The Problem of Evil

[.Marik]

Look at my posts on defining evil.

Look at your responses.

I'm looking at everything you said, including the entire part of mine about how mainstream society decides traditional rules, which all share the common groundwork today in socieities that practice Abrahamic belief systems. Then I'm repeating how you're not understanding. Then I'm making blatant comparisions, then I ran out of energy.

You keep linking me to MINORITIES. Who don't make decisions regarding traditions and customs they've all been following for hundreds of years.

Nobody cares about the minority, or at least not as much in comparision with the majority.

.Marik
1. I don't find anything preposterous about that claim. He must by definition, know everything, that is what it means to be omniscient. If he is not aware of something, then he is not God.

2. Your second point is white noise to me.

3. I don't see the point you are trying to make. If morality does concern particular emotions or desires, then a benevolent deity would have the desires that are determined to be good, for that is what it would mean to be benevolent. If we can discern that he either lacks the knowledge of evil, he lacks good desires, or he lacks the ability the act on those desires, then the being we are talking about is not God. If no such being exists, we can determine that via modus tollens from the lack of action of the presupposed God.

1. I'm surprised. You claimed I understood nothing.

2. It makes complete and logical sense.

3. What if he intentionally leaves those evil desires in our materialistic lives? It proves my second point.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I'm looking at everything you said, including the entire part of mine about how mainstream society decides traditional rules, which all share the common groundwork today in socieities that practice Abrahamic belief systems. Then I'm repeating how you're not understanding. Then I'm making blatant comparisions, then I ran out of energy.

You keep linking me to MINORITIES. Who don't make decisions regarding traditions and customs they've all been following for hundreds of years.

THAT'S NOT MY POINT?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!

Nobody cares about the minority, or at least not as much in comparision with the majority.

What is it with you and blanket statements?

2. It makes complete and logical sense.

But it strays from my point.

3. What if he intentionally leaves those evil desires in our materialistic lives? It proves my second point.

Remember, bible-wise, god never intended to create evil (read the "adam & eve" part of the bible)

 

[.Marik]

But it strays from my point.



Remember, bible-wise, god never intended to create evil (read the "adam & eve" part of the bible)

2. I suppose. It doesn't exactly completely retract, though.

3. That is true. But then he was betrayed, and evil, the opposite of God on a scale, was created. He was certainly aware of it, but according to the Bible, Satan will never win, but he is powerful and it would take centuries for him to fall.

That's indicating evil is indeed, a separate force that God cannot necessarily control.

*Edit* You've written multiple posts that it's your point. They're quite numerous.

Also, you're making equally blatant blanket statements.

Let me enjoy my relaxed and not sober state. I will continue later on.

 

[Dre89]

But that is my point. God cannot define whether evil exists or not.

He's a completely separate entity, him being there doesn't disprove evil existing.

Theists don't say that because God exists, there are no evils. The reason why the question is controversial is because if God is posited to be the creator of our universe, then it appears contradictory to skeptics that a good God would allow so much suffering. That's a perfectly plausible challenge by the skeptic.

This manner of thinking is as subjective as your entire debate.


I'm not upset or offended in the slightest. Just stating what my understanding of this subject is.

Personally? I don't believe in God. There is no "personal" for me.

Well being an atheist, if you're not going to argue that a good God and evil are incompatible, why did you participate?

That's better.

I didn't explicitly say you were posting an argument. To my understanding, you can't post arguments because we have no foundation of proof either aspect of our debate even exist. It's therefore opinions being justified as arguments.

I hope you're not one of these 'only science proves truths' people. That position is self-defeating, because to verify that scientific methodology deduces truth, you cannot apply scientific methodology, for that is ciruclar. It was philosophical logic that verified that scientific methodology deduced truth. So given the fact that I have just shown that philosophy can deduce truth, I do think such debates as this are valid, for they can deduce truth, just that not everyone will agree with it.

Let's be honest, none of us are too educated on the subject. Except AltF4.

Alt isn't educated in philosophy to the best of my understanding. In fact, he thinks that God arguments shouldn't be purely philosophical, when in fact they are purely philosophical, science can't prove or disprove anything in philosophy of religion debates. Thinking that science or any other field has any weight in philosophy of religion is like saying I can use theology to disprove evolution. But I agree none of us are really educated enough, but if we took that stance there as well not even be a DH because no one on this site is educated enough to have any kind of debate, so we just debate anyway.

I didn't either. But now I am.

It's not a moral philosophy thread. It's a thread I'm reasonably saying we can't disprove or prove. That's my stance.

But to say that is to disprespect logic. The argument for atheism through the Problem of Evil is objectively better than say an atheist saying he's an atheist merely because he doesn't like being told what to do.

