|
Quift posted:Money literally has value only because of the beliefs of others. Everything has value only because of the beliefs of others. You are saying nothing more meaningful than 'money only has value because people value it'. The same is true of absolutely everything.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Everything has value only because of the beliefs of others. You are saying nothing more meaningful than 'money only has value because people value it'. The same is true of absolutely everything. Exactly. Welcome to irrational belief based systems functioning on the pure basis of faith. So if Money can exist only due to faith then it is not unreasonable to argue that God can exist due to having believers very much like the existence of Justin Bieber. The belief is itself an act of creation making the question whether something like Money, Justin Bieber or God moot. Existance is after all a transient quality just like shinyness. Everything must pass. Valar Morghulis.  Yeah, I cannot decide if this post is funny, bizarre or insightful either. I think it is all three in a bizarre, funny and insightful way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
As if irrationality or rationality or faith and intuition or fact make any difference. They're idiotic camps; factions. Scientists spend their lives uncovering answers because it gives them meaning and when they die they'll find out it was all moot. Clerics do the same thing using intuition. Science is having its heydey, and soon faith and mysticism will return, then science, then finally we'll realize we're all quantum soldiers and this is the equivalent of saturday nightat the movies.
Pegged Lamb fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Quift posted:Exactly. Welcome to irrational belief based systems functioning on the pure basis of faith. So if Money can exist only due to faith then it is not unreasonable to argue that God can exist due to having believers very much like the existence of Justin Bieber. The belief is itself an act of creation making the question whether something like Money, Justin Bieber or God moot. Existance is after all a transient quality just like shinyness. Everything must pass. Valar Morghulis. You can't seem to grasp the difference between existing as a concept in people's minds and existing as an actual thing and/or agent in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Your post is a mixture of bizarre, bizarre and bizarre. Money exists because banks create it. It has value because we buy into the idea of it, on the pretty reasonable basis that it's worked this far, and trading a sheep for a book or whatever would probably be a bit shite comparatively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Quift posted:Thank you for the links. WIll read up. I don't think I follow how this disagrees with what I said. Like all theories and explanations, formal and informal alike, RCT implies an ontology and an epistemology; something is rational to you if it satisfies the RCT conditions for rationality. (My background is in inferential statistics and behavioral methodology.) J. M. Keynes posted:The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil. Quift posted:Money literally has value only because of the beliefs of others. This is how markets work. The main indicator of future economic growth is "household expectations"., Meaning that if enough people thjink that the economy will be fina and sing Kumbaya in the shopping mall the economy will improve according to economic theory. The entire system is an insane collective delusion where cocaine is created for the rich out of the wishful thinking of the middle class. This is not a response to what you quoted, and as others pointed out, it is only true in the most trivial sense, in any case. My point was: received wisdom would have you believe that "money" is a single coherent phenomenon, i.e., something with a single explanation. You clearly believe this, for whatever reason. I conjecture, however, that you cannot articulate why you believe this is so, because it is an irrational belief. You may assume it, but you can't possibly justify it (in my view, because it's simply not true). There's no reason at all to think all the different kinds of money have anything but the name and the most superficial traits uniquely in common, especially with respect to influence on behavior. Talking about how "people have belief in money" as an explanation of why "money" appears to influence behavior is therefore no more meaningful than talking about how people get ill because of an imbalance of the Four Humors. The real reason you can't make sense of the world through economics is because it doesn't make sense as an explanation of individual behavior. Orthodox economics ignores this fact, and heretodox economics apologize for it, but in the end, it's what you get when you take an obsolete assumption about the mind and behavior, then build a vast tower made of inductive inferences on top of it. Edit: I agree it's not that different from believing in God, I just disagree "both beliefs are justifiable" is a valid conclusion from that. Zodium fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Quift posted:Independent transcendent Entities shaping the world around them by the power of faith. Encyclopedias are not independent entities, they're a product of their contributors and sources, they aren't possessed of any autonomy, they're not alive, however much