Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 1:55:51 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

One, there is no single, universal definition for "real". So you are already wrapped up in semantics in order to define it in a way everyone will agree to.


Not at all.  When I talk about "slaves", I can refer to BDSM slaves, black slaves from the historical American South, or people who work for just enough money in factory jobs.  It's up to me what I mean when I say something.  People can argue, "That's not what slave means!", but they're ignoring the fact that a word is a reference to a concept, but not necessarily the same concept every time.

In this case, I have a definition of "real" I'm referring to.  It may not be the definition someone else would default to when using the word "real", but I'm also not talking about that.  So if they chose to confuse the matter by interjecting an argument for what they perfer for the world "real" to mean, they can do so, but it's entirely intellectually dishonest.  (A concept we can talk about a lot in religious threads.  :P)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Two, science has yet to catalogue everything there is to do with matter. Thus it is a little premature to conclude everything must involve matter.

As I recall, Einstein postulated several dimensions to our universe, and we have only scratched the surface of this mudball called earth.

That would be my challenge to you: we don't know enough to be making claim to such an absolute as you have postulated.


Rather, my claim calls everything material.  Again, it's by definition; you can't refute a definition.

If we discover ghosts exist in a manner which partially interacts with our own reality, they'll be made of a material.  Light (an energy) is a material (albiet currently modelled as "energy" more often than "matter").  If we discover we're all just AI's in a computer program, the computer itself and the universe surrounding it will be made of "material", albiet a different kind than we might be used to.

I just don't get why people seem to think "material" is limited to the mundane materials we're used to.

(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)
Profile   Post #: 441
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:08:52 PM   
Loveisallyouneed


Posts: 348
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

One, there is no single, universal definition for "real". So you are already wrapped up in semantics in order to define it in a way everyone will agree to.


Not at all...



As I said: semantics

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

That would be my challenge to you: we don't know enough to be making claim to such an absolute as you have postulated.


Rather, my claim calls everything material.  Again, it's by definition; you can't refute a definition.


ROFLMDAO

Good one, CL. <wiping tears from my eyes>

quote:


I just don't get why people seem to think "material" is limited to the mundane materials we're used to.


Bias.

< Message edited by Loveisallyouneed -- 2/22/2008 2:16:26 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 442
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:10:54 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

my claim calls everything material.  Again, it's by definition; you can't refute a definition.


There is nothing to refute. You simply define "real" as "material" in accord with your personally held belief. I don't care what you believe. But there is no intellectual honesty, on either side of the case, among those who promote an unproven belief as truth.
 
K.
 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/22/2008 2:16:47 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 443
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:13:02 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

As I said: semantics


The thing about semantics is that we could have a huge semantical debate on what it exactly means, as everyone seems to use it in a different light.

Also, the ironic thing about irony is this sentence.

Also, this statement is false.

(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)
Profile   Post #: 444
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:16:01 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

my claim calls everything material.  Again, it's by definition; you can't refute a definition.


There is nothing to refute. You simply define "real" as "material" in accord with your personally held belief. I don't care what you believe. But there is no intellectual honesty in those who promote an unproven belief as truth.


I'll agree with the last statement, and ask you to consider it with regard to the second.  ;)

PS-  After the humor in the post above, I was feeling a little light-hearted, so this may be a bit cryptic.

Anyhow, you're assuming I have no point, that this is a personally-held belief as opposed to something more?  In posting, you've promoted this unproven belief as the truth, correct?  That's my point.

So my point is that your point is that my point was based in superstition, even though (latter most) it wasn't!  :D

Oh my.  Sorry, I just love being silly sometimes.  It may not help people understand anything, and my ego may even come to show a bit, but it's good to be a bit honest now and then.  :)

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/22/2008 2:23:21 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 445
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:20:43 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...oh come on, now thats fatuous.


Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

quote:

i asked people to contrast and compare, that's clearly a question.


Since my previous attempt at answering the implicit question did not manage to convey the answer accurately, I will now answer more plainly and clearly, by saying that the differences between the examples of indoctrination that you offered are a matter of the content of the indoctrination, not of its source. The content is clearly different. The principle is not. And both are indoctrination.

