Qzx,
I too have made the same mistake. What I do now is high-light my post when I am done writing it, click copy, and then click submit. That way, if I get disconnected, I simply go back, click reply and paste. I haven’t lost a post since.
Hope this helps.
Man, that’s a bummer Q. Luckily, I haven’t had to type anything quite that long here yet. Thanks for the warning, though!
Q,
You probably noticed i quote people a lot to reply the posts, so i have to sure Word, as i keep reading the posts while typing. Then you copy and past to the forum. Is the best way, i believe… and it keeps you from committing too many spelling mistakes hehe (i am dyslexic, you see… too many mistakes)
If hell exists, i hope you are right… i see hell as a place where you can’t do anything you would like to do, full of stupid rules and unjust, full of silly people and rude bastards who always what to take advantage of everything… and I would have to work the whole day in something i hate… wait… sounds like my life already! Oh bugger…
I do the exact same thing, Magius. In fact, in some cases I will do similar to Cle and copy it to notepad or Word, just in case something drastic happens.
It sounds as if you are describing Hell as being inhabited with fundamental Christians. Besides, why would the devil want to cause you any strife? Remember he is against God, and God is the one who wants to punish you. The devil would rather spite God and reward you for being on his side. It only makes logical sense to me. I feel sorry for the Christians though. They have to spend eternity in Heaven where they will be perfect. Yes, the bible says that in Heaven everyone will be perfect so that means that all Heaven goers will automatically conform to the will of God. A complete theocracy!!! Sounds like a pretty poor way to spend eternity. Can anyone argue against me here?
Argue against your opinion? How? I can't very well show an argument refuting the notion that 'fundamental Christians are silly people and rude bastards', nor is there a de facto argument against 'a theocracy is a poor way to spend eternity'. These statements are too completely subjective to have a good response. I do see a single sentence which may be 'argued', though, and that's the one about the devil wanting to reward people because it makes logical sense. I think it's a wasted claim, considering these two things:
a) Other than in cartoons, Satan actually isn’t depicted as being in charge of punishing anyone, so asking ‘why would the devil want to cause you any strife’ is kind of an empty question.
b) Why is it logical that satan would want to reward someone for their service? There must be a thousand other ways to spite God. Drawing ‘logical’ conclusions about a being’s future behavior requires knowledge about that being’s personality that we just don’t have.
The above was me, BTW.
Hehe… maybe it is. But not only fundamental Christians… I would add all religions there.
But he is pure evil. He doesn’t care if you ‘helped’ him… that the point. The is dishonest, unfair… and you will suffer for the eternity under his tortures.
But if you see Devil as an opposition to God, and there is not good or evil, only 2 sides of the same coin… then I agree… hell, heaven… who cares?
Have you read a play called No Exit by J-P Sartre? It deals with 4 people who go to hell… but it is actually a room where they gonna spent their eternity together. The thing is, the place is nice, but they end up hating each other… so actually, is the everlasting annoyance that is hell.
So, probably your hell would be full of religious fundamentalists, my hell would be full of wasps and other flying insects, no books, no papers to draw on or write… oh, and I would probably be shoeless and the floor would be all dirty. Uccisore’s hell would be full of gay people showing off their gayness, and people like you and I trying to prove him God is actually evil or that there is no God, only hell… whatever.
Each person has their own hell, but we also have our heaven, but that’s in life… if you are no good, then you will go to your hell and stay there forever. So in the end, we shouldn’t dislike anything or anyone… or else, we will end up with them for the eternity. Hehe… great.
I do apologize for interrupting the discussion at this point, but I wish to share something with Uccisore of a topic we were discussing in the recent past. I think it worthwhile for all to read, so your time will not be spent in vain.
But first a note:
Skeptic stated:
I too use notepad to write posts, but I don’t write them in Notepad because something drastic might happen, instead I use Notepad for really long quotes - cause it is really annoying to keep scrolling down and then up in the REPLY screen. So I write it in notepad and then just copy and paste.
Uccisore, in our deliberations of God and why I don’t believe in any religions conception of God, specifically the Christian one, I have been elucidating in vain. I think maybe that I have expressed myself in an awkward manner, so in an attempt to further illustrate my point, I advert you to some text written by Baruch Spinoza (philosopher) who I found, coincidentally, to have a very similar view to mine. Actually, I was studying for an exam (were taking up Spinoza) and I read past what was listed to know and found to my surprise some views that I agree with. I say this because about 95% of everything we took up from Spinoza, for me, was like nails on a chalk board. I just simply disagreed with him on almost everything. I hope what you will find what you read to be a more concise and coherent version of my argument a dozen or so posts back…
"…It will suffice at this point if I take as my basis what must be universally admitted, that all men are born ignorant of the causes of things, that they all have a desire to seek their own advantage, a desire of which they are conscious. From this it follows, firstly, that men believe that they are free, precisely because they are conscious of their volitions and desires; yet concerning the causes that have determined them to desire and will they have not the faintest idea, because they are ignorant of them. Secondly, men act always with an end in view, to wit, the advantage that they seek. Hence it happens that they are always looking only for the final causes of things done, and are satisfied when they find them, having, of course, no reason for further doubt. But if they fail to discover them from some external source, they have no recourse but to turn to themselves, and to reflect on what ends would normally determine them to similar actions, and so they necessarily judge other minds by their own. Further, since they find within themselves and outside themselves a considerable number of means very convenient for the pursuit of their own advantage-as, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, cereals and living creatures for food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish-the result is that they look on all things of Natureas a means to their own advantage. And realising that these were found, not produced by them, they came to believe that there is someone else who produced these means for their use. For looking on things as means, they could not believe them to be self-created, but on the analogy of the means which they are accustomed to produce for themselves, they were bound to conclude that there was some governor or governors of Nature, endowed with human freedom, who have attended to al their needs and made everything for their use. And having no information on the subject, they also had to estimate the character of these rulers by their own and so they asserted that the gods direct everything for man’s use so that they may bind men to them and be held in the highest honour by them. So it came about that every individual devised different methods of worshipping God as he thought fit in order that God should him beyond others and direct the whole of Nature so as to serve his blind cupidity and insatiable greed. Thus it was that this misconception developed into superstition and became deep-rooted in the minds of men, and it was for this reason that every man strove most earnestly to understand and to explain the final causes of all things. But in seeking to show that nature does nothing in vain-that is, nothing is not to man’s advantage-they seem to have shown only this, that Nature and the gods are as crazy as mankind.
Consider, I pray, what has been the upshot. Among so many Nature’s blessings they were bound to discover quite a number of disasters, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases and so forth, and they maintained that these occurred because the Gods were angry at the wrongs done to them by men, or the faults committed in the course of their worship. And although daily experience cried out against this and showed by any number of examples that blessings and disasters befall the godly and ungodly alike without discrimination, they did not on that account abandon their ingrained prejudice. For they found it easier to regard this fact as one among other mysteries they could not understand and thus maintain their present and innate condition of ignorance rather than to demolish in its entirety the theory they had constructed and devise a new one. Hence they made it axiomatic that the judgment of the gods is far beyond man’s understanding…
…And so they will go on and on asking the causes of causes, until you take refuge in the will of God-that is, the sactuary of ignorance…
…As a result, he who seeks the true causes of miracles and is eager to understand the works of Nature as a scholar, and not just to gape at them like a fool, is universally considered an impious heretic and denounced by those to whom the common people bow down as interpreters of Nature and the gods. For these people know that the dispelling of ignorance would entail the disappearance of that sense of awe which is the one and only support for their argument and for the safeguarding of their authority…
…When men became convinced that everything that is created is created on their behalf, they were bound to consider as the most important quality in every individual thing that which was most useful to them, and to regard as of the highest excellence al lthose things by which they were most benefited. Hence they came to form these abstract notions to explain the natures of things: -Good, Bad, Order, Confusion, Beauty, Ugliness, and since they believe that they are free, the following abstract notionns came into being: - Praise, Blame, Right, Wrong…