Athiests or religious followers argue whether God can exist with evil being present.

I was using a sarcastic streak, that if God did exist, or didn't exist, then a said individual needs to enlighten me, because that's probably never going to be even remotely recorded as evidence, or figured out like a mathematical problem.

You assume something must be emprically verified for it be concluded truthful. As I said before, philosophical logic was needed to conclude that empirical evidence was meritous. In other words, other methodologies outside of empiricism deduce truth.

Nice assumptions. Like before.

I'm not throwing out any personal idealogies of mine. I barely understand the topic, but it's such a subjective one, with no clear and crystalized intent on proving anything.

Hypothetically, it's discovered God does or doesn't exist. Evil exists with God? It doesn't?

What do we call hatred, ****, murder, torture, and other savage primitive behaviour? Evil.

What if you were considered different back in the ancient days? Evil. Could God exist in such an atmosphere?

Or, would it be more plausible, that God does exist, but since said entity has no physical contact with our world, let alone interaction, that He's also separate from evil?

So, a harmonized balance. This is just my stance on it; but you can continue.

I'm just using a manner of thinking which neutralizes everything. It seems to make sense.

But again you're answering the wrong question. The question is whether a good, personal God (theistic God) is probable to exist when there is so much suffering in the world. What you've described is a deistic God (an impersonal deity who actualises all creation, but participates no further in it), so that is not relevant to the question.

What you seem to be arguing is that deism is more logical than theism, but that's another debate.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

3. That is true. But then he was betrayed, and evil, the opposite of God on a scale, was created. He was certainly aware of it, but according to the Bible, Satan will never win, but he is powerful and it would take centuries for him to fall.

That's indicating evil is indeed, a separate force that God cannot necessarily control.

There is nowhere in the bible where it says the god was aware of evil when he created the world.

And i was countering a point that said that evil was created by god. It wasn't.

 

[rvkevin]

.Marik
1. I only addressed you with respect to one comment, that hardly can be generalized to everything.

2. Let me see if I understand this. We cannot know that something is good without contrasting it with something bad to the extent that it is currently. Is that your point? Or is it that there is some equilibrium, such that each good act must be balanced by an equally bad act? Both points seem absurd to me.

3. Then he doesn't have good desires, which means he's not God.

 

[.Marik]

There is nowhere in the bible where it says the god was aware of evil when he created the world.

And i was countering a point that said that evil was created by god. It wasn't.

@ Dre: Dre, you write novels every single post. Lord.

I'm also very interested in philosophy, but they're not exactly used to govern nations.

All the points I have made have been revolved around God existing with evil, unless there's the fact God doesn't exist.

Since of his infinite properties, he can realistically eliminate evil. I can't imagine how evil could not be compatible with God.

@ Dark Horse: He was aware of it when Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree Satan seduced them on.

They were banished from the Garden of Eve, but he provided clothes for immediate survival. God is the polar opposite of evil, of course that's true. I never suggested it.

@ rvkevin:

1. Sure.

2. Can you explain how they're absurd? I'm merely curious.

3. Perhaps evil is a force he cannot necessarily control? Or at least not at the moment.

Satan is powerful, but for him to be defeated, it would naturally take time. Or God simply doesn't exist.

That's my favourite theory.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre, you write novels every single post. Lord.

Is that a bad thing?

All the points I have made have been revolved around God existing with evil, unless there's the fact God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist. I'm playing devil's advocate here (kinda)

Since of his infinite properties, he can realistic eliminate evil. I can't imagine how evil could not be compatible with God.

The reason is because there is too much evil in the world. If there is one bee, it is easy to get rid of, but if there is a swarm of bees, it is much harder.

He was aware of it when Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree Satan seduced them on.

No he wasn't. It was said afterward that he was looking for them.

They were banished from the Garden of Eve, but he provided clothes for immediate survival.

No he didn't. It was never said were they got the clothes.

 

[.Marik]

Is that a bad thing?



God doesn't exist. I'm playing devil's advocate here (kinda)



The reason is because there is too much evil in the world. If there is one bee, it is easy to get rid of, but if there is a swarm of bees, it is much harder.




No he wasn't. It was said afterward that he was looking for them.



No he didn't. It was never said were they got the clothes.

The colour code is impossible to quote, seriously.

I'll address your points by paragraph.

Not a bad thing. Just a bad thing when you're high.

I provided two examples, or versions of my argument that God can exist with evil, or simply the fact God doesn't exist. That essentially means we agree.

I have a feeling you're Christian, or have been brought up in a Christian environment?

He can definitely eliminate evil, but Satan is also a powerful force responsible for evil.

Both exist in an equal amount, which makes the most sense.

Point 4 and 5, I studied religion from one of the smartest teachers in existance.