I will further reassert that such was my point: blaming religion as a concept for human failings is indeed fatuous.

You can of course blame specific religions for specific things, just like one can blame specific secular groups for specific things. I would be more than happy to agree with that. Hell, the former pope would, and did. But that is a human thing, not a religious thing. The CCCP didn't imprison people for having faith in the wrong religion, but for not having faith in secular communism. Religion makes a handy scapegoat when one doesn't want to face up to what humans are, think and do. Just like witches made a handy scapegoat when one didn't want to face up to the fact that shit happens.

Repeating the mistakes of the past in a secular framework does not make them other than mistakes.

quote:

Your reply is to ignore my question and ask another, presumably in order to duck the implications of my question.


Your presumption is incorrect. My intention was to illustrate that the implications of your question are false.

As I saw it, that constitutes an answer, but since you do not agree, I've provided a direct one above; will you now answer mine?

quote:

Your debating tactics in this thread have not been intellectually honest.


I do not have an explicit debating tactic. I try to explain my POV, and to understand what the opposing POV is.

quote:

Your 'example' merely attempted to move the debate onto ground you are more comfortable on.


No, it attempted to show how you are conflating entities and multiplying them needlessly.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 446
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:21:57 PM   
Loveisallyouneed


Posts: 348
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

As I said: semantics


The thing about semantics is that we could have a huge semantical debate on what it exactly means, as everyone seems to use it in a different light.


Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

Language does not come equipped with the refinement available in mathematics.

Language can only deal with approximations.

Any 'law' stated through language must be nuanced according to the understanding of the participants.

And barring telepathy, you can be sure the understanding of each is not identical with any other.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 447
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:24:05 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

 
There is nothing to refute. You simply define "real" as "material" in accord with your personally held belief. I don't care what you believe. But there is no intellectual honesty in those who promote an unproven belief as truth.
 

I'll agree with the last statement, and ask you to consider it with regard to the second.  ;)


Perhaps you will explain to me how my observation that you are defining "real" and "material" in accord with your personal beliefs constitutes "promoting an unproven belief as truth". 
 
And fuck the winking shit ;)
 
K.
 
 
 
 

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 448
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:29:28 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Language does not come equipped with the refinement available in mathematics.


Amen!

Oh, my.  I write here as humor, as I find it to be funny to tease others.  So I write in English and such.  But there are so many more beautiful langauges when one comes to incorporate Math into it.

(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)
Profile   Post #: 449
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:31:16 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Who knows?  ;)


Heh.  Of course, I'll have to first ask.. did you assume that the definition was made as a bandage or as an alignment for the concept to my personal belief?  I'm afraid that wasn't too clear, although the implication struck me as idiomatically leaning towards the primer.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 450
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:33:40 PM   
wkdshadow


Posts: 129
Joined: 2/6/2008
Status: offline
To me, religion has always made no sense. I believed in Santa, because he left gifts. The easter bunny gave other kids candy eggs. God on the otherhand has given nothing tangible for me to work with. There is no evidence of god. All I've ever seen to support the evidence of god is the bible, and that's just another book written by(and modified by for personal gain) man.

I cannot believe what I have no evidence to suggest.  To believe in something without evidence of some sort is naive, or as church goers call it, "faithful". If god has given me the ability to make my own choices, then I chose to make an educated choice to ignore that which'll reveal itself to me in about 60 years anyway. If there's a god up there, I'm pretty sure he'll/she'll be happy enough with me for just being a good guy and not wasting the precious time he gave me. If he/she's angry, he/she can kiss my ass for eternity for all I care.

(in reply to lazarus1983)
Profile   Post #: 451
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:35:02 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it to be funny to tease others.

 

Sigh
 

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 452
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:37:58 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it to be funny to tease others.

 

Sigh


We all have our kinks!  Don't worry, though.  Even if I'm having fun with it, my statements are serious in the sense that I do advocate them as true (except for obvious jokes, of course).  They can still be discussed, it's just I don't have any legitimate hope of intelligent conversation about most of the things I type here.

