dimreepr Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 1 minute ago, Genady said: Does it? No, that's the point...
Genady Posted February 21, 2023 Author Posted February 21, 2023 9 minutes ago, dimreepr said: No, that's the point... This is what I think, too.
dimreepr Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, Genady said: This is what I think, too. Then @iNow is right to be annoyed with our bickering.
Intoscience Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 23 hours ago, Genady said: This is even worse. Now you decide for other people what their opinion should've been Surprised? This is quite a common occurrence from people who assume they know more than most.
Genady Posted February 21, 2023 Author Posted February 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Then @iNow is right to be annoyed with our bickering. Sure, he is.
Intoscience Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Then @iNow is right to be annoyed with our bickering. dimreeper, You enjoy the bickering and that's why you provoke people in the first off. Shame really because you are clearly an intelligent person, often with great insights and differing perspectives. You mostly annoy me, but in a silly sort of way I quite like you.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 Atheism is a position taken by some to the question of whether there is a GOD. It was likely born out of the success of the scientific revolution that established the power of reason and experiment to understand how things actually worked. Belief in GOD does fail when confronted with reason and experiment but belief in GOD, to my understanding, is associated with light-side traits. Light-side traits being the traits that psychologists recently developed as a opposite version of the dark triad traits. And so, I believe atheism can be due to someone's devotion to scientific thinking, which has proven to be very successful but of course, there can be psychological factors that can lead someone to be more likely to be atheist also, though I am not an expert in the psychological factors associated with atheism and of course, atheism is not just better in every way to religion, because light-side traits can be important for society.
Peterkin Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 27 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: but of course, there can be psychological factors that can lead someone to be more likely to be atheist also, How about logical and moral factors? I was 12 and didn't care a jot about science when I read that bit in the NT where Jesus ends a bunch of demons into an innocent herd of pigs, which stampede over a cliff as a result. As a moral child, brought up in the christian tradition, I considered that action profoundly wrong. I don't think I was the only one put off by christians contradicting themselves and breaking their own rules, or disbelieving in a perfect being who contradicts himself and breaks his own rules. The religious narrative needs a much stricter editor!
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 28 minutes ago, Peterkin said: How about logical and moral factors? I was 12 and didn't care a jot about science when I read that bit in the NT where Jesus ends a bunch of demons into an innocent herd of pigs, which stampede over a cliff as a result. As a moral child, brought up in the christian tradition, I considered that action profoundly wrong. I don't think I was the only one put off by christians contradicting themselves and breaking their own rules, or disbelieving in a perfect being who contradicts himself and breaks his own rules. The religious narrative needs a much stricter editor! I do agree that religion is a huge collection of various teachings, some of which do not stand up to scrutiny and modern sensibilities and so we must push back when there is a case that injustice is happening. The tricky question is often what is the ground for which our conviction stands on. Is it to reduce suffering as far as possible? Is it general consensus as to what is right or wrong? And even with a firm ground, sometimes one ultimate value is pitted against another ultimate value, and so what do we do when ultimate values clash in a given situation? The real world is often filled with more questions then answers, partly why I think lawyers are always busy and are well paid.
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 6 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: The tricky question is often what is the ground for which our conviction stands on. The tricky answer is, truth. It is often hard to find, but it is the ultimate ultimate value.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 41 minutes ago, Genady said: The tricky answer is, truth. It is often hard to find, but it is the ultimate ultimate value. I understand what you mean and I know that if you believe in rationality, then Immanuel Kant is the thinker to read but your statement begs the question of whether things like human rights and sovereignty are reducible to truth or are actually more a reflection of the good side of human nature. If the ultimate ultimate value is truth, then we should be able to reason up, like in Euclid's elements, one truth to the next to the next, till we also arrive at human rights and sovereignty, but I can't say I have any clue what that looks like. If the goal is not to do that, then truth as a ultimate ultimate value is scary.
