HOME | DD
Published: 2012-10-02 01:48:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 122715; Favourites: 18; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }
Epicurus muttered, "None of this affects me at all," excused himself, and slipped out the back door practically unnoticed. That left the table unbalanced. On one side were the ancient worlders: Plato and Aristotle, heads together in deep discussion, and Socrates, who appeared to be gently questioning Miletus while Sextus Empiricus studiously withheld judgement on the proceedings.The opposite end of the table was mostly held by the enlightenment gang, with Lao-Tze as the sole outlier, holding down the farthest end of the table as he watched the proceedings, imperturbably. Voltaire had given up on his hopes of getting Lao-Tze to appreciate his witticisms, and shifted his focus to Rousseau, who was trying to hide behind the equally imperturbable bulk of David Hume. Neitzsche was berating Hume, loudly, and making wickedly poetic assertions that made Spinoza occasionally put his head down and "facepalm" though he quickly converted the gesture to what appeared to be a thoughtful forehead-rub. Lao-Tze caught his eye on one of these occasions and his face lit with a brief smile of utter joy, which Spinoza found himself sharing.
In the center of the table, of course, was the guest of honor's seat. When Jesus arrived and sat down, quietly, you could hear a pin drop. The assembled lovers of wisdom stopped what they were doing, Voltaire with his hand raised and crooked, frozen in the middle of an elegantly airy gesture, and Hume with a very fine piece of smoked fish halfway to his mouth. Sextus Empiricus raised a sardonic eyebrow, as The Nazarene made a gesture encompassing them all, "I greet you!" he said.
The silence in the room would make your ears ring, until Socrates stood and asked gently, "Whence, therefore, Evil?" Neitzsche blew his breath out through his mustache and sat back, "ah!" and Lao-Tze's smile became more joyful, if such a thing was possible, still. Everyone in the room waited for The Nazarene's reply.
My mind does strange things when I'm flying a red-eye coast-to-coast and have had a couple glasses of red wine prior to boarding. I'd been discussing religion with a fellow I'd met recently and one of the things he'd said the day before was that "Jesus was a great philosopher." I know I cringed visibly when I heard that, but at the time I was playing nice so I didn't say anything. Perhaps you've heard similar things about the "great philosophy" in the bible (or, for that matter, the koran, book of mormon, or much of the buddhist literature) The reason that assertion is so cringe-worthy is because those books contain virtually nothing resembling a coherent philosophy, and none of the characters in those books are remotely anything like philosophers. In the case of Jesus, he was a god-man – supposedly part of the supernatural forces that give man morality and free will through assertion (if you're a christian who accepts divine command theory) I was thinking that none of the real philosophers I've read say "Because I said so" and mistook that for a philosophical argument.
If the son of god were a philosopher, and showed up on earth in a form whereby he could be questioned by humans, he'd immediately barraged with important and interesting questions. Not the little piffle like "hey, check out this adulterer we're going to stone, derp, derp!" or "can you turn this water into some more wine? Perhaps a good Zinfandel?" but, as Socrates would ask, "Whence, therefore, Evil?"
Think about it. If you're a philosopher and suddenly found yourself face to face with a real honest to goodness supreme being, you would not ask it whether it wore boxer shorts or briefs. There are so, so many questions that a real philosopher would immediately ask! In my little fantasy scenario above, I imagine that Jesus would have had a pretty hot and sweaty time once Voltaire started backing up Socrates' questions, and with Plato and Aristotle standing by to check his logic, "because I said so" wouldn't get him very far at all. I assembled my cast of characters carefully, because:
- Socrates would be absolutely fearless in being willing to question a god. He died, apparently quite graciously, because he loved philosophy and did not fear what earthly powers could do to his body. He would not hesitate for a moment to annoy the living fuck out of a god, just as he annoyed so many of the politicians and thinkers of great Athens.
- Plato would no doubt wish to resume the question he voiced through Socrates in my favorite of his dialogs, the Euthyphro, namely, "Is there a piety that the gods love, or is something pious simply because it is loved by the gods?" A real philosopher would not let Jesus stand there without explaining whether he was the source of all morals or whether he adhered to a set of higher morals himself – and, if so, where those morals came from.
- Aristotle would ask Jesus, in his role as god, "where did god come from?" The great systematizer of philosophy would not allow such an important question to hang.
- Thales would doubtless have some questions about the nature and origin of the universe.
- Sextus Empiricus (assisted ably by David Hume) would confuse Jesus unbearably by querying his epistemology: if god is the source of all knowledge, how did god come to know? I am sure that they would do it gracefully – perhaps as a tag team – but Jesus would quickly find himself in an infinite regress (pyrrhonian trope #2) as he attempted to certify his criteria without being dogmatic. I imagine that Hume would watch Sextus at work, while mentally composing a brilliant essay on "Is god naturally dogmatic?" Many of the christian apologists I've encountered have claimed that god is the anchor for all claims of knowledge. "Well, how do you know that?" I wish I could watch Sextus Empiricus and David Hume work that particular topic.
- Lao-Tze and Epicurus both recognized in their philosophies that the actions of the gods are more or less irrelevant to the affairs of men, and that wise men should act accordingly. After all, if the gods chose to serve you as they did Job, then you're going to get fucked and there's nothing you can do about it. Conversely, if they're going to raise you high and make you mighty, you're hardly in a position to take credit for it. I imagine that Epicurus and Lao-Tze would wind up in the garden, enjoying the stars and the breeze. Of all the conversations in philosophy that I would want to hear, it would be this one.
- Spinoza would eventually join Lao-Tze and Epicurus in the garden.
- Nietzsche would be a potentially delightful interlocutor for Jesus, who could ask him, "so, do I appear dead to you?" "Not until tomorrow," would be Nietzsche's snappiest come-back, though it would be way too brief for him.
- Rousseau would doubtless have some questions for a god, regarding the origin of its authority. If this were a Monty Python sketch, I could see Rousseau asking Jesus, "Supreme authority comes from a mandate from the masses, not from mere supreme power!" ("Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!")
- Voltaire would provide a witty, clear, and devastatingly arch summary of the discussion.
I'm also sure that Jesus' disciples were not philosophers. Indeed, you've got to wonder "what's wrong with those guys?" Here they were following around god, and didn't think to ask him any interesting questions? Or, if they did, they didn't take notes. Like the time Matthew was busy re-tying his sandal during the sermon on the mount and missed the part where Jesus said, "By the way, load up on Cisco on its IPO. Stay away from Facebook, it'll tank." Joking aside, you'd think that, as Aristotle almost certainly would have, one of Jesus' disciples would have asked him, "what causes people to sometimes get sick when nobody around them does?" and Jesus could have told the great systematizer about bacteria and viruses. Perhaps, you'd think Jesus would have mentioned en passant to Matthew, "by the way, Matt, Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around. Write that down in your testament and people'll respect you for actually knowing something."
No, Jesus wasn't a philosopher. Nor were any of his disciples. If you think about it, if Jesus really was god come-to-Earth, he did the most piss-poor performance possible. It could have only been worse if he'd worn a gag arrow-through-the-head hat and played banjo. "Oh, I'm not here to actually talk philosophy or teach, I'm just here to be bloodily slaughtered. And Mel Gibson's going to make $100mil on a movie about it. W00T!"
And people wonder why we atheists laugh at religions.
-
Addendum: Note that today's philosophers actually do have a chance to question gods. For one thing, there's good old Tenzin Gyatso, that wretched platitude-spouting conman who allegedly is a multi-incarnated partially supernatural being of supreme wisdom. You'd think that he could explain the problem of evil, or perhaps refute Sextus Empiricus in detail. But, instead, he's concerned with heavy issues like whether oral sex is "sexual misconduct" or whether homosexuals should have human rights. As an armchair philosopher, I am disgusted by the intellectual slack that this cheese-brained theocrat gets granted. Why hasn't someone asked him (as Sextus Empiricus would) "How do you know that you've lived before?" Another diety among us is the Emperor Of Japan. I don't think he makes any specific claims to specialness other than direct descent from goddess amaterasu. But for a divine being, his grasp of geopolitics and warfare are about as good as the dalai lama's grasp of quantum mechanics. For that matter, someone could ask the pope Socrates' question to Euthyphro. I'm sure his little toesie-woesies would curl helplessly in his silk prada slippers, and he wouldn't have an answer. This is a guy who claims divine knowledge regarding who should stick their penis into whom, but doesn't want to tackle the really interesting questions that philosophers grapple with all the time. Whence, therefore Evil? Indeed!
Related content
Comments: 107
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 22:14:08 +0000 UTC]
Clogging one's ears with anal plugs, and lots of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-02-20 22:59:54 +0000 UTC]
LMAO, and lots of it. Kudos!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-02-21 00:09:29 +0000 UTC]
I was just appreciating the humor of your response. My equivalent of clapping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to brianmcbugger [2013-02-21 00:24:02 +0000 UTC]
Lol, but at who's expense? Mine or his? It's not quite exactly clear
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-02-21 00:47:42 +0000 UTC]
It's not good when you have this much difficulty telling friend from foe. You've spent too much time parrying the atheist wannabe assholes of the Internet. I know, because I've been there before.
Using Obama's (ironically) favorite phrase... Let me be clear: I thought your comment was funny as it was a perfectly appropriate response to the amoral, faux-arrogant, anti-religious bigot narcissist prick a.k.a. mjranum.
I'm sure this clarifies things. Yes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to brianmcbugger [2013-02-21 01:12:43 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, it does. Sorry, I'm just used to friends and associates of this guy jumping out of the woodwork to defend him when he doesn't deserve or need it. That, and I'm conditioned by internet behavior, so yeah, I normally tend to expect one to pull a fast one on me when a statement is ambiguous.
Obviously the guy's been hurt by religious sentiment and/or people, and it's become a rather hot button to press to get an easy reaction out of him, so much so that he's willing to blame a concept for the actions of people - I don't remember anywhere in the Bible that states not to think for yourself or place insane amounts of trust in a human "authority" figure claiming to represent one's religion, or to shun scientific evidence. I also don't see how the EXPEDIENT of always showing positive proof to make a valid claim can be applied on every single facet of one's life when our perception of reality isn't picture perfect at all times, and even if it was, the table is still set for something I call "highway robbery", in cases where someone can't prove that something is true, but it is, and just because they lack evidence, the credit/merit goes to their opponent instead just because their's sound more feasible.
I also seem not to be able to get through to him on the idea that a concept can't be blamed for a person's actions, similar bullshit occurs absent of religion, and can be attributed to causing the bad behavior but in reality, has nothing to do with it. I guess the next time MjRanum gets into an argument with his brother/sister/cousin/nonexistent friends (or internet only ) while playing a video game with them for teasing him while losing, almost ending up with them getting into a fight, he can blame and quit that particular video game forever and never have to worry about getting into such a confrontation to begin with. I know you've witnessed similar before?
"It's just a video game!" The problem had absolutely nothing to do with the guy buggering them whatsoever. In his world, innanimate objects and concepts are evil - I guess it's his only means of granting a meaningless world (it'd have to be without some kind of supreme Being or existence) the meaning he needs to cope with his boring life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-02-21 01:41:06 +0000 UTC]
This response (the deeper elements) deserves a better reply than I have time for right now, but I assume you've come across "Poe(s)". Correct?
If not, search Poe's Law. In practice it amounts to "atheists" behaving in the most ridiculous and appalling ways, all the while making a point of doing such behavior in the name of a religion (and it is almost without exception Christianity... which I'm sure isn't a surprise), and then excusing whatever their behavior was by citing Poe's Law and calling themselves a Poe (or having their friends do it while they hide out to avoid the repercussions of their behavior).
I have most of my battles on political websites or YouTube. I usually reserve my time here on DA for the appreciation of art + beautiful women. However, I'm occasionally compelled to engage the irrational and illogical attempts at argumentation of those ironically making the pretense of standing for rational thought and logic. Rationality is impossible when you aspire to the notion that everything is subjective/relative and logic is proved/disproved in your argumentation. What logic is there in maintaining the position that "religion" itself contains some inherent fault?
In any case, I recognized the battle-weary symptoms you displayed right away. I'll come back to discuss deeper thoughts another time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to brianmcbugger [2013-02-23 21:29:12 +0000 UTC]
Oh, by all means, continue
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-03-04 18:40:23 +0000 UTC]
Well, if you noticed, I put "atheist" in quotations. I don't always, but I do when I'm making the point that to be an atheist is impossible. I could say that "I believe" atheism is impossible, but I don't just "believe" it to be the case. I understand it to be an absolute truth.
First off, from a theist perspective believing in the Judeo-Christian concept of God, believing in God as such compels one to accept an absolute irrefutable truth: We, as human beings, do not, can not, and will never understand everything there is to know. However, that is not to say that we know nothing. We do know some things. We know we feel physical stimulus while we're alive. We know that we're aware and that being aware is something beyond adding numbers or simply doing our part in an algorithm. We also know that there are absolutes. That we can conceive them is itself proof because there are absolutes we can recognize in thought. This is not to say that anything we can conceive is true, but simply points out that we can conceive things we know to be true that can't necessarily be measured to prove that they are true.
Now, take that last paragraph: Whether you agree or not, any mind capable of comprehending what I'm discussing can also know that it's human thought on display. It's not an ant, it's not a dog, it's not bacteria, and it's not primordial soup. It represents thoughts that only complex aware minds can conceive and ponder. Well, what if there was no God/gods? What would explain that last paragraph? How could it even exist?
(bear with me)
What I'm getting at is this: Take atheism to its logical conclusion - The material existence we have measured/can measure is all there is. This means all human concepts and thought are illusory. Take the example of love. Love, just like every other human concept, is reduced to chemical reactions to physical stimulus. There is no real "love". All thoughts ever conceived regarding love are nothing more than the product of coping skills developed from random genetic development. Our thoughts are nothing more than mathematical paterns resulting from the particular genetic makeup of each individual and relatively unique experience... Essentially, we're nothing more than organic computers. Thus, consciousness and awareness and self-determination are all illusory concepts as based on our chemical makeup provided by our genetics and environment - everything we do, say, and think are all inevitable... that under the same circumstances over and over and over again we'd always do the same thing because we're all just part of a mathematical formula...
Do you follow my thinking at this point? What I'm getting at is: An absolute true atheist must be a nihilist. There is no morality, there is no value to anything for them. Everything is a subjective/relative experience in which all concepts are illusory.
Do you agree at this point? Please, feel free to make a point by point response to this first part here (ie: A. You say... Well, I say... B. You say... Well, I say...).
Now, understanding that an atheist must be a nihilist, let's get on to undersanding why this is impossible. Start by examining those who openly claim to adhere to nihilism. The best example I've ever encountered are Buddhists who follow nihilist thought. Now, any true nihilist Buddhist will tell you that reaching emptiness - their version of enlightenment - is a journey, and one that can not be met in mortal life. In other words, it's unobtainable. The reason is is because nothing can matter to a nihilist. How does a human mind reach a point where nothing at all matters? One answer: Oblivion. It is an essential truth that nihilism is the aspiration to embrace oblivion.
And examine the methods of how nihilist Buddhists apsire to achieve the state of truly embracing that nothing matters - oblivion. They go for extreme lengths of time without eating, without sleep, meditating... Trying to reach a place where they truly believe that nothing matters. Not life, not concepts, not thought...
Now think about how we perceive existence... all of us... through our senses and our thoughts - our ability to process that which we perceive through our senses. And from this existence we have created questions that define our existence - What? When? Where? Why? How? But, if we consider these questions: What? When? Where? How? - Those four can all be answered by physical descriptions, physical determinations. They deal with the material. However, we conceive something else - Why? And "Why?" deals with only one thing. "Motive". And motive is where we get "reason" from. Our reasons for doing things. A motive to sort out our thoughts and to act according to our thinking. Our reasoning behind the decisions we make.
Yet, to a nihilist, all things to do with "Why?" are illusory. A nihilist has no reason "Why?". Any behavioral adherence to motive is simply adhering to the traditions of those who are not nihilists.
Now contrast this with a theist position. God. For the purpose of having common ground and using the best example of God, I'll use the Judeo-Christian concept of God. Who and what is God? God is God. The only God. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. All-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere. Still, what is God? God is the source of all things. God is the source of exstience itself. There is no creator of God, there is no beginning or end to God, because God is the creator/the source is the beginning and the end... all of existence and all that is possible exists within God.
This is God, to the best understanding of what/who God is. Conceiving this understanding of God, it is thus irrefutable that if God exists then the existence of God is the most important/significant issue of all. For if God exists - Then EVERYTHING matters. Everything is important. Everything is significant. Every deed, every word, and every thought is important.