…All that conduces to well-being and to the worship of God they call Good, and the contrary, Bad. And since those who do not understand the nature of things, but only imagine things, make no affirmative judgments about things themselves and mistake their imagination for intellect, they are firmly convinced that there is order in things, ignorant as they are of things and of their own nature. For when things are in such arrangement that, being presented to us through our senses, we can readily picture them and thus readily remember them, we say that they are well arranged; if the contrary, we say that they are ill-arranged, or confused. And since those things we can readily picture we find pleasing compared with other things, men prefer order to confusion, as though order were something in Nature other than what is relative to our imagination. And they say that God has created all things in an orderly way, without realising that they are thus attributing human imagintion to God-unless perchance they mean that God, out of consideration for the human imagination, arranged all things in the way that men could most easily imagine. And perhaps they will find no obstacle in the fact that there are any number of things that far surpass our imagination, and a considerable number that confuse the imagination because of its weakness…
…All this goes to show that everyone’s judgment is a function of the disposition of his brain, or rather, that he mistakes for reality the way his imagination is affected. Hence it is no wonder-as we should not in passing-that we find so many controversies arising among men, resulting finally in scepticisim. For althoug human bodies agree in many respects, there are very many differences, and so one man thinks good what another thinks bad; what to one man is well-ordered, to another is confused; what to one is pleasing, to another is displeasing, and so forth…"
Source: Spinoza, Baruch. The Ethics, Part I, Appendix.
What’s your take?
I always get a little wary when famous professionals are borught into a conversation, just because it does feel wrong to criticize what someone obviously wiser and more experienced than me has said. Nevertheless, I take comfort in the fact that wiser and more experienced people than me have also sided with me about things, so I’ll guess I’ll make a few comments.
Firstly, belief in something can be attacked in two ways: It can be said that a belief is not true, (that’s called de facto, right?) or it can be said that it is unreasonable to accept a belief (de jure).
It’s clear that Spinoza isn’t trying to form an argument that there is no God, or that Jesus never existed, or any other issue of fact. Spinoza seems to be saying that the origins of religious belief are psychological and self-serving, and thus cannot be considered reliable.
However, what Spinoza has described here has very little to do with how a modern religious believer gets their beliefs. The origins of some religions may very well be just what Spinoza describes, but I certainly don’t know anybody that came up with the idea of “God” as an explanation to what goes on around them- we’re taught way to much science at an early age for anyone to do this. If his argument, then, doesn’t say that modern religious believers get their faith from an unreliable source, then it must be saying that those beliefs are probably false (that it, if Spinoza’s words are a critique of religion at all). I simply don’t see how the passage above accomplishes that, though. Even if there was some mechanism in the human psyche that made religious beliefs happen, that’s certainly not a reason to think that no religious belief is true. All that’s left is a claim that since religions originate from unreliable sources, all current religious belief must also be unreliable. I don’t think that’s a strong argument at all.
My second problem with his claim is a little more basic. Every claim he’s made here about religion could also be applied to the sciences, philosophy, and every other human endeavor- that is, if naturalism is true. Of course, this means that if religious beliefs are unreliable because they come from self-serving and naturalistic sources, then Spinoza’s own claims are unreliable for exactly the same reason. I would say Spinoza’s argument is self-defeating then, unless he accepts universal skepticism.
“The Kingdom of God is inside you and it is outside you…”
“Split a piece of wood, and I am there…”
“Lift up the stone and there you will find me…” (The Gospel of Thomas)
The forged Gospel of Thomas is one of the foudnational books of Gnosticism, which really doesn’t agree with either me or Spinoza, or Magius as far as I can tell, so I don’t really understand the relevance.
Uccisore stated:
I didn’t bring Spinoza into the conversation because he’s a professional, but because I thought he explained my view of people and the concept of God better than I. Uccisore, this is the second time I am telling you this, take my words for what they are, I mean what I write. If there is something I think of you and your opinion I will come right out and tell you, I won’t beat around the bush, be sarcastic, hide what I mean behind words or take jabs at you. I am honest and open. Please, remember that - it will make our conversations go much more smoothly. Remember, I said…
I didn’t say I was right, I didn’t say that Spinoza was right, I am simply saying that I think Spinoza expressed a similar view better than I had and I wanted to know your take on it.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable in criticizing dead philosophers views, I would feel uncomfortable criticizing anyones view if I were you (and I do feel uncomfortable cause I do it sometimes despite the fact that I knew there are better ways). Try not to criticize but come to understand, I find that once I really come to understand someones view there is never a need for criticism whether they are right or wrong. Coming to understand someone should never have to do with whether they are professionals or not.