Point 4 you might be right on. Not too sure.

Point 5, I've read it directly from the Bible, and I've studied the assignments, which contain the same idea. No, I don't remember where the exact quotations are found.

I won't bother responding, I'll continue it tomorrow morning if you guys post that much.

 

[rvkevin]

2. Can you explain how they're absurd? I'm merely curious.

We cannot know that something is good without contrasting it with something bad to the extent that it is currently.

Imagine we manage to end world hunger. We are able to make Africa one of the most fertile lands, and deaths by starvation never occur. If we need death by starvation to determine that having an ample food supply is good, then once we solve world hunger, the act of maintaining that good is not good because it is not accompanied by the contrasted evil. Being well fed would then not be a good, which seems absurd. Under one situation being well fed is a good, in the other, it is not a good. The only thing that has changed is the elimination of failing to fulfill a certain desire. If fulfilling the desire under the first scenario is a good, then it should also be good in the second.

Or is it that there is some equilibrium, such that each good act must be balanced by an equally bad act?

Good and evil is not a zero-sum system.

 

[.Marik]

We cannot know that something is good without contrasting it with something bad to the extent that it is currently.

Imagine we manage to end world hunger. We are able to make Africa one of the most fertile lands, and deaths by starvation never occur. If we need death by starvation to determine that having an ample food supply is good, then once we solve world hunger, the act of maintaining that good is not good because it is not accompanied by the contrasted evil. Being well fed would then not be a good, which seems absurd. Under one situation being well fed is a good, in the other, it is not a good. The only thing that has changed is the elimination of failing to fulfill a certain desire. If fulfilling the desire under the first scenario is a good, then it should also be good in the second.

Infertile lands resulting in starvation isn't evil, but I still understand the concept you're trying to explain.

The act of maintaining that hunger is good, because even though it isn't accompanied by evil, it once was.

In the vague generalization of good and evil being balanced, there are several factors that are responsible for maintaining that specified balance.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I provided two examples, or versions of my argument that God can exist with evil, or simply the fact God doesn't exist. That essentially means we agree.

Though we might agree in actuality, i'm playing devil's advocate.

I have a feeling you're Christian, or have been brought up in a Christian environment?

Ding Ding.

Point 5, I've read it directly from the Bible, and I've studied the assignments, which contain the same idea. No, I don't remember where the exact quotations are found.

I was just taking a guess. I'll take your word for it.

I won't bother responding, I'll continue it tomorrow morning if you guys post that much.

Too bad, 'cause we do.

 

[.Marik]

Though we might agree in actuality, i'm playing devil's advocate.



Ding Ding.



I was just taking a guess. I'll take your word for it.



Too bad, 'cause we do.

Devil's Advocate? I see. Makes sense. Christian? Didn't want to make assumptions.

At least that's what I recall. I don't practice Christianity.

You do? Doesn't repetitive posting get tiresome after a while?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

At least that's what I recall. I don't practice Christianity.

I'm forced to.

You do? Doesn't repetitive posting get tiresome after a while?

Nope. I am bored outta my mind.

 

[Dre89]

Philosophy has an enormous influence on how nations are run. For example, the way western nations are run now is hugely influenced by philosophy on the Enlightenment period.

Schools of thought are forever influencing how our societies are run. For example, John Mill's utilitarianism, a moral theory, was written to be a system of law.

We just don't realise how much philosophy affects our lives, because everything has been normalised to us to the point it all seems self-evident.

You see it in most of the debaters here. Many of them consider themselves enlightened, that they've broken away from the conservative tradition. They live under the illusion that they're individual thinkers.

What they don't realise that most of their beliefs are a result of the last few hundred years of academic thought. The last few hundred years have been characterised by skepticism and materialism. Societr is becoming more and more secular because of the thought that preceeded it many years ago.

That's why I can't really take the secular arguments of a young person seriously, because I know they're just a product of their culture, just a bit more knowledgeable and cynical.

 

[Sieguest]

I would give you proof, but since you say it doesn't matter, ok then. My point is, there is already misrepresentation of U.S. laws which are far more dangerous than then letting a beggar be innocent. My reason isn't "let's add fuel to the fire", it's " why should we care about a petty misrepresentation compared to some other ones?"

Because a misrepresentation is a detriment to us. Saying this one is petty compared to the rest would be like me saying, "involuntary manslaughter is petty compared to capital murder so it should be excused".
Justice is blind. It doesn't regard the circumstances surrounding the crime, it only acknowledges that you performed the crime. And if you performed the crime, you will have to suffer the consequences that a force far more powerful than yourself (the country) will impose upon you.

Those people well off don't need to steal the bread, as they can probably just buy it, but the beggar can't buy it, and that's why he's stealing it.

