The Immorality of Respecting the Non-Believers

[sweboy]

So, apparently some people believe in some kind of afterlife. For example, followers of Abrahamic religions believe in heaven and hell. All the non-believers and heathens go to hell, for eternal suffering and endless Ricky Lake reruns. Fortunately though, the believers know how to avoid this and can save people. But isn't it very wrong to not try to convert people?

Let's say there are some people in a boat, heading towards a waterfall. They don't believe it though, so they just keep on going towards the waterfall and a sure death. You know what's going to happen though, and what they need to do to avoid this terrible death. Wouldn't it be terribly unethical to just go "whatever, screw them if they don't want to believe in the waterfall, not my problem"? If you know what they need to do, isn't it your moral obligation to atleast try to convince them and turn them into waterfall believers? At first they will of course dislike you and tell you to respect their non-belief, but surely they will be thankful after you have saved them.

And with the afterlife, it's even more serious, because now we're not just talking about dying in a waterfall, we're talking about freaking eternal suffering. Forget the Holocaust, billions of unbelievers are right now heading straight for hell. This is worse than any atrocity imaginable, but the people who know the truth about how to get to heaven aren't trying to save us. How can for example Christians live with themselves every day knowing about this? They know what needs to be done to stop this, but they do don't it because they want to respect the non-believers. Well personally I'd prefer a bit of disrespect over eternal suffering.

Since this is the Internet I might as well take it one step further and say that the Christian crusades were morally right (ignoring non-religious reasons for them). Sure, they caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering can hardly be compared to the eternal suffering which would have followed if the non-believers were not converted.

So uhm, I urge all believers out there to invade my country and convert me with violence. Discuss.

[MattyBlade]

It's obviously god testing you.

And the correct answer is: Jesus.

[thedeadwalk!]

Replace the waterfall with, let's say, a rampaging chimera.

Hell takes a little more faith than a waterfall.

[GreyHam]

its undoubtable that most people of faith are trying to convert people because they believe it wil save their immortal soul and all that jazz

however

belief is not fact, some beliefs infringe on other peoples, and for that to be a legitimate argument it would require the existence of god - something thats far too controversial.

but good effort though

[UpperDecker]

Yes, another God neverending thread. I really do like these. I myself an agnostic. Something that I don't get is if God hates homosexuals why did he create them?

[GreyHam]

everyone knows gays are just that way to piss god off...

[AmericanWeiner]

anyone heard about the christian groups pushing use gene modification to eradicate homosexuality?

I swear if there isn't some sort of hypocracy here I don't know what it is

[VomitStainedCretin]

anyone heard about the christian groups pushing use gene modification to eradicate homosexuality?

I swear if there isn't some sort of hypocracy here I don't know what it isPlaying God to please God. Free lobotamies for all participants (the only way to truly free your mind and see the light is to let us stick this big needle between your brain hemispheres so you're emotionally retarded).

[Pastorius]

anyone heard about the christian groups pushing use gene modification to eradicate homosexuality?

I swear if there isn't some sort of hypocracy here I don't know what it is

I'm sure they come armed with bound volumes of evidence for genetically transmitted homosexuality.

Genetically transmitted homosexuality.....that's almost an oxymoron!

[spitfirejunky]

Let's say there are some people in a boat, heading towards a waterfall. They don't believe it though, so they just keep on going towards the waterfall and a sure death. You know what's going to happen though, and what they need to do to avoid this terrible death. Wouldn't it be terribly unethical to just go "whatever, screw them if they don't want to believe in the waterfall, not my problem"? If you know what they need to do, isn't it your moral obligation to atleast try to convince them and turn them into waterfall believers? At first they will of course dislike you and tell you to respect their non-belief, but surely they will be thankful after you have saved them.

Not in the slightest.

And with the afterlife, it's even more serious, because now we're not just talking about dying in a waterfall, we're talking about freaking eternal suffering. Forget the Holocaust, billions of unbelievers are right now heading straight for hell. This is worse than any atrocity imaginable, but the people who know the truth about how to get to heaven aren't trying to save us. How can for example Christians live with themselves every day knowing about this? They know what needs to be done to stop this, but they do don't it because they want to respect the non-believers. Well personally I'd prefer a bit of disrespect over eternal suffering.

