|
rudatron posted:But that's an absurd objection, even fictional characters can be judged! You use your imagination, or more formally, you just suppose for the sake of argument. How is that controversial? Of course not. Are you seriously asking if I think it's beyond your mental abilitiy to judge a fictional character? My point was that atheists seem to judge God the same way they'd judge a man, or a comic book villian. They judge God as if He were not-God, if that makes any sense to you. Or: To them, He's God insofar as He's responsible for all the dead babies, but nothing else. rudatron posted:And Sakarja, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you or whatever, but just to return to your objection, you bring up the idea of having a 'right and standard' to judge. Do you understand that that's not actually an intellectual defense? The idea of a 'right to judge' isn't an intellectual idea, it's a political idea. The reality of the 'divine right of kinds' wasn't that kings couldn't theoretically be judged, but that they didn't want to be, so they made up this idea that they were 'above' judgement. It doesn't actually hold water intellectually, it's a pure expression of political power: Actually Exiting Doublethink (a la 1984), if you want to put it like that. None taken, really. What's an intellectual defense?[!] I'd say it's political only when applied to the temporal city. Because how could there be "politics" between men and God? I'm not talking about your right to judge other men, even if secular ethics seem weak to me even there. I certainly understand how it's troubling to mount "that" as a defense of any temporal regime. Who What Now posted:Quote me where I said God or anyone else should care. Whether or not people care has absolutely no bearing on the fact that I'm better than God. I'm thouroghly confused.[!] How can you be better than God, (and how would you know that you're better) when you're his sock-puppet?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't accept that anything can be both itself and its own negation. A cannot simultaneously be both A and not-A. I also don't care what morality God subscribes to because it's an evil morality and I especially don't accept that anything is beyond my ability to judge. For some reason, that puts me in mind of this quote: Cormac McCarthy posted:"Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. (Spoken by a character named The Judge, if you haven't read the book).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Of course not. Are you seriously asking if I think it's beyond your mental abilitiy to judge a fictional character? My point was that atheists seem to judge God the same way they'd judge a man, or a comic book villian. They judge God as if He were not-God, if that makes any sense to you. Or: To them, He's God insofar as He's responsible for all the dead babies, but nothing else. He's responsible for all good things and bad things and it just so happens that the bad things waaaaaaaaaaaaay outweigh the good things. All the cute puppies and sappy love stories in the world don't make up for war, famine, diseases, and everything else. quote:None taken, really. What's an intellectual defense?[!] I'd say it's political only when applied to the temporal city. Because how could there be "politics" between men and God? I'm not talking about your right to judge other men, even if secular ethics seem weak to me even there. I certainly understand how it's troubling to mount "that" as a defense of any temporal regime. Let me ask you, do you believe that God has agency? Because politics exists between any two thinking and reasoning agents. quote:I'm thouroghly confused.[!] How can you be better than God, (and how would you know that you're better) when you're his sock-puppet? I said better, as in morally, not more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still doesn't really stand up to what you think crucifixion is about. While the rotting of the body on the cross might have been an end result, it was not the purpose of crucifixion as you imply it was. It was just an end result. The crucified are the lowest, the poo poo, the dregs, the nothings. The asses up on crosses.  Who What Now posted:Are we swimming in excavated Jewish corpses or something? There are basically none. But there are lots and lots of documents talking about lots and lots of crucified Jews. Low end is lots. High end is holy gently caress me they crucified a lot of Jews!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:It's one of the oldest teachings on salvation in Christianity Really should be more of this and less of everything else but that's human nature for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
When Microsoft Paint gets involved in a debate, you know things have turned for the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
The gently caress is this? Did you just now draw this? Have you stopped taking your medications? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:The crucified are the lowest, the poo poo, the dregs, the nothings. The asses up on crosses. I really don't think you understand crucifixion outside the context of religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
That is legit ancient graffiti.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
