|
my dad posted:Define reasoning, and define principles of validity. the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way? Principles of validity does sound vague. We can just limit the question to did god create reason if you would like? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 30, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
God created logic in the same way He created the Hunger Games
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So why did god create logic? Smoking Crow posted:God created logic in the same way He created the Hunger Games
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
So how come there aren't any contemporary writings on Jesus' life? I may be overestimating the prevalence of literacy in the early Roman Empire, but I find it odd that none of His followers ever thought "hey maybe we should write some of these things down."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:We keep telling you that there are questions Christianity doesn't answer. One of those is "why did God do x?" The only answer is "We dunno, because God." Welp, can't argue with that. What about this question, which is significantly different I feel: Does belief require existance of god? In your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So how come there aren't any contemporary writings on Jesus' life? I may be overestimating the prevalence of literacy in the early Roman Empire, but I find it odd that none of His followers ever thought "hey maybe we should write some of these things down." His followers were pretty sure the world was going to end in their lifetimes, so they didn't bother Probably
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way? You're kinda going in a circle here.  You know, as much as me and my (dear, atheist) brother disagree, one thing we absolutely see eye-to-eye is that everyone needs a better understanding of epistemology. Speaking of which, I should probably read a serious book on it one of these days. quote:Principles of validity does sound vague. We can just limit the question to did god create reason if you would like? Even the most abstract of (ultimately, mathematical) principles we use to understand the world around us are a part of the world, and constrained by the world. If one believes that God created the world, then yes, one must believe that God created reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
my dad posted:You're kinda going in a circle here. Welp, can't argue with that. What about this question, which is significantly different I feel: Does belief require existance of god? In your opinion. That is to say, can one only believe in god if god exists? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So how come there aren't any contemporary writings on Jesus' life? I may be overestimating the prevalence of literacy in the early Roman Empire, but I find it odd that none of His followers ever thought "hey maybe we should write some of these things down." Different time period. I think most of them came from professions that didn't have literacy. It was still a skilled, or semi-skilled, thing to be able to write. It is always strange to imagine that it has only been relatively recently that a huge number have been able to write the language that they speak, nevermind another language. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Welp, can't argue with that. What about this question, which is significantly different I feel: Does belief require existance of god? In your opinion. So, why do I believe if I acknowledge my belief might be wrong? Because Faith. I had an ineffable, meaning genuinely according to my perceptions God-inspired, moment, and I knew that I believed in God. Lots of other people have never had that moment. We call it "the mystery of faith" meaning that it is bona-fide inexplicable. Some of us think everybody gets the chance and some turn away; some of us think God chooses some of us to have faith and others not; some of us think that one way or another everybody gets saved sooner or later. That's another big and unresolved theological issue: a given church may have its own dogma, but churches disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Of course not. People believe in lots of things that aren't true. If there is no God, lots of us will be all "Welp" in any hypothetical afterlife, or we'll just die and stop existing. My wanting a thing to be true does not make it so. And perhaps it would also totally suck if you were wrong (like seriously, non-existance seems like it would suck ya know)? I don't think anyone likes the idea of there not being a god really, at least not if it conforms to what they think is right. Like, would anyone worship a god that they disagreed with? PS didn't mean to cut the quote short because of any alterior motives, just figured the post would be more succinct, and your post is already right above mine I figured. also it isn't really that difficult to explain really. you got it in your head (whether its true or not), and the alternative idea isn't exactly what one would call sexy. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Does belief require existance of god? In your opinion. Well, for one, what Arsenic Lupin said is an OK answer. But also: Is your existence connected in any way whatsoever with my belief that you too are a thinking, reasoning being like me? I hate doing solipsism-based arguments, but hopefully you understand what I meant here. thechosenone posted:Like, would anyone worship a god that they disagreed with? Yes. Take a look at history for many, many, many examples of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes, but if you were to beat the dog based on it's actions when you trained it then it is your fault that the dog is like that. It's a perspective certainly, but I am unsure as to how much it can be considered. There is a difference between something that does no active harm and something that does good and something that seems to have no good part of it. You come back to the dog at the end of the 8 hours. God does not come back. Despite my double-disclaimer you read too much into that metaphor.  It was only for elaborating (insufficently) that there are sentient beings that cannot comprehend other sentient beings and that's a part of their nature. Human/God is one such relationship. We can't study God and if he's to reveal something about himself to us, it must be in a way we can comprehend it.
