Page 5 of 13 [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

17 Jun 2009, 11:08 pm

claire333 wrote:
No need for sorry; interesting statements. You keep preaching, I will keep singing. :D

Lol, with gauze in your ears ;)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Jun 2009, 9:47 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

The other downside though, you do have more people who are willing to do what they want, take what they want, ---- anyone over for anything, and it means that all the people around them almost necessarily have to coarsen, have the capacities to take them down (I notice what kind of craze we see these days with brazilian ju jitsu, muay tai, all the UFC stuff - its no wonder). Its all pretty heavily coded into human nature and it seems like the human condition itself has rather rigid mechanisms.


We are Hominid version 4.0. The smartest, baddest Primates in the Zoo.

ruveyn



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

18 Jun 2009, 3:20 pm

Yes we are some badass primates. I will go out on a limb and say that aspies in particular are the most badass of all. Of course, most will abandon their originality for the sake of acceptance, I for one hold that real truth resides in our essence. To know oneself and to look after one's soul is probably the most noble task we will undertake during this lifetime.

If the alien idea is true, then I would say that we are here because they are trying to make empty vessels. All of this talk of truth in the eyes of logic will not stand a chance unless we empower ourselves with a sense of individual self assurance which goes against the grain. I already see how people on PPR go against mainstream thought. It gives me hope for humanity. If we, are so "f****d up in the head" can reason and defy doctrines so powerful, we can also come to trust in our own importance. Our inner experiences are not mere delusions, but memory of an ideal from which we came.

As Mary Shelly wrote in Frankenstein, "Nothing is so much learned, as it is remembered."

While it is true that nature is cruel, it is even more poignant that nature is lazy. It will not fight our spirit because there are too many empty vessels which "evil" can undertake. Let them be. Who are they anyways? "They" the authorities of this world are just a bunch of elitists who thrive on suffering. They cling to something that will never last forever. Therefore, "They" don't really exist and so they dwell in pain and futility.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

18 Jun 2009, 3:45 pm

Henriksson wrote:
'Good' and 'Evil' are meaningless words, because what one person views as good, is evil to another.


Does that not mean that they have meanings, but prescriptive meanings (to dig into my memory of meta-ethical doctrines)?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

18 Jun 2009, 3:50 pm

Henriksson wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
'Good' and 'Evil' are meaningless words, because what one person views as good, is evil to another.


"Just because we don't know what the right answer is, doesn't mean there isn't one." ~Gregory House

It does mean there is one, either. What basis could the concept of 'good' have in reality, besides being a convenient guide for humans?


Limiting the total suffering endured in the world, for one thing.

Last time I checked, not being able to feel pain is a pretty serious disorder.


Purely do to its function: to act as an indicator of when one out to get out of a situation due to the high probability that it will cause long-term damage. Pain exists to be limited.

Desiring pain is also a serious disorder.



MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

18 Jun 2009, 4:57 pm

Henriksson wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
Well, I remember a while back, there was a debate about global warming on a poker forum I used to frequent. One of the users came up with this idea to the flooding of coastal regions: Stop building cities near the coast.

Er... you know that there is a reason for major population centers to be near the coast, right? Even today, trading by sea is much better than anything else, since ships can carry lots of cargo across due to the properties of water, and to many more places, too. It's the life blood of civilization. It would be much better to investigate the causes of the rise of flooding, mainly Global Warming, BTW.


And if trade by sea is that important to you that you feel the need to live by the sea, then that is your choice. You take that risk willingly.

Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
The same can be said of things like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. There are places that these things are frequently found, and if you move to those places, you are taking that risk to live there.

You are aware that the majority of the world's inhabitants really can't move to other places at will, do you? It seems utterly unrealistic.


Not necessarily at will, but nobody is stuck wherever they are, or at least very few people.

Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
The same can be said of sickness, generally (most infectious diseases are passed through types of physical contact that are unnecessary). Cancer is believed, by Chinese doctors, to be caused by an inbalance in one's self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Aboutcan ... ergenetics

Who are these 'Chinese doctors' you speak of?


Well, that's why I edited out of my post. I'm not really prepared to go searching for the information necessary to back this up. However, I do have this link to provide you. This is actually the way that Chinese doctors thought was the best way to prevent what we call cancer. This is from way back when, and they are not considered doctors by Western medicine. Because the rest of the body was out of balance with the immune system, cancer was allowed to take over.

As far as genetic disorders? Not always as big of a deal as people tend to make them out to be. Considerable amounts comes from envy, for example. "Other people can do this. Why can't I?" Be happy with what you have. Believe it or not, you don't need to be able to walk to be happy, for example. However, people qualify their happiness. "I will be happy if, and only if, x is true. If that's true, then I'll be happy if, and only if, y is true..." And it continues. It's because people qualify their happiness that makes them unhappy, because there's always something more that they'll want.


