Page 6 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

12 Jun 2010, 10:49 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
Before I declare a stalemate disagreement I will say that Greek gods are not the entire polytheistic belief system while Greece tended to have childish deities the same can not be said for Egyptian and Sumerian deities.

The Vikings had deities that had their own childishness. Even further, you can't just discount the Greek experience if you are trying to defend polytheism, a lot of the value of polytheism is based upon claims about the Greeks.

Quote:
However while the possibility of religion being a false ideal the way we live now is simply not natural.

The term "natural" tends to be BS in my mind.

http://abstrusegoose.com/215

Anything that humans do is because our nature, in some sense of the term, pushes us to this, just as other animals do what they do. Humans have an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to have rapid cultural adaptations, but our evolution is such that we are the heavy lifters in terms of our cognitive abilities. It is not as if we are the only creatures that have colonies, or farm, or enslave, or anything else like that, as ants do all of those other things.

Quote:
However the biggest absurdity (methinks) is the view that the universe is eventually going to end and we are all just here for no reason what so ever.

Declaring something absurd doesn't mean it to be absurd. Even further, what reason did our many gods suddenly agree to for our existence? Entertainment? It seems just as silly then too.

Quote:
I now declare a stalemate disagreement.

I don't see the stalemate. I don't think you have beaten my claims, nor do I think you really can.
It is a stalemate because neither of us will change our current views to what the other believes true. I really don't give a damn what you think.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Jun 2010, 11:34 pm

Flair wrote:
It is a stalemate because neither of us will change our current views to what the other believes true. I really don't give a damn what you think.

By that measure, any argument with an idiot or a fundamentalist is a stalemate, regardless of who is right or wrong, or even who actually makes coherent arguments. The issue is that in debate, let's say a public and relatively formal debate, the real measure of victory isn't how stubborn your opponent is, but rather whether you get the upper-hand in the argument. I see no reason to move to the rule of "persuasion", as that is a nice optional thing to have, but I am more concerned about my argument compared to its opposition.



Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

12 Jun 2010, 11:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
It is a stalemate because neither of us will change our current views to what the other believes true. I really don't give a damn what you think.

By that measure, any argument with an idiot or a fundamentalist is a stalemate, regardless of who is right or wrong, or even who actually makes coherent arguments. The issue is that in debate, let's say a public and relatively formal debate, the real measure of victory isn't how stubborn your opponent is, but rather whether you get the upper-hand in the argument. I see no reason to move to the rule of "persuasion", as that is a nice optional thing to have, but I am more concerned about my argument compared to its opposition.
If you have no intent to persuade others and are only stating your view just because you are concerned about how your argument compares to your opposition. This perspective strikes me as an insecurity about the views one currently holds if that is the reasoning behind stating your disagreement.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jun 2010, 12:07 am

Flair wrote:
If you have no intent to persuade others and are only stating your view just because you are concerned about how your argument compares to your opposition. This perspective strikes me as an insecurity about the views one currently holds if that is the reasoning behind stating your disagreement.

I should be insecure. If a person is secure in their views, then they are likely an idiot. Even further, part of the comparison is also entertainment, and part of it is to build the ability to construct and destroy arguments. Finally, one can learn from arguments, even arguments where one wins or where one loses.



Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

13 Jun 2010, 7:53 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
If you have no intent to persuade others and are only stating your view just because you are concerned about how your argument compares to your opposition. This perspective strikes me as an insecurity about the views one currently holds if that is the reasoning behind stating your disagreement.

I should be insecure. If a person is secure in their views, then they are likely an idiot. Even further, part of the comparison is also entertainment, and part of it is to build the ability to construct and destroy arguments. Finally, one can learn from arguments, even arguments where one wins or where one loses.
Your epistemology strikes me as flawed. How can one truly win if they have a insecurity on what they view is true while being unwilling to try another perspective? In an argument one only needs to convince those around him that the other is wrong, however this only means that the person is wrong by popular opinion and does not necessarily indicate being wrong by fact.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jun 2010, 11:15 am

Flair wrote:
Your epistemology strikes me as flawed. How can one truly win if they have a insecurity on what they view is true while being unwilling to try another perspective? In an argument one only needs to convince those around him that the other is wrong, however this only means that the person is wrong by popular opinion and does not necessarily indicate being wrong by fact.

Do you realize how many stupid perspectives there are? The point isn't to try perspectives, but rather to test them. Frankly, a lot of perspectives are OUTRIGHT mind poison, and thus shouldn't be tried under any circumstances unless proven correct. This includes a lot of religious perspectives.

Secondly, I never said "convince", even for other people, and this is intentional. One can measure an argument by who is persuaded, because obviously more persuasion tends to mean better argumentation, but there are other methods, particularly when one side has rebutted more, has presented arguments that are more logically sound and thorough, and so on and so forth. Now, one can say that the better arguer doesn't prove who is true, but then again, you must recognize that nothing could stand up to that standard. Even if you directly perceived something, you could also be crazy, high, influenced by some random mental defect, or something else and not realize it and have that skew your judgment.



Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

13 Jun 2010, 1:58 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
Your epistemology strikes me as flawed. How can one truly win if they have a insecurity on what they view is true while being unwilling to try another perspective? In an argument one only needs to convince those around him that the other is wrong, however this only means that the person is wrong by popular opinion and does not necessarily indicate being wrong by fact.

Do you realize how many stupid perspectives there are? The point isn't to try perspectives, but rather to test them. Frankly, a lot of perspectives are OUTRIGHT mind poison, and thus shouldn't be tried under any circumstances unless proven correct. This includes a lot of religious perspectives.

Secondly, I never said "convince", even for other people, and this is intentional. One can measure an argument by who is persuaded, because obviously more persuasion tends to mean better argumentation, but there are other methods, particularly when one side has rebutted more, has presented arguments that are more logically sound and thorough, and so on and so forth. Now, one can say that the better arguer doesn't prove who is true, but then again, you must recognize that nothing could stand up to that standard. Even if you directly perceived something, you could also be crazy, high, influenced by some random mental defect, or something else and not realize it and have that skew your judgment.
You still have lost me on your intention of debating.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jun 2010, 2:04 pm

Flair wrote:
You still have lost me on your intention of debating.

I don't see what I should say. I accept fallibility, and I desire to correct others and even learn some things myself, but I don't see the point to add some pseudo-belief onto my eyes.



Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

13 Jun 2010, 4:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
You still have lost me on your intention of debating.

I don't see what I should say. I accept fallibility, and I desire to correct others and even learn some things myself, but I don't see the point to add some pseudo-belief onto my eyes.
You desire to correct others because you believe them incorrect while at the same time being insecure own of your views this is fairly amusing.



just_ben
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 399
Location: That would be an ecumenical matter!

13 Jun 2010, 5:50 pm

Flair wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
Before I declare a stalemate disagreement I will say that Greek gods are not the entire polytheistic belief system while Greece tended to have childish deities the same can not be said for Egyptian and Sumerian deities.

The Vikings had deities that had their own childishness. Even further, you can't just discount the Greek experience if you are trying to defend polytheism, a lot of the value of polytheism is based upon claims about the Greeks.

Quote:
However while the possibility of religion being a false ideal the way we live now is simply not natural.

The term "natural" tends to be BS in my mind.

http://abstrusegoose.com/215

Anything that humans do is because our nature, in some sense of the term, pushes us to this, just as other animals do what they do. Humans have an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to have rapid cultural adaptations, but our evolution is such that we are the heavy lifters in terms of our cognitive abilities. It is not as if we are the only creatures that have colonies, or farm, or enslave, or anything else like that, as ants do all of those other things.

Quote:
However the biggest absurdity (methinks) is the view that the universe is eventually going to end and we are all just here for no reason what so ever.

Declaring something absurd doesn't mean it to be absurd. Even further, what reason did our many gods suddenly agree to for our existence? Entertainment? It seems just as silly then too.

Quote:
I now declare a stalemate disagreement.

I don't see the stalemate. I don't think you have beaten my claims, nor do I think you really can.
It is a stalemate because neither of us will change our current views to what the other believes true. I really don't give a damn what you think.


Then why try to change his views? If you're not fussed, then why bother go through this whole topic arguing and then say 'actually, I don't really care.' That's a cop-out, if you ask me.


_________________
I stand alone on the cliffs of the world.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jun 2010, 6:05 pm

Flair wrote:
You desire to correct others because you believe them incorrect while at the same time being insecure own of your views this is fairly amusing.

There is really no contradiction, and frankly, the combination of insecurity and desire to correct the failings of others is the driving mindset of scholarship. (Or ideally it should be)



Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

13 Jun 2010, 8:25 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
You desire to correct others because you believe them incorrect while at the same time being insecure own of your views this is fairly amusing.

There is really no contradiction, and frankly, the combination of insecurity and desire to correct the failings of others is the driving mindset of scholarship. (Or ideally it should be)
Source? How is teaching a view that one does not know to be true beneficial? If one knows something to be true then one is not insecure about what they know. If one is insecure about the view they hold then they do not know that view to be true.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jun 2010, 8:36 pm

Flair wrote:
Source? or are you insecure about that as well?

Source? For what? My statement, if you understand it properly, makes perfect sense without needing a source. Just think of science. In science, there is no verification, and any theory can be wrong. So, no theory is *really* secure, but the goal of scientists still ends up being to correct errors in many of their engagements, as they don't think theories that they are opposed to are likely correct, and certainly not ideas rejected by the scientific community.

Now, that being said, if my goal is to either engage ideas where I can point out the error, or threats to my own ideas, then tell me, is there some fact or theory that attacks mine, or is engaging you here just a waste of my time?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

13 Jun 2010, 8:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible.


Same here, sure he exists in the bible and only in the bible, bit like harry potter :P


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

13 Jun 2010, 8:50 pm

JetLag wrote:
dwoolridge wrote:
I want to know if any of yall Belive in god Becuse i do

Yes.


I suppose the obvious question to your statements is WHY?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Flair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69

13 Jun 2010, 8:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Flair wrote:
Source? or are you insecure about that as well?

Source? For what? My statement, if you understand it properly, makes perfect sense without needing a source. Just think of science. In science, there is no verification, and any theory can be wrong. So, no theory is *really* secure, but the goal of scientists still ends up being to correct errors in many of their engagements, as they don't think theories that they are opposed to are likely correct, and certainly not ideas rejected by the scientific community.

Now, that being said, if my goal is to either engage ideas where I can point out the error, or threats to my own ideas, then tell me, is there some fact or theory that attacks mine, or is engaging you here just a waste of my time?
Actually you are wasting mine.