Since this is the Internet I might as well take it one step further and say that the Christian crusades were morally right (ignoring non-religious reasons for them). Sure, they caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering can hardly be compared to the eternal suffering which would have followed if the non-believers were not converted.

So uhm, I urge all believers out there to invade my country and convert me with violence. Discuss.

The big twist here from your last scenario is that the cause of suffering cannot be observed.

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm sure they come armed with bound volumes of evidence for genetically transmitted homosexuality.

Genetically transmitted homosexuality.....that's almost an oxymoron!

no it was part of an article talking about evidence for genetic predisposition to homosexuality

why would it be an oxymoron?

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

frankly we're just coming to even a basic understanding of sexuality so I don't see how you can scoff at such a crucial part of the puzzle

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

[sweboy]

its undoubtable that most people of faith are trying to convert people because they believe it wil save their immortal soul and all that jazz

however

belief is not fact, some beliefs infringe on other peoples, and for that to be a legitimate argument it would require the existence of god - something thats far too controversial.

but good effort though
For these people, god does exist.
Not in the slightest.

A blind guy is slowly walking towards a cliff - how is it not unethical to just stand by and watch him and not try to save him?
The big twist here from your last scenario is that the cause of suffering cannot be observed.
That's how religion works, belief in something without proof. Even though they can't prove that we're all going to hell, they know it.

[Smokey D]

I once read an argument that said that while only Christians will be saved, other religious people will receive the fruits of their own religion. That is, it is in appropriate to imagine everyone would want saving in Christian terms, but God can and will fulfill their echatological expectations according to what they believe.

It sounds a little wishy washy, so I'll have to dig up the book to do it justice.

[Surtr]

So if you're into Hinduism, and you die. The details that Hinduism says are right, are what applies to you? And then if you're Christian, the details that Christianity says are right, apply to you?

So I'm still going to be laying in the ground when I die?

Dammit.

[Eliminator]

sucks to be you heathen scum

[AmericanWeiner]

hell HAS been described as enternity without god's presence

if all other religions believe in an afterlife away from the christian god's presence...then...well. ha

[Mr. Ron]

sucks to be you heathen scum

anti-skub

[TheDarkHorse]

As some may say based on a few passages, it is the duty of the believer to try and save the lost. However, they may not see it our way, and they may very well choose not to believe. Our job isnt to force or impose our beliefs on people, but just to educate them and inform them, and let them make their decision based on that.


Since this is the Internet I might as well take it one step further and say that the Christian crusades were morally right (ignoring non-religious reasons for them). Sure, they caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering can hardly be compared to the eternal suffering which would have followed if the non-believers were not converted.

So uhm, I urge all believers out there to invade my country and convert me with violence. Discuss.
I disagree.
Especially when you throw the word moral in there. To be honest, im not far too educated on the crusades, but if their motive was to save the lost, then they were right, but they still had a bad method. I may be wrong, maybe their motive was to convert them for more power.

[-1up!-]

Let's say there are some people in a boat, heading towards a waterfall. They don't believe it though, so they just keep on going towards the waterfall and a sure death. You know what's going to happen though, and what they need to do to avoid this terrible death. Wouldn't it be terribly unethical to just go "whatever, screw them if they don't want to believe in the waterfall, not my problem"? If you know what they need to do, isn't it your moral obligation to atleast try to convince them and turn them into waterfall believers? At first they will of course dislike you and tell you to respect their non-belief, but surely they will be thankful after you have saved them.

I'll go along with spitfire and say: not in the slightest. Unless of course you want me to step down from my atheist, subjectivist point of view to simulate the argument of a Christian - moralistic, generally annoying and dogmatized. What's your conception of morality if you believe there is an obligation to save the life of another?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Only if you assume that conversion under threat would actually save someone, which I think is pretty ridiculous. It's the theological equivalent of when you were little and your mom used to say "say sorry like you mean it, or I'll spank you." You said sorry, but did that make you a better person? Not really.

If anybody ever puts a gun to my head and tells me to convert, I'll do it, and if the entire country was run by religious police I'd live a religious life on the surface, but it sure as hell wouldn't make me believe. I'd still be going to hell, basically, except I'd be paying lip service to whatever God's army was holding a gun to my head. You'd think God would be smart enough to see through that BS.


But yeah, if you actually believe this you're basically stuck in the Middle Ages. I can lend you my musket and put you on the next boat to the Congo to convert the jungle-negros if you want, but I should warn you they've since learned how to use AK-47s.

