What happens when you find yourself on the "wrong" side of history?
If you truly accept that you're wrong, then you be a ****ing adult and accept that you're wrong instead of sulking like a child. This is, imo, the single greatest indicator of whether someone is capable of being an adult or not - Whether they can admit and own up to their mistakes; then learn and gain from the situation.
If not, then hopefully you find a way to convince people you're right or you just shut up because lots of people disagreeing with you really sucks.
And, no, you'd be a liar if you think you wouldn't have been racist if you lived 70 years ago. Even the most progressive of the abolitionists, for example, were racists. They just fundamentally believed for either religious or logical/ethical reasons that enslaving people was wrong. They still held a great deal of prejudice against blacks.
What if all future equality issues would be agreed with by somebody of today? For example, let's say that in the future there are mutants but they are not considered equal to humans because they are not human. Is it totally ridiculous to think that some people today would want to treat them like humans? What about aliens? I think they should be treated equally but what if in the future not everybody feels this way?
Recent discussions and the nature of the conversation within them got me to thinking: what happens when you find yourself on the wrong side of history?
By this I mean, would you have hated blacks 60 years ago? Deny gay rights before it was no longer taboo to discuss it? Do you think you would have genuinely been on the "right side" of history in this regard? Do you think others would be on the "right side" of history based on their reactions and arguments against "taboo" topics?
Do you think MTGSalvation would be on the right side of history? Had MTG and the internet existed 70 years ago, would topics discussing racial integration and equality have been tolerated?
i like how a mod has liked the opening post but yet has to even close it. I'm just pointing that out. and pointing this out
It's good to see you're willing to take things completely out of context. While I agree the topic was probably nearing the end of its life, this is blatant dishonesty.
If not, why shouldn't it? Economic damage is a very real thing. If not, why was the housing collapse of 08 such a great deal? It'll be a different type of economic collapse, but the ramifications will be about the same; though perhaps not in the same magnitude, depending on which industries bite the dust.
MAD is inherently flawed. It assumes every decision making body is rational and has something to lose. There is no shred of evidence that the N.K. ruling body is rational. Absolute dictatorships tend to be like that. As such, it is also the case that they may determine they have nothing to lose in a misjudgment.
MAD works when nuclear weaponry is in the hands of few that are bogged down by a large leadership. Contrary to what you may hear, Soviet Russia was not a dictatorship. That ended the moment Stalin died.
Even if Kim Jong-Un acts irrational, he probably doesn't want to lose out on the ridiculous lifestyle he leads. What makes you think Kim Jong-Un would launch nukes and end the over the top life he gets to enjoy? You think he would willingly give that up just to launch nukes?
Dictators tend to have really good lives compared to their subjects. You would have to be more than just irrational or do more than just utilize irrationality to launch a nuke. You have to be suicidal, and it's very unlikely your entire cabinet shares your views.
In order for MAD to fail, you would need an entire regime full of suicidal or completely delusional psychotics who are somehow entirely detached from the reality of their existence yet attached enough to defend their regime internally and to enforce their executive authority over their nation. I don't see that happening. If somebody is going to disprove the MAD concept, it's going to be a bunch of lunatic terrorists who somehow got a hold of a nuclear weapon.
While I didn't always agree with him, I respected him and I found that we generally agreed on movie taste (I think Citizen Kane is a tad over-rated though whereas Jaws and Apocalypse Now are my favorites, probably signs of my youthful inexperience :D). Sad to see somebody who composed great rhetoric and film analysis to go. We have younger guys who show promise, but it will take time to see if they can have as much of an impact on film as Mr. Ebert did.
As has been stated before, if you want to make a claim you need evidence to back your claim up. Some atheists will claim "there is no god", and you would be correct in assessing that this claim is just as valid as the claim "there is a god". However, you can reject the notion "there is a god" without claiming "there is no god".
We are uncertain of the existence of a god, but since there is no reason to believe in a god, why shouldn't we fight against those who wish to propagate an ignorant position?
