A Christmas Message - That Which Remains in Harmony CANNOT Perish

[Oreoracle]

Evasion still… sigh :manvspc:

How is asking for clarification an evasion, exactly? Oh wait, this question’s probably an evasion too!

I would say that my definition fits (3) quite well. Why did you presume otherwise?

Well usually when someone does something silly like capitalizing a noun that isn’t proper in the middle of a sentence, we assume they mean something slightly different than usual. For example, Plato’s “Forms” are different than regular “forms” and Rand’s “Objectivism” is different than regular “objectivism.” It would be exceedingly difficult to read the works of these authors if we understood the terms they have created with their normal, lower-cased definitions. Since you were using the regular version of “harmony” and not some twisted, fancified religious version, it was incorrect of you to capitalize “harmony” in your sentence.

That being said, my answer is still “no.” No arrangement of properties can prevent change, including death, forever. If you meant something else by your sentence then please say so. Otherwise, my answer is the same. An item, whatever it be, will fall out of “harmony” in the same way that Adam and Eve supposedly fell from perfection.

Yeah!! He ***finally ***answered a question (had to comment *FIRST *of course, but at least answered).

A conclusion without premises is an assertion, hence the comment. If I just said “no” that wouldn’t make for much of an argument. You wouldn’t expect a defendant to walk into court with “I’m innocent” as his only argument, would you?

What stops someone from trying if they insist? Themselves or something else?

How is this relevant?

The statement isn’t about whether you can succeed eternally regardless of all things but the trying. The statement is one of whether you give up and fail because of yourself, or because Reality gave you no choice and thus stopped you from continuing to try. “Do not seek, and you are not likely to find.”

So the statement should have been, “A thing can die whether or not it tries, but it should try.” Why didn’t you just say that?

The statement is logically true regardless of your presumptions and fatalism. I’m guessing that logic isn’t your forte. :dts::yukonjoe:

Okay, we’re going to go through this step-by-step:

“Nothing can die until it fails to try” is a conditional statement. Conditional statements contain subjects and predicates, where the subject is the condition and the predicate is what must be the case if the condition is fulfilled. We can rephrase it to make this relationship more obvious: “If something has died, then it has failed to try [to live].” In this statement, “something has died” is the subject and “it has failed to try [to live]” is the predicate. Let the subject be “A” and the predicate be “B.”

So now we’re left with a standard conditional statement: “If A, then B.” This means that for every instance that A is the case, B is also the case. So we know that you’re saying every instance where someone has died they have also failed to try [to live]. However, we know that sometimes people die while they have also always tried [to live], Therefore, there are some instances where A is the case but B is not the case, so your conditional statement is false.

Did you keep up with that?

 

[Oreoracle]

That is a lie. I never said it can’t be true. I said that there is nothing wrong with having hope and viewing ones existential life in a positive light.

Right, but a belief that causes you to not take this life seriously is a dangerous one. Let me give you a reality check: In class, we were presented with the Trolley Problem. You know, the classic “would you kill one person to save more than one person?” type of question. One girl answered,“I would just let everyone die. I mean, we can all meet up in Heaven later!” The scary thing was that she was serious about this. There she was, a harmless high school girl, but she would let people die because she doesn’t take life seriously. And why? Because she believes in an afterlife.

Its time to grow up? Objective speaking, what does that mean?

Meaning: It’s time to accept whatever theories seem more likely given the empirical evidence and to reject theories with zero evidence backing them.

The old looks like a duck quacks like a duck philosophy.

Well yes. It’s the same “philosophy” that causes you to reject the existence of leprechauns and fairies even though you can’t definitively prove they don’t exist. Maybe we should make a “Fairies 101” class in colleges if you disagree.

Yet you do not allow the same leverage to intelligent design advocates.

Here we go again. What evidence is there of intelligent design?

It seem to me that you have a desire to affirm naturalism?

No, I don’t.

That doesn’t mean that the self is synonymous to the brain. It merely means that there is a relationship between the brain and the self.

