[Terez]

Powder, on 22 January 2010 - 08:49 PM, said:

Hello again all. Time has passed and things have cooled off significantly in this thread and in my head. I wish to reopen the discussion, yet I am hesitant. Sadly I will be unable to leave my heart out of anything that I write herein. I do my best not to patronize individuals/groups, yet I am very passionate about these ideas and that will invariably come out. So for those of you who have been actively posting with me, do you wish a continuance of this thread or is it a dead horse I should stop beating? Frankly with out your express desire for a continuance on my part I will be ceasing and desisting from this thread.

-Powder

lol, of course we want you to stay - it's rare that we get Christians in here that do anything beyond chant the usual slogans, and though you throw them around every now and then, your posts are more involved than that. Don't take it personally if we use you as a punching bag; we do that to Gem too but we are still fond of her, and she is a tough girl so here she remains. When I said there are no hard feelings, I meant it, though it would of course become problematic if you continued to push those buttons. There are probably a good number of Christians on the board who are silently cheering you from the sidelines because they haven't got the tenacity to hang in the religion forum. No offense to them: arguing is not everyone's thing, and people avoid religion in particular because religious people (particularly the Abrahamic ones) are notoriously sensitive on the subject and atheists are notoriously ruthless when it comes to debate, which makes religion debates a mess nearly everywhere you go.

The only really offensive thing about your posts to me was the sympathy, because it assumes, at a base level, that you are in a privileged position, as a Christian, and I am to be pitied for my blindness to the Truth, or the regrettable incidents that led to my estrangement from the Church. I'm just letting you know that I'm happy with being an atheist, and that there's no reason to feel sorry for me. What's past is past, including the offense. I get emotionally invested in arguments every now and then, whether I'm discussing religion or politics or music or fantasy books. It's a little different for you, because your religion is all-important, so your level of emotional investment will be something you have to watch out for, because it can sometimes interfere with the argument that you are trying to get across. It is unavoidable, that you believe that you are privileged as a Christian, but when you start pouring on the sympathies, it gets to be a little much for me.

Anyway, your passion for your religion doesn't offend me in the slightest; I understand that a desire to share the Good News with people is a huge part of your belief system, even though I was never fond of recruiting myself, when I was a Christian. My dad is big on recruiting, though, and my stepmom is one of those over-the-top people that will try to sell Jesus to pretty much everyone she meets; she's very nearly the definition of patronizing. I don't have any hard feelings toward her for it - she takes care of my dad, and he loves her, and that's what really matters to me - but it does offend me on a purely logical level, and it took me years of effort to reduce it to that. If I didn't have a family connection to her, it would be more difficult for me to blow her off....but then, there would be no reason for me to come into contact with her at all.

Also, I apologize for the overuse of the trademark slogans, since you found them offensive. You assumed that my reason for using them was that I was recruited to the religion in this way, and was bitter about it, but my indoctrination was much more comprehensive than that. I was familiar with the slogans, but only in the sense that there was always a widespread effort across the globe to boil Christianity down into concepts that were accessible to the unwashed masses, and I don't think there are many Christian churches that can escape responsibility for that effort. Having been raised in the church, I was familiar with the slogans, but they weren't for me. There were a good number in my church who didn't dig much deeper than the slogans, but they were always seen by the inner, active core of the church, like me, as being questionable, and probably not Real Christians™ (which is a concept that is widespread across nearly every denomination of the faith, though of course the concept is rarely boiled down in as many words in polite conversation). My church wasn't into anything like passing out tracts on Bourbon Street on Fat Tuesday, but I've seen a good number of those tracts over the years, and I can't really say that the one-on-one conversations that were typical of my church's approach to recruiting were much different in content, though there's usually a good bit of effort on the part of the recruiter to learn about the Lost One's past, especially if it's sinful (because everyone wants your juice, even the noble recruiter for Jesus). Then there is the fact that my church along with nearly every Christian church in the world supports third world missionary work. In my region of the country, churches are packed with people who believe that socialism or any form of government charity is the DEVIL, and they think that their tax money would be better spent supporting good Christian charity organizations that give the Good News along with food and clothing.