you might like the idea of concepts becoming personified by the power of belief, this isn't Pratchett. quote:Is that not cool enough for you? yeah, once I explained it it seems less like magic and more like common sense. The same is true for basically any knowledge. It is only mysterious before you understand. If you think my world shaping indepedent transcendent entity is not supernatural enough. I wonder what is? The reason you worship God is because God does things in exchange for worship. If you remove the individuality from God and the cause/effect relationship from worship, worship becomes completely pointless. So yes, it is a very stupid idea to worship an encyclopedia, because it works regardless of whether you do. It doesn't require your belief, it's just there, you might as well worship rocks for all the difference it will make. They will continue to exist without your chanting magic words at them. Quift posted:That is not spirituality, what you are asking for is magic. "Magic" is the entire point of gods. They're magic, they make things work by magic, they need your magic belief for some reason and will give you magic stuff in return for it. If it's entirely mundane in cause, effect, and methodology, it's not a god. Otherwise my arse is a god because it makes me poo poo because I eat food by method of peristalsis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:50
|
|
.png/revision/latest?cb=20120219190507)
|
grate deceiver posted:You can't seem to grasp the difference between existing as a concept in people's minds and existing as an actual thing and/or agent in the world. My point here is not that these things are the same. My point is that the difference is irrelevant when talking about the existance of a God. Unless you have to believe that God exists as a physical bearded sky dude. Despite Jesus literally mentioning him living in our hearts. (God is in heaven, heaven is within us, seriously. The logic is not hard) Physical existance is a very limiting condition to impose. Your own mind for instance does not satisfy that criteria. Most higher concepts exist rather as a force influencing actions. This goes for concepts such as law, economics, nations etc. But then you end up with a deity that is trivial and unable to perform magic. So the question about the existance if God is only interesting if people can unlock magic powers by belief. The problem can then be reduced to the fact that real clerics do not have the same powers as the clerics of dungeons and dragons. Which is obviously sad news for the Pope. So in essence the debate is framed like this. "I, the atheist, do not believe in God. I also would like to clarify that this non belief is for a very specific God. I refer to myself, the unbeliever, to define not only which properties this non existant God should have, but also the conditions during wich he can exist. Any reasonable definition which could exist is to trivial and the reason for this symbol not interesting enough to investigate. This since God can only exist in a gift bearing capacity. Like a male Oprah. " The idea that God might be an ancient symbol with multiple meanings in myths speaking about the human condition has no relevance apparently, which is sort of missing the point. God needs only to exist in these myths to shape lives. Even if he only exist in the same way as Harry Potter he still has influence on the world. More so than Harry. The truth is that God's existance is a trivial question. So the answer is trivial. The existance of God depends on two factors. What is God, what does existance mean. Both questions have trivial answers. God is love and forgiveness. Existance means works as a force on the world. Since something which effects the world obviously exists. There are also have huge philosophical answers as well, but seriously. Why bother? I can play ball with these trivial answers and come to some pretty cool insight about humanity from there. Which is sort of the point with religion. Is this the only possible answer? Of course not. There are plenty of answers ready. But the important bit that requires logic and questioning is the religion built on top. The existance of God himself is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Quift posted:But then you end up with a deity that is trivial and unable to perform magic. So the question about the existance if God is only interesting if people can unlock magic powers by belief. Yes, because otherwise you are not asking a difficult question. You're asking if mundane things that exist, exist. To which the answer is yes. The question of whether a massively powerful magic spirit is consciously directing humans in some way but we can't observe it directly is both more significant, and more difficult to prove than whether something extremely mundane which everyone already agrees exists, exists. Quift posted:The problem can then be reduced to the fact that real clerics do not have the same powers as the clerics of dungeons and dragons. Which is obviously sad news for the Pope. Which is why a lot of people answer the question of whether God exists with "No"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The reason you worship God is because God does things in exchange for worship. If you remove the individuality from God and the cause/effect relationship from worship, worship becomes completely pointless. Definitely not. The believer can worship God because it is objectively proper to do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Definitely not. The believer can worship God simply because it is objectively proper to do so. You can do that but I would posit that few really do. People are not selfless. Of course there is the idea that people may do it because they simply feel guilty not doing it which is equally selfish but the whole "divine reward" thing I'm sure isn't a factor at all... It also doesn't make it any less silly to worship a thing that does not need worshipping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
I get that. It does however completely miss the point if everything. The truth is that if you believe in God, and believe that Jesus is the way to God, and aspire to be a part of God's Kingdom on earth, you will get the super power to be happy whenever you choose. Like a reverse hulk. There is a bit more to it, but this is sort if the entire point of the new testament. It is not as cool as being able to smite people whom have stolen your parking spot with lightning but it is not nothing. Being happy and loving is sort of good in itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Quift posted:The truth is that if you believe in God, and believe that Jesus is the way to God, and aspire to be a part of God's Kingdom on earth, you will get the super power to be happy whenever you choose. Like a reverse hulk. Entirely untrue in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The reason you worship God is because God does things in exchange for worship. ...such as?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can do that but I would posit that few really do. People are not selfless. Of course there is the idea that people may do it because they simply feel guilty not doing it which is equally selfish but the whole "divine reward" thing I'm sure isn't a factor at all... I would agree that few really believe for its own sake, but it doesn't really matter how many do or do not believe. It would be silly not to worship God imo, regardless of what material reward you think could be gained. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I would agree that few really believe for its own sake, but it doesn't really matter how many do or do not believe. Worship of anything is inherently morally reprehensible, HTH
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Entirely untrue in my experience. Completely true in mine. As I said. There is a bit more to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Worship of anything is inherently morally reprehensible, HTH Hmmmmmmm no
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Quift posted:Completely true in mine. Okay, say I take you at your word. At the cost lifelong reverence and the pledge of your eternal soul after death, this spirit gives you the capacity to temporarily numb yourself to the many and varied unwelcome pangs of existence. What happens to you after death is sketchy, but it seems to involve praising your spiritual dope dealer for the rest of eternity. I'm gonna take Odin's offer and strive for Valhalla instead, personally. At least there's mead, contact sports and valkyries there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Immortan posted:...such as? I dunno. I've never tried. Apparently he gives you mad dollas though if you do it right? Miltank posted:I would agree that few really believe for its own sake, but it doesn't really matter how many do or do not believe. Why? If it doesn't do anything why do it? Headbutting the floor doesn't do any good on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why? If it doesn't do anything why do it? Headbutting the floor doesn't do any good on its own. Because its the right thing to do regardless of whether you get something out of it or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Because its the right thing to do regardless of whether you get something out of it or not. No it isn't. If it doesn't have any material effect it is completely amoral. At best it is a waste of time, at worst it obstructs you from doing useful things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it isn't. You have a warped sense of morality I'm afraid. Besides, just because the believer doesn't get a material reward doesn't mean that the worship itself doesn't have a material effect, it often does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You have a warped sense of morality I'm afraid. Besides, just because the believer doesn't get a material reward doesn't mean that the worship itself doesn't have a material effect, it often does. If god exists and doesn't need worship, then worship is pointless. God isn't a person, he doesn't get hurt feelings. If god exists and does need worship, he's a poo poo god. Either vain or weak, in either case I don't see the point in worshipping him. If god doesn't exist, he by definition doesn't need worship, and there's no point in it. If god gives out random rewards to random people in exchange for worship he's a oval office. He can do that anyway, farming devotion out of people in exchange for meagre rewards is abhorrent, don't worship him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
