Print

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

[scriver]

But, uh, yeah. On a different train of thought (and I can't even tell if discussing religion and atheism is even remotely on-topic anymore, but whatever)), I ran a search for 'Hobbes' in the thread and found nothing but a single unrelated-to-religion mention, which I find kind of surprising as his theories disproved God and heaven and angels etc. quite thoroughly for the times. Everything he hypothesized was at root based on the senses: If a human cannot smell, touch, hear, see, etc. something, cannot perceive it, then it simply cannot be known or proven to exist. He never explicitly mentioned religion, but... well, you can't see God, for example.

Doesn't that argument fall apart as soon as you realise there are people out there who really think they can feel/have a connection to/have met God?

[Siquo]

He makes a few good points, then takes a few out-of-context quotes, makes up a few others

This is a pretty serious accusation.  Care to provide any basis for it?

God did not lie. The serpent did lie, but subtly (he's even called subtle in Genesis). He then continues to ramble on about how we should either take the bible literally, or throw it away as nonsense. There's no middle road because that's muddy.

His video on open mindedness takes this view and obliterates it.  Even if you think it has value as a story, you can't claim he rejects it through lack of careful thought about it.

His video on open-mindedness was strangely self-defeating, in that sense. He believes in careful thought and logic as strongly as his parents in the bible. Of course, whatever floats your boat, but I get this very big hypocrisy vibe off of it.

[blabla evidence]
Nope.  You asked me what I consider evidence, and I have a fairly clearly defined answer to that.

I know. It was rhetorical because I already knew that answer, which is the average, intelligent agnostic/atheist westerner science-oriented male set of bullshitfilter. I use it a lot myself.

@Jack: It had a smiley. Now stop trololing. This sentence has no smiley.

I also have to laugh at the "he said ALL ideas! Let's use logic to prove that it's PARADOXICAL and thus WRONG!". You're missing the point by... about 2.5 kilometers.


@Retro To the experience problem: God can be experienced, but that experience cannot be reproduced (although there's a story that brain-stimulus of certain neurons can induce a similar experience). Now if I have experienced ("seen", "heard") God, I've got no choice but to believe, right?
Well fuck you, I have a choice. Even if he would stand before me in all the biblic pompous glory, I can choose not to believe in him. If he's nowhere to be found, no evidence whatsoever, I can still believe in him. So yeah, I refuse to let the world tell me what I can and can't believe in, and I hold that same standard to myself. Therefore anyone has all the right in the world. All people are equal in worth, and so are their viewpoints. They may not agree with mine, but hey, that does not mean we have to bash in each others heads.

So why am I still in this thread? Because I like new ideas. The idea that Genesis was actually kind of mean of God and impossible for Adam and Eve was a novel idea to me, I liked that. I also like to give new ideas to others. So I've been repeating the same thing over and over in different words, and every time a new strawman comes along. Sometimes I'm actually forced to think about my own ideas, and that's good (in my belief), so I like that, too. And there's interesting stories of others as well.

So, to all who dislike this thread so much, why are you even here?

[Shade-o]

I too had not considered the interpretation of God lying and the Serpent telling the truth. Though that raises the question of how the Serpent knew... But God created it as it was...

This is even more like a cruel Let's Play of The Sims than I had thought possible.

This thread is awesome.

[Siquo]

Neither is lying, technically. In popular and ancient culture, the devil/serpent/etc usually screws people by telling the truth, or at least a version of it, or a half-truth. It's actually pretty Lawful-Evil, AD&D-wise, working with contracts and promises, but keeping to the letter of the word.

Come to think of it, so do Djinns who grant wishes to the letter of the word.

So: in all stories from the past, evil is represented by those who keep to the letter of the law, instead of the intention. That would make the maker of the video one of them. No wonder he likes the serpent better, it uses logic and literal interpretation, versus the vague paradoxical words of God.

Interesting stuff.

[Ampersand]

No one ought to leave their mind so open their brain falls out.

[Siquo]

Everyone should leave their mind so open their brain falls out. Try it. Try to believe every far-fetched conspiracy theory and new-age magic fad that comes along. Your brain will remain firmly wedged in your skull, and will notice that every belief has its drawbacks, even the one you started from. And if you do return to the one you started from, you'll be all the more secure in it, for at least you tried every other option.

[Jackrabbit]

Believe in everything that comes along? That sounds like a terrible idea. Questioning everything that comes along is safer and achieves the same benefit only more so.

[Siquo]

Nope, because you can question everything, making you "more secure" that your belief is the one true one.

Consider the conspiracy theorists, especially the paranoid ones. Everything that disproves them is "questioned" and deemed a lie, or enemy propaganda, making them more secure in the belief they already have. So just questioning without actually adopting is a terrible idea, from the viewpoint of enriching yourself. If you want to stay within your comfort zone and never learn more, then it's a great idea, of course

[Jackrabbit]

So you're saying I should try everything? Even if it doesn't hold with my beliefs? You're asking the impossible here. I'd have to be incredibly susceptive to everything to be able to actually decide to do that. I'm willing to learn about something and then make a decision about whether or not I should take part based on my findings. That's called questioning, questioning and learning.

And frankly, your argument for not questioning everything is moronic and could do someone serious harm if you convinced them to not question anything. Questioning everything does not mean 'immediately disbelieve anything that clashes with your world view', it means to question everything. As in, go through the pros and cons, try to look at everything from as many angles as you can manage and try to make an informed decision about it. It doesn't mean that you act like a crazy cultist and claim that something or other can't possibly be true because you're the only right one. Adopting something without questioning it is a terrible idea, especially from the viewpoint of enriching yourself. If you want to stay within your comfort zone and never learn more, you do nothing. If you want to blindly stumble into potentially very, very dangerous things, you adopt without question. If you want to learn, you question and then if you want to, you adopt.

Actually, where the hell did that come from? You can't possibly think that's what I meant, can you?

That's astonishing.

[Shade-o]

This is like a weird crossing of Xaositect and Sensate philosophy.

[Siquo]

So you're saying I should try everything? Even if it doesn't hold with my beliefs?

Especially if it doesn't hold with your beliefs.

And frankly, your argument for not questioning everything is moronic and could do someone serious harm if you convinced them to not question anything. Questioning everything does not mean 'immediately disbelieve anything that clashes with your world view'

It does. It gives you the illusion of an "open mind", while actually you're merely projecting your own filters onto something entirely different. Like looking with red glasses at something blue, it seems black until you lose the red glasses. Your "questioning" is never objective, although most people like to think that it is. Even the (you might think common sense) idea of "weighing pros and cons" is just an idea, one you use to filter other ideas. It's one that I often disagree with, as I don't believe in "necessary evil" or "the end justifies the means", which are both examples of "weighing pros and cons".

You are a human being and (almost) everything you think, believe, or do is subjective. Mathematics isn't subjective, one might argue, but on the other hand, nobody can live his life mathematically. If you try, you're merely trying to fit the world around you into mathematics. Same goes for logic. You're mapping your subjective values and meanings into the objective logic space to come to a conclusion, and then believe that the outcome is objective because the process was objective. The premises weren't, though. For instance, take Epicurus, the most quoted person in this thread:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? ["willing" is subjective, "prevent" is subjective, "evil" is subjective, "able" is debatably subjective]
Then he is not omnipotent. ["omnipotent" is subjective, as we've seen in this thread]
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. ["malevolent" is subjective]
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ["call him God" is subjective]

The logic is sound, but the premises are all assumptions based on beliefs.

[Shade-o]

How can one form any perception of reality if one cannot accept or reject any concepts or ideas due to one being inherently subjective and biased?

[Siquo]

How can one form any perception of reality if one cannot accept or reject any concepts or ideas due to one being inherently subjective and biased?

Good question. Philosophers have tried to answer that for millennia. There are several answers, but each is again based on some kind of belief.

[Shade-o]

How can you form any perception of reality if you cannot accept or reject any concepts or ideas due to being inherently subjective and biased?

[Il Palazzo]

You know, Siquo, you don't just "try on" a belief. You need to accept all that it stands for to be able to call yourself a believer. Otherwise you're just, I don't know, fooling around? Fooling yourself?
If a belief asks you to reject all the other belief systems as false, then you can only call yourself a believer if you follow that commandment to a letter.