In my opinion, it's a racket that was created, not by one individual with a nefarious plan but by an amalgamation of various human motives over time, in the race to be the world's dominating religion, and to stay that way. For what purpose? It's always ostensibly a noble purpose to show people the Truth of your religion, among those religions that do proselytize. As I'm sure you're aware, many religions do not proselytize, and the ones that do proselytize are quickly taking over the world, even in the East where the indigenous religions are mostly non-recruiting. Those religions are non-recruiting, for the most part, because of a 'many paths' philosophy concerning Truth, to the point that 'conversion' to other religions is somewhat paradoxical. The religions that recruit are the ones that claim to have the One Path to the Truth, and that in particular is what disturbs me, especially considering that it usually involves an assertion that certain privileged individuals will inherit the earth, while others will burn in hell for their sins. Worst is when there is an implication that a murderer who 'repents' is a better person in God's eyes than a generally law-abiding citizen who believes in a different god.

[Terez]

I was reading back through the thread and saw this.

Gem Windcaster, on 16 January 2010 - 03:34 AM, said:

...would you please refrain from mentioning me in a thread that I have (pretty clearly I think) stated I won't post in any further - excepting this one time - since I can't defend myself. I hope you can accommodate my request.

Gem out.

[Terez]

Oh come on, isn't someone else going to tell Powder to stay? He probably won't stay for just me!

(Not trying to spam here, I promise - it just happened that way.)

[Juvenis]

Stay Powder, stay!!

...I know I haven't been a part of this discussion, but I have been reading it. Its very interesting, I love it

[Powder]

Terez, on 24 January 2010 - 03:14 AM, said:

Oh come on, isn't someone else going to tell Powder to stay? He probably won't stay for just me!

(Not trying to spam here, I promise - it just happened that way.)

Yes I would. I would like the community to remember that while there may be other people of faith on these boards, it is physically, emotionally, and intellectually draining to be constantly attacked on all sides. I wrestle with most everything I post up on here. Please remember that there is only 1 weak mind going into my posts, and hundreds read it and find its flaws and breakingpoints. I will continue to reply in an amicable manner in hopes that you all do the same. I by no means am making an ultimatim. Instead I am pleading before the masses of the intrawebs for a renewed level of respect, decency, and genearal kindness.

I have been wrestling with the contents of this forum in my silence and have several new things to bring up, I will be jumping back a bit but I hope that you will bear with me. I will make mistakes, I will be wrong at times (its happened before). My hope is that you will see that while I do not have an answer for everything I have answers for some things. So, let us resume the talk later, and be mutually bettered by it.

-Powder

[caladanbrood]

You're better than most of us Powder, I gave up on this board a long time ago. Good luck to you

[Powder]

Adjutant Stormy, on 07 January 2010 - 10:18 PM, said:

Powder, on 07 January 2010 - 08:19 PM, said:

1. People who are mentally handicapped are a drain on resources both in the private and public sectors.
2. The State could save x amount of money every year by eliminating said drains.
3. Therefore we kill all the mentally handicapped people in the state.

3. Therefore we should minimize said drain in a TBD logical fashion.
<begin logical discussion on minimization>

The jump to murder is the illogical step.

And to echo HD, there is much lacking in the assumptions. Society would break down without some moral code, but the assumption remains that God is the great font of all morality. As long as people are logical, they will form collectives and enumerate rules. Society doesn't need God.

Quote

there is no right and wrong. Only actions you like or find preferable to other actions. There are no absolutes that we can know, and so each man is left to his own devices to find out how he wants to live

Congratulations, you have found the truth. However, there are more complex reasons why people in vacuo would behave morally. Society hardly breaks down, and logic still holds.
Assumptions:
1) People can accomplish more by working in concert.
2) Working together requires an element of trust, i.e. trust that they will not be killed, robbed, etc. etc.

