User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Antitheism

  1. #41
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Antisocial - you are conflating personal belief with empirical fact.

    They are unrelated terms.

  2. #42
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Antisocial - you are conflating personal belief with empirical fact.

    They are unrelated terms.

    What do you mean by this?
    Can you clarify at what you are shooting at.

  3. #43
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Sure - you are speaking in linear specifics about a concept that is unverifiable.

    If my God is a cactus - a tangible entity - how might you disprove my statement in a manner that could be scientifically duplicated? You couldn't, right? There's the crux.


    As such, a belief in God does not even necessarily guarantee his existence, much less the inherent limitations of his physical identity.

  4. #44
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    I would. Just as an automaker is held responsible for producing a car that bursts into flames when rear ended, God should be held responsible for creating beings capable of suffering. He is responsible for all rape and murder because we are created rapable and killable.
    Wait, shouldn't that be "capable of killing, etc." instead of "capable of being killed, etc."? I don't know how any self-aware entity could be incapable of suffering, but presumably one could be created that is incapable of causing suffering...I think.

    Let me guess, suffering isn't a bug, it's a feature. :rolli:
    Your meaning escapes me.


    Depends on whether you define the word "God" as a kind of being or a position of authority.
    I would say a kind of being. Concerning the position of authority, however, wouldn't we all have equal authority with God if we were created just as powerful? What reason would he have to retain authority? If such replication is possible, we could in turn create our own armies of gods to establish our own authority.

  5. #45
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    If my God is a cactus - a tangible entity - how might you disprove my statement in a manner that could be scientifically duplicated? You couldn't, right? There's the crux.

    Well my best chance would be to prove that you are lunatic and besed on that I could try to convince everybody that your declaration is wrong.

  6. #46
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    My example was rhetorical.

    It isn't possible to disprove the existence/nonexistence of a god inside a cactus.

    Further, even if you convinced others of my "lunacy", their disbelief is irrelevant to the theistic identity of my cactus. Opinions aren't scientifically translatable (unless they are connected to a verifiab...forget it.).



    I hope that made sense.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    Wait, shouldn't that be "capable of killing, etc." instead of "capable of being killed, etc."? I don't know how any self-aware entity could be incapable of suffering, but presumably one could be created that is incapable of causing suffering...I think.
    I mean that the human body is fragile and easily damaged, it requires a constant supply of food, water and air. We reproduce through internal fertilization, if we did it like fish then rape wouldn't be possible.

    God could have made us immortal spirit beings but instead he made us fragile bags of meat with dicks, vaginas and assholes thus making rape and murder possible. If we were spirit beings we wouldn't need to eat, drink or breathe but since we are physical beings we can die of thirst, starvation and drown.

    I would say a kind of being. Concerning the position of authority, however, wouldn't we all have equal authority with God if we were created just as powerful? What reason would he have to retain authority? If such replication is possible, we could in turn create our own armies of gods to establish our own authority.
    Is that a bad thing? God could use a little competition.

  8. #48
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm not totally in disagreement with you (and the fact is also that I tend to be "hard" when it comes to evaluating things as you do). I also drew a much harder line when younger, and thought emotional appeals were stupid and pointless. Over the years I've learned to make some allowance for them, now that I'm aware of the ambiguities in life, my own limited prescience, and how different people interpret the world.
    There is an irritating prejudice against emotions when there needn't be. The origin of an idea does not determine its truth or falsity, and so that an idea has come about from a feeling or emotion should not be important. The idea can then be tested, and perhaps found to be in error, but its falsity would not be inevitable. Therefore, if we turn our backs on an idea because of its source, rather than because we think it is false, then we might also pass by the truth without giving it a fair chance to convince us.

    There was a book on self-defence which I once read called The Gift of Fear. The author encouraged people to trust their instincts (or gut feelings) of danger, and lamented that people would ignore these warnings because they were mere feelings, and instead turned to reason. The issue was not the inability of reason to arrive at the correct conclusion, but its slow and reflective character, which could waste valuable moments when a quick response is needed. Indeed, it seems to me that some people are better trusting emotion rather than their reason, since the former is quicker and more accurate than the latter.

    This kind of analysis of emotion can bring to light something which is rarely understood. In short, emotions interpret circumstances and provide the motivation to preserve or alter those circumstances. However, this means that emotions are unarticulated theories, which interpret circumstances theoretically, inferring causes and predicting consequences, and the motivation for action is appropriate supposing that the interpretation is correct. That is what the author of the self-help book implicitly understood. Therefore, though emotion can lead us astray, so can our reasoning if it is poor, and neither has a monopoly on rationality.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #49
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    God could have made us immortal spirit beings but instead he made us fragile bags of meat with dicks, vaginas and assholes thus making rape and murder possible. If we were spirit beings we wouldn't need to eat, drink or breathe but since we are physical beings we can die of thirst, starvation and drown.
    Sure, we could be solely spiritual, but would that abolish suffering? What about emotional pain? Social consciousness usually results in losers.
    When in Heaven, we are supposed to be done with suffering, so according to common Christian doctrine you are right. It's another reason why God's ways are called "mysterious." I have trouble with the reasoning on both sides.

    Is that a bad thing? God could use a little competition.
    Assuming that God was basically replicating Himself, we would then all be just as good and omniscient as He is, so we wouldn't ever have a reason to fight over authority anyway. We would always be in agreement, and no one would have to give or take orders.
    That was not where I was going, however. I thought we were still trying to solve the paradox of definition. The question is not whether it is a bad thing, but whether it is a logical possibility, assuming there is a spiritual creator being as powerful as logic allows Him to be.

  10. #50
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    There was a book on self-defence which I once read called The Gift of Fear. The author encouraged people to trust their instincts (or gut feelings) of danger, and lamented that people would ignore these warnings because they were mere feelings, and instead turned to reason. The issue was not the inability of reason to arrive at the correct conclusion, but its slow and reflective character, which could waste valuable moments when a quick response is needed. Indeed, it seems to me that some people are better trusting emotion rather than their reason, since the former is quicker and more accurate than the latter.
    That is an excellent book. It's where I learned to counsel my children to find another mother with kids if they are ever separated from us in public, not just any old uniformed worker. I haven't read the whole thing but I agree with the parts I know about. Clearly, we need to use both our instant instinctual reactions AND our longer-term higher reasoning to reach sound decisions.

    One complication, though, is that our instincts have been muddied somewhat by culture and media--parents are now afraid of nearly everyone when it doesn't make sense to be.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO