Humans and Animals [Poll]

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hi everyone, in light of the recent "values" thread, as well as some other recent discussions, I thought I'd post a simple poll. Take note of the selections, and kindly post the reason for your choice. Thx :)

- Among creatures of the earth, humans have the most inherent value.
- All creatures - from humans to amoebas, have identical value.
- No creatures have inherent value.

[Havard]

Well my opinion is no news here. I say that humans have a greater value than the rest.

[ScytheNoire]

and i say that value comes from accomplishments.

if plant A does absolutly nothing for us and plant B cures cancer, somehow, i think that plant B ranks higher in value.

same holds true for people.

if Bob sits on his butt all daying playing WoW and Jim finds plant B that cures cancer, somehow, i'd find this hard to argue against, Jim seems to hold more value.

call me crazy, but it's how the world works. if you don't believe me, i'll trade you a few thousand Canadian dollars for the same numerical amount in Euros or American dollars. :)

[w00tasaurus]

and i say that value comes from accomplishments.

if plant A does absolutly nothing for us and plant B cures cancer, somehow, i think that plant B ranks higher in value.

same holds true for people.

if Bob sits on his butt all daying playing WoW and Jim finds plant B that cures cancer, somehow, i'd find this hard to argue against, Jim seems to hold more value.

call me crazy, but it's how the world works. if you don't believe me, i'll trade you a few thousand Canadian dollars for the same numerical amount in Euros or American dollars. :)

I'd say if Bob lets me play WoW he has a greater value.

Hmm I voted all have equal value, but I ment to click the last one for about the same reasons as scythe.


what did you vote for Aoa?

[Ryu]

humans have the greatest worth but animals still have a lot of worth

[Coltaine]

To find out what Aoa votet for, look at the poll results :-) I know for 100% what he votet if no other member on this board is lying.

I votet for a.
This comes from me reflecting how i act. I would never say an unborn has no value. I would kill animals if if it is very ill, but never a human.
That doen not mean that animals have no value, they have.
But i have yet to come up with a good reason why not to wipe out all seals, under the condition that we could survive still. I wont because i think they have a value and would be a great loss. but i don't think it is a good reason.
My opinion was diffenerent some time ago, and guess what. It change through a discussion! Yeah you heard right! it is possible to change ones views. :idea: And it happens more often than some think it is.

Guess i didn't said all i wanted but it is so hot outside that i can't think.
and no, the climate isn't changing :rant:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

and i say that value comes from accomplishments.

if plant A does absolutly nothing for us and plant B cures cancer, somehow, i think that plant B ranks higher in value.

same holds true for people.

if Bob sits on his butt all daying playing WoW and Jim finds plant B that cures cancer, somehow, i'd find this hard to argue against, Jim seems to hold more value.

call me crazy, but it's how the world works. if you don't believe me, i'll trade you a few thousand Canadian dollars for the same numerical amount in Euros or American dollars. :)

You spoke of values that are assigned for a specific end or task. What about inherent value?

wOOt - our choices are visible, just click on the numbers. I selected humans and the hierarchy of values - essentially what Ryu said.

[Havard]

I'd say if Bob lets me play WoW he has a greater value.

Or... you have a greater motive to KILL him! Isn't that right, Mr. "w00tasaurus"? Or is that not your real name?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

DOnt forget to explain your choices guys, I see Eiger and Essex voted, but where are the posts (as if your positions are defensible anyway :p).

[Bartleby]

I said all have equal value for this reason.

IMO there are two types of value: Universal Value and Relative (think personal) Value.

Universal Value: All things "big and small," "good and evil," etc. have inherently equal value in the sense that everything contributes to the overall balance of the universe. Think yin and yang, without one how could you have the other?

Relative Value: Personally I hate cumquats, to me they are the disgusting little b@stard children of the fruit world. Peaches on the other hand... I could eat peaches all day long. One obviously has more value to me than to another, but it's all relative as there are likely many people who disagree with me.

So I voted the way I did, because in the grander scheme of things all life is inherently valuable.

[Eiger]

DOnt forget to explain your choices guys, I see Eiger and Essex voted, but where are the posts (as if your positions are defensible anyway :p).
Boy, that's encouraging.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bart - what is this "bigger picture". Can you present a reasoned argument for this ying yang system you attest to?

[w00tasaurus]

Or... you have a greater motive to KILL him! Isn't that right, Mr. "w00tasaurus"? Or is that not your real name?

No, it is in fact not my real name!

[Bartleby]

Bart - what is this "bigger picture". Can you present a reasoned argument for this ying yang system you attest to?
I'm sure I could make a good run of it, but it would take a bit of time and I'd have to dust off some of my theology books and a selection or two from the Dalai Lama's works. To be honest though, I can't dedicate the time and that's probably better left for a topic on "Buddhism, Pluralism and what it means for other religions."

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'd like to take a look at your research if you dont mind. I'd say it does indeed have its place on this thread, as it underpins your comments here.

[Essex]

yeah I don't feel like getting into it. I just don't feel that we are all that special... the only reason we are special is because we think we are, and I'm sure if Cats could speak English they'd say the same thing. Besides... I'm a bit tired rehashing the same arguements over and over and over.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essex - any human being, regardless of culture, beliefs, etc, wants to be loved. THis is an inherent quality. There's more to it than just labeling.

[Booms]

Well, I don't think that my vote is too surprising.

From the objective point of view, which is what I had in mind while voting for this poll, there is no inherent value. Value is assigned by people. It really wouldn't matter if all the seals died (aside from ecological issues, but even then, does that really matter if there is no value?).

Don't get me wrong...I'm sad if my pet dies and I would be extremely unhappy if all of the seals died; I have assigned a subjective value to all of them. But when taking a purely objective point of view, there is no value.

[Lord Chad]

Ok I dont hate liberals but I am tired of this BS form everyone one of you in these forums saying humans arent worth **** and that there isnt a god.Now I have nothing against your beliefs but telling someone that truelly belives him that he isnt real can really piss someone off.And I belive that we all have the same worth.But it is human nature to kill animals.God put them on earth for us to eat and if we get overpopulated I believe that there will be another plague or we will have made space colonies.We are on top of the food chain so I guess that makes us the king and some might say human life has more worth.It is our nature to say our life has more worth.Heck if you compare a rich guy to a poor guy the rich guy is going to say his life has more worth becuase he is successful.And humans are going to say they have more worth becuase we are the smartest animals on earth.

[Eiger]

Ok I dont hate liberals but I am tired of this BS form everyone one of you in these forums saying humans arent worth **** and that there isnt a god.Now I have nothing against your beliefs but telling someone that truelly belives him that he isnt real can really piss someone off.
I'd just suggest developing a thicker skin and not taking it personally. There's a wide variety of opinions out there and the odds are on a public forum like this, that you'll disagree as much as you agree. That's life. Just shrug it off. It's not worth getting too worked up about.

[Lord Chad]

I'd just suggest developing a thicker skin and not taking it personally. There's a wide variety of opinions out there and the odds are on a public forum like this, that you'll disagree as much as you agree. That's life. Just shrug it off. It's not worth getting too worked up about.

I guess your right.But this is like the reason I almost never get on the serious subjects.

[bleachy]

I think value is assigned.

Value is assigned by personal biases and beliefs, rather than universally.

I would be more upset if my cat died, than if any one of you died.

[SaroDarksbane]

I think value is assigned.

Value is assigned by personal biases and beliefs, rather than universally.

I would be more upset if my cat died, than if any one of you died.
Nice :lol:

Put me down for Humans have the most inherent value.

[bleachy]

Well, it's honest. :p

[Ryu]

chad, im a liberal but i believe in God, where does it say you cant be a liberal and believe in God?

[Bartleby]

Hey bleachy, your example just fell right in line with what I said about Universal and Relative values. :thumbsup:

[Coltaine]

Didn't you read the bible?
It stands very clear on page 2 on the top.
Its kinda small but if you take a VEEERY good microscope you can make it out :scratch:

[Lord Chad]

chad, im a liberal but i believe in God, where does it say you cant be a liberal and believe in God?

I didnt mean you I meant a lot of liberals I have meet have been aethist.And told me that God isnt real.

[Lord Chad]

I think value is assigned.

Value is assigned by personal biases and beliefs, rather than universally.

I would be more upset if my cat died, than if any one of you died.

You are so right.When my cat died I cried my eyes out but when one of my dads friends died I didnt even shed a tear.

[Ryu]

i was more sad to have to give my dog away then when my grandma died cause werent that close so... i agree
and sorry chad, just sick of the HUGE and VERY BROAD stereotypes especially in election year

[Maullus]

Greetings,

D) None of the Above.

The choices are too absolute. I don't think microscopic organisms have the same "inherent value" of a human being, no, and the suggestion is mildly absurd. However, I do think certain non-human forms of life posses equal value to that of humans, yes. Where is the distinction? Well, sentience is a good indication, though I suppose it then boils down to what constitutes sentience.

Regardless, I'm not going to quibble. I'd choose to kill a million gnats over one human any day...but in the real world, I try to avoid killing either one of them. Each has as much a right to life as the other...beyond that, I can't really quanitify their worth.

[powermongor]

These are the kinds of nonsensical debates I am staying away from, although I did vote for option 1.

If you did not select #1, plz do us all a favor and do not breed. Go move up to Seattle and espouse your nihlistic viewpoints with ppl that empathize with you.

:winner: BUSH 2004 YEEEHAH IN YO FACE!!!! :winner:

[Essex]

These are the kinds of nonsensical debates I am staying away from, although I did vote for option 1.

If you did not select #1, plz do us all a favor and do not breed. Go move up to Seattle and espouse your nihlistic viewpoints with ppl that empathize with you.

:winner: BUSH 2004 YEEEHAH IN YO FACE!!!! :winner:
I'm *** so i can't breed, I'd go to seattle in a moment... I don't care what kind of viewpoints i have... and **** bush... all kinds.

[Chiba]

Since I'm a Christian, and belive in God, I believe Humans are the highest being. For they were created in the likeness of God (according to the Bible).

[Chiba]

These are the kinds of nonsensical debates I am staying away from, although I did vote for option 1.

If you did not select #1, plz do us all a favor and do not breed. Go move up to Seattle and espouse your nihlistic viewpoints with ppl that empathize with you.

:winner: BUSH 2004 YEEEHAH IN YO FACE!!!! :winner:
Though I agree with your view of option 1, and that of I hope Bush wins, that's being very, very ignorant and immature. If you want people to vote Bush, acting like that isn't very appealing. Having your own viewpoints is fine, but doing that is just not needed.

[Sage the Mage]

I'd like to see your reasoning powermongor :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Greetings,

D) None of the Above.

The choices are too absolute. I don't think microscopic organisms have the same "inherent value" of a human being, no, and the suggestion is mildly absurd.


Ironically, I worded that with you in mind. Your post on the other thread which assented to all things having the same value prompted me to make the second selection. If it's to be that arbitrary, where do you cross the line? Oh.. perhaps bears and bees have the same value, but hey - not those amoebas! heh.. The only thing mildly absurd is the notion of stereotypical value ordering, which would be a precipiate of option #2.


However, I do think certain non-human forms of life posses equal value to that of humans, yes. Where is the distinction? Well, sentience is a good indication, though I suppose it then boils down to what constitutes sentience.


Well you redeemed yourself to an extent here. Let's take this cue and start an inquiry into objective lines of demarcation between species, and then ask ourselves what could (if anything could) consitiute an objective assigning of values.

[Galron Kincaid]

Your choices are a bit too extreme, Aba.

I've choosen the second: i love animals (the pluricellular ones), i signed against vivisection and i'm a WWF donating member.

But i don't hesitate gasing flies.


Get the picture? :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yea, just to be clear, we're discussing "objective values", not the values assigned by what an individual favors. It's about inherent worth.

[Havard]

I've choosen the second: i love animals (the pluricellular ones), i signed against vivisection and i'm a WWF donating member.

The World Wildlife Fund or the World Wrestling Federation?

Hey, the wrestlers need help, too! :lol:

[Lord Chad]

These are the kinds of nonsensical debates I am staying away from, although I did vote for option 1.

If you did not select #1, plz do us all a favor and do not breed. Go move up to Seattle and espouse your nihlistic viewpoints with ppl that empathize with you.

:winner: BUSH 2004 YEEEHAH IN YO FACE!!!! :winner:


Oh lord you are making people who support Bush look as ignorant as you.And before Essex says they are stupid if they support Bush let me say this that a lot of republicans arent idiots like Bush and before you say I am republican well I am not a republican.

[ratbert]

I don't see the difference between option 2 and 3. The glass is either half full or half emtpy; same thing.
The only difference you tell of is when you write that we assigne values ourselves, but we do that no matter which alternative is right, don't we?

Age, please explain the difference between 2 and 3, and I might be able to cast a vote.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ratbert - The difference between option 2 and 3 are as follows:

What's at stake in this thread is this question: "Is there an objective value system or hierarchy amongst creatures, or is there not?".

