Ian Butler wrote:
I agree that you won't convince a lot of people. But that shouldn't be the goal of the discussion. It should be more about learning other points of views. Understanding and respecting other opinions rather than tell them they're stupid and force your opinion on the other one.
So, what about the opinions that don't deserve respect?
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ian Butler wrote:
What doesn't go for me, is that people are dying all over Syria. People like you and me, regular Joe's. They didn't want any war, but they're the one paying the price of two camps fighting. The rebels fight the government, but who loses: mothers, kids, babies. They didn't ask for it.
Meanwhile, the UN talk about writing a piece of paper, to try to tell the president of Syria that maybe he isn't doing the best job, and maybe he should stop killing his people.
Then there was "peace". The UN sends in people to check to "peace" out, but they can't go to certain places because it's not safe, just been bombed. Hmmm, maybe the "peace" isn't working. Took them a while to figure that out...
"Regular Joe's better be killed by their own people than be saved by foreigners" thinks China.
"Better kill Regular Joes than Russian business" think the Russians.
"It'd be better if Syrians did business with us instead of Russia or China" think our governments (or am I being excessively cynical ?).
Let's face it : what awaits Syrian people ?
Probably they'll keep getting randomly killed by dozens every day by Assad's troops for many more weeks or months.
One possibility is that Assad will win this case, although it's unlikely, and it'll be a SSDD situation, or even a worst shit actually.
Another is that the rebels win. Then two more possibilities : at best (or so "we" think), it'll only be Sunnite conservators that'll rule the country. At worst it'll be some extremists that'll rule it. Not sure it's so much better for the Regular Joes. Especially if Sunnites people seek revenge upon other minorities.
Of course the priority should be to stop violences there, but then what ? Nobody has a serious, realistic and valuable answer to that one.
Edited by Aquarius on 12-09-2012 22:55
Ian Butler wrote:
What doesn't go for me, is that people are dying all over Syria. People like you and me, regular Joe's. They didn't want any war, but they're the one paying the price of two camps fighting. The rebels fight the government, but who loses: mothers, kids, babies. They didn't ask for it.
Meanwhile, the UN talk about writing a piece of paper, to try to tell the president of Syria that maybe he isn't doing the best job, and maybe he should stop killing his people.
Then there was "peace". The UN sends in people to check to "peace" out, but they can't go to certain places because it's not safe, just been bombed. Hmmm, maybe the "peace" isn't working. Took them a while to figure that out...
"Regular Joe's better be killed by their own people than be saved by foreigners" thinks China.
"Better kill Regular Joes than Russian business" think the Russians.
"It'd be better if Syrians did business with us instead of Russia or China" think our governments (or am I being excessively cynical ?).
Let's face it : what awaits Syrian people ?
Probably they'll keep getting randomly killed by dozens every day by Assad's troops for many more weeks or months.
One possibility is that Assad will win this case, although it's unlikely, and it'll be a SSDD situation, or even a worst shit actually.
Another is that the rebels win. Then two more possibilities : at best (or so "we" think), it'll only be Sunnite conservators that'll rule the country. At worst it'll be some extremists that'll rule it. Not sure it's so much better for the Regular Joes. Especially if Sunnites people seek revenge upon other minorities.
Of course the priority should be to stop violences there, but then what ? Nobody has a serious, realistic and valuable answer to that one.
Amen And the same answer goes for many, many other countries, unfortunately...
CrueTrue wrote:
I can argue as much as I like. I'm not going to get any of the religious people in here to realise that there's no such thing as a big white-bearded man op in the sky.
So in some sense, it's kinda useless to discuss.
There is zero proof that there is no "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
There is zero proof that there is a "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
But i agree it´s useless to discuss something based on believe and not on facts.
If Crommy's link weren't enough, let me try this:
There is zero proof that there is no Santa Claus at the North Pole.
There is zero proof that there is a Santa Claus at the North Pole.
It's flawed logic. If I claim something exists, I'd have to make it probable. I can't just tell others to prove that what I'm claiming isn't true.
But as I said, I can't be bothered to discuss neither wars nor religion.
I think answers become easier when you think "who needs God ?" or "Why would anybody need a God ?".
I must quote Albert Camus from memory here :
"I'd rather live as if there is a God, and die finding out there's none than living as if there was none and finding out there's one." (one shall be good, no matter what, and risk not being rewarded, rather than being mean and paying for it ).
"I'm not interested in religions. They lack a real problematic, and give all answers at once".
"Don't wait for the Judgement Day, it comes every day" (live for this life, not for what you might or might not find in a hypothetical other world).
Although I arguably fail to be good to my next one, I reckon I mostly agree with him.