Therefore it is in a person's interest, when not by one's self with nobody around, to foster this trust. The simplest way is by agreement, written, spoken, or unspoken, that to ensure that certain actions not be taken against themselves individually (killing, stealing, raping, etc. etc.), people consent to have their actions limited similarly (they likewise agree not to rape, murder, etc.). Morality develops. Throw in an agreed-upon punishment mechanism and you have Law.

There are obviously always going to be exceptional people, who rape, and murder, and steal, and vandalize, irrespective of the benefits of not doing so. But there are those people in the Christian community too. It is safe to say that it's a Human factor, not a moral factor.
Unsophisticated logic yields Eugenics, etc. in the absence of God's unfaltering moral compass. More sophisticated logic yields the span of human morality.

Quote

if you take out the ultimate example of goodness you lose all goodness. You can no longer speak in those terms. And why would you? All you are is a random collection of atoms anyway can a knife be morally good? Can a rock? No it is nonsense to think such things! Maybe those are too distant, can a fish be morally good? A cow? No! These are just animals, they do what animals do--survive! As an atheist that is what you are, when you look in the mirror see yourself for what you are--an animal!

Removing the ultimate example of Goodness, you leave things of relative goodness behind. Fried chicken, for example. If we're talking about colors, white to black, and you eliminate white or black; there is no example of white or black anywhere to be found, but grays remain- lighter can still be judged from darker. In fact, we can still define white and black, as the lightest and darkest imaginable gray. Unless we're talking about just absolutes (a black and white worldview), at which point I believe ridicule would be in order.

Amongst things in this universe, the difference is choice. A knife cannot choose to act; in fact, it cannot act at all. It possesses no moral value. A fish, a cow, a human can act, they can even sometimes choose between actions. This means that there is some degree of moral value. The only issue is how you measure it.

I have had several thoughts about this post in particular.

On Morality. I think we have a discrepancy in how we are defining the term. Morality does indeed involve a choice, however not all choices are moral. Animals have a choice yes, yet they do not have moral choices. Humans too can make decisions which are A-moral. There is no morality behind what color shirt I wore today. There is a moral decision to make when it comes to how I acquired that shirt in the first place.

On Goodness. Friend chicken is tasty. I love the taste of it, the smell of it, the eating of it, and the eating of it as a leftover. Fried chicken is not good in the sense I am proposing. It could be considered philosophically good if the definition of goodness is roughly 'things I like or please me'. One could equally, and might I add scientifically, say that fried chicken is evil because it raises cholesterol, promotes obesity, and causes heart disease when eaten in sufficient quantities.

Further, to make the distinction that God is like the color white, and his anti-type is black, and their removal would leave shades of gray is to confuse the argument. This approach is dualistic in nature and is not the Christian God as I understand it. Rather, God is like light without light there is no color at all- no not even the intermediaries. Everything becomes flat and just 'is'.

On society. Here I tend to agree with you. Society need not break down with the removal of God. People can and do act in their own best interest and this does result in binding rules, formal and informal social controls etc. However this morality is quantifiably different than the one which I am describing. It is not binding cross culturally, and each people group needs to survive on its own and look out for itself. Survival of the fittest wins the day, the best society with the 'best' rules will come out on top. We are actually seeing this happen to some extent with the 'Western' domination of the world.

As to my logic proof. I do not see it as a broach in logic. If evolution is our theory of existence, and it is driven by natural selection, then this is humanities utmost. The survival of the species depends on constant adaptation/evolution. People who are disabled either mentally or physically are hindering this adaptation, and possibly the survival of the host community. Therefore in the interest of promoting humanity, and the local communities these anomalies should be removed from the gene pool. As someone who lives in the west this may be a hard idea to swallow because we have seemingly unlimited resources which we may spend at our pleasure. Yet all one has to do is look at tribal culture to see this decision made day after day. It is the most pragmatic decision one can make and so it is made again, and again, and again.

