Mystech and wesmarch's discusion

M

Mystech

Adult Supervision Required
Registered Senior Member
Originally posted by okinrus
Bibical quotes have to be used in discussion
because most of society is christian.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're overly dependent on groupthink. Your belief is that a person can not know true morality, but instead he can only be told what it is? That's a contradiction.

EDIT:

I'd like to note that I did not start this thread, but it seems instead to be spawned from a thread which I was participating in, I did not request that this be transformed into it's own thread, nor was it I who hit the "new thread" button, I assume that it was Asguard.

I don't have any problem with this being it's own thread, but at the same time I believe in giving credit where it is due, and in this case it really doesn't lie with me.
 
Last edited:
haha, wait a minuet, are you a christian or a nihilist? This is sad! "oh yeah well umm Uhhh no one can ever know anything, really! And so that's why I know god is right"

Ok, whatever, guy.
Click to expand...
Only using rational thinking, you can never know anything just
as without God you cannot do anything.
The meaning of knowledge is more important than
knowledge and rational thinking never really gives
the meaning of anything.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
just
as without God you cannot do anything.
Click to expand...

I seem to be doing plenty without him, as does the rest of the world.
 
Sounds like you're overly dependent on groupthink. Your belief is that a person can not know true morality, but instead he can only be told what it is? That's a contradiction
Click to expand...
Christians believe that only God is good.
A person knows God and thereby knows true morality.
The same person however might not even know that rationally God exists.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Only using rational thinking, you can never know anything
Click to expand...
You can't ever know anything for sure either way brother, having "faith in god" only makes you THINK you can.. which is very dangerous IMO.
Originally posted by okinrus

just as without God you cannot do anything.
Click to expand...
You're talking out your ass. You cannot prove god, thusly your statement is empty again. I somewhat agree about the confusion with Nihilism.
Originally posted by okinrus

The meaning of knowledge is more important than
knowledge
Click to expand...
That's a non-statement bro. The meaning of the knowledge is also knowledge. Are you calling "meaning" the emotional component of knowledge? If so I might buy that, but I'd imagine the validity of the statement then becomes conditional.
Originally posted by okinrus

and rational thinking never really gives
the meaning of anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Look here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22336

Maybe it will help you get a better understanding of "meaning".
 
Well blind faith is false. Even if you heard
the voice of God, you could still lose faith by aptly forgetting.
 
Faith in general. Belief without knowledge is, of course, unjustified, you can't feel certain of anything based uppon it, and rightly so. Belief in God is no different than UFO cults, or crystal worshipers or any other groundless belief.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Well blind faith is false. Even if you heard
the voice of God, you could still lose faith by aptly forgetting.
Click to expand...

If you definatively heard the voice of god booming to you from the heavens you wouldn't need faith, you'd have knowledge (well ok maybe it'd take more than the voice as it could just as easily have been a helicopter pilot with a megaphone and a strange sence of humor). Anyway, with proof of God no faith is needed, because you can now have belief which is supported by knowledge.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
Faith in general. Belief without knowledge is, of course, unjustified, you can't feel certain of anything based uppon it, and rightly so. Belief in God is no different than UFO cults, or crystal worshipers or any other groundless belief.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're missing a more fundamental point.

May I ask, how is it that you justify your belief in your sensory input as valid? How is it that you justify your use of "reason" as a tool that yeilds "valid" answers?

Read my hotmail handle for a clue!
 
Faith in general. Belief without knowledge is, of course, unjustified, you can't feel certain of anything based uppon it, and rightly so. Belief in God is no different than UFO cults, or crystal worshipers or any other groundless belief.
Click to expand...
If we define God more in terms of an entity that
exist and allows others to exist then we can say
that UFO cults, or crystal worshipers do not exist.
However without God we cannot define exist right?
We have to presume the notion of exist, and that presumption
is basically God.
 
You can't trust your sensory input completely, that's why you design clever little tests to see if you are correct in your hypothesis.

A world where man could not be certain of any objective absolute would not yield mathematics, and it sure as hell wouldn't yield an internet bulletin board, as such things require objective absolutes in order to function.

The exact same outcome from the exact same input run through the exact same process, working with 100% accuracy until some factor is changed, this is what you are using right now, get used to it. The world is and bemoaning objectivity isn't going to get you anywhere or make it go away.

I know a lot of people get a little skittish because they like to believe in complete garbage that they can never prove, founding their beliefs on faith and arbitrary claims, so naturally the world will seem uncertain and unknowable to them. The trick is to figure out what is reality and what is fantasy, and throw away that which truly doesn't matter. I know that this is pretty hard for some people who build giant walls of cumbersome unsupported abstract concepts around themselves to protect themselves from the truth, but it's still doable.

Even if all the world is an illusion which blinds me from the "realy real" world, or just the fact that there is nothing, the Illusion is still cohesive rational, and universal, so live accordingly.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
If we define God more in terms of an entity that
exist and allows others to exist then we can say
that UFO cults, or crystal worshipers do not exist.
However without God we cannot define exist right?
We have to presume the notion of exist, and that presumption
is basically God.
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't. If you define God as the sum total of the entire universe and as such he's everywhere and everything, or whatever, you could just as easily call him the tellurian (that's a ten dollar word I think I heard in a newager book once) or the fucking matrix if you want.

In otherwords, yes if you assume God exists, then yes he can exist, thank you for this non-observation.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
You can't trust your sensory input completely, that's why you design clever little tests to see if you are correct in your hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but ultimately to get through the day as a rational thinker.. to me.. you have to have faith in reason. It doesn't come up much because it's so implicit.. because we do as you suggest above.. regardless though.. to engage in logical and reasonable discourse is IMO, the purest (and the only really valid) act of faith.
 
It's not faith though, it's as structured as mathematics, do some web searches for "critical thinking" or the like, there is no faith in reason.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
do some web searches for "critical thinking" or the like
Click to expand...
I've explored the area nicely, thank you. Oh, and I can think for myself.
Originally posted by Mystech

there is no faith in reason.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Never said that the use of reason includes faith. I said that the implementation thereof with the expectation of valid results is an act of faith. Very different.

You basically have faith that you don't have to have faith because you can use reason. I know it's circular, but that is how faith operates. Otherwise your clever little tests don't tell you anything... know what I mean?

The question becomes, what is reasonable? Is it reasonable to believe in god?

Short answer: NO

Is it reasonable to believe in reason?

Yes, by definition.
 
There is a world of difference between faith and an educated guess :p
 
It certainly isn't. If you define God as the sum total of the entire universe and as such he's everywhere and everything, or whatever, you could just as easily call him the tellurian (that's a ten dollar word I think I heard in a newager book once) or the fucking matrix if you want.

In otherwords, yes if you assume God exists, then yes he can exist, thank you for this non-observation.
Click to expand...
However if we assume God does not exist then his
non-existance exists and so defines an existant entity.
This entity has existed since the beginning of time and
always exist as long as God doesn't exist. However
then the entity becomes God and so this contradicts
God not existing.
 
However if we assume invisible unicorns do not exist then this
non-existance exists and so defines an existant entity.
This entity has existed since the beginning of time and
always exist as long as invisible unicorns don't exist. However
then the entity becomes an invisible univorn and so this contradicts
invisible unicorns not existing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top