[John Paul Harrison]

Since this is the Internet I might as well take it one step further and say that the Christian crusades were morally right (ignoring non-religious reasons for them). Sure, they caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering can hardly be compared to the eternal suffering which would have followed if the non-believers were not converted.

So uhm, I urge all believers out there to invade my country and convert me with violence. Discuss.

you're kind of assuming that you can forcibly turn somebody into a true believer against their will.

edit: more or less what poster above said.

[spitfirejunky]

A blind guy is slowly walking towards a cliff - how is it not unethical to just stand by and watch him and not try to save him?

For the boat situation, there are many technicalities that can be made to avoid you responsibility (you're not on the boat, the people can't hear you, etc). In this situation you can easily demonstrate that someone is blind, so you can intervene.

That's how religion works, belief in something without proof. Even though they can't prove that we're all going to hell, they know it.

If they can't prove it to us then they're in no position to intervene.

[Danger Bird]

Nobody in the west actually, truly believes in their religion. Life would be much, much different if they didn't know it was bullshit on some subconscious level.

[GreyHam]

For these people, god does exist.

.

yes, but believeing in god doesnt magic him into an objective existence

[VomitStainedCretin]

yes, but believeing in god doesnt magic him into an objective existence:rolleyes:Ontological Argument says you can:rolleyes:

[HazMatBlue]

i like your waterfall analogy

As a Christian I think I should try to introduce my faith to people I meet, but again as a Christian I believe God grants us the free will to choose and I need to respect that. Its not my job to in any way try and force my beliefs on others, as I would'nt want them to do the same to me.

[Reaganista]

god grants you the free will to choose to do exactly what he's preordained for you to do

[HazMatBlue]

if its preordained then its not free will, because I was ultimately destined for it I didn't choose it.

[Reaganista]

yeah then why'd you call it free will

[italic zero]

are you like this IRL?

[Reaganista]

oh i try to be

[Mr. Ron]

if its preordained then its not free will, because I was ultimately destined for it I didn't choose it.

You saw me before I was born
and scheduled each day of my life before
I began to breath. Everyday was recorded in your book! [Psalm 139:16]

[AmericanWeiner]

how can god choose anything if he is omniscience

since he knows he can't tarry from the only path takeable (that is he can't take two paths or he can but they would simply be halves of the same path), he will either choose to do what he knows will happen or what he knows will happen is not correct.

So who predetermined the path of god?

[Mr. Ron]

Well thats the thing, everything contradicts itself when it comes to god's nature.

[AmericanWeiner]

but logic is a human construct

how can we possibly know if anything is contradictory

[Dinosawesome]

LDS (mormon) faith takes into account those who have never heard 'gods word' and those who have done good deeds regardless. There are different degrees of glory- for example, the highest degree can only be reached by those who have taken part in all the necessary LDS ordinances. Then there are higher degrees which can be reached by good people who were not mormons and so on and so forth. Even people who have done the completely wrong thing are not damned to 'hell' for all eternity, but must serve of a probationary period before they can enter into one of these lesser degrees of glory.

The only permanent damnation in the LDS faith is for those who "deny christ", which essentially requires you to see and angel, God or Jesus or heaven, pretty much have physical evidence that there is life after death, and then openly rebel against that. The souls of those who do this are called 'the sons of perdition'.

So yeah i forgot what my point is :cool:

[AmericanWeiner]

well thats good

i mean if i meet the guy i have no problem bein pals

I just dont like this whole long distance thing, ya know?

[Reaganista]

but logic is a human construct

no.

[AmericanWeiner]

no.

um good luck backing that up

[JumboSox]

Since this is the Internet I might as well take it one step further and say that the Christian crusades were morally right (ignoring non-religious reasons for them). Sure, they caused a lot of suffering, but that suffering can hardly be compared to the eternal suffering which would have followed if the non-believers were not converted.

So uhm, I urge all believers out there to invade my country and convert me with violence. Discuss.

Of course, you're forgetting the crucial part of making a good historical arguement: getting the history right.
The non-religous bases for the crusades included plunder and carving out a name in history for Pope Innocent or whoever it was. The religious bases were non conversion, but reclaimation of the holy land. Thousands of christians were murdered along the way of the 1st and 2nd Crusades when the Byzantine Empire, which had the misfortune of being between Jerusalem and the rest of Europe was pillaged and plundered en route, and the 4th Crusade never even made it past (Christian) Constantinople at all: they just sacked it and went home.

So even if saving "heathens" from "hellfire" would have justified the crusades, it didn't come close to happening in the first place.

[GreyHam]

but logic is a human construct

how can we possibly know if anything is contradictory

im happy someone else pointed this out

God by his nature as the highest possible being is completely beyond our comprehension. it may sound like a copout answer but taking a step back, can you imagine a dog trying to figure out human thought?
id imagine it to be a little something like that

[UpperDecker]

im happy someone else pointed this out

God by his nature as the highest possible being is completely beyond our comprehension. it may sound like a copout answer but taking a step back, can you imagine a dog trying to figure out human thought?
id imagine it to be a little something like that

Thats the exact analagy i made on here about the same subject but people just bashed it down calling me stupid.

[sweboy]

Answer to some posts: Standing by and watching millions of people go to hell is very immoral in my opinion. Exactly like how I think it was right to go in and stop the Holocaust - (it's the same thing, except that billions and billions of people going to hell is far, far worse than a thousand Holocausts). Does anyone think it would have been right to let the Holocaust go on?

Only if you assume that conversion under threat would actually save someone, which I think is pretty ridiculous.

Well obviously the existing generation is still going to hell, but you save a lot of future souls by establishing your religion in the area. The Spaniards brought Christianity to South America with violence, and since then millions and millions of souls have been saved. The Ottomans brought Islam to the Balkans trough military occupation. So yeah, it has worked.

[Reaganista]

um good luck backing that up
you're the one who made the completely absurd claim though

[Mr. Ron]

Answer to some posts: Standing by and watching millions of people go to hell is very immoral in my opinion. Exactly like how I think it was right to go in and stop the Holocaust - (it's the same thing, except that billions and billions of people going to hell is far, far worse than a thousand Holocausts). Does anyone think it would have been right to let the Holocaust go on?



Well obviously the existing generation is still going to hell, but you save a lot of future souls by establishing your religion in the area. The Spaniards brought Christianity to South America with violence, and since then millions and millions of souls have been saved. The Ottomans brought Islam to the Balkans trough military occupation. So yeah, it has worked.

Apparently, from what I've heard recently from some religious people on other forums, its to teach us a lesson. They said that god lets evil go on in the world like the holocaust and rapes and genocides to teach us a lesson in humanity or some garbage.

[GreyHam]

Thats the exact analagy i made on here about the same subject but people just bashed it down calling me stupid.

sorry dude i must have completely missed it!!!

but yea i agree with you completely, lack of understanding of a higher being doesnt magic it out of existence, just like unwavering faith doesnt make it objectively true: for people with faith it IS the truth, and for those without its false, and thats just all there is too it really.

[JumboSox]

Well obviously the existing generation is still going to hell, but you save a lot of future souls by establishing your religion in the area. The Spaniards brought Christianity to South America with violence, and since then millions and millions of souls have been saved. The Ottomans brought Islam to the Balkans trough military occupation. So yeah, it has worked.

Neither converted with violence- it was more peaceful missionaries that converted the indians, and the ottomans didn't convert the greeks, they just brought in more muslims who eventually outnumbered the christians.

[Mr. Ron]

Neither converted with violence- it was more peaceful missionaries that converted the indians, and the ottomans didn't convert the greeks, they just brought in more muslims who eventually outnumbered the christians.

Are you joking?

[AmericanWeiner]

you're the one who made the completely absurd claim though

what? that human minds might not be able to comprehend the nuance of the cosmos?

uhoh welcome to reality

[lfantwister]

Answer to some posts: Standing by and watching millions of people go to hell is very immoral in my opinion. Exactly like how I think it was right to go in and stop the Holocaust - (it's the same thing, except that billions and billions of people going to hell is far, far worse than a thousand Holocausts). Does anyone think it would have been right to let the Holocaust go on?

the only problem with the analogy is that the holocaust was a real factual experience and heaven/hell isnt. This goes for the waterfall parallel too--theyre not comparable because theyre in entirely different realms of belief. One is supported by fact and can be proved whereas the other is entirely propped up by an old book and fanaticism.

[JumboSox]

Are you joking?
Sorry, I wasn't that clear.