And this is how we can see the core conflict between atheists and theists - The atheist, whether or not they acknowledge it, is compelled to come from a position that nothing matters. The theist, whether or not they acknowledge it, is compelled to come from a position that everything matters.
Then, there is the final point - If God doesn't exist, nothing matters. And in this final point the inherent flaw to advocating atheism/nihilism is revealed: If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, nothing matters, and thus there is no reason to advocate that God doesn't exist...
So I have concluded thus - We define sanity by a person's ability to reason. If everything you think, do, and say is based on a position that taken to its logical conclusion rejects reason itself - rejects purpose, motive, value - if your existential position is that nothing matters, then you are insane. Thus, it is impossible for any sane person to be an atheist.
Most people that we meet/encounter that advocate atheism don't even understand atheism. They don't understand what atheism is and where it takes them to in the end. That's why I often call it the religion of oblivion (or the religion of embracing oblivion). A theist embraces existence. An atheist embraces oblivion. No one can be an atheist and still be either sane or alive... because if they were truly an atheist they'd have no purpose to live and might as well be dead and they would inherently be insane. The people we encounter like mjranum aren't truly atheist. They may aspire to be. They may want to be, creating some false ideal of what being an atheist is. However, they are most certainly not. They're always advocating some "humanist" idea (Humanitarianism ironically being a creation of Catholic philosophers a few hundred years ago), and always trying to assume the moral highground when they don't even have a leg to stand on when it comes to morality.
Anyway, I figure this is good enough for a start to conversation. Give me feedback. This wasn't really a well-planned response, it's just me talking off the cuff, so please excuse me if it seems a mess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to brianmcbugger [2013-03-04 19:51:50 +0000 UTC]
Dude..... I can't.....
Really, seriously, you win. You won the internet. There's very little I could offer in retort even if I were to try to pick out at any misgivings (even though we're on the same side). You handled the issue very well, and even gave Ranum here a run for his logical money, while also tipping the scales back in favor of religion in such a way that I have a horrible time verbalizing. I mean, I've came to some of these same conclusions myself, I just could never come up with the words to convey that. My mind's way to fragmented to stay on any one topic while conversing.
Thank you. Thank you so much. I want to quote you for this. Also, here, you've earned this.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
brianmcbugger In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2013-03-04 22:01:59 +0000 UTC]
Thank you. Honestly though, this isn't me winning the Internet. This is someone in the 21st century who is well-read in historical philosophical discussion able to put together what he has read and understood and used it to explain the existential dilemma posed by the materialists/atheists/nihilists of today...
You see, philosophy (reason) relies on religion, theology, and ultimately theism to exist. Without these things there is no purpose to human behavior. There is no motive. Anything goes and nothing goes. It's all relative/subjective. There's no moral high ground and no moral low ground. Everything just is. We'd be animals, or fleshy computers with no programming.
The vast majority of philosophers in history knew this. From the Greek philosophers to modern theologians, they've understood that theism is necessary for a person to have any purpose. They may not have accepted the common religious practices of their culture of the day, but they still understood and firmly adhered to theism. Theology and religion are simply the exploration of answering "Why?" in the same way scientific study is the exploration of answering "How?". Theology and religion are the foundation for reason. It is why there has never been a human civilization that has risen up and lived in what we perceive to be any kind of "civilized" manner that has been an atheist culture. The closest we've seen were 19th and 20th century anti-religous political movements - French communism, Italian Fascism, Spanish Fascism, Nazism, Secular Progressivism, and just communism in general. In comparison, even the minds barbarian leaders filled with base-ambition understood that there must be a reason - for without reason, from whence comes goals? What do we hope for, dream of, conceive ideals of, if there is no reason?
To get down to the very basics, any given theist religion is a conclusion of thought based on a perception of the nature of God. So, take Christianity: Christianity is at its core a religion that believes in a specific perception of the nature of God. Thus, we adhere to behavior and existential outlook based on the *faith* that we have some understanding of what God's nature is. God's existence isn't a matter of faith. It *should* be self-evident. The element of faith in theist religion isn't whether or not God exists. I assure you he does and I maintain that it is self-evident. The element of faith relates solely to having faith in the nature of God. ie: I have faith that God is merciful. I have faith that God is forgiving. I have faith that God loves me... etc. And in Christianity specifically, Christ said that we needed faith - Faith that what He said about the nature of God, of His relationship with God (being the Son of God), and faith that His actions and life were miraculous - these are the things we need to have faith in as Christians. Again, that God exists isn't a matter of faith. 'Only a fool says in his heart that God doesn't exist'.
Part of the problem we face in modern soceity is the secularization of society, primarily through public schools. Throughout history the most advanced civilizations discussed philosophy from early ages. It was understood that children needed a religious education from early on. Because otherwise, what are schools? What good is knowledge without a reason to use it or temperance to hold back from using it?
We would never give a child a gun. Certainly not without explaining its use - Without giving them a reason not to shoot other people. Yet here we are, in modern society, systematically removing reason itself from classrooms, giving children the knowledge of what thousands of years of human history has discovered of material existence, without giving them any reason "Why?" to apply that knowledge or not apply it. We teach them politically skewed history without explaining motive, having them memorize dates and events, and giving them none of the story while just telling them a string of facts. And then we wonder why they struggle with literature, and why they hate reading novels. And so then we begin removing literature from the classroom as well.
And so we give knowledge of material existence to each generation with less and less reason to go with it. Sure, people like mjranum are exposed to religion, but even most religious people today aren't taught how we reached this point. Things like the study of philosophy, the major debates of history, how the church and society developed, how scripture was preserved... etc... These things should be, *need to be*, taught, as they have been at other times. Reason should be the foundation of education, before handing out the knowledge of the material world - before handing a reasonless childlike society a gun.