If you really must bargain with an extradimensional entity, at least restrict your dealings to one that can offer you basic magic or miracles on a repeatable basis. This is basic sorcery y'all, get your heads in the game theists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The reason you worship God is because God does things in exchange for worship. Depends on the religion/sect. Often you do it so the god won't do things you wouldn't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If god exists and doesn't need worship, then worship is pointless. God isn't a person, he doesn't get hurt feelings. God doesn't need worship but worshipping him is good for humans to do regardless of whether they get anything put of it or not. Its not pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
My God's chosen form of worship is service to the meek fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
That is good to do not because of god but because of its effects on others. The worship aspect is irrelevant, god doesn't need to be involved in that. You could probably do it more efficiently if you got rid of the god bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Quift posted:God needs only to exist in these myths to shape lives. Even if he only exist in the same way as Harry Potter he still has influence on the world. More so than Harry. Wow, so you discovered that human-made concepts can function in society and in turn influence further human thought and behavior. Congrats, do you want a medal? What are you, 16? This is an entirely trivial idea that any adult with a functioning brain grasps without a second thought. Going by this definition, you can say that anything that you can possibly imagine exists. Cool, who cares.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:My God's chosen form of worship is service to the meek fwiw. Come on dude. At least own up to your god's nature. The spirit that gave these marching orders gives no shits about the meek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
zeal posted:Come on dude. At least own up to your god's nature. The spirit that gave these marching orders gives no shits about the meek. I don't see what ancient hebrew war poetry has to do with the Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't see what ancient hebrew war poetry has to do with the Christ. And I don't see what a communist carpenter from Roman Judea has to do with that hoary old devil Yahweh, but you Christians will insist on conflating the two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The worship aspect is irrelevant, god doesn't need to be involved in that. I disagree on both accounts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
zeal posted:And I don't see what a communist carpenter from Roman Judea has to do with that hoary old devil Yahweh, but you Christians will insist on conflating the two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
There's no reason to believe that most of the OT wasn't just a post-genocide casus belli.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There's no reason to believe that most of the OT wasn't just a post-genocide casus belli. The conquest section of the Old Testament is more specifically a post-hoc justification for the territorial parameters of the pre-Babylonian kingdom, there's yet to be found archaeological or documentary evidence in either Egypt or classical Judea of the Egyptian captivity or the alleged genocidal invasion. Of course, concocted glorious founding myths are hardly thin on the ground in the ancient and classical literature of the eastern Mediterranean, particularly not the late Akkadian-language milieu in which the Old Testament was finally written down. But if this is your stance on the OT, do you also ignore parts of the NT? If so, how do you make that determination?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
It is quite easy. Being Christian means you can ignore basically everything that is not the teachings of christ. The important parts are in the nicean creed and the rest is basically up for grabs. Most of those pages are there to provide rudimentary context. Also, plenty of stories to tell your kids if it happens to be the only book that you own. For preachers needing typ spice up a sermon some the congregation has already heard the dividing fish story top many times? Hope about something sexy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:Wow, so you discovered that human-made concepts can function in society and in turn influence further human thought and behavior. Congrats, do you want a medal? What are you, 16? This is an entirely trivial idea that any adult with a functioning brain grasps without a second thought. Going by this definition, you can say that anything that you can possibly imagine exists. Cool, who cares. No, I'm quite a bit older and generally treat people with flippancy without insulting them. You get no points, zero, for your observation that my argument was trivial. I suspect that my use of the word four times to describe my reasoning was the clue that tipped you off. However you seem to have misplaced your understanding of the word trivial. It means basic. Not as in easy, but as foundational. A trivial argument is not easy, it might be but more top the point out is bullshit free. However you seem to have completly missed my point. I think it trivial but you apparently missed it in your pubescent rage so I might have to draw a picture or find an illustrated bible of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
So what was your point in dropping this babby-level truthbomb? I'm on the edge on my seat here, awaiting further groundbreaking insights such as "the grass is green" and "sky is blue".
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:14
|
|