Real World Philospohy

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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]

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]

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

[DavidG]

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

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

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

[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.