|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:How could you possibly know this? From the wealth of literature on infant development written in the last four decades?
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:From the wealth of literature on infant development written in the last four decades? Point me to a human being who has never suffered, even a newborn one.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:This is all very interesting and I like this thread. These questions make me an atheist for a couple hours a day most days. I'm very afraid of sounding childish and uneducated, but, I think I would veer away from moral theology toward creation theology to understand evil. Understand is a strong word, there; it'll never be understood, but that doesn't absolves us of the responsibility to strive for it. It seems to me that there is something metaphysically essential in suffering. Things die, new things replace them. All the beauty of the universe is predicated on untold dead stars. Likewise the best of human art is built on the graves of countless dead ends on the evolutionary family tree. A God who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, because of a painful human birth, and painful human death, is emotionally convincing. We are still animals, and we predate each other and our world, constantly on the precipice of extinction like every other stump on the tree. But we can strive. The universe is not moral because there exists an ultimate good, the universe is amoral because it's just physics. But we can strive. And God is not a despot. God is moral because God gives away power, to us, and the giving up the ability to fix things is the morality of God that is worthy of worship. Hope that doesn't sound at stupid as my imposter syndrome makes me think it does! I'm on record as saying that atheism is often the correct position to take, because most gods are idols, and pursuit of idolatry is valueless. I remember what Smoking Crow said several weeks ago, when he said he's stopped caring about theology as a mental exercise to focus on doing what Jesus taught. And brother Yoshua did not spend the hours of his brief life going to the "smartest" people in town (who, in the inverse of SA's Christianity Thread, were the religious scholars who benefited most from placid believers) to make and answer riddles for them all day. He went to the suffering and loved them, and he went to the people who can help those who suffer and exhorted them to act, believe, and hope in love. He said the death we fear is not the end; but we should 'die to ourselves' if we really want eternal life. He said that the disparate and limited human effort to love was not in vain, but looked upon with intense focus by what all of this is really about. Far be it from me to say what value all the theologizing done in this thread could do for the greater glory of God. But I can say that it is not enough. You can shoot and plug up all the holes in your own thinking and in others, but if you haven't loved, what good was any of it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Obviously there are none - the experience of birth is rather itself a rude one - but it's a reasonable extrapolation from what we do see in the observation of developmental patterns of children subjected to various levels of pressure. Humans have a very few hardcoded behaviors, sucking being the most prominent, which are modified and developed in response to environmental pressures; it's the kernel of our adaptability as a species. Children who grow up shielded overmuch from any kind of pressure will end up less adapted and adaptable to future pressures. There might be some instinctual development in the absence of these, but whatever the result would be, we'd be left without the motor of cognitive growth. The kid's brain would develop of course, but it's entirely another matter whether it would make use of those capacities when it could keep on with the solutions that it already had and which were yet reliable.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:"Incoherent" has a special meaning in philosophy, which is that if the assumptions a statement is based on are incompatible with each other or with the statement, the statement is "incoherent" as in "can have no sensible meaning based on the arguments and assumptions laid out." It's not dismissive at all to say Ahhh, thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
fuckin' atheists talking about theodicy and fideism thats how we in the church deal with logical positivism
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
the recoil on that gun will break that cardinal's hollow bones
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Nah, recoil on AR-likes is pretty tame. Though, uh.. he'll probably have better luck if he grips the pistol grip and the foregrip just forward of the magazine well, instead of half-assedly fondling the buttstock and the mag well.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:There isn't one with God, we only have His word for it being good. You can claim that God is a source for all Goodness, but the problem then becomes "define all Goodness" and "at what point does Goodness cease to be so based on actions?" I don't know how you can define morality outside of action. Not just what a being has done but what they would do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:the recoil on that gun will break that cardinal's hollow bones Cardinals are bird-men? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Tias posted:Cardinals are bird-men? Right there in the name.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:fuckin' atheists talking about theodicy and fideism If a cat can look at a king, surely an Atheist can comment on this sort of thing. Also I tried doing a bit of reading on what Logical Positivism is and I am very confused now.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If a cat can look at a king, surely an Atheist can comment on this sort of thing. Screw logical positivism, requesting pics of cats looking at kings. They probably doin it like they don't give a gently caress 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Cat can look at me all she wants, but when it's time for me to take the throne, I got to sit. But then I give her a treat, so she can still feel like she's in charge.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Cat can look at me all she wants, but when it's time for me to take the throne, I got to sit. My cat is currently taken a nap and shielding her eyes from the light with her paw. Wait, she woke up from typing, lol.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
