Political Theory

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Nitroadict — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:00:50 GMT

:the ignostic sits back and eats popcorn:

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Ego — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:49:07 GMT

I'm atheist, but I do hope God exists. My only point was that regardless of whether He exists, I see absolutely no reason to worshipping Him; the desire for others' attention seems to be a very human thing.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Niccolò — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:32:11 GMT

Ego:

Ignored the word "flawed", then. Why would God create beings and want to their worship?

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

I said I don't know if "care" is the correct word. I wouldn't apply words of humanity to a being that is separate from them. I believe "care" is a weak way to refer to God's ambitions and emotions.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Niccolò — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:28:23 GMT

Paul:

But it's not evidence of anything. Not unless you can prove it's real.

Except it has been proven to be real...

You've never seen a stage magician?

Wow.. Grasping on straws are we?

It doesn't take any skill to cut a heart out of person; and it's not a full heart anyway, just a little piece (assuming it's heart at all).

Oh no, it is a full heart and it certainly is a heart as the testing showed in 1971 and in 1973 by the WHO.

Actually, it takes a great deal of skill to cut out a heart without accidentally tearing it.

Doesn't seem terribly unlikely to me. Far more likely than that it used to be a piece of bread! But there are other examples of tissues not decaying, etc.; I don't know what conditions are required.

The heart and blood were left out in the atmosphere with no special preservations for over half a millenium.

Well, I gave him the chance!! (seriously, I really did get a piece of bread, etc.). You're saying he wishes to reveal himself to that monk in 700, but not to me? Or to anyone else who does the experiment. Seems a tad unfair...

His revelation to the monk was a revelation to you. You simply reject it.

In any case, again, it doesn't seem important for God to reveal Himself to those that already reject Him. He's not a magician to do tricks for all to see. He's the Holy Lord Our God.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Ego — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:31:05 GMT

Brainpolice, if you don't acknowledge that a system in which the majority of individuals can vote themselves "free" money, paid for by a minority of individuals is more self-perpetuating than a system in which the majority of individuals can vote to send their brothers, husbands, and friends to die in foreign wars, paid for by every individual roughly evenly, there isn't much more to say.

I will comment about the NAP and how it applies to wars: this discussion was played it in the Trolley thread, but I harming human shields doesn't mean you're violating the NAP; it means the people using the human shields are violating it.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Len Budney — Sat, 10 May 2008 03:59:19 GMT

Why would God create beings and want to their worship?

You're asking for a logical explanation of a particular being's subjective values. As well ask why I like curry, or why my son likes baseball. Sentient creatures have subjective preferences, and they can't be reduced to a syllogism.

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

I can't speak for Nick, but it is fair to observe that an alien being may or may not see things as we do. From the alien's perspective, we might be potential friends, or potential food, or insignificant as a bug, or an interesting specimen, or an infestation harming the whale population that the alien really cares about. So asking whether the alien "cares" about us may not even be meaningful outside our own frame of reference.

--Len

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Ego — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:29:53 GMT

Niccolò:

Ego:

Do you have any theories as to why an all-powerful all-knowing God would create legions of flawed creatures and desire to be worshipped by them? Or is that mischaracterizing the Christian position?

What's a flawed creature? A wanting one? Well, I don't believe this is the definition of a "flawed" creature. In any case, you're assuming that a very deterministic God who controls every facet of existence; He doesn't. He only controls that which He wishes to control - usually very little.

As far as the "Christian position," there are many of those. Which are you referring to? I consider myself more Kierkegaardian in thought.

Ignored the word "flawed", then. Why would God create beings and want their worship?

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

majevska — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:16:52 GMT

hahaha sectarian religious debates are funny. In my opinion, Niccolo is in the lead by virtue of reading Kierkegaard.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Inquisitor — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:39:10 GMT

As a general request, I would like for you all to remain respectful toward one another, lest I have to start moderating this thread. Personal attacks are superfluous and in no way contribute to the discussion.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Len Budney — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:58:18 GMT

Paul:
Len Budney:
Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

Nobody ever suggested that I go around sending $100 to people, but Niccolò did suggest that God goes around turning bread into meat..

To be clear, I'm not knocking your post as a theist. Were I an atheist, I'd still knock your frivolous "experiment." Niccolò didn't state the conditions under which God supposedly does this, so your experiment is invalid anyway. Had Niccolò suggested that God always turns bread into meat whenever anyone wishes for it, your experiment would have proven that Niccolò's assertion is incorrect. Which you could prove more easily by spectometry of a communion wafer received from a priest at mass, which would prove it to be bread, which would provoke Niccolò to claim that it's "chemically" bread but "mystically" meat, or some such nonsense. By the same direct approach, you could poke holes in all manner of silly Catholic superstitions.