And the baker can't afford to lose money. Your point?

Wouldn't you want to at least tell somebody that you helped with that?

Hooke did tell people that he helped Newton. Newton didn't want to give him credit, so he took mention of Hooke out of his publishings. It's all in that biography.

Personally, I don't really mind if someone gives credit to me or not about some discovery or anything. I'd rather stay low profile and out of the spotlight.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

That's why I can't really take the secular arguments of a young person seriously, because I know they're just a product of their culture, just a bit more knowledgeable and cynical.

Seriously?

Where do you get off saying something like this? :S

You shouldn't just spout an opinion that crass with no evidence to back it up. Just saying.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Because a misrepresentation is a detriment to us. Saying this one is petty compared to the rest would be like me saying, "involuntary manslaughter is petty compared to capital murder so it should be excused".
Justice is blind. It doesn't regard the circumstances surrounding the crime, it only acknowledges that you performed the crime. And if you performed the crime, you will have to suffer the consequences that a force far more powerful than yourself (the country) will impose upon you.

First of all, the example you used probably isn't the best one for the time. Theivery is very different than thing like 3rd graders & heroin.

In addition, while in theory justice is blind, it usually isn't. Are most court cases voted unanimously?

And the baker can't afford to lose money. Your point?

I'm pretty sure he can. Do any bakeries you see go out of business just becauase of a stolen loaf of bread?

Hooke did tell people that he helped Newton. Newton didn't want to give him credit, so he took mention of Hooke out of his publishings. It's all in that biography.

However, hook probably would've said that he was the reason newborn had to change his theory on gravity.

Also, my biography of newton also never mentions newton changing his theories on gravity, so I doubt it was author's discreetion.

Personally, I don't really mind if someone gives credit to me or not about some discovery or anything. I'd rather stay low profile and out of the spotlight.

what if it could change the world?

 

[Dre89]

Seriously?

Where do you get off saying something like this? :S

You shouldn't just spout an opinion that crass with no evidence to back it up. Just saying.

I showed that-

1. Huge portions or modern philosophy argue materialism/physicalism

2. That the beliefs of today are influenced by the Enlighten Period.

I've shown where the influences are. It's easy to connect the dots and acknowledge that the beliefs of the avergae Joe correlate to what Il isted above. It's foolish for a secular to think they're inidividual thinkers and that they're enlightened, that this culture has finally got it right, becuase this will just be another temporary phase of thinking.

When I say I won't take a young person's secular argument seriously, it's usually because they just assume their beliefs are self-evident and require no justification because their culture has normalsied them.

Take the homosexuality debate for example. It was immediately obvious that everyone I debated with just assumed it was self-evident because their culture had told them so. However, if there was a young pro-homosexuality debater who had clearly though it throughand developed a detailed argument for gays, then I would have taken that seriously.

Do you think it's just a major coincidence that the majority of the DH consists of seculars and atheists? Of course it isn't, that's a result of the thinking of the time.

That's why I don't like when seculars/atheists make the claim that theists are just narrow-minded and only believe thngs because of how they are raised, because chances are most atheists/seculars are guilty of the same thing as well.

 

[rvkevin]

So, we find our stances self-evident because of the culture we are surrounded with...That's why the majority of the DH consists of atheists...

News flash, 80% of the US are theists. Apparently when the majority of a country is theist, it normalizes the minority and makes the minority's arguments appear self-evident to them when they are continuously challenged. Needless to say, I don't find your stance convincing, not to mention fallacious.

 

[Dre89]

What is it with Americans and assuming their country equals the entire western world.

Actually, studies show that most western countries, and developed countries in general are irreligious.

That's taken from the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism.

And yes, secular views have become normalised. for example, the Mardigrah in Australia is a gay and lesbian event, and the media embraces it wholly. There's no controversy portrayed as to whether it is right or wrong, it is just assumed that homosexuality is permissable. It's considered a celebration of gay and lesbian liberation. That's just one example.

Also, theist doesn't necessarily mean practicing theist, or conservative. If America was 80% legitimate theist, Obama probably wouldn't have come into power, considering that he's considered evil by a lot of conservative religions.

 

[Sieguest]

First of all, the example you used probably isn't the best one for the time. Theivery is very different than thing like 3rd graders & heroin.

In addition, while in theory justice is blind, it usually isn't. Are most court cases voted unanimously?

The example shows the flaw in your logic. By trying to justify your action by calling "petty" compared to other actions. By the same token is my example takes something else into account. The actions are different, but the example still holds and you've still made a very flawed defense as to why you can break the law.

And yes, court cases are voted unanimously. Every member of the jury must agree to either a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict or the court is held at a standstill. That is, if a trial with a jury is held. In the U.S. Supreme Court, a verdict is obtained by acquiring the majority (5 out of 9) justices on a decision.

