More ramblings from me. - Page 6

10-24-2002, 01:00 PM

Timber came the closest so far to actually answering my question but he still missed the point. He gave his reason for being nice, as being that he wanted to have discourse and intercourse (

) with the world, wich is fine as far as it goes. But say, a building was burning and he knew he could save someone in that building but would probably die in the attempt or maybe worse be permanently disfigured and disabled, why would he make that sacrifice? is there a "logical rationale" to it, or is it just some fuzzy nebulous "undefinable" feeling of rightness behind it?

Djinn Raffo · 10-24-2002, 01:19 PM

I don't think it is another issue. What makes any religious person commit selfless acts is the same thing that makes an atheist commit selfless acts.

If you believe God makes you commit selfless acts then you must believe that God makes athiests commit selfless acts to right? (Unless you believe that athiests do not commit selfless acts at all...)

If an athiest thinks that athiests commit selfless acts because that is simply human nature then an athiest must think that religious people commit selfless acts because it is human nature.

Like i said:

Your questions are directed at athiests but should be directed at all humanity because what makes an athiest commit selfless acts is probably no different from what makes 99% of mankind commit selfless acts.

What is it that makes mankind commit selfless acts? Like you said earlier: Just because.

Ishanda · 10-24-2002, 01:34 PM

Science in general:

I find it interesting that every scientific theory I know of is based on the assumption of something else. In order to make the theory work you have to BELIEVE that something else is true. Further to this, even something as simple as gravity is not complete as a theory. It is generally accepted that there are four forces acting in unison upon the universe; gravity, magnetism, weak-nuclear force and strong nuclear force (not to say that there could be others of course). It is also generally accepted that these 4 work in conjunction with ech other, that is, one can not do without any of the others. Exactly what the relationship is between these 4 forces, no-one knows or understands (that we know of). Therefore it follows that our understanding of gravity is not complete and therefore flawed to a degree. All scientific knowledge is fundamentally flawed to a degree because science's primary assumption is that nature works in a causal way, i.e. one thing necessarily leads to another specific thing (which is often proved by chemical reactions). However, there are counter theories to this that seem to sugest that seemingly unrellated things act on one another. All we ever can understand as such, is how we PERCEIVE things to be, and in this way we cloud what we consider scientific observations, since we act on the 'experiment' by perceiving it.

On truth:

There is no ultimate truth. It is all beliefs. Any truth is only a re-inforced concept initially derived from belief. The earth is round. That statement is only true in as much as people believe it to be so. What proof is there that it is 'true' (for most of us at any rate)? We see photographs supposedly taken from space, we see aircraft seemingly following the curviture of the earth in the sky. Radio waves only travel in a straight line, right? We can be made to believe anything which we then see as truth. Likewise I can offer MANY arguments against the fact that the earth is round for example. The unwary could be convinced that the Earth is in fact flat. Truth as a concept is in the eye of the beholder. No more.

Evolution:

In a general sense evolution is ok. However, there are MANY instances where it too is utterly flawed as a theory since it fails to explain fundamental things. I was told once that the Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens were two branches of humanity. Neanderthal died out and we did not. Why? Same with the dinosaurs. Explanations as always range from mediocre to ludicrous. Giant meteor hit the earth. C'mon! What about all the other life?

Big Bang and Entropy:

Currently I understand that there are 3 schools surrounding the big bang. One says that everything started at some point and that it will forever more expand. Another says that the expansion will stop at some point and then everything will contract only to end again in nothingness. The last is where after contraction expansion will happen again. All this over many billions of years of course. Interesting since this is another good example of science contradicting science. If entropy is prevalent in the universe, then what happened to the conservation of energy. If energy can not be destroyed, then how can final entropy take place? Of course no-one ever mentions where the initial singularity comes from or how it occured in the first place. All that massive amounts of energy had to come from somewhere, right?

God:

Whatever the nature of this concept, I do not think it is unfair to think that since the concept necesitates 'vastness' and 'greatness' that it/he/she is not understandable. That is why religion asks us to believe and have faith in its concepts and various writings. Since these things are passed on from generation to generation, it is only fair to assume that certain things get lost over time. Furthermore, the context of writing is very different today than it was when texts were written. Also, translations distort meaning. There are many words in my native language that have no common word in English and probably vice-versa. What does this mean? Make a study of any popular religious text and you'll discover many things that are illogical and do not make sense. In short, there are many contradictions, logically. Does that matter at the end of the day? NO, if you believe in it. YES, if you do not.

