.com.unity Forums - Real World Philospohy

Page 4 of 5

« First

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Real World Philospohy (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10706)

Jack Simth

November 21st, 2003 02:59 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

...

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics.

The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

True, one could also apply this to the Bible...

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation?

[Bad accent]Ya's pay's yer money and ya's makes yer choice.[/Bad accent] You can't be objectively certain this side of doomsday, true - but that could be said about anything, really. You do your best to read it yourself and see which one is the best fit.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes.

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Other models are welcome, but few make the cut.

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Not fleshed out well enough to debate properly, anyway

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth.
...
<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.

Quote:

Originally posted by spoon:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile.

Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<hr /></blockquote>Since when has everyone been entierly rational? I missed that memo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

DavidG

November 21st, 2003 03:00 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

Can you name such a system and give details on it? <hr /></blockquote>Sure, it's called "DavidG's code of ethics" You want details on everything I think is right and wrong and why? Well maybe If I got a few weeks to spare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003 03:11 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

*a less-sick Narf charges back into the ring. and first, i'm going to pick on Fyron.*

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

my own belief is that every action is either right or wrong; however, that's my assumption. you are assuming that something cannot harm someone without being wrong. what about surgury, which harms and may KILL the person surgury is being performed upon, but is nessasary, perhaps even for the continued survival of that person. you need some if modifier's.

Quote:

ere is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

so, then, a twenty-four hour lockdown to search for a murdurous person or people is immoral? i'm not saying it couldn't be argued, just wondering if you've thought of contingency's or principle's to cover them.

Quote:

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

at the risk of being redundant, they do.

Quote:

They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

which could easily justify actions i would call wrong if they could be said to stabilize society.

Quote:

Spoon
And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

creationism is a semi-science, the only science that comes into play is the science that concludes that it might have happened. actual beleif in creationism generally comes from or with beleif in god. do you want to hear my arguement that dinosaur's where, in fact, our pre-mortal spirits figuring out what traites worked best for survival? (i wonder how many people can guess my religeon now...)

Quote:

Spoon
This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

so, if a burning bush that isn't consumed told you something that contradicted your own feeling's, would you completly ignore it? or would that depend on how deep your feelings on that matter where?

Quote:

Jack
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

the media is liberal.

Quote:

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

interpretation of the bible. something like 2500 christian sects, i've heard.

that's page 1

Will	November 21st, 2003 03:13 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

"See the cat? See the cradle?"

Fyron

November 21st, 2003 03:16 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Note that my post explicitly stated that those were the basics of such a system of morality...

Quote:

the media is liberal.

In general, yes. But, there are conservative portions of the media...

[ November 21, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003 03:38 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

page 2.

Quote:

How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

punishment in the afterlife is appropraite and you can't wiggle out of it on a technicality.

Quote:

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

occasionally, i wonder what reading the original, un-edited Version would reveal.

Quote:

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

in the meantime, i, for one, am not going to worry about wether my left foot is connected to my left leg, because i know it is. why question a basic assumption without competing facts to question it on? i'm not saying it's wrong to look for competing facts, just that anti-theorizing without them isn't something i'm interested in.

Quote:

Spoon
And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

he. he. he.

Quote:

Spoon
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

and my responce to them? look down.

Quote:

Spoon
Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

so, a theory is better than a religeos beleif? what if god told you your religeos beleif? yeah, i know i said that before. but it's appropriate here, to.

Quote:

Spoon
Religion tries to explain Why, and does a poor job.

i would say that an un-aided human does a poor job of explaining why.

Quote:

Deccan
Not by science per se, but what about philosophical systems informed by science? Or are you going to say that these systems then become religions of a kind? And of course, traditional religion indisputably deals with "moral codes, with choice and consequence", but does it deal with it well?

science is machinery, and people in machinery would most likely be ground up unless the machinery was constructed very carefully. with more care than would be required by a referendum process.

Quote:

Deccan
That IS my personal answer to that question. I do not believe that there is any ultimate reason for my existence. I exist, as a physical construct, due to a long chain of physical effects, that is itself due to the mechanical inevitability of physical cause-and-effect, devoid of ultimate reason or meaning.

and where back to the difference between people and windmills, which didn't seem to be understood very well the Last time i tried to explain it.