I'm pretty sure he can. Do any bakeries you see go out of business just becauase of a stolen loaf of bread?

Now lets let every other person in the world justify themselves the same way you are. Where's the bakery now?

However, hook probably would've said that he was the reason newborn had to change his theory on gravity.

Also, my biography of newton also never mentions newton changing his theories on gravity, so I doubt it was author's discreetion.

Firstly, no. If you read the biography it says that Hooke stated that he was a part of Newton's groundbreaking discovery, not that he forced to change his theories. We only infer that he may have challenged Newton and caused him to refine his theories due the nature of the relationship between Newton and Hooke.

Secondly, that is an example of author's discretion. To say what goes into a biography isn't at the author's discretion is like saying how a designer designs a house isn't at the designer's discretion.

what if it could change the world?

I wouldn't really care. As long as I know what I've done, I'm fine.

 

[rvkevin]

What is it with Americans and assuming their country equals the entire western world.

Well when you say that something applies to the West, I tend to think that the US is a part of that group. If you think that what you said does not apply to the US if you think the US is an outlier in that group, then I would be satisfied in discontinuing this issue.

Actually, studies show that most western countries, and developed countries in general are irreligious.

That's taken from the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism.

I'm aware of the study, but you would also know that the US is an outlier in the study showing more religiosity than we would have expected compared to its wealth.

And yes, secular views have become normalized. for example, the Mardigrah in Australia is a gay and lesbian event, and the media embraces it wholly. There's no controversy portrayed as to whether it is right or wrong, it is just assumed that homosexuality is permissible. It's considered a celebration of gay and lesbian liberation. That's just one example.

So what? That's not the US, nor the West and does not even remotely represent the US. A gay candidate would lose almost half the population's support the minute he says so, even if he is otherwise sufficiently qualified. The point is that the West is conducive to gay rights, not Australia.

Also, theist doesn't necessarily mean practicing theist, or conservative. If America was 80% legitimate theist, Obama probably wouldn't have come into power, considering that he's considered evil by a lot of conservative religions.

So, your argument is, they're not true theists? That only true theists are conservative? That to be a true theist, you must believe Obama is the anti-Christ (I'm not entirely sure how that one could be divined from theology)? Well, I'll agree, if 80% of the people in the US were conservative, Obama would not have been elected (considering he is a Democrat after all), disregarding the whole no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The example shows the flaw in your logic. By trying to justify your action by calling "petty" compared to other actions. By the same token is my example takes something else into account. The actions are different, but the example still holds and you've still made a very flawed defense as to why you can break the law.

Grrrrr... You win this one

Nah jk, I'm not mad , though my argument is a lost cause here.

And yes, court cases are voted unanimously. Every member of the jury must agree to either a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict or the court is held at a standstill. That is, if a trial with a jury is held. In the U.S. Supreme Court, a verdict is obtained by acquiring the majority (5 out of 9) justices on a decision.

My bad, yes I meant supreme court (they only tell you about the supreme court at my school). At the independence center, in philadelphia, they had a both telling yiu about supreme court cases (one was about the FBI wiretapping a bookie, one was about a guy burning down a flag, I forget what the third one was) and they weren't voted unanimously.

My point is, if it was strictly by the law, wouldn't all of the judge's decisions be the same?

Now lets let every other person in the world justify themselves the same way you are. Where's the bakery now?

The reason why this question was called "one of the hardest questions to answer" is that the theif is an exception to the law, as he couldn't buy it normally.

Firstly, no. If you read the biography it says that Hooke stated that he was a part of Newton's groundbreaking discovery, not that he forced to change his theories. We only infer that he may have challenged Newton and caused him to refine his theories due the nature of the relationship between Newton and Hooke.

Do books you read leave out stuff important to a big event?

Secondly, that is an example of author's discretion. To say what goes into a biography isn't at the author's discretion is like saying how a designer designs a house isn't at the designer's discretion.

My point is, the two biographies were written by different people, and I doubt it being left out in both biographies in hardly coincidental.

I wouldn't really care. As long as I know what I've done, I'm fine.

You have to be the most unselfish person I've ever met. Most people would jump at something like that.

On another note, NaCl's a way better name then shadokupo.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I showed that-

1. Huge portions or modern philosophy argue materialism/physicalism

2. That the beliefs of today are influenced by the Enlighten Period.

I've shown where the influences are. It's easy to connect the dots and acknowledge that the beliefs of the avergae Joe correlate to what Il isted above. It's foolish for a secular to think they're inidividual thinkers and that they're enlightened, that this culture has finally got it right, becuase this will just be another temporary phase of thinking.

When I say I won't take a young person's secular argument seriously, it's usually because they just assume their beliefs are self-evident and require no justification because their culture has normalsied them.

Take the homosexuality debate for example. It was immediately obvious that everyone I debated with just assumed it was self-evident because their culture had told them so. However, if there was a young pro-homosexuality debater who had clearly though it throughand developed a detailed argument for gays, then I would have taken that seriously.

Do you think it's just a major coincidence that the majority of the DH consists of seculars and atheists? Of course it isn't, that's a result of the thinking of the time.

That's why I don't like when seculars/atheists make the claim that theists are just narrow-minded and only believe thngs because of how they are raised, because chances are most atheists/seculars are guilty of the same thing as well.

Obvious garbage is garbage.

I wasn't an atheist until about a year ago. While the trends you show are flashy, this still doesn't remove any of the blatant pomposity in your posts.

"Oh, look @ that secularists and their crazy rock music. Kids these days."

I've never tried to consider myself "A complete rebel against individual thought" as I would consider that an impossibility.

Too good, mah d00d.

As for point one, I don't argue for type of "-ism" in particular. However, I am cognizant of all the things (scientific naturalism anyone?) that some "-isms" has had to offer, including, but not limited to, the device which let me send this message, the connection that send it through, the servers that pick it up, and the screen that lets me read your replies, no matter how gut wringing I consider them to be. :& The point is made pretty clear in this video as well.

As for your homosexuality thing--ch*ld please. There were plenty of posts showing evidence of homosexuality in nature, then you went left of center field and said something along the lines of "Man is above that [methinks you meant nature]," or something along those lines. Correct me on that as needed. I didn't support homosexual rights because "Culture told me to (lollerskates)!" In fact, I still thought is was a choice for a long while until about a year and a half ago. That was after I saw evidence that supported this, not philosophy. You should try that sometime.

Speaking of homosexuality, I saw this video and wanted to know if you could answer the claims on it in a reply below. Thanks in advance.

Though I am an atheist, I wouldn't consider my self close minded. Some days are better than others, of course. But, I'm not gonna knock an idea unless it is absolute balderdash. So, if you have some evidence (LIKE LINKS!) that show that secularism is "JUST A FAD" then by all means show it.

Else, just say it's your opinion and be a bit more truthful. Kthx.

EDIT: I know someone here said that we should try to be civil and treat everyone here with respect--how about not? Respect has to be earned, not granted just because someone is debating in a flowery style. Dre, this video is for you.

 

[Dre89]

Obvious garbage is garbage.

I wasn't an atheist until about a year ago. While the trends you show are flashy, this still doesn't remove any of the blatant pomposity in your posts.

"Oh, look @ that secularists and their crazy rock music. Kids these days."

I've never tried to consider myself "A complete rebel against individual thought" as I would consider that an impossibility.

Too good, mah d00d.


As for point one, I don't argue for type of "-ism" in particular. However, I am cognizant of all the things (scientific naturalism anyone?) that some "-isms" has had to offer, including, but not limited to, the device which let me send this message, the connection that send it through, the servers that pick it up, and the screen that lets me read your replies, no matter how gut wringing I consider them to be. :& The point is made pretty clear in this video as well.

You don't have to have a specific belief for evidence of influence, it's the way of thinking that's been influenced.

I'm not saying I'm completely free from it either, just yesterday I had a debate with my lecturer and he said I make alot of mistakes that most modern philosophers do.

As for your homosexuality thing--ch*ld please. There were plenty of posts showing evidence of homosexuality in nature, then you went left of center field and said something along the lines of "Man is above that [methinks you meant nature]," or something along those lines. Correct me on that as needed. I didn't support homosexual rights because "Culture told me to (lollerskates)!" In fact, I still thought is was a choice for a long while until about a year and a half ago. That was after I saw evidence that supported this, not philosophy. You should try that sometime.

Speaking of homosexuality, I saw this video and wanted to know if you could answer the claims on it in a reply below. Thanks in advance.

Yes, you are wrong on this. I initially said that the evidence was inconclusive, and when hard evidence was presented against my case, I said I'd reconsider my position.

People just keep labelling me narrow-minded because I hold supposedly conservative views, yet I've done some of the most open-minded things a debater could possibly do- commend opposing arguments, get people who don't like my arguments to judge my debates, admit defeat, reconsider my position in the face of hard evidence.

If all that isn't open-minded, then I don't know what is. And if that isn't open-minded, then no one here is open-minded in the slightest.

Though I am an atheist, I wouldn't consider my self close minded. Some days are better than others, of course. But, I'm not gonna knock an idea unless it is absolute balderdash. So, if you have some evidence (LIKE LINKS!) that show that secularism is "JUST A FAD" then by all means show it.