I highly suggest reading some of the great Christian philosophers and some of their debates. At times the material can be dry, but then, so can I. I highly suggest starting with Kierkegaard. Seriously, if you take nothing else away from this particular rant, please go find the writings of Kierkegaard and read some. He was not a faultless man, but he wouldn't say that he was either. No one is.
Another time, if you so wish, we can delve into the topic of the self-evident nature of God's existence. But, I think this will do for now.
And you may quote me or use any of what I've said as often/wherever you like and you do not have to give reference to me. In fact, I'd prefer that you didn't. Especially since my name here on DA is a pseudonym. If you recognize truth, that information is as much yours as it is anyone else's. Advocate truth from your own position. Know it. Own it.
Be well, and God bless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Starcraftor In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 14:20:45 +0000 UTC]
[slowly raises hand]
Umm... I do.
I would love to see St. Augustine, C. S. Lewis, and Aristotle debate the nature of God. I actually have occasionally fantasized about such debates - Jesus of Nazareth called Christ vs. Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha on the nature of human suffering, for example. While I can see where you're going, I haven't seen any evidence that MJRanum is "pandering to the likeminded, sharing his limited imagination."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Starcraftor [2012-10-02 14:24:56 +0000 UTC]
Ever noticed that people who live in a house don't realize it has a smell to it?
As far as human suffering goes, "you all make your own problems". There, a human answered it. Happy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Starcraftor In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-02 14:34:20 +0000 UTC]
Actually, that's not necessarily the case. Often, the people who live in the house just understand the smell differently than you do.
As far as the debate between Christ and Buddha on human suffering, I'm not interested in conclusions but in arguments. Have you ever read my sig? "It's not the answer that enlightens but the question." Consideration of the matter is often far more valuable than the answer itself is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
mjranum In reply to Starcraftor [2012-10-02 21:57:42 +0000 UTC]
As far as the debate between Christ and Buddha on human suffering, I'm not interested in conclusions but in arguments.
Indeed. Buddha deliberately dodged any recorded attempts to get him to make claims about afterlife/divinity, etc. I forget exactly how it was worded but his reply, if I recall, was "you have to figure that out for yourself."
BTW, I would barely consider Buddha to be a philosopher either. But that's more because (like with Jesus) his "teachings" are heavily edited hundreds of years after his death. That leads me to doubt that they're much more than a pastiche of popular wisdom at the time - the difference between the "philosophy" of Buddha and, say, Aristotle is pretty stark.
It would have made an interesting discussion, though. I'd have been unable to sit still, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Starcraftor [2012-10-02 14:56:51 +0000 UTC]
I've never been to a house where the people are already aware of the smell their house projects unless they intentionally, and recently put it there. But regardless, the biased tends to forget they're biased. I often see people agree with others who support the topic, rather than point out the flaws in their statements when they're present. I barely ever see anyone disagree on something despite there being an obvious glaring mistake visible, just because they agree on a subject. Show me points where Ranum's done it often enough with his supporters rather than zero in on the objectors, and you'll make your case.
Meh, problem with that discussion is that it would lead straight into the mechanics of reality rather than why it is happening. The only problem with just answers is that there's nothing to attribute them to if you already don't have it in mind. You can consider something without asking a question, and what good is a question if there's no answer? It's the reason philosophy is considered as equally useless as it is helpful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Starcraftor In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-03 00:08:20 +0000 UTC]
Typically, people are aware of a smell that "smells like home," whether they think of it in association to their house or not.
I would like to show you what you're asking for, but I'm not sure what it is that you're suggesting that I show you.
"Meh, the problem with that discussion is that it would lead straight into [why things happen the way they do] instead of why [things happen the way they do]."
Questions are often useful without answers; they're most commonly known as "rhetorical questions."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Starcraftor [2012-11-18 17:24:22 +0000 UTC]
As I've been saying to everyone, extremely late response -
but I'm not sure what it is that you're suggesting that I show you.
There's nothing you really can show me on that topic. The evidence is clear. Many people do it, and Ranum's no different. I myself, am different in that even if someone agrees with me, I'll still correct them if they've made an error. Sorry if the "smells" metaphor was throwing you off.
[why things happen the way they do] instead of why [things happen the way they do]
Nice redirect. I was focused primarily on the idea of human suffering, and usually people tend to take that as a "well, you're all this and not that if you allow this and not that" which is a boring, biased minefield of a discussion. I'm more about throwing in the math and the physics, and shut everyone up simultaneously. All in all, questions are useless without answers, just as much as answers are useless without questions. I'm sorry if this sound harsh or blunt or something, but it sounds more like if questions are more important, that your (and by you I mean generally, and not necessarily specifically you) mind isn't open enough to consider what's going on, and that an outside source must actually bring something to your attention for you to consider it. That and also it makes it seem like general statements that aren't questions aren't enough to open your eyes to new possibilities either. All information is equally useful, even if it's not useful in the way we'd want it to be.
Questions are often useful without answers; they're most commonly known as "rhetorical questions."
A rhetorical question isn't a question though, it's a statement. It also usually provides the answer to your problems on your end if the listener actually complies.
Example:
Loud mouthed Dolt: "Did you know that roll canceling gives you 40 whopping frames of invincibility?!?! HUH YEAH HUH YEAH HUH?!?!"
You: (Iritated by his shrill voice) "Oh really? How many frames does it take for you to shut the fuck up?"
Dolt: *grumble* "........."
OH HAPPY DAAAAAAAAYYYYYSSSS
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EchoedLight In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 13:53:17 +0000 UTC]
Seriously, who the hell spends their precious time wanging on about someone they find ignorant and beneath them as you do Marcus? Jealous much?
