Philosophers Cafe! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Philosophers Cafe!

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 02:12 PM
Welcome to Philosophers Cafe!

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/uploaded_images/confucius-757900.jpg

http://heroworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/socrates.jpg

http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/images/jesus.jpg

http://adreampuppet.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/nietzsche.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i162/FinniganK/george-orwell-2.jpg

http://www.iisg.nl/collections/goldman/images/a5-483.jpg

http://metanarrative.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bertrand_russell.jpg

http://www.michel-foucault.com/gallery/pictures/foucault08.jpg

http://www.convencionbautista.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/JacquesDerrida.130145528_std.jpg

http://www.broadwayworld.com/columnpic/carl_sagan-748033.jpg

http://kashmir.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/chomsky.jpg

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~lhc/files/images/zizek.jpg

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates

Welcome to the philosophers cafe! This site is meant to discuss all that which cannot be discussed in full by science, history and experience.

This thread is meant to spark sporadic conversation on issues concerning philosophy, morality among other rather "gray" issues.

I think I good way to start would be to ask a question on a philosophical related question, and then have the poster person respond and perhaps then ask another question regarding another philosophical issue, or continue with the discussion at hand, this is not to be confused with ask the replier a question, because it is limited to more narrow questions.

Having said that, feel at home and lets have a great discussion.

I will begin.

I am not too sure that punishment for crimes that are severe (murder, ****, etc.) are useful. Some people do. What do you think and why?

Clay Death
03-04-2010, 03:13 PM
awesome stuff Manu. i wish you continued success with this thread. its an idea whose time had come.

i am funny about crime. the bible says "an eye for en eye". i say a head for an eye if its proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. that is the only way to deter crime and to have a more lasting effect. there are endless studies out there which suggest that better than 1/2 of the criminals go right back to the life of crime after serving out their sentences. why should innocent people and the society keep bearing these costs over and over again?

more later.

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 03:23 PM
Good stuff CD.

They also say an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, yet we still have the other one. :scratch:

It seems to me self-punishment is more effective than external ones....

Good stuff CD, post away. :rocker:

Clay Death
03-04-2010, 03:28 PM
what up manu the magnificent.

one thing i would do--in talking about deterrents to crime--is to look at countries where there is little or no toleration for crime.

and where is Habs when we need him? Habs what are your thoughts on this?

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 03:32 PM
Well it has to do with an educated society I think.

The more the people "know" why a crime is wrong, the less likely they will do what we consider bad behavior.

But forcing people into this position is not necessarily a good idea, it should come naturally rather than through law enforcement.

And yes, tell Habib to post his thoughts on this question here, and also to post a question, his perspective is quite interesting.

All opinions are. :D

Nidhogg
03-04-2010, 06:18 PM
Is there a more beautiful way of life than that of the Hunter and gatherers? This is the way we lived in the very earliest history of our species.

52k6FdApB94

Agriculture has paved the way for staggering developments, but I feel that as our resourcefulness has given us an ever more dominant role on our planet, our sense of balance for the nature hasn't been able to keep up with the pace.

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 06:46 PM
It is a nice concept no doubt, but being in touch with nature also has its hazards, and if you are not ready for it, nature can be quite deadly. Romantasicing such notions can be dangerous for those without experience.

Which brings to an important question: are we adequately adapted to live in the modern society we live in given the short amount of time we have lived in cities relative to human history? In other words, are we not better off in smaller places in order to achieve a more decent way of life?

(And I am not referring to hunter-gatherers, which is a different story altogether)

Nidhogg
03-04-2010, 07:19 PM
It is a nice concept no doubt, but being in touch with nature also has its hazards, and if you are not ready for it, nature can be quite deadly. Romantasicing such notions can be dangerous for those without experience.

Naturally, but it's not yet possible to not be in touch with mother nature at all, and the Earth is constantly reminding us how little we should take for granted in our belief that we are an entity severed from the rest of nature.

Which brings to an important question: are we adequately adapted to live in the modern society we live in given the short amount of time we have lived in cities relative to human history? In other words, are we not better off in smaller places in order to achieve a more decent way of life?

(And I am not referring to hunter-gatherers, which is a different story altogether)

As we have undergone very little physiological change since we came about as a species, there's bound to be consequences when our surroundings have changed so dramatically. I'm mainly talking about the mental mindset here, and the different circumstances it has to cope with regarding stress. There's also the availability of food and sugar 24/7 leading to diabetes and obesity. We keep our houses too clean which leads to allergies, etc etc. The examples can be carried on with in absurdum.

superslam77
03-04-2010, 07:30 PM
Hello Manuel...it's a sacrilege to put Jesus among people that REALLY existed.

More nature and less humans :bigwave:

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 07:37 PM
Hello Manuel...it's a sacrilege to put Jesus among people that REALLY existed.

More nature and less humans :bigwave:

He may or may have not existed just like Socrates.

There is no evidence of his existence besides what Aristotle said.

The point is that they are both figures that had important things to say, whether they were real or not adds to the philosophical domain. ;)

superslam77
03-04-2010, 07:57 PM
He may or may have not existed just like Socrates.

There is no evidence of his existence besides what Aristotle said.

The point is that they are both figures that had important things to say, whether they were real or not adds to the philosophical domain. ;)

Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.

-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

it's impossible for Jesus to have existed...the story IS NOT ORIGINAL and was used by the egyptians 10,000 years ago.

superslam77
03-04-2010, 08:08 PM
This is what they should teach at school if they had an ounce of honesty...

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/

Pfloyd
03-04-2010, 08:21 PM
This is what they should teach at school if they had an ounce of honesty...

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/

This is good and I agree to a very large extent worth discussing with people who would disagree.

But you know me. :devil:

Either way, Jesus is in great rivalry with others as the prophet. Does not matter in terms of what they say as philosophy is concerned, but it is important if they do stress bad actions.

scoobs
03-04-2010, 09:11 PM
Is there a more beautiful way of life than that of the Hunter and gatherers? This is the way we lived in the very earliest history of our species.

52k6FdApB94

Agriculture has paved the way for staggering developments, but I feel that as our resourcefulness has given us an ever more dominant role on our planet, our sense of balance for the nature hasn't been able to keep up with the pace.
Isn't there a wider question here about not just urbanisation and whether we're geared for it and whether it can satisfy our basic needs and desires, but also into areas like our eating habits and lifestyles, our work environments, our social structures, such as marriage, monogamy, our civic structures, etc.

All of these things have changed beyond all recognition in the space of, in most of them, just a couple of hundred years.

Sunset of Age
03-05-2010, 12:01 AM
Interesting stuff, Manu.
But as you know, I rather take my ideas on humanity on PM and MSN. :)

Pfloyd
03-05-2010, 12:03 AM
Interesting stuff, Manu.
But as you know, I rather take my ideas on humanity on PM and MSN. :)

Hehehe, I know, but if one day you decide to brave it out, you will have friends at your side here. :p

Sunset of Age
03-05-2010, 12:09 AM
Hehehe, I know, but if one day you decide to brave it out, you will have friends at your side here. :p

Are you sure about that? ;) :hug:
My ideas on criminal law might well be a bit too controversial to deal with to some folks around here. ;)
Just two thoughts to those who think that 'severe punishment' actually works:

(1) - countries who enforce severe/capital punishment do NOT have lower rates re: criminality in general at all;
(2) - a recent study in my country showed that of all of youth criminals, some 80%-+ suffer from severe psychiatric diseases. Borderline, depression, narcistic and/or sociopath disturbances, quite often already there to be diagnosed in their utmost youth.
I ask you, who are so eager on 'severe punishment', do these guys (alas, most of them are guys) need punishment, or rather... treatment?

I know what I'd advice for this matter. :angel:

[EDIT]: there are only two 'official' countries who have refused to sign the International Treaty of Children's Rights (to be found over here, for instance (http://www.unicef.org.au/Unicef/SchoolRoom/ChildrensRights/tabid/125/Default.aspx)), which forbids states to have minors put under capital punishment.

Guess which countries those are.

Somalia (:rolleyes:) and.... the USA.

Now THAT is what I call an atrocity. :o

Pfloyd
03-05-2010, 12:42 AM
Yes Karin, here it is stated in a different manner by Michel Foucault:

Xk9ulS76PW8

0EsEgwYdzlA

Sunset of Age
03-05-2010, 12:44 AM
Yes Karin, here it is stated in a different manner by Michel Foucault:

Xk9ulS76PW8

0EsEgwYdzlA

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

It's so easy to 'judge' if you don't know what you're actually talking about, no? ;)

Great thread Manu. I might well join in a bit more. :D
Alas, bedtime for me now! :wavey:

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 01:43 AM
(1) - countries who enforce severe/capital punishment do NOT have lower rates re: criminality in general at all;
(2) - a recent study in my country showed that of all of youth criminals, some 80%-+ suffer from severe psychiatric diseases. Borderline, depression, narcistic and/or sociopath disturbances, quite often already there to be diagnosed in their utmost youth.
I ask you, who are so eager on 'severe punishment', do these guys (alas, most of them are guys) need punishment, or rather... treatment?

I know what I'd advice for this matter. :angel:

[EDIT]: there are only two 'official' countries who have refused to sign the International Treaty of Children's Rights (to be found over here, for instance (http://www.unicef.org.au/Unicef/SchoolRoom/ChildrensRights/tabid/125/Default.aspx)), which forbids states to have minors put under capital punishment.

Guess which countries those are.

Somalia (:rolleyes:) and.... the USA.

Now THAT is what I call an atrocity. :o

Subscribe.

marcRD
03-05-2010, 01:46 AM
Have you ever tried to imagine the infinite, that one thing that has always been and never begun and never will end?

