Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Yea, eye for an eye isn't the best of ideals.
Not punching somebody back isn't going to 'make you oppressed', it is going to give you a better chance of avoiding a fight and/or criminal offence. Anybody that is truly oppressed isn't in any sort of position to punch back, what with the machine guns being pointed at them and only food nearby under armed guard.

[10ebbor10]

So? Why is that a bad thing?

Did I say it was a bad thing.

Yea, eye for an eye isn't the best of ideals.
Not punching somebody back isn't going to 'make you oppressed', it is going to give you a better chance of avoiding a fight and/or criminal offence. Anybody that is truly oppressed isn't in any sort of position to punch back, what with the machine guns being pointed at them and only food nearby under armed guard.

((You really like to take things litteral do you. Another example might be 2 people/ whatever fighting for something both of them want. When A takes something from B, B can decide to let it pass. This prevents a bitter rivalry, but there's a chance that people will try to take from B often in the future. A better example is below)). Let's take a biblical example.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

If any of them had dared to throw a stone, would Jezus have gotten out alive? I think not. It's these thing (or at least similair) that the Bible asks you to do. It asks you to put yourself at risk for others, with no promised reward or anything.

Spoiler: Better example is below (click to show/hide)

Persons A and B are in a relationship. A is cheated on by B, and the relationship breaks up. Some time later, A meets C, and enters a new relationship. However, because of her fear that she will be betrayed again, A tries to "control" C constantly (always wanting to be near him/her, being jealous/slightly paranoid, whatever). C doesn't like this reduction in personall freedom, and the relation ship breaks up.

He who wants to save his life, will loose it.

Now, if A would have shown "his/her other cheek" and had given C the same chances she had given B, they would have been happily living together, however at the risk of being hurt once more.

Forgiviness isn't done solely for the criminal, but also frees the victim. It's no good to be forever what the criminal made from you.

[Max White]

Focusing on the needs of many over the needs of ones self with no incentive in generally thought to be a good moral lesson.

[10ebbor10]

Focusing on the needs of many over the needs of ones self with no incentive in generally thought to be a good moral lesson.

You mean to say what exactly?


PS: I edited my post below pretty heavily.

[Leafsnail]

All the other stuff you said is 100% true, but logic itself is just another axiom, so this doesn't work. If there's a real, all powerful god, he'll take your logic, chew it up, and spit it out.

Ahhh yes this argument.  "Logic isn't necessarily true so your arguments are invalid!  Mine are fine though"

Hint: you're invalidating all your own arguments too.

[kaijyuu]

Yeah that's a sort of solipsist argument. I think? If he's referring to what I think he's referring to, that'd be Descartes' "evil genius" argument (as my philosophy teacher explained it, anyway) that invalidates logic as something you can know you can trust.

Sure logic being valid is an axiom, but if you deny it then discourse is literally impossible. As Leaf said, it invalidates all arguments and methods of reasoning, including those for religion. It's one of those things you have to assume else you might as well be comatose.

[Frumple]

Nrg. Logic is more like a concept system built around a number of axioms, though, not just a single monolithic one. There's multiple full functioning logic systems that only share partial axiomatic bases, and we're still doing work in the field. Some of the more recent stuff I've seen looks pretty interesting, if somewhat nascent ("Fuzzy logic" et al... non-binary stuff. S'neat, though I need to read like... massively more on the subject.).

Point being that whichever logic system you're decrying probably shares some axioms with whatever you're decrying because of, as Leafsnail sorta' points out, and so your system has the same problem if logic does. Logic axioms tend to be incredibly basic stuff, even in relation to other axioms, so many other concept systems at least have a couple of 'em in there.

[Leafsnail]

Point being that whichever logic system you're decrying probably shares some axioms with whatever you're decrying because of, as Leafsnail sorta' points out, and so your system has the same problem if logic does. Logic axioms tend to be incredibly basic stuff, even in relation to other axioms, so many other concept systems at least have a couple of 'em in there.

As far as I can tell by saying that contradictions can be valid, Siquo is going against the axiom that "If A is true, then Not-A is not true".  This is an extremely fundamental axiom, and without it it is almost impossible to make any meaningful statement.

Certainly you can't claim to say someone else is wrong, because even if you decisively show that their belief B is incorrect, they can say "Well, according to your logic B can be not true but also true at the same time, so it's still true".

I mean, I guess there are some philosophers who went against it, but they pretty much have to build up their logic in a completely different way and can't argue normally at all.

[penguinofhonor]

Philosophical rating of current discussion: 10/10

As for last page's deal, yeah, I'd like it if any significant amount of goofing off remained in the IRC/happy thread. I don't want to ban all joking, but if you're making a post solely to respond to a joke then it's probably better made elsewhere. And the OOC thread is always there to call out unintentional hilarity.

Also I spontaneously decided it was time for a change in title scenery. "Theology" sounded too stuffy.

[Micro102]

OK, re-railing this thread. I've seen many religious claims revolve around solid logic. But just because something is logical, does not mean its contents are true. It usually ends up as "well this is false so God did it"

[10ebbor10]

OK, re-railing this thread. I've seen many religious claims revolve around solid logic. But just because something is logical, does not mean its contents are true. It usually ends up as "well this is false so God did it"

Giving examples would be nice.

[Fenrir]

As some important person once said(I should really remember those whom I'm quoting):
A human has either a diety or idol(Note that I probably mistranslated the quote in addition to only remembering it).

This doesn't condemn any Atheists, or praise religious people. After all, the god referred to is just a methaphor. I could give a long explanation on this whole thing, but I'm not going to do so.
Short version: If you believe in God, you base your identity on what he thinks of you. Since God is not a very talkative person, you base you identity on yourself.
Idolism means that your base your identity on what other people make of you, of what they think you're.

That's an ideal, of course.

I’ll have you know that Connotation Smuggling is illegal.

It works like this. First, you re-define words like “deity” and “idol” to mean something different, usually abusing the leeway the English tongue gives you. Here you have re-defined them to mean (by a muddled syllogism) “identifying with yourself” and “identifying with other people”. Then you assert that, since, of course, anyone is doing one or the other of these things, then everyone either has a deity or an idol, so isn’t that interesting and no officer these words are just metaphors there’s nothing in them stop taking me literally.

If you stripped out the bit where you tamper with the language (or if we “take it as a metaphor” as you insist), we see that your statement is “People either identify with themselves or other people,” which isn’t making any point at all, and has nothing to do with the topic. The cargo manifest does not match what I see you unloading in the dock.

We have as further evidence a conversation between you and a satisfied buyer:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A human has either a diety or idol.

I like this one. An idol can be anything: yourself, science, that the world around us exists, or even the idea that you can't tell (agnosticism is idol-worshipping, HA!).

Even more, God can be replaced with any of these too. It's more the way that you believe in them that matters.

[10ebbor10]

As some important person once said(I should really remember those whom I'm quoting):
A human has either a diety or idol(Note that I probably mistranslated the quote in addition to only remembering it).

This doesn't condemn any Atheists, or praise religious people. After all, the god referred to is just a methaphor. I could give a long explanation on this whole thing, but I'm not going to do so.
Short version: If you believe in God, you base your identity on what he thinks of you. Since God is not a very talkative person, you base you identity on yourself.
Idolism means that your base your identity on what other people make of you, of what they think you're.

That's an ideal, of course.

I’ll have you know that Connotation Smuggling is illegal.

It works like this. First, you re-define words like “deity” and “idol” to mean something different, usually abusing the leeway the English tongue gives you. Here you have re-defined them to mean (by a muddled syllogism) “identifying with yourself” and “identifying with other people”. Then you assert that, since, of course, anyone is doing one or the other of these things, then everyone either has a deity or an idol, so isn’t that interesting and no officer these words are just metaphors there’s nothing in them stop taking me literally.

If you stripped out the bit where you tamper with the language (or if we “take it as a metaphor” as you insist), we see that your statement is “People either identify with themselves or other people,” which isn’t making any point at all, and has nothing to do with the topic. The cargo manifest does not match what I see you unloading in the dock.

We have as further evidence a conversation between you and a satisfied buyer:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A human has either a diety or idol.

I like this one. An idol can be anything: yourself, science, that the world around us exists, or even the idea that you can't tell (agnosticism is idol-worshipping, HA!).

Even more, God can be replaced with any of these too. It's more the way that you believe in them that matters.

((Wasn't intentionall))

It has quite a bit to do with the topic since it is one of the morals you can get from the Bible. In fact, said thing and theory is in fact a quote from someone else(rather famous philospher I believe). It's just that I failed to provide the context, and origin of the sitation(looking for that still, but it's rather hard if you fail to remember
a) the exact quote
b) whomever said it).

[Fenrir]

So how do you account for the fact that you made that post before the Bible was the topic of discussion, and you did so while “Atheism is a religion,” accusation, a common connotation-smuggling operation, was the topic?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Did you just call atheism a religion?

I'm sure he did. Also, Atheism often is just this for some people, but hell if they're going to accept it.

As some important person once said...

Connotation Smuggling is illegal in any context, and it doesn’t matter if someone famous did it first and gave you the idea.

[10ebbor10]

So how do you account for the fact that you made that post before the Bible was the topic of discussion, and you did so while “Atheism is a religion,” accusation, a common connotation-smuggling operation, was the topic?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Did you just call atheism a religion?

I'm sure he did. Also, Atheism often is just this for some people, but hell if they're going to accept it.

As some important person once said...

Connotation Smuggling is illegal in any context, and it doesn’t matter if someone famous did it first and gave you the idea.

I'm pretty sure I don't quite understand. (Which probably has something to do with me being not really awake at the moment).

Besides, Atheism can be a religion, or better worded, Atheists can be religious is not an accusation(which implies religion to be bad, which it doesn't need to be) it's a fact. (For a given definition of religious of course).

Which always appear to be a problem, as people can't real keep to one definion or another.