You're right, we do ascribe values no matter what, but we want to know if we are right in siuperimposing values - where they come from, or if we should assent to a universal natural order already present in reality. Now the first option is clear enough, it assumes a hierarchy in creaturehood, with humans, naturally, on top. The value here comes from the notion that all things and all life have value by virtue of their existence, yet existence serves a purpose of some sort. Values thus can be derived from this purpose, which is to be discovered.

The second choice assumes, like the first, that all things and all life has value. However, what's different here is that there is no purpose or movement towards a certain goal or end. People (foolishly IMO) believe by choosing this option that nature exists for its own sake - its really a hippie mentality with no rational basis, but I posted it here because a few others posted the notion in other threads. You hear that now and then today - that animals are "equal" to humans. In short, this model assumes a spirituality of sorts - akin to new agers and tree-huggers (aka horde players *cough*), a deistic model imposing value, but blatantly ignoring the hierarchy we can glean from empirical observation. (that should appease you Eiger :P ).

THe third option is, ironically, a more reasonable option than the 2nd choice. Even so, when looking under the surface, you'll quickly see that it too is devoid of reason. Yet, best to call a spade a spade. THis position assumes a "chaos model" of the universe - that it exists for its own sake, like the 2nd choice, but even worse than that, there is no value to anything - it all happened by accident. This is inherently erroneous by virtue of the design and continued existence of things and laws. Those who posit option 3 are fools.

Hope that helps :).

[ratbert]

In short, this model assumes a spirituality of sorts - akin to new agers and tree-huggers (aka horde players *cough*)

Those who posit option 3 are fools.

Hope that helps :).

:lol:

It seems I'm foolish tree-hugger aka horde player then, as I think that I'll stick to the notion that 2 and 3 are the same (2 is cosmetically better), and that they are the better choice compared to 1 :lol:

Where to begin...
Your answer helped a lot since now I understand what you want us to answer, and I understand your personal language a little bit better.

Value
In general value is created when we choose something over something else. That is, had we not been here to choose between eating vegetables or meat, the discussion about the value of an animals life versus that of a plant would be pointless. The fact that lions would still eat meat, even if we we're not here to observe them, is of no use in so far that lions are not aware of the potential conflict and can not choose.
This thinking can only be applied to non-crafted objects. If an object would be crafted for a purpose (akin to what you write: "However, what's different here is that there is no purpose or movement towards a certain goal or end.") that object could be said to have a value in so far that it fulfills the purpose for which it was created.

These are not my ideas, but I believe in them, and they fit pretty well into your way of reasoning too IF you agree that option 1 requires that the world was crafted by an entity with a certain purpose in mind. As I have read about your religious opinions elsewhere, I believe you already had this in mind.

Now, if one believes not in a creator god, but in a "random" creation, one would have to end up with either option 2 or 3. I think you know the ordinary reasons why one choose not to believe in a creator god, and I don't think they are neither foolish nor hippie-esk, as you indicate choosing option 2 and 3 would be.

I said before that I can't see the difference between 2 and 3, and this is not really true. There is a difference but a very small one, almost semantic.
In my way of thinking, I don't choose to kill an animal over a human because one is more valuable per se, but because of the consequences; as a human I identify with humans and would suffer from a human's death more than an animal's, or I would break the law, or if it was legal (death penalty etc) support a system which could kill me one day, and I would scare other humans who would in term do stupid things because they are afraid to loose their lives, and in the end they might hurt me or someone I love. So on, so forth.
Whatever I choose, I assign value to the chosen path over the not chosen. Whether they both had zero value to begin with (option 3) or 1000 value (option 2), doesn't matter as their value had nothing to do with the choice I made (how could I choose between two things equally valuable?).

The only difference between 2 and 3 is that depending on how you rate being on the receiving end of suicide, option 3 could promote it in so far that it could say that being dead is just as void of value as any other status and is therefore a valid choice, while option 2 would possibly say that once dead all values are beyond your reach and therefore alive is always better (as everything is o so valuable and equally so).

From a purely philosophical stand point I believe 3 to be a better choice, as I don't want to assign negative value a prior no more than I want to assign positive values.
But on the other hand, from a practical stand point, I don't want to go around spreading nihilistic ideas, seeing how many people (myself included sometimes) are depressed by them, and only a precious few appreciate the crisp freshness of breathing air as a morally completely free and unbound creature.

So, at last, and not without some new insight my self, I have decided to vote for option 2; because while value is an illusion, and consequences are not, it's still more fun to have a half full pint than a half empty one.

If you wonder about anything, I'll be in the smoke tent with the other shamans, banging my drum and chanting to mother earth.

[Mad_Mat]

(aka horde players *cough*)
*cough* Night Elves :D
...
Well put. Shortly I would say that I agree, except that I choose option 3 over 2, simply because I feel this poll represents what I agree with in theory, regardless of how I act or feel practicly. Basicly I voted 'from a purely philosophical stand point'. *waits for AoA to 'prove' anyone who views things differently from him is inherently wrong*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

(2 is cosmetically better), and that they are the better choice compared to 1 :lol:


This sounds like a bias. THe goal is to take a critical distance and discover what is objective, regardless if its to your personal liking or not. It's not that we choose the "better choice", but the "truth".


I understand your personal language a little bit better.


This blurb about language hasn't gone unnoticed either, language is a hot topic in contemporary philosophy - only because those eggheads forgot what was most essential. There is only one language, which is discovered from the one world we exist in. The rhetoric and tone you pick up in posts tells you that we dont have all day to post a detailed answer, but hopefully, its clear enough to get the essentials.


Value
In general value is created when we choose something over something else. That is, had we not been here to choose between eating vegetables or meat, the discussion about the value of an animals life versus that of a plant would be pointless. The fact that lions would still eat meat, even if we we're not here to observe them, is of no use in so far that lions are not aware of the potential conflict and can not choose.


Yes, our personal values. Undersood. I'll offer that subjective values and objective values can differ, which is what's at stake here. In addition to the subjective value definition you posted, objective values are inherent signposts in nature.


This thinking can only be applied to non-crafted objects. If an object would be crafted for a purpose (akin to what you write: "However, what's different here is that there is no purpose or movement towards a certain goal or end.") that object could be said to have a value in so far that it fulfills the purpose for which it was created.


Indeed, and again, objective value is assigned by its creator, and discovered in the nature of objects.


These are not my ideas, but I believe in them, and they fit pretty well into your way of reasoning too IF you agree that option 1 requires that the world was crafted by an entity with a certain purpose in mind. As I have read about your religious opinions elsewhere, I believe you already had this in mind.


Yes, option one would necessarily assume that.


Now, if one believes not in a creator god, but in a "random" creation, one would have to end up with either option 2 or 3. I think you know the ordinary reasons why one choose not to believe in a creator god, and I don't think they are neither foolish nor hippie-esk, as you indicate choosing option 2 and 3 would be.


Yes, 2 and 3 would necessarily have to exclude God. Option 2 and 3 are the dogmatic and skeptic rejections of option 1, respectively. Hippies are not skeptics, they are dogmatists. They recognize the inherent desire we have to our creator - God, but they choose to elevate themselves to God's level by a natural pantheism that would assign the naturally hierarchial system of nature with an egalitarian quality value. This is blatant dogmatism, and when approached about the issue, those who are not converted by means of sound reason get angry very quickly. The foolery of option 2 rests in the dogmatism of rejecting hierarchy and superimposing a created spirituality and value system, and the foolery of option 3 is its inherent nihilism and skepticism, which cannot survive without a dogmatist to chew on. You can't doubt something, without believing something else. It could not have happened by chance, but if it could be, even the atmosphere of chaos and probably is in itself an inherent structure. You can't escape it.


I said before that I can't see the difference between 2 and 3, and this is not really true. There is a difference but a very small one, almost semantic.


I've explained the differences above. It could be semantic, as all of the dogmatists' positions are based on language regardless, as in "having no substance".


From a purely philosophical stand point I believe 3 to be a better choice, as I don't want to assign negative value a prior no more than I want to assign positive values.
But on the other hand, from a practical stand point, I don't want to go around spreading nihilistic ideas, seeing how many people (myself included sometimes) are depressed by them, and only a precious few appreciate the crisp freshness of breathing air as a morally completely free and unbound creature.


I've just demonstrated that options 2 and 3 were rediculous, and I hope you take heed. Practical comes from the theoretical, and vice versa - as in the same situation, you will act differently from another who does not understand things the way you do. Yet, we must act somehow, and we must have a postion on a given matter (even if its "i dont know"). You are not free and unbound as you assert - you're part of the world in nature, and this is the reason you have "a position", because it was conditioned by past experience. Now I'm offering you a solution, that will help you develop more into a creature that can be "more free".


So, at last, and not without some new insight my self, I have decided to vote for option 2; because while value is an illusion, and consequences are not, it's still more fun to have a half full pint than a half empty one.


According to your argument, value is illusion because it was all a cosmic mishap. Since this is not true, your view is a mishap. Enjoy the peace pipe.

[ratbert]

I was just about to go to bed, but this is fun so I’ll give you an answer. Be patient with stupid sentence structures and such.
I just read it through, and it’s a rant at some points. Feel free to ignore what you don’t feel is crucial to the topic – I’d rather have a short answer, than none at all.

This sounds like a bias. THe goal is to take a critical distance and discover what is objective, regardless if its to your personal liking or not. It's not that we choose the "better choice", but the "truth".
It’s not bias, it’s a summary. You know the old proverb: “Tell them what your going to tell them, tell it to them and then tell what you told them”. I just skipped the last part.

This blurb about language hasn't gone unnoticed either, language is a hot topic in contemporary philosophy - only because those eggheads forgot what was most essential. There is only one language, which is discovered from the one world we exist in. The rhetoric and tone you pick up in posts tells you that we don’t have all day to post a detailed answer, but hopefully, its clear enough to get the essentials.
I didn’t dig a hole, but I think you just fell into one. What I was thinking about concerning language was written more than 2000 years ago by daoist Chung Tzu, not very contemporary in other words. It seems to me that what you think about when you red this part of my post is not what I intended you to think. If this is true, then it proves my point. If it’s not true, then I’ve misunderstood you, and my point is still valid. Language might be objective when it comes to simple words and sentences like “I’m writing a post” , but when it comes to sentences like (quoting your post)“The foolery of option 2 rests in the dogmatism of rejecting hierarchy and superimposing a created spirituality and value system” I need not only be fluent in English to understand what your trying to say, but also we well educated on the specific philosophers and authors through whose language you have come to have your particular understanding of those words in that particular combination. And that is not even a very difficult sentence. Language is all about context, and when you keep throw fancy words around it makes it so much more difficult. Sometimes I’m not sure you even want to be completely understood.

Yes, our personal values. Undersood. I'll offer that subjective values and objective values can differ, which is what's at stake here. In addition to the subjective value definition you posted, objective values are inherent signposts in nature.
Well, you’re the one who believes in objective values, not me, so there is no need for me to comment on this, other than that.

Indeed, and again, objective value is assigned by its creator, and discovered in the nature of objects.
Hum di dum…

Yes, option one would necessarily assume that.
Diddeli dum…

Yes, 2 and 3 would necessarily have to exclude God. Option 2 and 3 are the dogmatic and skeptic rejections of option 1, respectively. Hippies are not skeptics, they are dogmatists. They recognize the inherent desire we have to our creator - God, but they choose to elevate themselves to God's level by a natural pantheism that would assign the naturally hierarchical system of nature with an egalitarian quality value. This is blatant dogmatism, and when approached about the issue, those who are not converted by means of sound reason get angry very quickly. The foolery of option 2 rests in the dogmatism of rejecting hierarchy and superimposing a created spirituality and value system, and the foolery of option 3 is its inherent nihilism and skepticism, which cannot survive without a dogmatist to chew on. You can't doubt something, without believing something else. It could not have happened by chance, but if it could be, even the atmosphere of chaos and probably is in itself an inherent structure. You can't escape it.
Dogmatic? I’d say that you sound awfully dogmatic in your views, but that’s using “dogmatic” the way I’m used to using it…
What’s wrong with pantheism? I’d say that Buddhists would fall under option 2, and to call them pantheists is not entirely wrong, but to call them dogmatic fools is something only an atheist can do with grace. This all comes down to the half full/empty glass again. Monotheism and pantheism are just two sides of the same coin - if god is in everything, or if everything is in god, what’s the difference? He's above us or below, two sides of the coin.
And even if there is one god, there is nothing to say that there has to be any hierarchy other than that we create for ourselves. Just because we are at the top of the food chain doesn’t mean that we are more valuable then the rest of the creatures. When a kid has an aquarium and his little guppies are eaten by the larger fishes, he’s hardly ecstatic about it – he didn’t put the guppies there to be eaten, he put them there so the big fishes should have some more friends. What makes you believe we are not just like fish to your creator? (you don’t have to answer that, we can take it in another thread. I’m just writing as it comes to me now)
There is nothing foolish about nihilism, if they are right. Now you seem a little biased, and not too interested in the truth….


I've explained the differences above. It could be semantic, as all of the dogmatists' positions are based on language regardless, as in "having no substance".
Dum di dum.

I've just demonstrated that options 2 and 3 were rediculous, and I hope you take heed.
I don’t think you did. I don’t think I’ll do.

Practical comes from the theoretical, and vice versa - as in the same situation, you will act differently from another who does not understand things the way you do. Yet, we must act somehow, and we must have a postion on a given matter (even if its "i dont know"). You are not free and unbound as you assert - you're part of the world in nature, and this is the reason you have "a position", because it was conditioned by past experience.
I agree. Except that you missed that I said “morally free” – we can choose any choice among the once presented to us, and still remain unchained by values assigned by someone else. The fact that gravity prevents me from flying when I flap my ears is a completely different thing.

Now I'm offering you a solution, that will help you develop more into a creature that can be "more free".
I don’t understand. Should believing in a creator, and a hierarchical system of objective values make me freer?

According to your argument, value is illusion because it was all a cosmic mishap. Since this is not true, your view is a mishap. Enjoy the peace pipe.
Objecive value, but never the less.

My conclusive thought, is that I'm pretty amazed at how someone so well read can be so abolutely sure of himself when it comes to something so faith based as this. One day I may have to face the maker and appologize for my words today, which is why I'm hesitant all the way, but you seem so sure that I wonder if you ever seriously consider the alternative...?
Either way, it feels good to be a mishap; who can blame me if I'm wrong once in a while?

Peace out, mon.
:drink:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Grrr. Last nite I typed a very detailed reply, but the server went down when I hit sumbit.. grr... :rant: This reply won't have the other's glory, but I hope it will serve nontheless.

I was just about to go to bed, but this is fun so I’ll give you an answer. Be patient with stupid sentence structures and such.
I just read it through, and it’s a rant at some points. Feel free to ignore what you don’t feel is crucial to the topic – I’d rather have a short answer, than none at all.


After that post, I wonder if I should just ignore the rest of the post, since it's all "for fun" heh.. I did read it though, and some points are clear enough, while others are moreless gobbleygook. I'll reply to relevant content.


It’s not bias, it’s a summary. You know the old proverb: “Tell them what your going to tell them, tell it to them and then tell what you told them”. I just skipped the last part.


"dum de dum"


I didn’t dig a hole, but I think you just fell into one. What I was thinking about concerning language was written more than 2000 years ago by daoist Chung Tzu, not very contemporary in other words. It seems to me that what you think about when you red this part of my post is not what I intended you to think. If this is true, then it proves my point. If it’s not true, then I’ve misunderstood you, and my point is still valid. Language might be objective when it comes to simple words and sentences like “I’m writing a post” , but when it comes to sentences like (quoting your post)“The foolery of option 2 rests in the dogmatism of rejecting hierarchy and superimposing a created spirituality and value system” I need not only be fluent in English to understand what your trying to say, but also we well educated on the specific philosophers and authors through whose language you have come to have your particular understanding of those words in that particular combination. And that is not even a very difficult sentence. Language is all about context, and when you keep throw fancy words around it makes it so much more difficult. Sometimes I’m not sure you even want to be completely understood.


Since my livelyhood depends on it, I've grown accustomed to writing in a way that will garner intelligible replies from my peers, not rabid teens. As for wanting to be understood, that's a lame assertion - check out the back threads and find me taking over 20 posts in an attempt to explain a single concept to another poster. I don't mind doing that if they're taking it seriously - its rare around here, but I know a few ppl benefited.


Well, you’re the one who believes in objective values, not me, so there is no need for me to comment on this, other than that.


Hum di dum…


Diddeli dum…


THat was just silly..


Dogmatic? I’d say that you sound awfully dogmatic in your views, but that’s using “dogmatic” the way I’m used to using it…


You saved your a$$ with the last part of the sentance.


What’s wrong with pantheism? I’d say that Buddhists would fall under option 2, and to call them pantheists is not entirely wrong, but to call them dogmatic fools is something only an atheist can do with grace.


Atheists don't do anything with grace *chuckle*. All joking aside, Buddhists are not pantheists, but you're right, they are closer to option 2. They have some good points, but their views require qualification. What amuses me is the fact that every buddhist I talked to thus far (and there are many), have always told me conflicting stories about exactly what buddhism really is. Sadly, what usually comes up is an americanized version of new-age style wholeness.


This all comes down to the half full/empty glass again. Monotheism and pantheism are just two sides of the same coin - if god is in everything, or if everything is in god, what’s the difference? He's above us or below, two sides of the coin.


Lose the glass analogy - God can't fit in a glass ^^.


And even if there is one god, there is nothing to say that there has to be any hierarchy other than that we create for ourselves.


The hierarchy is easily discernible in the fact that there is a God, and then there is us, and other things. Separation from only one thing demands hierarchy by virtue of a difference in being.


Just because we are at the top of the food chain doesn’t mean that we are more valuable then the rest of the creatures. When a kid has an aquarium and his little guppies are eaten by the larger fishes, he’s hardly ecstatic about it – he didn’t put the guppies there to be eaten, he put them there so the big fishes should have some more friends.


You're comparing apples to oranges. Kind of like God placing his creatures in a certain context, for a certain purpose. See the hierarchy in powers?


What makes you believe we are not just like fish to your creator? (you don’t have to answer that, we can take it in another thread. I’m just writing as it comes to me now)


I know by means of what I am. What people forget is the fact that we can see the will of the creator in the nature of the created things. If I have more ability and a more substantial being than a fish, I am created for a more noble purpose. THe fact that we are aware of these notions, and desire transcendence should amaze you.


There is nothing foolish about nihilism, if they are right. Now you seem a little biased, and not too interested in the truth….


heh.. I'm biased to know he truth. Nihilism cannot stand on its own. Advocates of nihilism, ironically, assert a position. Nihilism per se argues by means of reduction and negation. However, in saying there is nothing, it uses positive principles of rationalism to deny reason (principles that they would deny to exist). THey're like intellectual suicide bombers. You can't doubt something, without believing something else. To quote heidegger, "there is something, rather than nothing". Nihilists are walking contradictions, forever with their feet stuck in their mouths.


I agree. Except that you missed that I said “morally free” – we can choose any choice among the once presented to us, and still remain unchained by values assigned by someone else. The fact that gravity prevents me from flying when I flap my ears is a completely different thing.


You'd have to explain this better.


I don’t understand. Should believing in a creator, and a hierarchical system of objective values make me freer?


Not belief as you would believe the sky is blue. No, but belief in terms of understanding. Unlike simple knowledge of data, the understanding is your method of perceiving the laws of the universe. Nihilism for instance simply, dogmatically, rejects God, and thus, does not allow its propoents to accept that reality.


My conclusive thought, is that I'm pretty amazed at how someone so well read can be so abolutely sure of himself when it comes to something so faith based as this.


Im amazed at how someone who's been around the forums for a while as you have did not take it upon yourself to read the texts I assigned. I can easily say that your position requires much more faith, if not dumb luck, than this one. Once you start getting serious about this stuff and learn what you have to, you'll see there really is no other way.


One day I may have to face the maker and appologize for my words today, which is why I'm hesitant all the way, but you seem so sure that I wonder if you ever seriously consider the alternative...?


Apologize? THat would imply you were capable of something better than what you've done, which I strongly doubt. The only thing you'd have to repent for is failing to heed my words. That's a choice only you can make. As for "alternatives", I've been in your shoes before, and I've spent over 7 years, probably closer to 9, investivating and learning. I don't trip over the fool assertions I see around here, because they're indicitive of positions devoid of reason. Read the texts.

[Chiba]

[insert a bunch of words that are too huge for Chiba's brain to handle, and discussion which is to intense for Chiba's head to contain]



[inesert responses to words that are too huge for Chiba's brain to handle, with more huge words, and more discussion which Chiba's brain can't grasp because Chiba is a lazy bum]


Wow, that's some pretty intense stuff! I completley understand every single word...and I would write a response if..uh..I had the time.... :lol:

[ratbert]

I’ve been very careful not to write any criticism of your thoughts that could be understood as criticism towards you as a person, and I have shown you all due respect.
I’m not a native English speaker but I’m pretty sure that even in English, indicating that someone is a “rabid teen”, that his/her assertions are “lame” and being generally insulting (“Apologize? THat would imply you were capable of something better than what you've done, which I strongly doubt.”) is a behavior mostly embraced by children.
Be as it may, I am no longer careful about not insulting you back. I will try not to do it for no good reason, but I will not avoid it either.

FYI - I can tell you that I’m not a teen - I’m 28. I’m not poorly educated - I’ve studied molecular biology at university level for six years, and I’ve studied philosophy and religion on my own since I was 16 - mostly Sartre & Nietzsche, gnosticism & daoism & zen. And, as iceing on the cake, I've worked 2 years killing genetically manipulated mice and their unborn fetuses to understand the mechanism behind inherited diabetes. These creatures are not big, but they add up to a great deal. I quit because I couldn't handle the killing without commiting emotional suicide, so don't you for one second think that I don't know what it means to use the power I have over my fellow creatures.

I don’t write this to impress you, because I don’t think that can be done. I didn’t write or indicate this before, as I didn’t want to look like one who tries to impress. I AM writing it now for you to now, that if you think that what I’m writing is stupid, then most likely it’s a communications problem (as I’m not a native English speaker, remember?) or YOU have simply not understood. Yes, the last one is actually a real possibility.

Don’t bother giving me your resume. I don’t care. I don’t need to. Because I had plenty of faith in you, as I have in everyone else I don’t know. You did what you did to lose it on your own.

To me it seem as if you, no matter how old and clever you are, underestimate about every person you discuss matters like these with. I don’t mind being underestimated at first, I do go by a stupid cartoon name and a silly avatar, but I do expect anyone with brains to realize that I’m no fool.
I apologize no more.

Now to business.

After that post, I wonder if I should just ignore the rest of the post, since it's all "for fun" heh.. I did read it though, and some points are clear enough, while others are moreless gobbleygook. I'll reply to relevant content.
I had fun before. It’s not that fun anymore. Could be fun again, if you got off your horse.

Since my livelyhood depends on it, I've grown accustomed to writing in a way that will garner intelligible replies from my peers, not rabid teens. As for wanting to be understood, that's a lame assertion - check out the back threads and find me taking over 20 posts in an attempt to explain a single concept to another poster. I don't mind doing that if they're taking it seriously - its rare around here, but I know a few ppl benefited.
(Nice insult)

It’s not a lame assertion. I offer you my theory: you like being right so much that you’d rather use a language few here can understand 20x in a row, than give it to him straight the first time, so that when he do understand he will know who's inferior and who's not.

I’d say that most people here are serious. Very few ever post stupid and sensation seeking posts, as are so common elsewhere. Not everyone is thoroughly educated in philosophy, but if that’s what you expected…

No matter. You’re insult aside, I sense I have not understood everything you write, and I’m pretty damn sure you have not understood what I write - just take this as an example...

You saved your a$$ with the last part of the sentance.
So, what about my issue with communication did you not understand? Do you really believe that the way you are used to use the word Dogmatism is the only way there is? Do you think everyone has the same relationship to the word as you?

Hence, communication is still an issue when discussing things like these (and you’d benefit from “taking heed”, as you so eloquently put it yourself).

Atheists don't do anything with grace *chuckle*. All joking aside, Buddhists are not pantheists, but you're right, they are closer to option 2. They have some good points, but their views require qualification. What amuses me is the fact that every buddhist I talked to thus far (and there are many), have always told me conflicting stories about exactly what buddhism really is. Sadly, what usually comes up is an americanized version of new-age style wholeness.
(I’m right! Yes!!!)
Qualification? Do you mean that you need to have practiced Buddhist meditation to validate some of their views? If that is so, I agree, otherwise explain.
Don’t talk to American Buddhists. Read the sutras, read the Lama. Or forget about the vehicles all together and go directly to chan (zen), that’s where the good stuff is.

Lose the glass analogy - God can't fit in a glass ^^.
It was just a tool for the purpose of this discussion, but it works fine, much beyond it’s original intention. Not that it matters to this discussion, but for interest (if you have any left for my thoughts by now), I used it in the same manner as daosists says “when beauty appeared, ugliness showed it’s face”, i.e. to demonstrate how opposites, in this case monotheism and pantheism, are dependent of each other and therefore, from certain perspectives, are identical.