I merely point out that none of that is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of non-human, non-terrestrial sentience, including anything from ETs to gods to the God of Abraham. (Also note: calling Him "the God of Ahraham and Niccolò" begs the question whether Abraham and Niccolò worshiped the same God. Abraham might take offense at that implication, were he here to do so.)

--Len.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Paul — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:49:36 GMT

Len Budney:

Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

Nobody ever suggested that I go around sending $100 to people, but Niccolò did suggest that God goes around turning bread into meat (in fact, that this happens on a regular and predictable basis...just not usually when anyone can see it...)

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Len Budney — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:45:44 GMT

I spent several hours more or less actively doubting that the God of Abraham (and Niccolò) would turn my piece of bread into a lump of meat. And sure enough, He didn't.

Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

--Len

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Paul — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:00:57 GMT

Niccolò:

I'm using it as evidence of supernatural phenomenon that coincides with the existence of God.

But it's not evidence of anything. Not unless you can prove it's real.

Niccolò:

As far as your objections go,

1. The story goes that the Priest only turned around for a moment - as traditional Mass usually facilitates - and so the idea that he could just, voila, get a heart and a pint of blood from thin air without divine presence is a little difficult to work with.

You've never seen a stage magician?

Niccolò:

2. To actually cut a perfectly full heart out of a human being takes quite a great deal of skill and precision that would have been unheard of in those days.

It doesn't take any skill to cut a heart out of person; and it's not a full heart anyway, just a little piece (assuming it's heart at all).

Niccolò:

3. Even today, the heart and the blood have not disintegrated. Why? Well, you could suggest that there are preservatives, but those were tested for. You could also suggest that the Church just switches out the hearts every day, but that too seems unlikely.

Doesn't seem terribly unlikely to me. Far more likely than that it used to be a piece of bread! But there are other examples of tissues not decaying, etc.; I don't know what conditions are required.

Niccolò:

Again, I will proclaim this as evidence, not proof, that God does exist - or at least a supernatural being exists - and that He does wish to reveal Himself to us.

Well, I gave him the chance!! (seriously, I really did get a piece of bread, etc.). You're saying he wishes to reveal himself to that monk in 700, but not to me? Or to anyone else who does the experiment. Seems a tad unfair...

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Niccolò — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:41:27 GMT

Paul:

Niccolò:

God doesn't need to prove Himself to you. If you are not willing to take the dozens of miracles in Europe that could not be disproven by scientists and professors, then that's just too bad.

"Could not be disproven" is an entirely different thing than "has been proven". You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot, etc. Take your piece of heart tissue for example: assuming you believe the scientist they claim examined it is who they say he is, did an honest job, and found what they say he found, etc., and it really is a piece of human heart muscle and some blood, how do you know it's the same piece of material that's been there since 700? Even if it is the same, how do you know that it was previously a piece of bread? By far the most likely explanation is that the monk pulled a little sleight-of-hand to impress whomever was watching. But, of course, it's impossible to prove it wasn't a piece of bread, too - for the same reason you can't disprove the teapot hypothesis. To believe something unless it's "disproven" is really absurd (and the religious mind tends to continue to believe things for a considerable period of time even if they have been solidly disproven!)

I am not using the Miracle at Lanciano as a proof.

I'm using it as evidence of supernatural phenomenon that coincides with the existence of God.

As far as your objections go,

1. The story goes that the Priest only turned around for a moment - as traditional Mass usually facilitates - and so the idea that he could just, voila, get a heart and a pint of blood from thin air without divine presence is a little difficult to work with.

2. To actually cut a perfectly full heart out of a human being takes quite a great deal of skill and precision that would have been unheard of in those days.

3. Even today, the heart and the blood have not disintegrated. Why? Well, you could suggest that there are preservatives, but those were tested for. You could also suggest that the Church just switches out the hearts every day, but that too seems unlikely.

Again, I will proclaim this as evidence, not proof, that God does exist - or at least a supernatural being exists - and that He does wish to reveal Himself to us.

Re: My Concept Of Anarchy

Niccolò — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:30:55 GMT

Nitroadict:

What is "God"? How do you define, "God"? If "God" is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'God' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Well, I couldn't resist since we're well off-topic.

First, great, now we use the Matrix for theology too.

Second, no. The telelogical sense is much higher than the aesthetic sense. Indeed, it's higher than the ethical.