tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post8870686257895616937..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 718: Oops! I forgot to tell a joke!Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger201125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-14894163909712385032010-03-29T16:03:50.777-07:002010-03-29T16:03:50.777-07:00http://screwyoulauren.net/index.php?c=viral&m=...http://screwyoulauren.net/index.php?c=viral&m=index&id=3e8db9b28d6d18899235e19de4017366Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-19986699163654964242010-03-29T03:05:39.086-07:002010-03-29T03:05:39.086-07:00(Imperfect) analogy: You are a parent with a chil...(Imperfect) analogy: You are a parent with a child of school-age. He receives a homework assignment - we can assume the assignment is reasonably structured and relevant to the current topic of study, or in short, not a crappy timewaster. You, as parent, do not enforce a strict study schedule for your child: he is effectively free to do his homework as soon as he gets settled after school (or at any reasonable time during the day), or he could blow off the assignment and play videogames all night. If the former, there are numerous benefits which are obvious to you but which may not be immediately obvious to the child; if the latter, there are obvious negative consequences. If the child chooses the latter, and you do nothing to stop him, the immediate consequences are negative - he fails to understand his lessons and consequently fails his next test as well. However, he may grow and develop from the experience, and learn to discern the difference between good and bad choices; he would have the choice of learning from his mistake or compounding it. He could become a better student, eventually going to college, getting a decent job, and by any account having a successful life; or he could give up, not go to college or otherwise fail to continue his education/training, and ultimately get stuck doing dead-end jobs for the rest of his life.<br /><br />For most mature adults, the good choices in this case are obvious, and they would actively push their children to pursue them. While doing so ostensibly encourages a more positive long-term outcome, it may also deprive the child of his ability to grow in his discernment of the world, fixing him in rigid behavior patterns that lack deeper intellectual and moral consideration. The end result might end up being co-dependency, where the person lacks the strength of personality and convictions to get along in life without somebody to make important decisions for him. God is uniquely strong-willed to know the good and evil consequences of our actions and allow us to make such choices for ourselves - even if we end up being evil and depraved, we will be complete in our evil and depravity. It would be our choice.<br /><br />Do keep in mind that the two choices need not have diametrically opposed moral values - in other words, this does not imply that duty and pleasure are strictly separated by a sharp line dividing good from evil. In this analogy the videogames are not an absolute evil, nor the homework an absolute good; if the child diligently chose to tend to his homework first he would probably have time later to relax and have fun. "Good" does not equate to "dull" or "boring;" pleasure has its proper relation and proportion to duty, and when it is observed a person is capable of leading a virtuous, meaningful life. To take another example, chastity and sex - chastity is appropriate outside of marriage, but typically not within it, and vice-versa. Neither is more good or more evil than the other, both are good in proper proportion to the other, and both can become evil when divorced from such an understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-1215250941718799562010-03-29T02:27:10.907-07:002010-03-29T02:27:10.907-07:00Short answer to problem of evil: free will. God g...Short answer to problem of evil: free will. God gave us Free Will and made it an intrinsic part of our Humanity. To deprive us of Free Will would be to deprive us of a large part of that which makes us fundamentally Human and fundamentally different from creatures that lack agency, i.e. all non-sapient animals. For God to do so would be for God to contradict His own will in giving humanity Free Will in the first place. As a direct consequence of this, Humanity was allowed to fall from its intended place in the natural order because of the first sin of Eve and Adam (Pride, obstinacy, disobedience).<br /><br />It is within God's capability to eliminate evil within Creation (see Great Flood, Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) or to counter particular incidences of evil via direct supernatural intervention (see various miracles of Jesus, up to his resurrection), but except for these exceptional circumstances, God chooses not to do so. This is because it is our responsibility, as creatures made in Gods own image, to deal with the evil wrought by our own actions and the actions of others, or that which results from humanly unavoidable disasters. As someone - I believe Mrs. Peel - said above, we were not made to be automatons; for some inscrutable reason, it is important to God that we have the choice of accepting or rejecting Him, and that our choice will be eternally honored either by union with God (Sainthood, Heaven) or separation from God (Damnation, Hell). For this reason, evil is allowed to exist.