You want me to chronicle the whole history of academia since the the 17th century?

Do you think these 'fads' I'm talking about are only twenty years long or something?

The only people who think the thinking of their time is permanent and not a fad are the ones who haven't studied the schools of thoughts of previous times.

Schools of thought generally have influence for hundreds of years. Considering that it's pretty much known that modernt hought is a result of the Enlightenment period, I don't see what evidence you could provide to suggest otherwise.

And I never said all atheists are narrow-minded. I just think calling a theist narrow-minded becuase he was brought up in a theistic family is hippocritical when alot atheists hold that belief because of their surroundings too.

Else, just say it's your opinion and be a bit more truthful. Kthx.

EDIT: I know someone here said that we should try to be civil and treat everyone here with respect--how about not? Respect has to be earned, not granted just because someone is debating in a flowery style. Dre, this video is for you.

It's not just my opinion, it's essentially known fact that schools of thought influence thinking, and their influence lasts hundreds of years. No academic will tell you otherwise.

Just curious, do you actually believe our current thinking is not just a fad and is permanent? Do you think in 800 years there won't be new modes of though?

I don't want to start a fight, but how many posts of mine have you read? It just seems that the people who criticise me the most are the ones who never even debate me, let alone participate in the same threads.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

You don't have to have a specific belief for evidence of influence, it's the way of thinking that's been influenced.

I'm not saying I'm completely free from it either, just yesterday I had a debate with my lecturer and he said I make alot of mistakes that most modern philosophers do.

Fair enough then. The point's duly noted. I still don't like this tone you give off to "modern philosophy" like it was some sort of taboo.

Yes, you are wrong on this. I initially said that the evidence was inconclusive, and when hard evidence was presented against my case, I said I'd reconsider my position.

People just keep labelling me narrow-minded because I hold supposedly conservative views, yet I've done some of the most open-minded things a debater could possibly do- commend opposing arguments, get people who don't like my arguments to judge my debates, admit defeat, reconsider my position in the face of hard evidence.

If all that isn't open-minded, then I don't know what is. And if that isn't open-minded, then no one here is open-minded in the slightest.

OK, you had a change of heart, and I didn't see it. I apologize for not doing so and rushing to conclusions. Yeah, I can man up too.

You want me to chronicle the whole history of academia since the the 17th century?

Do you think these 'fads' I'm talking about are only twenty years long or something?

The only people who think the thinking of their time is permanent and not a fad are the ones who haven't studied the schools of thoughts of previous times.

Schools of thought generally have influence for hundreds of years. Considering that it's pretty much known that modern thought is a result of the Enlightenment period, I don't see what evidence you could provide to suggest otherwise.

And I never said all atheists are narrow-minded. I just think calling a theist narrow-minded becuase he was brought up in a theistic family is hippocritical when alot atheists hold that belief because of their surroundings too.

Schools of thought having a potential influence on people? Okay. That seems fair.

I didn't call any theist narrow-minded, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. If I did by accident, I apologize in advance.

It's not just my opinion, it's essentially known fact that schools of thought influence thinking, and their influence lasts hundreds of years. No academic will tell you otherwise.

Just curious, do you actually believe our current thinking is not just a fad and is permanent? Do you think in 800 years there won't be new modes of thought?

I don't want to start a fight, but how many posts of mine have you read? It just seems that the people who criticise me the most are the ones who never even debate me, let alone participate in the same threads.

Current thoughts are only that--current. In twenty years, they could be different. If I were a betting man, I would say they would be more progressive, as you can look to history for all the evidence of that. There isn't much more to say.

As for your last sentence...I'm really not gonna get in a fight with you on this. I will say I have read your posts, and they @ times appear as if you were smart trolling with flowery statements which no one can really understand.

*Walks away*

 

[Dre89]

I would say they would be more progressive, as you can look to history for all the evidence of that. There isn't much more to say.

*Walks away*

History actually suggests otherwise. Modern secular views are a regression over two thousand years to those of Ancient Rome, so I disagree with the gradual progression idea.

Thank you for your maturity in your response.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

History actually suggests otherwise. Modern secular views are a regression over two thousand years to those of Ancient Rome, so I disagree with the gradual progression idea.

Thank you for your maturity in your response.

I'm not talking about modern secular views in singularity.

150 years ago, African-Americans were 3/5s of a person. Now, there's one in the White House.

If that isn't progress, tell me what is.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not talking about modern secular views in singularity.

150 years ago, African-Americans were 3/5s of a person. Now, there's one in the White House.

If that isn't progress, tell me what is.

Slavery is the kind of thing I'm talking about though with regards to young people. In all fairness, how many of us here would have endorsed slavery had we lived in that time?