As far as "panderng to the likeminded" (sic), one of the things I love about Marcus is how he and I can get into passionate disagreements about ideas. The silliest and weakest of your silly and weak attempts at insulting him is the bit about his limited imagination. Trust me when I say the man has one of the greatest imaginations I have ever had the extreme joy of being around. Maybe you need to visit the exam room or the dungeon or better yet, ask Marcus if he could introduce you to Razor! You and Razor would get along brilliantly. Razor would love your company and you would not find him to have a limited imagination. Promise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to EchoedLight [2012-10-02 14:22:02 +0000 UTC]
As much as I find him rude, arrogant and insulting, I also find him fun to be around. In all of your fantardism, you actually accused me of finding him to be "beneath me", when really I'd simply just like to knock him down a peg from being self servingly indulgent in his over confidence. When he's not being a fucking dick, hell, sometimes even when he is being a fucking dick, I do like getting insight into what he knows when he's willing to explain it. I know he knows more than I do, and that I can learn from, but when it comes down to it, he makes the same shitty mistakes we all do, so when I see him sucking his metaphorical dick in public, I'm going to remind him of that, and I'm calling him out on it - that shit's gross, even if realisticly it's just him stroking his own ego.
And by limited imagination, I meant creatively. When I "imagine" shit, it tends to lead to some creative things like artwork, stories, video game ideas, new takes on modern weaponry and invention ideas (wish I had money to create and market this stuff), not JUST the virtual equivalent of pornography for the ego. And even if or when I do do such things (and we all do it, unless you're not fucking human or you're defective), I don't make a habit out of sharing it with everybody.
Now go back to worshiping him........over there *points to the horizon*
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
mjranum In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-02 22:01:26 +0000 UTC]
I'd simply just like to knock him down a peg from being self servingly indulgent in his over confidence.
Then you should be working on your game, not pissing and moaning. Because, with what you're bringing, the only way you're going to "knock me down a peg" is if you put me to sleep from boredom and manage to make some telling argument that I overlook.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to mjranum [2012-11-18 16:51:24 +0000 UTC]
Time gets away so easily these days....
Then you should be working on your game, not pissing and moaning.
My bad, I tend to like to offer an equivalent amount of what others put forth (at least to my scale anyway, I'm not going to attempt to dork down to gurudom any time soon), and seeing as how this article is nothing more than pissing and moaning over the fact that the guys who's dicks you'd rather suck aren't getting as much play as a deserving great philosopher such as Jesus, I am returning that which is little to work with. Sorry
It may be too late for them, but maybe one day the idea that attempting to force (stating it this way for your sake) the head Admin of reality under our (human) limited understanding of the universe and it's limitations just might be a retarded mistake. Not believing is one thing, but to entertain the idea with such a limited practical - by practical I mean earthly - view of the subject, while claiming to be in support of scientific examination, which adheres to the reality that contradicting discoveries/occurrences do exist, comes off as just as deluded, biased, and self satisfying as any religious fundie anyone's ever met.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mjranum In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-11-18 22:37:05 +0000 UTC]
I'm not going to attempt to dork down to gurudom any time soon
That's obvious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EchoedLight In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-02 21:59:15 +0000 UTC]
Awww you are almost cute. I am not a fan just as I am not a fan of any other member of my family....they are just that..family. I have never known Marcus be unwilling to explain what he knows unless his audience is just a fucktard.
As far as creative imagination goes.....ummm yeah, having been personal witness to lots of his creative imagination in a wide variety of mediums, there is no one I know who has a greater one than Marcus.
I don't worship anyone, either man or cute little pretend gods. I also don't make excuses or blow hard at people I am desparately jealous over. It's okay though that you want to grow up to be like Marcus. I just want to be there to watch if you ever get the chance to actually meet him in person and spout off. That would be fun to see!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to EchoedLight [2012-11-18 17:07:00 +0000 UTC]
Extremely late response:
I am not a fan just as I am not a fan of any other member of my family.
So you say :\
I have never known Marcus be unwilling to explain what he knows unless his audience is just a fucktard.
So you admit that he forfeits his arguments when he considers his opponent dumb. Well, considering he attempts to take "wins" off of people who do the same to him.....
As far as creative imagination goes.....ummm yeah, having been personal witness to lots of his creative imagination in a wide variety of mediums, there is no one I know who has a greater one than Marcus.
Oh, do provide me some examples of some this "creativity" you see in him. No, seriously, I'll review it without bias. Right now, I have this shitty journal, pictures of women with lampshades on their head, and pictures of someone in camouflage in obviously conspicuous locations attempting in horrible vain at humor. I get that it's so poorly humorous that it's supposed to be funny, but even that is done pretty piss poorly.
I don't worship anyone, either man or cute little pretend gods.
So you worship yourself. Congratulations, you're stomach is full of your own ejaculate.
It's okay though that you want to grow up to be like Marcus.
What, some photographer (easiest "art form ever" by the way) with a highly inflated ego, taunting religious fanatics and then listing my own address on my website in hopes to back up my own words whenever someone wants to hold me accountable for anything I say (totally brilliant, this guy's unbelievably lucky), living alone in the woods somewhere stroking a Steyr rifle as if it'll be enough to protect me from the crazies if they come to hunt me? Yeah, okay. I totally just can't find fault with his personality and point it out in just as harshly a manner as his sharp tongue speaks to others, eh?
I just want to be there to watch if you ever get the chance to actually meet him in person and spout off.
Well, according to you, apparently he'll just walk the fuck off as soon as he makes up his mind about me so there's really no need for that, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 13:13:31 +0000 UTC]
Oh shit..... While I would side with you on the whole theology vs atheism bit, a few of those points are pretty poor. The pornography and possibly the wealth bits. The pornography bit for certain because there's two parties involved, they'd both be "objectified", and the wealth bit because of cause and effect. There's always a bad for every good, or a loss for every gain, so all wealth comes at the expense of others. Though I would agree that accumulating more wealth than you or your descendants could ever spend in their lifetime and sitting there hording it could be considered sinful/deplorable.