I believe in God, but I don't believe in the church and most parts of the bible.
I really don't know why I believe. I'm scientificaly educated (universitary), and tend not to believe anything untill it is proven. But I still believe in God. But I will never try to convert the minds and thoughts of "non-believers", as no-one did with me.
So believing in God is a strange thing, you do or you don't. And I really don't think that non-believers go to hell, as I think that God will call all then. Oh, and I totally hate people that take abuse of their religion (mine is better than yours, you don't believe so I'll kill you), also that all religions are based upon the same principal (God is Allah is Budah etcetera).
CrueTrue wrote:
I can argue as much as I like. I'm not going to get any of the religious people in here to realise that there's no such thing as a big white-bearded man op in the sky.
So in some sense, it's kinda useless to discuss.
There is zero proof that there is no "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
There is zero proof that there is a "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
But i agree it´s useless to discuss something based on believe and not on facts.
If Crommy's link weren't enough, let me try this:
There is zero proof that there is no Santa Claus at the North Pole.
There is zero proof that there is a Santa Claus at the North Pole.
It's flawed logic. If I claim something exists, I'd have to make it probable. I can't just tell others to prove that what I'm claiming isn't true.
But as I said, I can't be bothered to discuss neither wars nor religion.
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
I was telling myself I wasn't going to get involved in this, but fuck it, I'm already at a college with a bunch of liberals, so what's wrong with arguing with a few more?
One important point. As everyone knows I am Jewish and a huge supporter of Israel. I'm sure most you aren't. That's fine. There are perfectly valid reasons to not support Israel, but there are also perfectly invalid reasons to not support Israel, and I will argue with the latter. But because this happened the last time an Israel discussion came up. Israel's existence is due to 3500 years of continual prosecution, racism, and murder propagated on the Jewish people by the Philistines, the Inquisition, the Cossacks, the French (here's looking at you Dreyfus), and countless, countless others. However, the final act, the one that ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state, was the Holocaust. So let me make one thing explicitly clear. I fully agree with Godwin's Law, but if anyone, and I mean anyone, pulls it out during a discussion of Israel, or, frankly, any other discussion of WWII, or any other place where it is perfectly valid to bring up the Nazi's, then you will officially be declared the biggest fucking asshole ever. Godwin's Law applies to bringing up the Nazi's in situations such as the following:
Person A: Obama's healthcare system is for the good of the masses.
Person B: Yeah, that's something Hitler would say.
Rant over.
As for the question of religion, I am an atheist, and consider the idea of a god ridiculous as well. However, there is a very, very, large difference between religion and faith. And here's where I always have issues making myself clear. When people bash institutions like organized religions, they, rightly, bring up all the horrible things that have been done in their name, such as the Crusades. However, they tend to forget a relevant point. Namely, why are the Crusades considered bad? Because humanity has decided on a basic ethical approach to human relations. And where does that approach come from? Religions! Have horrible things been done in the name of religion, yes, and they will continue to be done as such. However do those things outweigh the basic social understanding and structures that have been built by those religions, do they outweigh the role the church (not the Christian church, but in the general sense) has played in giving people moral and psychological balance? I say no. Not at all. I am an atheist and a nihilist, and you probably won't find a stronger defender of religion than I. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and some of the Protestant denominations (not a fan of faith and faith alone will save you) are all, to me, some of the best things humanity has ever created.
Oh, and by the way:
Aquarius wrote:
I decree the Pastafarian religion is superior to the Russel's teapot one, though it's younger.
There is actually a pot that accidentally got ejected from I think Skylab currently orbiting the earth, and so for a good part of the time is between Earth and Mars...
Edited by Deadpool on 13-09-2012 02:02
Ian Butler wrote:
What doesn't go for me, is that people are dying all over Syria. People like you and me, regular Joe's. They didn't want any war, but they're the one paying the price of two camps fighting. The rebels fight the government, but who loses: mothers, kids, babies. They didn't ask for it.
Meanwhile, the UN talk about writing a piece of paper, to try to tell the president of Syria that maybe he isn't doing the best job, and maybe he should stop killing his people.
Then there was "peace". The UN sends in people to check to "peace" out, but they can't go to certain places because it's not safe, just been bombed. Hmmm, maybe the "peace" isn't working. Took them a while to figure that out...
"Regular Joe's better be killed by their own people than be saved by foreigners" thinks China.
"Better kill Regular Joes than Russian business" think the Russians.
"It'd be better if Syrians did business with us instead of Russia or China" think our governments (or am I being excessively cynical ?).
Let's face it : what awaits Syrian people ?
Probably they'll keep getting randomly killed by dozens every day by Assad's troops for many more weeks or months.