The way I see it, if you're the type of person who embracees your culture's ideals, simply because they're your culture's ideals, then you would have embraced slavery. That's why I don't like when the average Joe criticies the practices of the Middle east, because they then go and watch 4 hours of porn, or spend a lot of money on needless alcohol when there are people starving to death around the world. not realising that they're committing the exact same fallacy as the people they're accusing.

In respone to your argument, that's a moral issue issue, and while I agree that was a change for the better, it's in moral issues that we're regressing back to Ancient Rome, which nullifies your point.


Also, you could consider the world wars, which cost millions of lives, a step backward as well.

The other problem I have with this progression idea is that assumes there is some objective good we're moving towards. The problem for me is, how can we know that? Are you then accepting our current ideals are flawed? And of course the theory is heavily challenged (I would say refuted) by the instances of cultural regression.

In a way, I can understand the thinking behind the cultural progression idea, because it ties in well with evolution, you could argue it is the evolution of ideals so to speak, but I think it isn't true because the reasons stated above.

By the way I just found out a today a prime example of philosophy influencing society. I found out the new teaching-style being implemented in Australian schools (constructivism) is actually based off the philosophy of Descartes.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

150 years ago, African-Americans were 3/5s of a person. Now, there's one in the White House.

If that isn't progress, tell me what is.

Progress is the time, still in the future, when it's not a big deal to have a black man in the White House. Thinking Barack Obama is special because he is black is racism. Your point is valid in context, just adding that in there.

And Dre., you are right about modern thinking going back 2,000 years. There's a book, and I believe it's called "The Decline and Fall of Rome." The reasons given for why Rome collapsed look eerily similar to America today.

 

[Sieguest]

My bad, yes I meant supreme court (they only tell you about the supreme court at my school). At the independence center, in philadelphia, they had a both telling yiu about supreme court cases (one was about the FBI wiretapping a bookie, one was about a guy burning down a flag, I forget what the third one was) and they weren't voted unanimously.

My point is, if it was strictly by the law, wouldn't all of the judge's decisions be the same?

Oh I see.

Not exactly, the judicial system's job is to *interpret* the law. On most cases where there fine line majority is met it is usually where the constitution is fuzzy on whether a certain law is constitutional or not. Most civil disputes such as burglary don't make it to the supreme court as the municipal court easily handles it. If the baker has evidence that you unlawfully came into possession of his bread, your guilty, it's as simple as that.

The reason why this question was called "one of the hardest questions to answer" is that the theif is an exception to the law, as he couldn't buy it normally.

There is no exception to the law except in the case of homicide, and even then a plea of "justified self-defense" is admitting to breaking the law. (Assuming the incident happens in the U.S.)

Do books you read leave out stuff important to a big event?
Some that I have read have. It was a book about Jesse Owens, and they didn't record every single meet that he attended, unlike a website I later found while doing a research paper on him.

My point is, the two biographies were written by different people, and I doubt it being left out in both biographies in hardly coincidental.

It isn't coincidental, and that's because they have no record of the letters to make sure. No one would put anything in a biography about a person if they were not sure that the fact is absolutely true, or else they would come under heavy fire if proven wrong. As I said earlier, it's only inference from what has been given that will lead someone to the conclusion that Hooke challenged and criticized Newton's ideas in those letters.

You have to be the most unselfish person I've ever met. Most people would jump at something like that.

I just don't like camera's and all that publicity stuff.

On another note, NaCl's a way better name then shadokupo.

Having some fun with a friend with this name. lol

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Oh I see.

Not exactly, the judicial system's job is to *interpret* the law. On most cases where there fine line majority is met it is usually where the constitution is fuzzy on whether a certain law is constitutional or not. Most civil disputes such as burglary don't make it to the supreme court as the municipal court easily handles it. If the baker has evidence that you unlawfully came into possession of his bread, your guilty, it's as simple as that.

My point is, even in the side were it was unlawful, there was a person supporting that.

Also, most burglars don't have a good cause for robbing the bank.

Some that I have read have. It was a book about Jesse Owens, and they didn't record every single meet that he attended, unlike a website I later found while doing a research paper on him.

Yes, but did it not leave out the important meets, did it?

It isn't coincidental, and that's because they have no record of the letters to make sure. No one would put anything in a biography about a person if they were not sure that the fact is absolutely true, or else they would come under heavy fire if proven wrong. As I said earlier, it's only inference from what has been given that will lead someone to the conclusion that Hooke challenged and criticized Newton's ideas in those letters.

As another point, while Newton's records were destroyed, Hooke could have written something down somewhere.

See above for another point.

I just don't like camera's and all that publicity stuff.

I don't like it either, and I would jump at something like that.

Having some fun with a friend with this name. lol

I know. It isn't the worst name on smashboards though.