Print

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

[Medicine Man]

Hey! quit derailing our cheese thread!

[Leafsnail]

I'm actually starting to get quite annoyed by this cheese thing.  There's this really werid sentiment on this forum that the best way to avoid seeing something you don't like is to pointlessly spam it all the time.

Incidentally, has anyone realised Siquo's argument is completely self destroying?  I mean, by it's own logic, it's no better than any other idea.

[Eugenitor]

My all-powerful imaginary friends can beat up your all-powerful imaginary friends.

[Micro102]

Well, Siquo can go destroy himself, and after he disappears, I will start converting people to atheism 

[Leafsnail]

Incidentally, QualiaSoup's videos on Youtube are amazing (I know everyone's probably already seen the open minded one).  I mean... I hadn't considered before that in the story of the Garden of Eden, God lies and the serpent tells the truth.  And that since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil, there was no way they could be expected to know whether God or the serpent was the one they should pay attention to.

[cerapa]

Incidentally, QualiaSoup's videos on Youtube are amazing (I know everyone's probably already seen the open minded one).  I mean... I hadn't considered before that in the story of the Garden of Eden, God lies and the serpent tells the truth.  And that since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil, there was no way they could be expected to know whether God or the serpent was the one they should pay attention to.

I have his channel bookmarked.

Im suprised I havent looked at that one for some reason.

[Siquo]

Ah, Siquo, Siquo. This thread would've been dead ages ago if not for you.

Why, thank you

No, not all ideas are equal in worth. I've no idea where did you get that from.

Made it up myself. Everyone is equally crazy, and everyone is equally right.

Of course some ideas have more merit than others... in your view. My GF believes in chakras, I believe that to be utter nonsense, according to my worldview. According to her worldview, there is merit in the idea. Now, has the idea merit or not? If you now throw empiricism into the argument, you're just using another idea. I don't believe her to be dumb, stupid or misguided, she just believes in different things than I do.

Incidentally, has anyone realised Siquo's argument is completely self destroying?  I mean, by it's own logic, it's no better than any other idea.

Sure it isn't, it's just another idea. Getting to know new ideas might be good for you, might change or shift your worldview, which is always a good thing. Once you stop wondering, stop learning, you might as well be dead. The notion that not one idea is better than another does not make all ideas worthless.

I mean... I hadn't considered before that in the story of the Garden of Eden, God lies and the serpent tells the truth.

Sounds interesting, got a link to that? He's got an awful lot of videos.

[Leafsnail]

It does make all ideas wholly worthless.  If your argument is (by its own logic) equivalent to "I believe that my child is the spawn of Satan and must be smothered to death" then it is useless.

For the Garden of Eden thing... in my opinion, it makes a lot of interesting points about the story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c
The mains ones:
- Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the apple.  So how could they be blamed for eating it?
- God told them they would die if they ate the apple, while the serpent told them they would find the truth that God was hiding from them.  Which of these turned out to be the case?
- Adam and Eve got a straight contradiction in what they were told by God, and what they were told by the serpent.  From their point of view, they had no way to tell which one was correct.
- And then, of course, God must've already foreseen all this beforehand.

[Siquo]

If your argument is (by its own logic) equivalent to "I believe that my child is the spawn of Satan and must be smothered to death" then it is useless.

They are equivalent. That does not mean I should act upon them. Really, the way she behaves I often really think she is the Spawn of Satan... (she's terribly two).
However, smothering children is against what I believe in. Other people believe it to be a normal thing. I don't. Who is right?

It's far from useless not to discard ideas too soon, just because they don't match your current view of the world. You might change.

[Eugenitor]

Okay. I have the idea that you don't exist and this conversation isn't happening.

[Leafsnail]

They are equivalent. That does not mean I should act upon them. Really, the way she behaves I often really think she is the Spawn of Satan... (she's terribly two).
However, smothering children is against what I believe in. Other people believe it to be a normal thing. I don't. Who is right?

And in adopting this way of thinking, you have yourself rejected a lot of possibilities (such as "some ideas really are wrong, dumb or harmful", "There exists moral absolutes" and so on).

Sadly, insanities like the one I described above do exist.  But since her idea is equally valid... well, who are we to stop a person with that view from smothering their child to death?

It's far from useless not to discard ideas too soon, just because they don't match your current view of the world. You might change.

I will ignore them until I am presented with evidence for them being true.  If it's inherently untestable... then it really is useless.

Incidentally: evidence.  Not "absolute proof".  I realise that, potentially, all scientists could be in some massive conspiracy to defraud us over everything.  However, I have assessed this possibility, and judged it to be remote (and, indeed, lacking in evidence).

[ChairmanPoo]

The fact that I don't regard my moral POV as absolute or objective doesn't necessarily prevent me from acting on it (IE: preventing X from smothering her children to death)

[Ampersand]

The problem with this thread is that while everyone is trying to argue with Siquo, Siquo is arguing with an imaginary person with positions no one actually holds.

[Siquo]

Okay. I have the idea that you don't exist and this conversation isn't happening.

Sure. I disagree

Thanks for the link, Leafsnail, but again, this being the second video of this guy I see, he gets on my nerves. He makes a few good points, then takes a few out-of-context quotes, makes up a few others, and then applies logic to the whole. Also, he was raised with Genesis being the absolute truth. Seeing where he comes from, I understand his annoyance with organised religion, but I still disagree with most of the things he says.

For instance: Adam and Eve did die, eventually (my translation does not mention "one day", I just looked up that King James version does mention "the day that"). If they hadn't eaten, they might have lived indefinitely. God did not lie. The serpent uses half-truths, and lies when he sais they won't die. On the other hand, telling people who have no idea of right and wrong that something is wrong and then expecting them to understand it seems indeed a bit weird.

The thing is, he calls the bible worthless if you can interpret it as any story. I think that's exactly what makes it useful. He is like his parents, adhering to one idea only, and rejecting anything that might threaten it, and I find that a pity.

Also, what Poo says. I can't remember when I last agreed with him, but there you go, we agree.   

I will ignore them until I am presented with evidence for them being true.  If it's inherently untestable... then it really is useless.

Well, what do you consider evidence? It differs from person to person. For one man, the word of another is enough ("That woman's a witch!" "You're right, let's burn her"), for others they need to personally experience something, others believe in empiricism and logic, others again believe a millennia-old institution, others again are easily swayed by mere charisma, and yet others only believe what they made up themselves.

That was a rhetorical question, by the by.

The problem with this thread is that while everyone is trying to argue with Siquo, Siquo is arguing with an imaginary person with positions no one actually holds.

I'm not arguing, so yeah, I guess you're half right, there.

[Bauglir]

The problem with this thread is that while everyone is trying to argue with Siquo, Siquo is arguing with an imaginary person with positions no one actually holds.

I'm not arguing, so yeah, I guess you're half right, there.

You are presenting viewpoints differing from those of others and attempting to show why they are valid. Put more succinctly, you're arguing.

EDIT:
I want to clarify, I'm not trying to prove your other arguments wrong with that, it's just a terminological nitpick.