Lastly, I want you to know that I don’t consider what I call our debate a competition, although that is how debates are viewed. This is not a competition for me. It’s a search for truth. It’s not about how many professionals have sided with me and how many have sided with you. It’s not about ME being proven or disproven, there is nothing personal in it for me to gain or to lose - it’s a win/win situation for me cause I am here to learn, whether people get mad at me or love me - either way I will learn from them.
What’s your take?
How did I not? All I meant to say was “Having to publicly disagree with professional philosophers makes me nervous because I’m not one”.
If nobody criticized my views, I'd never learn anything. Not saying you do this, but that last thing I need is people to say "That's great Ucci, I respect your opinion!" even when I say something stupid, you know?
Maybe you mean something a little harsher by ‘criticize’ than I do?
I didn’t mean that if you don’t criticize that you automatically are left with nothing but lying to the person about how great their view point is. I’m talking about the fact that rarely is a person 100% wrong about what they are saying, it would be a nice change if people actually made mention of that which is right. But aside from that, the way I try to approach debates is that there is no chance for me or you to be right, so all we are left with is each others understanding, so I try to get the person to explain in detail their view, then when I see problems in the view I don’t say this and that is wrong about your view, but I think of a situation that resembles the view and where I think it would fail and I will say “How do you think your view would apply in this situation…or that situation…” and they themselves come to realize their view to be wrong and correct it, or they make me realize how indepth their view is by applying it in a situation where I didn’t think it applied. But nowhere did I criticise them or they me.
It may sound unimportant, but I assure you it makes all the difference, especially in one on one debates.
What’s your take?
That’s true. People benefit from encouragement, too.
Your approach of asking the “How would it apply if…” type questions seems fine, but I feel a little presumtuous when I use it. Like- I’m setting up a teacher/student relationship with the person I’m talking to, that seems to imply we aren’t on equal terms. Does that make sense?
You have a point, when I just look at the words and what is being asked; I could see people taking it that way. I think maybe people do take it that way sometimes in speaking with me one on one. But I think the all else rests in tone, demeanor, sincerity, and elucidating your purpose. If you tell a person why you are asking them the way you are, they will seize in feeling like you are being presumptuous (atleast most of the time).
That’s true. Internet communication is such a limited form, really. I couldn’t possibly list the number of times I’ve been misunderstood, or misunderstood someone else, because of the lack of facial expression, hand gestures, and tone of voice.
My preferred approach is to generally only reply on a board when I disagree with something, and then to say why I disagree as concisely as possible, to give the person I’m disagreeing with a concrete argument to attack or conceed to. I expect the same thing in turn, but what often happens is I ‘attack’ another person’s point of view while they say “Can’t we just get along” or something, which makes me look like a jerk. I find it all depends on what kind of view I’m butting heads against. Adherents to certain belief systems are much more likely to agressively defend their beliefs, where adherents to others don’t like to go into detail.
Qzxtvbzr,
why dose religion have to exist in order to believe there is a god. why can’t we just believe god in our hearts. many religious people have told me that our body is our temple. if this is true then there is no need for religion!
Since you guys are on the topic of professional philosophers and debates, I’m wondering: have you ever seen professional philosophers debate one another? I go to Philosophy lectures at my college, and the Q&A afterwards is absolutely brutal. But then they all go out for drinks and light-hearted conversation. I think that tough argumentation is simply a by-product of Philosophy’s rigorous nature. It shouldn’t get personal, and it shouldn’t be taken personally.
I don’t know, if you believe what you’re talking, you should defend it to the last otherwise you’re not serious about what you do. Then again I heard a story once about a philsophy semionar with a few distinguished speakers where one of the “old” school got up after the seminar had finished and said “I’d like to say I’ve been wrong about arguing for X all my life” (I can’t remember what subject it was on).
Now that takes guts.