That is legit something someone scribbled down while high on mescaline, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There are basically none. But there are lots and lots of documents talking about lots and lots of crucified Jews. Low end is lots. High end is holy gently caress me they crucified a lot of Jews! The Romans greatly exaggerated the sizes of the armies they fought against, why would you assume they wouldn't do the same with the number of dissidents they murdered? That's why physical evidence is important. Othewise, we'd be stuck with piles of counter-factual history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That is legit something someone scribbled down while high on mescaline, you mean. You're really such a low effort troll. You could at least learn your Roman archaeology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That is legit something someone scribbled down while high on mescaline, you mean. It's the Alexamenos graffito, also called the graffito blasfemo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:For some reason, that puts me in mind of this quote: Reminded me of Objectivism, only sect to ever elevate A=A to religious significance far as I know. But is that the book where Cameron Diaz fucks a car? Who What Now posted:He's responsible for all good things and bad things and it just so happens that the bad things waaaaaaaaaaaaay outweigh the good things. All the cute puppies and sappy love stories in the world don't make up for war, famine, diseases, and everything else. How do you determine if something is 'good' or 'bad?' Is God involved in this decision? (This is completely beside the pointso feel free to ignore it, but: is it possible for us to say anything about the relation between how lovely a persons life is and how likely that person is to be religious? Like, if someone lives in endless misery and war, is that person likely to be more or less religios than someone who leads a relatively sheltered and comfortable life?) quote:Let me ask you, do you believe that God has agency? Because politics exists between any two thinking and reasoning agents. Of course God has agency. Do you believe that man has agency independent of God? quote:I said better, as in morally, not more powerful. Better by what standard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's back to Barth's Commentary on Romans. No synthesis between God and human ideas / culture is possible, all potential synthesis crucify. If I think of God in terms of Being-itself, reality, truth; and of religion as dealing with those topics; where does that go? It goes to I should object to any ideology that claims to have truth or that claims to really let us know anything about reality. Then it get more complicated, that guy I'm obsessed with, Tillich, he's a reaction to Barth. He's trying to pick up the all pieces of what Barth smashes. See Shadowcatboy isn't wrong, there is all that history of Christianity being meshed with other ideas. That can't be denied either. Oh right, Paul Tillich, the postmodern/existential theologian. So how exactly does your conception of God mesh with Christianity? Is it something unique to Christianity, or can that logic be also applied to bolster other religious traditions? Like, arguing that Allah is "being itself, not A being"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
lol if u believe in a god
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:How do you determine if something is 'good' or 'bad?' Is God involved in this decision? I determine that which is good or bad using my mind. It's a pretty complex process that can't really be boiled down to a set of "If A then X" type statements. No, I personally don't think God is involved (more on this in a second). quote:This is completely beside the pointso feel free to ignore it, but: is it possible for us to say anything about the relation between how lovely a persons life is and how likely that person is to be religious? Like, if someone lives in endless misery and war, is that person likely to be more or less religios than someone who leads a relatively sheltered and comfortable life?) Religion absolutely is a succor to those that are suffering. quote:Of course God has agency. Do you believe that man has agency independent of God? I'm not sure if you're aware but my original comment was aimed at a Calvinist who believes in predestination, and my comments were using that hypothetical God. If you aren't a Calvinist then some/all of my comments don't apply to your definition of God (although u maintain that I am more moral than all definitions of God I have ever heard except for useless definitions like "God is love"). I personally don't believe in God. quote:Better by what standard? My standard. How many times do I have to say that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:So how exactly does your conception of God mesh with Christianity? Is it something unique to Christianity, or can that logic be also applied to bolster other religious traditions? Like, arguing that Allah is "being itself, not A being"? No that's a good question. Can my logocentrism really be compatible with my universalism? Do I have argue that Christianity is fundamentally superior to other religious traditions because of this? I don't know. I do know that I'm starting to think that particular I argue is a religion is using method of correlation in a really harmful way. rkajdi posted:The Romans greatly exaggerated the sizes of the armies they fought against, why would you assume they wouldn't do the same with the number of dissidents they murdered? That's why physical evidence is important. Othewise, we'd be stuck with piles of counter-factual history. Again the low end is a lot of people. And where did the more Jewish, less Greek-Jewish Jesus movement groups suddenly disappear to? It's almost like something happened to a lot of them all at once during the Roman-Jewish war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