It doesnt matter if it is time or space, the infinite is the most abstract thing one can try to figure out or simply imagine. As much as the infinite is difficult for a human mind to understand the non-existence of the infinite is just as difficult to understand. What if there is a limit to space and time? A beginning and an end, what is therafter? Nothing, an infinite nothing before, then suddenly a spark of light and life and then back to infinite nothingness...

I prefer the infinite myself, I like to think (not as a student of science, but as a normal guy trying to make out a universe which makes sense to me) of an infinite shifting of beeing, I cant belive there is a beeing who has been there infinetely but the universe as a whole is just forever starting and ending in many dimensions. But here comes the difficult part, no matter how many digits you put on all different combinations of universes there has ever been at some point a universe must have been exactly as our universe is now and at some point it will be again using this method of thinking. I get back to a universe where I cant really see a greater meaning, but as I said the infinite is not meant to make sense to any to us.

Modern physics tells us that time started with the big bang, before that there was no time and after our universe dies there will only be nothingness infinitely (that is because the universe is accelerating, otherwise you would have infinite loops of big bangs). That would mean all we had was an infinite nothingness before the big bang (without time or space) and nothingness created reality, which will go back to beeing nothing one way or the other. I guess nothingness will go back to creating new realities at the end of time, different and just like our own reality. That nothingness must have been what Einstein called god.

Maybe string theory will give us a new answer to nothingness, the infinite and existence. I am eagerly awaiting to get more confused....

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 01:55 AM
I am not too sure that punishment for crimes that are not severe (murder, ****, etc.) are useful. Some people do. What do you think and why?

If murder and **** are not severe crimes, where do you put the threshold? I would like to know what is more severe than murder.

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 01:57 AM
If murder and **** are not severe crimes, where do you put the threshold? I would like to know what is more severe than murder.

After some thought I think he meant murder and **** are severe crimes and just phrased it wrong.

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 01:59 AM
Is there a more beautiful way of life than that of the Hunter and gatherers? This is the way we lived in the very earliest history of our species.



Just about any other way of life offers more comfort, health, longevity and plain fun.

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 01:59 AM
Have you ever tried to imagine the infinite, that one thing that has always been and never begun and never will end?

It doesnt matter if it is time or space, the infinite is the most abstract thing one can try to figure out or simply imagine. As much as the infinite is difficult for a human mind to understand the non-existence of the infinite is just as difficult to understand. What if there is a limit to space and time? A beginning and an end, what is therafter? Nothing, an infinite nothing before, then suddenly a spark of light and life and then back to infinite nothingness...

I prefer the infinite myself, I like to think (not as a student of science, but as a normal guy trying to make out a universe which makes sense to me) of an infinite shifting of beeing, I cant belive there is a beeing who has been there infinetely but the universe as a whole is just forever starting and ending in many dimensions. But here comes the difficult part, no matter how many digits you put on all different combinations of universes there has ever been at some point a universe must have been exactly as our universe is now and at some point it will be again using this method of thinking. I get back to a universe where I cant really see a greater meaning, but as I said the infinite is not meant to make sense to any to us.

Modern physics tells us that time started with the big bang, before that there was no time and after our universe dies there will only be nothingness infinitely (that is because the universe is accelerating, otherwise you would have infinite loops of big bangs). That would mean all we had was an infinite nothingness before the big bang (without time or space) and nothingness created reality, which will go back to beeing nothing one way or the other. I guess nothingness will go back to creating new realities at the end of time, different and just like our own reality. That nothingness must have been what Einstein called god.

Maybe string theory will give us a new answer to nothingness, the infinite and existence. I am eagerly awaiting to get more confused....

Good points, I've made myself the same questions. I'm also intrigued by the many worlds theory, which seems to be supported by an astonishingly high number of prominent physicists.

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 02:00 AM
After some thought I think he meant murder and **** are severe crimes and just phrased it wrong.

Not good, if you are laying down your philosophy.

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 02:03 AM
Just about any other way of life offers more comfort, health, longevity and plain fun.

I challenge the non-bolded one, and about the bolded ones, they're subjective. Maybe some people do not strive for that, or not over other things?

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 02:21 AM
[EDIT]: there are only two 'official' countries who have refused to sign the International Treaty of Children's Rights (to be found over here, for instance (http://www.unicef.org.au/Unicef/SchoolRoom/ChildrensRights/tabid/125/Default.aspx)), which forbids states to have minors put under capital punishment.

Guess which countries those are.

Somalia (:rolleyes:) and.... the USA.

Now THAT is what I call an atrocity. :o

The atrocity is that the majority of those countries signed it and then ignore it. The atrocity is that many of the countries that signed it had no intention if implmenting what they signed.
Childrens' rights are not defined by a worthless piece of paper. Do you think US children have less rights than children in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. The US has no need to sign such a treaty. Children already have rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled that minors are not subject to capital punishment. So why sign some international piece of paper when the US already implements everything in it?

And to be precise, the US has signed it.

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 02:30 AM
I challenge the non-bolded one, and about the bolded ones, they're subjective. Maybe some people do not strive for that, or not over other things?

I think health and longevity are objective, not subjective.

But the strength of my argument would lie in how many people today take up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 02:40 AM
I think health and longevity are objective, not subjective.

But the strength of my argument would lie in how many people today take up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

They are objective. What I meant is, if someone took the choice of leading a hunter-gatherer life, they probably wouldn't consider the higher risks of getting ill and dying younger decisive or very important.

About the second sentence, more often than not people do what they feel like doing, not what is best for them or even what would make them feel better.

Pfloyd
03-05-2010, 07:21 AM
They are objective. What I meant is, if someone took the choice of leading a hunter-gatherer life, they probably wouldn't consider the higher risks of getting ill and dying younger decisive or very important.

About the second sentence, more often than not people do what they feel like doing, not what is best for them or even what would make them feel better.

This is true, I believe. Modern society has a strive for wanting people to love long lives. Not that it is wrong per se, but what does society have to choose what is best for us?

If we want to smoke, eat greasy food drink alcohol but live a "fun" life and die young, then that should be a persons right.

Of course this goes to the broader question: what is the state of initial human nature?

Some say it goes both ways, which may be true. Then again is is relatively rare to even find tribes that are not part of mainstream society who are naturally violent, there are exceptions of course but they remain the odd ones out.

Which brings me to another question: what do you believe to be the initial state of human nature: to be more good then evil, more selfish than selfless or a mixture?

I think that most issues of "bad or wrong" moral behavior actually come more from modern society versus people who choose to live so called primitive lifestyles most of the time.

But then again why is this a tendency of a so called modern society with so called values and such?

Pfloyd
03-05-2010, 07:25 AM
Have you ever tried to imagine the infinite, that one thing that has always been and never begun and never will end?

It doesnt matter if it is time or space, the infinite is the most abstract thing one can try to figure out or simply imagine. As much as the infinite is difficult for a human mind to understand the non-existence of the infinite is just as difficult to understand. What if there is a limit to space and time? A beginning and an end, what is therafter? Nothing, an infinite nothing before, then suddenly a spark of light and life and then back to infinite nothingness...

I prefer the infinite myself, I like to think (not as a student of science, but as a normal guy trying to make out a universe which makes sense to me) of an infinite shifting of beeing, I cant belive there is a beeing who has been there infinetely but the universe as a whole is just forever starting and ending in many dimensions. But here comes the difficult part, no matter how many digits you put on all different combinations of universes there has ever been at some point a universe must have been exactly as our universe is now and at some point it will be again using this method of thinking. I get back to a universe where I cant really see a greater meaning, but as I said the infinite is not meant to make sense to any to us.

Modern physics tells us that time started with the big bang, before that there was no time and after our universe dies there will only be nothingness infinitely (that is because the universe is accelerating, otherwise you would have infinite loops of big bangs). That would mean all we had was an infinite nothingness before the big bang (without time or space) and nothingness created reality, which will go back to beeing nothing one way or the other. I guess nothingness will go back to creating new realities at the end of time, different and just like our own reality. That nothingness must have been what Einstein called god.

Maybe string theory will give us a new answer to nothingness, the infinite and existence. I am eagerly awaiting to get more confused....

This is the problem of the mind not being able to grasp things it does not experience in "real life", the concept of infinite is mostly theoretical, after all even the big bang is not the sure thing that happened when life started. . . .

These things can only be talked about or written in mathematical formulas but to try and comprehend them is just torture.

tedlesurfeur
03-05-2010, 08:44 AM
This is true, I believe. Modern society has a strive for wanting people to love long lives. Not that it is wrong per se, but what does society have to choose what is best for us?

If we want to smoke, eat greasy food drink alcohol but live a "fun" life and die young, then that should be a persons right.

Of course this goes to the broader question: what is the state of initial human nature?

Some say it goes both ways, which may be true. Then again is is relatively rare to even find tribes that are not part of mainstream society who are naturally violent, there are exceptions of course but they remain the odd ones out.

Which brings me to another question: what do you believe to be the initial state of human nature: to be more good then evil, more selfish than selfless or a mixture?

I think that most issues of "bad or wrong" moral behavior actually come more from modern society versus people who choose to live so called primitive lifestyles most of the time.

But then again why is this a tendency of a so called modern society with so called values and such?

Oh come on Manu, you totally read Rousseau, admit it :lol:
I'm lazy, just read --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality
In a natural state, Man isn't jealous of any property, or food, because it all belongs to him as much as it belongs to others. Men don't need to gather (society), nor do they need to form rules (to disobey) as they don't need rules about private place or belongings. They do not need to subject people to their demands.
Let's all go back to a natural state :haha:
You're totally right Manu, bad and wrong moral behavior is a social construct !!

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 11:45 AM
About the second sentence, more often than not people do what they feel like doing, not what is best for them or even what would make them feel better.

