Should we move to ban believers?

Sarkus said:
So sayeth those with such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what they think is... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
If you are opting for assigning no value, you are simply talking about 1+1=2 without ever saying whether its 1 ton or 1 proton or 1 universe.
(edit - actually you can say 1 ton, since that is also an abstract construct - you just can't say what it is 1 ton of)
Click to expand...
And that is what physicists who hold to Tegmark's ideas are talking about - that even values are purely part of the mathematical structure with no inherent value.
Your issue with this would be....?
which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily say that you avoid discussion on the topic (although that rather depends on what you meant by the term)... but I admire your admission. ;)
 
lightgigantic said:
which is precisely what one is doing for as long as one assumes that one's values and reality are synonymous while conveniently avoiding any discussion on the topic
Click to expand...

Without an Archimedean point on which to leverage such a discussion, there is either denial, or the route to the house with white padded cells.
 
I'm pretty sure, from reviewing this last page of posts, that this thread is pretty much done for.
 
it would be a lot more productive if one of these theists would start a thread just discussing the moral values or lessons of some of the stories in the bible as well as some of the scriptures. there is actually quite a lot of interesting things in the bible. that's what i would do if i was trying to share my religion. this never occurred to them, yet?

notice they never really do that. why not? isn't that more productive than just trying to prove god or whatever? that's not even helpful.

they don't really want to share, they just want to be right. i just don't understand how a book so rich in so much moral allegory, some of it quite beautiful, is just ignored by them. some of them apparently haven't even really read it either.

they really are a banal lot.
 
Sarkus said:
And that is what physicists who hold to Tegmark's ideas are talking about - that even values are purely part of the mathematical structure with no inherent value.
Click to expand...
Can he peel an orange with (pure) mathematics or are his ideas about how one could peel an orange with (pure) mathematics firmly lodged in abstraction?
Your issue with this would be....?
Click to expand...
that you can't peel an orange with logic alone.
 
birch said:
it would be a lot more productive if one of these theists would start a thread just discussing the moral values or lessons of some of the stories in the bible as well as some of the scriptures. there is actually quite a lot of interesting things in the bible. that's what i would do if i was trying to share my religion. this never occurred to them, yet?

notice they never really do that. why not? isn't that more productive than just trying to prove god or whatever? that's not even helpful.

they don't really want to share, they just want to be right. i just don't understand how a book so rich in so much moral allegory, some of it quite beautiful, is just ignored by them. some of them apparently haven't even really read it either.

they really are a banal lot.
Click to expand...
why?
One of the first things an atheist will tell you is that there is no essential need for morality to have religious connections .... which also tends to support the notion that moral obedience is simply an elevated wrung of conditioned life
 
LG -

How do you suggest that people engage in a discussion about reality, on the grounds of what?
Namely, given that such discussion can potentially erode everything they hold to be real, and thus opens up the door to insanity?



Signal said:
Without an Archimedean point on which to leverage such a discussion, there is either denial, or the route to the house with white padded cells.
Click to expand...
 
Signal said:
LG -

How do you suggest that people engage in a discussion about reality, on the grounds of what?
Namely, given that such discussion can potentially erode everything they hold to be real, and thus opens up the door to insanity?
Click to expand...
ontology as a subject deals with different levels of reality so I don't think the consequence of working with a lesser reality is the complete erosion of everything.

As for how one discusses it, there are various approaches but a good place to start is to examine what it can theoretically encapsulate -(an examination which paints a necessarily small portrait for empiricism btw ....)
 
YoYoPapaya said:
It's funny to me how people believing in magic books are considered completely sane.
Click to expand...

well, both atheists and theists alike are very sane and intelligent.

after all, we can count on the atheists to spout their theory of evolution and survival of the fittest while theists who believe that jesus literally was born of a virgin is true outnumber them.

they both make so much sense, don't they? they are so intelligent and have it all figured out.
 
One side claims to have it all figured out, the other doesn't but tries to find answers for the hard questions.
 
Signal said:
But why do they end up being a danger to themselves and others?
Click to expand...
they have no regard for the actual state(s) of things ... which isn't to say that the actual state of things is incapable of housing a variety of conflicting views, or even to say that amongst the actual state(s) of things, its not possible for one or several states to operate out a superior state than all others
 
lightgigantic said:
they have no regard for the actual state(s) of things ... which isn't to say that the actual state of things is incapable of housing a variety of conflicting views, or even to say that amongst the actual state(s) of things, its not possible for one or several states to operate out a superior state than all others
Click to expand...

Why don't they have a regard for the actual state(s) of things?
And how can they gain that regard?



(Interestingly, in developmental psychology, the earliest stages of a child's cognitive development are explained as egocentrism - that the child thinks that the world around him is a product of his, in good and in bad, that he thinks he deserves credit for the good things and blame for the bad things that happen. In effect, this is solipsism. Mentally dysfunctional adults are also described as being immature, stuck in early childhood.)
 
Signal said:
Why don't they have a regard for the actual state(s) of things?
And how can they gain that regard?
Click to expand...
You're asking clinical-level questions about mental illness on an internet board??? I'll have to call Mrs. Fraggle, she worked with them for several years. Although frankly I suspect she'd just as soon forget that chapter in her life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top