Society is very possible without morals as I think of them. It is not a society I want to live in, but it is totally possible. One can easily point to whales, dolphins, elephants, ants, and other creatures and show how social behavior is possible without any guiding principles of ultimate 'right' and ultimate 'wrong'. (Rightness and wrongness can still be defined as what benefits the individual and group, and that which does not benefit the group. This works fine so long as the boundaries of group are not crossed or forced open.) Case in point:

If an ant, lets say ant A, gets stepped on he will most probably die. For the sake of argument let us say he is hanging on to life with all his might, and will not die for say one hour. Ant B comes along and kills ant A, takes him underground and feeds him to the hives fungus. Has ant B done anything morally wrong? No. From the point of evolution, Ant B has promoted survival of the hive, and ultimately removed an unsuccessful ant from the gene pool. Yet, were a human to do the exact same thing would be horribly wrong, wouldn't it? Perhaps not. After all if evolution is our ultimate cause for existence, what higher cause could we have in this life but to uphold and promote our ultimate cause for existence?

On the contrary if God is the ultimate cause of existence (whether he used evolution or no, that is a huge thread derailing topic I hope to avoid as it seems to be a hot button issue), what higher cause could the believer have than to uphold and promote this ultimate cause?

I hope this clears some things up, and jump starts our discussion again.

-Powder

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Trying to avoid the giant quote-chain of death, so I'll paraphrase.

On Goodness: You'll have to describe what you mean by dualist. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that you mean the interpretation that there are two poles in the system, absolute good and absolute bad, about which the scheme of morality orbits. Instead, the interpretation is that there's just one pole orienting morality. Right and wrong defined in relative to the one point, Good. Things are Good or Less Good. It is a reasonable system, I suppose.

Another point that I am glad you made for me:
Dolphins, ants, etc. have created extremely powerful, functional, orderly societies without the hangup (for all we know) on the Supreme. Utility and survival drive their organizations- and it works!

And for Morality: All choices are moral. Choice of colored shirt might have the minorest of moral implications, but every action can be judged morally. Perhaps your boss insists on a blue / white shirt dress code? Perhaps it's someone's favorite color? Unless something is chosen completely (and truly, like coinflip / diceroll) randomly, some judgement can made on the morality of the act. Most actions have moral implications that are too minor to be of note.

The 1, 2, 3 steps for euthanasia: My point involved primarily that there are other choices aside from murder that can be made, with similar effects. Morally less abhorrent choices than the one picked for the sake of argument. The logical steps should be resource drain --> resource drain is bad -> minimize resource drain for least cost -> solution

EDIT: I'm not saying that the option won't be chosen sometimes, depending on the situation. It's just that it's not a given.

As for the evolutionary argument for euthanasia- that person possesses most of the genes of their relatives. To preserve their life (and therefore one's own genes) has been shown to be instinctual. I'm going to try to find one of the studies for it to link for you. But regardless, the argument against it at the very least falls under the social-contract form of a-theistic morals.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 29 January 2010 - 06:25 AM

[Powder]

Evil is viewed as a non entity as such in orthodox Christianity. It is simply != to good (to steal from programming). Or it is the twisting of something that is good. Take for instance sexuality, usually it is a good thing, yet people can twist it into rape which is evil. Therefore evil does not need a creator/progenitor because it is a degeneration from the good. Though it does take some being to cause the degeneration, it does not have substance as such.

Yes I think we both agree society can run w/o a system of 'morals' as I think of them in place. I will save you the time doing the research and drop the euthanasia metaphor. I actually agree with your exact breakdown of the logic proof. I am purposely pushing it a bit to foster discussion and so will cease now that it has recommenced. I do not think morals are necissary for a successful society (it bears repeating), obviously however I disagree with it at its core. Just because it can be done does not mean I think it should be obviously.