The hierarchy is easily discernible in the fact that there is a God, and then there is us, and other things. Separation from only one thing demands hierarchy by virtue of a difference in being.
Sure, separation from one thing demands a hierarchy as you say, BUT that applies only to the categories by which they are separated, i.e. if god is big, I’m 5´10´´and a mole is 8´´, then that necessitates a hierarchy of lengths, nothing more, and certainly not of values.
If things differ in value, there is a hierarchy of values, but seeing as we can’t observe values, we cannot presume there is such a hierarchy.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Kind of like God placing his creatures in a certain context, for a certain purpose. See the hierarchy in powers?
Yup, just like god placing a creature in a certain context. But that doesn’t negate my argument, because you don’t know the purpose of the creator no more than the big fish knows the purpose of the little boy when he dropped the guppies in the tank. Just because it could eat the guppies is not proof that that’s the will of the boy. And in the same manner one cannot justify actions by saying “god gave me the power to do so, therefore it’s his will”. A hierarchy of power can have no impact on objective ethics, imagine yourself the courtroom discussion if it would be used as justification for any crime what so ever.

It (hierarchy of power) is however a valid foundation for an atheistic subjective ethical system, see Nietzsche’s “on the origin of ethics” (or something like that, didn’t read it in English).

I know by means of what I am. What people forget is the fact that we can see the will of the creator in the nature of the created things. If I have more ability and a more substantial being than a fish, I am created for a more noble purpose. THe fact that we are aware of these notions, and desire transcendence should amaze you.
I am amazed often at the mysteries of life, but in a childish way. The logical way of looking at it is that “had I not been capable of exploring these thoughts, then I wouldn’t be able to marvel about my explorations”. It’s the same argument that is used concerning the wonderful coincident of the creation of the universe - “had it not happened, we would not be here to marvel about it”.

No matter. I know my fish-human analogy could have been better, but as a substitute for any god-human relationship other than the one you propose, you could not defeat it - as “I know by means of what I am. What people forget is the fact that we can see the will of the creator in the nature of the created things.” is just as mystical and non-objective as anything Lao Tzu ever wrote (one passage of his can be translated almost identically to your first sentence). However, it’s an argument I respect more than most that you have delivered so far. Not because it’s full of “bull”, like some logically inclined people I know would say, but because it originates from a mental faculty that could, where it more developed, balance a onesided logical intellect as yours.

Nihilists are walking contradictions, forever with their feet stuck in their mouths.
I shouldn’t have commented on nihilism. It’s not my field. Still, the logical assumption that “There is nothing foolish about nihilism, if they are right.” holds true, even if other facts prevents the first part of it from ever being realized.

You'd have to explain this better.
You have to tell me what it is about my argument that you don’t understand. It’s a waste of my time trying to expand on the wrong issue.

Not belief as you would believe the sky is blue. No, but belief in terms of understanding. Unlike simple knowledge of data, the understanding is your method of perceiving the laws of the universe. Nihilism for instance simply, dogmatically, rejects God, and thus, does not allow its propoents to accept that reality.
Here is at least one core of the poodle. If I may dare a guess; you perceive this issue to be all about who has a better understanding about the issue at hand. Believing you have a solid understanding you must have come to the right, or at least the best, conclusion.
Well, let me tell you what I think, no, what I know; there are a lot of people out there, much smarter and more educated on this matter than you, and they don’t agree. There are a lot who do, I’m not saying there isn’t, but there are a lot who don’t. The fact is that it doesn’t boil down to pure wits. Wits is good, but it also boils down to gut feeling, upbringing, what you’ve red, what you haven’t red, genes, the color of your undies. There are so many things to take into consideration that many people do what you do, narrow it down to being about just wits and who can cite the most obscure passages of the guru currently in fashion. Other people, like myself, realize, with wit as well as with heart, that this is nothing we will ever know for sure, but that we should always try to learn more, no matter where the wisdom comes from. From wit, heart, guppies or whatever.

Im amazed at how someone who's been around the forums for a while as you have did not take it upon yourself to read the texts I assigned. I can easily say that your position requires much more faith, if not dumb luck, than this one. Once you start getting serious about this stuff and learn what you have to, you'll see there really is no other way.
What texts did you assign? Tell me something to read that you’ve red, and I’ll read it, if you do the same for me… truth or dare!

Apologize? THat would imply you were capable of something better than what you've done, which I strongly doubt. The only thing you'd have to repent for is failing to heed my words. That's a choice only you can make. As for "alternatives", I've been in your shoes before, and I've spent over 7 years, probably closer to 9, investivating and learning. I don't trip over the fool assertions I see around here, because they're indicitive of positions devoid of reason. Read the texts.
That was not a very nice way to end.
:yawn:

[Xaf]

Blah blah blah texts, blah blah blah mental midgets. Thats my impression of AOA.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I’ve been very careful not to write any criticism of your thoughts that could be understood as criticism towards you as a person, and I have shown you all due respect.
I’m not a native English speaker but I’m pretty sure that even in English, indicating that someone is a “rabid teen”, that his/her assertions are “lame” and being generally insulting (“Apologize? THat would imply you were capable of something better than what you've done, which I strongly doubt.”) is a behavior mostly embraced by children.


That wasn't directed at you per se, but an example of the kind of reasoning I ususally encounter. I'm honoring you by replying to your posts, so feel special.


FYI - I can tell you that I’m not a teen - I’m 28. I’m not poorly educated - I’ve studied molecular biology at university level for six years, and I’ve studied philosophy and religion on my own since I was 16 - mostly Sartre & Nietzsche, gnosticism & daoism & zen.


Yes, you present yourself well enough, that's a given. I'm not suprised at your intellectual background. Did you know Sartre converted on his deathbead? I've read all of their works - especailly the major ones like being and nothingness, beyond good and evil, twilight of the idols, etc, and have written commentaries on Nietzeche. I'm sad to see that despite the work you've done so far, you did not see past their folly, inherent in their own work.


I don’t write this to impress you, because I don’t think that can be done.


That's not so, one guy that impressed me so far on these forums was BhsCrew. Originally a detractor, but an honest one. He took the time to read the texts, and I've watched him grow.


I didn’t write or indicate this before, as I didn’t want to look like one who tries to impress. I AM writing it now for you to now, that if you think that what I’m writing is stupid, then most likely it’s a communications problem (as I’m not a native English speaker, remember?) or YOU have simply not understood. Yes, the last one is actually a real possibility.


For someone who's not a native english speaker, you're doing fine.


Don’t bother giving me your resume. I don’t care. I don’t need to. Because I had plenty of faith in you, as I have in everyone else I don’t know. You did what you did to lose it on your own.


A person's education IS credible. Just remember that when you look for work - they seek credentials. BTW, thanks for giving me your resume :).


To me it seem as if you, no matter how old and clever you are, underestimate about every person you discuss matters like these with. I don’t mind being underestimated at first, I do go by a stupid cartoon name and a silly avatar, but I do expect anyone with brains to realize that I’m no fool.
I apologize no more.


Naw, most people here have fairly good intelligence, but either have not learned, nor wish to obey, the laws of reason. Other than that, I'll say that I do like the people here, even my detractors.


I had fun before. It’s not that fun anymore. Could be fun again, if you got off your horse.


See, that's the difference between us - to you its a joke, but I take it seriously, because its worth taking seriously. I don't mind pissing you off. In fact, I'll continue to do so until you start taking it seriously, or ultil you leave the thread. I'm where I am because I have a right to be, by virtue of what I've learned. Kick and scream all you want.


It’s not a lame assertion. I offer you my theory: you like being right so much that you’d rather use a language few here can understand 20x in a row, than give it to him straight the first time, so that when he do understand he will know who's inferior and who's not.


That's what happens when people cannot argue points - it gets personal. Yep, it's all about me :uhhuh:. You're the one who brought this idea into the conversation, and a downright irrelevant notion it is as well. Tell you what, if you want to believe that, why continue to reply to me? Unless of course, you wish the same thing, and wish to "prove me wrong" in the process? Get your foot out of your mouth!


I’d say that most people here are serious. Very few ever post stupid and sensation seeking posts, as are so common elsewhere. Not everyone is thoroughly educated in philosophy, but if that’s what you expected…


Well I'm showing you how those ideas are unreasonable. Take it or leave it, but don't make judgements about my character.


No matter. You’re insult aside, I sense I have not understood everything you write, and I’m pretty damn sure you have not understood what I write - just take this as an example...


Again, the insult was not directed at you, but to a phenomenon. If I wanted to insult you, I would have done so to your face. I've done it to others..


So, what about my issue with communication did you not understand? Do you really believe that the way you are used to use the word Dogmatism is the only way there is? Do you think everyone has the same relationship to the word as you?


I'll say that there is the "common" notion of the word, and a clearer definition that a party can agree to by discussing it further. Kant explains it well, for example, in his chapter on the transcendental illusion (critique of pure reason). This is a definition he worked on, for the context of his work.


(I’m right! Yes!!!)
Qualification? Do you mean that you need to have practiced Buddhist meditation to validate some of their views? If that is so, I agree, otherwise explain.
Don’t talk to American Buddhists. Read the sutras, read the Lama. Or forget about the vehicles all together and go directly to chan (zen), that’s where the good stuff is.


I've read the eastern texts, as I've read texts for most other belief systems and philosophies. I wouldn't exactly call it "good" as far as reason is concerned. Regarding my example of "american buddhists", which includes many europeans and canadians, it's a philosophy to serve their own interests. Disagree with that? Bring it on.


It was just a tool for the purpose of this discussion, but it works fine, much beyond it’s original intention. Not that it matters to this discussion, but for interest (if you have any left for my thoughts by now), I used it in the same manner as daosists says “when beauty appeared, ugliness showed it’s face”, i.e. to demonstrate how opposites, in this case monotheism and pantheism, are dependent of each other and therefore, from certain perspectives, are identical.


I've said before that a thing is known in relation to its opposite. In the case of one God known by its opposite, the opposite is no-god. Many gods would have to be the same God, by means of their degree of perfection, being identical in a pantheistic model.


Sure, separation from one thing demands a hierarchy as you say, BUT that applies only to the categories by which they are separated, i.e. if god is big, I’m 5´10´´and a mole is 8´´, then that necessitates a hierarchy of lengths, nothing more, and certainly not of values.
If things differ in value, there is a hierarchy of values, but seeing as we can’t observe values, we cannot presume there is such a hierarchy.


Thanks for assenting to hierarchy, you were honest in that at least. Now in terms of value, value, as you point out, is not observable in terms of data. However, would you call love observable? It is a notion, a power to which most things subscibe to - sentient beings, and is only observable in its effects. I'll say that value is present to a greater degree in the thing or being that can accept more of the notion of value. Thus, as rocks are incapable of love, they have less value than animals, and concequently humans.


Yup, just like god placing a creature in a certain context. But that doesn’t negate my argument, because you don’t know the purpose of the creator no more than the big fish knows the purpose of the little boy when he dropped the guppies in the tank.


I know enough about the purpose of the creator to render that point folly. Essentially, I know what kind of being I am, and what kind of being a fish is for instance, and the inherent desires I have as a human are indicitive of a relationship with God I'm called to.


Just because it could eat the guppies is not proof that that’s the will of the boy. And in the same manner one cannot justify actions by saying “god gave me the power to do so, therefore it’s his will”. A hierarchy of power can have no impact on objective ethics, imagine yourself the courtroom discussion if it would be used as justification for any crime what so ever.


Not the will of the boy, as the boy only had the power to put the fish in the tank - which is alot more than the fish could have done. A being of greater power however, could dictate that will. Power is to be understood in inherent powers and abilities of the being, demonstrated in the first few sentences of this small paragraph.


It (hierarchy of power) is however a valid foundation for an atheistic subjective ethical system, see Nietzsche’s “on the origin of ethics” (or something like that, didn’t read it in English).


LMAO! "will to power" That was nietzsche's foolish creation. He was an embittered man, wishing to create a utopia because he saw hypocracy in his lutheran minister father. His writings are circular aphorisms, that disgruntled undergrads lap up like nectar. He gave a decent wake-up call to society, but his inherent philiosophy is creating truth, rather than discovering what is present already. Thus, he was dogmatist extrordinaire. BTW - the book is called "genealogy of morals" :).


No matter. I know my fish-human analogy could have been better, but as a substitute for any god-human relationship other than the one you propose, you could not defeat it - as “I know by means of what I am. What people forget is the fact that we can see the will of the creator in the nature of the created things.” is just as mystical and non-objective as anything Lao Tzu ever wrote (one passage of his can be translated almost identically to your first sentence).


Ok, if you disagree, try offering a substantial argument as to how that cannot be so. Any designer of a thing has in mind it's purpose.


However, it’s an argument I respect more than most that you have delivered so far. Not because it’s full of “bull”, like some logically inclined people I know would say, but because it originates from a mental faculty that could, where it more developed, balance a onesided logical intellect as yours.


Logic cannot be one sided, or it would be dogmatism. If you truly understood logic, you would realize that it makes asserions in relation to opposites, to come to conclusions. If there were only one side to thinking, there would be no new conclusions.


I shouldn’t have commented on nihilism. It’s not my field. Still, the logical assumption that “There is nothing foolish about nihilism, if they are right.” holds true, even if other facts prevents the first part of it from ever being realized.


hehe.. nihilism is not a field lol.. It's just blatant rejection of premises (but using premises nontheless!).