Valiantman fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Like, would anyone worship a god that they disagreed with? *best Groucho Marx impression* I don't want to worship any God who would accept my act of submission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So is fulfilling our potential good because god said so, or because it is irrespective of gods desires? Fulfilling our potential isn't the right thing to do for some reason - good actions are good because they fulfill our potential. It's like asking, "Is deliciousness delicious because some foods taste good, or for some other reason?" Tasting good is what it means for a food to be delicious. Fulfilling our potential (acting in accordance with our natures, cooperating with our ultimate purpose) is what it means for an action to be good. Everything that exists does so because God wills it to exist, so in a sense everything is anything because God says so. That does not mean that school buses are yellow because God says so, or that cider is delicious because God says so, or that it's good for a pancreas to secrete insulin (and bad for a pancreas to be unable to secrete insulin), just that school buses, apples, cider presses, bottles, and pancreases all have existence, and everything that has existence has it because God is existence. quote:What if god made birds because it thought they were pretty, and not for any grandiose reason? quote:Are there not other pretty things other than birds god could have created instead of them? Also, for clarification: I say "God" but also "the Greek gods" because the word 'god' works like the word 'mom'. "My mom makes cookies," "Some moms don't make cookies," "These cookies were made by Mom," but not "That box was mailed by mom."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Despite my double-disclaimer you read too much into that metaphor. Yeah, sorry I should have read that more closely. My apologise. I still don't agree on that. We may all have our own ideas of what perfection is, but God would clearly no what is required from each person and would be able to do so. At least from my reading of it, which is probably wrong. Also do you mean can or can't in that last sentence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
my dad posted:Well, for one, what Arsenic Lupin said is an OK answer. How are those religions doing so far? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:*best Groucho Marx impression* Sounds about right to me. I don't know why god would necessarily even want people to kowtow to it. I figure If I were a god, my creations complaining and criticizing me would seem like I did well to create independent life. Like I'm pretty sure a person running an ant farm would be just as interested in effigies of them, as they would statues of middle fingers pointed at them (though they might appreciate the greater detail in the former as compared to the latter). The idea that god would be mad or even set up punishments for people not believing in it seems kind of silly, like crafting a square peg and getting mad at it when it doesn't fit into a round hole. also, does it sound unfulfilling to anyone to say "I didn't really see any reason to believe you, but I guess I just did anyway". If I were god, I'd kind of feel defeated if this was why one of my creations said when I asked them why they believed in my existence. I mean, what would have been the point of stuffing all those smarts in them? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:How are those religions doing so far? Are you arguing "Vae Victis" as a moral argument?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:How are those religions doing so far? Uh... I'm going to assume that you're asking this in good faith (heh). You are aware of the concept of the gap between an individual's views and tenets of their faith, even in situations where these tenets are seen as coming directly from God or gods or glorious leaders or Elon Musk, right? I am going to assume that you walk past people like this every day. As for an in-scripture example: Job, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Sounds about right to me. I don't know why god would necessarily even want people to kowtow to it. I figure If I were a god, my creations complaining and criticizing me would seem like I did well to create independent life. You're anthropomorphizing the Christian concept of God here, and the "mind" of God is incomprehensible to humans. I know that's not a terribly satisfying answer. Yes, if I were a god I'd take a lot more direct action to stop evil in the world, or would've made a world that didn't have any in the first place. But then we're back to Job. Life sucks for a lot of people and for everyone at least sometimes, that's just the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
my dad posted:Uh... Well, what I mean is, I get the feeling that, the more objectionable and inflexible a belief system is, the more difficult it is going to be to keep up with it. I feel that the more difficult to follow, and more objectionable parts of a faith seem to get downsized, stricken off the list, or just plain ignored or reinterpreted as need be. Religions which cannot do this likely have a difficult time of things, especially when they have more flexible competition, or hit a hard spot. and yeah, good faith (I think?) I'm not really trying to gotcha anyone exactly. I would rather find things that we agree with than frustrate anyone. I hardly gain from other peoples displeasure. Which also makes me wonder why someone would punish a person super severely, [i]after[i/] they die, possibly years after the main deciding factors, and without intent for it to be reformative. Just seems pointless. Vicious even. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:You're anthropomorphizing the Christian concept of God here, and the "mind" of God is incomprehensible to humans. Not even about pain and suffering, I could see where a being might want that to some level and still not be evil. I just feel like the need for a deific being to require worship from things so insignificant is kind of silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, what I mean is, I get the feeling that, the more objectionable and inflexible a belief system is, the more difficult it is going to be to keep up with it. I feel that the more difficult to follow, and more objectionable parts of a faith seem to get downsized, stricken off the list, or just plain ignored or reinterpreted as need be. Religions which cannot do this likely have a difficult time of things, especially when they have more flexible competition, or hit a hard spot. is there a religion in particular that you are thinking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i don't think there's any belief system in the world that's utterly inflexible, just look at the difference between the way americans talk about islam and the way it looks on the ground. one of my ex's roommates was a sincere believer in islam, pious and serious about his commitment to his faith and his family heritage, and the reason i know this is we talked about it while we were both drunk off our rear end at three in the morning on 4 loko I dunno, I was thinking from how it was explained to me that there were lots of religions that did so, and that there were ones that were rather extremely so. I figure it would be hard to do something one thinks is wrong just because one's god(s) say(s) so, and that if one did, one would not be particularly happy about it, and it would probably be the kind of contentious thing with would either schism or other such things if it were really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i don't think there's any belief system in the world that's utterly inflexible, just look at the difference between the way americans talk about islam and the way it looks on the ground. one of my ex's roommates was a sincere believer in islam, pious and serious about his commitment to his faith and his family heritage, and the reason i know this is we talked about it while we were both drunk off our rear end at three in the morning on 4 loko As far as Islam goes, I think they just have the disadvantage of not starting out as early as Christians did. Christians have had more time to schism and pluralize their belief systems than Islam if I recall correctly, though I'm sure Islam has already chilled out a lot from what it once was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I dunno, I was thinking from how it was explained to me that there were lots of religions that did so, and that there were ones that were rather extremely so. I figure it would be hard to do something one thinks is wrong just because one's god(s) say(s) so, and that if one did, one would not be particularly happy about it, and it would probably be the kind of contentious thing with would either schism or other such things if it were really bad. The catholic church managed it (sort of) from Greg the great right the way through to Luther and Huss. Though, to be fair, most people ignored the stricture and just chose to sleep around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The catholic church managed it (sort of) from Greg the great right the way through to Luther and Huss. Though, to be fair, most people ignored the stricture and just chose to sleep around. Yeah, to be honest, I don't actually have any problems with religion as a general thing really. I just feel like since it is so important to people, that it as an idea has a hard time sloughing off bad Ideas because people are afraid of breaking it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:As far as Islam goes, I think they just have the disadvantage of not starting out as early as Christians did. Christians have had more time to schism and pluralize their belief systems than Islam if I recall correctly, though I'm sure Islam has already chilled out a lot from what it once was. Please don't get this the wrong way, but are you American? This is one of the most Americans.txt things I've read in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:As far as Islam goes, I think they just have the disadvantage of not starting out as early as Christians did. Christians have had more time to schism and pluralize their belief systems than Islam if I recall correctly, though I'm sure Islam has already chilled out a lot from what it once was. You do realise that the "big" split in Islam happened immediately after Muhammad's death, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
my dad posted:Please don't get this the wrong way, but are you American? This is one of the most Americans.txt things I've read in a long time. Yes, But I was pretty sure that islam was a more 600's sort of thing right? Sorry, I don't mean to diss on Islam like it was somehow inherently worse or anything. I'm sure Islam has more flexibility than it sounds like I'm giving it, I guess I'm just thrown off because of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran I think? I guess the fact is that those places don't really give the people any say really and that is kind of why they act crazy: because a small portion of jerks is sort of just overriding most people who are pretty chill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:You do realise that the "big" split in Islam happened immediately after Muhammad's death, right? Well, yeah, But Christianity has like thousands of split offs, as opposed to dozens? I mean, correct me If I'm wrong, I haven really checked up on just how many different sects of Islam there are exactly. Also don't quote me on that other figure, it kind of is just me mentally spitballing. If you have more accurate numbers for each I would probably just go with them. preferably from the same source, since that can make things vary alot, but I understand if that isn't possible. I already figured Islam had plenty of them, just not as many as Christianity. That and alot of them live in the