I have trouble with this: "More often than not people do what they feel like doing, not what would make them feel better''. I can not think of any choice I made that I knew would make me feel worse.

Pfloyd
03-05-2010, 12:18 PM
Oh come on Manu, you totally read Rousseau, admit it :lol:
I'm lazy, just read --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality
In a natural state, Man isn't jealous of any property, or food, because it all belongs to him as much as it belongs to others. Men don't need to gather (society), nor do they need to form rules (to disobey) as they don't need rules about private place or belongings. They do not need to subject people to their demands.
Let's all go back to a natural state :haha:
You're totally right Manu, bad and wrong moral behavior is a social construct !!

I SWEAR I have not read Rosseau, I have read Sartre and Derrida. :p

But it is in an interesting concept this notion of social contract leading to definitions of what bad moral behavior is.

However I think there are some basic universals like killing without reason that still maintains taboo regardless of society.

Good read btw! ;)

marcRD
03-05-2010, 12:37 PM
Oh come on Manu, you totally read Rousseau, admit it :lol:
I'm lazy, just read --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality
In a natural state, Man isn't jealous of any property, or food, because it all belongs to him as much as it belongs to others. Men don't need to gather (society), nor do they need to form rules (to disobey) as they don't need rules about private place or belongings. They do not need to subject people to their demands.
Let's all go back to a natural state :haha:
You're totally right Manu, bad and wrong moral behavior is a social construct !!

Rousseau wasnt a real philosopher, he was a dreamer and a man who followed on his emotions and not logic. I cant really take any of Rousseaus teachings seriously, he would make an argument about believing in god because he felt his presence in the beauty around him.

There is no noble savage, the noble savage is only a romantic myth. Go to Papua new Guinea and people will eat each other and **** children, nature is not nice and friendly but brutal and without mercy for the weak.

Ilovetheblues_86
03-05-2010, 12:46 PM
OH mARCrdn YOU HOBBESIAN.

Har-Tru
03-05-2010, 03:47 PM
I have trouble with this: "More often than not people do what they feel like doing, not what would make them feel better''. I can not think of any choice I made that I knew would make me feel worse.

Consciously, perhaps, though I doubt it.

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 06:12 PM
Consciously, perhaps, though I doubt it.

Spoken like a true quack.

buddyholly
03-05-2010, 06:16 PM
There is no noble savage, the noble savage is only a romantic myth. Go to Papua new Guinea and people will eat each other and **** children, nature is not nice and friendly but brutal and without mercy for the weak.

Cannibalism is no longer practised. I think children are ***** everywhere, no need to go to Papua. As a matter of fact, I never even heard of ****** children as being a Papuan trait. It is probably more common in Sweden than Papua.

marcRD
03-05-2010, 07:10 PM
Cannibalism is no longer practised. I think children are ***** everywhere, no need to go to Papua. As a matter of fact, I never even heard of ****** children as being a Papuan trait. It is probably more common in Sweden than Papua.

Cannibalism in Papua New Guinea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTRvcROcWHg

Pedophilia in Papua New Guinea tribe:

http://www.gettingit.com/article/56

Even if for some reasons these things doent happen anymore in Papua, that is because they are getting civilised thereby not contradicting to what I said about the true nature of the savage.

Sunset of Age
03-05-2010, 11:40 PM
The atrocity is that the majority of those countries signed it and then ignore it. The atrocity is that many of the countries that signed it had no intention if implmenting what they signed.
Childrens' rights are not defined by a worthless piece of paper. Do you think US children have less rights than children in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. The US has no need to sign such a treaty. Children already have rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled that minors are not subject to capital punishment. So why sign some international piece of paper when the US already implements everything in it?

And to be precise, the US has signed it.

I agree with most you say over here. Yes, of course, a piece of paper doesn't ensure rights to be enforced at all - alas. But of course it shows good intentions when a country does sign it, so, tell me, why not do so?

The US have signed it, yes, but made restrictions towards the clause about no 'capital punishment' towards minors. That, imho, equals NOT having signed it. As far as I know, in the US, 17-18 year olds can still be 'fried' in the USA. :o

And that's what I meant to say when I called it an atrocity, as, like I already pointed out, most of 'criminals', not even necessarilly 'youth' ones (btw, 18-year old is still 'youth', imho) are in fact psychiatric patients, nothing more, nothing less.

Rousseau wasnt a real philosopher, he was a dreamer and a man who followed on his emotions and not logic. I cant really take any of Rousseaus teachings seriously, he would make an argument about believing in god because he felt his presence in the beauty around him.

There is no noble savage, the noble savage is only a romantic myth. Go to Papua new Guinea and people will eat each other and **** children, nature is not nice and friendly but brutal and without mercy for the weak.

Have to agree with this. Nature isn't as 'noble and friendly' as some romantics seem to think it is. And we modern folks surely wouldn't be better off - just think about all of the young folks having died of appendicitis and child-birth before their thirties, in that so-called fantastic 'noble savage' environment.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 12:12 AM
I agree with most you say over here. Yes, of course, a piece of paper doesn't ensure rights to be enforced at all - alas. But of course it shows good intentions when a country does sign it, so, tell me, why not do so?

The US have signed it, yes, but made restrictions towards the clause about no 'capital punishment' towards minors. That, imho, equals NOT having signed it. As far as I know, in the US, 17-18 year olds can still be 'fried' in the USA. :o



I don't think it shows good intentions at all. There are so many countries for which the UN is just a vehicle to pretend they are civilised. Do you think Mugabe has good intentions towards his child citizens? I don't. I think it is smart of the US not to be involved in these facades put up by rogue countries.

The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional - and they have the last word.

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 12:16 AM
I don't think it shows good intentions at all. There are so many countries for which the UN is just a vehicle to pretend they are civilised. Do you think Mugabe has good intentions towards his child citizens? I don't.

Not at all... jeebus. :help: :sad:

The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional - and they have the last word.

Well that's a good sign at least! :yeah:
But why not sign it altogether, and work to get it enforced by UN, as much as possible?

BTW, I am a member of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church as well, being a follower of Descartes, Bohr, Darwin, and Dawkins just the same.
:p :cool: :worship:

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 12:47 AM
Cannibalism in Papua New Guinea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTRvcROcWHg

Pedophilia in Papua New Guinea tribe:

http://www.gettingit.com/article/56

Even if for some reasons these things doent happen anymore in Papua, that is because they are getting civilised thereby not contradicting to what I said about the true nature of the savage.

The cannibal video is so bad it is a fake I think. It gives the impression that the mummy is somewhere in the deepest jungle, but it is actually near the airport in the biggest mountain city in Irian Jaya. I know because I have photos of me and the mummy and I recognise the old guy holding the mummy. And in any case, they were in Irian Jaya, not Papua New Guinea. You would think a serious explorer would know which country he was in.
The two guys were well washed and shaved every day as they penetrated farther and farther into unknown territory. Yeah, right.

And that is the first time I have seen an explorer exposing his arse to a roomful of cannibals. It was almost like showing them the menu.

As for the article on paedophilia: They believed homosexual sex was necessary for a boy to become a man, so it was not **** in their eyes, just proper education. I might just as well say that circumcision is evidence that western culture is still savage and mutilates its young males.

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 12:59 AM
As for the article on paedophilia: They believed homosexual sex was necessary for a boy to become a man, so it was not **** in their eyes, just proper education. I might just as well say that circumcision is evidence that western culture is still savage and mutilates its young males.

Savage it is indeed. Not just for males, as anyone should know by now. :help:

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:02 AM
Well that's a good sign at least! :yeah:
But why not sign it altogether, and work to get it enforced by UN, as much as possible?

BTW, I am a member of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church as well, being a follower of Descartes, Bohr, Darwin, and Dawkins just the same.
:p :cool: :worship:

As you may have guessed, I see the UN as a useless organization. A friend who worked in it told me it is nothing more than an Old Boy network - a sort of closed society whose members live richly off the taxpayer. We saw that with Kofi Annan and his family.
The US contributes 22% of the budget. I think that is more than enough. If the UN can't use their budget to get countries to live by the treaties they sign, then the US can hardly do any more.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 01:03 AM
Music fits into philosophy just as well:

g-ORlQfHWrQ

"For long you live and high you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:04 AM
Savage it is indeed. Not just for males, as anyone should know by now. :help:

I thought about that before posting, but do not think any ''Western'' countries allow female circumcision.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 01:04 AM
As you may have guessed, I see the UN as a useless organization. A friend who worked in it told me it is nothing more than an Old Boy network - a sort of closed society whose members live richly off the taxpayer. We saw that with Kofi Annan and his family.
The US contributes 22% of the budget. I think that is more than enough. If the UN can't use their budget to get countries to live by the treaties they sign, then the US can hardly do any more.

And Japan is second with something like 12%-ish, very unfair contributions.

The security council ought to be erased, it serves no justice to all the other countries, whatever justice may mean.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:06 AM
"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

I think it is meaningless drivel. The kind of thing one would read on a Hallmark birthday card.

Har-Tru
03-06-2010, 01:07 AM
So we're comparing circumcision with children paedophilia. Right.

The first one is a simple process with very low risks and with health benefits. As you might know, most American males are circumcised.

The second one... THAT is savage.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 01:09 AM
I think it is meaningless drivel. The kind of thing one would read on a Hallmark birthday card.

Do you believe in an afterlife?

I think the quote refers to the hear and now rather than to actually seeing with your eyes or touching with your hands...

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 01:09 AM
As you may have guessed, I see the UN as a useless organization. A friend who worked in it told me it is nothing more than an Old Boy network - a sort of closed society whose members live richly off the taxpayer. We saw that with Kofi Annan and his family.
The US contributes 22% of the budget. I think that is more than enough. If the UN can't use their budget to get countries to live by the treaties they sign, then the US can hardly do any more.