So I noticed you carefully dropped your 'fake' objection entirely, and rolled it into your 'rights' objection. That is, as I take it, this objection:Sakarja posted:or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even. Now if you want me to give you a full understanding of what an intellectual objection is, I'm afraid I can't. But there's no need for this socratic bullshit: you know what it is. In any other situation, anyone with a brain would notice. "You're too arrogant to question!" Is not an objection based on fact, it is a transparent attempt to dodge the issue. By making the demand for me not to judge, you are demanding that I give up my 'right' to independent thought and independent morality. That demand cannot logically provide evidence, it cannot substantiate anything, it is a thought-terminating cliche. Every human being, as a subjective entity, has a morality and can therefore judge. To deny a person this is to turn them from a thinking, feeling subject, into an inanimate object. To not judge 'god' is to be lobotomized when it comes to discussions of 'god'. rudatron fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Again the low end is a lot of people. And where did the more Jewish, less Greek-Jewish Jesus movement groups suddenly disappear to? It's almost like something happened to a lot of them all at once during the Roman-Jewish war. They returned to the margins of society, from which they emerged: nomadic life under tribal systems of power, or to states which have been lost to the historical record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I determine that which is good or bad using my mind. It's a pretty complex process that can't really be boiled down to a set of "If A then X" type statements. No, I personally don't think God is involved (more on this in a second). I don't want to be unfair, but how is God responsible for all the bad things but not for whatever goes on inside your head? quote:Religion absolutely is a succor to those that are suffering. Maybe even an opiate. quote:My standard. How many times do I have to say that? I'd ask how you came by that standard, but maybe it's better to say, simply: this was the last. rudatron posted:So I noticed you carefully dropped your 'fake' objection entirely, and rolled it into your 'rights' objection. That is, as I take it, this objection: Surely this is beneath you. There is no need for either anger or contempt, as I see it this is still a friendly argument. Anyway, my arguments were clearly inseperable to begin with, you just jumped at what you saw as an easy target, based on your own interpretation. If you want to pin that on me as some kind of backpedal then so be it, but be honest to yourself. If not, then please state how I dropped my 'fake' objection entirely. quote:Now if you want me to give you a full understanding of what an intellectual objection is, I'm afraid I can't. But there's no need for this socratic bullshit: you know what it is. In any other situation, anyone with a brain would notice. "You're too arrogant to question!" Is not an objection based on fact, it is a transparent attempt to dodge the issue. By making the demand for me not to judge, you are demanding that I give up my 'right' to independent thought and independent morality. That demand cannot logically provide evidence, it cannot substantiate anything, it is a thought-terminating cliche. I wasn't asking for a "full understanding," just a clear distinction, but never mind that. All I'm asking is that you recognize the difference in questioning men and questioning God. Demand is the wrong word, I'm not in that position, I'm just genuinely curious about your pecreived right to question God. To say that every human being has a morality and can therefore judge seems to me to say nothing. If someone were to kill you, for some reason that made sense to him and him alone, then we wouldn't be able to say anything about it since his indiviudal morality must by definition be equal to yours. I'm not asking that you give up any "right" (wherever you might imagine you got those from), only that you contemplate the difference between judging your neighbour and your Creator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Why would you rather one thing than another? Preference is a capacity you are proposing be given up, at least beyond a programmed preference for your own place in society. quote:Except you also seem to be arguing that since we don't have free will (quite the assumption itself) quote:that intelligence itself is a harmful illusion which only causes discontent. quote:At any rate, your position seems to argue that we are animals, and therefor we should be okay with being brain damaged animals which are less functional than an actual, non-human animal. Your issue seems to be that, because the beings came from human origins, it is too morally reprehensible to alter them. That has an underlying implication that there is a dualistic quality of "humanness" that comes from being of a human origin that separates us from other animals. That the template of a human being is being harvested