You did, however, hit the nail on the head about him speaking to his followers of like mind only to indulge himself in an obviously biased, erroneous, and limited fashion. Granting him that he risen from the dead after being crucified, it would mean that he had 2000+ years to gain the knowledge and wisdom needed to answer these types of questions, provided he didn't have them before. Ranum also speaks as if he knows absolutely that such a thing would be pestering or bothering Jesus/God to answer, exposing the true motives behind most of his aggressively vocal nature towards theists, and the reason for this post. He also shows a lack of understanding when it comes to such a supreme being's ownership and status in regards to his/her/it's creations. Fine, we get it, you don't believe in it, but you can at least conceive the thing and address it correctly, it being the one thing that can truly enforce an expedient upon you and be correct. In a world without God or a God, the majority, wealthy, or those more advanced in destruction rule, and the significance that one gives to life can be taken away by the tiniest little "insignificant" thing, not to mention another's will or significance of their life. God being there, If he were to say "because I said so", not saying that he would despite that not mattering, if someone were to object to that, he could ignore, pull rank, or whatever he so desires against such an aggressive inquiry. And if he wanted to show his own kind of aggression towards the matter, I'm pretty sure we'd see the LIMITS of Socrates' willingness to not back down from pestering a God.
All of this is useless anyway, as having engaged him in previous arguments, one thing holds true in that we can only speak upon this subject with human understanding. How brazenly ignorant to assume he'd know the complexity of a supreme being's thought processes, or could even fathom or understand the full answer that he was looking for from it. "You ever try explaining yourself to a roach?" - not quite so accurate quote from the Mothman Prophecy, while on my search for a good horror flick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Starcraftor In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-02 14:31:37 +0000 UTC]
In order for it to be objectively and necessarily true that your gain must come at someone else's loss, it must also be objectively and necessarily true that there is a limited amount of wealth to be had in the world, which is a dubious claim at best, given the ever-increasing amount of currency in circulation (whether it ought to be or not actually falls under economics, of which I don't know very much).
You're right that my pornography point was the weakest, as it's a considerably more complicated issue than I made it seem (as you pointed out). Still that's a simple and correct - though, truly, incomplete - way to think of it.
You've also projected a considerable amount onto my opening invitation. I'm not trying to belittle MJRanum's points in the slightest or make an ad hominem attack as you seem so very eager to do. I'm only interested in dealing with dispelling false understandings and ridiculous assumptions, not attacking someoone who just doesn't seem to have the same set of information at hand as I do. You sound more interested in defaming Mr. Ranum than you are in the defense of truth, which is more likely to draw ire and beratings than respect or even agreement with your points.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Starcraftor [2012-10-02 17:04:37 +0000 UTC]
Actually, some of that came off wrong and I had a little bit of confusion/misconception going on when typing that. Take that into consideration when reading the previous reply.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Shen-fn-Woo [2012-10-02 17:31:05 +0000 UTC]
Like for example, where I imply that we shouldn't question God, that's an accident. I was just saying in the case of "bcuz I said so" regarding moral matters, it would still suffice as an answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shen-fn-Woo In reply to Starcraftor [2012-10-02 16:55:57 +0000 UTC]
Yes, it would. And yes, it is true. The resources of planet Earth are finite. Any scientist will tell you that. Anyone who's interest lies in the real world will tell you that. If someone had something before, and had to give it up to get something else that will last a shorter time (food) than the thing they gave up (money), one could still say that they have lost, especially since market prices are always more than what the item is actually worth. I understand what you're getting at, but thinking on such a grand scale is impractical for those that are on the have not scale of the equation, and an excuse for those on the other end. I could also argue that mugging "your rich ass" and providing for everyone in the poor town is making up for the wrong I've done you.
I don't think that it's necessarily complicated, it's just another complexity that humans have made out of a simple matter. If we didn't think that sex was such a sacred/immoral thing, STD's aside, I think that a lot of people who were "raped" wouldn't suffer such psychological trauma, and pedophilia would be less looked down upon not to mention would have a greatly reduced incentive to occur to begin with - due to a., rape in general being reduced, and b. people not giving so much of a shit. Sex/Pornography is only a big issue if we make it that way, otherwise it's just two or more people doing it and/or filming it, and other's buying it to get into the mood to do the same. Porn doesn't necessarily mean that anyone's going to go out and do anything, and if they do go out and do something, it was their intention and responsibility anyway. I'll not blame an object or concept for a person's bad decisions.
Here's the problem I have with fallacies, as "ad hominem" seems to be listed as - unless you're going to point out what exactly I said that falls under that, and THEN list it as said fallacy, it only serves the purpose of becoming an expedient, or means to the improper end of further discussion down that route - I'm only even mentioning this because this is all I ever see people do. Now I've heard it used before in conversations I've read between people, but I don't see where anything I've said about him doesn't actually apply. I've merely stated that I think his subject matter is a joke. Not helping is his constant indulgence in his own musings, coupled with his "sic'em boy" guard dog reactions towards the entirety of any group said to have had half or even a fraction of it done wrongdoings in the past - i.e. "Islamic people involved in anti American sentiment, killing ambassadors? ALL of islam to blame. Let's get 'em!" which to me equates to "see that guy over there Rover? He bad cuz he islam. Grrrr. We hate that guy." It shows the same kind of consideration the Chinese are giving the Japs over the bullshit that happened during WWII - most if not all of the people responsible for the war crimes are dead and gone, and you're only helping to continue bullshit....for what, pride? It's just stupidly inexcusable.