Sazerac · 10-24-2002, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
I don't think it is another issue. What makes any religious person commit selfless acts is the same thing that makes an atheist commit selfless acts.

If you believe God makes you commit selfless acts then you must believe that God makes athiests commit selfless acts to right? (Unless you believe that athiests do not commit selfless acts at all...)

If an athiest thinks that athiests commit selfless acts because that is simply human nature then an athiest must think that religious people commit selfless acts because it is human nature.

Like i said:

Your questions are directed at athiests but should be directed at all humanity because what makes an athiest commit selfless acts is probably no different from what makes 99% of mankind commit selfless acts.

What is it that makes mankind commit selfless acts? Like you said earlier: Just because.

Forgive me for saying so, but I have yet to see anyone who has committed any act that can be truly said to be "selfless." Everything we do, we do for a personal reason of some sort or another...be that person religious or anti-religious.

-Sazerac

Ishanda · 10-24-2002, 01:45 PM

Magik, I think that what you are asking is pretty much the line of reasoning that C.S. Lewis follows in his description of his conversion from atheism to Christianity. The big question, what is the source of Good in the universe? We know that animals are pretty much born without it in the wild. Why are humans the only ones that believe in the ideals of fair play, mercy, compassion, bravery, self-sacrifice, etc? Why is it that animals that associate with us on a regular basis seem to take these characterisics up? What is the source of all Good? He came to the conclusion that Good had to be embodied in a supernatural being, called for ages God. I believe that St' Thomas Aquinas follows similar reasoning, but I haven't been able to fight my way through the Summa Theologica.

I could not resist....I have no idea about CS Lewis, but Thomas was a Christian, which explains the ASSUMPTION. I believe it is called Occam's Razor. If animals associated with humans take up the 'good' characteristics, does this LOGICALLY foloow that it is something OUTSIDE of humanity that is the cause of this? Or is it more logical and simpler to reason that it is HUMANITY themsleves that are the source of the good?

The third answer of course could be that humanity and god are two concepts for the same thing, which makes both answers correct.

The fourth answer could be that humanity and god are SEPERATE concepts, but that they are interlinked. In which case all three answers are correct.

our observations are clouded by what we know and believe in. As such Thomas could never have postulated anything OTHER than God being the central source since his reasoning was clouded. Sorry Immanuel Kant, same goes for you. I shall say it again. Philosophically, ANYTHING can be theorized as being proof. Evcen the non-existence of God

10-24-2002, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sazerac:

quote:
Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:
I don't think it is another issue. What makes any religious person commit selfless acts is the same thing that makes an atheist commit selfless acts.

If you believe God makes you commit selfless acts then you must believe that God makes athiests commit selfless acts to right? (Unless you believe that athiests do not commit selfless acts at all...)

If an athiest thinks that athiests commit selfless acts because that is simply human nature then an athiest must think that religious people commit selfless acts because it is human nature.

Like i said:

Your questions are directed at athiests but should be directed at all humanity because what makes an athiest commit selfless acts is probably no different from what makes 99% of mankind commit selfless acts.

What is it that makes mankind commit selfless acts? Like you said earlier: Just because.

Forgive me for saying so, but I have yet to see anyone who has committed any act that can be truly said to be "selfless." Everything we do, we do for a personal reason of some sort or another...be that person religious or anti-religious.

-Sazerac

So, a person who gives up their life for another is not comitting a selfless act? How do you figure? What possible gain after life could there possibly for the man, ESPECIALLY if there is no God and there is no after life? I believe I have seen many selfless acts.[/QUOTE]

[ 10-24-2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

10-24-2002, 01:52 PM

Ok the Athiests win, You dont want to address my question, you only want to turn it around and discuss the other end of it, thats fine have at it. enjoy, but please tell Mark to quit going around caliming that Atheists were being picked on and someone was saying that they couldnt be good and selfless, I never said those things, you all did.

If however any of you Kind and good Atheists are actually interested in helping a person who is actually interested in knowledge and not in blame gaming, please feel free to PM me, other than that Im done with the issue.

Djinn Raffo · 10-24-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
Ok the Athiests win, You dont want to address my question, you only want to turn it around and discuss the other end of it, thats fine have at it. enjoy, but please tell Mark to quit going around caliming that Atheists were being picked on and someone was saying that they couldnt be good and selfless, I never said those things, you all did.

If however any of you Kind and good Atheists are actually interested in helping a person who is actually interested in knowledge and not in blame gaming, please feel free to PM me, other than that Im done with the issue.

I don't think thats the case at all MagiK.

IMO: Like i said.. i think that there is no difference in what makes athiests want to help somebody and non-athiests wanting to help somebody.. What makes them want to help someone is the same thing. But thats my humble opinion.

What makes anyone want to help someone?: I'm not sure if it is answerable..

10-24-2002, 02:23 PM

Djin I am not mearly talking about helping someone, Im talking about giving your life. As I said Timber Loftis pretty much ansered the easy one, about being nice, I am asking why an atheist would ever put himself in moretal jeopardy for someone else. To examine that reasons and help me discover the root cause of the motivation.

Djinn Raffo · 10-24-2002, 02:29 PM

Because they have compassion just like everyone else. (excluding sniper etc etc)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Random Ilyich ramblings (Tactics spoilers galore)	SixOfSpades	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	27	09-11-2004 05:57 PM
Ramblings from a solo Blade (spoily)	mad=dog	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	18	04-23-2004 10:56 PM
Ramblings regarding damage resistances	Jim	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	11	02-21-2003 08:19 PM

10-24-2002, 01:00 PM	#51
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Timber came the closest so far to actually answering my question but he still missed the point. He gave his reason for being nice, as being that he wanted to have discourse and intercourse ( ) with the world, wich is fine as far as it goes. But say, a building was burning and he knew he could save someone in that building but would probably die in the attempt or maybe worse be permanently disfigured and disabled, why would he make that sacrifice? is there a "logical rationale" to it, or is it just some fuzzy nebulous "undefinable" feeling of rightness behind it?

10-24-2002, 01:19 PM	#52
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 49 Posts: 2,397	I don't think it is another issue. What makes any religious person commit selfless acts is the same thing that makes an atheist commit selfless acts. If you believe God makes you commit selfless acts then you must believe that God makes athiests commit selfless acts to right? (Unless you believe that athiests do not commit selfless acts at all...) If an athiest thinks that athiests commit selfless acts because that is simply human nature then an athiest must think that religious people commit selfless acts because it is human nature. Like i said: Your questions are directed at athiests but should be directed at all humanity because what makes an athiest commit selfless acts is probably no different from what makes 99% of mankind commit selfless acts. What is it that makes mankind commit selfless acts? Like you said earlier: Just because.