Second, I am still not convinced that every choice is a moral one. To run with your supposed presuppositions: humanity has evolved from lesser forms. Those lesser forms have passed on instincts, dna, proclivities etc to humans. Our bodies tell us to eat, so we eat. They tell us to reproduce so we do. They tell us when we are burning or freezing. All of these things are hardwired into us at the very core. Our social structures are also inherited. Why does a dolphin swim with other dolphins? It is programmed to do so! Its evolutionary process has given it that predisposition and so it does so. If evolution has caused a mutation in a specific dolphin which causes it to swim away from other dolphins, it swims off, dies of starvation, and never reproduces. The same thing can be said of humans. So I ask you do we really have a choice at all? Still going on everything being hardwired into me, perhaps I am drawn to the color blue at a genetic level, is my choice of constantly wearing a blue shirt then a choice or is it forced upon me by errant genes in my system?

That kind of wandered but my 'thinky meatz', as abyss says, are stressed from a long day of grad work. If it is too obtuse to read I could perhaps rework it when I am not crushed with school work like I am now (18 credit hours and a language).

Now, my view (hopefully makes sense after all it is mine, I should be able to articulate it). Humans are special. They are more than a conglomeration of atoms, proteins, etc. How exactly God created us I do not know (much like Frook I have not gotten a special Q&A session with God), but we are created special and apart. That much all of Christendom can agree with. Part of our separation from lower animals is the importation of a soul into the human vessel. It is from this soul that morality can possibly originate. This part of us is what allows us to contradict our own bodily inclinations, and become more. It is what makes love exist as more than a chemical in your brain. It is the piece of God which is inside every person which makes them moral beings. No soul, no morality. Therefore moral choices can only be made by creatures with this 'soul' quality and not lesser beings.

*V*The following is not intended as patronizing in any way/shape/form it is placed herein in order to give the reader a glimpse into the mind of the current author*V*

Now, another possibly interesting point for all of you. I am very pleased with Atheism. If I had not experienced God in my daily life I myself would be an Atheist. I find it intellectually appealing even. My practical experience however has led me down a different path and I must say what a pleasure it has been. This may sound contradictory but hopefully will illuminate why I chose to involve myself on this board in the way which I do.

Christianity to me is like the ocean. When I hear people, like my current roomate who is from the middle of the country, tell me that they have never been to the ocean, seen it smelled it, tasted it, swam in it, I want to share this beautiful place with them. When they are under misconceptions about it I try to dispel them. Yes it is salty. Yes things live in it. No they won't eat you (probably). Yes, the sunrises are amazing (east coaster). I view my faith the same way. It is not an idea to be passed on through cold hard text, but it is something to be lived, experienced, etc. However all the prattling on I do about the ocean may never get people to appreciate it the way I do... and that is ok. It is not for everyone! Frankly your chances of getting hurt in the ocean are far less than getting hurt in the church (as many can attest to, myself included). It is a beautiful and wondrous thing to me, and I hope to share that with the reader here.

*^*Again not trying to be patronizing just trying to give the reader some of the underlying presuppositions inherent within all texts mentioned *^*

Thanks for reading!

-Powder

PS If you have questions about specific Christian 'doctrines' or 'dogmas' feel free to ask.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'll address this section, Powder, and present some opposing ideas.

Quote

Second, I am still not convinced that every choice is a moral one. To run with your supposed presuppositions: humanity has evolved from lesser forms. Those lesser forms have passed on instincts, dna, proclivities etc to humans. Our bodies tell us to eat, so we eat. They tell us to reproduce so we do. They tell us when we are burning or freezing. All of these things are hardwired into us at the very core. Our social structures are also inherited. Why does a dolphin swim with other dolphins? It is programmed to do so! Its evolutionary process has given it that predisposition and so it does so. If evolution has caused a mutation in a specific dolphin which causes it to swim away from other dolphins, it swims off, dies of starvation, and never reproduces.

The fault here is in pretending that no other packs of dolphins have evolved that way, or that there is another pack of dolphins just beyond the horizon. It's a false assumption and bad logic that simply because one dolphin "chooses to swim away" no other dolphins would have at any other time.