<br /><br />If that seems unsatisfactory or unconvincing to you, do keep in mind that this is not meant to convince the unbeliever (also, I am no scholar and don't purport to authoritatively convey the doctrines of the Church). This is what the believer already believes (at least within orthodox Christian culture). Obviously if you choose not to believe in God in the first place, none of this would be persuasive. It presupposes belief in God, the revelations of the Jewish prophets, Jesus Christ and his apostles, and the traditions of the Church which include the doctrines of Free Will and Original Sin. I don't know how "heterodox"/protestant/"non-denominational" groups account for the problem of evil. I only write this to address the implication that religions (specifically orthodox Christianity) have no meaningful answer to the Problem of Evil. This is how the Church traditionally answers that question; your mileage may vary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-43928484217132574642010-03-29T00:25:23.381-07:002010-03-29T00:25:23.381-07:00Anon 1:30, Part 2: Electric Boogaloo
“Evil's ...Anon 1:30, Part 2: Electric Boogaloo<br /><br />“Evil's there, trying to work against God, but in the end He uses it for His purpose. <br /><br />A bad example I just made up: someone murdering someone is, in itself, evil. If, in prison, they "become a Christian," or someone sees that they're wrong based on the killing for some reason, that is good. Just apply that to, whatever happens, Jesus comes back.”<br />The problem here, again, is that Jesus could come back and save our souls or lead us into the Kingdom of Heaven or whatever the heck he wants to do WITHOUT EVIL. Evil is fully and totally superfluous to an omnipotent God, because an omnipotent God CAN DO ANYTHING, so he DOESN’T NEED EVIL. He is all-powerful, and so he can enact whatever plan he has in mind without putting us through war or rape or murder. Yet, if God exists, he is putting us through exactly that. The point here is that God is hypothetically powerful enough to make everything work out according to his designs without there being evil, and yet evil still exists.<br /><br />To use your own smaller scale example: sure, somebody realizing that killing other people is wrong is a good thing. But God is powerful enough to make it happen without there being a murder in the first place. God doesn’t need to resort to murders in order to achieve that end or teach that lesson—so why do they exist?<br /><br />Now, the problem of evil doesn’t necessarily mean that God doesn’t exist. It could mean that he simply doesn’t have the power to stop evil (or that there’s some purpose that he needs to use evil to achieve), meaning that he isn’t omnipotent. It could mean that he’s just a dick and doesn’t care enough to spare the world from misery, which would mean that God isn’t good. Or, it could mean that what we understand as “evil” isn’t, in the grand scheme of things, a bad, worthless, or wicked thing—which would mean that there’s no such thing as “evil” as we understand it, since we understand as evil to be something inherently valueless and negative.<br /><br />That’s why Rob and Co. keep characterizing your argument as either “there’s no such thing as evil”—if what we understand as “evil” is necessary for a full understanding of God (“The point of the fall as I understand it was to bring us closer to God”), then it’s not really that horrible in the grand scheme of things, is it? <br /><br />Of course, there’s something else inherent in this argument—the idea that God somehow needs to use evil in order to shape us in some way (“We couldn't know the same depravity without having gone through it, and so couldn't know the same love”) contains the assumption that God is not omnipotent. An omnipotent God could shape humanity any way he pleased without having to resort to brutality—with a snap his ephemeral fingers, he could teach us everything we could ever want to know about the depravity you talk about, all without hurting a single innocent person. A God who needs to resort to evil in order to save our souls isn’t all powerful, because a truly all powerful God, a God who could do anything, wouldn’t have to mess around with rape and murder and genocide.<br /><br />Anon 1:30, Pt. 3:<br /><br />"I don't understand. Just because it's necessary doesn't make it magically not evil. And how does that say God's not fully good? It doesn't take evil for Him to become fully good."<br /><br />The idea you seem to have put forward is that what we know as “evil” is necessary to achieve some genuine, transcendent good. If you believe that this transcendent good outweighs everything ugly about human suffering and depravity, then that suffering isn’t really for the worst, so it isn’t genuinely heinous or horrific or bad (thus the “denying that evil exists”—or, more specifically, denying that it’s all that bad when measured against the good it’s meant to cause). If you believe that this transcendent good doesn’t outweigh everything ugly about human suffering and depravity, then God is kind of a douchebag for putting us through all this stuff without sufficient cause—and, thus, he isn’t fully good.Jacques "The Ox" Tiramisunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-56901823233305839502010-03-29T00:24:42.259-07:002010-03-29T00:24:42.259-07:00Scott McTony:
"Similar applies to the curren...Scott McTony:<br /><br />"Similar applies to the current Islamic situation in England, which while currently being fairly self contained and passive, shows a risk of exploding into something far more dangerous than education revisions."<br /><br />You know, Scotty, old pal, old chum of mine, that's a pretty scummy, racist thing to say. There's no "Islamic situation" --the extremists you're talking about are a distinct minority of Muslims who are marginalized within their own religion, let alone within England at large, and it's pretty damned offensive to see you characterizing the majority of English Muslims as people who want to "kill homosexuals and nonbelievers". The first bit of your argument wasn't awful, but it would be nice if you could back up your anti-theism with something a little more substantive and a little less stupid than "Oooh! Look at the spooky brown men!"<br /><br />Anon 1:30:<br /><br />"I don't understand. Just because it's necessary doesn't make it magically not evil. And how does that say God's not fully good? It doesn't take evil for Him to become fully good."<br /><br />Man's nature is to disobey, and with the commandment not to eat the fruit they naturally had to disobey. Here, God could have just destroyed them, so He's capable of "stopping evil," but the "evil exists," as He chose mercy instead. The point of the fall as I understand it was to bring us closer to God. We couldn't know the same depravity without having gone through it, and so couldn't know the same love. We'd know something more akin to the angels.<br />The essential problem I have with this explanation is that, in most of the theologies I’ve heard, God is, um, omnipotent. He can do anything, with any result and any consequence, on his own terms. He is all powerful. <br /><br />What this means is that a holy, true, or righteous purpose simply does not excuse the existence of evil, because whatever God can do WITH evil, he can do WITHOUT evil. Evil may be a part of some grand cosmic process, but it doesn’t have to be—God could be achieving whatever he’s set out to achieve without making use of evil or suffering or anything like that. If God exists, and if he’s omnipotent, then he could bring us to whatever self-actualization He has in mind without putting the rest of us through poverty and AIDS and genocide—so why do they exist? <br /><br />If God is omnipotent, then he can do whatever the hell he’s doing without employing/tolerating evil (because, well, he can do anything). And, if God can do whatever the hell he’s doing without employing/tolerating evil, then…why is he employing/tolerating evil? Likewise, if God ISN’T employing or tolerating evil, then why does it still exist? The only possible answers here are pretty much what Rob listed—either God can’t stop evil (meaning he, at the very least, isn’t omnipotent, and depending on how you see things might not exist), he won’t stop evil (meaning he’s pretty much a mass-murdering dick), or there isn’t such a thing as evil (which has so many fucked-up moral implications that I don’t even want to talk about them because it would take all night—besides, I won’t be able to put it any better than Candide, anyway.) But, the point is, no matter how you slice it, something has to give.Jacques "The Ox" Tiramisunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86272831476231191402010-03-28T02:47:27.532-07:002010-03-28T02:47:27.532-07:00Also, when I say self contained and passive, I rea...Also, when I say self contained and passive, I really mean "They're only talking about becoming the majority, and then killing nonbelievers and homosexuals. They're not actually shooting anyone yet!"ScottMcTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025470618255517817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-58856235606715841982010-03-28T02:15:20.726-07:002010-03-28T02:15:20.726-07:00@Mal