What’s the difference between “self” and “one’s consciousness?”

 

[Oreoracle]

How exactly does this work? Disappointment requires consciousness. How will people who live in the hopes of heaven ever experience disappointment that they didn’t reach heaven – even if there is no heaven? Your statement seems to imply that they’ll be around after death to “notice” that they’re not in heaven. Now *that *would be a miracle!

Ridiculousness never fails to amaze! Thanks for the back up.

Clearly neither of you have experienced a midlife crisis, as that would demonstrate my point nicely. There comes a point in one’s life where they are inclined to ask, “How many years have I wasted pursuing unimportant or uncertain things instead of pursuing what I know to be important?” Whether or not they show it, most theists are racked with doubt from time to time, and the increasing awareness that they may be wasting their lives pursuing an uncertainty even causes some to become atheists; these people have finally broken there emotional attachment or “positive existential view” as MoM would call it. Do you guys know about the “positive existential view” otherwise known as a belief in Santa Claus? If you do, imagine how much kids who learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist are disappointed by learning this. Now multiply that a few thousand times, and you might realize how difficult it is for adults racked with doubt to break through their once cherished beliefs. It was difficult for me as a fifteen-year old. Luckily, my doubt broke through before I could become more attached.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How is asking for clarification an evasion, exactly? Oh wait, this question’s probably an evasion too!

So far, yep.

Well usually when someone does something silly like capitalizing a noun that isn’t proper in the middle of a sentence, we assume they mean something slightly different than usual. For example, Plato’s “Forms” are different than regular “forms” and Rand’s “Objectivism” is different than regular “objectivism.” It would be exceedingly difficult to read the works of these authors if we understood the terms they have created with their normal, lower-cased definitions. Since you were using the regular version of “harmony” and not some twisted, fancified religious version, it was incorrect of you to capitalize “harmony” in your sentence.

Sigh… excuses, dodges, anything but the actual subject.

That being said, my answer is -]still/-] [finally] “no.” No arrangement of properties can prevent change, including death, forever.

Did the statement say anything about preventing change forever? - No. Why have you presumed it did? {not that I really need to ask at this point}

An item, whatever it be, will fall out of “harmony” in the same way that Adam and Eve supposedly fell from perfection.

If it “fell out of harmony”, then how does the statement even apply?

The statement was about what cannot happen “as long as there is harmony”.

So again, your effort at logic failed you.

A conclusion without premises is an assertion, hence the comment. If I just said “no” that wouldn’t make for much of an argument. You wouldn’t expect a defendant to walk into court with “I’m innocent” as his only argument, would you?

Emm… the first statement by the defense is a plea of innocence or guilt. The arguing takes up after such is established. The presumption that an argument is what is being requested seems well… presumptuous.

So the statement should have been, “A thing can die whether or not it tries, but it should try.” Why didn’t you just say that?

Perhaps because I am not fatalistic, trying to push the negative to the front line?

Okay, we’re going to go through this step-by-step:

“Nothing can die until it fails to try” is a conditional statement. Conditional statements contain subjects and predicates, where the subject is the condition and the predicate is what must be the case if the condition is fulfilled. We can rephrase it to make this relationship more obvious: “If something has died, then it has failed to try [to live].” In this statement, “something has died” is the subject and “it has failed to try [to live]” is the predicate. Let the subject be “A” and the predicate be “B.”

You mean you can rephrase it to make it more negative sounding. True, you Could. But why change what wasn’t incorrect?

The subject != “Something has died” (as much as you seem to yearn for that condition)

The subject = “Something cannot die” = “A”

The Predicate != “it has failed to try”

The Predicate [conditional] = “until it fails to try”

So now we’re left with a standard conditional statement: “If A, then B.” This means that for every instance that A is the case, B is also the case.

“If A then B”… okay;

If “something cannot die” (A), then “it fails to try” (B).