Quote

The same thing can be said of humans. So I ask you do we really have a choice at all? Still going on everything being hardwired into me, perhaps I am drawn to the color blue at a genetic level, is my choice of constantly wearing a blue shirt then a choice or is it forced upon me by errant genes in my system?

Your view of genetics is strange Powder. Color choice as genetically hardwired? Seriously? What are you trying to get to here, because it is certainly wondering.

Quote

That kind of wandered but my 'thinky meatz', as abyss says, are stressed from a long day of grad work. If it is too obtuse to read I could perhaps rework it when I am not crushed with school work like I am now (18 credit hours and a language).

Rework it. It's not good.

Quote

Now, my view (hopefully makes sense after all it is mine, I should be able to articulate it). Humans are special. They are more than a conglomeration of atoms, proteins, etc. How exactly God created us I do not know (much like Frook I have not gotten a special Q&A session with God), but we are created special and apart. That much all of Christendom can agree with.

Christendom? Christendom? What in the world have you been reading Powder? Christendom hasn't existed since the Dark Ages. Further, separating oneself from another group of things created from equal parts is a fantastic way to authorize abusing it.

Quote

Part of our separation from lower animals is the importation of a soul into the human vessel. It is from this soul that morality can possibly originate. This part of us is what allows us to contradict our own bodily inclinations, and become more. It is what makes love exist as more than a chemical in your brain. It is the piece of God which is inside every person which makes them moral beings. No soul, no morality. Therefore moral choices can only be made by creatures with this 'soul' quality and not lesser beings.

Powder, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. This last statement is pure religion, and can't be debated or talked about rationally.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 29 January 2010 - 09:23 AM

[Gothos]

Powder, on 25 January 2010 - 10:18 PM, said:

If an ant, lets say ant A, gets stepped on he will most probably die. For the sake of argument let us say he is hanging on to life with all his might, and will not die for say one hour. Ant B comes along and kills ant A, takes him underground and feeds him to the hives fungus. Has ant B done anything morally wrong? No. From the point of evolution, Ant B has promoted survival of the hive, and ultimately removed an unsuccessful ant from the gene pool. Yet, were a human to do the exact same thing would be horribly wrong, wouldn't it? Perhaps not. After all if evolution is our ultimate cause for existence, what higher cause could we have in this life but to uphold and promote our ultimate cause for existence?

As I see it, we've already transcended evolution. The success of mankind originates in our way of thinking. We decided we can't be arsed to wait around for developing new stuff over thousands of generations and we took control. Tools, weapons, cars and electronic watches, all of this, everything we've achieved, sets us apart. We shape our surroundings to achieve control over it. Instead of adapting our bodies and chemistry, we create tools that fill the blanks in our capabilities. We don't need wings, we have planes. We don't need sharp claws, we have knives. We don't need two tonnes of muscle and razor sharp fangs, we have weapons.

Mankind's uniqueness in nature comes, as I see it, from within, not from a soul infused from elsewhere. It appears we simply... are. I don't agree with the hordes of people trying to find some greater meaning in life, asking questions: "Why are we here?" and such. As I see it, there's most likely no greater purpose. We're rare anomalies in a universe of inorganic matter and energy, we are only special in the way a tossed coin stops on it's edge. Our existance is of no consequence for the universe. Curious, yes, but to think that our existance is what this whole world is all about is selfish, arrogant, and quite frankly also a bit dickish. We're like a programming bug, a quirk, and if anything consequential comes from that, it can only come from us. If there's a meaning to mankind existance, it's mankind who has to create it.

We try to define the world through our way of percepting it. There doesn't have to be a cause. It seems to me like to many people the possibility that the only thing even resembling a "creator" is the dark, uncaring void, an indifferent primal force with no direction or thought, is terryfying. I think many people feel like without a primary cause, without a reason behind all this, life is hollow, empty. It's an outside source, and authority, on which people can base their worldview, their decisions, their personal code, their choices, and without it, they'd feel lost. Isn't that right?