Except that those tons of white people don...@Mal<br />Except that those tons of white people don't make laws on the basis of their whiteness, because there isn't any ideology attached to being white. On the other hand, you could look at things like the recent revisions made by the Texas State Board of Education*, and while you can say that most people aren't that sort of deeply religious folk that directly made that happen, the commonality of Christianity was necessary for those sort of people to gain even wide social acceptance, let alone political power.<br /><br />*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQx_2j5nXuc<br /><br />Similar applies to the current Islamic situation in England, which while currently being fairly self contained and passive, shows a risk of exploding into something far more dangerous than education revisions.<br /><br />Captcha: Pratfu. It feels a tad appropriate.ScottMcTonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-83869627501495424102010-03-27T17:04:39.068-07:002010-03-27T17:04:39.068-07:00"that one's a form of denying either that..."that one's a form of denying either that evil exists (ie, evil is necessary in order for us to achieve the fullest form of good, therefore it's not really evil) or that God is fully good (he could stop evil, he just doesn't choose to because it's part of his design), depending on the slant you take."<br /><br />I don't understand. Just because it's necessary doesn't make it magically not evil. And how does that say God's not fully good? It doesn't take evil for Him to become fully good.<br /><br />Also, if "it's not really evil," what would that imply?Anon 1:30noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84097244264433795082010-03-27T09:39:05.663-07:002010-03-27T09:39:05.663-07:00You know, my beliefs don't encourage the death...You know, <i>my</i> beliefs don't encourage the death by stoning of rape victims <i>either</i>. Have fun with your chronological snobbery.<br /><br />Well, okay, not necessarily. Maybe there are still some religious people today who <i>do</i> encourage that kind of behavior. Thanks for associating me with them.<br /><br />I'm gonna go ahead and say that I feel justified in that at least <i>my</i> beliefs don't encourage shooting up high schools and reciting half-baked Nietzsche essays.<br /><br /><i>I feel that we should default to the side that doesn't deprive others of their rights, or worse</i><br /><br />There is no such side. There is nothing about religion that makes it any more likely to cause rights deprivation, except perhaps the chronological coincidence that most religion was developed before the Enlightenment and so there's a correlation.<br /><br />I'm also interested in how you think we should be enforcing the separation between church and state. Currently, we're pretty much where John Locke thinks we ought to be. There's no state-sponsored religion, and every religious choice that isn't otherwise illegal is protected under the Constitution.<br /><br />Admittedly, there are a few cosmetic things that you might object to: The word "God" appears a few times in official things like the Pledge and the dollar bill. This is hardly equivalent to the state mandating that everyone believe one religion, or privileging one religion over another, or even giving privileged legal status to religions over non-religions.<br /><br />But I suppose it's reasonable to say that it's inappropriate for that to be in there <i>anyway</i>. All right.<br /><br />More seriously, it's probably inappropriate for religious groups to qualify for tax-exempt status, and I don't know enough about what that status is and why religious groups get it to be able to offer a more thorough critique of the idea. Even so, that's not the state privileging any particular religion over the other, though the state does seem to privilege religions over non-religions, which is problematic.<br /><br />Beyond that, what would you even want to change? Objecting to things like "Well tons of Christians make and influence laws!" is ridiculous, it's like saying that because tons of white people make and influence laws the government is institutionally racist. Tons of Christians make and influence laws because there are tons of them, and they're organized, and we live in a democracy where organized groups of people can influence laws.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-29756626119731406092010-03-27T09:32:47.242-07:002010-03-27T09:32:47.242-07:00"Having never studied much philosophy at all,..."Having never studied much philosophy at all, and especially no epistemology, I found this to be far more informative than I generally expect from xkcdsucks comment sections."<br /><br />a very good anthology on philosophy of religion is called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Timothy-Robinson/dp/0872206416/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269705608&sr=1-7" rel="nofollow">God</a>, by Timothy A Robinson. most people are not quite so hung up on the fact that the whole epistemological certainty thing is really dumb.<br /><br />"But to say that that kind of close-mindedness makes atheists as bad as religious people ignores, I think, one major fact: atheists are (obviously) a lot less likely to blow things up for their religious beliefs."<br /><br />Dan Savage has this feature on The Stranger called "there is no morality without religion," which you would probably enjoy.