The Intelligent People's Thread

Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: well... if there is no afterlife and life has no meaning, then I may as well not get attached to this world and just lie around in a pile of filth or something like that. I don't know, I prefer to take the Pragmatic approach to God and the meaning of life. I'm totally ripping this off of William James (psychologist/philosopher/founder of Pragmatism), but there are 6 possibilities in life in this regard. I believe in God and god exists, so I go to heaven I believe in god and god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm agnostic, god exists, so I go to hell I'm agnostic, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm an atheist, god exists, so I go to hell I'm an atheist, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere So, all else being equal, I might as well be a theist and have something to live for, even though it may not be worthwhile in the end. Ah, but that's assuming a god that punishes those who don't properly worship him.  That seems to me like an absolutely idiotic assumption, as any being that would be nice enough to create us wouldn't be angered by people THINKING (thus using that massive organ he decided to place in our skulls) and coming to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't such a being.  Of course, that doesn't matter, cause there isn't such a being anyways.  You seem to have the assumption that such a being would use our inferior logic and moralities.  Of course, even under our own moralities what you say is illogical. If I created a breed of ants and saw one of them raping and killing other ants, I would stomp on it; if I one of them displeased me by directly disobeying me, I would punish it; if one of them attacked me personally, I would annihilate its entire line. I don't believe that the logic of science and philosophy applies to religion, its a completely non-rational (meaning not able to be reasoned; i don't mean irrational as in going directly against ration) thing (yeah I know, that was Wittgenstein)

But would you kill an ant that didn't know you existed? 

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: well... if there is no afterlife and life has no meaning, then I may as well not get attached to this world and just lie around in a pile of filth or something like that. I don't know, I prefer to take the Pragmatic approach to God and the meaning of life. I'm totally ripping this off of William James (psychologist/philosopher/founder of Pragmatism), but there are 6 possibilities in life in this regard. I believe in God and god exists, so I go to heaven I believe in god and god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm agnostic, god exists, so I go to hell I'm agnostic, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm an atheist, god exists, so I go to hell I'm an atheist, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere So, all else being equal, I might as well be a theist and have something to live for, even though it may not be worthwhile in the end. Ah, but that's assuming a god that punishes those who don't properly worship him.  That seems to me like an absolutely idiotic assumption, as any being that would be nice enough to create us wouldn't be angered by people THINKING (thus using that massive organ he decided to place in our skulls) and coming to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't such a being.  Of course, that doesn't matter, cause there isn't such a being anyways.  You seem to have the assumption that such a being would use our inferior logic and moralities.  Of course, even under our own moralities what you say is illogical. If I created a breed of ants and saw one of them raping and killing other ants, I would stomp on it; if I one of them displeased me by directly disobeying me, I would punish it; if one of them attacked me personally, I would annihilate its entire line. I don't believe that the logic of science and philosophy applies to religion, its a completely non-rational (meaning not able to be reasoned; i don't mean irrational as in going directly against ration) thing (yeah I know, that was Wittgenstein) But would you kill an ant that didn't know you existed?

well, in America, ignorance of the law is no excuse... so I guess so, but I would feel like total sh*t afterwards... I'm not cut-out for this divinity stuff; it just seems like too much of a burden - plus there aren't any divine ladies, so that would be pretty boring, or if there are, I bet they'd be pretty boring to hang around with - always passing judgment and punishing mortals... I'd rather not live eternally like that.

Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: well... if there is no afterlife and life has no meaning, then I may as well not get attached to this world and just lie around in a pile of filth or something like that. I don't know, I prefer to take the Pragmatic approach to God and the meaning of life. I'm totally ripping this off of William James (psychologist/philosopher/founder of Pragmatism), but there are 6 possibilities in life in this regard. I believe in God and god exists, so I go to heaven I believe in god and god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm agnostic, god exists, so I go to hell I'm agnostic, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm an atheist, god exists, so I go to hell I'm an atheist, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere So, all else being equal, I might as well be a theist and have something to live for, even though it may not be worthwhile in the end. Ah, but that's assuming a god that punishes those who don't properly worship him.  That seems to me like an absolutely idiotic assumption, as any being that would be nice enough to create us wouldn't be angered by people THINKING (thus using that massive organ he decided to place in our skulls) and coming to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't such a being.  Of course, that doesn't matter, cause there isn't such a being anyways.  You seem to have the assumption that such a being would use our inferior logic and moralities.  Of course, even under our own moralities what you say is illogical. If I created a breed of ants and saw one of them raping and killing other ants, I would stomp on it; if I one of them displeased me by directly disobeying me, I would punish it; if one of them attacked me personally, I would annihilate its entire line. I don't believe that the logic of science and philosophy applies to religion, its a completely non-rational (meaning not able to be reasoned; i don't mean irrational as in going directly against ration) thing (yeah I know, that was Wittgenstein) But would you kill an ant that didn't know you existed?  well, in America, ignorance of the law is no excuse... so I guess so, but I would feel like total sh*t afterwards... I'm not cut-out for this divinity stuff; it just seems like too much of a burden - plus there aren't any divine ladies, so that would be pretty boring, or if there are, I bet they'd be pretty boring to hang around with - always passing judgment and punishing mortals... I'd rather not live eternally like that.

It seems to me that, if God created us, he'd plant in our brains morals compatable with his.  After all, why would you create a species that was just gonna piss you off? 

We don't kill people we've never met just because they didn't know of our existance, and I don't think God would do that either. 

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: well... if there is no afterlife and life has no meaning, then I may as well not get attached to this world and just lie around in a pile of filth or something like that. I don't know, I prefer to take the Pragmatic approach to God and the meaning of life. I'm totally ripping this off of William James (psychologist/philosopher/founder of Pragmatism), but there are 6 possibilities in life in this regard. I believe in God and god exists, so I go to heaven I believe in god and god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm agnostic, god exists, so I go to hell I'm agnostic, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere I'm an atheist, god exists, so I go to hell I'm an atheist, god doesn't exist, so I don't go anywhere So, all else being equal, I might as well be a theist and have something to live for, even though it may not be worthwhile in the end. Ah, but that's assuming a god that punishes those who don't properly worship him.  That seems to me like an absolutely idiotic assumption, as any being that would be nice enough to create us wouldn't be angered by people THINKING (thus using that massive organ he decided to place in our skulls) and coming to the conclusion that perhaps there isn't such a being.  Of course, that doesn't matter, cause there isn't such a being anyways.  You seem to have the assumption that such a being would use our inferior logic and moralities.  Of course, even under our own moralities what you say is illogical. If I created a breed of ants and saw one of them raping and killing other ants, I would stomp on it; if I one of them displeased me by directly disobeying me, I would punish it; if one of them attacked me personally, I would annihilate its entire line. I don't believe that the logic of science and philosophy applies to religion, its a completely non-rational (meaning not able to be reasoned; i don't mean irrational as in going directly against ration) thing (yeah I know, that was Wittgenstein) But would you kill an ant that didn't know you existed?  well, in America, ignorance of the law is no excuse... so I guess so, but I would feel like total sh*t afterwards... I'm not cut-out for this divinity stuff; it just seems like too much of a burden - plus there aren't any divine ladies, so that would be pretty boring, or if there are, I bet they'd be pretty boring to hang around with - always passing judgment and punishing mortals... I'd rather not live eternally like that. It seems to me that, if God created us, he'd plant in our brains morals compatable with his.  After all, why would you create a species that was just gonna piss you off?  We don't kill people we've never met just because they didn't know of our existance, and I don't think God would do that either.

well christianity explains that with the whole "fall of man" thing, but I find it unsatisfying.  In the end, I don't think anyone can really prove that god exists, of course, I don't think anyone can really prove that god doesn't exist.

plus, I don't think its possible for mortals to comprehend the will of the divine or to be able to follow that will even if we knew it, so all we can do is guess, ignore, or follow what people claim he tells us to do (scriptures or religious texts of sorts).

I don't see any benefit to being an atheist or agnostic, so I say,"might as well believe in something"  and as long as I choose what I believe personally, I'm still authentic unto my own self (oh yes, I'm a superman) and that brings us back to Existentialism

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well, we do have an obligation to debate them, as members of this club. As I said, it reminded me of Emerson and his Transcendentalism. As he said, and I AM paraphrasing, that society is a company where all agree to work together for the benefit of the company, but in doing so you lose your freedom.   Yea..he didnt like society much.  He said it, "immitation is suicide" We should live for ourselves. Or be like Theorau (sp?) and go live in the woods to truly escape. I read something about Thoreau the other day, I guess his hut in the woods was actually only about a mile away from a town, so he would go there every day - now I'm feeling a bit disillusioned with this whole transcendentalism thing.  Didn't B.F. Skinner prove that humans die without companionship (his "baby box" experiments) Transcendentalism was a set of ideas first put forth by Walt Whitman in his poem Song of Myself.  The biggest idea is that every organism is intertwined and part of a collective soul.  As a result, all parts of nature should be observed and respected for their beauty.   A true transcendentalist would argue that they aren't without companionship, for they are surrounded by nature, which is in itself connected to everything else.

true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet)

what a weird philosophy

rileydog22 wrote: How can you force yourself to have beliefs?  That's ridiculous.  If you don't believe in a god without deciding "well, I guess its benefitial to be a monotheist," then you are agnostic at most, as you aren't really convinced.  Besides, dont you think an omniscient being would see right through that?

Well, all beliefs are personal choices, whether you are conscious of them or not, many people choose to be atheist (which is a set of beliefs - god doesn't exist etc...).  I did mention that I don't believe religion is a rational process didn't I?  And yes, I am sincere in the beliefs I have chosen for myself, because I arrived upon them with conviction that it is the rightest course of action to take (for me anyways).  I don't blame my current state on anything else and I wouldn't blame God for destroying me with impunity, because my predicament is my fault (again the existentialism).

My beliefs, while they coincide somewhat with certain religious convictions if not values, are those that I feel are most suited to me and the nature I wish to impose upon my surroundings.  Have full conviction at the moment, though if you're a nihilist, then why do you care that I believe in something different, if you think we'll both end up the same anyways, because we're both acting with conviction according to our personal philosophies?

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.

religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that)

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: How can you force yourself to have beliefs?  That's ridiculous.  If you don't believe in a god without deciding "well, I guess its benefitial to be a monotheist," then you are agnostic at most, as you aren't really convinced.  Besides, dont you think an omniscient being would see right through that?   Well, all beliefs are personal choices, whether you are conscious of them or not, many people choose to be atheist (which is a set of beliefs - god doesn't exist etc...).  I disagree.  I hypothesize that religious beliefs are found on non-coding DNA.  Come to think of it, that's probably the origin of the term "junk DNA."

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a Metaphysical Idealist and don't believe in matter or DNA and don't believe that science is really a worthwhile pursuit, so I'm afraid I find that meaningless... (everything is merely an idea)

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that) Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?

I didn't say he didn't, but if he did, it would, by human logic make more sense to advertise the fact (I wouldn't assume he would use human logic though).  It would be just as easy to assume that what I am writing is the will of God (just a pointless and meaningless assertion, because if God did so without notifying anyone, what difference would it make)

I personally choose to believe that Whitman wasn't divinely inspired.

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: How can you force yourself to have beliefs?  That's ridiculous.  If you don't believe in a god without deciding "well, I guess its benefitial to be a monotheist," then you are agnostic at most, as you aren't really convinced.  Besides, dont you think an omniscient being would see right through that?   Well, all beliefs are personal choices, whether you are conscious of them or not, many people choose to be atheist (which is a set of beliefs - god doesn't exist etc...).  I disagree.  I hypothesize that religious beliefs are found on non-coding DNA.  Come to think of it, that's probably the origin of the term "junk DNA." As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a Metaphysical Idealist and don't believe in matter or DNA and don't believe that science is really a worthwhile pursuit, so I'm afraid I find that meaningless... (everything is merely an idea) That doesn't mean that you can't find the idea of religious beliefs to be correlated with the idea of DNA.

DNA is illogical by my understanding; it reflects how matter is divisble and how it is assumable that it can be predicted in its many forms.  I, as a collection of ideas and processes, find that the two are unrelated.  There is just as much evidence for that as that there is a small dwarf living in my soul that causes me to dream when I desist my active thinking.