Quote:

Only problem with this is that it seems to put religion in the same cart as science. Difference being that science actually tells us something tangible, whereas religion is mostly make believe.

any science that tries to insist religeon is make believe is make believe, because science can't say.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003 03:50 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
[QB]The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.

I'd love to see any proof of this. Especially since you can't say anything is superior evolutionarily without considering enviroment. Evolution does not require any specific origin, BTW, just one that allows suficient time between Start and Now.

Quote:

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.

Errr..uh-huh.

Quote:

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.

Again, do you have anything to back this up? The earliest I've seen for any kind of proto-evolution that even partially resembles the modern Version is Lamarck (SP), which was the same century as Darwin.

Quote:

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

What it means is that the people supporting it either way were applying the theory incorrectly. If I remember right, most of the "social darwinists" were not scientists and quite possibly had a distorted view of what the idea was all about. It's pretty easy to do.

Quote:

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

That is the perspective a lot of non-belivers get, certainly. And how long kind of depends on which sect you're measuring from, hmm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Quote:

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.

Which also means that if the all-knowing judge is an *******, you're screwed. At least our legal system has more than one. Certain Christian extremeist positions- or I'd hope they're extremeist- present a picture of a God I'd like to spit in the face of. The Old Testament doesn't do such a nice job either. Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.

Quote:

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).

If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.

Quote:

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.

Which makes sense, simply because if you change extremely basic assumptions what you have is a different model. Since we've already agreed that didn't happen, what you do have is details.

And again it doesn't trend toward improvement. It trends towards reproductive success in a given habitat. A species that is superbly adapted to an enviroment can be wiped out easily if the enviroment changes. A species may trend DOWN in intelligence, speed, or other featues because they aren't helping survival and individuals without them do better.

It is often described as improvement because it's simpler and in most cases good enough.

Quote:

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.

I suppose this is why you had no response to the "the alternatives are flawed" comment above?

Quote:

Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.

If there is a discrepency between theory and observations, the model needs to be adjusted.

Also, Newtonian physics utterly -fails- under certain conditions, that's why relativity was developed. This doesn't make the Newtonian model useless, or inaccurate in the other conditions. More likely to be those, yes. But sometimes a model is useful because it is wrong..

There's a simple model which predicts what will happen if a species is under no evolutionary pressures at all. In the real world, this fails repeatedly. Its still useful to test if the population is undergoing evolution though.

Quote:

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.

Continusing the analogy, if that document also has numerous points that have been proven false, then its a pretty good idea to keep the foot theory until its proven wrong by a better source.

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?

Quote:

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

So you're relyng on faith alone, and calling the best-guess model which is based on real-world observation EVIL? Excuse me?

If you're thinking of the racism argument, try again, because your Bible was used to support slavery, and occaisonally genocide. Score, if evolution did in fact support racism (which I kind of doubt), equal. And one is still based in reality, the other not.

Will you be denouncing physics because it can be used to design weapons, next?

[ November 21, 2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003 04:16 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

page 3. i have a lot to catch up on.

Quote:

Spoon
Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

my own beleif, backed up by personal experience, is that you will pay for those crimes before you are forgiven.

Quote:

Andres
It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.

my own beleif and, i think, the beleif of my religeon, is that i'm free to think whatever i want until God says what the answer is. yes, that answer can come from the established heirarchy, but that sam heirarchy tells my to pray to see if what their saying comes from God.

page 4.
page 5

Atrocities, i wouldn't give away my pain. i learned to much from it, and i'm going to learn even more as i work through it. without the pain i've had in my life, i suspect i'd be shallow and always want things my way.

Quote:

Debating about religion is highly over rated IMHO. But believe what you want, tis the only true freedom any of us truly have.

as well as the freedom to act and thus, choose our consequences.

Quote:

Fyron
Invented, created, concocted, came up with, thought up, dreamed up, use whatever term you want. Good evidence is the fact that noone begins their life with any set religious views; everyone has to be spoon fed them to have them.

free will. requires we be born that way.

Quote:

It is a pretty safe assertation that they all had to evolve from somewhere... and "the word of God" is not a good point, as EVERY non-animistic religion (with some form of deity...) can say that (not God, but whatever deity(ies) they worship).

so, every single scientist in the world is wrong, because they all say science backs them up. and, yes, you can check to see if God backs something up. pray.

Quote:

Erax
For the record Narf, I don't think you are 'imposing' your views on anyone. You definitely have them and you defend them whenever necessary, yet you do not criticize anyone who disagrees with you (and you keep your good humor too). I admire your behavior.

thanks. i was talking about some people in general, not anyone here in particular. personally, i beleive that it's best to build up your own beleifs and not critisize anyone elses, because that way, your beleif wins on content. and, on a review, i did say something in a manner i shouldn't have.

Quote:

Spoon - see above. and stop blaming God for your personal tragedy's. most of mine are my fault or another human's. the rest are accidents.

that was an arrogant statement, and i apologize for the assumption.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003 04:29 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

oh, wonderfull. someone posted, and now i have even more stuff to debat. i like debating, as long as where not going in circles. that's a cat or dog thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Quote:

Pheonix-D
Wonderful idea, killing off everyone because even a majority pissed you off.

first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

Quote:

If you take it as literal Truth you now have some pesky problems. Like, oh, the text directly contradicting itself.

i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.

Quote:

One of the biggest flaws in the Bible being the truth is why didn't God introduce it to all people, at the same time?

well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know.

Phoenix-D

November 21st, 2003 05:42 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

1. Maybe.
2. No.
3. No. Especially odd given that he's purpordly setting moral laws based on his code, but doesn't bother to give concrete proof of his presence to everyone. (not even his code- just existance at all, period)

Quote:

i beleive the bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.

I belive that might be a cop out, since neither of us knows the original Languages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Point taken, but I think the problems would still be there.

Quote:

well, just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean God can't. i beleive that God thinks about several factors when deciding what to reveal and that God reveal's what He knows they should know.

Which doesn't mean that in the absance of those reasons I won't think its a really stupid idea, especially if you follow the "follow these teachings or go to vicious hell" school. Rather unfair to stack the deck like that; to me it sounds like someone pointing a gun at your head and saying "Answer me yes or no. Four." Its a crapshoot, with everything at stake, and you don't even understand the game..

There may be a valid reason to drive a car through a wall, but my first thought is always going to be "Ok, how they'd screw up?"

narf poit chez BOOM

November 21st, 2003 06:36 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

ok, your point seems to be 'how can someone play the game if they don't know the rules'. well, i beleive that God always gives sufficient warning of a civilization's destruction, although not nessasarily warning that it's downfall is His idea. i beleive that the warning signs present sufficient proof of the reason for the civilization's destruction.

second, my religeon beleives in varying levels of heaven and that, in order to go to 'hell' one must both know the rules and know that one is breaking them. on that scale, i'm more likely to end up in 'hell' than you, because i know God's rules better. plus, one must commit murder for even a temporary stay in 'hell'. that is not to say that there aren't other punishments than total exile from all that is good.

would anyone be interested in a longer explanation of my religeos beleif's?

[ November 21, 2003, 04:37: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

deccan

November 22nd, 2003 12:55 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

To Jack Simth:

Many of your objections to Imperator Fyron's statements seem to stem from the fact that secular systems of morality rely on assumptions that cannot be proven, correct?

However, there is one way around that. Sometimes assumptions don't have to be proven if everyone accepts them.

For example (just an example of course), if we can agree that every human life is important, then we can use that as a foundation stone on which to logically build other moral truths.

The general idea is that we might be able to agree on a relatively small core set of moral truths that the vast majority of people can agree on, without it having to be proven or justified by reference to some external source, and then slowly extend that core by an exercise of applying logical reasoning to accepted facts.

Granted, some proportion of people will always disagree with this core. Too bad, but this IS how the real world works, and while nitpicking of these sort bothers people who want philosophically pure systems, it doesn't really matter to ordinary people.

Yes, I realize that this is a feel-good approach as well, but I have no problems with it, and I doubt that most people do as well.

deccan

November 22nd, 2003 12:58 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

To Narf:

I would be very interested in hearing more about your religious beliefs.

And I sincerely have no idea of what you meant earlier about machinery and windmills. I'm afraid you're going to have to be a lot more literal and clear. Sorry.

