|
On April 11 2015 02:56 TheYango wrote:
"Believing things you know are very likely untrue" sounds more like politics than religion, lol.
Some would argue that both are very close to being the same thing.
|
United States47024 Posts
What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
For the educated willing to engage in this discussion, this is true. For the poor, uneducated, hungry, and desperate, a purely philosophical discussion isn't likely to be a strong enough motivator for moral behavior. Thats how religion began.
|
On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
It's human nature to turn to worship so even if you just follow a person that tells other people those things eventually that person over time will get deified in some kind of way. Unless we as human beings evolve to a point where we stop doing these things I believe there's some merit in a benevolent deity that tells people to do those things. Ideally people shouldn't need such things but it seems that we aren't quite ready for that unfortunately. Over time if such a deity also pushes for open education then maybe society will start to change to a point where we realize we may not need this deity anymore. That'll be rather cool.
As for your morality point I can't really say here. I don't feel I have an adequate grasp on morality as a whole to really put forward a discussion/viewpoint properly. While the previous point does tie into morality it doesn't really deal so much with it as a concept so I don't feel wrong talking about it.
|
On April 11 2015 02:20 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:06 Sonnington wrote:
I think gays are ruining a good thing they have going for them. Before all this gay marriage legalization they had an easy out. They could always say, "Listen, if it were up to me we'd get married. But the government won't allow it. It's against the law." Now they don't have that excuse anymore. ...but muh marriage Also, what is this religious shitfest holy shit. Now i feel vapid talking about possibly running a homebrew dnd campaign based on dom4.
Save me LT, that sounds cool, please post it lol.
|
On April 11 2015 03:02 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +
What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
For the educated willing to engage in this discussion, this is true. For the poor, uneducated, hungry, and desperate, a purely philosophical discussion isn't likely to be a strong enough motivator for moral behavior. Thats how religion began.
there's a reason why all famous philosophers were privileged upper middle class white men.
|
I did Garr with a Priest, I think, but it was just to try and one-shot him. I only read the hero power and thought "I need minions with high average HP and some kind of healing, then?", lost the first try, changed stuff around a bit, then got him.
+ Show Spoiler +It didn't even occur to me to heal his things. I instead hit them a bit to give them different HP values so only 1-2 would die each turn. Then I saw people using Lightwarden/Light of the Naaru + Circle of Healing to keep the minions topped and 2-shot him shortly after.
The Warrior challenge made me facepalm with a "darn it's so intuitive, why didn't I think of something like that instead of my convoluted 'must out-heal it'?"
Then again "it's intuitive, so it didn't occur to me at all" is typical me.
Did the others with Warlock, with a bunch of small cost minions and including Mistress of Pain and buffs like Demon Fire to try her. She lived through the first Living Bomb, but when I saw the second one I went "fuck it" and PO'd her. She only lived 4 turns but healed me for 12 so... x')
The deck did pretty well against Executus because of the buffs, presence of Doomguards, and stuff like that to give me enough burst. I was very surprised by his deck's composition.
|
On April 11 2015 03:03 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:02 TheYango wrote:
What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
For the educated willing to engage in this discussion, this is true. For the poor, uneducated, hungry, and desperate, a purely philosophical discussion isn't likely to be a strong enough motivator for moral behavior. Thats how religion began. there's a reason why all famous philosophers were privileged upper middle class white men.
Really? I'm pretty sure there are famous Philosophers who aren't white people.
Lets ask Ghandi, he's a highschool kid, he might know a couple.
|
On April 11 2015 03:07 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:03 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 TheYango wrote:
What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
For the educated willing to engage in this discussion, this is true. For the poor, uneducated, hungry, and desperate, a purely philosophical discussion isn't likely to be a strong enough motivator for moral behavior. Thats how religion began. there's a reason why all famous philosophers were privileged upper middle class white men. Really? I'm pretty sure there are famous Philosophers who aren't white people. Lets ask Ghandi, he's a highschool kid, he might know a couple.
Who the hell is Ghandi?
|
Shouldn't confuse famous Western people as being all encompassing. We just tend to like ignoring the East in our education for some reason.
|
On April 11 2015 03:07 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:03 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 TheYango wrote:
What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
For the educated willing to engage in this discussion, this is true. For the poor, uneducated, hungry, and desperate, a purely philosophical discussion isn't likely to be a strong enough motivator for moral behavior. Thats how religion began. there's a reason why all famous philosophers were privileged upper middle class white men. Really? I'm pretty sure there are famous Philosophers who aren't white people. Lets ask Ghandi, he's a highschool kid, he might know a couple.
well gandhi hits 3 of the 4 requirements i put out, so close enough.
|
Baa?21247 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:09 Numy wrote:
Shouldn't confuse famous Western people as being all encompassing. We just tend to like ignoring the East in our education for some reason.