Yep, I understand, I see where you're coming from. Alas...
In all, it's just politics. :mad:

Music fits into philosophy just as well:

ORlQfHWrQ

"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

Your vid doesn't show up, Manu, at least not over here.

I thought about that before posting, but do not think any ''Western'' countries allow female circumcision.

They do not 'allow' it but it surely happens around here, due to the 'multicultural' IDIOCY. :o
It's disgusting.

Har-Tru
03-06-2010, 01:09 AM
"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

Either I didn't get it or it is incredibly shallow and meaningless.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:10 AM
And Japan is second with something like 12%-ish, very unfair contributions.



Actually, 16.7%

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 01:12 AM
Actually, 16.7%

Still a large percentage. :eek:

Donations ought to be evened out some how, otherwise those who control the purse control the entity.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:14 AM
Do you believe in an afterlife?

I think the quote refers to the hear and now rather than to actually seeing with your eyes or touching with your hands...

I am an atheist, so no. Which is probably why this kind of metaphysical thought has never appealed to me.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 01:16 AM
I am an atheist, so no. Which is probably why this kind of metaphysical thought has never appealed to me.

Well, Roger Waters is an atheist too, but I suppose it can be a meanignless lyric depending on perspective.

It all depends on how much you add or take away from a sentence that gives it "meaning".

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 01:16 AM
Do you believe in an afterlife?

The answer from me is a resounding "NO!"
Sorry, atheist and natural scientist over here. We are just... dust.
No problem with that at all. :angel:

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:20 AM
So we're comparing circumcision with children paedophilia. Right.

The first one is a simple process with very low risks and with health benefits. As you might know, most American males are circumcised.

The second one... THAT is savage.

I guess that is where philosophy comes in. The Melanesians believed homosexual acts with minors was a simple process with very low risk and with enormous health benefits. So to them it was not savage at all, but an important part of bringing up male children. They might even have thought circumcision was savage mutilation. So, philosophically, which definition of savage is the right one in any given scenario?
You are suggesting that your definition should be universally applied.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 01:25 AM
"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

Hah-hah. And I thought it was Socrates or some noted philosopher. And it was just a pop song.

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 01:27 AM
Time-out time I guess.

W-TJxj1YVy0

"We are just... a Moment in Time.
A Blink of an Eye,
A Dream for the Blind...!

... I hope you don't understand..."

:angel: Sorry folks. :angel:

Har-Tru
03-06-2010, 01:32 AM
I guess that is where philosophy comes in. The Melanesians believed homosexual acts with minors was a simple process with very low risk and with enormous health benefits. So to them it was not savage at all, but an important part of bringing up male children. They might even have thought circumcision was savage mutilation. So, philosophically, which definition of savage is the right one in any given scenario?
You are suggesting that your definition should be universally applied.

I am indeed, for exactly the same reasons I suggest murder should be punishable universally and for the same reasons that, I take it, you suggest God doesn't exist: because I am convinced my definition is the truth.

marcRD
03-06-2010, 01:53 AM
The cannibal video is so bad it is a fake I think. It gives the impression that the mummy is somewhere in the deepest jungle, but it is actually near the airport in the biggest mountain city in Irian Jaya. I know because I have photos of me and the mummy and I recognise the old guy holding the mummy. And in any case, they were in Irian Jaya, not Papua New Guinea. You would think a serious explorer would know which country he was in.
The two guys were well washed and shaved every day as they penetrated farther and farther into unknown territory. Yeah, right.

And that is the first time I have seen an explorer exposing his arse to a roomful of cannibals. It was almost like showing them the menu.

As for the article on paedophilia: They believed homosexual sex was necessary for a boy to become a man, so it was not **** in their eyes, just proper education. I might just as well say that circumcision is evidence that western culture is still savage and mutilates its young males.

False or not, the point is that Papua new Guineans did eat each other when they were savages and they have analsex all day with children (even if in their eyes that is just proper education :lol:). I really dont care if Papua is becoming less savage or not, the point is that while they were savages they were not nice and friendly creatures who smelled flowers and lived in peace with each other.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 02:13 AM
Time-out time I guess.

W-TJxj1YVy0

"We are just... a Moment in Time.
A Blink of an Eye,
A Dream for the Blind...!

... I hope you don't understand..."

:angel: Sorry folks. :angel:

Music with philosophy is allowed, NO Puff Daddy please. :p

:yeah:

Ilovetheblues_86
03-06-2010, 02:29 AM
Music fits into philosophy just as well:

g-ORlQfHWrQ

"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

I follow Kardecism religion which believes in reincarnation, afterlife and all of those things, but following the fact that this is the song "breathe" and the theme of the album are several patterns in humanity and also obscure themes lke loneliness, money, time, I believe Waters was trying to bring some kind of materialism and imediatism into the opening song, which means basically like a limitation of life by the action of the person. When he says "all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be" it means your life won´t be what you dream on or what you want to be, but basically what your actions may direct you toward your life, which gives the imnpression that life is limited to carnal and imediate emotions like crying or smiling leading to a vague notion of pessimism and disbelief in coincidences, Jungnism, etc.
Basically it means life is what you do and nothing more beyond.

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 02:47 AM
Music with philosophy is allowed, NO Puff Daddy please. :p

:yeah:

:D :D :D
Sure. No 'music' encouraging discrimination, 'grab-the-money-and-run', marketing haggs, hatred, and whatsoever likewise-induced, either, please! :D

out_here_grindin
03-06-2010, 02:50 AM
Did you really chose Puff Daddy as the ultimate example of bad music? Sure he is not very good, but nothing can be worse than Ke$ha.

Sunset of Age
03-06-2010, 02:57 AM
Did you really chose Puff Daddy as the ultimate example of bad music? Sure he is not very good, but nothing can be worse than Ke$ha.

:o :o :o :help: both are beyond terrible.

Back to the original subject folks, please.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 03:08 AM
I really dont care if Papua is becoming less savage or not, the point is that while they were savages they were not nice and friendly creatures who smelled flowers and lived in peace with each other.

And I got into this because someone asked the question: Is there a more beautiful way of life than that of hunters-gatherers?
And my answer was, yes, just about every other way.

Ivanatis
03-06-2010, 03:47 AM
Music fits into philosophy just as well:

g-ORlQfHWrQ

"For long you live and how you fly, the smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry, all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be"

Agree or disagree with this quote, and why?

Disagree. It's "and high you fly";)

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 12:05 PM
Disagree. It's "and high you fly";)

Fixed. :D

And Jolan, I do agree to an extent, but ask the hunter gatherers that, and they may tell you they like the way they live.

They may not "know" of any other way of life, but that's the way it is....

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 12:15 PM
I am indeed, for exactly the same reasons I suggest murder should be punishable universally and for the same reasons that, I take it, you suggest God doesn't exist: because I am convinced my definition is the truth.


I strongly believe God does not exist. But I can't prove it. However, I would not refer to myself by the ridiculous term agnostic. We are all agnostics and therefore the term is redundant. Nobody would seriously claim to belong to the group of humans with a heart.
Given that no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a superior being, it is only logical that each person must choose which scenario is more probable.

Har-Tru
03-06-2010, 12:18 PM
I strongly believe God does not exist. But I can't prove it. However, I would not refer to myself by the ridiculous term agnostic. We are all agnostics and therefore the term is redundant. Nobody would seriously claim to belong to the group of humans with a heart.
Given that no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a superior being, it is only logical that each person must choose which scenario is more probable.

What if a person believes scenario A is more probable, but wouldn't rule out scenario B, and therefore defines himself as not-knower?

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 02:41 PM
What if a person believes scenario A is more probable, but wouldn't rule out scenario B, and therefore defines himself as not-knower?

But I tried to make the point that nobody knows, - we are all not-knowers. So describing yourself as someone who doesn't know is unnecessary. Therefore we can only choose which we believe is more probable and go with that. If the line dividing believers from atheists is made infinitely narrow, then no-one can sit on it.
Someone who thinks there is probably no god and someone who believes fervently there is no god are both atheists.
Either scenario A is correct or scenario B is correct. There is no other choice. You must choose which you think is more probable. The fact that you can not rule out the other scenario is irrelevant.

marcRD
03-06-2010, 04:03 PM
But I tried to make the point that nobody knows, - we are all not-knowers. So describing yourself as someone who doesn't know is unnecessary. Therefore we can only choose which we believe is more probable and go with that. If the line dividing believers from atheists is made infinitely narrow, then no-one can sit on it.
Someone who thinks there is probably no god and someone who believes fervently there is no god are both atheists.
Either scenario A is correct or scenario B is correct. There is no other choice. You must choose which you think is more probable. The fact that you can not rule out the other scenario is irrelevant.

I think you oversimplify the discussion. While no one has evidence of anything there are arguments for and against, also there are more than 2 options because god is a word which can have many different meanings to different people, Einsteins God and the biblical god has nothing in common. I dont like the term agnostic aswell, I consider myself a deist and an atheist. A deist is someone who belives the universe was not an accident, there is a thought behind the big bang and I call that thought god. That is a god who cant interfer and do miracles beyond the creation of space and time, aswell as the forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism...). This is an impersonal god, a god that doesnt moralise on what is good or evil and it is not even a god who createst life, it simply created the right conditions in the universe so life can be created. Argument behind this god is the fine tuned universe, the universe is fine tuned for life to exist, if you change any of the laws of nature by just very little you will end up with a chaotic universe where life cant exist.

Pfloyd
03-06-2010, 05:35 PM
But not knowing does not mean one side has more % of reason of being correct.