<br /><br />so, the problem I have with saying that atheism doesn't cause death is basically this: there's not enough atheists in history to have enough examples. and it's hard to say to what degree something is caused by religion or on what level.<br /><br />of course, I agree that you should never apply your beliefs in ways that hurt others, but I don't think that's the exclusive provender of the religious. atheists just don't have the cultural dominance to pull it off (and also are usually from developed nations where there isn't a culture of violence and so on).<br /><br />"I don't know what theodicies you've been hearing then, haha. I'll try to explain my understanding, but probably won't do a great job, so sorry. Basically, if "God is good," then anything that's not God is not good. Man's nature is to disobey, and with the commandment not to eat the fruit they naturally had to disobey. Here, God could have just destroyed them, so He's capable of "stopping evil," but the "evil exists," as He chose mercy instead. The point of the fall as I understand it was to bring us closer to God. We couldn't know the same depravity without having gone through it, and so couldn't know the same love. We'd know something more akin to the angels."<br /><br />that one's a form of denying either that evil exists (ie, evil is necessary in order for us to achieve the fullest form of good, therefore it's not really evil) or that God is fully good (he could stop evil, he just doesn't choose to because it's part of his design), depending on the slant you take.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6173232580038201262010-03-27T08:41:16.864-07:002010-03-27T08:41:16.864-07:00Wow. Impressive discussion, this. In fact, I think...Wow. Impressive discussion, this. In fact, I think I need to thank Femalethoth, El Duderino and Rob for providing me by far the most civil and - not coincidentally - interesting debate about religion and knowledge that I have ever seen on the internet. Having never studied much philosophy at all, and especially no epistemology, I found this to be far more informative than I generally expect from xkcdsucks comment sections.<br /><br />That said, I must admit myself to be one of those same hateful atheists who acts as if anyone even slightly religious or spiritual is an imbecile. I will admit so somewhat ashamedly, because I know that it is irresponsible and - deep down - I'm actually very much inclined to agree with everything Rob has said above (minus a few obscenities). But to say that that kind of close-mindedness makes atheists as bad as religious people ignores, I think, one major fact: atheists are (obviously) a lot less likely to blow things up for their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Of course, terrorism is likely a flawed example - it seems plausible that anyone messed up enough to hurt large numbers of innocent people for their religion would be just as willing to use another justification - but what of the myriad other ways in which people's religious beliefs can hurt those around them? While I accept that my occasionally acting superior makes me a bit of an ass, I feel justified in that at least my beliefs don't encourage the death by stoning of rape victims.<br /><br />For me, at least - and I think likely for a lot of the angry, asshole anti-theists - the problem is not the leap of faith that religious people make. The question of whether it is possible to know, and whether either side is more logically justifiable, is irrelevant. The problem is when people start taking their beliefs, which Rob has repeatedly pointed out no one can be certain about, and applying them in ways that hurt others. If it really is impossible to know, then I feel that we should default to the side that doesn't deprive others of their rights, or worse. Or, at the very least, we should more strictly enforce the separation between church and state.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178364663978405979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-4735307706744127232010-03-27T01:01:33.995-07:002010-03-27T01:01:33.995-07:00"right, of course. the reason you said that d..."right, of course. the reason you said that disbelieving in god is the same as believing in jupiter, despite the fact that you are comparing a lack of belief to a positive belief and a belief in a directly observable phenomenon (except that apparently because the eye is not directly inside of jupiter it's not direct because you've read Descartes--IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THAT NAME YOU JUST DROPPED, I FOUND IT) to a belief in a cosmic principle that is pretty much by its very nature impossible to observe and is also, according to many if not most definitions, required for the existence of the universe. you were definitely not just saying that disbelieving in god is the same thing as believing in jupiter! that would make you a complete and utter fuckwit, so of course you just meant something which does not actually follow from your original claim."