His points are as every bit as assinine as what he thinks he's talking about - let's see how philosophical he'd get if he had uncooperative kids or pets capable of human intellect and conversation. Then we'd get e-journals and blogs about HIM and the family sitting around the table in deep discussion.
He has acknowledged the reply of another person who pretty much stated that because of history, langauge barriers and human interference that Christians can't necessarily have reason to believe in it. If you can acknowledge that, why are you even belittling a guy who may not have done anything like that at all? Surely didn't mention that in his reply to him - need any more evidence that people won't correct or point out mistakes with people who agree with them?
not attacking someoone who just doesn't seem to have the same set of information at hand as I do.
You know Mjranum is the person you're defending right? He does that all the time.
You sound more interested in defaming Mr. Ranum than you are in the defense of truth,
Bullshit. I wouldn't be here if I didn't find SOMETHING wrong with what he's saying. I have this annoying (to me) trait of wanting to correct problems that I see wrong with what people are saying. The logic baffles me at every turn - isn't it agreed upon in the scientific community that if there is an ultimate origin to the universe, it would have to be either two forces in direct opposition or something would have to have "just always been"? Where would those philosophers even begin to start comprehending the explanation given to explain how one has "always been" providing that's the case? If he says so, then he says so - how can you put yourself on level with the grand creator and think it valid? You can have your opinions, sure, but in the end, they're insignificant. How do you know if you lived before? You ever put yourself into a story you're making, or a video game, kill them off, and then bring them back? Questions that seem like they don't need to be asked because of information we don't friggin' have. Presuming Jesus was just some normal guy, then sure, have at it. Still seems unnecessary, you might as well ask why certain people are famous yet have little talent (or why those ancient greeks were interested in sleeping with kids yet aren't regarded with equal amounts of scorn despite all they've provided). Sucks, sure, but there ain't shit you can do about it.
which is more likely to draw ire and beratings than respect or even agreement with your points.
I'd never get his respect anyway, just because I'm religious. Not that I care. People act like because a message is negative and insulting, there's absolutely no good in it whatsoever. If I can take the good of what he said into account, despite being a dorky asshole towards me, then I'm pretty sure he and anyone else can do the same with what I'm saying, rather than get distracted by the metaphorical rubber ducky that are the insults and negativity of my replies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Melorion In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 09:34:22 +0000 UTC]
My morning started off good, it just got upgraded to great
as I use to say: Being religious is admitting to not think for one self.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Melorion In reply to mistress-linguist [2012-10-04 17:18:12 +0000 UTC]
thank you
Here's a quote I think is awesome by Stephen Roberts, database architect
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tiberius47 [2012-10-02 06:49:42 +0000 UTC]
I love those nutcases who claim to be gods, or channels through which we can communicate with advanced alien civilizations.
Of course, when you ask them if people should be nice to each other, they say, "Oh yes," and other such heart warming stuff. But when you ask them to prove the Poincare Conjecture, they're always at a loss for words. And I for one would assume that a god or advanced alien civilization could answer that question!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mjranum In reply to Tiberius47 [2012-10-02 11:04:16 +0000 UTC]
And I for one would assume that a god or advanced alien civilization could answer that question!
I'd settle for a cheap and safe fusion power system!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
drrocket In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 03:43:37 +0000 UTC]
Bruces' Philosophers Song by Monty Python
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And René Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
drrocket In reply to mjranum [2012-10-02 04:01:44 +0000 UTC]
Geez, I can't imagine how in the world I missed that one Oh wait, I'll bet it aired the day I changed my major from Philosophy to Electrical Engineering...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mjranum In reply to drrocket [2012-10-02 04:08:52 +0000 UTC]
The best part about it is all the hidden references in it. The pythons knew their shit!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
drrocket In reply to mjranum [2012-10-02 04:35:56 +0000 UTC]
One of them, don't recall who at the mo' has his PhD in Medieval Studies and has produced a number of DVDs for the History Channelon The
Both Terry Jones and Michael Palin attended Oxford; Jones graduating with a degree in History with particular expertise in Medieval History. Quite well educated, the lot of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
drrocket In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 02:52:12 +0000 UTC]
Bravisimo,Marcus! Although not quite as succint as Russell's Teapot, I would assert that you have, once again,hit the nail on the head.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
jacktheabyssinian In reply to drrocket [2012-10-02 20:34:19 +0000 UTC]
I reach to the stars. And I get tea and spaghetti.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
drrocket In reply to jacktheabyssinian [2012-10-02 21:31:50 +0000 UTC]
"I'm off to Camelot. Oh, never mind, it is a silly place".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mjranum In reply to drrocket [2012-10-02 03:16:42 +0000 UTC]
I could never hope to be as succinct as Russell, though I believe I've been clearer than Hegel. Set low goals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pelicanh In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 02:36:51 +0000 UTC]
PS YOU are a goddamn genius, my friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pelicanh In reply to ??? [2012-10-02 02:33:57 +0000 UTC]
Geeeez.... don't get me started on religion....AGAIN!! lol
Pretty much the entire Bible is laughable unless looked at as a nice fairly tale.
One note is that Jesus never wrote anything down (if he could write) and all that was written was penned at least 40-60 years AFTER he died. Plus Jesus spoke Aramaic, which was translated into Greek, which was translated into English....uh....ok. Or - as one author put it....
"we are trusting a specific group of men whom we probably know nothing about, to tell us what their best guess is at the meaning of the story that John wrote in Greek, about what he heard that Jesus spoke in Aramaic."
BUT...my favorite quote:
Chrisitanity
The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
Yea - makes perfect sense
LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>