Logical arguments for atheism are much stronger than the opposite.

However if you claim faith, then fine discussion over, but no evidence is necessary and proves nothing.

tedlesurfeur
03-06-2010, 06:15 PM
Rousseau wasnt a real philosopher, he was a dreamer and a man who followed on his emotions and not logic. I cant really take any of Rousseaus teachings seriously, he would make an argument about believing in god because he felt his presence in the beauty around him.

There is no noble savage, the noble savage is only a romantic myth. Go to Papua new Guinea and people will eat each other and **** children, nature is not nice and friendly but brutal and without mercy for the weak.

sure :p I can see your references... or .. not? ^^

you should know that when I say "sure" it's bad :lol:

marcRD
03-06-2010, 06:29 PM
sure :p I can see your references... or .. not? ^^

you should know that when I say "sure" it's bad :lol:

I dont care, come with an argument next time. :rolleyes:

tedlesurfeur
03-06-2010, 06:57 PM
I dont care, come with an argument next time. :rolleyes:

Please, I was referencing Rousseau all the way, trying to make a point :lol: are you sure you're telling me to come with an argument :lol: ok ok

Rousseau was not just a dreamer, you know, he was a philosopher as well, recognized by his peers. He wrote the discourse on Inequality as a reply to Hobbes. I mean, he can't get more involved in philo than that :lol:

Manu, I'm not sure crime would exist in a natural state because, as Rousseau says, men wouldn't live in groups (no societal needs). One man would not steal a fruit from one of his peers, as robbery is absent : if someone took food before you, you would just accept it and look for some elsewhere. Think about what happens in zoos :lol: see? No crimes :haha: just a few bites :lol:

marcRD
03-06-2010, 07:41 PM
Please, I was referencing Rousseau all the way, trying to make a point :lol: are you sure you're telling me to come with an argument :lol: ok ok

Rousseau was not just a dreamer, you know, he was a philosopher as well, recognized by his peers. He wrote the discourse on Inequality as a reply to Hobbes. I mean, he can't get more involved in philo than that :lol:

Manu, I'm not sure crime would exist in a natural state because, as Rousseau says, men wouldn't live in groups (no societal needs). One man would not steal a fruit from one of his peers, as robbery is absent : if someone took food before you, you would just accept it and look for some elsewhere. Think about what happens in zoos :lol: see? No crimes :haha: just a few bites :lol:

Thats stupid, nature is unpredictable and sometimes it doesnt rain and no fruits grow, or a good area gets overpopulated and you have to compete for food. You would by then not only steal to survive you would kill to survive. Homo Sapiens killed all other human races before we became civilized (neanderthals, homo erectus etc), specially during ice age you would have very many populations fight for very small areas of fertile land.

buddyholly
03-06-2010, 08:15 PM
I think you oversimplify the discussion. While no one has evidence of anything there are arguments for and against, also there are more than 2 options because god is a word which can have many different meanings to different people, Einsteins God and the biblical god has nothing in common. I dont like the term agnostic aswell, I consider myself a deist and an atheist. A deist is someone who belives the universe was not an accident, there is a thought behind the big bang and I call that thought god. That is a god who cant interfer and do miracles beyond the creation of space and time, aswell as the forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism...). This is an impersonal god, a god that doesnt moralise on what is good or evil and it is not even a god who createst life, it simply created the right conditions in the universe so life can be created. Argument behind this god is the fine tuned universe, the universe is fine tuned for life to exist, if you change any of the laws of nature by just very little you will end up with a chaotic universe where life cant exist.

That sounds like you want there to be a God, but can't think of any reason he would exist. A God that can create space and time, but can't change water into wine? Doesn't make sense.

marcRD
03-06-2010, 09:21 PM
That sounds like you want there to be a God, but can't think of any reason he would exist. A God that can create space and time, but can't change water into wine? Doesn't make sense.

God is the laws of nature, therefor he cant break the laws of nature. There are no evidence of any miracles happening around us, but we have evidence that space and time was created out of nothing. We live in a universe were all the laws of nature are perfectly fine tuned for life to exist, the odds of such a perfect universe to be made by accident is 1 with 33 zeros in 1. I have no reason to want the existence of god when I still dont belive in the immortal soul of humans, god is the only logical name I can give to anything which may have fine tuned the universe to become organized.

Har-Tru
03-06-2010, 09:43 PM
But I tried to make the point that nobody knows, - we are all not-knowers. So describing yourself as someone who doesn't know is unnecessary. Therefore we can only choose which we believe is more probable and go with that. If the line dividing believers from atheists is made infinitely narrow, then no-one can sit on it.
Someone who thinks there is probably no god and someone who believes fervently there is no god are both atheists.
Either scenario A is correct or scenario B is correct. There is no other choice. You must choose which you think is more probable. The fact that you can not rule out the other scenario is irrelevant.

No. The first one is an agnostic, and the second one is an atheist.

It's all about definitions really.

Pfloyd
03-07-2010, 01:57 AM
DhDuYfZa5dE

Interesting Guy this Slavoj Zizek. :lol:

Anyone agree with what he is saying?

buddyholly
03-07-2010, 11:37 AM
No. The first one is an agnostic, and the second one is an atheist.

It's all about definitions really.

Someone who believes fervently that there is no god is still an agnostic because he only believes, he doesn't know. Is there such a thing as believing fervently in agnosticism? - believing fervently that you don't know?

Clearly you are not going to accept my argument that since no-one has proof, we must all be agnostic and therefore there is no need for the term. An atheist does not know there is no god, he thinks there is no god. A believer does not know there is a god (in spite of what he might say), he thinks there is a god. That accounts for everybody, no need for the agnostic group.

buddyholly
03-07-2010, 11:51 AM
God is the laws of nature, therefor he cant break the laws of nature. There are no evidence of any miracles happening around us, but we have evidence that space and time was created out of nothing. We live in a universe were all the laws of nature are perfectly fine tuned for life to exist, the odds of such a perfect universe to be made by accident is 1 with 33 zeros in 1. I have no reason to want the existence of god when I still dont belive in the immortal soul of humans, god is the only logical name I can give to anything which may have fine tuned the universe to become organized.

I see where you are going, but usually the definition of God is a supreme being who can do anything. So why not just call nature what it is - nature? Instead of calling it God. Nature is what is natural - and by most definitions God is supernatural - the opposite of nature.

And I don't buy the argument of the impossibly low chance of life without some outside help. Firstly, as far as we can see, we are alone in a vast universe, only earth got conditions right. Why did God bother to make the rest of it?
Secondly, physics is moving towards the concept of an infinity of universes, so in that scenario a life-sustaining planet is 100% certain.

Har-Tru
03-07-2010, 12:14 PM
Someone who believes fervently that there is no god is still an agnostic because he only believes, he doesn't know. Is there such a thing as believing fervently in agnosticism? - believing fervently that you don't know?

Clearly you are not going to accept my argument that since no-one has proof, we must all be agnostic and therefore there is no need for the term. An atheist does not know there is no god, he thinks there is no god. A believer does not know there is a god (in spite of what he might say), he thinks there is a god. That accounts for everybody, no need for the agnostic group.

I see your point, but as I said, it's all about definitions.

To me, an atheist is someone who believes there is no God, a believer is someone who believes there is a God and an agnostic is someone who hasn't taken a definite position one way or the other.

Do you see my point?

Yolanda
03-07-2010, 01:44 PM
He may or may have not existed just like Socrates.

There is no evidence of his existence besides what Aristotle said.

The point is that they are both figures that had important things to say, whether they were real or not adds to the philosophical domain. ;)

I take your point for there is no evidence of his existence,but I sometimes believe in Jesus,especially when I meet some difficulties.However,I blame myself of that.I think if I believe in him,I should be loyal all the time.What's more I think science is totally different from religion.:confused::confused::confused:I am conflicting.

Pfloyd
03-07-2010, 02:58 PM
I take your point for there is no evidence of his existence,but I sometimes believe in Jesus,especially when I meet some difficulties.However,I blame myself of that.I think if I believe in him,I should be loyal all the time.What's more I think science is totally different from religion.:confused::confused::confused:I am conflicting.

Well faith is by definition: to belief in absence of evidence, so if you do believe in Jesus in times of trouble then you are doing so with no basis on evidence, only pure feeling and there is nothing wrong with that.

And yes, Religion and Science are quite the opposite in terms of the methods they apply to achieve at any conclusion but many religions have good and bad moral teachings, so If I were you, I'd keep the good and leave the bad.

Pfloyd
03-07-2010, 03:01 PM
But surely we are not all agnostics, I consider myself an Atheist and yet I cannot 100% disprove God, but I think I can get pretty darn close and that's good enough evidence for me.

buddyholly
03-07-2010, 09:46 PM
I see your point, but as I said, it's all about definitions.

To me, an atheist is someone who believes there is no God, a believer is someone who believes there is a God and an agnostic is someone who hasn't taken a definite position one way or the other.

Do you see my point?

Yes, but I don't think it is a possible human condition. Maybe we are just hung up on the distinction between ''believe'' and ''know.'' From my perspective, nobody knows, but everyone must lean towards one or other the two beliefs. The only way you could not lean to one side or the other is to have never thought about it, even for an instant. Once you think about it, that very thought triggers a preference.

Har-Tru
03-07-2010, 10:16 PM
Yes, but I don't think it is a possible human condition. Maybe we are just hung up on the distinction between ''believe'' and ''know.'' From my perspective, nobody knows, but everyone must lean towards one or other the two beliefs. The only way you could not lean to one side or the other is to have never thought about it, even for an instant. Once you think about it, that very thought triggers a preference.

