Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:And yet, the doctrine that god exists and the personal belief that god exists are both religious. A doctrine is intrinsically a belief, it may be stronger owing to organizational structure, but it's not separate. One is the macro to the others micro. Levels of belief do not come into what separates belief and doctrine.

I'm arguing about the organization of the sentence as much as I am the words used.

"Disbelief in" and "the belief that there is no" still have different connotations, even if the sentences should mean the same thing.

Let's say you ask me "was John at the party?" I could respond with "I don't believe he was" and "no, he was not". The first one is allowing for error, the second is not. No matter what I say, the statement is my belief, but one assures that reality matches what I think, and one doesn't.


Any thoughts on the chair analogy I mentioned?

ShumaGorath wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:But I don't see pan as a god or deity, I do not worship it, therefore, I am Atheist.

Does it make you an atheist when you acknowledge the existence of a guiding force but argue against it's place as a god or deity? That really comes down to the terminology of a god, as such a being would most certainly be more powerful than anything out of most polytheistic religions. It's important too separate the idea of a god and the Abrahamal god, though then thats another entirely different discussion to be had. I'm honestly not sure if you would qualify as an atheist or not.

That is my personal opinion that you are applying your own labels too... Just saying. I don't think it is not a god, or God, for that matter. To me a god usually comes with doctrine and worship. Pan gives me no doctrine. I do not worship it.
Therefore, I don't see it as a god. I would lean toward pantheist (the origin of my word "pan") but I feel it is inaccurate.

I would need more time to explain my thought of pan being a cloud entity, and we are all water droplets, being the same yet individual, but it is almost midnight.

Goodnight Dakka Off Topic, you silly and enlightening place...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Any thoughts on the chair analogy I mentioned?

Yes, but like I said, I am going to bed... Maybe tomorrow.

Probably a good idea.

tblock1984 wrote:I would need more time to explain my thought of pan being a cloud entity, and we are all water droplets, being the same yet individual, but it is almost midnight.

Looks a bit like this from what I can recall.



Just a bit monstrous and engulfing. Just a bit.

I prefer a bit of a frame on my perspective most of the time.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats not necessarily true. Within the same context of string theory or simpler chaotic formation theories most scientific thought on the subject of multi dimensiality (sp?) posits that different realities have different physical laws that govern them. Given the religious concept as a god existing beyond natural law and the scientific concept of realities that exist and function beyond natural law I fail to see a particular difference in effect.

The point is really very simple. Once you reach a point where an entity’s powers can be defined by science, where the source of those powers can be defined by science, and where the decision making of that entity can be defined by science, then what is it you’re worshipping?

The burden of science is in testing. What can not be tested can not be disproved (as nothing can ever be proven, all fact is simply yet to be disproven), thus rationally the right course of action is just to accept the possibility, but put effort and thought towards more reasonable courses of action, and just get on with your day. When you spend time arguing against the unknowable you stop acting rationally, the best argument in such a situation is the one not had at all.

Yes, and it’s wrong for an atheist to claim there’s any scientific evidence over the existence of God. But that’s nothing to do with what I’m saying.

To get back around to what started this whole conversation, this is specifically what makes Dawkins a tool. He has the argument, and instead of framing it in a context of kind scientific enlightenment he attacks people on their belief structures, which only strengthens the radical elements of his opposition. He's doing his job badly, and he's selling a lot of books doing it. He's a shill.

Yeah, Dawkins is obnoxious, but it is important to understand exactly why. He is not obnoxious for forming an opinion that there is no God, that’s his own private opinion, formed from his own worldview and he’s just as entitled to it as any religious person is to believe there is a God. Dawkins is obnoxious because he dismisses the other side, then directly attacks them and their beliefs.

There is a very, very big difference between saying ‘I believe there is no God’ and saying ‘You’re wrong for believing in God’. The former is a statement about one’s own beliefs, and is no different to saying “I believe there is a God’. The latter is an attack on the opposition, and it is that attack that is obnoxious, not the underlying belief.

You comment earlier, that atheists were wrong for believing there is no God, drifted a lot closer to Dawkins’ approach.

dogma wrote:Strictly speaking, there isn't any explicit need for God to be a metaphysical being. Sure, that's how we categorize him, but there's no reason we couldn't do away with that part of the definition or simply revisit the meaning of the word 'metaphysical'. A few philosophers working in materialist metaphysics have tried to do just that by essentially setting up the metaphysical as something which exists beyond unaided, human perception. Its an interesting idea, though obviously not a popular one (most materialists are materialists because they want to escape the problems of metaphysics).

Sure, but they’re still putting God into the unknowable, just creating a fun little game to keep him material but unknowable.