One possibility is that Assad will win this case, although it's unlikely, and it'll be a SSDD situation, or even a worst shit actually.
Another is that the rebels win. Then two more possibilities : at best (or so "we" think), it'll only be Sunnite conservators that'll rule the country. At worst it'll be some extremists that'll rule it. Not sure it's so much better for the Regular Joes. Especially if Sunnites people seek revenge upon other minorities.
Of course the priority should be to stop violences there, but then what ? Nobody has a serious, realistic and valuable answer to that one.
Amen And the same answer goes for many, many other countries, unfortunately...
I agree with this and i am going to say mine i think a bit controversial opinion: Some people does not deserve, or are not able to live in freedom, there are just some parts of the world, especially islamic, that can benefit from dictatorship to some extent. Look at Iraq, look at Egypt, these countries need someone to told them what to do, ot the countries burn in total chaos and fighting of different political and religious groups.
This probably sound extremly harsh, but i see it this way and i also think that internal politics of Syria, are internal politics of Syria (especially because if our "civilized" world will try to bring them our fast-food freedom, it will be because of our profit, not because we want to help them. Now i am talking about super-powers interests like China,Russia, USA, like Aquarius said it nicely). The UN should have been completly different, with different authorities and system of managment, then it could work.
CrueTrue wrote:
I can argue as much as I like. I'm not going to get any of the religious people in here to realise that there's no such thing as a big white-bearded man op in the sky.
So in some sense, it's kinda useless to discuss.
There is zero proof that there is no "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
There is zero proof that there is a "big white-bearded man op in the sky".
But i agree it´s useless to discuss something based on believe and not on facts.
If Crommy's link weren't enough, let me try this:
There is zero proof that there is no Santa Claus at the North Pole.
There is zero proof that there is a Santa Claus at the North Pole.
It's flawed logic. If I claim something exists, I'd have to make it probable. I can't just tell others to prove that what I'm claiming isn't true.
But as I said, I can't be bothered to discuss neither wars nor religion.
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
Free will? I see it as the main driven force of the mankind for ages. My free will is my God to be precise. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are my "favourite" theoretics and i read their books very deeply. You can guess i am not much of an optimist.
felix_29 wrote:
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
I hope any opinion remains relevant whether God's existence is denied or not. Or am I missing something ?
Anyway, there's nothing such as a total freewill in the real world. One always has to deal with constraints. It may be the one of his imagination or education, it may be physical constraints, etc.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I agree with this and i am going to say mine i think a bit controversial opinion: Some people does not deserve, or are not able to live in freedom, there are just some parts of the world, especially islamic, that can benefit from dictatorship to some extent. Look at Iraq, look at Egypt, these countries need someone to told them what to do, ot the countries burn in total chaos and fighting of different political and religious groups.
I have to disagree. However, the countries that have been under dicatatorship so long, mustn't just been given freedom and then be left alone. I just think the world needs to support them to make the transaction. Or else it'll go wrong with the first elections and we have another dictator.
The first thing need to be done is to inform the mass. It's hard for us to imagine because we have access to all this information on the internet, but they know little about some things. So we need to "educate" them, liberate them in mind first, then body. They need to be independent, not relying on dictators which most now do, there I agree with you.
Deadpool wrote:
As for the question of religion, I am an atheist, and consider the idea of a god ridiculous as well. However, there is a very, very, large difference between religion and faith. And here's where I always have issues making myself clear. When people bash institutions like organized religions, they, rightly, bring up all the horrible things that have been done in their name, such as the Crusades. However, they tend to forget a relevant point. Namely, why are the Crusades considered bad? Because humanity has decided on a basic ethical approach to human relations. And where does that approach come from? Religions! Have horrible things been done in the name of religion, yes, and they will continue to be done as such. However do those things outweigh the basic social understanding and structures that have been built by those religions, do they outweigh the role the church (not the Christian church, but in the general sense) has played in giving people moral and psychological balance? I say no. Not at all. I am an atheist and a nihilist, and you probably won't find a stronger defender of religion than I. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and some of the Protestant denominations (not a fan of faith and faith alone will save you) are all, to me, some of the best things humanity has ever created.
While I agree that religion has been, or still is to some extent, very useful as a moral instance, and while I would never deny that it has helped a lot of people as a source of hope and stability, I highly doubt that religion has actually created our morals and values. I have to admit that I don't have too much background knowledge about the history of religion. But it appears to be much more logical (at least to me), that our values developed independently and religion simply adapted them. It is purely theoretical, since religion (or cults) have been present for the entire human history, but I'm very sure that morality did not depend on religion to any time. I mean, values are very useful. The standard of living is always higher in peaceful societies. A healthy social life contributes enormously to a happy life and is hardly achievable if you're a huge asshole with no morals. I hope you see where I'm aiming at.
In other words: I don't deny that religion has played their part in spreading and maybe unifiying our current system of values. But I think their role is highly overrated if you give them full credit for it.
And even if you do: The world, and most societies on it, have changed. Most people's values did as well. The church (as an example for a religious institution) hasn't. In my opinion, some "attitudes" spread by the church (for instance towards HIV or homosexuality) are just plain wrong. And while I usually say "what the hell, people may think what they think", that is not the case if you have such an influence on people and if other people might get harmed by the ideas you spread. Which is the case here. And that isn't excusable, even if you had your good times in the past.
felix_29 wrote:
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
I hope any opinion remains relevant whether God's existence is denied or not. Or am I missing something ?
Anyway, there's nothing such as a total freewill in the real world. One always has to deal with constraints. It may be the one of his imagination or education, it may be physical constraints, etc.
I was asking because i do not understand atheists saying they have a free will (with constraints as you mentioned). If i was an atheist, the only logical answer to that question was "there´s no free will" because a free will and physical laws (even if unknown yet) contradict each other.
I may miss something, so feel free to enlighten me.
felix_29 wrote:
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
I hope any opinion remains relevant whether God's existence is denied or not. Or am I missing something ?
Anyway, there's nothing such as a total freewill in the real world. One always has to deal with constraints. It may be the one of his imagination or education, it may be physical constraints, etc.
I was asking because i do not understand atheists saying they have a free will (with constraints as you mentioned). If i was an atheist, the only logical answer to that question was "there´s no free will" because a free will and physical laws (even if unknown yet) contradict each other.
I may miss something, so feel free to enlighten me.
Well, first of all being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean neglecting everything metaphysical (or does it? I'd say it's mostly reffered to as not believing in any god or god-like creature).
Secondly, as far as I know, science hasn't thoroughly explored the mind and the dynamics of constituting a will. So as far as I'm concerned, I have to rely on my own experiences. And I seem to have a free will. I am confronted with decisions and I seem to be able to decide according to my principals, rational considerations, or sometimes completely visceral.
I mean, I get what you're saying. If there's nothing metaphysical and everything's just a sequence of chemical reactions, it's hard to imagine how the process of an actually free decision is supposed to happen. I have way too little knowledge in the field of neurophysiologics to answer that. But I don't think that a free will and the non-existence of a dietic being exclude each other.
felix_29 wrote:
If you deny the existence of "god" (or a higer power, you get what i mean), what do you think of the freewill?
I hope any opinion remains relevant whether God's existence is denied or not. Or am I missing something ?
Anyway, there's nothing such as a total freewill in the real world. One always has to deal with constraints. It may be the one of his imagination or education, it may be physical constraints, etc.
I was asking because i do not understand atheists saying they have a free will (with constraints as you mentioned). If i was an atheist, the only logical answer to that question was "there´s no free will" because a free will and physical laws (even if unknown yet) contradict each other.
I may miss something, so feel free to enlighten me.
I like how you compare God to free will. Both have no actual evidence, but are still wideley believed in. However your arguments seem to be directed at those atheists that claim that there is no god. It seems to me that the atheists in this thread are agnostc atheists, which simply mean that they don't personally believe in a god due to the lack of evidence, and not that they completely rule out the posssibility. of there being a god.
Saying you don't believe in a god is very differnt from saying there is no god in the same way saying you believe in a god is different from saying there is a god (which in turn is different from saying there is a god and he hates X).
I my view god is inherantly impossible to prove or dissprove. If there is no god then there won't be any evidence for it, and if there is a god (or gods) it operates on a level far beyond human understanding. Humans discussing god would be like dogs discussing nuclear physics; it would get nowhere, but could potentially be interesting.
As far as I understand the concept of god by looking at the history of mankind, it means something like "powers which cannot be explained".
And since there are many people who cannot understand and/or explain certain powers, it is clear that these gods exist and will continue to exist.
That's the problem with religions. Youget all answers at once. Can't explain something ? "That's God will, don't even question it."
Science is very advanced, yet probably very undeveloped so far. There are still so many things in the universe that we can't really explain. But that doesn't mean there won't be a rational explanation for it one of these days (or in a couple of centuries). Just look at any thing that's been discovered in the last decades. One hundred years ago it'd have looked supernatural, so it'd have been evidence of a "superior being", and nowadays it turns out there was nothing supernatural there.
In short : everything that's supernatural right now is not necessarily something that is absolutely supernatural.
And the same answer goes for many, many other countries, unfortunately...