I understand what you mean and it is true, but there are degrees. I'm not saying the borders between atheist, believer and agnostic are clearly defined, but you can't just throw everyone into the atheist or believers box, because there are degrees. Agnostics are, to me, those who are not clearly declined towards one way or the other, even if they think one of them is more probable.

Pfloyd
03-07-2010, 10:49 PM
This will probably go on ignored, but I think it is interesting and appropriate to a philosophy thread:

WveI_vgmPz8

S0SaqrxgJvw

Yolanda
03-08-2010, 01:06 PM
Well faith is by definition: to belief in absence of evidence, so if you do believe in Jesus in times of trouble then you are doing so with no basis on evidence, only pure feeling and there is nothing wrong with that.

And yes, Religion and Science are quite the opposite in terms of the methods they apply to achieve at any conclusion but many religions have good and bad moral teachings, so If I were you, I'd keep the good and leave the bad.

yes,both religion and science have their own advantages.well,I still have one Question,my lecturer said that Chinese Philosophy is different from P.H. in the western world,but you added Confucious as the first philosopher in your thread.Well I wanna know your opinion on Chinese Philosophy if it's convenient to you to speak out here:)

Pfloyd
03-08-2010, 05:28 PM
yes,both religion and science have their own advantages.well,I still have one Question,my lecturer said that Chinese Philosophy is different from P.H. in the western world,but you added Confucious as the first philosopher in your thread.Well I wanna know your opinion on Chinese Philosophy if it's convenient to you to speak out here:)

Well most of these philosophers, if not all, are put forth in chronological order from oldest to most new.

I don't know much about Chinese philosophy other than Confucius and he had interesting things to say. To take care of others, to be loyal to your family, to treat others as you would like to be treated.

However his centrism on a male dominated society and on respecting elders just because they are elder is not a good enough reason for me to do so.

Overall he's quite solid, but it's been a while since I've "read" his works.

Why, is there anything you would like to add about Chinese philosophy or Confucius?

marcRD
03-08-2010, 11:12 PM
I see where you are going, but usually the definition of God is a supreme being who can do anything. So why not just call nature what it is - nature? Instead of calling it God. Nature is what is natural - and by most definitions God is supernatural - the opposite of nature.

And I don't buy the argument of the impossibly low chance of life without some outside help. Firstly, as far as we can see, we are alone in a vast universe, only earth got conditions right. Why did God bother to make the rest of it?
Secondly, physics is moving towards the concept of an infinity of universes, so in that scenario a life-sustaining planet is 100% certain.


Yes, but the nature of a pure atheist is just accidental existense, nothing has the ability to become something which also is unnatural and against the laws of physics. There is a quote from Stephen Hawkings I think about how scientists can explain everything that happened one bilionth of a second after the big bang and what happened before that is god. Physics are very clear on there beeing a cause and effect relationship in nature, we dont know what caused the big bang and we just understand the effect.

About other planets, now you are beeing extremly speculative about us beeing alone in the vast universe, "As far as we can see" is problematic because we cant see anything at all so far, we can only see that there is no life in our solar system except in planeth earth. We know by now that it is extremly common for giant gas planets to orbit other stars, but we dont have the technology to even detect earthsized planets outside our solar system. Almost all astronomers think by now that it is extremly common for planets like earth to orbit stars which are like our sun.

The multiverse theory is extremly speculative, even more so than the idea of a god.

buddyholly
03-08-2010, 11:21 PM
nothing has the ability to become something which also is unnatural and against the laws of physics. There is a quote from Stephen Hawkings I think about how scientists can explain everything that happened one bilionth of a second after the big bang and what happened before that is god.

Which just brings us to the question, ''Who made God?" And there is no point in pondering that? And although it is way beyond my knowledge, can't nothing turn into equal negative and positive forces, something like that?

marcRD
03-08-2010, 11:40 PM
Which just brings us to the question, ''Who made God?" And there is no point in pondering that? And although it is way beyond my knowledge, can't nothing turn into equal negative and positive forces, something like that?

Trying to define something such abstract as god is almost impossible, every human who has tried to has failed missrably. Who made god? What is god? What is the purpose of god? Where is god?

I really cant answer these questions, I just find many "pure atheists" who just dont aknowledge the mystery of creation and think they can have logical answers to everything. Like if I ask them about big bang they say one time science will find out exactly everything there is to know about the big bang, they have faith on science showing the path every time. It almost sounds like a religion to me by then, god is the mistery of creation. It is beyond definition and far too abstract for the human mind, but nothing turning into reality by itself is not only abstract as it sounds illogical to me.

Behind every creation there is a thought behind it, god would be the thought behind it, but ofcourse you could ask what made the thought? In the end it is a struggle between two different ideas, one is that matter is made first by itself and then becomes conscious and the other is that matter must be made from something conscious, atleast for there to be any kind of order in this matter and the laws that will control matter.

It is really beyond science, it is philosophy. Where science cant fill in we only have philosophy to relly on and this is beyond what evidence we have but it is rather asking ourselves: what makes any sense?

buddyholly
03-09-2010, 03:17 AM
I just find many "pure atheists" who just dont aknowledge the mystery of creation and think they can have logical answers to everything. Like if I ask them about big bang they say one time science will find out exactly everything there is to know about the big bang, they have faith on science showing the path every time. It almost sounds like a religion to me

When you consider the advances made in science in the last 2000 years, it is indeed reasonable to think that science will explain everything. On the other hand, when you consider the consistent disproving of what has been traditionally used as evidence for a God, it seems evident that the probability of there being a God has shrunk to close to zero.

If you argue that nothing happens out of nothingness, then you also deny the possibility of there being a God.

Yolanda
03-10-2010, 11:33 AM
Well most of these philosophers, if not all, are put forth in chronological order from oldest to most new.

I don't know much about Chinese philosophy other than Confucius and he had interesting things to say. To take care of others, to be loyal to your family, to treat others as you would like to be treated.

However his centrism on a male dominated society and on respecting elders just because they are elder is not a good enough reason for me to do so.

Overall he's quite solid, but it's been a while since I've "read" his works.

Why, is there anything you would like to add about Chinese philosophy or Confucius?

Well,I think there are many differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy.I heard about that your philosophy include math,physics and science.However,our philosophy pays more attention on ethics and morality.It tells us how to become a good person or how to lead a better life instead of let us think what kind of life should we take.I usually don't want to obey their suggestion,I want to apprehend something meaningful by myself.Although the suggestions are great and helpful,it's empirical.

But I have to say you're right,Confucian advocates centrism,but it's controversial.Some people criticize it,while someone think it's the highest state.But I indeed think centrism evens diplomacy.

By the way,if you'd like to learn about Chinese philosophy,I am willing to lend u a hand.

Pfloyd
03-10-2010, 11:57 AM
Well,I think there are many differences between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy.I heard about that your philosophy include math,physics and science.However,our philosophy pays more attention on ethics and morality.It tells us how to become a good person or how to lead a better life instead of let us think what kind of life should we take.I usually don't want to obey their suggestion,I want to apprehend something meaningful by myself.Although the suggestions are great and helpful,it's empirical.

But I have to say you're right,Confucian advocates centrism,but it's controversial.Some people criticize it,while someone think it's the highest state.But I indeed think centrism evens diplomacy.

By the way,if you'd like to learn about Chinese philosophy,I am willing to lend u a hand.

Sure, I am always willing to learn something new.

What other philosophers or ideas should I be made aware of in Chinese philosophy?

JolánGagó
03-10-2010, 01:58 PM
I think Im better equiped than anyone else to know what I "prefer" and, based on that equipment, I know i don't prefer either way.

I am agnostic. Period.

superslam77
03-10-2010, 03:01 PM
Buddyholy is the truthbearer.

The religious God is FALSE 100%! I am atheist in that sense.
Agnostic that there is a "supreme being" or higher intelligence, yet that is highly anthropocentric(i know better).

Pantheism is different though...all is "God", nature is God...that we could agree.

Clay Death
03-10-2010, 03:43 PM
I think Im better equiped than anyone else to know what I "prefer" and, based on that equipment, I know i don't prefer either way.

I am agnostic. Period.


cool sig general jolan.

affirmative. i am invariably better at knowing what i prefer and what i dont prefer also. and what i prefer is this:

happiness is the only good in life. its the ultimate end to which everything else is merely means. i have never run into a person who told me that all he/she ever wanted out of life was misery.

so the question then is how to go about being happy. very simple: be a reasonable, thughtful, sensible, and a productive citizen who is also aware of his/her environment and you are 90% there. the other 10% comes from being kind to those less fortunate and you will have arrived.

notice that you do this for yourself. this is your fundamental duty to yourself and not to god or anyone else. you do this and you will be happy and the world will be happy along with you.

the rest is just bullshit. and i invented bullshit so how am i to believe that i am not the ultimate authority on it.

buddyholly
03-10-2010, 04:09 PM
I think Im better equiped than anyone else to know what I "prefer" and, based on that equipment, I know i don't prefer either way.

I am agnostic. Period.

Don't rain on my parade. Agnosticism is an impossible human condition for any human that has been remotely exposed to the possibilities. Only a dead mind could remain on the knife edge of no preference.

Ilovetheblues_86
03-10-2010, 07:01 PM
I don´t think we have the capacibility to say that there is no God or there is, we can only doubt which all people should do, including myself that tries to believe on its existence, just like anyone would prefer a good scenario, which I believe, in my inocence, to be the one where a God exists and watch upon us all.

Like I said before, I am kardecist because someone in my family is a medium and receives "spirits". Even being almost convinced of that, I cannot be sure if thats a true thing, specially when its not a proved thing by logic or science, which may lead to two ideas: 1- ITS FAKE 2- Science is not advanced to prove it yet. So even on those things I tend to believe, I say I trust only 90%, just like in history, for example, we cannot trust in all what the books say.

