 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 514 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of all the threads I've started, this is the largest. "ceeeeeeelebration song, COME ON! du-du-dudu" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wonder what a worldwide society that just mixed all religions and non-religions equally would be like... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wonder what the world would be like without religion at all...too beautiful a place to comprehend I'd wager... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all religions seem to see themselves as better than the others - its so shite. these days, religion is just an easy way of letting yourself be offended. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, you can simultaneously ignore and dismiss all the positive effects of religion. maybe you should figure out what you're on about before you criticize something? whether or not the "cost" of the bads are evened out by the goods, is a different question, and not one easily answered. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and criticizing anyone for seeing themselves as better than everyone else is bullshit; we all fucking think we're better than everyone else and we all fucking think we know the truth better than anyone else. you can't get around it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im not ignoring its positive effects - it clearly brings people together in many cases. Im saying that to me at least, it seems like more and more often lately, on all scales, religion is the cause of people's offence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, I think that's more because of how the rest of society is progressing rather than how religion is standing still (though, of course, it is an effect of the gap becoming larger). the discussion since these drawings were published, has been about freedom of speech while people forget that while we're not as selective about our freedom of speech as certain other societies, ours is not a perfect one either, and the freedom of speech isn't hurt as much by suppressing it as it is by morons abusing their rights (note: I'm not denying hurt comes from suppression, I'm just saying it's less than the hurt from when people show that they clearly can't handle the responsibility that comes with free speech). if you were a negro and I shouted "FUCKING NIGGER!!!" at you on the streets, you'd definately be hurt, and it wouldn't be becasue of your religion. the thing is that while we think "FUCKING NIGGER!!!" is rude and unappropriate, we apparently don't seem to think that "HA HA YOUR PROPHET IS A TERRORIST!!!" is rude and unappropriate.. in fact, I bet it'd be harder printing an article called "FUCKING NIGGER!!!" in which it said "HA HA NIGGERS ARE STUPID AND GAY!!!" than it was printing the blasphemy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's the problem, you can't keep an entire civilization for hundreds of years appart from the global knowledge and way of thinking, i am not a globalist, i want to be a universalist and a humanist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am agree |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ollie bollie wang-wang! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
penis |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
finally I can join in on the fun pen0r |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BLOW UP EVERYTHING!! USA is A - OK!!! |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha, bloodsport. Ok usa! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Murder might not be agaisnt the law without religion. Hey, you never know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My, that is ironic...isn't one of the "positives" of religion that everyone is equal? :-) And of course you can criticise religions for the bad outweighing the good! It's the easiest thing in the world! My personal value system has nothing to do with "God" and yet everything to do with "Good"...with none of the crusading / terrorist bullshit that seems to characterise all other religions...(not counting Buddhism of course) :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
would your concept of "good" be the same without the concept of "god?" in fact, "good" isn't as far from "god" as you'd think, as you are somehow presupposing the existence of some "good," outside of the world; a good that is good no matter where you're from and everyone should abide by this good... sounds familiar? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"good" has nothing to do with "god". "good" involves not upsetting/harming people, making people happy etc. the definition of "god" is merely a supreme being. "good" exists for sure, but thats not the case for "god" ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so if good exists for sure how is it that the definition and concept of good will differ from person to person and culture to culture? you may find some people who agree with your definition of good and some who disagree.. for the ones who disagree to be "wrong," there must exist a good, but where is it? I'll ask again: sounds familiar? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what other definitions of "good" are there though? admittedly my bodged-up one is vague, but i dont see how it can be wrong - i.e. upsetting/harming people cannot be good |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course upsetting and harming people can be considered good; in war it is a good thing to harm your enemy and artists often deliberately try to upset people, as they then consider it good for people to be upset from time to time. we all try to "do what's good," but our methods and actions differ. It was thought to be good for the US and the world to move into Iraq, and it has been considered a good thing for freedom of speech that the caricatures of mohammed were published. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmmm, i suppose so. dunno about war though, since that is good from only one group's perspective. And since it's just plain old war anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and that it is only good from one groups perspective counts for the fact that good doesn't exist except for as a loose term or concept that differs from culture to culture, person to person and situation to situation, no? now, to clarify the point from the other post: saying that good exists as something objective isn't too dissimilar from saying god exists; you may ask the same questions and get the same answers and you may observe the same properties in each. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe, but not with all "good". with war etc. it is down to one group's perspective, but your normal everyday "good", like helping a granny across the street is good from everyone's perspective. but how can you observe properties in god? all you have to go on is some old books, no actual observable occurances, whereas "good" can be seen everyday in normal life. aaah, intellectual conversation!!! i need more coffee |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there's nothing universally good about helping a granny across the street. if a culture believed old people were infected with a sickness called "oldness," that you could contract by touching them, it certainly wouldn't be good helping her cross the street. there are also cultures in which old people are nothing but a nuisance and are mostly left to fend for themselves. your distinction between god and good.. you're presupposing that one exists while the other doesn't. to someone who believes in god, he is equally present and observable in everyday life; he created everything you see plus you.. if that's not being observable in everyday life, I don't know what is. also, as with god, no-one's ever observed good directly.. if we see anything at all (we can only see this as much as we want to see it; you can only "see" traces of god (in other cases, you "see" traces of natural laws) if you believe in him, and you can only "see" traces of good if you believe in good), we only see consequences and results of their "existence".. kind of like "proving" the existence of atoms and electrons using those cloud chambers; you don't see the atoms or electrons, you see the trails they leave in the cloud chamber (just to clear this up before anyone tries to divert shit: my view of atoms and electrons is an instrumental one, and I don't care if they exist or not). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe good is dependant on culture then, possibly so. where do you observe god in everyday life?!?!? good is not a physical medium but a group of actions that people commit. it is the actions that are observed, and their positive impact on other people. That is the good you see in everyday life |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