You have to tell me what it is about my argument that you don’t understand. It’s a waste of my time trying to expand on the wrong issue.


Um.. all of it? Perhaps its a language thing.


Here is at least one core of the poodle. If I may dare a guess; you perceive this issue to be all about who has a better understanding about the issue at hand. Believing you have a solid understanding you must have come to the right, or at least the best, conclusion.
Well, let me tell you what I think, no, what I know; there are a lot of people out there, much smarter and more educated on this matter than you, and they don’t agree.


Really? What issue, and who are these people? How are they better educated? As far as I know, I have 3000 years of thinking to demonstrate what I'm telling you. As for the others - mental midgets in labcoats - they may know their trade very well, but if they would judge everything based on a simple empirical model, than they are omitting the bigger picture, Ironically, they attempt a kind of metaphysics to explain everything by science, but still use the tools of empiricism only, which in turn elicits skepticism and/or dogmatism. I will give you texts later to demonstrate what I'm talking about.


There are a lot who do, I’m not saying there isn’t, but there are a lot who don’t. The fact is that it doesn’t boil down to pure wits. Wits is good, but it also boils down to gut feeling, upbringing, what you’ve red, what you haven’t red, genes, the color of your undies. There are so many things to take into consideration that many people do what you do, narrow it down to being about just wits and who can cite the most obscure passages of the guru currently in fashion. Other people, like myself, realize, with wit as well as with heart, that this is nothing we will ever know for sure, but that we should always try to learn more, no matter where the wisdom comes from. From wit, heart, guppies or whatever.


Up until now, you haven't insulted me, but this passage comes dangerously close. Instead of arguing against my points and presenting a viable position, you accuse me of being a charlatan. That would seek to undermine the efforts of the last 9 years of my life. I hope I don't have to read something like that again.


What texts did you assign? Tell me something to read that you’ve red, and I’ll read it, if you do the same for me… truth or dare!


Your texts to read are as follows (should take you a few years, but hey, life is a process ^^)

-Ernst Cassirer "philosophy of enlightenment"
-Immanuel Kant "critique of pure reason"
-Immanuel Kant "on a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy"
-Immanuel Kant "on the conflict of faculties"
-Max Scheler "ordo amoris" (selected philosophical essays)
-Soren Kierkegaard "on the difference between a genius and an apostle"

Get busy on those and let me know. Later.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Blah blah blah texts, blah blah blah mental midgets. Thats my impression of AOA.

....................:hanky:

[Xaf]

....................:hanky:
yeah my impressions suck, sorry.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

yeah my impressions suck, sorry.

............. :howdy:

[Chiba]

............. :howdy:
.............. :lol: (it's line of dots + emote face time!!)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

.............. :lol: (it's line of dots + emote face time!!)

............. :clap:

[ratbert]

This is getting nowhere.
I'm out.

[Chiba]

This is getting nowhere.
I'm out.
Good call, I was getting tired of reading all those pages....of stuff...that I completley understand of course. Anyways, could someone sumarize what the heck they were arguing about?

[Sage the Mage]

Lets see...oh right...what are you arguing?
The existance of an objective value for everything.

God exists,
God has a purpose for each being,
Some creatures have a greater purpose than others,
So, the value of each creature differs.

Jebus that was hard to write in a clear manner. That's AoA's argument, though.
Which premise shall we disagree with this time?

God exists?
The universe isn't infinite in its duration, so started moving at one time.
Why isn't the universe infinite? There couldn't be a start if it was eternal I think the argument goes. Basically we can see things are spreading out and stuff, as well as the radiation from the Big Bang and things. You need a "push."

AoA, and I believe Aquinas, calls this "push" God.
That doesn't tell us much other than something acted and caused a boom though. By that definition, nearly everyone should believe that God exists.

Oh right...we have to prove that God has a purpose for each being...

Well that requires a sentinent God, and a God that created all this stuff.
AoA will say these things can be determined by "speculative reason."
Basically, what he means here is these things are based on your beliefs.

So techinically we don't have to go on past here, because one of the premises isn't really proven, but lets go on anyway...

Some creatures have a greater purpose than others,
Think of a kid with Legos, who creates a tower and a car from them.
Clearly the car was more important, because he can do more stuff with it, and thus have more fun, right? How do you know? Maybe building the tower was more fun for the kid, or maybe he had just as much fun building them both.

Another one of those, based on beliefs things.

So we're down to one known and two unknowns, eew :(

[AgeOfAbnegation]

God exists,
God has a purpose for each being,
Some creatures have a greater purpose than others,
So, the value of each creature differs.


Not a "greater purpose", but a "different purpose". We would call it a greater purpose (I would call it more noble, as in closer to he Godhead), but purpose merely includes the notion of affecting change in the temporal sphere, which lesser things can acheive easily. So, while rocks have purpose as well as human beings, humans have more value by means of the type of beings we are, as opposed to the type of things rocks are for instance. All have purpose, but they differ in terms of composition and nature.



Jebus that was hard to write in a clear manner. That's AoA's argument, though.
Which premise shall we disagree with this time?


Since you once again failed to understand, it appears simplicity does not serve you well, as of all the posters I've discussed things with, you're the one who I've had to define things for the most, and it usually takes pages of postings. I told you before that it's difficult to do full justice to these subjects in small posts, which is why I ask people to read texts I offer. As such, I get labelled as "blah blah blah texts". So, you can avoid the blah blah by reading the texts. That way, I won't have to waste my time replying to stuff that, as ratbert said "goes nowhere". Afterward, when you've read the texts, you can post what you agree with, or what you may find problematic, which you did on one occasion at my prodding. For that small gesture, I applaud. Sadly though, you have a short memory. It seems that you will not stomach what I'm presenting to you, even though you were thus far incapable of providing adequate grounds for disagreement.


God exists?
The universe isn't infinite in its duration, so started moving at one time.
Why isn't the universe infinite? There couldn't be a start if it was eternal I think the argument goes. Basically we can see things are spreading out and stuff, as well as the radiation from the Big Bang and things. You need a "push."

AoA, and I believe Aquinas, calls this "push" God.
That doesn't tell us much other than something acted and caused a boom though. By that definition, nearly everyone should believe that God exists.

Oh right...we have to prove that God has a purpose for each being...

Well that requires a sentinent God, and a God that created all this stuff.
AoA will say these things can be determined by "speculative reason."
Basically, what he means here is these things are based on your beliefs.


I've highlighted what the stumbling block was. You've just brushed off speculative reason, using reason. Well done. I guess it's the speculative word you don't like. Perhaps I should replace it with something else. How about... "incremental logic", since the conclusions build upon one another, from simple premises. That gives you surety, starting from the surety that can be gleaned from simple empirical inquiries (if you believe that's a sure thing :uhhuh: ).


So techinically we don't have to go on past here, because one of the premises isn't really proven, but lets go on anyway...


You're right, being a skeptic and such, let's "simplify it" so weak minds like yours don't get too tired by my long winded posts. I'm off to bed, rest that aching head of yours. :howdy:

[Unreg!stered]

THe third option is, ironically, a more reasonable option than the 2nd choice. Even so, when looking under the surface, you'll quickly see that it too is devoid of reason. Yet, best to call a spade a spade. THis position assumes a "chaos model" of the universe - that it exists for its own sake, like the 2nd choice, but even worse than that, there is no value to anything - it all happened by accident. This is inherently erroneous by virtue of the design and continued existence of things and laws. Those who posit option 3 are fools.

Hope that helps :).

Call me a fool.

As I argued on the worth of human life thread, values are all relative. I assign more value to my friend then I do a fish. A plant that can cure cancer has more value than a weed that kills an oak tree, because we have assigned as much. An ant values its queen more than itself. Everything depends on a point of view, worth, like everything else, shifts as the point of view changes. Relativity, however, does not exclude a Creater from the equation. I believe in a divine entity, but I do not know its plans, nor can I ever really hope to. Believing in a "God" if you will, does not mean that I believe that any given person is of any more "worth" than an animal, or a tree, or an amoeba. I do not buy many of the religious texts views but that does not mean that I've ignored how complex organisms are. In fact, believing that our complex nervous system evolved "by chance" is much more of a stretch in reason than believing in a Creator.

Even if there is a creator, that does not mean value does not vary from point of view to point of view. Just because a mosquito has a purpose, does not mean it has value to me as I'm sure it doesn't to most people. Terbium has a purpose too, yet I highly doubt anybody other than scientists assign any value to that.

A little bit of here and there:

After that post, I wonder if I should just ignore the rest of the post, since it's all "for fun" heh.. I did read it though, and some points are clear enough, while others are moreless gobbleygook. I'll reply to relevant content.

Enlightenment and healthy debate can be enjoyable, in fact, in order to get most people to open themselves up it has to be enjoyable.

I know by means of what I am. What people forget is the fact that we can see the will of the creator in the nature of the created things. If I have more ability and a more substantial being than a fish, I am created for a more noble purpose. THe fact that we are aware of these notions, and desire transcendence should amaze you.

I have more ability than my dog, that does not mean I was created for anymore noble a purpose. In fact, my dogs and I do have a "noble" purpose if you will, we provide companionship to those we care for. Also, just because it is in human nature to be arrogant, does not mean that every person believes they have any greater purpose on this Earth than a creature, or another person of lesser stature.

Im amazed at how someone who's been around the forums for a while as you have did not take it upon yourself to read the texts I assigned. I can easily say that your position requires much more faith, if not dumb luck, than this one. Once you start getting serious about this stuff and learn what you have to, you'll see there really is no other way.

You clearly are an intelligent person, you should really know better than to belittle. We may all be sheep, but you are not the shepherd. You are not in a position to "assign" readings to the folk of the forums, and expecting people to read them even if they were suggestions is foolish. Just because someone is not as well read as you, does not mean their beliefs are any less valid in their eyes.

Apologize? THat would imply you were capable of something better than what you've done, which I strongly doubt. The only thing you'd have to repent for is failing to heed my words. That's a choice only you can make. As for "alternatives", I've been in your shoes before, and I've spent over 7 years, probably closer to 9, investivating and learning. I don't trip over the fool assertions I see around here, because they're indicitive of positions devoid of reason. Read the texts.

Even after you have read every book, talked with every person, prayed to every religion you still cannot be sure of what exists or what is to come. No person can understand the will of the Creator. We certainly try, though, but to assume even with your vast knowledge that you have a much greater understanding of the Creator's plans than anyone else is folly. Through your studies you have come to a conclusion, that does not mean that it is right, nor does it mean that it is wrong. Matters such as this are abstract. Humble yourself, vast knowledge does not give anyone the right to belittle those they disagree with.

See, that's the difference between us - to you its a joke, but I take it seriously, because its worth taking seriously. I don't mind pissing you off. In fact, I'll continue to do so until you start taking it seriously, or ultil you leave the thread. I'm where I am because I have a right to be, by virtue of what I've learned. Kick and scream all you want.

I'm well educated, does that give me the right to order those less educated than me to believe as I do? Your debate is becoming more of a command. If you wanted to challange people's views driving them off does you no good, nor does insulting them. When you insult it just makes it easier for you to pick apart their arguements.

That's what happens when people cannot argue points - it gets personal. Yep, it's all about me . You're the one who brought this idea into the conversation, and a downright irrelevant notion it is as well. Tell you what, if you want to believe that, why continue to reply to me? Unless of course, you wish the same thing, and wish to "prove me wrong" in the process? Get your foot out of your mouth!

I am not sure what religion you subscribe to but all that I know of state that man should be humble. It got personal with Ratbert because you knowingly insulted him, not because he couldn't argue your points.

I know enough about the purpose of the creator to render that point folly. Essentially, I know what kind of being I am, and what kind of being a fish is for instance, and the inherent desires I have as a human are indicitive of a relationship with God I'm called to.

There are many, many different religions all with different views on the Creator's purpose. How can you be so sure yours is right?

Really? What issue, and who are these people? How are they better educated? As far as I know, I have 3000 years of thinking to demonstrate what I'm telling you. As for the others - mental midgets in labcoats - they may know their trade very well, but if they would judge everything based on a simple empirical model, than they are omitting the bigger picture, Ironically, they attempt a kind of metaphysics to explain everything by science, but still use the tools of empiricism only, which in turn elicits skepticism and/or dogmatism. I will give you texts later to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

You talk of a bigger picture, yet you seem clouded by self righteousness stemming from your own point of view. If you truely want to see the big picture take a walk in someone else's shoes and see things from their perspective. It's very difficult to do, however, without letting one's biases factor into the view.

Debates are about learning and understanding, not about "winning" or "converting." If this is a debate where you wish to challange other's beliefs humble yourself first before you argue your points. Many of your points are valid, but they are lost in a sea of arrogance and intellectual insults. Most people are willing to learn. You'd stand a much better chance enlightening them talking with them as they were equals, not as if you were their superior.