PS-  Yes, I do have a huge ego.  But, don't mistake me: I would love to be proven wrong more than you could possibly know.

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/22/2008 2:39:24 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 453
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:48:12 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I would love to be proven wrong more than you could possibly know.


Actually, yes you would. But you are in no position to know it. And you will go to any length to make sure it never happens.
 
I guess I must be slipping. I used to spot'em quicker. Have a nice day.
 
K.
 

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 454
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 2:50:13 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I just don't get why people seem to think "material" is limited to the mundane materials we're used to.

It is by definition. Material: matter, having mass, stuff that can be touched. Perchance you want to include particles that interact with matter like photons and neutrino's? Anything else? Please describe what is included by your definition of material.

< Message edited by Rule -- 2/22/2008 2:57:13 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 455
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 3:00:38 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Kirata

And you will go to any length to make sure it never happens


I know, right?  Ravenously pursuing debates while welcoming people to question anything and everything is just my way of staying closed.  And working hard to get into all of the toughest classes in the most complex subjects at universities that I can is just yet another way I like to keep up my ego without testing it.

Well, thanks for the ad hominem-then-retreat bit.  Not like you contribute to the empiracle evidence backing my view or anything.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 456
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 3:01:41 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

You mean "anything", right?


Depends on whether you mean my world (i.e. the world I live in), or just my corner of it.

quote:

There are certainly ideas I wish to keep out of my environment, such as the idea that it'd be productive and easy to kill me and take my wallet.


I'd prefer to let the idea stay, since it's a pretty accurate perception, and then change the circumstances that make it accurate.

quote:

Like it or not, we live off of a huge number of assumptions we've made.


Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.

quote:

Sadly, even science is based off of them.


Yeah. Like the assumption that we exist in the first place, or that reality does.

I believe in those two assumptions, and suspect you do, as well.

quote:

Personally, though.. I want my young and the young of those around me to be perferentially exposed to assumption that's based in empiracle observation and reason as opposed to the wild claims of some deranged mind.


Then you shall have to shield them from humanism, for instance.

quote:

Not because it's impossible for a good idea to come from a psychotic, but because they're more likely to come from a rational mind.


Rational minds are as rare as psychotic minds. I used to think that was unfortunate.
Open minds are even rarer, which I also used to think was unfortunate.
Nowadays, I just view both as a human state of affairs.

quote:

And, again.. we're mortal.  We do not have forever to sort through the good and the bad.


Seems physics may not be the ideal subject to pursue, perhaps?

quote:

Of course, this is all humoring the individualistic approach to viewing the world, which I'd like to point out is an idealization.


Which is another thing I've been pointing out. Barring the solipsist position, there's an objective reality that does not have subjective qualities. Such subjective qualities are projected by humans, and that includes the myriad assumptions upon which our lives are based. The idea that it is wrong to kill a child at 16 weeks is subjective, and widely debated. I can reduce it in a given frame of reference, but without assumptions to go by, it's simply an idea... a belief. There is nothing empirical about it, one way or the other. You can, of course, construct a goal, and then use empirics to determine the extent to which that belief conforms to the goal, but that's just taking the same problem to a different level: the basic conundrum remains.

quote:

My friend, I think history'll reflect that the notion of keeping a person with black skin as a slave was far more acceptable in historical southern America than it is in even current southern day America. I'd argue that the social climate is largely responsible for this shift.


Correct. And it seems arrogant at best to think that there will not be other shifts in the future. Hell, if nothing else, circumstances will eventually (on a long enough timeline) exert selection pressures that entail paradigm shifts. Bear in mind that the one you reference is neither the first, nor the last, major shift in thinking. I should like to think that humanity will not be standing still in the future, either.

Finally, indulge me in a thought experiment, if you will...

Envision the OT and the NT as two points in the "space" of paradigms. Subtract the former from the latter, so you have a vector. Make a line that retains the origin and the gradient along each axis. Then you've done basically what a certain someone was suggesting a couple of thousand years ago, with the limited precision of the languages available to him at the time. Perhaps you will reach the same conclusion as me and Nietzsche: that this line is the center of the volume of the evolution of humanist thought and indeed prevailing morals in the West. In my own religion- which I do hope will eventually snatch some followers from others (just as secular humanists do, and as you suggested doing with a different target)- I'm mostly applying a few minor deltas to the points used in the example (e.g. cutting Saul) and following the line as far as people can.