This post has been edited by Gothos: 29 January 2010 - 09:33 AM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Great Carl Sagan quote:
"We are a way for the universe to know itself."

The realm of metaphysics is one that we've crashed up against repeatedly, it's too personal to really debate. But exposition is fine, don't take HD too personally. He's a lawyer, steeped in the argumentative arts. This is the discussion forum, not necessarily the debate forum.

The best way to differentiate our ideologies (since we're both rational, learned human beings - more than I can say for some people I know) is that I find a bit of hubris in thinking that anything makes humans special other than chance and biochemistry.

[Terez]

Adjutant Stormy, on 29 January 2010 - 10:02 AM, said:

...don't take HD too personally. He's a lawyer, steeped in the argumentative arts.

Not to mention probably smashed. At 3am it's usually a safe bet.

[Powder]

I actually liked what Ive read of Sagan (Dragons of Eden), it was interesting to say the least. Definitely a brilliant man.

Now if I was from an Atheist world view, I would pretty much hold to Gothos' explanation of things.

@ HD

Christendom - just a word now, referencing the wider body of christianity without getting dropped into a particular denomination, got tired of typing christianity over and over again. Variety is the spice of life after all.

Genetics - Why not? Through my limited study in CJ(undergraduate) two things impart upon a human who they 'are'. The first is genetics. The second is society. The way the two are held in tension is the idea of 'nature' vs 'nurture'. Now, which of these two things did you choose? Did you even choose your name? It seems to me that in the absence of God(which is assumed for the sake of discussion) hard determinism is the natural outflow of things. You may counter that it is our intelligence that gives us a choice. That level is clearly influenced by genetics, which were not chosen. Also the expression of that intelligence is socially constructed, which is again not chosen. Free will seems impossible under these circumstances. We are all just machines walking about the face of the earth trying to survive.

On the Soul - It can be discussed rationally, but only if both parties are respecting of one another on the issue. This is obviously not the case as seen by three of the four posts since it was posted, every single one has pointed out that it is 'hubris', 'selfish', 'irrational'. Now while this may be the case from your PoV (which it should be), may I remind you that from my PoV your positions are in the same boat (again which it should be). Yet I do not thinly veil contempt for your worldview, because it makes sense to me. Stereotypically I am the one that is supposed to be doing the name calling and closing my mind to the outside possibilities.

It is discussed rationally, even in a classroom setting. For instance the debate as to whether the soul is in 1, 2, or 3 parts. Even my atheist philosophy prof's who speak multiple languages (French, German, Greek, Italian) and have read philosophical treatises (in the original) have discussed such things with me in amicable tones, and continue to do so after years of discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but even Plato/Socrates speak in terms of soul. Aristotle talks of an unmoved mover. Are these men irrational? To be discussed rationally all one must do is put oneself in another persons shoes (hence me attempting to engage Atheist ideas even when I am not Atheist). Granted it is hard enough to get in ones own shoes when one is smashed (someone may have put throw-up in there and made them squishy), but still.

Ty terez--your kindness is undeserved.

-powder

PS So there is no purpose in life, what makes you get up in the morning? (Another curiosity when typed out sounds kinda sarcastic not intended as such)

EDIT: http://www.collegehu...m/video:1924722 while not my God, probably fits some of your perceptions of him and his followers .

This post has been edited by Powder: 29 January 2010 - 06:21 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

(ASIDE): Tetris God is my new Supreme Deity. Praise him and he will give you line blocks.

What gets me up in the morning? I like Sagan's quote, I get up because today I'll learn something new, experience something new, and in so doing perhaps unravel the mysteries of the universe.
And don't get me wrong, while I do think it's a bit of hubris to think that I am truly special, that by no means that it's a bad thing. Hubris, in short, is human- to deny it is to deny oneself the luxury of your own worldview. I just express my hubris in other places.
Contempt is probably the opposite of the intended sentiment. A man without hubris is no man.