Here's an exercise, Narf: try to imagine a world in which Christianity is literally true. In which, say miracles and appearances of supernatural entities like angels and demons are relatively rare, but indisputable events, in which the literal, never-changing, law of the Bible unquestionably sends people either to Heaven or Hell as appropriate, and God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments.

I can think of at least two science-fiction stories which describe such worlds. I'll give you the links to them later.

I don't know about the rest of you, and I'd see it as the worst possible universe to live in.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 22nd, 2003 11:14 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Primitive, do you mean that a: a person would never be that degenerate, or b: that it doesn't matter how degenerate a person is, they still have a right to live? because i would say that God, having given someone life, has the right to take that life away. and for me, if God has the right to take one person's life away, then that logically extends to all people.

Quote:

Deccan
Here's an exercise, Narf: try to imagine a world in which Christianity is literally true. In which, say miracles and appearances of supernatural entities like angels and demons are relatively rare, but indisputable events, in which the literal, never-changing, law of the Bible unquestionably sends people either to Heaven or Hell as appropriate, and God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments.

I can think of at least two science-fiction stories which describe such worlds. I'll give you the links to them later.

first of all, a writer can write a scenario any way they want. second, you seem to be describing a world where God pushes people past there limits. God doesn't do that. He pushes people to there limits and at those times i have grown faster than at any other time in my life.

as for my religeos beleif's, i'm a mormon, for those who havn't guessed. since i don't know what sort of preconceptions you might have, i'll start with the most obvious. no, the missionares aren't supposed to be pushy, and if they are, complain. now, as for Mormon views on the final judgement, there's the celestial kingdom, which has the presence of God. this is where a lot of non-mormons have a problem, because only mormons can go to the celestial kingdom. but, as i said earlier, knowing more of God's law also means more chances to break it.
then, there's the telestial, which has the presence of Jesus. that's where all the good people go who aren't mormons and all the mormons who didn't go to the celestial kingdom.
then, there's the terrestial kingdom, which has the presence of the Holy Ghost. the average person goes there. the average person will undoubtable include mormons. that's not to say that because the average person goes there that it's a bad place to be, it's only in comparison that it pales.
then, there's outer darkness. that's what i was refering to when i said hell. as i understand it, there is nothing good there. even murderers don't stay there forever. you might think of it as to much punishment, but as i understand it, someone who's there would be in more pain in a higher kingdom, simply because they would always be comparing themselves and always be coming up short.
my own beleif is that initialy, we'll do some of the deciding of where we go simply because of who we feel comfortable with - which will be people who made the same type of choices we did and with whom we feel comfortable.

[ November 22, 2003, 21:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003 01:45 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Our burden in life is to be the cannon fodder for those who order the cannons fired.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 23rd, 2003 01:56 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

a lot of happiness is attitude. and i've found that i tend to find what i'm looking for.

[ November 23, 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

primitive

November 23rd, 2003 02:12 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
first question: can you accept that a person can be so degenerate that there is no point to them living?
second question: can you accept that the same thing can happen to a society?
third question: can you accept that God has a right to judge if that has happened and a right to apply that judgement?

No !
No !
No !

I'll take my chances of eternal damnation rather than bowing to any divinity capable of drowning the whole world.

And so would many others. Which is probably why many variations of christianity, including the dominant Protestant variation over here, dismiss the whole story as a fable.

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003 02:21 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.

DavidG

November 23rd, 2003 03:31 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.

Wow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Hey cheer up. Someone get this man a drink. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 23, 2003, 01:31: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Kamog

November 23rd, 2003 04:37 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

I think that it is normal and natural for people to be happy. Look at young children: they naturally laugh and play and they don't need a reason to be happy. Somehow, as we grow older, we get conditioned by society to be serious and 'mature', and therefore don't allow ourselves to be happy as often as we could be.

Atrocities

November 23rd, 2003 05:31 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

The mind is never truly asleep, it fakes you into believing that it is at rest when in fact it is only plotting new ways to over come lifes problems.

deccan

November 23rd, 2003 07:06 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
first of all, a writer can write a scenario any way they want. second, you seem to be describing a world where God pushes people past there limits. God doesn't do that. He pushes people to there limits and at those times i have grown faster than at any other time in my life.