I may not believe in God but I do believe in cats.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
I still think kittens are proof that God has a sense of humor. Here is the most adorable thing imaginable... and it has razor blades for feet.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
If cats are a joke by God, they're a very dark one, because those things are murder machines.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
i like dogs and dog gods not opposed to dog saints or bodhisattvas/buddhas appearing to people as dogs
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:If cats are a joke by God, they're a very dark one, because those things are murder machines. Cats are opportunistic, remorseless killers who have thrived and spread across the globe because we really like the furballs. Only appropriate that we'd be a little uncomfortable looking into the mirror.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
My cat has only been the death of a single houseplant, but I don't let her outside to kill birbs for shits and giggles.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Apparently big cats were the predator most likely to eat our paleolithic ancestors - I like to think it's some deeply perverse bit of species-memory that causes us to keep their little cousins constantly nearby.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:And the reason that participating in the sacrifice, expressing devotion to God, is important is because if our purpose is to know what is true, and love what is good, being devoted to Knowingness and Lovingness is an extension of that purpose. That does not, in any way, exclude "genuine intent and action to leave the world a better place" - but "genuine intent to leave the world better" requires knowing what would be better and wanting the world to have what-would-be-better, which is to say, knowing what is true and loving what is good. I am interested in your focus on knowledge. What bible passages can I read to better understand the knowledge you are referring to?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
On the other hand, the modern cat serves no function; it's just there to let us feed it and pet it and carry out its whims. And somehow we claim to be their masters.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
It serves an admirable function of being cute and cuddly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
That is an important function, but I doubt it's the one Ayn Rand outlined in her letter to Cat Fancy magazine on the objective benefits of cats
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:That is an important function, but I doubt it's the one Ayn Rand outlined in her letter to Cat Fancy magazine on the objective benefits of cats Didn't it get edited during the making of Mad Marx: Furry Road?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On the other hand, the modern cat serves no function; it's just there to let us feed it and pet it and carry out its whims. And somehow we claim to be their masters. The master is the servant. Or so Jesus taught. Unironically, pets are nontrivial to people's spirituality, and not just as surrogates for human children. Unlike a battered spouse, you cannot bullshit your way out of mistreating your pet. Though it cannot articulate it, the pet knows enough about affection to react to it in its own way. Mistreat a pet, and, without any philosophizing or theologizing, it will respond to protect itself. There are things we have to do in the care of our pets that they may never understand. They may not understand that it's for their own good that we take them to the vet, give them medicine, and limit their feeding to a schedule. But there's still a world of difference between a pet who trusts you and one that doesn't. Pet-ownership can be amazingly revealing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Also, cats are adorable and fun.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Oh, I know, I was just making a swlf deprecating cat owner joke.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On the other hand, the modern cat serves no function; it's just there to let us feed it and pet it and carry out its whims. And somehow we claim to be their masters. You say this, but I have an actual, legit, mouser. He's caught several mice, both in our farmhouse and our barn, and I'm convinced he's helped us tangibly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:You say this, but I have an actual, legit, mouser. He's caught several mice, both in our farmhouse and our barn, and I'm convinced he's helped us tangibly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
vs Dinosaurs posted:I am interested in your focus on knowledge. What bible passages can I read to better understand the knowledge you are referring to?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:aristotle Uh, mods? I think this qualifies as promoting serious self-harm.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
i mean it's correct though
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Next you'll be saying that Kant is fun to read.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Next you'll be saying that Kant is fun to read. My mother used the phrase "pure reason" so I said, "OK, Kant." and she replied "WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?!" For non-native speakers: Kant said with an American accent kinda sounds like a very offensive term for a woman.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Cats are important for keeping rodents and vermin out of your larder and home. They are only less desirable when you live in the first world and have rodenticides and refrigeration and don't need to worry about rats in your home. Cats are good and cool.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:My mother used the phrase "pure reason" so I said, "OK, Kant." and she replied "WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?!" What the gently caress part of America are you from? We say kant the normal way up here.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
cis autodrag posted:What the gently caress part of America are you from? We say kant the normal way up here. Like "aunt" when it's not said like "ant." So for a woman who had never heard that name before she heard what she heard. Edit: She's from Northeastern KY. My sister and I have varying degrees of an Appalachian twang, though not a full accent.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:15
|
|