Evil Lincoln wrote:
Of course you could have skimmed it and saw that it was well enough organized to provide the needed information BEFORE you criticized it for being an abstract.
You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of prayer, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
You live in not only a middle-class country, but in a country with about 5% the number of people as the United States. The US has greater challenges with regards to corruption in social services because the scale at which US social services operates is greater. This creates problems in making sure that the people who need/deserve financial support (and only those people) get it.
I am a strong believer that US social services would improve significantly if they were managed at the state level. Unfortunately, those of us who believe that seem to be in a minority.
There's also the issue of environmentalism. While I think that everyone should have what they need to survive, whether people are capable of providing conspicuous consumption for themselves above that level is something of much less concern to me relative to the environmental impact of that conspicuous consumption.
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Which doesn't answer the question, what exactly was she 'going without'?Clearly, it wasn't something necessary that she was 'going without'. If it were necessary, she couldn't have gone without it. If she was going without something that wasn't necessary, then why were tax payers paying for her to have things that weren't necessary?
There is no 'one true way' in playing a Paladin. So, there is no one correct answer. Start by discussing the issue with the Sorc's player and the GM. Try to do this away from the gaming table (maybe over lunch) and with only the three of you there. You need to know how the GM views Lawful Good and how he views your character's god's ethos.
A lot of this is going to depend on just how skilled your GM is. Does he allow PCs to regularly do bad political moves without repercussion? How are the other NPCs in the game world going to react when they discover what this Sorcerer is doing? Does the GM try to regularly trap Paladins into 'no win' situations?
Personally, I don't see the Sorcerer's actions as murder, though I do think, if I were GM, several of my NPCs would.
So, the answer is 'it's complicated'.
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
What exactly was she 'going without' in order to afford a leather jacket and tv?
My mom went without food some days in order to make sure that my brother and I had enough to eat. We had no tv and our clothes were years out of style. "Going without"? There was nothing we could 'go without' that we hadn't already.
"going without" *laughs*
Saint Caleth wrote:
I'm not trolling. The poster who brought up Da Vinci's non-existent airplane as evidence of the existence of airplanes before the Wright brothers probably is, though.
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.
I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?
And you claim that the existence of heavier than air flight beforehand cannot be used as evidence that powered flight was possible, simply because they use different methods?
There are lots of things that animals can do that we -still- can't do (like create artificial spider silk) and we have advantages the Wright brothers didn't (like sophisticated imaging equipment).
So, no, the fact that birds could fly was not evidence that the Wright brothers could build an airplane.
That's still only your conjecture and not any direct quote from the Wright brothers that they were acting on faith.
The conjecture, on my part, is that they'd seen no working model of a powered flight vehicle which could take off and land under its own power before they created one.
If that conjecture is false (for example, they'd seen some long lost prototype created by someone else which pre-existed their Kitty Hawke flight), then shift my comments over to that person who designed that prototype.
If that's true, then we should note that
Personally, I'm much more interested in the role of religion - the support of the church community - in recovery.
They had no evidence that an airplane could be built since they'd never seen one that had been built. As for birds, we -still- haven't been able to build a vehicle that flies the way that a bird does. Birds don't have propellers or fixed wings.
Andrew Turner wrote:
What confused me was that I thought you were looking for a response from me and I wasn't sure what to respond to. Now, I do.
Chocolate-less chocolate sponge cake with strawberries and whipped cream is better!
I have no problem at all with making college life bad. I slept on a mattress pulled out of my neighbor's trash and sold plasma to have food to eat while going to college. Other people can do it too.
As for making college worse than prison, I don't think it should be. We should cut the prison amenities budget.
Saint Caleth wrote:
He's defining god, pointing out that Spinoza posits an impersonal god, fundamentally different from the Christian god that this thread implicitly started out talking about.
With the exception of #4, none of the five starting arguments require a God with which it is possible to have a personal relationship.
Freehold DM wrote:
I have to agree. It is the second dumbest thing I've ever heard regarding policy for government education assisance.
Oh my goodness this thread has really gone off the rails! What a monstrous train wreck!! What the heck do the Wright Brothers have to do with a Reverend, a President, and Gay Marriage?
It went off the rails way before the Wright brothers were brought up.
On the very first page, posts like
were rushing to turn the thread into an attack instead of praise for something praise worthy.
Andrew Turner wrote:
I'm not clear on where you're heading. Are you trying to ask me how Spinoza's works lead to a proof for Superman?
1.) There isn't AN (singular) ontological argument for God, there are many.
2.) Some of them are better than others
3.) The fact that an argument is ontological doesn't make it intrinsically bad. For example, several ontological arguments for numbers (1, 2, 3,..) has several useful applications. I've found the proof of integers by way of power sets useful as a starting point for some functional algorithms, for example.
That's funny, Given that you just made a criticism of ontological arguments.
To do that, you'd have to actually study the idea before determining whether its worth keeping. But, you've judged Spinoza's 'Ethics' without even reading it. That's not logic, its ignorance.
No, not really. What would have made me feel good about myself is if I'd had been able to instill in him a desire to learn.
I'm absolutely not an epistemic nihilist. I've told you that before. But, since all you've got is a hammer, everything must look like a nail to you.
Enough. I'm not taking that from anyone, least of all you. Goodbye.
Thus, you make my point. You aren't interested in exposing yourself to new ideas which is why you turn away when the opportunity is presented.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
I never said that you did. I was merely clarifying what I did say.
Lilith, definition or nothing. Be fair. You got the definition, now please give one.
assuming that you aren't merely trolling, but are interested in actually educating yourself, you can read for yourself.
I don't believe in creating Clif notes versions that will then be cherry picked.
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Well, I am not at all familiar with Lillithsthrall's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that Baruch Spinoza wasn't a typical Christian. Mostly because he was a Jew, but he wasn't a typical one of those, either.
I never claimed that Spinoza was a typical Christian. I never insinuated it. I said only that he gave a better argument for the existence of God than any that Atreus provided.
Ludicrous. A scientific statement does not cease to be science once proven wrong. Newton's theory of gravitation remains a scientific theory even after Einsteinian gravitation arrived on the scene.
What makes it scientific is that it arrived through and was maintained by the scientific process. The degree of truth it had was a side effect.
Fake Healer wrote:
I find it vulgar that people can't just respect that others do or do not believe in whatever they wish to and instead like dredging up a list of "facts and arguments" to diminish their opposite instead of just being accepting of their views. This entire thread is nothing more than a list of "this is why your view is stupid" in regards to the subject. Very disappointing.
Personally, I don't like the whole "my god is bigger than your god" or "my non-god is more rational than your god" schtick. I believe religion should be a personal choice, that the only thing that matters is how we live our lives, etc. As I've said elsewhere, it pisses me off that atheists are discriminated against in our country.
But, it, also, pisses me off that we can't have a civil discussion on this messageboard about religion without a bunch of fanatical atheists trolls jumping in.
Not every atheist on these boards is like that, so why does any of them need to be?
I just find it odd that you are so fervently against a belief that no one actually has and that you demean an entire group of people for believing something they actually don't.
Okay, I don't find it "odd", just unintentionally revealing of the weakness of your own position.
Can not is not does not.
It really is the most open definition of god you're going to get.
I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.
You are using a definition for 'faith' that I'm not familiar with. By the dictionary definition, faith is a belief in something without proof. So, believing something when there is no proof (ie. when there is uncertainty whether that thing is actually true) requires faith.
I don't know where you got your definition. You didn't get it from the dictionary, so where?
God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?
The name does not matters. I think that the spinoza´s argument leads to nowhere, but i would like to see something that prove me wrong.
Without knowing where you require it to go (which depends on your definition of 'God' which you haven't shared with us), the value of Spinoza's argument is unknown. We are as if judging the accuracy of a gun scope while the judge (you) blindfolds us.
Could you in any way differentiate spinozas argument from other ontological arguments, or explain how it moves to something anyone would call God? (god at least requires sentience)
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
That's not true.
It is, in fact, so far from being true that I have to question what you're smoking.
There are many critical factors which emerge with scale. To name one of them, strength requirements and strength potential of building materials (particularly in regards to buffeting forces).
Considering that there is such an extremely wide range of beliefs regarding what should be called "God" throughout human cultures (spread across space and time), -any- argument for/against the existence of God must start by defining one's terms.
Or you could read what he actually wrote instead of making wild guesses about it.
Is that allowed? ..for an atheist to read what a person -actually- says in their argument in support of God?
They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God. If these five were all that were available, I'd be an atheist.
But, I also think the question of whether God exists is a separate question from whether it is beneficial to believe that God exists.
Its like believing in the basic goodness of man. Whether man is basically good or basically evil, the -choice- to believe one or the other way is a separate question.
There was no evidence at all, let alone a 'preponderance of evidence'.
There were scientific principles which suggested (suggested, not demanded) that such a thing was possible, but there are a lot of things which scientific principles suggest are possible, but have never been done.
The definition of 'science' is NOT 'anything possible'. The fact that building airplanes was possible (a fact we only knew in hindsight, by the way) does not mean that it was done scienifically. The fact that certain scientific principles were used as components of the overall model, does not make the overall model scientific.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
We can't discuss the level of accuracy of anything else I said when you are so eager, fervent, in tossing everything out that disagrees with you without any consideration on your part.
What he clearly said was that NOTHING I've said has been in any way accurate. One of the things I said is that hot air balloons are not airplanes.
As for lift, etc. being demonstrated by experiment, there is, obviously, a HUGE difference between whether or not lift is demonstrated by experiment and, on the other hand, being able to build a device. After all, we may be able to explain how a bird's wing works, but we've not been able to build one.
As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.
Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.
The Wright brothers had no evidence that a flying machine could take off and land under its own power.
Argue against that all you want, its still the truth.
Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
The Wright brothers, despite having no evidence that a flying machine could take off and land under its own power, had faith that they could build such a machine. That's how faith works. Once you've gone as far as you can go with what's available, faith takes you further.
Incorrect. You are equating something done by random choice with something attempted by deliberation.
These are not equivalent. They are the difference between, on the one hand, the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane by just randomly tossing stuff together, then randomly attempting to use that heap as a flying machine, and, on the other hand, the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane through deliberate goal setting and problem solving, over a long period of time, with risk taking, guided by a vision of something that no reason believed was possible.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Consequently, it is the origin of all inventiveness.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hope =/= faith.
Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Hope is desire.
I hope for peace. When I take _action_ which I intend will create peace, despite all rational evidence that such peace is impossible and, perhaps most clearly, when my actions are dangerous to me, that's faith.
Yet, if just a few of them have faith that such a community is possible, such a community may develop. It is certainly not likely to develop if no one ever has such faith.
The point is that reason only gets you so far. To go beyond what we've always thought was possible, you need to have some irrationality.
Faith was what created the Christmas truce of 1914. Faith is what made many people make the difficult journey to the New World.
We need more faith today.
Is that the same as religious faith? Well, you've got to tell me how they are different. Not all religions have a belief in God or in a spiritual world or in hidden mysteries known only by leadership (or even religious leadership for that matter). So, when you strip away all those things that are not common to all religions, then what's left and how is it different from the kind of faith I mentioned above?
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Since you've got no evidence for your position yet continue to cling to it like a child holding onto his mother's apron strings, the question you raise is one better asked of yourself.
When I've been presented with persuasive evidence, I've changed my position.