Judge for yourself.

One is Living in Sin by Ian R. MacLeod, available for free at the Infinityplus archive.

The other is not available for free, but is available for purchase as an e-book. It's Hell is the Absence of God by Ted Chiang, one of my favourite authors.

Will	November 23rd, 2003 10:49 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by deccan:
God makes clear, explicit announcements from time to time, and people must obey those commands literally and blindly even though their purposes may be utter inscrutable and mystifying to human minds or face unavoidable, terrible punishments.

If you replace "God" with "Big Brother", it also sounds a lot like Oceania.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 24th, 2003 08:17 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Atrocities
Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation.

my mind is free, my imagination is boundless and my potential is infinite. what have i got to be sad about?

Quote:

DavidG
Wow. Hey cheer up. Someone get this man a drink.

isn't alcohal either a depresent or a mood enhancer? either way, might be a bad idea.

Quote:

Kamog
I think that it is normal and natural for people to be happy. Look at young children: they naturally laugh and play and they don't need a reason to be happy. Somehow, as we grow older, we get conditioned by society to be serious and 'mature', and therefore don't allow ourselves to be happy as often as we could be.

hey, that's what i think!

Quote:

Atrocities
The mind is never truly asleep, it fakes you into believing that it is at rest when in fact it is only plotting new ways to over come lifes problems.

i have two types of dreams. one type is a metaphor for life's problems. the other type is my subconcious having fun.

Quote:

Deccan
Judge for yourself.

well, i didn't read all of the first one, just enough. like i said, a writer can write it any way he wants. and it seems to me that the writer still didn't get something. the main character chose his life. nobody forced him. aside from that, God is rational and his responses always fit the situation. what the writer has done is the same sort of thing if i had wrote a book about you, Deccan, and portrayed you as a bloodthirsty tyrant. that book would be baseless slander, since i don't think your a bloodthirsty tyrant. so, the book is both innefective and a mockup.

Atrocities

November 24th, 2003 11:45 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

A free mind only thinks it free like an insane mind thinks it is normal.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 12:46 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

prove it.

DavidG

November 25th, 2003 01:52 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
prove it.

prove he's wrong.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 01:56 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

i'm happy. it's better than sad. why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

i truly don't see the need. any way you slice it, happy IS better than sad. i know i can't prove it in any more than a 'feel good' way, but he can't prove his on a 'feel bad' way, simply because he'd have to prove why that'd be better. so as far as i can see, the burden of proof is with him.

Fyron

November 25th, 2003 04:20 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
prove it.

prove he's wrong. <hr /></blockquote>Actually... it is up to Atrocities to prove that he is right first...

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 05:14 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

You proved it yourselfs by asking me to prove it.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Fyron

November 25th, 2003 05:22 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best...

Taera

November 25th, 2003 05:26 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

it is, actually
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 05:37 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Your proved it yourselfs by asking me to prove it.

ok, maybe i just need more sleep. but i fail to see how asking you to prove a point amounts to even circular logic, which at least backs itself up.

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 05:40 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i'm happy. it's better than sad. why bother? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

i truly don't see the need. any way you slice it, happy IS better than sad. i know i can't prove it in any more than a 'feel good' way, but he can't prove his on a 'feel bad' way, simply because he'd have to prove why that'd be better. so as far as i can see, the burden of proof is with him.

First off I am not passing judgement. I have no right to do so and would never attempt to do so. I am discussing philospohical concepts and nothing more. I can prove what I say to be true, but no one here would want to read such a dark and depressing post. Read further for a taste of what I could post.

Keep in mind that philosophy is often a depressing and mood ruining experience.

I never sad feeling sad is better, I said that
"Happiness is an illusion of an imprisonned mind trying to make the best of a hopeless situation."

"The illusion of happiness never Lasts. It is created by the mind as it attempts to escape from the imprisonment of its own misery." - Depression 101

By its very nature happiness is a rare and short lived phenominon. For every thing that makes you happy, there is three things that make you sad.

If you are happy, truly happy, and can see nothing wrong with the world around you as nothing in it effects your happy mood, then your sanity is in question.