Point is, if God can be scientifically known, that is observed, and predicted in repeatable experiments (with a desperation factor >.8 and a devout factor >.9 God is 75% likely to answer prayer, this is because the kewbit levels in God's forebrain are stimulated by the chemicals produced by devotional thought) then what exactly is there to worship?

sebster wrote:
Sure, but they’re still putting God into the unknowable, just creating a fun little game to keep him material but unknowable.

Not the unknowable. By rendering God down into physical principles they are simply saying that we can't possess knowledge of him without fantastic inventions like particle accelerators, radio telescopes, etc.

Its a scale game. As analogy: I know my hand is made up of atoms, but I don't directly 'sense' the atoms anymore than I 'sense' Zeus. The fact that the atomic model has predictive power simply constrains the number of potential romantic 'senses' I can generate.

If someone were to prove that 'God' was in fact as cosmological force the way in which I 'sense' him would be constrained in the same way in which I 'sense' the atom.

sebster wrote:
Point is, if God can be scientifically known, that is observed, and predicted in repeatable experiments (with a desperation factor >.8 and a devout factor >.9 God is 75% likely to answer prayer, this is because the kewbit levels in God's forebrain are stimulated by the chemicals produced by devotional thought) then what exactly is there to worship?

We know that space contains stars, planets, moons, quasars, and many other celestial objects. We know what most of these things are, and even how some of them are formed. But people still look at the sky on a starry night and derive inspiration from the view, even (especially?) people who work on cosmological physics every day. Knowledge of a thing does not eliminate the wonder, or majesty of it. If it did none of the world's theologians would be theists.

dogma wrote:

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote: This is why I hate when someone tells someone else that they are 'evil' or 'immoral'. Everything is about perspective.

Then why is it problematic to tell another person that they are evil, or immoral? In making such a statement the speaker is simply claiming that the target is evil, or immoral, according to his own standards. Whether or not the target, or anyone else really, chooses to concern himself with that fact is another matter altogether.

Yes, that's true. However, most people do choose to concern themselves with it. I mean, if everyone could ignore what the other idiot said, there'd be no more wars or fighting. We'd live in a world that would be safe, but boring.

Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.

I sincerely have better things to be offended about.

Do you want me to list them? No, of course not. Eat a banana, wear a funny hat, and make sure you use your eyes to do the talking... because you are busy eating a goddam banana.

Yep.

If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.

Yep. I guess so. I'm secure enough in my beliefs (or lack thereof) not to be offended. I'll happily discuss opposing points of view and keep an open mind to different possibilities. What DOES offend me is when people insult my intelligence by using spurious logic or outright falsehood when attempting to put their point across. Unfortunately, I encounter this fairly often when discussing religion with the religious.

I'm with Wrexasaur on this one. Those of us in America have been the Great Satan to certain extreme Muslims for years. The only time I ever lost sleep over it was when they were actively trying to blow us up. I'm evil, or at least not good, by the definitions of two religions I've previously been a part of. Darwin was evil in the eyes of many, Martin Luther was evil in the eyes of many, and Jesus was crucified because the Romans regarded him as evil.

Evil is the antithesis of good. Neither of these terms are easy, or possible, to define to everyone's satisfaction. Someone simply calling you evil is just wasting their breath. I have found folks who are on the opposite side of the spectrum of belief from me. I think they're wrong, and don't associate with them, but I don't call them evil.

I realize that comes across as overly relativistic. Personally, I think certain actions can be classified as evil, depending on the motivation. I would only call someone who habitually did evil actions evil.

The Romans didn't execute Jesus because they thought he was 'evil' per se, more that as the leader of a rebellious faction of Roman subjects, he was more of an inconvenience. Plus, the Romans where pressured into it by the the elite Jewish High Priesthood (IIRC).

Albatross wrote:The Romans didn't execute Jesus because they thought he was 'evil' per se, more that as the leader of a rebellious faction of Roman subjects, he was more of an inconvenience. Plus, the Romans where pressured into it by the the elite Jewish High Priesthood (IIRC).

That's right! That'll teach me to post before I have my tea in the morning. Oh well, perhaps it was the Jews who viewed him as evil, but someone certainly did. My point was that the best humans to have ever lived were seen as evil by some in their own times.

I don't think they saw him as "evil" as such, it's just the Jewish faith was... is.. waiting for their messiah : David's heir who is going to be a fierce warrior who will destroy and drive away their enemies and etc etc.
More or less anyway, obviously it's a little more complicated than that but...

we've been sweetness and light (for Dakka) so far people, let's keep it that way please.

Want to learn about evil? Watch this film and question everything you thought you knew as a 'westerner':

http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=171&id=1033&wh=1000x720

It sickened me.

The point is really very simple. Once you reach a point where an entity’s powers can be defined by science, where the source of those powers can be defined by science, and where the decision making of that entity can be defined by science, then what is it you’re worshipping?