[Terez]

Adjutant Stormy, on 29 January 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

(ASIDE): Tetris God is my new Supreme Deity. Praise him and he will give you line blocks.

Try out the God of Tetris Attack. It is much more Supremely Awesome. Here is a sample (with Zelda music for some reason). On endless mode, it usually takes me about 15-20 minutes to max out the points at 99,999, and I have gotten it close to 10 minutes but never under. I rock at this game. There was a cultish fever for it in my circle of friends, and only one person was close to being as good as me. This guy does it in 5'31, and that's not even the record, which I think is 3'something. It's easy to see how this guy's time could be beat - he was screwing up enough that it was obvious that he was paralyzed by the adrenaline rush in a couple of spots.

I will be back for an on topic post later, promise.

[Powder]

Terez, on 30 January 2010 - 05:11 AM, said:

Adjutant Stormy, on 29 January 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

(ASIDE): Tetris God is my new Supreme Deity. Praise him and he will give you line blocks.

Try out the God of Tetris Attack. It is much more Supremely Awesome. Here is a sample (with Zelda music for some reason). On endless mode, it usually takes me about 15-20 minutes to max out the points at 99,999, and I have gotten it close to 10 minutes but never under. I rock at this game. There was a cultish fever for it in my circle of friends, and only one person was close to being as good as me. This guy does it in 5'31, and that's not even the record, which I think is 3'something. It's easy to see how this guy's time could be beat - he was screwing up enough that it was obvious that he was paralyzed by the adrenaline rush in a couple of spots.

I will be back for an on topic post later, promise.

This post is totally on topic, I as the protagonist have signed off on it.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

OFF TOPIC POST WIN.

[anakronisM]

Hello everyone, i'm glad to return to this forum only to find this excellent thread. My absence has been due to the need for some serious reflection on my beliefs and the time-demanding seminary i'm attending.

What strikes me as the best part of this discussion is that two(or several) point of views can be discussed with respect for each other as persons. The discussion between opposing views are crucial in the process of articulating both your own view to see if it holds water, and in any serious attempt to find the truth or ontological reality.
I therefore say good job to all for this refreshing discussion, i hope i can contribute something of value and meaning.

Now, why do i believe in God? First of all i can't reason myself into a belief in God, i think this is utterly implausible. What is the ground for my belief in God? Primarily my empirical experience of him, i have experienced him in a strong way. This experience has when i look back, created faith in me so to speak. I'd like to picture it like this in a little theory of mine(i would gladly get some response on this from another point of view):

- I can experience a chair with my natural senses, i can see the chair, feel it or even taste it. Experience tells me this is something that looks a certain way and feels a certain way.
- In the same sense it is if i can sense God with my spiritual sense.
- Both natural and spiritual senses depend on experiencing them or "believing" in them. Can we prove that the chair exists in a objective ontological sense? We have to rely on our senses to come to the conclusion that the chair even exists. Is it legitimate to rely on your senses? Yes i positively believe it is.
I can experience God with spiritual senses and natural included, but the point i'm trying to make is that a belief in God is created by an experience and are as legitimate as relying on the experience of the natural senses.

I would in a sense say that my experience of God is something that no one can take from me, or even disprove. But at the same time it stays for the most part there, at the personal level, but it can dazzle people or inspire them to believe.

This is some thoughts about what faith or belief in God really is, to really believe in God, i think there has to be an experience of him, a personal encounter with him that grounds on the seeking and the will to find him.

My excuse for any illogical or grammatical error is that i'm from Sweden, (you know the country with the meatballs, polarbears and all the beautiful women).

I'm gonna comment on the moral discussion you guys are having soon.

PS my former nickname here at this forum was doxa.

This post has been edited by anakronisM: 03 February 2010 - 09:46 AM

[Terez]

anakronisM, on 02 February 2010 - 07:42 PM, said:

PS my former nickname here at this forum was doxa.

Don't forget to tell everyone who your sister is, so we can all judge you based on her reputation.

Oh, and welcome back. Are you going to take up the torch in the C vs. E thread?