Gee, that doesn’t sound like what I stated at all…? What could be wrong? Maybe it is that the “if-then” form doesn’t apply…? {not to mention that the "predicate comes first = “A”, not “B”). But;

If [predicate] “it fails to try”, then [subject] “something cannot die”.

Gee, that doesn’t seem to fit the statement either. Of course, I didn’t state an “if-then”, I stated an “until-then”;

Until [predicate] “it fails to try”, then [subject] “something cannot die”.

Well, now that fits and interestingly is exactly what I stated. How about that.

However, we know that sometimes people die while they have also always tried [to live], Therefore, there are some instances where A is the case but B is not the case, so your conditional statement is false.

As long as it was trying, it was obviously still alive. Do I have to show the “step-by-step” logic for that?

P1) For something to be alive, it must be trying.
P2) If something is dead, it is not trying.

A1) If something was trying, but stopped, it died [per P2].
A2) If something is alive but stops trying, it dies. [per P2]

Therefore;

"As long as you are still trying, you are still alive."

I realize that must be hurtfully positive for you. Sorry about that.

Did you keep up with that?

Yes, did you? :ehh:

 

[James_S_Saint]

There comes a point in one’s life where they are inclined to ask, “How many years have I wasted pursuing unimportant or uncertain things instead of pursuing what I know to be important?”

What exactly would that be? And how did you decide what is important? Just guessed? It “felt good”, “seemed important”?

Any attempt at logic or rationale? :ehh:

 

[Oreoracle]

P1) For something to be alive, it must be trying.
P2) If something is dead, it is not trying.

A1) If something was trying, but stopped, it died [per P2].
A2) If something is alive but stops trying, it dies. [per P2]

Therefore;

"As long as you are still trying, you are still alive."

LOL…Oh geez, that’s what I get for assuming that your statement was anything but trivial. You see, I was reading “nothing can die until it fails to try” as I would read “nothing dies from dehydration until it fails to drink.” In the latter, I assume the person is saying that someone has died from dehydration because they have failed to drink, not the other way around. The reverse is far too obvious for any rational person to point out. Likewise, I assumed you met that people die because they fail to try, not that they fail to try because they have died.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Likewise, I assumed you met that people die because they fail to try, not that they fail to try because they have died.

Yes, and now you are touching on the very point. The point that the others on this thread have been making as well as the point to the OP.

People DO DIE because they fail to try. They fail to try because of fatalistic and depressive attitudes that have invaded their mind and “heart” both medically and psychologically (thks to the media). They give up long before the really needed to.

This is what you seem to have no understanding about at all. You seem to take it for granted that having a fatalistic attitude doesn’t really change anything significant. But if you will read a few survival manuals, you will see that the A number 1 cause of death for those who feel hopeless, is their attitude. They die by the suicide of thinking in terms of what is “probably true” rather than what MIGHT be true so as to keep their focus on their hope rather than allow it to become fatalistic and CAUSE an early death from not trying. They cannot just grow a broader less focused mental capacity just because it would make them smarter regardless of being told to do so (nor can you).

Inspirational messages are not a simple minded game of trivia and superstitious non-sense. The survivability of a society depends on its focus on the possibility of success, and MUST be kept from the focus of “probably going to fail”. It isn’t a game. People DIE. I don’t know that you care about such people. But perhaps you just haven’t seen how close you are to being one - yet.

In the mean time. you advertise the pointlessness of caring. “We’re all just going to die anyway. Accept it”. Well, the problem is that you are taking away from the effort to live and not replacing it with anything. You are playing with the lives of other people. You are playing with what is keeping them alive and trying.

I asked you how you determined what is “important”. Are the lives of other people on your list for possible consideration?

YOU do NOT know what is keeping other people alive and energetically trying. Yet you seem to carelessly want to pervert it into what you have presumed to be “truth” using your naive mentality. Even if you were correct in what you thought to be true. Does telling your guess of the truth outweigh the value of another person’s life? Is that your morality? “Advertise your guess at the truth even if it inspires death”?