for the benefit of others, without the template having perception of it. But are you okay with the harvesting of human embryos for stem cells? What if the beings were not human shaped? Like, say the beings had engineered bodies with six arms and four legs, were ten feet tall, had completely inhuman faces, but the same artificially-altered brains. Would it be equally reprehensible? Consider how automation is probably going to replace almost all of the human work force eventually. Would it be moral to give automated programming entities artificial intelligence, knowing that they will be kept in one single station throughout their entire existence possibly against their own will, or would it be better to leave them without sapience? Is the exploitation of non-sapient, automated programming entities oppression? Who What Now posted:Unequivocally yes. Oppression is oppression, it's frikken' tautological for chrissakes. How is this even a question? What makes oppression oppression and not just utilization of a resource? Where (heuristically, not with any exactness) do you draw the line? Are felled timber trees oppressed? Rodatose fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I don't want to be unfair, but how is God responsible for all the bad things but not for whatever goes on inside your head? Yeah, you know that part in my post where I talked about how I was originally responding to a Calvinist who believed in predestination? The part that you skipped? Yeah, that was relevant to what you're asking. You probably should have read it. If we're talking about a Calvinist God then yes, he is responsible for the things in my head. If we aren't he isn't. quote:Maybe even an opiate.  Now the question is whether or not you actually understand the context of that quote. quote:I'd ask how you came by that standard, but maybe it's better to say, simply: this was the last. I came to it through reason. But I'm glad you won't ask it again, because I don't understand what you were driving at. Maybe rephrase the question. quote:To say that every human being has a morality and can therefore judge seems to me to say nothing. If someone were to kill you, for some reason that made sense to him and him alone, then we wouldn't be able to say anything about it since his indiviudal morality must by definition be equal to yours. I'm not asking that you give up any "right" (wherever you might imagine you got those from), only that you contemplate the difference between judging your neighbour and your Creator. There is no difference. This is Special Pleading, and it's a fallacy. E: Clarity and a link Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, you know that part in my post where I talked about how I was originally responding to a Calvinist who believed in predestination? The part that you skipped? Yeah, that was relevant to what you're asking. You probably should have read it. I skipped it because it seemed unfair to jump into it when you said that it wasn't adressed to me. quote:
I'd put that ball firmly in the court of whoever posted [img-lenin] thrice. quote:There is no difference. This is Special Pleading, and it's a fallacy. The link you provide seems extremely irrelevant. God is not an exception to any rule set by man, nor did I ever argue that He was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I want to know whether I am understanding your beliefs correctly, so please answer this question. Is it your belief that god controls the way of thinking of all people? That is, there is no free will, we are bound to god's will? That is what I have gotten from reading your posts and want to be sure I am correct. If I am correct, here is a follow up question, why are you participating in this discussion? According to the previous assumption in this post, you believe that god made unbelievers the way they are, why then, do you have the arrogance to question gods will? Surely if he made us this way, then a lowly human as yourself has no place trying to 'correct' our ways.(This is an argument you have used in a previous post re: the right of people to judge god) On the other hand, if you do believe god gave people free will, again, who are you to judge what he has given us to use as we see fit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
I'd like your take on a question I've posted in my own thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3682969
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I skipped it because it seemed unfair to jump into it when you said that it wasn't adressed to me. But it provides context to that part. Regardless, does it answer your question? quote:I'd put that ball firmly in the court of whoever posted [img-lenin] thrice. Sadly we don't have a :marx: emoticon so it was the best I could do. But here's the full quote. "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" Marx saw religion as both a tool for the powerful to subdue the weak and at the same time a rallying point from which the weak could rise up against their oppressors. It's not the pithy dismissal of religion most people think it is. quote:The link you provide seems extremely irrelevant. God is not an exception to any rule set by man, nor did I ever argue that He was. How are you not? I have a rule that I can freely judge anything and everything and you saw that that rule doesn't apply to God. That's pretty much the most textbook case of special pleading you can get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is someone on a carefully-moderated heroin drip suffering? 