<br /><br />I never said that disbelieving in god was the same as believing in Jupiter, nor did I intentionally imply it. If I did so unintentionally, I'm sorry. I'm very sorry. I am so terribly sorry. Is your mordant pen sated, oh ye of the broken shift key? I hope so; I fear that one more of your 'clever barbs' would have irreparably shattered my entire worldview.<br /><br />"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW"<br /><br />I think that you're overestimating my emotional investment in this little dialogue. My tears amount to no more than some light sobs - it will take a few more rounds of tilting before I reach bawling status.<br /><br />"more like I guess you're just full of shit."<br /><br />Well, I suppose you would know more about my experiences than I would.<br /><br />Literally every agnostic I had ever met had always been very civil in religious discussion. Thank you for providing a counterexample!<br /><br />"most people are not Japanese, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian."<br /><br />Of course not. That does not alter the fact that you called the majority of the populations of those countries "dicks". I find this sentiment offensive and, frankly, racist.<br /><br />"what are you, stupid?"<br /> <br />My continued presence in this debate leads me to no other conclusion.Nymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-79084964604852252772010-03-27T00:46:35.062-07:002010-03-27T00:46:35.062-07:00Oh no I had tried to tell myself religion didn'...Oh no I had tried to tell myself religion didn't actually make real people this apathetic to suffering oh god you are shattering my innocence fuck fuck fuck.ScottMcTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025470618255517817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-16287164976520256232010-03-26T23:55:06.934-07:002010-03-26T23:55:06.934-07:00No, just saying that everything works out for the ...No, just saying that everything works out for the good.<br /><br />Evil's there, trying to work against God, but in the end He uses it for His purpose. <br /><br />A bad example I just made up: someone murdering someone is, in itself, evil. If, in prison, they "become a Christian," or someone sees that they're wrong based on the killing for some reason, that is good. Just apply that to, whatever happens, Jesus comes back.Anon 1:30noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-14527494261735280162010-03-26T23:42:04.780-07:002010-03-26T23:42:04.780-07:00So, you're denying that evil exists.So, you're denying that evil exists.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89917988655225695462010-03-26T23:04:16.573-07:002010-03-26T23:04:16.573-07:00"Anon 1:30 - could you possibly elaborate on ..."Anon 1:30 - could you possibly elaborate on what you think that is saying?"<br />Yeah, sorry, I like to give people time to think before I say what I think, haha.<br /><br />What I get out of it is that we are sure, and certain. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Like, Solomon's mines, or like, oh look, here's God? <br /><br />Verse 6 says "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." That He rewards those who earnestly seek Him is where I think it takes actual faith. <br /><br />Where does this conversation start above? Haha.<br /><br />"The problem of evil is why I stopped believing, because there has yet to be a theodicy that seems even remotely compelling." "The problem is all of them basically deny either that God is good, that God is capable of stopping evil, or that evil exists."<br /><br />I don't know what theodicies you've been hearing then, haha. I'll try to explain my understanding, but probably won't do a great job, so sorry. Basically, if "God is good," then anything that's not God is not good. Man's nature is to disobey, and with the commandment not to eat the fruit they naturally had to disobey. Here, God could have just destroyed them, so He's capable of "stopping evil," but the "evil exists," as He chose mercy instead. The point of the fall as I understand it was to bring us closer to God. We couldn't know the same depravity without having gone through it, and so couldn't know the same love. We'd know something more akin to the angels.<br /><br />Buut, surely you're thinking "Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!" Well, there are two ways of looking at good. There's the normal way: evil is evil, good is good, and then there's: everything is good, as it serves the purpose that God created it for. Satan, and all. What we intend for evil, He intends for good.Anon 1:30noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-27003620855573146662010-03-26T22:32:44.313-07:002010-03-26T22:32:44.313-07:00"Except that, in a purely Cartesian epistemol..."Except that, in a purely Cartesian epistemological sense, the "observable evidence" is exactly as useful as "not observable evidence". Jupiter is not "directly observable" because it relies on many different things (photons traveling from Jupiter to Earth, neurons firing in a precise route and sequence, brain chemistry), all of which are fallible."