Why is responsibility so hard to come by in this generation of careless, lustful presumers?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Clearly neither of you have experienced a midlife crisis, as that would demonstrate my point nicely. There comes a point in one’s life where they are inclined to ask, “How many years have I wasted pursuing unimportant or uncertain things instead of pursuing what I know to be important?” Whether or not they show it, most theists are racked with doubt from time to time, and the increasing awareness that they may be wasting their lives pursuing an uncertainty even causes some to become atheists; these people have finally broken there emotional attachment or “positive existential view” as MoM would call it. Do you guys know about the “positive existential view” otherwise known as a belief in Santa Claus? If you do, imagine how much kids who learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist are disappointed by learning this. Now multiply that a few thousand times, and you might realize how difficult it is for adults racked with doubt to break through their once cherished beliefs. It was difficult for me as a fifteen-year old. Luckily, my doubt broke through before I could become more attached.

I could be wrong here, Oreo, but I have a sense that you’ve seen one person go through this, and so you think that everyone else who has the same beliefs must be setting themselves up for the same thing. But I think you fail to appreciate the tremendous difference between individuals, here. Anyone who follows a path because it is required by a belief system they do not understand, anyone who merely represses their doubts, may very well be headed for the mid-life crisis you’re describing. But many people let their doubts come and go, and indeed allow their doubts to help them see the world more clearly.

Doubt, you see, is an emotion. Just like every other emotion, it can lead to good or bad results, depending on how one handles it. The scientist who doubts his calculations will be led to refine them, but the scientists who represses his doubts will likely end up feeling (at some moment) that everything he’s theorized is false.

You seem to be saying similar, perhaps: that the end (goal) of doubt is truth. But this is a teleological statement, and your philosophy does not allow for teleology.

Now for the question, “How many years have I wasted pursuing unimportant or uncertain things instead of pursuing what I know to be important?” What, pray tell, do you know to be important? Personally, I know one thing to be important: giving myself freely as a gift to those around me. Can you please tell me how this is an “unimportant” or “uncertain” thing?

 

[Oreoracle]

In the mean time. you advertise the pointlessness of caring. “We’re all just going to die anyway. Accept it”. Well, the problem is that you are taking away from the effort to live and not replacing it with anything. You are playing with the lives of other people. You are playing with what is keeping them alive and trying.

Terrible paraphrasing, misrepresentation, glossing over deductive reasoning entirely…you’ll do anything but reply to what I’ve actually said.

I agree that we should all accept that we will die, but this doesn’t mean we should quit trying to improve our lives. In this world, we only see things that are finite and mortal; entertaining the thought that our species alone is infinite and immortal is simply stroking our egos. Nothing more. People who “need” to believe they are special, that they alone, among all creatures, will be judged by an infinite being who created a world just for them…are truly no different than teenagers who think they’re invincible. The teenager eventually falls from his “godly” state, and matures necessarily in order to survive in a world that demands level-headedness, and not insanely swollen egos.

Realizing that you are just another piece of the puzzle is not “fatalism” or “projected negativity” but the form of humility. Are you truly any different than the mosquito who is swatted, or the squirrel who bites into a power line, electrocuting himself to death, or the stray deer who is made roadkill by a girl talking on her cell phone, oblivious to the living obstruction on the road? These creatures are dismissed without a second thought, even though some animals suffering similar fatalities are in fact aware of their environments and desire to live, just as we do. If they are devoured by oblivion when their consciousness ceases, why should we be any different? How are you any different than the upper-middle class teenager who just knows that he’s more important than those lower on the social food chain? Your arrogance is palpable, not to mention hazardous to other animals as well as yourself.

It is your religion that plays with lives by convincing them that they are “just visiting” this world. It is your religion that mocks the lives of other animals who are bound to stay in this prison while you claim to have your “get out of jail free card.” It is your religion that causes girls like my classmate to take it easy in life; it doesn’t matter if we send troops to die in the East, 'cause they’ll just go to Heaven!

I am responsible, James. Are you?

 

[James_S_Saint]

It is your religion that plays with lives by convincing them that they are “just visiting” this world. It is your religion that mocks the lives of other animals who are bound to stay in this prison while you claim to have your “get out of jail free card.” It is your religion that causes girls like my classmate to take it easy in life; it doesn’t matter if we send troops to die in the East, 'cause they’ll just go to Heaven!

I am responsible, James. Are you?

At least I am responsible enough to try not to presume. You, as usual, presume, respond, and see if you got away with it, failing to even notice that it isn’t MY religion. :dts:

 

[Oreoracle]

Well Prodigal, I don’t know if I’d call doubt an emotion, but it can certainly lead to emotions, as you’ve described.

.You seem to be saying similar, perhaps: that the end (goal) of doubt is truth. But this is a teleological statement, and your philosophy does not allow for teleology.

How does my philosophy not allow for teleology? Exactly what aspect of my “philosophy” (which is actually several unrelated philosophies) are you talking about?

Now for the question, “How many years have I wasted pursuing unimportant or uncertain things instead of pursuing what I know to be important?” What, pray tell, do you know to be important?

Perhaps “valuable” is a better word from an ethical standpoint. For example, let’s say that the middle-aged person in question drank alcohol often in his younger years. Now the middle-aged person might say that drinking alcohol is important for getting drunk, but getting drunk isn’t important for living a good life; that is to say, drunkenness isn’t valuable.

Anyway, you already know what I feel to be important: happiness (preference satisfaction) and the means able to attain it.

Personally, I know one thing to be important: giving myself freely as a gift to those around me. Can you please tell me how this is an “unimportant” or “uncertain” thing?

I’d say that’s good advice for the most part, so I feel it is fairly important. But that’s not all that Christianity holds to be important, is it? And the whole idea of being a “gift” is rather deceptive at times. The obligation to tell your gay friend that his marriage is an abomination isn’t quite the same as being an asset to others’ well-being, is it?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well Prodigal, I don’t know if I’d call doubt an emotion, but it can certainly lead to emotions, as you’ve described.

Although not typically thought of as one, doubt is an emotion. Any “urge” not directly instigated by a cognitive reasoned conclusion is an “emotor”, a mover. The urge to suspect and doubt is not typically based on cognitive reasoning, but an accepted attitude with which to respond toward anything undesirable. The reasoning, if it ever gets a chance to arise before the response has already taken place, comes after the urge to doubt.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How does my philosophy not allow for teleology? Exactly what aspect of my “philosophy” (which is actually several unrelated philosophies) are you talking about?

Teleology means that stuff (material or spiritual) has a purpose built into its nature. Wikipedia: “As a school of thought, teleology can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose.” You’ve always struck me as a metaphysical naturalist, so I assumed that teleology wouldn’t play a role. If you do allow for teleology, please mention what kind of “stuff” you think has a specific design or purpose.

Perhaps “valuable” is a better word from an ethical standpoint. For example, let’s say that the middle-aged person in question drank alcohol often in his younger years. Now the middle-aged person might say that drinking alcohol is important for getting drunk, but getting drunk isn’t important for living a good life; that is to say, drunkenness isn’t valuable.

“Valuable” could mean a) having real worth, independent of a person’s goals (that is, something desired for its own sake), or b) being valued as a means to an end. I think we will both agree that “not being drunk” is a means to an end here. But what is the end? As you say, “living a good life”. But what is good? Is “good” simply valuable as a means to an end? *Aren’t we just going in a circle, unless you declare that **something *fits into category a, thus being truly valuable?

Anyway, you already know what I feel to be important: happiness (preference satisfaction) and the means able to attain it.

What does it mean to “satisfy your preferences”? I think the phrase is significantly ambiguous, just like the word “value”, so I’d like it clarified. Do we desire to satisfy our preferences for their own sake, for example?

I’d say that’s good advice for the most part, so I feel it is fairly important. But that’s not all that Christianity holds to be important, is it? And the whole idea of being a “gift” is rather deceptive at times. The obligation to tell your gay friend that his marriage is an abomination isn’t quite the same as being an asset to others’ well-being, is it?

Well, I haven’t told any of my gay friends that their marriages are abominations. It helps that they aren’t married, though. But if they were, I wouldn’t yell fire and brimstone at them; I don’t know their souls. If they invited me to the wedding, I would decline, but I would visit their homes after a marriage. Nor does Christianity require me to denounce them. In fact, I am obliged to love them, which means – except in certain circumstances – I don’t offer unasked-for advice. What’s more, I don’t judge them, for I’m a sinner too.

 

[Oreoracle]

Teleology means that stuff (material or spiritual) has a purpose built into its nature. Wikipedia: “As a school of thought, teleology can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose.” You’ve always struck me as a metaphysical naturalist, so I assumed that teleology wouldn’t play a role. If you do allow for teleology, please mention what kind of “stuff” you think has a specific design or purpose.

Methinks you’re making a false dichotomy here: You seem to assume that I either reject teleology or adhere to it. I’m perfectly content with saying, “I don’t know.” The bolded part of your post is a common error made by nearly every Christian here. Don’t assume anything about your opponent’s metaphysical views, because “I don’t know” is always an option.

In any case, how on Earth are you coming up with the idea that I can’t believe doubt leads to truth without teleology? Would I also need teleology to believe that anger leads to fist-fights? These are just consequences that follow from the natures of these emotions. Design doesn’t “have” to be the reason, nor does it seem any more likely given these observations.

“Valuable” could mean a) having real worth, independent of a person’s goals (that is, something desired for its own sake), or b) being valued as a means to an end. I think we will both agree that “not being drunk” is a means to an end here. But what is the end? As you say, “living a good life”. But what is good? Is “good” simply valuable as a means to an end? *Aren’t we just going in a circle, unless you declare that **something ***fits into category a, thus being truly valuable?

Being a psychological hedonist, I can’t honestly say that anything is desired for its own sake, so scratch (a). We will use (b) for now, I suppose. And I would actually define “goodness” as “that which ought to exist.” I think you will find this fitting given the nature of ethics.

What does it mean to “satisfy your preferences”? I think the phrase is significantly ambiguous, just like the word “value”, so I’d like it clarified. Do we desire to satisfy our preferences for their own sake, for example?

Well a “preference,” I would say, is what produces an emotion that urges one to perform an action. For example, the desire to turn your heater on is caused by the preference for moderate temperature coupled with the fact that there is an insufficient amount of heat. “Satisfaction” is mostly self-evident; it’s that “feel good” feeling (or just a feeling of relief) that is caused by getting what you want. This approach at psychology is reductionistic, but it gets me by.

Do we desire satisfaction for its own sake? I guess that depends on what you mean. Would a dog gobble up his food so quickly if it didn’t taste good? Would a college student seek a degree in his field if he couldn’t get a job under better conditions than high school graduates? Would we be having this discussion if neither of us hoped to benefit ourselves or each other? Do we ever use a means without caring whether we achieve our ends? I don’t think so. I think it’s more likely that any preference, even the preference to live, is satisfied for the sake of happiness. We all know what happens when the conditions to live one’s life become unbearable…it isn’t lived for its own sake, but for that “feel good” feeling, or happiness, as utilitarians would call it. Forcing enough preference dissatisfaction (suffering) on anyone is a recipe for suicide, unless of course you can counterbalance this with the threat of damnation if one were to commit suicide.

Well, I haven’t told any of my gay friends that their marriages are abominations. It helps that they aren’t married, though. But if they were, I wouldn’t yell fire and brimstone at them; I don’t know their souls. If they invited me to the wedding, I would decline, but I would visit their homes after a marriage. Nor does Christianity require me to denounce them. In fact, I am obliged to love them, which means – except in certain circumstances – I don’t offer unasked-for advice.

I’m glad to hear that you’re so tolerant. Just keep in mind that some Christians believe in an obligation to discourage sinning. Failing to do so is regarded by them to be a “sin of omission” ; that is, a sin caused by inaction. From a relative perspective, your version of Christianity is significantly watered-down compared to theirs.

What’s more, I don’t judge them, for I’m a sinner too.

Don’t ever say that you don’t judge people–you just did, for example. “I don’t judge, because I’m a sinner too.” You just called them sinners, so how is that not judging?

Relax, judgment is a natural result of observation. You couldn’t avoid it if you wanted to.

 

[tonyrey]

Being a psychological hedonist, I can’t honestly say that anything is desired for its own sake, so scratch (a). We will use (b) for now, I suppose. And I would actually define “goodness” as “that which ought to exist.” I think you will find this fitting given the nature of ethics.

How do you relate psychological hedonism to that which ought to exist???

 

[Oreoracle]

How do you relate psychological hedonism to that which ought to exist???

Obviously, this requires us to make a transition from ‘descriptive’ doctrine to ‘prescriptive’ doctrine. I would say that because everyone aims for their own happiness by default, we all ought to maximise each other’s happiness. So I’ve essentially jumped from psychological hedonism to utilitarianism.

Because what “ought to be” is always a matter of opinion due to its prescriptive nature, you could disagree even if you were a psychological hedonist yourself. This is simply what I value given my position on the psychology of sentient beings.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Right, but a belief that causes you to not take this life seriously is a dangerous one. Let me give you a reality check: In class, we were presented with the Trolley Problem. You know, the classic “would you kill one person to save more than one person?” type of question. One girl answered,“I would just let everyone die. I mean, we can all meet up in Heaven later!” The scary thing was that she was serious about this. There she was, a harmless high school girl, but she would let people die because she doesn’t take life seriously. And why? Because she believes in an afterlife.

How about taking the value of each individual person seriously? If you value people, humanity, morality, you will not kill anyone, even if that means the death of everyone. Everybody should rather die than sell out their humanity and the humanity of others. Of course; the idea that human life will cease to exist is not encouraging of such a virtue, and i can understand why somebody such as your self would discount the value of an individual in order so that you and some others can survive a little while longer in order to obtain what ever fleeting pleasure you may or may not get out of the little time we have left in existence. If you choose to call that a life worth living, a life worth taking seriously, then that’s entirely your prerogative. But the dilemma you speak of is impossible to get out of without throwing away our humanity and reducing life to a meaningless attempt to survive, a finite opportunity to experience pleasure and exploit the senses; and so of course, under that world view, one cannot expect that one ought to give there lives for a being that is going to cease to exist anyway, since according to that world view, life is simply survival of the fittest and whoever aids in that survival. Morality becomes meaningless, a relative term that suits us when we need it; just expressions of our social ego and the fear of being devalued.

You are welcome to that existence. For me, it is not something that is worth taking seriously. I would give my life for a person, but not animals pretending to be people.

Meaning: It’s time to accept whatever theories seem more likely given the empirical evidence and to reject theories with zero evidence backing them.

You are saying there is no place for hope, but this is just an expression of your desire, not the evidence.

Well yes. It’s the same “philosophy” that causes you to reject the existence of leprechauns and fairies even though you can’t definitively prove they don’t exist. Maybe we should make a “Fairies 101” class in colleges if you disagree.

Trying to associate God with leprechauns shows how little you willing to understand when people speak of God. If leprechauns were of the same qualitative intelligible and explanatory value as God, i would believe in leprechauns as well. But it is not true that leprechauns and God have the same rational value. Your association of the two is superficial at best. Of course, its not surprising to me that you would resort to such tactics, and here ends the discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Methinks you’re making a false dichotomy here: You seem to assume that I either reject teleology or adhere to it. I’m perfectly content with saying, “I don’t know.” The bolded part of your post is a common error made by nearly every Christian here. Don’t assume anything about your opponent’s metaphysical views, because “I don’t know” is always an option.