That is not evidence. Our understanding of how gravity works thinks it isn't enough but we then again our understanding of gravity and how it operates is limited.
It is evidence that either our current understanding of gravity is incorrect or there is unaccounted mass. Most scientists believe the second is true.
observed cosmic movements from how far away again? yeah exactly. millions of light years.
as i said the combination of higgs and gravity could do away with dark matter and dark energy.
The higgs has been predicted to exist for several years, and the standard model has coexisted with dark matter theories for quite a while. If the higgs's existence jeapordized the existence of dark matter then I doubt it would have many remaining proponents.
just because an object doesn't move like they think it should doesn't mean it is the cause of dark matter or energy.
So then either our current models are wrong or there exists something unaccounted for. I don't see what you've provided that allows us to throw away dark matter/energy.
Money really does buy happiness. If I become fabulously wealthy, I have all the time in the world to do whatever I want. If I can't be happy doing whatever I want, then I certainly wouldn't be happy working 40 hours a week on somebody else's schedule. Not to mention that with money, I could buy power. I could choose where donations go, I could back certain political parties, I could really change the world.
But what I really want is immortality, an immortality to learn everything there is to know about the nature of the universe, an immortality to do whatever I want, to see what technologies we as a species will develop for entertainment and pleasure. And this can be accomplished with upcoming technology as we approach a reversal of the aging process and eventually discover the secret to eternal youth.
And how do I see myself guaranteeing this lifestyle? Trucks from heaven to hell, bursting at the seams with Benjamins (or as it may turn out in the not so distant future, Zedongs).
Saying "If you think it does" does not mean "You think it does". That is a lack of reading comprehension on your part. Even if it is an ad Hominem, it is still true.
Except you did say it:
Okay so then why do you think that the laws of space time require a god?
See that is true, however that isn't what you said:
And not having a reason to believe it was created by a god does not mean "the universe as we see it does not require a god." The universe as we see or it as we don't see it or whatever you want it to be, may or may not require a god. That point of contention was how all of this began.
Well I honestly don't remember any of our conversations, but I'm sure we have. If there's one thing you should know about me, is that I sometimes I tend to let my emotions get the better of me. However you should also know that while this does happen from time to time, I don't hold grudges.
I was referring to the other conversations in this topic. I don't recall ever having a discussion with you on this forum.
Still, you might not think you're claiming 'intellectual superiority' - but it sure looks that way. Its mainly because you keep on accusing me of things I didn't say or fallacies that I'm not making. If you're unclear on something, ask.
Well as I perceive them, they are fallacies. Maybe I'll re-elaborate on them in a future post.
You shouldn't keep assuming that I'm making an argument that I keep on telling you I'm not making, especially when I go out of my way to prove to you that I didn't say or make those arguments.
Evolution by natural selection doesn't not require a god to work, how do I know? The model works with out a god. If you don't know why, I suggest you do some research. If you think it requires a god, I'm all ears.
Stop saying I think it requires a god, seriously, I never said that. You keep making this straw man, pretending that I believe that a god was required.
Calling you out on a straw man you constructed repeatedly after me pointing it out on several occasions is not Ad Hominen. Saying "FFS get some reading comprehension." is.
You clearly did not understand what was being said. Above is a clear example of you not reading what was said and just asserting what you thought was said. This isn't the only example either, you've got plenty of them in this thread.
No I really have read it. You can use the "reading comprehension" insult all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the reasoning used was incorrect. We cannot conclude that "Leprechauns and Santa Claus because a lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack" because it is a deductive fallacy or "The universe has no need for a god." because the examples used to justify it presuppose that is the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, You're not hear to discuss anything. You just want to wave your e-pen around and claim intellectual superiority.
No I really am. If you've noticed we have had some conversations that were more civil than the ones you and I have had. In any case, I don't think I've ever claimed "intellectual superiority" unless intellectual superiority is bringing up an annoyance with bad logic and reasoning is somehow waving my e-dick around and proclaiming intellectual superiority.
I don't have to be intellectually superior to recognize bad logic. Using bad logic under the pretense of being intellectually verse in that regard is harmful. I will call you out on it if I see it and came here looking for feedback on the best way to do that. If anything, I think that's pretty counter-intuitive if I really considered myself everyone's intellectual superior.
I see your atheism is as rigidly dogmatic as the modernity that spawned it and the religiosity that it rails against. But let me say a few words in my defense.
First, I do not see a break between "written by people" and "inspired by God" because I reject your definition (and the church's definition) of divine inspiration. Have you ever heard of a movie or book that was "inspired by a true story?" That doesn't mean a true story wrote it -- it means the people who wrote it were moved to write because of their encounter with a true story. Same thing I'm saying here. I'm saying this book was God's idea, and he rounded up some people to write it. Notice it's written by humans, to humans, and contains lots of little inconsistencies and a few big ones - just like people. But then again, I didn't say the Bible was error-less. I personally believe God allowed the errors to stay for a reason.
Why does divine inspiration show absolutely no difference then in relation to a non-divinely inspired work? If divine inspiration were truly apparent in the bible, surely something should separate it from other collected but entirely human works. Otherwise, we can conclude that divine inspiration has no effect at all.
You also never answered the question how people paying for the sins of their fathers is somehow just. You write it off as being as western idea (or at least it seems you do) or that god coming down helps alleviate the pains? Why not just not have him pay at all for the sins of his father? Under what pretenses is paying for the crimes of your father justified?
I guess I'm not understanding your uncertainty about the existence of gods. If you reject all gods then why can't you conclusively say, "God does not exist," when that is clearly the case? Are you not certain that every deity concept humans have come up with are wrong? Why does the word "God" (or as you put it "sentient creator") get a free pass while you disregard Krishna, Allah and Zeus? Aren't you just showing a bias to what seems like the Deist conception of God?
When I reject a notion as fact that does not mean I have to accept its negation. Just because I don't want to conclude that a man was murdered does not mean I conclude he was not murdered. The gods you described are detailed in books whose historical relevancy we can observe and make conclusions about. I cannot say for certain that every incarnation of those gods is untrue, but I am fairly certain there exist others who know more than me who can say with some level of confidence that those gods don't exist.
Additionally, I think the deist concept of a god is far more likely a scenario: we don't have evidence of the laws of nature suddenly giving way, so it would seem quite likely that if there were a god it is not an interventionist god. Not only that, but the general deistic interpretation of a god does not really lend itself to the same claims about its nature that most religious gods entail. IE: the god as I defined does not have to perform miracles, answer prayers, or allow you to turn bread and wine into his body and blood. As noted before, the more generic you make a concept, the more likely it is correct.
Again, why? If our limited minds can't conceive of God properly or gain any actual knowledge of God, what's the point in even entertaining the possibility of the unknowable?
It doesn't necessarily have to have a purpose. That doesn't change it from being the truth though.
The possibility of the God you're advocating hardly seems worth caring about. At that point, who really cares whether such a being is proved or not?
Well I think it would be a very interesting subject. Knowing the nature of the universe and why we are here is a very big question that I think a lot of people want to know the answer to. I don't think, as I've stated before, that we should necessarily go out of our way to search for an answer to this before there is any way we could rule out various incarnations of gods.
I suppose I would consider myself a temporary soft atheist from your distinction. I don't see the point in looking for answers yet as there doesn't appear to be any reason or methodology of doing so yet. When we start to bend the cosmos to our will and these questions may plausibly be answered, then I would consider putting effort into doing so.
Sounds like the Tao (or the Force if you're into Star Wars).
I'm not really familiar with the Tao, and I don't believe in anything like the force, but the existence of things outside our universe could be something as simple as other universes outside our universe. Of course, perhaps there is a god outside the multiverse. This means that while a subset of possible gods exist outside our universe, so too does a subset of possible gods exist outside the multiverse. This is why I don't see there being much reason to search for the answers to these questions at the moment but find them very interesting to be answered in the future. Though we don't have to think of the question as "what is god?" but rather "what is outside our universe?" or "is there anything outside the universe?"
You'll be stuck giving remedial courses on logic and reason forever. I'm not saying your wrong to be so bound by pure logic, I'm just saying you won't win anyone over. I think it's good enough that someone can look at the God claim 'x' and conclude that such a deity cannot exist logically, and they reject the claim. That's the real battle in my opinion.
I know it's not something I could ever change the world with or anything, but I think we should make sure people believe things for the right reasons.
There's a difference between arguing with people and blatantly insulting them. That's what I was calling you out on. Your OP was an angry rant and in the end you decided to post an insulting diatribe against FoxBlade. If you're really interested in solving your communication problems and the frustration you feel, you should start by looking in the mirror. Attempting to discredit an opponent by attacking their intelligence should be beneath you.
It was a rant because this happens all too often. You get people with a holier-than-thou (ironically) attitude when discussing these things but several times their arguments are incorrect. I won't deny that I haven't taken that tone, but I try my best to reserve it for when somebody blatantly and continuously makes the same errors over and over again. Also, this doesn't pardon me for any transgressions, but FoxBlade was the first to start Ad Hominem:
Where in that sentence did I say you did? FFS get some reading comprehension.
What if all future equality issues would be agreed with by somebody of today? For example, let's say that in the future there are mutants but they are not considered equal to humans because they are not human. Is it totally ridiculous to think that some people today would want to treat them like humans? What about aliens? I think they should be treated equally but what if in the future not everybody feels this way?
By this I mean, would you have hated blacks 60 years ago? Deny gay rights before it was no longer taboo to discuss it? Do you think you would have genuinely been on the "right side" of history in this regard? Do you think others would be on the "right side" of history based on their reactions and arguments against "taboo" topics?
Do you think MTGSalvation would be on the right side of history? Had MTG and the internet existed 70 years ago, would topics discussing racial integration and equality have been tolerated?
It's good to see you're willing to take things completely out of context. While I agree the topic was probably nearing the end of its life, this is blatant dishonesty.
Even if Kim Jong-Un acts irrational, he probably doesn't want to lose out on the ridiculous lifestyle he leads. What makes you think Kim Jong-Un would launch nukes and end the over the top life he gets to enjoy? You think he would willingly give that up just to launch nukes?
Dictators tend to have really good lives compared to their subjects. You would have to be more than just irrational or do more than just utilize irrationality to launch a nuke. You have to be suicidal, and it's very unlikely your entire cabinet shares your views.
In order for MAD to fail, you would need an entire regime full of suicidal or completely delusional psychotics who are somehow entirely detached from the reality of their existence yet attached enough to defend their regime internally and to enforce their executive authority over their nation. I don't see that happening. If somebody is going to disprove the MAD concept, it's going to be a bunch of lunatic terrorists who somehow got a hold of a nuclear weapon.
We are uncertain of the existence of a god, but since there is no reason to believe in a god, why shouldn't we fight against those who wish to propagate an ignorant position?
It is evidence that either our current understanding of gravity is incorrect or there is unaccounted mass. Most scientists believe the second is true.
The higgs has been predicted to exist for several years, and the standard model has coexisted with dark matter theories for quite a while. If the higgs's existence jeapordized the existence of dark matter then I doubt it would have many remaining proponents.
So then either our current models are wrong or there exists something unaccounted for. I don't see what you've provided that allows us to throw away dark matter/energy.
We can see the effects of it. The entire reason we know it exists is because gravity ISN'T sufficient to explain observed cosmic movements.
What background/evidence do you have to support the claim that dark matter and dark energy do not play a role in the universe?
But what I really want is immortality, an immortality to learn everything there is to know about the nature of the universe, an immortality to do whatever I want, to see what technologies we as a species will develop for entertainment and pleasure. And this can be accomplished with upcoming technology as we approach a reversal of the aging process and eventually discover the secret to eternal youth.
And how do I see myself guaranteeing this lifestyle? Trucks from heaven to hell, bursting at the seams with Benjamins (or as it may turn out in the not so distant future, Zedongs).