<br /><br />hahaha. a list of things which are red herrings: THAT.<br /><br />"My point in this analogy was not to create a Russell's Teacup, but to point out that most people don't use hyper-rigorous epistemological criteria when identifying what they believe."<br /><br />right, of course. the reason you said that disbelieving in god is the same as believing in jupiter, despite the fact that you are comparing a lack of belief to a positive belief and a belief in a directly observable phenomenon (except that apparently because the eye is not directly inside of jupiter it's not direct because you've read Descartes--IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THAT NAME YOU JUST DROPPED, I FOUND IT) to a belief in a cosmic principle that is pretty much by its very nature impossible to observe and is also, according to many if not most definitions, required for the existence of the universe. you were definitely not just saying that disbelieving in god is the same thing as believing in jupiter! that would make you a complete and utter fuckwit, so of course you just meant something which does not actually follow from your original claim.<br /><br />"As you like it, but the idea and usage of the word "proof" is basically founded upon logic, which is not a particularly kind system to that which is "beyond human comprehension". I can understand and respect people who feel that something divine exists, but I don't really like it when they say that logic is insufficient when it's simply inapplicable."<br /><br />BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW<br /><br />"Most of the atheists I know don't give two shits about philosophy one way or the other, but I guess we must just have very different experiences."<br /><br />more like I guess you're just full of shit.<br /><br />"I really don't think that that's a fair assessment. Most Japanese people I've known, for example, are very polite, and that nation is mostly atheistic. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, who are supposed to be pretty pleasant and inoffensive."<br /><br />most people are not Japanese, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian.<br /><br />"Besides, how can you "identify" as an atheist, anyway? It's not something you elect to be a member of, it's a label applied to your beliefs - if you believe in many gods, you are a "polytheist" whether you say you are or not, aren't you?"<br /><br />what are you, stupid?rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-68161533383354777072010-03-26T22:12:18.603-07:002010-03-26T22:12:18.603-07:00"your analogy fails on two fronts here. first..."your analogy fails on two fronts here. first: Jupiter is directly observable. pretty much by his very nature, God is not. even when believers claim to have seen or interacted with God atheists believe they are either lying or insane, so please don't do yourself the disfavor of saying "well he was plenty observable in the Bible!" there are lots of believers who claim to have literally heard or seen God still."<br /><br />Except that, in a purely Cartesian epistemological sense, the "observable evidence" is exactly as useful as "not observable evidence". Jupiter is not "directly observable" because it relies on many different things (photons traveling from Jupiter to Earth, neurons firing in a precise route and sequence, brain chemistry), all of which are fallible.<br /><br />My point in this analogy was not to create a Russell's Teacup, but to point out that most people don't use hyper-rigorous epistemological criteria when identifying what they believe.<br /><br />"second, Jupiter is, again, not the sort of cosmic principle which, if it existed, would be by its very nature beyond human comprehension, nor is Jupiter the sort of thing upon which the entirety of existence relies."<br /><br />As you like it, but the idea and usage of the word "proof" is basically founded upon logic, which is not a particularly kind system to that which is "beyond human comprehension". I can understand and respect people who feel that something divine exists, but I don't really like it when they say that logic is insufficient when it's simply inapplicable.<br /><br />"whatever else is true, atheists certainly spend massive amounts of their time thinking about the existence of god or the lack thereof. they argue about it and prove it and use their epistemological certainty to make fun of those silly religious people. the idea of God is central to their belief systems."<br /><br />Most of the atheists I know don't give two shits about philosophy one way or the other, but I guess we must just have very different experiences.<br /><br />"also, the only reason I don't identify as an atheist is because atheists are pretty generally dicks."<br /><br />I really don't think that that's a fair assessment. Most Japanese people I've known, for example, are very polite, and that nation is mostly atheistic. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, who are supposed to be pretty pleasant and inoffensive.