I'm assuming you have absolutely no idea what kind of catastrophic wide spread destruction religion has caused? oh and by the way, no one said science was perfect. Curious Inquery:Are you a tree-hugger? Socrastein You my friend are a prime example of positive atheisim.
Hmmmmmm at least I addressed your statements.... ignoring my post and not responding I will take as either frustration or ignorance of the topic. Changing the subject and name calling really is a poor excuse for discussion. Mike O'leary
Mike.. The Sun rising tomorrow isn't just faith based on repititions. We actually know why the Sun rises. Physics and Maths can explain why the Earth rotates around the Sun via the motion physics of circular gravity pulled vectors. And thus the Sun appears to rise and fall every day and night. Based on the speed that the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the force at which gravity is pulling the Earth closer to the Sun - yet it falls away from the Sun due to circular vector motions - we can prove it 100% that the Sun will continue to rise for ever until something 'gets in the way' or stops the physical forces at work. If a canon shoots a cannon ball hard and fast enough to go around the Earth and get back to its point of origin, without falling closer to the Earth then gravity will continue this motion for eternity, until gravity fails or something stops the never ending process. This is the same for stars, planets or moons revolving around one another. This is real Science. Measurable variables that can be continued to be measured, explaining the observable universe. Now, please explain with measurable emperical variables - or any other evidences - that God exists. You can't. Because unlike the Sun rising, it is faith driven. To suggest we believe the Sun will rise is faith driven is like saying we believe 2 + 2 = 4 because of Faith. Please.
You came up with a scientific answer...... as I originally suggested would happen,based on what science tells us "TODAY". Weather or not this particular example ever changes is irrelavant, but to base this discussion on science and to compare it to weather or not morales are based on God.... is totally ludicrious........ How many times is this thread gonna go around this circle. If were going to discuss philosophy at least do it with an open mind and one that sees that nothing is finite. The scarcasm and virtual name calling really is poor communication skills at their best. Your point rings true, but go back to the original post that I set the scenario up in. They were obvious examples meant to be simple, not finite. Mike O'Leary.... PS>>>> I beleive that the rules state to sign your name........
Theories which aren't entirely complete, may change. That doesn't mean they are entirely wrong "TODAY" but it means they are the most correct. Occams Razor. Motion Physics however, will not change because it is complete. That is why we can fly into space, and that is why we have roller coasters that go from 0 to 100kmph in 2 seconds. It is entirely logic based (like Maths) and thus it is only wrong when we do not know all the variables in an equation. 2 + 2 will always be 4, unless there is another + X in the equation that we are unaware off. But that does not mean that 2+2=4 will ever change. I'm not sure what your original point was, so it's a bit difficult to adress it appropriately. You said one could not prove to you the Sun will rise tomorrow, more than they can prove God exists. I believe I have proven to you logically (without going into the Maths behind it - which I can if you really want) why the Sun Will rise tomorrow, unless there is an unknown variable X in the equation (such as a meteorite the size of the Sun hitting the Sun, or whatever.) God cannot be proven, because it is an unprovable entity by definition. It is also a undisprovable entity. Which renders its relevance to a big fat zero. If God did exist, and he stops existing in 10 minutes, it will have no effect on us at all. Gods existance is as relevant to a Christian as a pink elephant is to me. It is what is in their mind that counts. Wether God exists or not, the concept itself is what effects people. That is why people can continue to live as if its real, even though its entirely faith based. If someone gets the morality guideline from what they believe is a higher power, then the existance of the higher power is not important, since its the concept in that persons mind that is relevant on a practical level. That is why God isn't required for morality, but just the concept of God. In this exact same way, God can be replaced by anything that suits the invidual. As long as the individual has a concept of morality, then that is all that matters. Then, you wrote "Imagine waking up after you die and finding out you were wrong!" which indicates that you are refering to waking up in hell ? Fortunately, just like the Sun, logically math based biology has shown that awareness is a biological function, and not to do with a soul. All evidence suggests there is no life after death. This may seem hopeless to you at first, but I believe end-of-awareness death makes life more purposeful as it puts things into perspective. What's the point of a game that has no final whistle ? Playing for eternity renders the entire thing useless and pointless. Did that suffice as a response to your post ?
Hi all I've enjoyed reading this thread a bunch (Thanks for that!), wish Philosophy was offered when I was back at school. Reason I'm posting is I was wondering if you contributors had any book suggestions on moral/social/war/scientific subjects similar to this discussion? (Plato: Trial and Death already ordered ) Thanks,
This thread has a good place to start for general philosophy. You'll perhaps find something in there. Personally, books don't always do it for me. The best thing I find is to go on a forum with the sorts of discussions going on, find a topic where you have an opinion and start giving your 2c. At first you'll only have a naive opinion based on general intuition which'll probably be harshly torn down by someone. Then you have to think again why you believed it in the first place, see what their arguments do and then either revise your opinion or explain to this guy why his points don't convince you. You gradually build up to stronger, backable opinions. Enjoy.
It's not rude and presumptuous, it's my analysis of your debating style which I think is valid. As someone who seems to enjoy logical debate, I would have thought you would appreciate constructive criticism from someone else who does too. But have it your way. I'm sorry that I caused offence though, that wasn't my intention.
If you agree that everything you're saying is completely subjective, then I fail to see in what way you disagree with me. Your theory is not unique in anyway, based on concepts that you admit to not assigning any importance to, and no more or less valid than theories with completely opposing viewpoints. So, what's the point in even bringing it up? I fail to see where there's any value contained in it anywhere. Can you explain to me what the value is in the theory? Indeed, I would say that in a universe without God, quite a few things become trivial. There are still, however, a lot of things that retain objective, concrete truth. These things can be meaningfully explored and understood. Your atheistic theory of morality is not something that is objectively true or can be meaningfully explored. It is arbitrarily pieced together. I would argue that anything that can be arbitrarily pieced together has no value. However, even if there were no God, our universe would still contain endless layers of definite, objective truth that can be rigorously defined. Two reasons - first of all, I could base an atheistic theory of morality on the distribution of kinetic energy, which unless you can demonstrate otherwise, is as valid as yours. And second of all, because I can reduce the problem of desires to a problem of energy distributions without any loss of generality or anything missing from my description, in some sense, the two would have to be equivilant. My point is that without something that transcends physics alone, like a human spirit, or God, everything everyone says does ultimately have no value. Thus human life has no value. Thus morality has no value, and worrying about it is just a waste of your valueless time. He's interfering with my desire to kill him. He wants to live, so I can see how this might balance out fairly enough. But when two of us want to kill him, he's interfering with the desires of two by continuing to live, when we would only be interfering with the desires of one. Why is his desire, living, more important than our desire, killing. He *is* actually imposing his desire on us. Actually, if you follow through with the reductionism, I actually made a point that sentient beings are no different from non sentient beings. But that aside, you don't think the lottery runs itself, do you? It's run by people, who came up with the idea, and who hand out the money. Can you provide me with one good reason why that approach is invalid? Tell me at exactly what point it becomes invalid. What gives something properties that make transcend it's physical make up and make it necessary to discuss it in other terms?
ignoring wat? didn't i just respond to it, your ignoring the destructive power of religion and putting words where there where none.
Desires are subjective, therefore no one can decide whether their personal desires are more important than someone else’s personal desires. You seem to be trying to apply objective to subjective. Do you see the complete lack of logic in doing that.
Thats rather silly AZeitung how can you not understand that taking an extreme reductionist approach is pointless? Imagine trying to have a discussion about global politics and someone just kept pointing out that people are made of matter and that matter is made up of atoms and so on... What exactly does it add to the discussion? Socrasteins original point is that atheists can have a meaningful morality without basing it on religion. Since then he has been trying to present some examples of this and argue the philosophical merits of various example moralities. I for one think there is a need for this type of discussion when people such as yourself still believe that without some sort of metaphysical dimension to life morality MUST have no value. That being said based on this discussion I am exceedingly happy we have religions because apparently, if we didnt, it seems some people would see no value to behaving morally and would be unable to understand people as anything more than a bunch of particles. Seems a bit silly to me but if you need to believe in God or a spirit to stop you from seeing problems with killing people then PLEASE DONT LOSE YOUR FAITH!
Aye, i like books but there is nothing like debating with other people. Discussing determinism with Socrastein on the other thread has been extremely though provoking. I wouldn't mind studying philosophy, but i dont think i will.
You sure? Your "work" will be pretty much doing what you do on MAP for fun. Then again, you've probably found another subject that you're more interested in. I just wish I hadn't combined any stupid maths into the mix! :bang:
What does a philosopher do career wise, other than teach or write books Anyway, i'm doing animation. I dont see any reason why philosophy needs to be formally studied if your not heading in that direction.
And, in fact, that's the point I'm trying to make. You and socrastein seem content to say, yes, physics is a complete description of the universe, and then a layer of abstraction occurs, and suddenly we can discuss things in a more meaningful way than a physical picture. I've asked more than once, where does this layer of abstraction come in? What is it? I do believe there is one, but only because of God. The arguments against this approach have so far been - you're wrong because arguing that way is no fun. Or you're wrong because there's a layer of abstraction? Where? There just is. Why? Because there is. So, either explain where my description fails to be a complete discription or accept it. Yes, arguing is no fun, and utterly pointless when that's the only truth. But that's my point - and from your position, that is the only truth, there is nothing else. That in itself is a philosophical viewpoint, which I'm surprised you're so quick to reject simply because it's depressing. Surely there have been philosophers who have suggested that life is meaningless and that there is no morality. And as of yet, no one has been able to show that his morality is actually meaningful in any way. You've even admitted that it's subjective. If the answer can be whatever you want it to be, I'd say it's pretty meaningless. Hey, maybe you should talk to TekkenGod.
Do you see the complete lack in logic in trying to rigorously define an admittedly subjective concept? First of all - everything that is is objective. So either God exists or He doesn't. The answer cannot be subjective. Second of all, either God is a certain way or he isn't. The answer can't be subjective. Remember, just because something is unknown or even unmeasureable doesn't mean it can be whatever you want it to (and there do exist things in this universe that are unknown and unmeasureable but that still possess a definite reality). Secondly - yes.
Any definition is little more than "something we agree on", if we're being that pedantic. I think most of us can agree on basic principles. That's a good point. I've got a book in mind, a band going and dole collector/floor sweeper as back up plan. Animation sounds goods too. Or maybe you could do a joint and become the anti-Jack Chick!