Well, depending on what we found scientifically, an inter-dimensional nigh omnipotent, omnipresent, entity who exists in a fashion and place that functions beyond understandable natural laws. Not so strange a thing to worship a a god as it fits most every framework aside from the moral one (which was always the least stable anyway). I suspect if you by some wonder of superscience "proved" the existence of that kind of entity a large portion of the religious community would just say "We knew that already".

Albatross wrote:Want to learn about evil? Watch this film and question everything you thought you knew as a 'westerner':

http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=171&id=1033&wh=1000x720

It sickened me.

The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.

I would like to see his opposition get some of the same treatment.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure why Venezuala wouldn't be as Western as the US.

Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:
Yes, that's true. However, most people do choose to concern themselves with it. I mean, if everyone could ignore what the other idiot said, there'd be no more wars or fighting. We'd live in a world that would be safe, but boring.

Back to my train of thought. If I were to call you evil for your religion or lack thereof, could you honestly and truly ignore it? If you can, then you are a much stronger-willed person than I.

On the internet? Probably not.

In real life? I've been called worse. Assuming this were in the course of a conversation, and you weren't simply the crazy guy wearing the sandwich board while handing out bibles, I'd probably laugh or ask you why you felt my lack of religion made me evil; depending on my mood.

I'm a pretty jaded guy. There isn't a whole lot that really gets to me.

I just want people to stop arguing and let each other have their beliefs...

Just sayin'.

Frazzled wrote:Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.

To be fair, the efforts of development economics produced results which weren't any better. The nation has many problems, not the least of which are foreign interference in the political apparatus.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I just want people to stop arguing and let each other have their beliefs...

Just sayin'.

QFT

Seriously, if I say I am an atheist, then I am an atheist... End of story. Enough of the Wiki Wars about definitions... (I am not saying that because of this thread per se, just a generalization)
I just finished attempting to explain this in a PM. Please don't argue and say I am wrong. That is what I believe, saying I am wrong is invalidating my ideals. But, at the same time, I don't want to invalidate yours...

I have a question, Dakka OT:
To what extent should you try to protect your right to free speech? Is it OK to say whatever you want? When is it OK to not respect a person's ideals because you are trying to prove a point?
I think everyone is entitled the right to think for themselves. But, does this mean it is OK to do and say whatever you want, regardless of how it can affect another? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Dude thats so a different thread. You really should put it there.

Frazzled wrote:Venezuela is having water rationing because their government controlled economy is so craptacular. They've closed down all the media except for one station at last report. They've seized everything and run it into the ground. The whole country is like a great big bag of Fail.

In fairness few oil states really work well.

tblock1984 wrote:To what extent should you try to protect your right to free speech? Is it OK to say whatever you want? When is it OK to not respect a person's ideals because you are trying to prove a point?
I think everyone is entitled the right to think for themselves. But, does this mean it is OK to do and say whatever you want, regardless of how it can affect another? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Depends. Are we talking about what you have a right to do, in the sense that other people cannot forcibly stop you?

Or in the sense of doing what's good/responsible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Albatross wrote:Want to learn about evil? Watch this film and question everything you thought you knew as a 'westerner':

http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=171&id=1033&wh=1000x720

It sickened me.

The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.

I would like to see his opposition get some of the same treatment.

Nevermind, about half way through the movie he gets really annoying, and starts phrasing everything like America is Sauron.

The documentary maker is kind of annoying me. He gets too RAH RAH CHAVEZ!, which is kind of a shame since I do think the Chavez supporters are making a decent case without his help.

I know what you mean - I thought Pilger was going to start making out with him at one point! But even if he is a bad leader that's running the country into the ground, it doesn't give America the right to remove him, oil or no oil - especially if he has a mandate from the people.
The Pinochet stuff in that documentary made both my blood boil and my flesh crawl... Now THAT is evil.

Yeah, I think you could put Pinochet up for one of the worst modern leaders. I can't think of a worse person we've really supported, though, and you have Pol Pot and such from the communist side.

The problem with trying to analyse the Cold War is that for one, everything was as secret as you could get between the powers, and for another there was just so much at stake.

Also, Milton Friedman was awesome.

@Orkeosaurus - Saddam Hussein would also be a contender for 'worst', I reckon. Supporting the Mujahadin in Afghanistan was also NOT a smooth move, either. Saying that, they knacked the Ruskies so 'swings and roundabouts', as they say...

Saddam was bad, but I don't think we really put him into power. We were friendly towards him at times, but then so was the USSR for a while.

True - but you said 'supported', that's all. Hell, America traded with Nazi Germany, while we're keeping score!
But the Good Old British Empire did some pretty Bad gak, too - don't beat yourselves up, it comes with the territory!