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 21 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: human rights and sovereignty are reducible to truth or are actually more a reflection of the good side of human nature. This is a wrong dichotomy. There are more options than "good side of human nature." For example, it might be a local and temporary opinion. The dichotomy is, either it is or it is not truth. I don't know the answer. If it is, fine. If not, it might be scary for people with this opinion, but it might be fine with other people in other times. We will die. This is truth, scary or not.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 7 minutes ago, Genady said: This is a wrong dichotomy. There are more options than "good side of human nature." For example, it might be a local and temporary opinion. The dichotomy is, either it is or it is not truth. I don't know the answer. If it is, fine. If not, it might be scary for people with this opinion, but it might be fine with other people in other times. We will die. This is truth, scary or not. We will die, but more importantly, we get to live. Most people nowadays get good lives, we should want even more to have good lives. It is a shame if we lessen our unique opportunity alive by longing for more. We get what we get and appreciating whatever it is we are able to obtain is what matters.
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: We will die, but more importantly, we get to live. Most people nowadays get good lives, we should want even more to have good lives. It is a shame if we lessen our unique opportunity alive by longing for more. We get what we get and appreciating whatever it is we are able to obtain is what matters. I agree with all, except the underlined part. If that part is not true, then "we" is a minority.
dimreepr Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 52 minutes ago, Genady said: This is a wrong dichotomy. There are more options than "good side of human nature." For example, it might be a local and temporary opinion. The dichotomy is, either it is or it is not truth. I don't know the answer. If it is, fine. If not, it might be scary for people with this opinion, but it might be fine with other people in other times. We will die. This is truth, scary or not. Indeed, although I had to read your posts in the truth conversation twice, once with me spec's off. I think Nietzsche spent his life, once he lost his faith, trying to find a replacement for God, for the athiest.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Indeed, although I had to read your posts in the truth conversation twice, once with me spec's off. I feel Nietzsche is very disagreeable in a personality psychology way. Immanuel Kant is more my taste because he is way more agreeable in a personality psychology way.
dimreepr Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: I feel Nietzsche is very disagreeable in a personality psychology way. Immanuel Kant is more my taste because he is way more agreeable in a personality psychology way. What did Kant say about religion?
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What did Kant say about religion? To my knowledge, he felt that his parents benefited greatly from religion but he was naturally very rational and so he sought to ground religious beliefs in reason. That to me, indicates that he is more agreeable than Nietzsche.
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 49 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Indeed, although I had to read your posts in the truth conversation twice, once with me spec's off. I think Nietzsche spent his life, once he lost his faith, trying to find a replacement for God, for the athiest. It's nice that we agree. I just don't know what I suppose to do with the quoted statement. I can't discuss anything with that guy, as he is not a member of SFn.
dimreepr Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 5 minutes ago, Genady said: I just don't know what I suppose to do with the quoted statement. That's up to you. 8 minutes ago, Genady said: I can't discuss anything with that guy, as he is not a member of SFn. We could discuss how your interpretion of his work differs from mine, or we could discuss how he basically answer's the OP, with his body of work.
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: That's up to you. We could discuss how your interpretion of his work differs from mine, or we could discuss how he basically answer's the OP, with his body of work. Yes, we could. I just don't find it interesting.
geordief Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 6 hours ago, Genady said: It's nice that we agree. I just don't know what I suppose to do with the quoted statement. I can't discuss anything with that guy, as he is not a member of SFn. You could ask Chat Gpt? Or just interrogate the quote.It might give you a better answer than its author. "Disciple of truth " has a messaianic ring to it imo
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 12 minutes ago, geordief said: Or just interrogate the quote I already did. Checked if the punctuation mistake is its inherent feature.
geordief Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, Genady said: I already did. Checked if the punctuation mistake is its inherent feature. Not inherent seemingly as it is a translation. (I know sfa about the man's work...I think he lost his mind in the end)
Genady Posted February 28, 2023 Author Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, geordief said: Not inherent seemingly as it is a translation. (I know sfa about the man's work...I think he lost his mind in the end) Even in translation, it has been introduced by a creator of the meme. (I despise memes.)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now