I don’t think I’m assuming anything. You’re the one who always talks about prescription versus description. If no prescriptive statement is epistemologically valid, then there cannot be any teleological truths.

In any case, how on Earth are you coming up with the idea that I can’t believe doubt leads to truth without teleology? Would I also need teleology to believe that anger leads to fist-fights?

“Anger leads to fist-fights” is an inductive inference. “Doubt leads to truth” is, if true, analytically true. Perhaps “doubt *sometimes *leads to truth” would be the safest bet, for both of us.

Well a “preference,” I would say, is what produces an emotion that urges one to perform an action. For example, the desire to turn your heater on is caused by the preference for moderate temperature coupled with the fact that there is an insufficient amount of heat.

In other words, a “preference” is a want. But your ethics in regard to preference must be either prescriptive or descriptive. If prescriptive, then you are saying that “people should pursue what they want”. But even that will not do, because of course you will say that child molesters should not pursue what they want! So you would be saying, “people should want what they want”. But would we even want to say this? And how is that ethics?

I suspect, however, that you will eschew the prescriptive route, and say that you ethics simply describes how a person like-minded to yourself will in fact act. Thus, we are left with the statement that “people do pursue what they want” or – worse yet – “people do want what they want.” But this is not ethics; it is a tautology.

Do you have a way around this? How would you describe your principle?

Do we ever use a means without caring whether we achieve our ends? I don’t think so. I think it’s more likely that any preference, even the preference to live, is satisfied for the sake of happiness.

Is happiness simply the state of having our preferences satisfied?

The person who has satisfied a great many of his preferences, in point of fact, often finds that they are worthless to him. Read Hamlet, or Ecclesiastes. Getting what I want, in the moment, leads me down the wrong path entirely. But perhaps you are talking about some higher level of want, that will be better served by delayed gratification? But how do I know that this higher level is actually satisfying, and not just as worthless? Wise men throughout the ages have said that seeking happiness is one of the worst ways to find it.

I’m glad to hear that you’re so tolerant. Just keep in mind that some Christians believe in an obligation to discourage sinning. Failing to do so is regarded by them to be a “sin of omission” ; that is, a sin caused by inaction. From a relative perspective, your version of Christianity is significantly watered-down compared to theirs.

What a funny statement! Do me a favor and read the Gospels, and tell me how often Jesus speaks condemning words to discourage people from sin. He doesn’t. He knows that they know their own sin deeply, and He loves them despite their sin. He wants them to be free, but He waits until they ask for Him to free them. How is that kind of Christianity watered down?

When Christians nowadays speak condemning words and do not show tangible love to sinners, they are bearing false witness to Jesus. In some ways, it would be better if they were not Christians. Kierkegaard hated the popularity of Christianity, and I can see why! Listen to Jesus’s teaching about Pharisees if you want to know His thoughts on the matter.

Don’t ever say that you don’t judge people–you just did, for example. “I don’t judge, because I’m a sinner too.” You just called them sinners, so how is that not judging?

Dictionary:

1. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
2. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.

I do 14, but not 13. I can tell if someone is an alcoholic, but I cannot assess their blame for being one.

 

[James_S_Saint]

**Judgment **is assessment with decisive condemnation.

Thinking that you believe someone to be a sinner, is an assessment, but not a judgment. No decisions concerning condemnations were PRESUMED (the seed of sin).

You might even say that “to judge” is to commit “assessment with the intent to sin”.

 

[Oreoracle]

Keep in mind (both James and Prodigal) that not everyone shares your rather obscure definitions of “judgment.” Just imagine if we used your definition in courtrooms, James! Does the judge intend to sin when he determines the defendant is “guilty?” And why should we only call it judging when it comes to negative things, i.e., condemnation? Isn’t the conclusion that someone is innocent just as much a judgment as the opposite?