where do you observe god in everyday life?!?!? if you read the post, you'll see that that question is answered. good is not a physical medium but a group of actions that people commit. it is the actions that are observed, and their positive impact on other people. That is the good you see in everyday life god is not a physical medium either, and as I said in the other post, you can observe his actions and his positive impact on people if you believe in him, and you also have to believe in good to observe actions that come from it and to believe that what impacts other people is indeed good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no its not!!!! why is that an observance of god? you don't observe god, you just see the world. With good, you observe directly the cause and its positive effect. You do not see the cause with god. only the supposed effect - the world around us. and what are god's actions? you can observe a positive impact of belief in god on people, yes (feeling secure and all that) but how do you know that god is the cause of that effect? it could easily just be a mindset |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how is observing someone acting the same as observing good? how do you observe good when I save someone from drowning? surely, you just see someone diving into water and picking up another person? where is good? gods actions are observed everywhere -- he created everything, and creating is an act, isn't it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you see the action done by someone, and its positive effect on someone, like saving someone from drowning, the positive effect is that the guy who was going to drown is happy that you saved him. The action that gives a positive effect on someone is that Good. with god creating shit etc. , you dont observe the actual creation do you? with good, you see the causing action and the effect. thats not true with god. you only see the effect. If i saw a beam of light come down from the clouds, and saw a person suddenly appear on the ground, i would say that i saw god(presumably) create the person. But you dont see god creating things. The creation of the universe or anything else or whatever has not been observed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gods actions are observed everywhere -- he created everything, and creating is an act, isn't it? Yep. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do you observe the actual good in an action? what part of the action performed is the good? where is it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What part of an abstraction do you expect to experience concretely? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you should've followed up to ezkerraldean 'cause that's my point; good is a social construct, and not a superuniversal supernatural existence like god is.. however, dean here seems to see traces of good as this superuniversal thing, and I'm just trying to show him how that is no different from seeing gods impact on things. also, just in case people forgot already: I am an atheist, and I don't believe in any god. I'm also a bit bored, and this beats ricki lake. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're trying very hard to construct a straw man in which he his reifying good, but he isn't. Ezzie's point as far as I can tell is that human actions and their effects are empirically observable whereas presuppositions regarding God are not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean, *is* reifying good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, his point is, quite clearly, that you, in human actions, can observe "good," and I don't even think I'll believe him if he now says he actually meant what you're saying he meant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, his point is, quite clearly, that you, in human actions, can observe "good," I can. Can't you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no you can't. you already denied yourself the possibility of observing it when you called it an abstraction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is what i read about on that makemefeeldumb website |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Abstraction" itself is an abstraction - can abstractions be observed? If not, why are we even speaking about them? They must not exist. But if they don't exist, then things can't be abstractions. So what are they? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
abstractions can't be observed as they have no observable properties. and I think.. well, I think there's some sort of language problem again.. the way I'm using it, "exist" is about physical things.. the closest I can get to a proper translation of the other is "is." it is an abstraction, but an abstraction doesn't have existence; I think the proper english is "physical existence" and "metaphysical existence"? to make it short physical things exist metaphysical things are metaphysical things are no less real than the physical things, but the difference lies in that while we can't change what the pysical things are, we can change the metaphysical ones and the metaphysical ones are depending on us while the physical world will be there even if we die. it's a rather common way of seeing things, and I'm sure you're familiar with it, so I don't feel I need to elaborate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Soooo..... if metaphysical things are judged "real" in any sense that must mean we are aware of them in some way, wouldn't you say? ob·serve 1. To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(I'm also wondering why you say we can't change physical things - I've changed a few things in my time. Last night's supper looked decidedly different this morning) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh yes, using dictionaries then you obviously won't mind me using wikipedia Observation is an activity of an sapient or sentient living being, which senses and assimiliate the knowledge of a phenomenon in its framework of previous knowledge and ideas. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can't change a physical object into a fundamentally different physical object.. changing lead into gold. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you just haven't been casting the right spells |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can't change a physical object into a fundamentally different physical object.. changing lead into gold. Of course you can. It's called . How do you think lead and gold came to exist in the first place? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So you want to limit observation to the material? Does that mean consciousness cannot be studied? Where does that leave phenomenology? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