I know it seems very simplistic, but the one who questons everything s probably one of the first ones to be convinced later one, or at least to tend to believe in something.

tedlesurfeur
03-12-2010, 06:21 AM
This will probably go on ignored, but I think it is interesting and appropriate to a philosophy thread:

WveI_vgmPz8

S0SaqrxgJvw

Been there, done that :p and thanks to you :devil:

tedlesurfeur
03-12-2010, 06:37 AM
May I ask, are you a spiritual or religious man? I am, I always have been. I believe in God. I was born into the Catholic faith so Jesus is the figurehead of salvation. I don't know if I am Catholic still, because American Catholicism has put up a lot of rules against people that I think is wrong. I don't condemn, and they do.

No, I'm an Atheist. Although I did my masters degree on Pantheism in Literature, it doesn't mean I believe in God. I just compared how Pantheism was used in Literature at different periods of time. The idea of God and the world and Nature being just one thing is very interesting. The idea of god being immanent as opposed to transcendant was revolutionary at the time. Spinoza was the first true pantheist we had, even though it was never called that way by then. However his explaining god didn't convince me: The world is substantial, the substances we see cannot be apprehended outside themselves, because the human being, as one of the substances, is also part of the God. Regarding my personal believes, I guess I agree with Freud about religion : When we are little kids, the adult figure (often the father, but it can be another adult figure) is the one that protects us, nurtures us, soothes us, reassures us. As kids, we have few worries.. However, we grow up into adults ourselves, and we have bigger fears, more serious worries, anxiety. Therefore we need a bigger adult figure, a bigger father, more powerful, to... protect us, nurture us, soothe us, reassure us. God is a social construct to me, that a newly-civilized (and then anxious) mankind created because of the NEED for susbtantiality and soothing.

scoobs
03-12-2010, 08:49 AM
No, I'm an Atheist. Although I did my masters degree on Pantheism in Literature, it doesn't mean I believe in God. I just compared how Pantheism was used in Literature at different periods of time. The idea of God and the world and Nature being just one thing is very interesting. The idea of god being immanent as opposed to transcendant was revolutionary at the time. Spinoza was the first true pantheist we had, even though it was never called that way by then. However his explaining god didn't convince me: The world is substantial, the substances we see cannot be apprehended outside themselves, because the human being, as one of the substances, is also part of the God. Regarding my personal believes, I guess I agree with Freud about religion : When we are little kids, the adult figure (often the father, but it can be another adult figure) is the one that protects us, nurtures us, soothes us, reassures us. As kids, we have few worries.. However, we grow up into adults ourselves, and we have bigger fears, more serious worries, anxiety. Therefore we need a bigger adult figure, a bigger father, more powerful, to... protect us, nurture us, soothe us, reassure us. God is a social construct to me, that a newly-civilized (and then anxious) mankind created because of the NEED for susbtantiality and soothing.

This is what I believe too. I also believe that this is driven by the need to flee from the randomness and cruelty of events, and the need for ordinary human beings to find their place in the greater scheme of things, to be "someone", to rise about the mundane and unimportant reality of life for most people.

I believe a lot of people simply cannot cope with the fact of their own ordinariness. So the need for a God figure is driven by the need to feel as though there is some big plan out there that they have their appointed part in, so that even if life is mundane and never rises above the ordinary, or, worse, is filled with suffering, pain and misery, there nevertheless is a God who watches over this and will reward them in the end for being a true and faithful servant to him. If you go through all this toil, all this hardship, or if it turns out that your life is not the breathtaking adventure you dreamed it would be, but instead is filled with drudgery and the slow inevitability of being broken by life, then at least someone is watching and applauding, right?

Certainly I think that in the face of so much disaster and suffering, random and shocking acts of cruelty of man toward man, woman toward woman, war, injustice and the sheer weight of numbers now involved, a need to explain it all as part of a larger plan that we cannot see the full shape of is understandable, for if no God, what then? This savagery and brutality and misery is all for nothing, and those countless innocents who have perished before it in a variety of supremely horrible ways, their only reward is to rot in the ground, and all that they were and all they would ever be is lost forever? I don't wonder that in this day and age the idea of God refuses to die.

So I think, especially in modern times, that the need for God (which in some respects has witnessed a resurgence in the 20th century after it seemed that the steady advance of science might bring about its fatal decline), is as a result of this need to see a greater purpose, both on a macro and micro scale - the disasters that wipe out hundreds of thousands, your child being born prematurely with lung problems...well it's all part of the great plan. I can see what a great comfort it must be, and there are times when I have fervently wished I could believe it.

I think that this need to feel that you're important in the greater scheme of things, that you count...sometimes it doesn't find expression in religion, I believe that it is a driving force in this ever-increasing obsession with celebrity and status and fame. I think the urge that your life is not random and meaningless comes from a similar place, but in this instance pushes people to pursue fame, regardless of their talents of their worthiness to be in the spotlight.

And when you have some people who are determined to be in the public eye no matter the cost - because if thousands and millions of people speak their name and they are remembered by history then their lives must have had meaning, right? - and you have people who use celebrity worship to flee their mundane existence for a while - because to be a fan, to idolise these people, to make them famous and to be part of the fact that they are famous, however small, comforts and sustains you that you are significant, you have modern celebrity culture. This has replaced religion as the security blanket for many - oh they don't believe celebrities are Gods and there is a bigger plan here, but there are still idols to be worshipped. Some will try anything to become one of these Gods and others will be content to worship them and feel that they have some small power in rising them above the rest of us (and then tearing them down again), but I think this urge to feel 'more' than what everyday life is comes from a similar place inside.

tedlesurfeur
03-12-2010, 11:52 AM
I agree with you there my friend

Pfloyd
03-12-2010, 12:23 PM
This is what Carl Sagan wrote abaout God in his last great book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

It is very good, but a tad long for a post:

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

scoobs
03-12-2010, 12:51 PM
This is what Carl Sagan wrote abaout God in his last great book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

It is very good, but a tad long for a post:

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Yeah there's nothing in there with which I would argue.

habibko
03-13-2010, 09:01 PM
what up manu the magnificent.

one thing i would do--in talking about deterrents to crime--is to look at countries where there is little or no toleration for crime.

and where is Habs when we need him? Habs what are your thoughts on this?

Well it has to do with an educated society I think.

The more the people "know" why a crime is wrong, the less likely they will do what we consider bad behavior.

But forcing people into this position is not necessarily a good idea, it should come naturally rather than through law enforcement.

And yes, tell Habib to post his thoughts on this question here, and also to post a question, his perspective is quite interesting.

All opinions are. :D

sorry I just found this thread, will make a couple post before I call it a night! *subscribes*

as for the punishment issue which CD brought up, as most know I've argued about this in the past and I'm a supporter of capital punishment in certain cases, there is no need to protect the murderer who already violated an innocent life.

habibko
03-13-2010, 09:08 PM
This is what I believe too. I also believe that this is driven by the need to flee from the randomness and cruelty of events, and the need for ordinary human beings to find their place in the greater scheme of things, to be "someone", to rise about the mundane and unimportant reality of life for most people.

I believe a lot of people simply cannot cope with the fact of their own ordinariness. So the need for a God figure is driven by the need to feel as though there is some big plan out there that they have their appointed part in, so that even if life is mundane and never rises above the ordinary, or, worse, is filled with suffering, pain and misery, there nevertheless is a God who watches over this and will reward them in the end for being a true and faithful servant to him. If you go through all this toil, all this hardship, or if it turns out that your life is not the breathtaking adventure you dreamed it would be, but instead is filled with drudgery and the slow inevitability of being broken by life, then at least someone is watching and applauding, right?

Certainly I think that in the face of so much disaster and suffering, random and shocking acts of cruelty of man toward man, woman toward woman, war, injustice and the sheer weight of numbers now involved, a need to explain it all as part of a larger plan that we cannot see the full shape of is understandable, for if no God, what then? This savagery and brutality and misery is all for nothing, and those countless innocents who have perished before it in a variety of supremely horrible ways, their only reward is to rot in the ground, and all that they were and all they would ever be is lost forever? I don't wonder that in this day and age the idea of God refuses to die.

So I think, especially in modern times, that the need for God (which in some respects has witnessed a resurgence in the 20th century after it seemed that the steady advance of science might bring about its fatal decline), is as a result of this need to see a greater purpose, both on a macro and micro scale - the disasters that wipe out hundreds of thousands, your child being born prematurely with lung problems...well it's all part of the great plan. I can see what a great comfort it must be, and there are times when I have fervently wished I could believe it.

I think that this need to feel that you're important in the greater scheme of things, that you count...sometimes it doesn't find expression in religion, I believe that it is a driving force in this ever-increasing obsession with celebrity and status and fame. I think the urge that your life is not random and meaningless comes from a similar place, but in this instance pushes people to pursue fame, regardless of their talents of their worthiness to be in the spotlight.

And when you have some people who are determined to be in the public eye no matter the cost - because if thousands and millions of people speak their name and they are remembered by history then their lives must have had meaning, right? - and you have people who use celebrity worship to flee their mundane existence for a while - because to be a fan, to idolise these people, to make them famous and to be part of the fact that they are famous, however small, comforts and sustains you that you are significant, you have modern celebrity culture. This has replaced religion as the security blanket for many - oh they don't believe celebrities are Gods and there is a bigger plan here, but there are still idols to be worshipped. Some will try anything to become one of these Gods and others will be content to worship them and feel that they have some small power in rising them above the rest of us (and then tearing them down again), but I think this urge to feel 'more' than what everyday life is comes from a similar place inside.

humanity needing a God might be true, but that doesn't mean nor prove a God figure doesn't really exist, most people have distorted images of how a God is/should be like as they are growing up (most of us grow up under a certain faith system be it from the parents or from society), and later when faced with events/circumstances/learning experiences/incidents that contradicts with their personal views of a higher being they start doubting and often hating the very concept of God, when it's their own or their society's shortcoming that leads to these contradictions.

same with religion, there is alot of anti-religious feelings these days especially in the modern world and it's mostly due to how small groups of individuals distorted religion and their understanding of it and twisted it beyond its original purposes, it's also because that anti-religious and often ignorant majority isn't willing to take a step and seek to have more knowledge about the truth of these concepts or religions beyond what's being said in media and TV.