1. has the drug destroyed their sense of self in a way that they are not aware of being 'someone' anymore 2. does the drug overpower the negative neural receptors so that existence in their brain is perceived as enjoyable and not suffering An observer watching someone wash dishes might say "they're being oppressed" but that is attributing one's own perception on someone else's individual situation. I like washing dishes because I have cultivated a taste for it and find it relaxing. That observer might not like washing dishes. So being asked to wash dishes would be suffering and oppression for them but not oppression for me. Now if the person who asks me to wash dishes gives me drugs to go along with it to make it not just relaxing but enjoyable, then that's even better. (note: the following paragraph isn't directed at effectronica; it's more something I thought of based on my last post) I see some online socialists carry with them a fear of what they assume to be menial tasks (even though it's necessary labor- also i'm talking about things like farming and trade skills, not factory work) and they attribute this hatred of menial tasks to things working class folks may have grown used to in places that don't have all of the conveniences of middle/upper class society. Those other folks may have grown used to daily routines and the opiate of religion has even allowed some of those folks a certain peace with their task. That's why cries from an outsider of "you're being oppressed" do not always fall on listening ears; you have to find a way to work with individuals' cultivated tastes and views so that they don't reactively oppose your aims and find the sections of society for whom the predominant culture doesn't satisfy. One individual school of socialist thought isn't the 'right way' as a universal fix-all just as one sect of religion isn't the 'right way'; maybe something might work better for a larger percentage of people but nothing will work for every local situation or every individual. (Of course, individualism requires sapience enough to distinguish the self from others). e: just some clarifications: I would not want to force drugs upon someone who doesn't want it; living people taking drugs would have to take it by consensual choice in a non-coercive situation. It could only be forced upon another before they are someone. by "carefully moderated heroin drips" I was assuming you meant by the "carefully moderated" part some kind of drug regimen that can sustainably and safely upheld over time without chemical resistance developing. I put aside the actual properties of heroin for a hypothetical wonder drug that could be moderated effectively. Heroin currently does not have those qualities. Some quote from gravity's rainbow quote:NRC is synthesizing new molecules every day, most of them from pieces of the morphine molecule. Du Pont is stringing together groups such as amides into long chains. The two programs seem to be complementary, don't they? The American vice of modular repetition, combined with what is perhaps our basic search: to find something that can kill intense pain without causing addiction. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I really don't think you understand crucifixion outside the context of religion. No, he's right, the Roman practice of crucifixion was reserved for rebellious slaves and traitors, people whose death was meant to be as cruel, demeaning, and instructive to lookers-on as possible. Hence the late Republican authorities crucifying all the captured survivors of the Spartacus revolt along the Via Appia, and possibly an imperial prefect dealing it out to carpenter turned cult leader accused of preaching against the government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The understanding of conflict only is helpful if you can free yourself from that conflict. Stress is something that we have only because it spurs us to do things that improve our situation. Would you want to be informed of a bad situation that you are ultimately powerless to improve? Well, if we are stuck in an endless hell, yeah, I prefer the one with drugs. Dystopias are critiques of the real world, though. They present a "perfect" system as an inversion of utopian fiction, which they are a critique and parody of. The important idea is what mechanisms are used to stablize the oppressive system- surprise suprise they are used in the real world, just not as blatantly. quote:My belief is that we have will, but not free will, as part of consciousness being a self-referential loop Will is limited by the physiological limits of what our brain will let us do and the constraints of environment - what we have learned and been subjected to. Just to clarify, do you believe that our decisions are essentially predetermined mechanistically, that social power/discipline ultimately overdetermines our will, or just that we have genuine choice within narrow boundaries? quote:Your issue seems to be that, because the beings came from human origins, it is too morally reprehensible to alter them. That has an underlying implication that there is a dualistic quality of "humanness" that comes from being of a human origin that separates us from other animals. That the template of a human being is being harvested for the benefit of others, without the template having perception of it. But are you okay with the harvesting of human embryos for