[Echod16]

Boy, that's encouraging.

lol :P

anyhow, i voted that there is no inherent value in anything

I have my point of view on things..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well met, "unregistered". Hopefully by the end of my post, you may have a better idea where you stand. The notion I wish to get across to you is that my posts are written in accord with a universal notion of "natural law" and truth, and you've written from post-modern perspective, assuming there lacks this universality. As such, you upbraid me for the tone and content I offer on this forum. We'll soon see if you're as near open minded as you claim to be.

Call me a fool.


THe first lesson consists in identity. This idea will come up a few time in what I'm about to write to you, but be assured that I have no inherent power to call someone a fool, rather, they call themselves fools by means of the positions they take on matters. Fools, because they do not bow to the demands of reason, and superimpose their own understanding in saying there are no real answers to a world that is its own answer. If I call you a fool, it's not out of mailce or conjecture, but its merely making aware a reality you were previously unable to ascertain.


As I argued on the worth of human life thread, values are all relative. I assign more value to my friend then I do a fish. A plant that can cure cancer has more value than a weed that kills an oak tree, because we have assigned as much. An ant values its queen more than itself. Everything depends on a point of view, worth, like everything else, shifts as the point of view changes.


Yes, we assign our subjective values. What we want to discuss however is the objective. Or, asking ourselves if the values we hold and assign are in accord with natural law.


Relativity, however, does not exclude a Creater from the equation. I believe in a divine entity, but I do not know its plans, nor can I ever really hope to.


If you refer to knowing what God has in mind, or what the future holds, that of course I do not know. But, I can know alot of things, by means of my apprehension of what is present to my by the senses - given to my by God. As human beings, we are more powerful than we realize.


Believing in a "God" if you will, does not mean that I believe that any given person is of any more "worth" than an animal, or a tree, or an amoeba. I do not buy many of the religious texts views but that does not mean that I've ignored how complex organisms are. In fact, believing that our complex nervous system evolved "by chance" is much more of a stretch in reason than believing in a Creator.


Yes, I agree with that. All things do have inherent worth, as you say. Why did you not vote that? The question remains however, worth more to whom? To you? We want to find out what has more worth to God, and as such, we will discover the inherent worth in things. You've called me arrogant in my asserions, but I'll offer that you're a victim of post-modern value shifting. (ref. max scheler "ressentiment"). I would, and will, call you arrogant because you would assign values of your own, while being skeptical, about discovering the inherent laws in reality, which the humble person will conform to.


Even if there is a creator, that does not mean value does not vary from point of view to point of view. Just because a mosquito has a purpose, does not mean it has value to me as I'm sure it doesn't to most people. Terbium has a purpose too, yet I highly doubt anybody other than scientists assign any value to that.


What people believe is irrelevant. What people "know" is relevant. We don't have to know everything (we cant as humans), but we can learn guidelines that nature presents to us, so that we can rightly ascertain what has value and what does not (ref Kant - "critique of judgement).



Enlightenment and healthy debate can be enjoyable, in fact, in order to get most people to open themselves up it has to be enjoyable.


This is true. Perhaps I ask too much of my detractors.


I have more ability than my dog, that does not mean I was created for anymore noble a purpose. In fact, my dogs and I do have a "noble" purpose if you will, we provide companionship to those we care for.


Yes, both have noble purposes, but one is more capable than another. Your dog, my virture of its own being, can be depended to act in a similar way across different situations, whereas humans are dynamic beings, able to change more readily - this is indicitive of the awesome power of free will, and a result of being closer to the Godhead in terms of being.


Also, just because it is in human nature to be arrogant, does not mean that every person believes they have any greater purpose on this Earth than a creature, or another person of lesser stature.


I noted earlier "a different purpose". Please look into that nature to be arrogant. Arrogance is not in terms of tone, but in terms of misunderstanding the power you hold. That means, humble yourself by conforming to natural law, to the demands of reason, and to God.


You clearly are an intelligent person, you should really know better than to belittle.


Just a heads-up regarding to my opening comments about fools and other like namecalling. Contrary to my detractors' points of view, I have not belittled anyone on this thread. They belittle themselves by posting inconsistently, and irrationally. I've done my duty by pointing that out. So you see, everything depends on wether you ascribe to the laws of reason, or not. Certainly, I would think and post as you do now, if I did not give this consistency that much importance. These are serious questions posted by these people, and demand a serious, consistent answer. I won't tolerate fluff. Most don't listen, or think I'm full of shyt, but I'm not doing it to convert others, I'm doing it for its own sake.


We may all be sheep, but you are not the shepherd. You are not in a position to "assign" readings to the folk of the forums, and expecting people to read them even if they were suggestions is foolish. Just because someone is not as well read as you, does not mean their beliefs are any less valid in their eyes.


Conversely, you're attempting to shepherd me now by posting that. Congratulations for discovering now that everyone MUST have a postion, and everyone TEACHES others. Question is, who is correct? Who will you shepherd today, who will you teach the groundless, baseless, hollow un-values of post-modernism? Think about that.


Even after you have read every book, talked with every person, prayed to every religion you still cannot be sure of what exists or what is to come.


I can't fortell the future, but I can learn, and have learned to a great extent IMO, natural laws and the way things "work". Existence is presented to us in a certain way. It would be perfect for you to read Kant's section on the "transcental deduction", which deals with the perceptual stumbling block you attested to. Google it.


No person can understand the will of the Creator. We certainly try, though, but to assume even with your vast knowledge that you have a much greater understanding of the Creator's plans than anyone else is folly. Through your studies you have come to a conclusion, that does not mean that it is right, nor does it mean that it is wrong. Matters such as this are abstract. Humble yourself, vast knowledge does not give anyone the right to belittle those they disagree with.


I'm asking YOU to humble yourself. Now, in this matter, I've said that we can know alot more than we realize. We know God's will by means of creation itself, and its workings. Do I know God's eternal will? Of course not, but I can know his will for man and nature by means of what it is and what its capable of. Now, in terms of humbling myself, I have proposed to you the quintessential aspecti of humility - discovering truth rather than asserting and creating it. If you take time to discover what is, you can speak with confidence.



I'm well educated, does that give me the right to order those less educated than me to believe as I do? Your debate is becoming more of a command. If you wanted to challange people's views driving them off does you no good, nor does insulting them. When you insult it just makes it easier for you to pick apart their arguements.


[QUOTE]
I am not sure what religion you subscribe to but all that I know of state that man should be humble. It got personal with Ratbert because you knowingly insulted him, not because he couldn't argue your points.


As is the case with you, I don't post stuff "for fun" as he did. My view of him remains unchanged now, as before I knew him - its never personal for me. I'm arging against the arrogance of mishandling these heavy issues with skepticism and dogmatism. Go read Kant, you'll understand arrogance the way you're supposed to.


There are many, many different religions all with different views on the Creator's purpose. How can you be so sure yours is right?


I'd stay away from religion untill you've got your philosophical underpinnings down pat. Think correctly, or you'll misinterpret any given religion.


You talk of a bigger picture, yet you seem clouded by self righteousness stemming from your own point of view. If you truely want to see the big picture take a walk in someone else's shoes and see things from their perspective. It's very difficult to do, however, without letting one's biases factor into the view.


I'm offering an opportunity to seek natural law, and truth by means of reason. It demands alot, endows you with alot, and its natural for people to believe its proponents - myself being one of them - to be arrogant. However, I'll ask you to stick to the content if you wish to argue, and keep it impersonal as best you can. If I'm arrogant, I would have to be a dogmatist. The goal is discovery, not assertion. Keep that in mind.


Debates are about learning and understanding, not about "winning" or "converting."


As I mentioned earlier, it's about consistency. If I was trying to convert, I would have left these forums long ago. :uhhuh:


If this is a debate where you wish to challange other's beliefs humble yourself first before you argue your points. Many of your points are valid, but they are lost in a sea of arrogance and intellectual insults. Most people are willing to learn. You'd stand a much better chance enlightening them talking with them as they were equals, not as if you were their superior.

Granted, a more diplomatic person may have a better chance in promoting knowledge, but alas, you've got me :p. Best to know that I like all of you, even folks like sage who irritate me often. Some have taken that cue, and we've had good discussions. I could humble myself in tone, but I believe that it would undermine the force of these convictions to the reader. Reason DEMANDS consistency of others. I'm not here to make buddies, as I am on most other threads, but here, I'm here to be consistent, and if that invloves some rough and tumble action, so be it.

[Galron Kincaid]

Yea, just to be clear, we're discussing "objective values", not the values assigned by what an individual favors. It's about inherent worth.


Oh.

Then, i most definitely pick the second one.


All lives are effectively equal, though some enjoy less consideration....

[Bartleby]

All lives are effectively equal, though some enjoy less consideration....
My sentiments exactly.

[Sage the Mage]

Not a "greater purpose", but a "different purpose". We would call it a greater purpose (I would call it more noble, as in closer to he Godhead), but purpose merely includes the notion of affecting change in the temporal sphere, which lesser things can acheive easily. So, while rocks have purpose as well as human beings, humans have more value by means of the type of beings we are, as opposed to the type of things rocks are for instance. All have purpose, but they differ in terms of composition and nature.

"Humans are more special because they are." Nice argument.

I've highlighted what the stumbling block was. You've just brushed off speculative reason, using reason. Well done. I guess it's the speculative word you don't like. Perhaps I should replace it with something else. How about... "incremental logic", since the conclusions build upon one another, from simple premises. That gives you surety, starting from the surety that can be gleaned from simple empirical inquiries (if you believe that's a sure thing ).

Lets see, how to say this...oh right you never prove your conclusions from those conclusions :)

You're right, being a skeptic and such, let's "simplify it" so weak minds like yours don't get too tired by my long winded posts. I'm off to bed, rest that aching head of yours.

Do you know what short circuit evaluation is? You should look it up, its handy.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

"Humans are more special because they are." Nice argument.


Yes, because they exist, they are inherently valuable, thus special.


Lets see, how to say this...oh right you never prove your conclusions from those conclusions :)


Same method, different content. Ideas concluded from empirical matters become the new data of inquiry, utilizing the same method. (ref. Kant's trancendental deduction, and later in his dialectic).


Do you know what short circuit evaluation is? You should look it up, its handy.

Agrue against my points, and not against ME, and I'll take you seriously.

[Sage the Mage]

Someone refuses to learn :)

if A and B, then C
If A is false, then A and B is also false, and there's no reason to look at B when we already know the truth value of the premise.

Since A and B is false we can't determine C anymore.

So once one necessary premise is gone, the argument is gone.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sage, the only person here refusing to learn is you. To date, I'm the only one who has offered support for my argument, all you've done is meander around it, and in this case, post a syllogism equation with no other reference. You agree with everything eccept that which is beyond empiricism, then you flatly say "no", and post sarcastic comments in my direction. Furthermore, you ignore the texts I gave you, you WILL NOT read the thinkers who have fuelled what I've been telling you continually. You're not worth replying to, honestly. What's most amusing however is the syllogisms you post in trying to debunk me (yet only agree with my position, if only you could understand what I tell you), are provided by the same thinkers that give content to the metaphysics I teach you. That's like cut and paste journalism, taking one aspect of philosophy and excluding all others. Trying to debunk reason, using reason lol.. What a turd. :lol:

[TheDagdaMor145]

i will throw my hat in with where i think mallaus was trying to go.

d) none of the above.

i absolutely think that everything has some kind of value. but this is not a "species specific" value. it more has to do with the individual. and no, it does not have to do with what that person or animal or thing 'accomplishes'. while that person or thing does not 'accomplish' anything that we see, they might have an affect down the line that we will never know. even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[Echod16]

Yes, because they exist, they are inherently valuable, thus special.

do you find a chip of wood to be special as well? or as special as a human?

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I just returned from a short vacation in celebration of my 21st birthday. I had a fantastic time surrounded by people I respect, admire, and love, so you'll pardon me if I treat this thread as though it were rather petty.

Which is it.

Ironically, I worded that with you in mind. Your post on the other thread which assented to all things having the same value prompted me to make the second selection. If it's to be that arbitrary, where do you cross the line? Oh.. perhaps bears and bees have the same value, but hey - not those amoebas! heh.. The only thing mildly absurd is the notion of stereotypical value ordering, which would be a precipiate of option #2.

Essentially, you've debunked every option on your poll except for the first choice. What was the purpose of this thread then? A trick question? To lure people into a debate so that you could prove the validity of your beliefs? I don't get it. I thoughts polls were used to either determine the outcome of something, (a vote), or to reveal the opinions of people, (a poll), not to fool someone into stating something so you could beat them over the head with it. That's just me though.

Well you redeemed yourself to an extent here. Let's take this cue and start an inquiry into objective lines of demarcation between species, and then ask ourselves what could (if anything could) consitiute an objective assigning of values.

I don't believe redemption was necessary. You saw a discrepancy in my belief system that wasn't there. You said, " Your post on the other thread which assented to all things having the same value prompted me to make the second selection." I refuse to list and justify my beliefs to a forum full of strangers at the slightest provocation. I don't feel the need to do so whenever I'm sharing my opinion. I try to stay on the topic at hand. That being said, I believe that all life has the same value. However, I cannot have a moral obligation to something I am unable to control. Microscopic lifeforms are constantly created and destroyed within my body as part of the natural homeostasis. Does that make me a mass-murderer? Ridiculous.

Now, my "reasoning" isn't quite as advanced as yours, obviously. I haven't read all of the texts you have "assigned." However, my moral compass has yet to lead me astray, and I'd rather be a less-educated man that cares about people and animals, then a well-educated man that rationalizes away the slaughter of anything because they are "less valuable" then a human life.

Now, off the topic of this thread... you'll notice that I was able to post without once insulting anyone involved. "Ridiculous" is the closest I came, and that applies to the belief that existing, through which microscopic organisms are slain, makes me a murderer, not to an individual.

Frankly, if you, or anyone else, can't hold a discussion and illustrate a point without insulting someone, then I have a hard time appreciating the point you're trying to make. A man that believes in what he says is secure in the knoweldge that others won't necessarily share his beliefs. Be they "True" or not.

Regardless, I'm tired of this discussion. Tolerance is a trait I admire, and tolerance is a trait I fail to see much of in this thread, and in this forum.

[Havard]

My friend Ian wisely pointed out to me: "Tolerance is not a virtue, LOVE is a virtue."

My point is that AoA loves all of you. Not in some touchy-feely way, but in the most meaningful way, which the Greeks called agape. It means unconditional, selfless love. AoA wants to share his findings with you because he selflessly wants you to benefit from the same truths that he has found. And he is so adamant about it because this means so much to him.

I'm sure AoA will post his own response, and he doesn't need my help, but I want to say this because I believe it and I want to share this with you. If you think I'm biased, ok, but at least consider his motivations. You may not like his preaching, but at least you can appreciate his intentions.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Greetings,

I just returned from a short vacation in celebration of my 21st birthday. I had a fantastic time surrounded by people I respect, admire, and love, so you'll pardon me if I treat this thread as though it were rather petty.


Happy birthday :).


Essentially, you've debunked every option on your poll except for the first choice. What was the purpose of this thread then? A trick question? To lure people into a debate so that you could prove the validity of your beliefs? I don't get it. I thoughts polls were used to either determine the outcome of something, (a vote), or to reveal the opinions of people, (a poll), not to fool someone into stating something so you could beat them over the head with it. That's just me though.


Indeed, I cannot debunk an option that I hold is true, and you've heard me mention before that everyone MUST have a postion. As far as supporting option 1, that can be seen in my replies to my detractors. I consider you a friend, and I've done my best to treat you with respect. I hope you would in turn allow me a bit leeway in terms of motive. If it helps, I don't post in threads that I cannot make a clear position in, which is the political threads for example. I post in only topics in which I've achieved some measure of adequacy.


I don't believe redemption was necessary. You saw a discrepancy in my belief system that wasn't there. You said, " Your post on the other thread which assented to all things having the same value prompted me to make the second selection." I refuse to list and justify my beliefs to a forum full of strangers at the slightest provocation. I don't feel the need to do so whenever I'm sharing my opinion. I try to stay on the topic at hand. That being said, I believe that all life has the same value. However, I cannot have a moral obligation to something I am unable to control. Microscopic lifeforms are constantly created and destroyed within my body as part of the natural homeostasis. Does that make me a mass-murderer? Ridiculous.


THe notion has nothing to do with your character, and does not detract from who you are. I did note in your post however an option that reminded me of another possibile option for belief, one that warranted a rebuttal on my part, based on reason. While I understand your will to stay away from banter, I for my part do embrace discussion, even if things seemingly don't lead in a positive direction, as seeds are planted. As far as I can tell, you're a moral man, but I believe its my duty, at least for this particular topic, to tackle content that does not conform to the laws of reason. Furthermore, that does not detract from an individual's intelligence - as many people are intelligent here, including you, but learning logic and its ways is not done overnight. I hope you can agree with at least that.


Now, my "reasoning" isn't quite as advanced as yours, obviously. I haven't read all of the texts you have "assigned." However, my moral compass has yet to lead me astray, and I'd rather be a less-educated man that cares about people and animals, then a well-educated man that rationalizes away the slaughter of anything because they are "less valuable" then a human life.


As I mentioned above (before even reading this section), my post is not a detraction to your character. IMO, you handle yourself with dignity.


Now, off the topic of this thread... you'll notice that I was able to post without once insulting anyone involved. "Ridiculous" is the closest I came, and that applies to the belief that existing, through which microscopic organisms are slain, makes me a murderer, not to an individual.

Frankly, if you, or anyone else, can't hold a discussion and illustrate a point without insulting someone, then I have a hard time appreciating the point you're trying to make. A man that believes in what he says is secure in the knoweldge that others won't necessarily share his beliefs. Be they "True" or not.

Regardless, I'm tired of this discussion. Tolerance is a trait I admire, and tolerance is a trait I fail to see much of in this thread, and in this forum.

I understand what you've said. However, I posted my view of arrogance and insults in my reply to Unreg!stered. All depends on wether or not a person ascribes to a universal law of reason (which must be so, otherwise it wouldnt be reason). Anyway Maullus, I believe these threads are important, even if they may get rough sometimes. Avoiding confrontation does not ensure peace, but clear understanding does. I'd rather have authentic peace, than manufactured peace.
As far as tolerance is concerned, I made mention of tolerance before. Essentially, tolerance is not simply "agreeing to disagree". That would compromise the integrity of the core values of one's position, or at least dilute it. One example is here in canada, parts of the bible are outlawed as hate literature. THis was done in the name of tolerance, but unfortunately, the government's notion of tolerance imposed itself upon our belief structre - thereby overruling it, and attempting to force people to compromise their beliefs. True tolerance allows for the full expression (albeit enlightened expression) of a particular platform. Essentially, there really is no compromise, as everyone lives their own beliefs to the core wether they believe it or not, and that belief can certainly be secular humanism, which will promote itself fanatically, towards anything that would possibly infringe upon it. We are all zealots, for our respective positions.

Anyway, I hope I've been clear. I'm happy to be your friend maullus, regardless of our difference of opinion, but we can't simply sheathe our swords and forget differences - they should be discussed, as is the purpose of this forum. Take care.

[Unreg!stered]

Well met, "unregistered". Hopefully by the end of my post, you may have a better idea where you stand. The notion I wish to get across to you is that my posts are written in accord with a universal notion of "natural law" and truth, and you've written from post-modern perspective, assuming there lacks this universality. As such, you upbraid me for the tone and content I offer on this forum. We'll soon see if you're as near open minded as you claim to be.


I am open minded, as is shown by how I'm willing to let my views shift and change as more plausible reasons and rationale comes to light. I understand that not everything I know or believe in is right, and am fully willing to learn more and adopt better proven stances.

THe first lesson consists in identity. This idea will come up a few time in what I'm about to write to you, but be assured that I have no inherent power to call someone a fool, rather, they call themselves fools by means of the positions they take on matters. Fools, because they do not bow to the demands of reason, and superimpose their own understanding in saying there are no real answers to a world that is its own answer. If I call you a fool, it's not out of mailce or conjecture, but its merely making aware a reality you were previously unable to ascertain.
Just a heads-up regarding to my opening comments about fools and other like namecalling. Contrary to my detractors' points of view, I have not belittled anyone on this thread. They belittle themselves by posting inconsistently, and irrationally. I've done my duty by pointing that out. So you see, everything depends on wether you ascribe to the laws of reason, or not. Certainly, I would think and post as you do now, if I did not give this consistency that much importance. These are serious questions posted by these people, and demand a serious, consistent answer. I won't tolerate fluff. Most don't listen, or think I'm full of shyt, but I'm not doing it to convert others, I'm doing it for its own sake.

An example: There is a young woman who lives down the street from me. She has shown no indication that she has any function in her legs. Does that give me the right to point out to her that she's handicapped? Of course not, that is silly, as is your arguement that "they make fools of themselves, I just point it out." There are a lot of forum trolls who have given me no indication that they can think above a the level of a six year old. Should I say to them "excuse me sir, but kindly realize that you are an idiot"? There are a few people I know who have gotten certain aspects of my field horribly wrong. By your reasoning, they are fools and I should inform them of that. Indeed they were in error, but I have a different way of informing and correcting them. Instead of belittling I show them their error and show them the correct answer or method without resorting to a condescending tone. In fact, I keep my tone very jovial and upbeat since that seems to work much better than looking down at them.

If you refer to knowing what God has in mind, or what the future holds, that of course I do not know. But, I can know alot of things, by means of my apprehension of what is present to my by the senses - given to my by God. As human beings, we are more powerful than we realize.

Hundreds of years ago in Europe everyone knew that bathing regularly would increase the risk of vicious colds and that the best method of ridding a sick person of their disease was to bleed them. The most brilliant minds of an even farther past all believed that Earth was the center of the universe. What is to say that in fifty or even a hundred years the views you so strongly ascribe to will not be proved wrong?

I noted earlier "a different purpose". Please look into that nature to be arrogant. Arrogance is not in terms of tone, but in terms of misunderstanding the power you hold. That means, humble yourself by conforming to natural law, to the demands of reason, and to God.

Ar´ro`gant
a. 1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; - applied to persons.
Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate.
- Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; - applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/arrogant (http://)

Resorting to semantics is a poor tactic, I know, but we both clearly fit under the dictionary definition of this word.

Conversely, you're attempting to shepherd me now by posting that. Congratulations for discovering now that everyone MUST have a postion, and everyone TEACHES others. Question is, who is correct? Who will you shepherd today, who will you teach the groundless, baseless, hollow un-values of post-modernism? Think about that.

Any designer of a thing has in mind it's purpose.

Two dots, I'll leave it to you to connect them. ;)

As is the case with you, I don't post stuff "for fun" as he did. My view of him remains unchanged now, as before I knew him - its never personal for me. I'm arging against the arrogance of mishandling these heavy issues with skepticism and dogmatism. Go read Kant, you'll understand arrogance the way you're supposed to.

I was also "supposed" to understand on the basis of another author of the superiority of the German people. I'm willing to read, but I can and will make my own decisions as to what I'm "supposed" to know afterwards. I prefer to use the information I gather as building blocks for a greater understanding, not to just accept things because it sounded intelligent.

I'm offering an opportunity to seek natural law, and truth by means of reason. It demands alot, endows you with alot, and its natural for people to believe its proponents - myself being one of them - to be arrogant. However, I'll ask you to stick to the content if you wish to argue, and keep it impersonal as best you can. If I'm arrogant, I would have to be a dogmatist. The goal is discovery, not assertion. Keep that in mind.

It's not just a case of everyone "believing" you to be arrogant and being wrong, sir, it is that you are arrogant and we have noticed. Arrogance does lie in tone. People would not "believe" you to be arrogant if you talked as an equal and not a superior. As for sticking to the content, I am clearly no match for you on this subject, but that was not my intention for posting. My intention was to provide you an opportunity to seek a better understanding of your peers and how you appear to them.

Granted, a more diplomatic person may have a better chance in promoting knowledge, but alas, you've got me . Best to know that I like all of you, even folks like sage who irritate me often. Some have taken that cue, and we've had good discussions. I could humble myself in tone, but I believe that it would undermine the force of these convictions to the reader. Reason DEMANDS consistency of others. I'm not here to make buddies, as I am on most other threads, but here, I'm here to be consistent, and if that invloves some rough and tumble action, so be it.

You do not have to forgo consistancy to be humble. Belittling and pointing out how foolish people are does not make you serious. Seriousness does not come from haughty tone. Using myself as an example, I am very serious about my writing and my research but I do not lord it over those who do not believe as I do. In fact, I sometimes joke about my work, but no one has assumed that because I treat them kindly that I am not serious about what I do. I also did not come to the forums to make buddies and unlike you, I feel fairly indifferent towards everyone here but the one I know from the WC3 forums. Yet I do not take it upon myself to treat others poorly just because they are less knowledgeable about certain subjects, or less well read.

One can give every indication as being a terrible, horrible person, but that does not mean I should treat them with any less respect, or raise myself up above them and then sneer down from my lofty position. There exists in life something called "Common Decency", something that is lost on many in this ego-centric age. You suggest I learn more about philosophy before I make views on religion. I agree. I suggest you learn more about how to converse with and treat others, not by reading the book of some esteemed psychologist but by simply talking with others and learning how when you treat others with respect, no matter what they believe or how ignorant they are of a subject they tend to respond kindly and be more receptive.

My friend Ian wisely pointed out to me: "Tolerance is not a virtue, LOVE is a virtue.

My point is that AoA loves all of you. Not in some touchy-feely way, but in the most meaningful way, which the Greeks called agape. It means unconditional, selfless love. AoA wants to share his findings with you because he selflessly wants you to benefit from the same truths that he has found. And he is so adamant about it because this means so much to him.

I'm sure AoA will post his own response, and he doesn't need my help, but I want to say this because I believe it and I want to share this with you. If you think I'm biased, ok, but at least consider his motivations. You may not like his preaching, but at least you can appreciate his intentions."

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[Maullus]

Greetingsm

I consider you a friend, and I've done my best to treat you with respect.
And I consider you a friend as well. However, I base my friendships not only on how a person treats me, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on how they treat other people. Two facets of one person, but I tend to believe the latter is the more prominent part of their character.

we can't simply sheathe our swords and forget differences - they should be discussed, as is the purpose of this forum.Trying to debunk reason, using reason lol.. What a turd. :lol:

Discussion is always the best route, but... this is taken out of context, admittedly, but I'm not sure how that can be seen as anything but... rude. I forego the use of a smiley here, because I don't want this to be seen as anything but what it is...genuine confusion. I think this is rude, and I can't fathom a person seeing it as anything but. Civility never goes out of style.

I agree completely. I'm not talking about a tolerance through ignorance. I mean tolerance through the acceptance of differing beliefs. That kind of tolerance is not always plausible, especially when matters of religion are the subject of debate. However, this thread isn't (really) a matter of religious debate. (And if it is, in which case it would be about the 1000th thread, God have mercy on us all.)

My friend Ian wisely pointed out to me: "Tolerance is not a virtue, LOVE is a virtue."

My point is that AoA loves all of you. Not in some touchy-feely way, but in the most meaningful way, which the Greeks called agape. It means unconditional, selfless love. AoA wants to share his findings with you because he selflessly wants you to benefit from the same truths that he has found. And he is so adamant about it because this means so much to him.

I disagree. Tolerance is a virtue. Love is a virtue. They are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are complimentary. But wanting everyone to benefit from "the same truths that he has found" isn't necessarily a benign motivation. What about wanting them to be happy? What about allowing them to find their own "truth" rather then have "Truth" forced down their throats? Or, if you only believe in a single, absolute "Truth," allow them to find the way to it themselves. I've yet to see a successful application of conversion at swordpoint.

Anyway, I've sidetracked this thread enough. This discussion almost merits its own thread, so I'll just tactfully withdraw from this one.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If you want to step outside the arena of arguments and drop the gloves with me pal, so be it. I dont back down from losers like you, not for a second. You want to depreciate my character, after the reasons I gave, fine by me. I'd deck you for something like that IRL, that's just blatant disrespect. You've taken this far out of hand, far out of context. All you've succeded in doing here is piss me off.

I am open minded, as is shown by how I'm willing to let my views shift and change as more plausible reasons and rationale comes to light. I understand that not everything I know or believe in is right, and am fully willing to learn more and adopt better proven stances.


Being open minded is open to discovering a solution, not willing to accept anything that passes under your nose - at that point, you're just a leaf in the wind. You make concrete choices daily, in the littile things. Big things have their answers too.


An example: There is a young woman who lives down the street from me. She has shown no indication that she has any function in her legs. Does that give me the right to point out to her that she's handicapped? Of course not, that is silly, as is your arguement that "they make fools of themselves, I just point it out." There are a lot of forum trolls who have given me no indication that they can think above a the level of a six year old. Should I say to them "excuse me sir, but kindly realize that you are an idiot"? There are a few people I know who have gotten certain aspects of my field horribly wrong. By your reasoning, they are fools and I should inform them of that. Indeed they were in error, but I have a different way of informing and correcting them. Instead of belittling I show them their error and show them the correct answer or method without resorting to a condescending tone. In fact, I keep my tone very jovial and upbeat since that seems to work much better than looking down at them.


I did mention that on this particular area of the forums - the off topic, it's no holds barred. I've got an entire guild full of different people with differing views, and I run a DnD chronicle with a group of my detractors. This is the place for this kind of discussion. I've given you my reasons. Everything has a context. Don't make the mistake of pouncing upon my character.


Hundreds of years ago in Europe everyone knew that bathing regularly would increase the risk of vicious colds and that the best method of ridding a sick person of their disease was to bleed them. The most brilliant minds of an even farther past all believed that Earth was the center of the universe. What is to say that in fifty or even a hundred years the views you so strongly ascribe to will not be proved wrong?


Due to the copernican revolution, empirical data was changed, but the inherent laws discovered by aristotle remained the same, and were unaffected by new discoveries like that. Kant attests to this as well (ref intro to critique of reason).


Ar´ro`gant
a. 1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; - applied to persons.
Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate.
- Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; - applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/arrogant (http://)

Resorting to semantics is a poor tactic, I know, but we both clearly fit under the dictionary definition of this word.


As I've ansered others before, definitons come from different schools of thinking. This one is all about tone. I've given reasons for my argument, can you give one for yours?



Two dots, I'll leave it to you to connect them. ;)


What do you refer to?


I was also "supposed" to understand on the basis of another author of the superiority of the German people. I'm willing to read, but I can and will make my own decisions as to what I'm "supposed" to know afterwards. I prefer to use the information I gather as building blocks for a greater understanding, not to just accept things because it sounded intelligent.


Very good, use the building blocks. So far, I haven't seen much evidence for it. Try reading the text I ask you to - those are building blocks.


It's not just a case of everyone "believing" you to be arrogant and being wrong, sir, it is that you are arrogant and we have noticed. Arrogance does lie in tone. People would not "believe" you to be arrogant if you talked as an equal and not a superior. As for sticking to the content, I am clearly no match for you on this subject, but that was not my intention for posting. My intention was to provide you an opportunity to seek a better understanding of your peers and how you appear to them.


Well, I've told you before that it is all about content, and some can deal with the tone, and others cant. If you cannot, kindly leave. If the true nature of arrogance is in tone alone, it is you who say it. Is that to say that being humble means never raising your voice? How many arrogant actions are taken in subtley? Think of your politicians for instance.


You do not have to forgo consistancy to be humble. Belittling and pointing out how foolish people are does not make you serious. Seriousness does not come from haughty tone. Using myself as an example, I am very serious about my writing and my research but I do not lord it over those who do not believe as I do.


What, pray tell, do you research? Hate to break it to you, but when someone is wrong about something, they're wrong. Period. When the error is pointed out to them, and they continue to persist in their view, or post spam and sarcasm, I have no problem in labelling them an idiot, or "troll" (as you say :uhhuh: ), because their actions are representitve of that name. Why mince words? If you want to call me arrogant, fine, but you're misinformed, and base that on a false premise, that I've already outlined. If only the others would do the same for me!


In fact, I sometimes joke about my work, but no one has assumed that because I treat them kindly that I am not serious about what I do. I also did not come to the forums to make buddies and unlike you, I feel fairly indifferent towards everyone here but the one I know from the WC3 forums. Yet I do not take it upon myself to treat others poorly just because they are less knowledgeable about certain subjects, or less well read.


Unbelievable.. again, it's all about content, not about a person's character. If you can't see that, I can't help you. Tell you one thing, your expressed intention, as you said, is not to deal with content (from which all this arose), but to label my character as some sort of intellectual troll. Argue against my content if you wish, and I will meet you there, but this is just blatant labelling.


One can give every indication as being a terrible, horrible person, but that does not mean I should treat them with any less respect, or raise myself up above them and then sneer down from my lofty position. There exists in life something called "Common Decency", something that is lost on many in this ego-centric age. You suggest I learn more about philosophy before I make views on religion. I agree. I suggest you learn more about how to converse with and treat others, not by reading the book of some esteemed psychologist but by simply talking with others and learning how when you treat others with respect, no matter what they believe or how ignorant they are of a subject they tend to respond kindly and be more receptive.


In this forum, reason and consistency rules, and takes no prisoners. I have relationships with some of these people outside the forum, and I doubt one of them could say I treat them with disrespect. Your inconsistency here is thus demonstrated by projecting what goes on here, to all other aspects of my personhood and my relationships. Taking a strong tone is necessary - like in the military. There is no lax training involved in learning to think propery - its the same as anything you work on. Pai Mei was a cruel tutor, but his disciples kicked @ss. I've got something to offer my readers, and you attack my character? F--- you pal.


"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Those were his words, but he can see where I'm coming from. Thanks for doing your duty here, now get lost.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Maullus, we can discuss it more over MSN. I'm taking my leave from this thread now, as well as these topics for the time being. I'm very upset ATM, time to cool off.

[Bartleby]

Well sh1t that just took the fun out of this thread... anyone for parcheezy?

[Havard]

Tolerance is a virtue. Love is a virtue. They are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are complimentary. But wanting everyone to benefit from "the same truths that he has found" isn't necessarily a benign motivation. What about wanting them to be happy?

He does want you to be happy! But "tolerance" is not the appropriate vehicle that will enable anyone to help you.

Webster's defines the word "tolerate" as follows:
"to recognize and respect [others' beliefs, practices, etc.] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]."

This traditional definition is perfectly compatible with Christianity. In fact, the Bible says we are to "accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God" (Romans 15:17). This is the same attitude that Paul expressed in his first epistle to the Corinthian church when he explained that love "endureth all things" (13:7). This type of tolerance differentiates between a person's thoughts or actions and the person himself. Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions of tolerance no longer capture the full meaning promoted by the new meaning of "tolerance;" at least not according to the majority of people and institutions using the term. And this is increasingly true among our generation.

I would estimate that most of the time that the word "tolerance" is used today - by teachers, the media, government officials, and perhaps even some of us - it is being used to mean the new "tolerance," which says that what every individual believes or says is equally right and equally valid. In other words, all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims are equal.

G. K. Chesterton (the English author who strongly influenced the life and writing of my man C.S. Lewis :winner: ) once said, "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions." This alludes to the grave consequence of the new tolerance: the loss of conviction. In order for a person to possess convictions about a belief, it is necessary, by definition, for the person to be convinced that his or her belief is true. (e.g. AoA) But if I sincerely consider everyone's beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equal to my own (even when they contradict my beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims), I can no longer claim any genuine conviction regarding my own beliefs. The new definition of tolerance requires me to admit that I may just as easily be as mistaken or misled as my neighbor. If no truth is "more true" than any other "truth," then there is no truth worth defending. And if there is no truth worth defending, there is no room for conviction.

What about allowing them to find their own "truth" rather then have "Truth" forced down their throats? Or, if you only believe in a single, absolute "Truth," allow them to find the way to it themselves. I've yet to see a successful application of conversion at swordpoint.

I agree with you... I think AoA would agree as well!

Anyway, I've sidetracked this thread enough. This discussion almost merits its own thread, so I'll just tactfully withdraw from this one.

Ok, but remember, we are always enriched each others' perspectives, so your insights are always welcome.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Took me a bit to cool down, but I want to apoligize for the rant, it was out of line. You're right about the tone, ultimately.

[Unreg!stered]

Took me a bit to cool down, but I want to apoligize for the rant, it was out of line. You're right about the tone, ultimately.

Feel free to disregard the PMs I sent you, then, it is just more of the same. I am merely some stranger on some forums, who made a suggestion that went a bit too far. My intention was only to say that you should a bit more careful in how you treat others. Your beliefs are sound, and supported by vast knowledge of the subject matter that I could never even hope to comprehend.

I accept your apology and offer one of my own for too stepping out of line. Hopefully we can continue to butt heads on such fascinating subject matter without losing our civility in this or any other topic. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Gracefully accepted.

[Sage the Mage]

Sage, the only person here refusing to learn is you. To date, I'm the only one who has offered support for my argument, all you've done is meander around it, and in this case, post a syllogism equation with no other reference. You agree with everything eccept that which is beyond empiricism, then you flatly say "no", and post sarcastic comments in my direction.
Oh magnificent wise one, tell me how you argue something to be true without evidence? Every argument must have evidence showing that it is true for it to be true, and well if you cannot see this, then you have a problem.

Again, just agree that it comes down to beliefs, and not you being 100% right and I'll be done.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What do you mean by beliefs? Is that beliefs without qualification, or beliefs with solid underpinnings?

[Sage the Mage]

I certaintly hope your beliefs have at least some reason behind them :)

[TheDagdaMor145]

just to keep things consistent around here....

people are absolutely allowed to have 'beliefs' that are not backed up by reason or the logical method. it is called 'faith', whose definition is:


"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"


i am not saying that i do not have reasons for believing as i do. i am just pointing out that it is probably inconsistent to rag on someone who simply believes in something without complete logical proof.

(well, not if you are an athiest i guess :scratch: )

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Everyone has faith, but faith in something. THis faith would not be faith, without some rationale to choose that, over something else. I agree tho, there comes a time when faith is necessary (Kant posited this as well, after his critique of reason).


Sage - can you further define what a rational belief is - how justified we are in having that belief.

[Sage the Mage]

Lets see:

rational - Consistent with or based on reason; logical
belief - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

I'd go so far as to say it requires that the belief be sound for it to be truely rational.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, so a belief is not without its certainty? (if indeed it can be a rational belief). What I'm trying to ascertain here is the degree of certainty that you ascribe to a rational belief.