Clay Death
03-13-2010, 10:21 PM
sorry I just found this thread, will make a couple post before I call it a night! *subscribes*

as for the punishment issue which CD brought up, as most know I've argued about this in the past and I'm a supporter of capital punishment in certain cases, there is no need to protect the murderer who already violated an innocent life.


affirmative Habs. bible says "an eye for an eye".

i say a head for an eye..

Har-Tru
03-13-2010, 10:30 PM
affirmative Habs. bible says "an eye for an eye".

i say a head for an eye..

The Hebrew bible says an eye for an eye. The Christian bible says:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38–39)

scoobs
03-13-2010, 11:05 PM
humanity needing a God might be true, but that doesn't mean nor prove a God figure doesn't really exist, most people have distorted images of how a God is/should be like as they are growing up (most of us grow up under a certain faith system be it from the parents or from society), and later when faced with events/circumstances/learning experiences/incidents that contradicts with their personal views of a higher being they start doubting and often hating the very concept of God, when it's their own or their society's shortcoming that leads to these contradictions.

same with religion, there is alot of anti-religious feelings these days especially in the modern world and it's mostly due to how small groups of individuals distorted religion and their understanding of it and twisted it beyond its original purposes, it's also because that anti-religious and often ignorant majority isn't willing to take a step and seek to have more knowledge about the truth of these concepts or religions beyond what's being said in media and TV.
Nothing I've said is me ruling out the possibility of God existing.

In my view, on the subject of spirituality and beliefs, I believe the key things is that everyone should examine their own beliefs, their own morals and their own conscience to determine what they believe and come to their own judgements.

What I don't like, on either side of the argument, is unquestioning indoctrination - people who were told what they should believe at a young age and never think to examine that in light of their own experiences.

NicolasKiefer44
03-13-2010, 11:34 PM
Nothing I've said is me ruling out the possibility of God existing.

In my view, on the subject of spirituality and beliefs, I believe the key things is that everyone should examine their own beliefs, their own morals and their own conscience to determine what they believe and come to their own judgements.

What I don't like, on either side of the argument, is unquestioning indoctrination - people who were told what they should believe at a young age and never think to examine that in light of their own experiences.

I absolutely agree. Question everything. Faith was forced on me as a child. As an adult, I have grown into so many different thought patterns that do not coexist with the particular faith I used to know. I believe in spirituality, peace, love. That is what any God should be about. Not rules, regulations, contradictions, control, or oppression.

Clay Death
03-13-2010, 11:36 PM
The Hebrew bible says an eye for an eye. The Christian bible says:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38–39)


interesting Hollywood.

habibko
03-14-2010, 11:01 AM
The Hebrew bible says an eye for an eye. The Christian bible says:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38–39)

and the Quran says: "We ordained therein for them (followers of Moses) : "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself."

which can be said to be the mid way between Judaism and Christianity.

Nothing I've said is me ruling out the possibility of God existing.

In my view, on the subject of spirituality and beliefs, I believe the key things is that everyone should examine their own beliefs, their own morals and their own conscience to determine what they believe and come to their own judgements.

What I don't like, on either side of the argument, is unquestioning indoctrination - people who were told what they should believe at a young age and never think to examine that in light of their own experiences.

this is definitely true and I follow it myself, and often find myself on opposite sides against other fellow Muslims, especially the ultra-conservative ones, some even question my own faith because of the skeptic and neutral way which I use for my arguments :lol:

Yolanda
03-16-2010, 03:06 PM
Sure, I am always willing to learn something new.

What other philosophers or ideas should I be made aware of in Chinese philosophy?

Actually,Lao Tzu is the first philosopher in China.He is the philosopher in the Spring and Autumn Period and the founder of Taoism.He considered Tao is the originality of the world,and he said Tao is a nonexistent thing,u can only realize Tao by your heart.I don't agree with this point.I have a Tao Te Ching(a work of his thoughts).It's a great work

Pfloyd
03-16-2010, 05:25 PM
Actually,Lao Tzu is the first philosopher in China.He is the philosopher in the Spring and Autumn Period and the founder of Taoism.He considered Tao is the originality of the world,and he said Tao is a nonexistent thing,u can only realize Tao by your heart.I don't agree with this point.I have a Tao Te Ching(a work of his thoughts).It's a great work

Ah yes, this whole philosophy of being one with nature and being in flow with energy and connected to the Earth no? I've read a bit of his stuff and is interesting, but talking about defeats the purpose of it, no? :p

Nidhogg
03-19-2010, 12:31 PM
The beautiful part I was going for with the ways of a hunter & gatherer is that you live in balance with nature out of sheer necessity. When given the opportunity, humans all too often go for the most simple and comfortable solution short-term.

buddyholly
03-19-2010, 01:36 PM
My newspaper has a front page article on a publication from Science. Hunter-gatherers behave nicely to family members, but outsiders are fair game to cheat and rob. In modern society we are much fairer to outsiders. The simple example of food-sellers leaving their wares out on the street without theft is an example of how modern societies are fairer and more ''civilised.'' Treating your neighbour fairly is a result of having to co-habit in an industrialised society.

So much for thew beautiful culture of the hunter-gatherer.

Har-Tru
03-19-2010, 01:42 PM
Progress is unstoppable. Less-evolved societies do not restrain their automatic human impulses like individuals in more advanced societies do.

Yolanda
03-23-2010, 03:02 PM
Ah yes, this whole philosophy of being one with nature and being in flow with energy and connected to the Earth no? I've read a bit of his stuff and is interesting, but talking about defeats the purpose of it, no? :p

Yeah,I believe you can get more from it;)

Sunset of Age
03-24-2010, 04:28 AM
Believing in the Spaghetti Monster is just as sensible as believing in any other kind of 'god'.
Deal with it.

orangehat
03-24-2010, 05:41 AM
(1) - countries who enforce severe/capital punishment do NOT have lower rates re: criminality in general at all;
(2) - a recent study in my country showed that of all of youth criminals, some 80%-+ suffer from severe psychiatric diseases. Borderline, depression, narcistic and/or sociopath disturbances, quite often already there to be diagnosed in their utmost youth.
I ask you, who are so eager on 'severe punishment', do these guys (alas, most of them are guys) need punishment, or rather... treatment?


Hmm Bonnie: On (1) you can check the case on Singapore (where I live), capital punishment is very frequent (drug trafficking, ****, aggravated robbery, or murder more often that not leads to death penalty). Singapore has the highest executions per capita (higher than China, though China's total executions are more than the rest of the world combined).

Crime rate in Singapore is low. Although it is true that the situation cannot be entirely attributed to harsh penalties (main arguments in point include that Singaporeans tend to question authorities less, small area leads to less bureaucracy as well as easier to catch suspects and wanted criminals etc.), I believe harsher penalties can in fact lead to lower crime rates. Though personally I don't support capital punishment simply because it proves unsuccessful in big countries.

The problem why severe penalties don't affect the crime rates in other countries (e.g China) is mainly because of severe corruption in the justice system. However, even if US (or other bigger nations) were to implement such drastic actions, I don't think it would have much effect due to state bureaucracy as well as other factors.

On (2), it is extremely controversial in the context of being psychologically ill. It's hard to prove and has no legal standing in a court of law (unless perhaps if you were a schizophrenic). The fact that possible murderers can pose as "mentally ill" means it's not likely to be accepted.

Sunset of Age
03-24-2010, 05:47 AM
^^ will reply to you laters, :)

I don't agree with you on the whole but need some more time eh.

marcRD
03-25-2010, 02:17 AM
I think we live in an era of rationalism and the problem with rationalism is that it is not very inspiring. Human mind has always been fascinated by mysticism and religion, I actually belive the culmination of human experiences must be those moments when the human beeing feels a connection with something not of this world and spiritual. Rationalism serve as a limitation to the human imagination and much that is happening in films, music and litterature today is the outcome of rationalism. Our mind dont find deep truth in rational answers, but we find it in the mysterious, unknowable aspects of thought and life. When you talk to children about great myths and stories you dont tell them this is all untrue and fictional, the child's brain wants to belive in the stories and it takes their mind to another realm, when they play with their friends they almost belive in their own fantasies and when we grow up and start to see the world more gray with less colors (like it is) our mind just loses some of the inspiration to further explore life. We want to belive in stories, we want to belive in myths and deeper meaning in dreams and that love is more than a chemical reaction and that death is not the end....

I am a victim myself of the rational era we live in, but I dont really see any reason to take anyone out of any kind of illusion their mind have set up for them when that might be whats best for them. Science is trying to destroy to destroy the myths, explain everything take away the mysterious from the equation. Fact remains that the greatest art often resolves around the mythical and abstract, so it is with my favorite musicians, artists, directors and writers. It doesnt matter if it is the great Sistine chapel and Salvador Dali's surrealism, Mozart or Pink Floyd, Tarkovsky or Lynch, all is art that connects with something the mind cant comprehend and that createst the most deep connections our human mind can have.

Pfloyd
03-25-2010, 02:22 AM
Which laws are necessary and which are not?

Why?