stem cells? Well, since the ability and desire to overcome opposition to one's well-being is present in the animal kindgom, your proposition would in a real way make humans who are less than many animals. Possibly in terms of IQ. I don't so much value humanness as certain qualties we identify with humanity. They aren't exclusive to us- it is increasingly likely that octopi possess forms of intelligence that are quite alien to us, while the difference between and our nearest primate relatives in intelligence seems to be more a matter of degree than kind. There are all sorts of ethnical issues with altering the physical form of a human being, but in principle doing so is not in itself bad. Altering human beings to facilitate oppression is pretty clearly bad, though. I think there may be come confusion, in that if we're ultimately comparing BNW with 1984, the lower classes are basically in extactly the same predicament except with more war in the latter. The difference is that the BNW elites run a slicker, more comfortable hell- that you would choose it over the scary reality of making your own choices (which you imagine to be chaos if you can imagine it at all) is exactly the point. It doesn't have to kill Wilson, because he still loves Big Brother and Big Brother has answers to all his questions and a place for people who like to ask questions that is nice and quietly away from ever interacting with society. If he didn't love Big Brother, he would kill himself instead with a nice relaxing Soma overdose. quote:Consider how automation is probably going to replace almost all of the human work force eventually. Would it be moral to give automated programming entities artificial intelligence, knowing that they will be kept in one single station throughout their entire existence possibly against their own will, or would it be better to leave them without sapience? Is the exploitation of non-sapient, automated programming entities oppression? No. Without AI, robots are sophisticated tools. They have no qualities which would suggest a requirement for moral or ethical treatment (other than safety and maintentence standards) anymore than a rock does. Unlike say, a rabit, which already possesses such qualities- capactity for emotion, limited self-awareness, etc. If you added other such qualities to a robot but not intelligence, that would require some moral and ethical boundaries as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:I want to know whether I am understanding your beliefs correctly, so please answer this question. I think there's a misunderstanding here. That isn't my position, it's merely my understanding of Who What Now's position, which I'm questioning. But if God allows us free will, why should that prevent me from engaging in debate? Debate is not the same as judgement. Who What Now posted:Sadly we don't have a :marx: emoticon so it was the best I could do. But here's the full quote. My interpretation is that he saw it as an effective anaesthetic that does nothing to adress the underlying causes of misery. I agree that the Leninist interpretation is oversimplified, but it must be seen against the context of the reactionary influence of the church in the Russian Empire, especially as compared to the relatively liberal Christianity of Northern Europe. quote:How are you not? I have a rule that I can freely judge anything and everything and you saw that that rule doesn't apply to God. That's pretty much the most textbook case of special pleading you can get. Different strokes, I suppose. I suppose i judge by categories, roughly speaking: I judge the actions of humans and animals differently, same to a lesser degree with the sane and insane, adults and children, and so on. By the same token, it does not seem like a big strech not to judge the Creator and Lawgiver by the same standard as some random doofus, or at all. In fact, it seems absurd to me to judge an entity that is beyond my comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I think there's a misunderstanding here. That isn't my position, it's merely my understanding of Who What Now's position, which I'm questioning. It's not my position, but the position of the person I replied to initially. My position is that there are no gods. But I'm willing to argue as if there is a god. quote:My interpretation is that he saw it as an effective anaesthetic that does nothing to adress the underlying causes of misery. I agree that the Leninist interpretation is oversimplified, but it must be seen against the context of the reactionary influence of the church in the Russian Empire, especially as compared to the relatively liberal Christianity of Northern Europe. Marx had a complicated and sometimes contradictory view of religion, and his views on religion in general varied most in his views on religion in general vs any specific church. quote:Different strokes, I suppose. I suppose i judge by categories, roughly speaking: I judge the actions of humans and animals differently, same to a lesser degree with the sane and insane, adults and children, and so on. By the same token, it does not seem like a big strech not to judge the Creator and Lawgiver by the same standard as some random doofus, or at all. In fact, it seems absurd to me to judge an entity that is beyond my comprehension. How could you possibly have determined that God is beyond your comprehension without making a judgement first?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's not my position, but the position of the person I replied to initially. My position is that there are no gods. But I'm willing to argue as if there is a god. I'm sorry. Of course, and my understanding was that the fictive god you argued determines every single act of every human being. quote:Marx had a complicated and sometimes contradictory view of religion, and his views on religion in general varied most in his views on religion in general vs any specific church. Sort of, but not really. It's all ideology at the end of the day. quote:How could you possibly have determined that God is beyond your comprehension without making a judgement first? I guess by not confusing my understanding of my own limitations with any judgement on the Almighty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