IE if nothing makes you sad, and you are always in a state of happiness then how do you know what unhappiness is? True happiness is not a Lasting emotion. A person who says they are always happy and never find any reason to be unhappy are hiding from something.

It is easier to be in a good mood and have faith when your comfortable and have money, but when you have nothing, and every day brings more and more bad news, and bad luck, faith and happiness are things that come in short supply.

I ask you to consider what true Lasting happiness really is? Prove that happiness is Lasting and I will concede to your philosphy, otherwise, I chose to follow my own path as I know the truth about my life, and the world that I live in. And unfortunetly that world is not always a happy place. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But if I could make it one, I would.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:45: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 05:48 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best...

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 05:52 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

ok, well, i'm not always happy. but i can have joy, even during the bad times. why? because i know that everything is right with the universe at large. things will either get better or get cleaned up. right always wins in the end, and any reason for sadness will pass. that's something you don't seem to understand, even from your own philosophy. if you view happiness as a brief period between periods of sadness, then couldn't sadness be veiwed as brief periods between happiness?

oh, and i didn't think you where trying to put anybody down.

and that whole 'you'll eventually figure it out on your own?' invalid in a debat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 25, 2003, 03:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Phoenix-D

November 25th, 2003 05:53 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... that is not proof in any shape of the word... circular logic at best...

A free mind should have no problem with this concept. Circular logic is still logic, and my point is still valid. Proof you asked for and proof you gave yourself. I don't need to say a thing. You'll eventually figure it out on your own. <hr /></blockquote>Circular logic is logic but not valid logic. Proof must stand on its own, or it is no longer proof.

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 06:05 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Proof is only valid if those who requested it accept it as such. Otherwise no proof is valid.

Ask an insane person, somone that is truly insane, if they are insane, and they will tell you; "No I am fine." They have no concept of insanity. To them they are normal.

A mind that truly belives it is free can not grasp the concept that it is not free. It will ask for proof, even though the proof that it is seeking has already been provided by asking the question itself.

"Am I insane"? If you can ask the question then your open to the possiblity that the answer might be yes, or even no. An insane person will never ask if s/he is insane, because to them there is no question, the very concept of insanity is unthinkable.

Ask yourself if your mind is truly free. By asking such a question, you acknowledge that your mind is open and therefore knows that the possablity that it is not actually free my in fact be the answer. A mind free of unhappiness and incapbled of experiencing any other emotion would not want to accept any emotion other than happiness. A mind that knows that it is not free from saddness understands that happiness is a tempory emotion that is a pleasent part of life. It knows that life has its ups and downs and that it will experience from time to time complete joy and utter despair. Our minds are only truly free when we realize that such freedom does not come free from cost.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 06:14 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

oh, 'free from sadness, or other emotions'. no, that isn't the type of freedom i talk of. the type of freedom i talk of is the freedom to choose what i value, what i try to feel, to do and be. and most importantly, who i worship. i suspect that even God feels sadness, but i also beleive that, if so, that sadness is drowned out in the joy of his children. because no amount of sadness can match one instant of happiness. how could it? sadness is a negative emotion. -3,000,000 is less than 1.

i do beleive, however, that i can acheive freedom from evil emotions. i have a theory that each emotion has a good Version and a bad Version and that, with enough practice, a person can only feel one.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 06:20 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Narf, you are truly an inspiring person to know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I like the way you think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Taera

November 25th, 2003 06:37 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

optimism is a great quality, as i have come to know. However, the very definitions of sadness and happinness are human in nature, and thus subject to every single person in their meaning.
Atrocities, your logic in that question lacks one major point - sadness is not lack of happinness.
Sadness and happinness result from unusual circumstances, even if those unusual circumstances mean no unusual circumstances. Everything inbetween is a grey area, a feeling of contempt i guess.

I hope im not repeating anyone's opinions, but thats mine.

EDIT: however, its nature's way to balance everything. if a person is always happy, or always sad, its time to question his/her sanity - sometimes, at least, i think.

[ November 25, 2003, 04:39: Message edited by: Taera ]

Atrocities

November 25th, 2003 06:40 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Atrocities, your logic in that question lacks one major point - sadness is not lack of happinness.
Sadness and happinness result from unusual circumstances, even if those unusual circumstances mean no unusual circumstances. Everything inbetween is a grey area, a feeling of contempt i guess.

That was kinda the point I was trying to make, but I guess I just didn't do a good job at it. But well said my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 06:48 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Narf, you are truly an inspiring person to know. I like the way you think.

thanks...but now you got me feeling all sheepish. and i suppose i should add that y'all are some of the nicest people i've met.

Quote:

it is my own opinion that contempt is one of those evil emotions. it encourages negative feelings without thought about wether there should be negative feelings. plus, it is emotionally damaging to spend life in a state of contempt. plus, although there are plenty of bad things going on, like i said, contempt is an unreasoning emotion.

[ November 25, 2003, 05:20: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Kamog

November 25th, 2003 07:29 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Happiness, sadness, and the other emotions are all part of life and I feel that it is important that we experience both joy and sadness. Of course, nobody is happy 100% of the time. The 'negative' emotions like anger and sadness aren't in themselves negative; we need to experience them. What is positive or negative is how we choose to act on those feelings. The feelings are part of the life experience, and if we suppress our emotions and always feel neutral, we aren't living life to the fullest. Having said that, it is unhealthy to spend long periods of time feeling anger or hate, and not letting go of the emotion. I guess we need to feel the anger or sadness, but we also need to let go of it after we have experienced and felt it.

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 07:47 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

well, i feel that there are emotions, or at least Versions of emotions which are completly bad and which one should try not to feel. although some of that, at least, is circumstance and strength. for example, enjoying say, computer games is good. enjoying them to the point where the restrict your ability to live a full life is bad. and that doesn't take into account the computer games themselves. i can see nothing good in GTA, for example. and for an emotion that's entirely bad, how about the urge to kill?

Fyron

November 25th, 2003 08:47 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Circular logic is logic but not valid logic. Proof must stand on its own, or it is no longer proof.

Yes, what he said. You can not proove something with circular logic! It is a major pitfall that is used to show proofs as being invalid (such as any alleged proof about pretty much anything relating to the truth of a religion... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Quote:

i can see nothing good in GTA

Then you are not looking hard enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It allows people to live out such actions in fantasy, mitigating some potential desire to go out and live them out in reality. EVERYONE without exception has many fantasies about doing illegal stuff (a lot of them might well happen in your subconscious, especially while asleep, but they are still there). Expressing them in a video game is preferable to expressing them in reality, eh?

[ November 25, 2003, 06:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 09:01 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Quote:

Then you are not looking hard enough. It allows people to live out such actions in fantasy, mitigating some potential desire to go out and live them out in reality. EVERYONE without exception has many fantasies about doing illegal stuff (a lot of them might well happen in your subconscious, especially while asleep, but they are still there). Expressing them in a video game is preferable to expressing them in reality, eh?

having a bad temper, i know there's been times when going onto half-life and virtually blowing something to pieces has helped. at the same time, those times are few and far between. most of the time, what helps is calming myself. so, i can't see much good there, and, as is perhaps more correct, in most cases, for most people, most of the time, it's bad. children shouldn't play it, those with criminal tendency's and not enough self control shouldn't play it and i really don't see the point for the average person.

Kamog

November 25th, 2003 09:45 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Well, every emotion must have some useful purpose, or else why would we have them?
...
OK, I'm assuming that emotions have to have a purpose, and that purpose is helpful in some way. I suppose that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way...

narf poit chez BOOM

November 25th, 2003 09:49 AM

Re: Real World Philospohy

well, yes. as a challenge.

you know, Atrocities, someone could take your arguement to mean that if someone asked if they have a tail, that means they have a tail. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ November 25, 2003, 08:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Loser

November 25th, 2003 03:17 PM

Re: Real World Philospohy

Narf is a Mormon?

I am strangely disappointed. Somehow your impressively persistent support of your beliefs is less surprising, more expected.... I'll have to think about why it seems that way.

I'm also surprised I didn't see it. I thought I was awfully familiar with the patterns and idiosyncrasies particular to Mormons arguing religion Online.

Kudos on sticking to your principles and avoiding the more abstract and distracting points of doctrine. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 PM.

Page 4 of 5

« First

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page