That's actually rather apropos what you said in another thread about gender, if you pause to think about it.

quote:

This is working under the heavy idealism, my friend.


Things are rather a lot clearer in Plato's cave when one gets up to watch the objects, rather than their fuzzy shadows.

quote:

And I'd argue that there's far less dishonesty in Newton ranting about how gravity makes things fall than a priest ranting about why God hates gay people.


Quite. Yet there are secular people wielding as much, or more, influence and/or authority than such a priest, who do equal or greater harm, and perpetrate equal or greater intellectual dishonesties. Even in the various fields of empirical science. So, again, I am forced to conclude that the danger and dishonesty you and others are pointing out (and I certainly don't deny that I get a nigh-irresistible urge to slam some fundies' heads against the wall at times, so no lectures on rose-tinted glasses) is symptomatic of an element of the human condition, rather than being intrinsic and unavoidable properties of religious beliefs.

quote:

So, I sharply disagree that it's all equally dishonest.


Positing values and assumptions that are not empirically proven is one level.
But positing values and assumptions that are empirically disproven is another level.
Apart from that, you get into the nuances of empirical proof, which has diminishing returns.
I don't particularly appreciate faiths that ignore life; that misses the point of religion, in my opinion.
But I also realize that the reason such faiths have followers has to do with said followers, not their faiths.

Which is part of the reason why I've decided to have a go at forwarding my own religion, whose intellectual honesty you're free to review off-board.

Health,
al-Aswad.



_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 457
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 3:03:30 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Once you accept there is no objective basis for ethical decisions, you must accept that there is a subjective basis for making them.


That, or you become a nihilist.

But, yeah, I hold that there is a subjective basis.

quote:

The problem is when we insist our standards must apply to others. That's what gives rise to conflict.


Quite. And atheists provide weighty evidence that this is not a shortcoming of religions, but of humans.

Health,
al-Aswad.



_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)
Profile   Post #: 458
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 3:05:45 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I just don't get why people seem to think "material" is limited to the mundane materials we're used to.

It is by definition. Material: matter, having mass, stuff that can be touched. Perchance you want to include particles that interact with matter like photons and neutrino's? Anything else? Please describe what is included by your definition of material.


Matter is the set of things that can interact with other matter.  My finger is an instance of matter.  (Recursive, subjective, tiered.)

You have a good point about the regular definition being of things that are composed of mass.  I guess I just don't see mass as being intrinsic, so I've adapted "material" to meet my own uses.  Those who argue against "materialism" may well be arguing against another set of definition.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 459
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 3:11:38 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

There are certainly ideas I wish to keep out of my environment, such as the idea that it'd be productive and easy to kill me and take my wallet.


I'd prefer to let the idea stay, since it's a pretty accurate perception, and then change the circumstances that make it accurate.


That's assuming it's accurate, though, and that it'll go away if it ceases being accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

Sadly, even science is based off of them.


Yeah. Like the assumption that we exist in the first place, or that reality does.


I'm afraid that's true by definition.  At least, by mine; what might you mean by such words?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

Personally, though.. I want my young and the young of those around me to be perferentially exposed to assumption that's based in empiracle observation and reason as opposed to the wild claims of some deranged mind.


Then you shall have to shield them from humanism, for instance.


Quite possibly.  It's been a comforting assumption for me, but ah wells.  I hope I'm a good enough parent.  =/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

And, again.. we're mortal.  We do not have forever to sort through the good and the bad.


Seems physics may not be the ideal subject to pursue, perhaps?


There are reasons to pursue it, though perhaps not the common ones.



I'll try to respond to more in a bit, but I'm afraid my time here's up, so I have to go onto the next place.  I hate splitting up a single reply into two parts, but ah wells.  :P


Edit:  I actually typo'd a quote tag as "[/quite]".

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/22/2008 3:12:35 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 460
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.126