I don't understand why we wouldn't be able to judge a God we supposed to be real and our creator. Why not? Part of taking the authority of judgment on yourself is to be willing to have it turned back on yourself (as the Christian God pointed out, apparently). And we don't judge people by balancing the good they did against the bad they did. Or at least, we weigh bad actions more heavily. For example we don't praise Jerry Sandusky for all the money he raised for good causes, or Hitler for commissioning the development of an efficient car. Certain actions put you beyond the pale. "Creating reality as it is" would certainly be the greatest conceivable crime an omnipotent being could commit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Well, being a socialist, I think Huxley was arguing that in our "worse" society, the oppressed can and should rise up and create a better society. But everyone's pretty much equally controlled and oppressed in Brave New World, in a system that's extremely socialized. There was what, a few thousand people completely uncontrolled in the main Brave New World society, and then a bunch of people allowed to be in the reservations? Everyone except the very very highest tier was conditioned in that society, not just the lower classes. And plus, the whole alcohol soaking thing and conditioning only exists because in the 1930s, no one had any idea that genetic tweaking was going to be a thing. If Huxley had written it in like the 1970s most of the classes would be genetic subspecies rather than lobotimized. And we also don't really know if the highest grades of society are even really un-controlled. Sure they claim they are, but it's not like we can trust that. SedanChair posted:I don't understand why we wouldn't be able to judge a God we supposed to be real and our creator. Why not? Part of taking the authority of judgment on yourself is to be willing to have it turned back on yourself (as the Christian God pointed out, apparently). And we don't judge people by balancing the good they did against the bad they did. Or at least, we weigh bad actions more heavily. For example we don't praise Jerry Sandusky for all the money he raised for good causes, or Hitler for commissioning the development of an efficient car. Certain actions put you beyond the pale. "Creating reality as it is" would certainly be the greatest conceivable crime an omnipotent being could commit. "Man has made his decision; now let him enforce it" - God, 1832
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And we also don't really know if the highest grades of society are even really un-controlled. Sure they claim they are, but it's not like we can trust that. As I recall, only the World Controllers, of which there were a very small number (like in the 10 digits I think). Only they got access to history, literature, etc. I can't remember if the think tanks like the ones where they main characters go are allowed those as well, but they have no authority at any rate. Alphas are just as conditioned as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I guess by not confusing my understanding of my own limitations with any judgement on the Almighty. The only way you could do that is by judging the Almighty as beyond your limitations. And some point you took the known qualities of God and you made a judgement on which category he went in. The fact that you then placed him in an arbitrary category you call "N/A" doesn't negate the first judgement to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:In fact, it seems absurd to me to judge an entity that is beyond my comprehension. If an entity is beyond your comprehension, what makes you think you can understand any part of it? How can anything be supposed about that which is unknowable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
And if God is unknowable how can we assume that doing what he says is a good idea? Maybe he wants to mount our souls on a torture spike for all eternity and getting us to believe in him is the only way he can do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:And if God is unknowable how can we assume that doing what he says is a good idea? Maybe he wants to mount our souls on a torture spike for all eternity and getting us to believe in him is the only way he can do it. All we know is that the 613 laws are of divine inspiration and attempt to replicate paradise on earth as best possible. Everything else is conjecture on an unknowable nature for which individual belief in existance matters much less than community adherance to a divinely-based and chiseled-in-stone legal code.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 05:01
|
|