Except you did say it:
And not having a reason to believe it was created by a god does not mean "the universe as we see it does not require a god." The universe as we see or it as we don't see it or whatever you want it to be, may or may not require a god. That point of contention was how all of this began.
I was referring to the other conversations in this topic. I don't recall ever having a discussion with you on this forum.
Well as I perceive them, they are fallacies. Maybe I'll re-elaborate on them in a future post.
I don't think I ever have.
Calling you out on a straw man you constructed repeatedly after me pointing it out on several occasions is not Ad Hominen. Saying "FFS get some reading comprehension." is.
No I really have read it. You can use the "reading comprehension" insult all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the reasoning used was incorrect. We cannot conclude that "Leprechauns and Santa Claus because a lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack" because it is a deductive fallacy or "The universe has no need for a god." because the examples used to justify it presuppose that is the case.
No I really am. If you've noticed we have had some conversations that were more civil than the ones you and I have had. In any case, I don't think I've ever claimed "intellectual superiority" unless intellectual superiority is bringing up an annoyance with bad logic and reasoning is somehow waving my e-dick around and proclaiming intellectual superiority.
I don't have to be intellectually superior to recognize bad logic. Using bad logic under the pretense of being intellectually verse in that regard is harmful. I will call you out on it if I see it and came here looking for feedback on the best way to do that. If anything, I think that's pretty counter-intuitive if I really considered myself everyone's intellectual superior.
Why does divine inspiration show absolutely no difference then in relation to a non-divinely inspired work? If divine inspiration were truly apparent in the bible, surely something should separate it from other collected but entirely human works. Otherwise, we can conclude that divine inspiration has no effect at all.
You also never answered the question how people paying for the sins of their fathers is somehow just. You write it off as being as western idea (or at least it seems you do) or that god coming down helps alleviate the pains? Why not just not have him pay at all for the sins of his father? Under what pretenses is paying for the crimes of your father justified?
When I reject a notion as fact that does not mean I have to accept its negation. Just because I don't want to conclude that a man was murdered does not mean I conclude he was not murdered. The gods you described are detailed in books whose historical relevancy we can observe and make conclusions about. I cannot say for certain that every incarnation of those gods is untrue, but I am fairly certain there exist others who know more than me who can say with some level of confidence that those gods don't exist.
Additionally, I think the deist concept of a god is far more likely a scenario: we don't have evidence of the laws of nature suddenly giving way, so it would seem quite likely that if there were a god it is not an interventionist god. Not only that, but the general deistic interpretation of a god does not really lend itself to the same claims about its nature that most religious gods entail. IE: the god as I defined does not have to perform miracles, answer prayers, or allow you to turn bread and wine into his body and blood. As noted before, the more generic you make a concept, the more likely it is correct.
It doesn't necessarily have to have a purpose. That doesn't change it from being the truth though.
Well I think it would be a very interesting subject. Knowing the nature of the universe and why we are here is a very big question that I think a lot of people want to know the answer to. I don't think, as I've stated before, that we should necessarily go out of our way to search for an answer to this before there is any way we could rule out various incarnations of gods.
I'm not really familiar with the Tao, and I don't believe in anything like the force, but the existence of things outside our universe could be something as simple as other universes outside our universe. Of course, perhaps there is a god outside the multiverse. This means that while a subset of possible gods exist outside our universe, so too does a subset of possible gods exist outside the multiverse. This is why I don't see there being much reason to search for the answers to these questions at the moment but find them very interesting to be answered in the future. Though we don't have to think of the question as "what is god?" but rather "what is outside our universe?" or "is there anything outside the universe?"
I know it's not something I could ever change the world with or anything, but I think we should make sure people believe things for the right reasons.
It was a rant because this happens all too often. You get people with a holier-than-thou (ironically) attitude when discussing these things but several times their arguments are incorrect. I won't deny that I haven't taken that tone, but I try my best to reserve it for when somebody blatantly and continuously makes the same errors over and over again. Also, this doesn't pardon me for any transgressions, but FoxBlade was the first to start Ad Hominem: