Anime Porn??? (WARNING!- Enter at own risk!)

[Aarondalf]

[Antrax]

[Aarondalf]

In a way, yes. Though I should explain.

I'm not atheistic, I'm agnostic and so I just believe that we can't know the answers to questions about whether God's exist or not.

In that sense, I dont really believe in anything (ie, I dont believe in God, but I also dont definitively believe there is no God). I'm decidedly uncertain.

And so, for me to feel happy about myself I need to know that I havent caused others pain, and I have made many feel happiness... because I project their feelings onto me.

I dont feel that this is a gift given by god or anything else. I just know thats how I am. I dont look to others to teach me what is moral. I do what *I* think is right.

[Aarondalf]

But, just to clarify further (and I'm really not sure if I even answered Antrax's question) if someone asked me: "What do you think the probability is that Christianity (any mainstream religion will do here) is right?"

I would answer: Insignificant. Ie, its not 0, but its getting close.

[Antrax]

Do you consider yourself rational?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Aarondalf]

Very.

And I suspect thats Antrax speak for "if you think that you can't be rational". If I've interpreted that right, why do you ask?

[Antrax]

I don't think I'd ever say that. What I am curious about, though, is how can you prove the rule of contradiction (ie, X and not X cannot be true at the same time), for example. Or, how can you prove your sensory input is correct.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Aarondalf]

Hmm, maybe it is my wording.

Is there a God: I dont know.
Is there no God: I dont know.

Do I believe in a God? I dont have any steadfast convictions on the matter, so my answer would be no.

Do I believe there is nothing beyond the physical (ie, no God)? Again for the same reason my answer would be no.

Put more correctly, I dont know either way.

I cannot prove my sensory input to be true, thats why I didnt say that Christianity is 100% false. It seems to me to be highly doubtful, but I can't put a definate in that statement.

[Antrax]

Would you say you believe in the law of contradiction? in induction? in sensory input?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Aarondalf]

Yes yes and yes.

I dont see how the law of contradiction comes into this.

There are two options, either there is a god or there isnt. I just dont know which is true.

Therefore I cannot hold any belief either way.

[Antrax]

You earlier stated you don't believe in anything at all. You now said "yes" to three things you believe in. Which is it?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Mackay]

Aarondalf:
If moral codes are dictated by men, or groups of men, how do we know that they are right?
Why did similar groups of morals develop in different places simultaneously?
How do we know that one "set" of morals (e.g. Buddhist morals) is better than a different set (e.g. Nazi morality)?

Actually, I might tackle this in the Christianity thread in a bit. but still. Answer those for me, please?

[Mackay]

Oh, and I should pose those questions to ih8, too, I guess. (Been a while since I read.) Happy belated birthday, btw. Sorry I wasn't around/forget these things.

[Guest]

[casinopete*]

Gah! ^me^

[Guest]

Many equate abortion with murder. Should murder be against the law?

[Aarondalf]

I like discussions where people remain level headed.

I'm starting to get an idea about your thought processes, casinopete. Seems to me that you think pretty similar to me, though you believe very differently.

From the top:

[Aarondalf]

Sorry, I read that last question as 'Do you', not 'Why do you...'

As to the why, as I said before it reminds me about an attitude that many people have towards agnostics/atheists.

I dont feel that way with regards to you, but I did go off on a bit of a tangent before. I can assure you it was just a general bout of annoyance at being reminded of arguments I've had with others in the past. Sorry if it seemed to be directed totally at you.

[i_h8_evil_stuff]

Yay! it only took ellen 3 weeks to remember my birthday!

...

.....waaait.




_________________
Space for sale. PM i_h8_evil_stuff for details.

[Antrax]

[Aarondalf]

Nothing. It is not more valid at all.

But if we are to have the semblance of a proper discussion, we have to assume the existence of reason.

[Antrax]

~shrugs~
I'm very afraid of sentences containing the word "must". A religious person could tell you in order to have any semblance of discussion, you must acknowledge God exists. What I'm aiming at, is that every person I've interacted with so far about the subject, believes SOME things, and not a single one of them was able to somehow show how his set of beliefs is superior to any other. This means whenever I see someone telling someone else that belief in God is "stupid" or "illogical", I get pissed off, especially if I know that someone else hasn't studied philosophy, and will probably actually feel attacked by those nonsense arguments.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Guest]

Generally it's better in arguments to treat the existence of God as a postulate (a starting point which is held true by the debator) rather than a theorem, unless the actual point of the argument is to prove the existence of God.

Beginning with "God exists" as one of the premises is certainly as acceptable as beginning with any other statement. The validity of a formal argument is not dependent on the truth value of its premises. (Note: A valid argument that has true premises is called a sound argument)

The real question is: What are the statements that can be proved by an argument using "God exists" as one of its premises, that cannot be proved if that premise is removed?

[extropalopakettle]

A few little tangential (to the current discussion - nothing to do with anime or porn) personal observation about so many discussions about the existence or non-existence of a supernatural force (God):

I've noticed many who defend their belief that their is no God note, among other things, the fact that science has explained so much of the origins of the universe and of life, that there is just no cause to believe in a God. They're not stupid enough to use this as an argument against the existence of a God, though some might think it counters what they attribute as a an invalid reason that many have for believing in God. They're not stupid enough to use this as an argument against the existence of a God, or at least will quickly correct themselves if they do and are called on it, yet, I often get the distinct sense that this looms large in their belief system: Science is Great - Science can explain all - there is no mystery in the universe that, if not already explained by science, will not eventually be explained.

Now, as I said, these are tangential observations. None of this goes to a proof that God exists.

There are a couple of problems I have with those who have such strong and pure faith in science (yes, it is pure faith) as to believe it can explain all mysteries.

1) The origins of the universe.
2) The nature of consciousness.

If you assume an initial condition of nothingness - no matter, energy, space, time, or anything - not even any physical laws - you can't explain how a universe comes into existence. So, there's always a big bit of mystery about the fact that there were some initial conditions that happened to be favorable to producing what we see around us. Now, this might not be such a big mystery. You could use a kind of anthropic principle, along with a view that the universe - the collection of all possible universes, really - is purely hypothetical. In other words, if (hypothetically) the initial conditions were X, X' would logically result, and if the initial conditions were Y, Y' would logically result. What is the difference between the idea of resulting universe X' - the full idea, complete in every detail - and the real thing? So which one of all possible universes do we find ourselves in? Certainly one like ours. Actually, ours (not just one like it).

The nature of consciousness, however, is the big one. This was touched on in the "Evolutionary Hotseat" thread, starting here, and going on for several pages. It's just a plain simple fact that there is no conceivable way science could ever explain consciousness (sticking to reasonable definitions of the words "science", "explain" and "conciousness"), yet it's the most fundamental and salient aspect of our day-to-day existence. It's right there in front of our faces (figuratively speaking - who can locate it?) every day, yet it's fundamentally different than anything that science could conceivably observe, let alone explain. To reiterate, if it's not clear: it's not simply that science has not yet explained this, but that the thing to be explained here is fundamentally different than the kinds of things that science can explain and still be science. It is a great mystery, right in front of everyone's face, and so many people are completely oblivious to it.

Again, just observations.

[Aarondalf]

Antrax, a religious person might well say that, and may well be right too. But they would also be using reason to make their points, and hence reason would ALSO be a prerequisite for the discussion. I just happen to believe that a god is not needed, whereas we both would think reason would. Doesnt prove my point at all, just saying that my premise is needed by both people (in my opinion).

Also, I never said that believing in God was stupid or illogical. I'm agnostic. I don't see how anyone can say there absolutely MUST be a god, but I can see how they could think it is likely enough for that to be their belief. If someone were to come up to me and say 'hey, we finally proved God doesn't exist' I would say: Wow... ok, I guess that makes sense. But if they were to say 'We finally proved God DOES exist' I would say: Wow, ok... I should have known, its so obvious.

(I'm swaying more to the side of there being some kind of God)

But I do say, quite regularly, that is is both stupid and illogical to (fully) believe in say.. Christianity or Judaism.

Extro:

Your points are some of those for why I am agnostic and not atheist.

It is true that it takes faith to believe science will eventually explain all (I dont think it will) just like it takes faith to believe in a God.

Both those things cant be proven by science right now (and probably never will), but, just like in the past was done, you can't just assume everything not provable is because of God.

They are interesting points that I love talking about however.

[extro...]

[Aarondalf]

Yep, I agree.

That there are metaphysical things, I'm pretty sure of. Whether it's a god, I don't know.

But when people start saying 'sex out of marriage is wrong because God sent down a magical bunch of laws that we must all follow or we'll go to a place with fire and a devil and pitchforks getting stuck in our butts' that I start to think: 'Ohhhhkay.... Off to the luney bin with you'.

[Samadhi]

[Antrax]

Aarondalf, I can demonstrate a viewpoint that is both logical and orthodox Jewish (done it on another board), if you're curious. I don't believe there's any inherent contradiction there.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Aarondalf]

Please do.

[Antrax]

Okay. I believe in the Jewish Orthodox God, that the bible (the "old testament") is his living word to us, and that the rabbis have been instilled with Godly power allowing them to correctly interperet the said bible.
I believe in the principle of contradiction for any non-God entity.
I believe in the principle of induction for any non-God entity.
I believe in sensory input.
I hold a western-liberal moral values system, with the exception that "doing what God says to = good" overrides any other consideration.

Fire away.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Aarondalf]

Ok, so maybe there is no logical contradiction that I can see... but what REASONS do you have for believing that is the way things are?

Your logic can be applied to an infinite number of religions. What makes the Jewish faith the 'correct' one?

[extro...]

[Antrax]

[Aarondalf]

Faith.

See, here is the difference with a 'faith' in science. Science is used to explain things. It changes all the time. Theories we have now may be incomplete. Everyone knows that. No scientist is crazy enough to say 'every current theory is correct'.

But most religious people grew up 'knowing' that religion to be true. You grew up Jewish, thinking that you are part of God's special people. Christians grow up knowing that they are the true believers and the only ones going to heaven.

I had to study religion in school, so I know about the Jewish faith, just as I know about Chirstianity.

There arent any concrete pieces of evidence to support either.

When you get told that you are special as a child you tend to believe it, and then even later in life you just accept that is true. For you, I can understand why you would have such a strong inner belief that Judaism is true, its been with you your whole life, and it makes you out to be special. Its also the one which has always been portrayed in a positive light, with few debates about it, wheras I'm sure you've heard lots more of the 'failings' of Christianity.

From an outsiders point of view, both are complete bullshit and make very little sense. Thats why I find it strange that even with all that being said about you having it from birth, that you STILL believe it.

It's the only topic I've ever seen you take a side to illogically.