<br /><br />Besides, how can you "identify" as an atheist, anyway? It's not something you elect to be a member of, it's a label applied to your beliefs - if you believe in many gods, you are a "polytheist" whether you say you are or not, aren't you?Nymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-13783208670398648222010-03-26T18:53:34.718-07:002010-03-26T18:53:34.718-07:00Wow, "Wow, christians are dumber than shit&qu...Wow, "Wow, christians are dumber than shit" is dumber than shit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-81961062461981862782010-03-26T16:19:46.864-07:002010-03-26T16:19:46.864-07:00Wow, christians are dumber than shit.Wow, christians are dumber than shit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-91543282278036624202010-03-26T15:06:30.974-07:002010-03-26T15:06:30.974-07:00"It's interesting, and perhaps sadly pred..."It's interesting, and perhaps sadly predictable, but for someone like me who lives in a predominantly atheist/irreligious environment, the pressure felt from the stigma of leaning towards theist thinking similarly evokes a desire to viciously attack opposing views, a desire which must be restrained."<br /><br />being the only theist can't be very fun. I'm lucky enough to have an environment where most of the people I talk to are irreligious, so we just don't talk about it much. it's gotten to the point that I just default to assuming that people have similar beliefs to me. the tendency humans have to self-select is remarkable.<br /><br />"What is intolerable is when people are so self-assured as to assume that the issue is beneath them, unworthy of contemplation or discussion."<br /><br />that absolute certainty is such a weird thing. I've stopped being actually confused by it since I've come to realize that it's not a tendency of atheists or theists but just something that humans do, but it's still weird. it would probably be nice to be so certain of myself though.<br /><br />"Luckily, (or unluckily depending on your viewpoint) I am able to permit myself more leeway in what I can allow to be bridged by faith or raw belief."<br /><br />I think this is the bit atheists have a hard time with. the idea of taking something on faith seems, to them, to be akin to saying "I don't care about logic or the real world."<br /><br />"I wonder if there is a universal truth out there, independant of an observer... I'll just google 'universal truth' and see what wikipedia has to say."<br /><br />even if there is a universal truth independent of the observer, you'd have to observe it to know it, which means it's stopped being independent.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-52859795804133362822010-03-26T14:28:27.503-07:002010-03-26T14:28:27.503-07:00@Rob
It's interesting, and perhaps sadly pred...@Rob<br /><br />It's interesting, and perhaps sadly predictable, but for someone like me who lives in a predominantly atheist/irreligious environment, the pressure felt from the stigma of leaning towards theist thinking similarly evokes a desire to viciously attack opposing views, a desire which must be restrained.<br /><br />What is intolerable is when people are so self-assured as to assume that the issue is beneath them, unworthy of contemplation or discussion.<br /><br />For my own part I know very well the thinking that you, and to an extent, femaletoth ascribe to. Luckily, (or unluckily depending on your viewpoint) I am able to permit myself more leeway in what I can allow to be bridged by faith or raw belief.<br /><br />I wonder if there is a universal truth out there, independant of an observer... I'll just google 'universal truth' and see what wikipedia has to say.Geustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31320227569779206722010-03-26T13:36:24.879-07:002010-03-26T13:36:24.879-07:00If we were talking about one common dream then may...If we were talking about one common dream then maybe, but there is more than one dream that is claimed to be common. This would be more analogous to your neighbor not only having never tasted root beer, but also never having tasted mountain dew, cherry pepsi, and shirley temples. Also I've never had root beer because it smells weird.<br />I'm not sure what to make of this new comic though in terms of the way Randall generally treats women. In one panel it manages to have hovering people and a disconnected head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-53090488530259397242010-03-26T13:30:50.868-07:002010-03-26T13:30:50.868-07:00Anon 1:30 - could you possibly elaborate on what y...Anon 1:30 - could you possibly elaborate on what you think that is saying?rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-15515781316578086532010-03-26T13:30:03.560-07:002010-03-26T13:30:03.560-07:00Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we ho...Hebrews 11:1<br />Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.<br /><br />Captcha: capedgin - the superman variety.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com