10-24-2002, 01:34 PM	#53
Ishanda Dungeon Master Join Date: September 23, 2002 Location: South Africa Age: 50 Posts: 61	Science in general: I find it interesting that every scientific theory I know of is based on the assumption of something else. In order to make the theory work you have to BELIEVE that something else is true. Further to this, even something as simple as gravity is not complete as a theory. It is generally accepted that there are four forces acting in unison upon the universe; gravity, magnetism, weak-nuclear force and strong nuclear force (not to say that there could be others of course). It is also generally accepted that these 4 work in conjunction with ech other, that is, one can not do without any of the others. Exactly what the relationship is between these 4 forces, no-one knows or understands (that we know of). Therefore it follows that our understanding of gravity is not complete and therefore flawed to a degree. All scientific knowledge is fundamentally flawed to a degree because science's primary assumption is that nature works in a causal way, i.e. one thing necessarily leads to another specific thing (which is often proved by chemical reactions). However, there are counter theories to this that seem to sugest that seemingly unrellated things act on one another. All we ever can understand as such, is how we PERCEIVE things to be, and in this way we cloud what we consider scientific observations, since we act on the 'experiment' by perceiving it. On truth: There is no ultimate truth. It is all beliefs. Any truth is only a re-inforced concept initially derived from belief. The earth is round. That statement is only true in as much as people believe it to be so. What proof is there that it is 'true' (for most of us at any rate)? We see photographs supposedly taken from space, we see aircraft seemingly following the curviture of the earth in the sky. Radio waves only travel in a straight line, right? We can be made to believe anything which we then see as truth. Likewise I can offer MANY arguments against the fact that the earth is round for example. The unwary could be convinced that the Earth is in fact flat. Truth as a concept is in the eye of the beholder. No more. Evolution: In a general sense evolution is ok. However, there are MANY instances where it too is utterly flawed as a theory since it fails to explain fundamental things. I was told once that the Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens were two branches of humanity. Neanderthal died out and we did not. Why? Same with the dinosaurs. Explanations as always range from mediocre to ludicrous. Giant meteor hit the earth. C'mon! What about all the other life? Big Bang and Entropy: Currently I understand that there are 3 schools surrounding the big bang. One says that everything started at some point and that it will forever more expand. Another says that the expansion will stop at some point and then everything will contract only to end again in nothingness. The last is where after contraction expansion will happen again. All this over many billions of years of course. Interesting since this is another good example of science contradicting science. If entropy is prevalent in the universe, then what happened to the conservation of energy. If energy can not be destroyed, then how can final entropy take place? Of course no-one ever mentions where the initial singularity comes from or how it occured in the first place. All that massive amounts of energy had to come from somewhere, right? God: Whatever the nature of this concept, I do not think it is unfair to think that since the concept necesitates 'vastness' and 'greatness' that it/he/she is not understandable. That is why religion asks us to believe and have faith in its concepts and various writings. Since these things are passed on from generation to generation, it is only fair to assume that certain things get lost over time. Furthermore, the context of writing is very different today than it was when texts were written. Also, translations distort meaning. There are many words in my native language that have no common word in English and probably vice-versa. What does this mean? Make a study of any popular religious text and you'll discover many things that are illogical and do not make sense. In short, there are many contradictions, logically. Does that matter at the end of the day? NO, if you believe in it. YES, if you do not.

10-24-2002, 01:45 PM	#55
Ishanda Dungeon Master Join Date: September 23, 2002 Location: South Africa Age: 50 Posts: 61	Magik, I think that what you are asking is pretty much the line of reasoning that C.S. Lewis follows in his description of his conversion from atheism to Christianity. The big question, what is the source of Good in the universe? We know that animals are pretty much born without it in the wild. Why are humans the only ones that believe in the ideals of fair play, mercy, compassion, bravery, self-sacrifice, etc? Why is it that animals that associate with us on a regular basis seem to take these characterisics up? What is the source of all Good? He came to the conclusion that Good had to be embodied in a supernatural being, called for ages God. I believe that St' Thomas Aquinas follows similar reasoning, but I haven't been able to fight my way through the Summa Theologica. I could not resist....I have no idea about CS Lewis, but Thomas was a Christian, which explains the ASSUMPTION. I believe it is called Occam's Razor. If animals associated with humans take up the 'good' characteristics, does this LOGICALLY foloow that it is something OUTSIDE of humanity that is the cause of this? Or is it more logical and simpler to reason that it is HUMANITY themsleves that are the source of the good? The third answer of course could be that humanity and god are two concepts for the same thing, which makes both answers correct. The fourth answer could be that humanity and god are SEPERATE concepts, but that they are interlinked. In which case all three answers are correct. our observations are clouded by what we know and believe in. As such Thomas could never have postulated anything OTHER than God being the central source since his reasoning was clouded. Sorry Immanuel Kant, same goes for you. I shall say it again. Philosophically, ANYTHING can be theorized as being proof. Evcen the non-existence of God

10-24-2002, 01:52 PM	#57
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Ok the Athiests win, You dont want to address my question, you only want to turn it around and discuss the other end of it, thats fine have at it. enjoy, but please tell Mark to quit going around caliming that Atheists were being picked on and someone was saying that they couldnt be good and selfless, I never said those things, you all did. If however any of you Kind and good Atheists are actually interested in helping a person who is actually interested in knowledge and not in blame gaming, please feel free to PM me, other than that Im done with the issue.

10-24-2002, 02:23 PM	#59
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Djin I am not mearly talking about helping someone, Im talking about giving your life. As I said Timber Loftis pretty much ansered the easy one, about being nice, I am asking why an atheist would ever put himself in moretal jeopardy for someone else. To examine that reasons and help me discover the root cause of the motivation.

10-24-2002, 02:29 PM	#60
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 49 Posts: 2,397	Because they have compassion just like everyone else. (excluding sniper etc etc)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)