_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

18 Jun 2009, 5:29 pm

MrLoony wrote:
As far as genetic disorders? Not always as big of a deal as people tend to make them out to be.

Contented humans purchased at the expense of even one person subjected to extraordinary suffering calls into question the plausibility of the idea that the universe is just. One child with Tay-Sachs (or Harlequin type Ichthyosis or IDK something whatever) refutes the idea that the world is a just place with respect to humans; further, that one child certainly calls into question whether the Creator is both "God" and benevolent because we might reason that any being worthy of the term "God" should if it so chose be able to create the world minus that one suffering being. If the human being is wired to 9 times out of 10 suffer under X circumstances, then is not the Creator at fault if it creates the beings which may suffer and then plunges them into the circumstances virtually guaranteeing it?

God would have foreseen the consequences of its actions. If it created a world where it knew there would be some limited and determined being which would subjectively experience suffering, then God is responsible for the suffering is it not? To bring about suffering is evil, people are not responsible for the inputs dictating their behavior and decision making processes so that the world determines the existence of the suffering, so that if it were logically possible for the world to exist minus the suffering then God is evil. Your arguments have addressed nothing of the brute fact that suffering exists, and people are (essentially) deterministic so that any God knew exactly what it was creating. If God created suffering, how shall we justify Him?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

18 Jun 2009, 5:38 pm

twoshots wrote:
God would have foreseen the consequences of its actions. If it created a world where it knew there would be some limited and determined being which would subjectively experience suffering, then God is responsible for the suffering is it not? To bring about suffering is evil, people are not responsible for the inputs dictating their behavior and decision making processes so that the world determines the existence of the suffering, so that if it were logically possible for the world to exist minus the suffering then God is evil. Your arguments have addressed nothing of the brute fact that suffering exists, and people are (essentially) deterministic so that any God knew exactly what it was creating. If God created suffering, how shall we justify Him?


I tend to think there may well be some weight and merit in the metaphysical suggestion that we have a broader life - and then we have many sort of micro-lives within it. Microlives are, pretty much existences on a planet like this as it is with no knowledge. The theodacy is explained that if its all ok in the end and the worst that can happen is you sufferer a lot before you die and go back; it denotes that our state only means a lot while we're here (and there's the argument that this is just an integrity-builder).

Really in that perspective, life on Earth is kinda like the bowl of wet getting passed around the party where about six billion people right now at least were crazy enough to hit it.



MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

18 Jun 2009, 5:40 pm

Wiring changes, and that's why people feel that they're suffering when they should not be. People are naturally accepting of the things that they have in life. Who is happier with what they have than a child who has not been told that they "deserve" or "should have" these other things?

And, for the record, I already addressed your issue of suffering existing meaning that God is evil. First it is because of the fact that people allow themselves to not be as they once were, to not be happy with what they have. Second, just because God is not good does not mean that God is necessarily evil. This assumption boggles my mind. There is no logic in it. There is an in-between, and, as has been said, it makes more sense than either extreme.


_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

18 Jun 2009, 5:59 pm

I can give examples of Jesus telling the apostles about genetic disorders being caused by our will in the reincarnation process. But, my C key is all jacked up and it's very annoying typing here. However, I like what y'all have to say. Nobody has touched on the alien hypothesis yet.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

18 Jun 2009, 6:03 pm

MrLoony wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
Well, I remember a while back, there was a debate about global warming on a poker forum I used to frequent. One of the users came up with this idea to the flooding of coastal regions: Stop building cities near the coast.

Er... you know that there is a reason for major population centers to be near the coast, right? Even today, trading by sea is much better than anything else, since ships can carry lots of cargo across due to the properties of water, and to many more places, too. It's the life blood of civilization. It would be much better to investigate the causes of the rise of flooding, mainly Global Warming, BTW.

And if trade by sea is that important to you that you feel the need to live by the sea, then that is your choice. You take that risk willingly.

The issue was not whether I live by the sea (which I don't) but whether all the people who live by the sea should move inland, which to me seems silly, if not ridiculous.

It's like solving the transportation problem by insinuating that all people should walk to wherever they're heading. It's much safer than driving a car, you know!

Quote:
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
The same can be said of things like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. There are places that these things are frequently found, and if you move to those places, you are taking that risk to live there.

You are aware that the majority of the world's inhabitants really can't move to other places at will, do you? It seems utterly unrealistic.

Not necessarily at will, but nobody is stuck wherever they are, or at least very few people.

I'm not going to go into the whole socio-economical thing today (a lot of people are obliged to live where they are born) but even if it's only 'very few people' your whole argument falls apart.

Quote:
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
The same can be said of sickness, generally (most infectious diseases are passed through types of physical contact that are unnecessary). Cancer is believed, by Chinese doctors, to be caused by an inbalance in one's self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Aboutcan ... ergenetics

Who are these 'Chinese doctors' you speak of?


Well, that's why I edited out of my post. I'm not really prepared to go searching for the information necessary to back this up. However, I do have this link to provide you. This is actually the way that Chinese doctors thought was the best way to prevent what we call cancer. This is from way back when, and they are not considered doctors by Western medicine. Because the rest of the body was out of balance with the immune system, cancer was allowed to take over.

And if people can't afford these therapies, or can afford but do not have access to it, or are forbidden to do it?

Quote:
As far as genetic disorders? Not always as big of a deal as people tend to make them out to be. Considerable amounts comes from envy, for example. "Other people can do this. Why can't I?" Be happy with what you have. Believe it or not, you don't need to be able to walk to be happy, for example. However, people qualify their happiness. "I will be happy if, and only if, x is true. If that's true, then I'll be happy if, and only if, y is true..." And it continues. It's because people qualify their happiness that makes them unhappy, because there's always something more that they'll want.


I'll quote twoshots:

twoshots wrote:
Contented humans purchased at the expense of even one person subjected to extraordinary suffering calls into question the plausibility of the idea that the universe is just. One child with Tay-Sachs (or Harlequin type Ichthyosis or IDK something whatever) refutes the idea that the world is a just place with respect to humans; further, that one child certainly calls into question whether the Creator is both "God" and benevolent because we might reason that any being worthy of the term "God" should if it so chose be able to create the world minus that one suffering being. If the human being is wired to 9 times out of 10 suffer under X circumstances, then is not the Creator at fault if it creates the beings which may suffer and then plunges them into the circumstances virtually guaranteeing it?

God would have foreseen the consequences of its actions. If it created a world where it knew there would be some limited and determined being which would subjectively experience suffering, then God is responsible for the suffering is it not? To bring about suffering is evil, people are not responsible for the inputs dictating their behavior and decision making processes so that the world determines the existence of the suffering, so that if it were logically possible for the world to exist minus the suffering then God is evil. Your arguments have addressed nothing of the brute fact that suffering exists, and people are (essentially) deterministic so that any God knew exactly what it was creating. If God created suffering, how shall we justify Him?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Last edited by Henriksson on 18 Jun 2009, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

18 Jun 2009, 6:08 pm

Magnus wrote:
Nobody has touched on the alien hypothesis yet.
The transhumanism thread just made me think of it, but I have always found that subject to be somehow unsettling and never much cared for the notion. We do not seem to really belong here though, do we?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

18 Jun 2009, 6:10 pm

MrLoony wrote:
And, for the record, I already addressed your issue of suffering existing meaning that God is evil. First it is because of the fact that people allow themselves to not be as they once were, to not be happy with what they have.

That does not address the issue. I reject anything that tastes even slightly like a free will justification on the grounds that free will is bunkum. It makes no sense from an objective standpoint; God knew what was going to happen when He created it (else he is a demiurge, not God), so He knew there would be suffering. God created the suffering, people just did what they do.
Quote:
Second, just because God is not good does not mean that God is necessarily evil. This assumption boggles my mind. There is no logic in it. There is an in-between, and, as has been said, it makes more sense than either extreme.

I'm rather less than convinced that God *can* be neutral. Possessing perfect knowledge and power implies that nothing happens which God does not will. Evil happens, hence God willed evil. He may not be actively malicious, but at the least He's morally bankrupt.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

18 Jun 2009, 8:55 pm

I think that God allows evil to exist in the world, but I don't believe that God created evil, since evil is not a created thing or object; that is to say, evil cannot exist on its own.

I think evil is the deviation from God's will. Mankind has the free choice to do good or to do bad, and I believe it's mankind's choice to do bad that causes evil, not God.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

18 Jun 2009, 9:36 pm

JetLag wrote:
I think that God allows evil to exist in the world, but I don't believe that God created evil, since evil is not a created thing or object; that is to say, evil cannot exist on its own.

I think evil is the deviation from God's will. Mankind has the free choice to do good or to do bad, and I believe it's mankind's choice to do bad that causes evil, not God.

How can something deviate from a diety's will, if that diety is both omnipotent and omniscient?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

18 Jun 2009, 9:51 pm

twoshots wrote:
I'm rather less than convinced that God *can* be neutral. Possessing perfect knowledge and power implies that nothing happens which God does not will. Evil happens, hence God willed evil. He may not be actively malicious, but at the least He's morally bankrupt.
Your post made me think of Magnus' earlier use of the word indifferent. I guess it could be possible a being so above us would be far enough removed from our suffering and evil to be apathetic. I mean, within the scope of the entire universe, what would our problems amount to? Gotta' go...thinking about the universe makes me feel really tiny...