desert. The heat there can't be good for you. Is Malaysia pretty hot too? thechosenone fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, what I mean is, I get the feeling that, the more objectionable and inflexible a belief system is, the more difficult it is going to be to keep up with it. I feel that the more difficult to follow, and more objectionable parts of a faith seem to get downsized, stricken off the list, or just plain ignored or reinterpreted as need be. Religions which cannot do this likely have a difficult time of things, especially when they have more flexible competition, or hit a hard spot. Before you say "Well, nobody does that now", the custom seems to have lasted around 1900 years, and to have been stopped by a foreign invasion rather than by any sort of internal weakness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Before you say "Well, nobody does that now", the custom seems to have lasted around 1900 years, and to have been stopped by a foreign invasion rather than by any sort of internal weakness. I think there were differing types of human sacrifice in what we would now call Central America. I think calling it the same thing is a bit different. It still continued of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:*Cough* Aztec human sacrifice *cough*. Note esp: "Before and during the killing, priests and audience (who gathered in the plaza below) stabbed, pierced and bled themselves as autosacrifice (Sahagun, Bk. 2: 3: 8, 20: 49, 21: 47). Hymns, whistles, spectacular costumed dances and percussive music marked different phases of the rite." Well, from what that sounds like, they weren't feeling too much objection to it. It also probably wasn't as extreme as it sounds like. Probably only got real crazy for the big ones, otherwise it would probably get to be a burden on them. I also figure the people who got to decide who got sacrificed fatally probably weren't as enthused about it as they were made out to be. Some of them sure, but I imagine it wasn't universal. Like, I'm not saying your wrong completely, just that it probably wasn't as bad as it's made out to be. What I was saying was pretty much on more general terms. I guess an example I might be thinking of though would be Puritans? I figure sects of religions probably die out more than whole religionssince it is easier to just transition to a different type of the same religion and all that. That and it wasn't exactly inconvenient for the aztec until cortez and all arrived, and with how slow religion can be to adapt, it only makes sense it couldn't react in time, and was destroyed. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, yeah, But Christianity has like thousands of split offs, as opposed to dozens? I mean, correct me If I'm wrong, I haven really checked up on just how many different sects of Islam there are exactly. Also don't quote me on that other figure, it kind of is just me mentally spitballing. If you have more accurate numbers for each I would probably just go with them. preferably from the same source, since that can make things vary alot, but I understand if that isn't possible. Christianity doesn't have "thousands" of split offs and you're not going to get anywhere trying to argue one is more diverse than the other. I'm also not sure how you want to define different sects, it's really only Protestantism that has officially splintered a ton and even then most Protestants are more similar to each other than they are to Catholics or Orthodox. If you asked me I'd count four main groups in Christianity: Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. thechosenone posted:That and alot of them live in the desert. The heat there can't be good for you. Is Malaysia pretty hot too? what e: Islam has Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadi, and within those there are a bunch of different schools of legal jurisprudence and thought. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I think there were differing types of human sacrifice in what we would now call Central America. I think calling it the same thing is a bit different. It still continued of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Christianity doesn't have "thousands" of split offs and you're not going to get anywhere trying to argue one is more diverse than the other. I'm also not sure how you want to define different sects, it's really only Protestantism that has officially splintered a ton and even then most Protestants are more similar to each other than they are to Catholics or Orthodox. If you asked me I'd count four main groups in Christianity: Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. I'll just take that part about the desert back, since that is pretty stupid (though I doubt things being super hot in the middle east helps the situation there either, but that is beside the point). I guess I'll agree on that about the sects, though I think smaller sub-sects are still meaningful, since it divides folks and allows them to follow something more well adapted to their local area, making the sect more responsive to the desires of its people. Also what is this threads opinion on Mormons? I know they seemed to be considered a entirely separate religion category from normal Christians now it seems. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I was talking specifically about Aztec human sacrifice, not any other society's. There's a heck of a lot of archaeological and witness evidence for that one. Oh absolutely, but the "Aztecs" weren't around for that length of time. The Aztecs (or Mexica) were only around for about 300 years and formed more of a tribute empire. The mass human sacifice though was a common thing throughout the history of Central America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The mass human sacifice though was a common thing throughout the history of Central America. e: Also, whoops on the Aztecs and thanks for the correction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:02
|
|