It's a pretty simple reason: European culture is objectively superior.
|
United States47024 Posts
I'm normally not the type to complain about poorly written posts, but wei2 that post makes my eyes bleed.
Please go back and edit that.
|
On April 11 2015 02:16 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:14 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 02:10 MagnusWolf wrote:
I think we need to create our own OT church to pick up all the wandering Deists we've got here It's called the Church of Faker. There is no God but Madlife.
Please. There is only one true esports God. The Little Monster, The Ultimate Weapon, and The Final Boss. Flash.
|
On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. It's human nature to turn to worship.
how do you figure this?
bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha
|
United States15536 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:04 Alaric wrote:I did Garr with a Priest, I think, but it was just to try and one-shot him. I only read the hero power and thought "I need minions with high average HP and some kind of healing, then?", lost the first try, changed stuff around a bit, then got him. + Show Spoiler +It didn't even occur to me to heal his things. I instead hit them a bit to give them different HP values so only 1-2 would die each turn. Then I saw people using Lightwarden/Light of the Naaru + Circle of Healing to keep the minions topped and 2-shot him shortly after.
The Warrior challenge made me facepalm with a "darn it's so intuitive, why didn't I think of something like that instead of my convoluted 'must out-heal it'?"
Then again "it's intuitive, so it didn't occur to me at all" is typical me. Did the others with Warlock, with a bunch of small cost minions and including Mistress of Pain and buffs like Demon Fire to try her. She lived through the first Living Bomb, but when I saw the second one I went "fuck it" and PO'd her. She only lived 4 turns but healed me for 12 so... x') The deck did pretty well against Executus because of the buffs, presence of Doomguards, and stuff like that to give me enough burst. I was very surprised by his deck's composition.
I mostly went with Priest because my first thought was Mass Dispel, which did come in handy, but not so much as MCT, Shadow Priestess, Circle of Healing, and lol Grim Patron. The rest were just with standard decks. Executus was particularly easy, and I set myself up accidentally for a Savage Roar insta-kill on Rag. lolnormal
On April 11 2015 03:02 Sunaj wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:20 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 11 2015 02:06 Sonnington wrote:
I think gays are ruining a good thing they have going for them. Before all this gay marriage legalization they had an easy out. They could always say, "Listen, if it were up to me we'd get married. But the government won't allow it. It's against the law." Now they don't have that excuse anymore. ...but muh marriage Also, what is this religious shitfest holy shit. Now i feel vapid talking about possibly running a homebrew dnd campaign based on dom4. Save me LT, that sounds cool, please post it lol.
Seriously, talk about it.
Also, everyone should listen to Welcome to Night Vale if you like podcasts. Especially you PX. Perfect mix of comedy and eldritch horror.
|
On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha
don't you know? you're married to god first and foremost.
|
With the discussion continuing while I answered to Asmo, that post looks lost in a sea of more reasonable discussion.
Doesn't mean I'm not reading, I feel that tired as I am and with how slow/"unbrief" am I at posting it wouldn't contribute much if I tried.
Mordek's post about discussing with people of varying backgrounds made me realise that religious people (or rather, openly religious people, since there's still a fair share of people who'll tell you they're believers if you ask but won't start the topic) are almost non-existent around me.
It tends to be a bit more visible about the Muslims at work (because there's the shorthand "Arab-typed = Muslim" that's still there, and Ramadan is more visible than Christian traditions for the, uh... "practitionners"? Churchgoer works for all religions?), but even then it's more the practical implications that tend to be raised, and not the beliefs.
I'm not against discussing religion or anything, but same as history, I tend to approach it with a curious/intellectual eye, as "stories", or things I can learn, so a scholarly/detached approach is more natural and what I'll adopt over a spiritual one. Sometimes I feel that it can be disrespectful in a way, perceiving what other people find important in such a down-to-earth/practical way, especially when talking about it with them. But it also means that having people talk about it with the spiritual dimension added brings a new perspective and tends to be surprising because it happens so rarely around me.
|
On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha
We idolize celebrities all the time. Hell you have rooms of young girls practically worshiping Bieber. Throughout history whatever we didn't understand we just chalk it up to some divine being's doing until some smart guy comes along and thinks about it. Just seems like a pretty concrete trends of humanity to me.
|
On April 11 2015 03:18 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha We idolize celebrities all the time. Hell you have rooms of young girls practically worshiping Bieber. Throughout history whatever we didn't understand we just chalk it up to some divine being's doing until some smart guy comes along and thinks about it. Just seems like a pretty concrete trends of humanity to me.
damn good points. that sucks.
|
On April 11 2015 03:16 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote:
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha don't you know? you're married to god first and foremost.
In the last several pages of surprisingly intelligent and thoughtful religious discussion, all of your posts have just stood out as a massive shit pile. I wish I could put you on thread ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