I meant missionaries as opposed to soldiers, in a relative sense of course. Hence the word "more."

[Reaganista]

what? that human minds might not be able to comprehend the nuance of the cosmos?

uhoh welcome to reality
that wasn't your claim at all
i take this to mean that you understand that it was utter bullshit

[AmericanWeiner]

if you dont think logic was invented by humans can you please suggest another race that mightve done it because i obviously missed some big news in the contact of the third kind manuals

[Knifeboy]

Logic existed before man "invented" it.
Just like the laws of physics didn't suddenly take effect as soon as someone "invented" them

[AmericanWeiner]

laws of physics are not a process of thought

[Knifeboy]

The laws of physics are based on logic

[AmericanWeiner]

and a portion of observation


either way, I don't think anyone denies that they could be wrong.

[Reaganista]

if you dont think logic was invented by humans can you please suggest another race that mightve done it because i obviously missed some big news in the contact of the third kind manuals
logic was discovered by humans
language was invented by humans

A=A is not a human construct it is an unmutable fact which will eternally be true irrespective of the ability of anyone or anything to understand it

[Mr. Ron]

I'm not arguing or anything, but how did we discover logic? Just curious.

[Eliminator]

well first we looked in some trees but then later i guess we found it under a rock somewhere

[Mr. Ron]

I see. My vote was on the cookie jar, tbqh.

[AmericanWeiner]

logic was discovered by humans
language was invented by humans

A=A is not a human construct it is an unmutable fact which will eternally be true irrespective of the ability of anyone or anything to understand it

well see here's my problem with identity

how do we know that things have this sort of permanence that identity displays? Where have we proven (with logic, even) that A is not an expression of all possibilities and that all things are mutually exclusive?

I'm not saying that logic can't be intergral to reality, or even that it doesn't benefit us. I'm saying that it's possible that even our logic could fail us at a point (and not just because our input is faulty). Reason, logic, etc are all processes that occur in our minds and are likely thus Schrodinger'd by the experience.

You may induce that logic will never break down, but like all other things, there's no way to prove it.

I think however that we will eventually find that all things are just compressions of matter in a sense (like sound waves) and that nothing has an identity because we're just generalizations of an area of mass (just for instance).

you know, nothing I really say makes sense but im sure you can imagine since I don't put faith in the processes of reason

[JumboSox]

I'm not arguing or anything, but how did we discover logic? Just curious.

Put simply, because we didn't invent a set of rules and mutually agree to consider true, instead realized that certian rules work. It would exist even if we didn't realize that it did.

[Reaganista]

how do we know that things have this sort of permanence that identity displays? Where have we proven (with logic, even) that A is not an expression of all possibilities and that all things are mutually exclusive?
we know that things are distinct from other things
otherwise we wouldn't be able to identify them as anything

I'm not saying that logic can't be intergral to reality, or even that it doesn't benefit us. I'm saying that it's possible that even our logic could fail us at a point (and not just because our input is faulty). Reason, logic, etc are all processes that occur in our minds and are likely thus Schrodinger'd by the experience.
i don't see how your argument holds up under any circumstances other than one where our perceptions have absolutely nothing to do with reality
and schrodinger is based entirely on the limited information availible to the observer and not particularly relevant

I think however that we will eventually find that all things are just compressions of matter in a sense (like sound waves) and that nothing has an identity because we're just generalizations of an area of mass (just for instance).

areas of mass which are distinct from one another

[sweboy]

Neither converted with violence- it was more peaceful missionaries that converted the indians, and the ottomans didn't convert the greeks, they just brought in more muslims who eventually outnumbered the christians.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that violence contributed to establishing Christianity in South America, though I'm no expert so if anyone is more familiar with the issue, feel free to share.

As for the Islamization of the Balkans, I've never heard of mass immigration of muslims into the areas. Source? The way I've understood it, people converted to Islam to avoid punishment from the Ottoman administration. But the religion stuck, and still to this day the majority of people in Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo are muslim.

the only problem with the analogy is that the holocaust was a real factual experience and heaven/hell isnt. This goes for the waterfall parallel too--theyre not comparable because theyre in entirely different realms of belief. One is supported by fact and can be proved whereas the other is entirely propped up by an old book and fanaticism.

It doesn't matter how the people know, it just matters that they know. These people know that all of us non-believers are gonna burn.

[Smokey D]

People converted not to avoid punishment (Islam is pretty against forced conversions, though they obviously did happen from time to time) but because the social structure was designed to favour Muslims.

There was relatively little active persecution in the Ottoman empire. Greek Christians and Jews often enjoyed high station.

[sweboy]

Yeah. Non-muslims had to pay extra taxes though.

But my point was really that it was military conquest that lead to the Islamization of the area.

[Smokey D]

Only indirectly, though.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Apparently, from what I've heard recently from some religious people on other forums, its to teach us a lesson. They said that god lets evil go on in the world like the holocaust and rapes and genocides to teach us a lesson in humanity or some garbage.No, it's just because he's a fvcking sadist. :)

At the end of the day, the whole conversion thing is based on whether you can prove you are correct in your belief in a Christian God who punishes unbelievers. This is basically a form of Pasvcal's Wager you are suggesting. But if God(s) is of a form you do not believe in, i.e. a God who forgives unbelievers, the Hindu Pantheon or even a God who dislikes worship, you are damning or at least not having an effect on the fate of those you convert.

[spitfirejunky]

Answer to some posts: Standing by and watching millions of people go to hell is very immoral in my opinion. Exactly like how I think it was right to go in and stop the Holocaust - (it's the same thing, except that billions and billions of people going to hell is far, far worse than a thousand Holocausts). Does anyone think it would have been right to let the Holocaust go on?

You're making a correlation between an event that's provable and an event that isn't.

Like I said, the only way you can (legally) intervene is if you can demonstrate proof of the situation.

[AlienEater]

but they think heaven/hell are just as real as the holocaust. whether they can prove it is irrelevant

[AmericanWeiner]

we know that things are distinct from other things
otherwise we wouldn't be able to identify them as anything

just because we can identify them doesn't mean that we aren't putting up artificial lines to distinguish them. This is a case where human (mostly western ) thought sees itself as seperate from the world when really we are just extensions of previous events


i don't see how your argument holds up under any circumstances other than one where our perceptions have absolutely nothing to do with reality
and schrodinger is based entirely on the limited information availible to the observer and not particularly relevant

What? Schrodinger is based on the observer influencing the outcome simply by observing. Thus, but observing the world, we are changing the world. That is there's no way to know logic is real because we are part of the system and cannot have an exterior view of the problem. It's essentially like asking a Sim to explain why things in the Sims happens. Even if it was conscious, it couldn't tell you.



areas of mass which are distinct from one another

only as distinct as compressions in a sound wave are distinct. only as distinct as clouds of water vapor in clouds of oxygen. They're simply varying densities of matter. Just because we see a hard line dividing some things doesn't mean that that perception will always remain true.

[RockAndRoll]

how do we know that things have this sort of permanence that identity displays? Where have we proven (with logic, even) that A is not an expression of all possibilities and that all things are mutually exclusive?

Well to say A is not A is to rid "A" of all meaning. Denying logic is just silly. I'll get into it more later though I don't have the time right now.

[RockAndRoll]

just because we can identify them doesn't mean that we aren't putting up artificial lines to distinguish them. This is a case where human (mostly western ) thought sees itself as seperate from the world when really we are just extensions of previous events



What? Schrodinger is based on the observer influencing the outcome simply by observing. Thus, but observing the world, we are changing the world. That is there's no way to know logic is real because we are part of the system and cannot have an exterior view of the problem. It's essentially like asking a Sim to explain why things in the Sims happens. Even if it was conscious, it couldn't tell you.




only as distinct as compressions in a sound wave are distinct. only as distinct as clouds of water vapor in clouds of oxygen. They're simply varying densities of matter. Just because we see a hard line dividing some things doesn't mean that that perception will always remain true.


I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with showing that logic is a human invention... Even if everything is a soundwave how does that invalidate any of the rules of logic?

[AmericanWeiner]

because our system of distinction may not hold forever, and thus identity would fall apart, and all logic is built on identity

that is, logic depends on the process of distinguishing.

If philosophy or thought drifts into a more sophisticated form of distinguishing, such as viewing objects as zones of density versus individual objects, identity would not hold because these objects would be too impermanent to hold true.

edit: given, that sort of thing is so far beyond modern humans that it's a paradigm. I don't know if we could ever achieve that sort of integration with reality.

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

Yes, another God neverending thread. I really do like these. I myself an agnostic. Something that I don't get is if God hates homosexuals why did he create them?

He realized his mistake so he invented AIDS to kill them off.

[Reaganista]

because our system of distinction may not hold forever, and thus identity would fall apart, and all logic is built on identity
this all has to do with the observer

it doesn't matter if in the future no one is capable of seeing objects as being distinct from one another for whatever ridiculous reason

[AmericanWeiner]

this all has to do with the observer

it doesn't matter if in the future no one is capable of seeing objects as being distinct from one another for whatever ridiculous reason

and so what how on earth could you possibly say that one is more correct than the other?

I'm sorry but you seem to be approaching this as if you have observed some universal truth and I'm sorry but that's just not the case. We can't ever know if what we observe is truth.

[Reaganista]

that has nothing to do with logic

[AmericanWeiner]

yes it does. You say we discovered logic. That means we had to observe and interpret it. We don't know if either of those were truthful.

[RockAndRoll]

because our system of distinction may not hold forever, and thus identity would fall apart, and all logic is built on identity

that is, logic depends on the process of distinguishing.

If philosophy or thought drifts into a more sophisticated form of distinguishing, such as viewing objects as zones of density versus individual objects, identity would not hold because these objects would be too impermanent to hold true.

edit: given, that sort of thing is so far beyond modern humans that it's a paradigm. I don't know if we could ever achieve that sort of integration with reality.

Viewing objects as zones of density in no way invalidates any rule of logic. If you think otherwise I would really like for you to explain how it does so, how certain rules of logic no longer function when we view the universe as zones of varying density.

[AmericanWeiner]

answer to your question without the fluff in bold

how do you define where one aggregate cloud ends? how do we find the mean of a cloud of matter? What is the center? What are the borders?

This is easy when we use our eyes, yeah. I can look and see a color difference between my dresser and my wall. My brain computes that this is a contrast difference and that there is likely two different things there.

If I draw a smiley face, it appears as a face. Why? It's just three lines. It doesn't actually resemble a face at all. Our psychology takes that input and interprets it to mean something.

How do you define that border where you end and something else begins? You can see the hard line of color, you can feel the sensation of touching. These are interpretations that you, a cloud of matter, are making to rationalize so that you can comprehend the HUGE amounts of data that you would have to take in if you didn't make these summaries.

I interpret people (and all things really) to be like the crests of waves. We're extensions of other events and increased densities of matter; we're fleeting and impermanent.

Where does our effect and our mass end? How can we use indentity without basing it on our rationalizations? If we say something is A, that means we must put a limit on it and define what it is and is not. I can't comprehend taking a wave out of the water to say that it's A.

Also: if we could limit this to RockandRoll and tway (i think thatswho you are) thatd be great. I dunno if I can field questions on these ideas that im just coming into from three or four of you geniuses

[RockAndRoll]

Where does our effect and our mass end? How can we use indentity without basing it on our rationalizations? If we say something is A, that means we must put a limit on it and define what it is and is not. I can't comprehend taking a wave out of the water to say that it's A.


I understand your questions and difficulties about the problems of defining things. But I'm not here to adress those. All I want to adress right now is the issue of logic. The fact is that none of your issues actually show any problems with logic. You may have difficulties deciding what "A" constitutes but once A is defined A will be A and A cannot be "not A". Those laws still hold true. Whatever you define A as it will be that. Regardless of whether that happens to be a wave or not.

[AmericanWeiner]

I have a problem understanding how such definition can even be possible. To me, it's completely illogical, if you will.

Therefore, I can't comprehend how identity could operate outside of the artificial context that we have created.

I suppose...I don't know. If something is nonfunctional, is it still what it would be if it were functional? If logic is nonfunctional outside of our abstractions, is it still logic?

[RockAndRoll]

I have a problem understanding how such definition can even be possible. To me, it's completely illogical, if you will.
It's very possible. Definition would still work the same way it always has, by similarities and differences.

Therefore, I can't comprehend how identity could operate outside of the artificial context that we have created.
I don't think we have created an artificial context for it.

I suppose...I don't know. If something is nonfunctional, is it still what it would be if it were functional? If logic is nonfunctional outside of our abstractions, is it still logic?
logic is functional though. That's the thing. We have put logic to great use throughout history and modern life is a product of that.

[AmericanWeiner]

It's very possible. Definition would still work the same way it always has, by similarities and differences.

i cant answer this right now, invoke it later. see bottom for details


I don't think we have created an artificial context for it.

Then we disagree on a fundamental level and thats probably why we cannot effectively communicate on this subject.

However, that's what I've been talking about the whole time.


logic is functional though. That's the thing. We have put logic to great use throughout history and modern life is a product of that.

I never argued that it's pointless or nonfunctional within our usage and mindset. Of course it's been put to good use.


gf and me are on the phone i guess id better pay her attention. i will attempt to focus my thoughts and provide clear answers later

[Reaganista]

yes it does. You say we discovered logic. That means we had to observe and interpret it. We don't know if either of those were truthful.
our observations dont have to have anything to do with reality in order for us to identify things or for the identification of things to be possible

[Cyanide Sweetheart]

He realized his mistake so he invented AIDS to kill them off.

Homophobe. Heterosexuals can get AIDs too, you know, it's not exclusive to gay people. Ever heard about AIDs in Africa? Try getting the facts before making a judgement.

And to everyone yakking on about non-believers going to "Hell"? Prove Hell exists. Prove God exists, and I'll believe it. I have no problem with what people believe, I just don't want them to try forcing it on me with threats of eternal damnation because I refuse to believe without proof.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Ever heard about AIDs in Africa? Try getting the facts before making a judgement.God wanted AIDS to kill off all the niggas obviously :rolleyes:

[Cyanide Sweetheart]

God wanted AIDS to kill off all the niggas obviously :rolleyes:

Racist too? Wow, I don't think I've ever met a more prejudiced person...I thought God was all about the love? Clearly you have some major issues with yourself if you hate so many other people...

[-1up!-]

Racist too? Wow, I don't think I've ever met a more prejudiced person...I thought God was all about the love? Clearly you have some major issues with yourself if you hate so many other people...

Please learn to detect sarcasm before venturing into MX. For your own sake.

[Dr Hooch]

Racist too? Wow, I don't think I've ever met a more prejudiced person...I thought God was all about the love? Clearly you have some major issues with yourself if you hate so many other people...

:lol:

This is cute

[DougJI]

Everyone has their own beliefs, I used to be atheist but then one day I realized...

I believe in miracles
Where you from
You sexy thing
I believe in miracles
Since you came along
You sexy thing

Endless discussion. "THERES AFTERLIFE! I PROBE ITS!@" and then we have a dead MXer on our hands. STOP THE MADNESS.

[Tyrant21]

the thread title is funny, because I always thought it was immoral that god would let someone go to hell forever because they didnt believe in him. all he would have had to do is say "hey, im real, woohoo" and im sure many many more people would be believers. which based on the fact that he is omnipotent and there is no extent to his supposed power, doesnt seem that difficult.

[White Riot!]

God doesn't exist.

Nor does jesus.

Get over it.

[exodus]

And with the afterlife, it's even more serious, because now we're not just talking about dying in a waterfall, we're talking about freaking eternal suffering. Forget the Holocaust, billions of unbelievers are right now heading straight for hell. This is worse than any atrocity imaginable, but the people who know the truth about how to get to heaven aren't trying to save us. How can for example Christians live with themselves every day knowing about this? They know what needs to be done to stop this, but they do don't it because they want to respect the non-believers. Well personally I'd prefer a bit of disrespect over eternal suffering..

We do try to convert people like you, and most times, we know you're too ****ing hard headed (in our view of course) to listen, but we still do it just to know at least we tried. I believe in God and free will so I do respect your own belief no matter what it is because you're basically using that God given power. And if you do go to hell, its your own damn fault, besides there are ****ing Christian propaganda every where so stop putting the blame on us for not "letting you know" now that ****ers like you are starting to get itsy panted with doubt on your certainty that there is no afterlife.

[Berner]

God doesn't exist.

Nor does jesus.

Get over it.
Ding ding ding we have a winner!

[PerpetualBurn]

I do respect your own belief no matter what it is because you're basically using that God given power.

Respecting something stupid because the stupidity arose independently is a stupid thing.

[exodus]

Respecting something stupid because the stupidity arose independently is a stupid thing.

....Yeah? What are you getting at here?

[PerpetualBurn]

You're an idiot for respecting all beliefs regardless of what they are.

A massive drooling idiot.

[Reaganista]

i respect all beliefs that are identical to my own

[PerpetualBurn]

I respect that.