For all those who believe in Christianity or Some form of it...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kayna:
Wow...
I must say that I am impressed. Even with the differeing viewpoints, everones posts are so coalm and respectful.
I avoided the thread for some time becaus, in my experience, religion threads aren't very pleasant places to be. Even after I checked it out though I refrained from commenting because all of these posts are so well thought out. My thoughts on the subject are not nearly so well organized but I rarely have anyone to discuss them with so that's not a huge surprise. Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered andI really hope I don't sound trollish at any point but I just working out how to put some of this in words as I type it so please bear with me. Also, forgive me my horrible typing and spelling. Much as I love the written word, I can't seem to master it.

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

---

isn't it nice though? To be able to discuss these things in an orderly and civil manner? I'm so happy to be able to converse with these wonderful and intelligent people.

And raidok: If I ever find myself believing in some higher power I will stand for that too. I am a very proud person (one of my sins) but I'm not as proud that I cant admit to a change in beliefs. I'm not sure I will seek out faith. Faith being what it is it will come to me I think. I do not know what is holding me back from as you say accepting the freedom offered by Christ, except me being a very materialistic person (not in the I love things and stuff way, but the other kind) and frightfully independent. Those two combined makes it hard to believe in anything

Constance

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Only I would be dumb enough to go head to head about philosophy with a philosopher by trade.

---

But I'm a friendly philosopher!

Quote:

---

Hmmm. How does this apply to Schroedinger's cat? Is it really just our not knowing the outcome before we see it or is there actually a temporal ambiguity involved?

---

*sigh* Schrodinger's cat. The trouble with that damned cat is that it's nearly impossible to explain it or understand it unless you've got a background in theoretical physics (which I do not). As I understand it, it seems to turn on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, so we can't observe the experiment without affecting its outcome. Then you do the hokey pokey and stick in some theoretical physics and you say that until you open the box, the cat's neither alive nor dead, nor not-alive nor not-dead; its status is ambiguous until you open the box. I won't even pretend to be able to hang with the physics, but I can say this about the philosophy of the thing: I think we can understand the ambiguity as one of metaphysics or as one of epistemology.

If it's one of metaphysics, then I have to reject the idea that its ontological status is ambiguous. Something went into a box, something may or may not have happened. The cat may or may not be alive. But something happened. But to suggest that somehow our not being able to observe changed its ontological status is just silly (but that's just my non-physicist take on things).

Or we could take this as an epistemological question. Do we know whether the cat is alive or dead? How could we know? What conditions would be necessary for knowing? These are epistemological questions. And as far as the epistemological question goes, I think that there's really know good way to know whether the cat is alive or dead. If it's truly a 50/50 chance, then there's absolutely nothing that we can say that will be more justified than the alternative. So epistemic status of the question of whether the cat is alive or dead is utterly ambiguous and unresolvable unless we open the box. But the cat's ontological status is a different issue. Clear as mud?

Quote:

---

I can use logic (I can use logic), but my contention is that perhaps reality is not logical and therefore might best not be viewed as such.

---

Well, dang it. Once again we've confused two different senses of the word "logical."

There are several dictionary definitions of logical:
1a1) of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
1a2) skilled in logic
1b) formally true or valid
2) capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion

You'll notice that all of these definitions have to do with adherence to the principles of logical thought. The universe doesn't think, so it can't be said to be logical. The trouble is that most people use the word logical to mean "unmysterious," "known to be factual," or "being in accordance with what is known." But none of these things have to do with the principles of logic.

So when I say that logic is one of the foundational principles of the universe, you have to understand that I'm not using the word in its vernacular sense. I'm using it to mean that those rules that govern proper thinking are encoded into the very fabric of the universe. If you want to argue about whether logical truths are necessary ones, we can certainly do that, but up to this point, we haven't even been arguing the same thing, because we're using different definitions of "logic" and "logical."

Quote:

---

All we know of reality is what we make of it in our own heads. I think you are real therefore you are real to me. Tomorrow I might realize my schizophrenia and stop posting messages to my favorite imaginary philosopher.

---

The key word in this, though is "know." You're right: all we know of reality is what we subjectively experience. But again, this is an epistemologic

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

---

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

---

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

---

Casaul - I said "Organized Religion". Not religious people. Organized Religions are instituions. Institutions full of hypocrites. I don't have much respect for the Catholic church, doesn't mean I hate Catholics (since I am one). If you can't see the difference then I am trully sorry.


eta: Believe it or not, my dislike of Organized religion stems from the teachings of Jesus himself.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)


---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Well there shall be no surprises for me. Hell is where I will go if there is a hell to go to and if there isn't anything to go to, and when we die, we're dead...I will be busy being dead to notice, therefore I won't be in a position to be disappointed or let down. Don't get me wrong. I don't relish the idea of going to a place where there is eternal suffering and pain for finite actions here in this dimension, but it seems that this is my lot. I say this because I know my nature, and that nature is evil, or at least selfishness in a petty sort of way. I am not one to be given a lot of power and not abuse it to make someone else suffer. I notice this as I conduct business with other people and other companies; I'm shrewd and a back-stabber when it gets right down to it. I am not one to be trusted, nor one you would care to turn your back on. If this isn't hell material I don't know what is.

And FutureMrsFillion, one doesn't have to be a Hitler to be evil. Sometimes ultimate evil comes in the form of some small, selfish act that cause pain and suffering to those around you in a manner that effects their course in life, which produces a result that is devastating in the long run. I am not Goose-stepping, in your face evil, but I am petty and evil enough to do damage to others; we all are when it gets right down to it.

Hell is where I am slated to go, and hell is what awaits, and there is nothing in this 'verse that can stop it.

*BTW, Causal, I didn't know you were such a deep thinker*

-River

---

You may be petty and selfish But it you were REALLY evil, you wouldn't even think about it. You "worry" (and I use that term to mean thinking about it to a great extent) about being evil.

I am not saying you are Mother Teresa, but I am not seeing evil.


---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

---

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

---

Casaul - I said "Organized Religion". Not religious people. Organized Religions are instituions. Institutions full of hypocrites. I don't have much respect for the Catholic church, doesn't mean I hate Catholics (since I am one). If you can't see the difference then I am trully sorry.


eta: Believe it or not, my dislike of Organized religion stems from the teachings of Jesus himself.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

---

Well, with all due respect, he's not saying, "Don't pray like the people who are in organized religion." He's saying, "Don't pray like the hypocrites." And you might say that they're just the same thing, but that can't be the case: I've know plenty of areligious hypocrites. You don't have to belong to a religion to be a hypocrite.

I guess what hurts is that you must think I'm an awful big fool for buying into an "organized religion." Because if, in fact, organized religion is responsible for every single problem in the world, I'm complicit. Because I give "organized religion" my time, money and effort.

Plus, you must think that "organized religion" is really, really powerful. Human history accounts for only about 0.001% of the total history of the earth. And there was animal pain and suffering long before humans came along with organized religion. And there were earthquakes and tsunamis and tornados long before organized religion. Am I to understand that organized religion was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Surely isn't somehow secretly responsible for plane crashes? Is organized religion to blame for miscarriages? How has organized religion played into global warming? Isn't industrialization and capitalism mostly to blame for that? Surely it can't be the case that every single bad thing that ever has happened and ever will happen is the fault of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?



________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME