quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
I certainly don't accept that all natural things are "default." Nor do I necessarily accept that religious belief is actually "natural."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
It's pretty easy. Just keep making anklebiter-style interjections like that first thing of yours I quoted.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
I think a natural human state is to be curious and seek answers. As is making up answers for that which we do not know. Your claim of 99% (which is doubtful) merely shows that we have a propensity to create stories to mask our ignorance.
Unless you're claiming that the entire 99% have been correct in thinking that their god/gods have influenced their belief.
I agree the natural state is to seek answers. In the absence of scientific answers, belief in the supernatural is understandable. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power? I wouldn't suggest that 99% have been correct in their belief, rather 99% have had an inherent belief in a higher power. Even self proclaimed christians will vehemently disagree about specifics with other christians. Where the vast majority of humans diverge is where their individual hope/interpretation/ideals differ. Engaging in an argument with an atheist about Christianity is pointless. Christianity is just another manifestation of man's desire to explain the existence of God. If we can't agree that we need a highway built, why are we arguing about the architectual style of a particular bridge? Why would the suspension bridge promoter argue with the person who doesn't even want the highway. My attempt has been to bring this back to the fundamental point that there is an inherant belief in god, yet a difference in interpretation. It's pointless to argue interpretation with someone who denies the language.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Here's the nature vs nurture argument. An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world. Not in an inherently atheist country but in an entirely neutral environment. Would Tarzan be an athiest?
quote:I agree the natural state is to seek answers. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power?
We still don't have all the answers. Add to that the social mores, traditions, and the general comfort that comes from having a place to belong, and it's not surprising that religion persists. And that's true even amongst the religions that are wrong (somewhere between 3.6 billion and 5.7 billion people, depending on which religion is right).
quote:Would Tarzan be an athiest?
If I had to venture a guess, judging by the sheer number of offspring who are the same religion as their parents (crazy--you'd think the correct god would be able to elbow his/her way in there somewhere ), I'd go with very yes.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief.
There's a contradiction in this statement. Atheism IS a belief. Therefore, if we are all born without belief, nobody is born an atheist.
Once we start thinking about the world around us, that is when we start forming beliefs. I'm sure if a bunch of children were left to grow up entirely separately from one another and society, like Tarzan, there'd be plenty of them who would never begin to think about religious questions like "Where did the world come from?", just as plenty would never begin to think about math questions. These people would be neither atheist nor religious; they'd simply have no beliefs or opinions about the question whatsoever. But if you started asking them religious questions, and they started thinking about it, I suspect the majority would end up coming to religious explanations such as gods, souls, etc.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Not that I would have answered that way...But I would never walk into someone else's living room if nobody knew me and insert myself into an obviously controversial argument and say something to goad people.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
------------
quote:In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room."
That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
quote:These people would be neither atheist nor religious...
No, they would be atheists, in that they would hold no belief in a god.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Yup. Zeus being way incomplete.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
Here's the quote:
quote:To sum up: the "this is Card's living room" metaphor worked very well, as long as people believed it. But it was only a metaphor that could work as long as the atmosphere contributing to it was sustained.
quote:An interesting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
I can help you a little there Tom, because I was raised this way. While my parents were themselves raised Christian, they did not raise me Christian. I never went to church, never prayed, and never read any part of the bible until just a few years ago so that I could understand what the big fuss was about. The Golden Rule was always dominant in my family, but it didn't come from any one religion.
And how do I perceive the world? I am an atheist. Or very strongly agnostic, depending on your definition. Sure, in the last year or so, I have become very curious about how others see the world. I'm not looking to change my beliefs. I am very comfortable with how I view the world. It is simple curiosity and a desire to understand others. I am taking a class in Tibetan Buddhism. My closest friend studied world religions and we talk often. We both find it highly rewarding.
I haven't killed anyone, hurt anyone, broken any laws (okay, I ran a red light and download music from time to time), think I am a moral person, and have had other people tell me I'm a moral person. My siblings are the same.
Is this surprising? Is it unusual? Is it what you would expect?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty much what I'd expect, yeah. That said, I do wonder about outside cultural influences. In some areas, the social impact of not going to something like Vacation Bible School can be pretty harsh. I remember being in a creative writing class in college and writing a story very heavy on Biblical symbolism, then having to explain it to the one Muslim immigrant in class who had no idea what the allusions meant -- and realizing that this must be the experience of a lot of people reading certain works of Western literature.
The degree to which Christian culture has diffused through American culture might make a fair experiment sort of difficult.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Just this last month I read Matthew and was amazed as to how much of the story and details I already knew. So much of the story and imagery is found nearly everywhere that is isn't surprising that I picked up most of it. It struck me then that America really is a Christian Nation. Sure it has tremendous religious diversity, but I am not familiar with the Koran, or most of the Old Testament, or hardly any of the teachings of Hinduism or Buddhism.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
My parents were raised in Hong Kong, absorbing the usual mix of weak Chinese superstitions and nonreligious life. However, one went to a Christian-run religious school which rather backfired while the one that did not dabbled in Christianity once or twice. It didn't take.
Thus after immigration and partial assimilation, there was not much to do but raise me in a non-religious environment at home. I picked and choose the Chinese values that made sense to me, respect for one's ancestors, frugality, and so forth while mixing in the Western values that made sense, such as the scientific method. With no outside push, I studied Christianity, Buddhism, Islam in much the way that others might study The Lord of the Rings.
That said, simple peer pressure persuaded me to declare myself as a Deist in public school. Study at a Chinese-dominated university moved me toward publicly declaring agnosticism that I really picked up in high school. Things like Dawkins books and the increased profile of Christian fundamentalism finally persuaded me to go to full-fledged "strong" atheism.
I can't say I was ever inclined to believe in a specific god. Not only were the specific gods presented unappealing, but giving a free-choice of many gods for me essentially boils down to learning about many but choosing none.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they would be atheists, in that they would hold no belief in a god.
Terms aside, I think a person who has never bothered to think and/or care about whether 1+1=2 is in a very different state of belief than a person who puts 1 apple next to another 1 apple on a table and says "this does NOT equal 2 apples".
So, yes, the default is complete absense of belief. But that isn't the state of mind that KoM is advocating. He doesn't seem to be saying the ideal person is one who never bothers to think about any religious-related question at all, or when asked about "God" simply shrugs his shoulders without taking any position at all. He seems to be arguing that rational people, when posed with such questions, should conclude God likely does not exist. That position is not a default.
quote:Would you like me to explain what you have misunderstood about that quote?
If it won't be too much of a distraction to the real topic... (Not that this thread isn't way off the original topic already!)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a person who has never bothered to think and/or care about whether 1+1=2 is in a very different state of belief than a person who puts 1 apple next to another 1 apple on a table and says "this does NOT equal 2 apples".
Or, say, someone who looks at a table and thinks, "There are no apples on that table. And there are also no leprechauns on it. Or pizzas. Or gymnasts."
quote:If it won't be too much of a distraction to the real topic...
It'll be quick. Basically, I was saying that as long as people believed the fiction that the Cards thought of this place as their living room, it was possible for them to behave as if it were their living room. This kept things relatively civil, since extremes of behavior were fairly rare and more easily corrected. In the absence of that fiction, such expectations are regularly defeated to the extent that they come to appear foolish.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The degree to which Christian culture has diffused through American culture might make a fair experiment sort of difficult.
A more specific response to this is that I think the degree to which theistic culture has diffused may make a fair experiment comparing nonreligious and religious difficult. But it should be fair enough to mostly neuter the advantage that Christianity has in relation to others.
I think on some level some people already know this.
quote:A controversial new ethics and religious culture class to be taught in Quebec schools as of next week is getting a nod from the Dalai Lama, who will travel to the province next year to show his enthusiasm for it. ... "The Dalai Lama has always championed teaching ethics to children in the school system and when he learned that Quebec was introducing this curriculum, he was very happy," said Thubten Samdup, a Montrealer with Tibetan origins. ... The new class sparked a heated debate in the province and a few hundred parents -- mostly Catholics and Protestants -- are engaged in a bitter fight with the province's Education Department to be awarded the right to exempt their children from the course. They are worried that if their kids learn about other religions on top of Catholicism or Protestantism, they will become confused by too many choices.
posted
i dont know what newborn children think about god because, as of yet, no newborn child has said anything intelligible to me until a few years after their birth. concluding, based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
children growing up without any religious education whatsoever may appear to not believe in a higher power when in reality they are indifferent or uninterested simply because there are more pressing issues in the mind of a child. their disinterest may be because developing minds (even developed minds) have difficulty coming to any definitive conclusions, especially on questions concerning ideas as deep and profound as the idea of a higher power. when a child reaches an age where they begin to reason and think abstractly (not just imaginatively. children do great at that) they begin to ask questions like, why am i on earth and what is my purpose? where was i (meaning the mind or spirit as some call it, not physically) before this life? and what happens to me after i die? a great deal of those who believe in a higher power do so in a attempt to answer these questions.
i understand atheists claiming there is not purpose to this life (besides the purposes one establishes for oneself), there was nothing before here and nothing after. but to hold such claims as truth is foolish to me because those claims have never been verified and are, as of yet, unverifiable. the same argument can be held against those who believe as well. that would be an adequate lead into a discussion about faith but that isnt my intention.
also, I dont believe that no belief in a higher power is the rational or more rational stance. is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth? Or to see a death and believe that the person who just died isnt gone but simply continuing to the next state of life? We see the same thing in the world around us. The world moves in cycles and is in constant metamorphosis (this could be interpreted as a death of sorts I suppose but that interpretation would be based simply on perspective).
relating to the current debate, the rational default belief to me would be agnosticism (the simple definition of the word. lets not complicate such a simple statement). as in, "a supreme power might exist but i cant know either way so instead of making grand assumptions and presumptions, ill not take a stance either way."
on a less related note, i think a great number of people, at some point in their lives, either because of their own mistake or because of the teachings of others, ascribe certain characteristics and attributes to god (or a god) and then later in life "prove", sometimes with the help of others, to themselves and/or others that their god cant and therefore doesn’t exist. in reality, their perception of god was so riddled with misconceptions and fallacies that its failure was inevitable.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
*twitch* I am trying not to be patronizing, capax, and you are not helping.
Question: is it "rational" to see the birth of a baby panda and conclude that the panda lived somewhere else prior to its birth (other than, say, the womb)? Why?
quote:it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
*twitch* I am trying not to be patronizing, capax, and you are not helping.
Question: is it "rational" to see the birth of a baby panda and think conclude that the panda lived somewhere else prior to its birth (other than, say, the womb)? Why?
im not helping? it doesnt suprise me that ive inconvenience you. i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient.
are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
im not a panda, tommy. so ill let them decide for themselves if there is life before world.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient."
But you'd like to convert atheists to your religion, right? How is acting like a pain going to accomplish THAT goal, exactly?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
You haven't answered my private message/email from Sakeriver yet.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient."
But you'd like to convert atheists to your religion, right? How is acting like a pain going to accomplish THAT goal, exactly?
if hes finding it hard to not be patronizing thats his problem. if i am a pain, im sure its nothting physical, and therefore avoidable.
im not trying to convert anyone. i dont forsee the world having one belief anytime soon. everyone has a right to believe or not believe so i think the focus should be how do we coexist and live in a tolerant manner among those who belive differently. not how do we ridicule, marginalized and/or otherwise reeducate those that think differently.
as far as my religion, i dont think i ever mentioned one. one can have a set of beliefs concerning diety and not subscribe to any religion.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
and this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
posted
Can you explain to me why foolish religious beliefs deserve more respect than, say, foolish beliefs about politics or biology or the economy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain to me why foolish religious beliefs deserve more respect than, say, foolish beliefs about politics or biology or the economy?
i never said they deserved more respect. or any for that matter. but still i belive they both deserve respect.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What benefit is there in letting foolish beliefs go unchallenged?
(Meh, I suppose you could challenge most beliefs respectfully. But it's kind of hard for me to "respect" a viewpoint such as the earth being flat. If everyone treats crackpot theories with "respect", then doesn't that just encourage them? Not that laughing will convince real crackpots, but it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: It is exceedingly strange to see this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
and this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
in the same post.
why so strange? because both examples are hard to verify? i concure. tell me when you find a talking newborn. by then ill be able to "prove" to you life starts before this world. take into consideration im not going to be trying very hard..
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
no. same definition
i dont recall having labeled it perfectly rational. so few things in this world are perfect; i rarely use that word as an adverb or adjective.
my assertion was this: is it not rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child could have come from some prior existence? before learning that a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, would it be rational to assume that the butterfly entered this world in that form? to further that analogy, if you knew the lifecycle of a bird, wouldnt that effect your assumptions regarding the lifecycle of the butterfly, they being somewhat similar? despite the information you had when making such an assumption, your assumption is wrong because you simply dont understand the process. just because you dont understand the process doesnt mean your observation is correct. you assumed butterflies and birds have the same lifecycle, but they dont. your confusion would be understandable.
when I see a human and a panda, because of what ive see and ive reasoned during my time in this world, i dont assume they have the same lifecycles, spiritually speaking. and although each shares a remarkable amount of similarities, the areas where they are dissimilar are remarkably profound.
yet another analogy:
assuming I know nothing about the hydrologic cycle, would it not be somewhat rational for me to declare that the rain which I see is water which spontaneously appears in the sky, falls and then is absorbed by what it falls on? much of my faulty reasoning can be blamed on the fact that I cant see the water evaporate before it falls as rain.
if rain is death and you only get one a lifetime, your apt to make some poor conclusions prior to dying.
likewise if rain is birth, and you cant see the evaporation, your apt to see the spark of live as spontaneous.
but if in the end were only animals and humans are like pandas and butterflies are like birds, that simplifies a great number. of things
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.
likewise. more so when i discuss politics and ecomonic theory.
but treating someone with respect while exchanging beliefs, reguardless of what the other person belives, is essential if we are all going to coexist on such a small planet with such diversity.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: why so strange?
You don't think it's strange to say that it's not rational to think that a newborn doesn't believe in a god, yet it *is* rational to think that same newborn lived a previous life?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What benefit is there in letting foolish beliefs go unchallenged?
(Meh, I suppose you could challenge most beliefs respectfully. But it's kind of hard for me to "respect" a viewpoint such as the earth being flat. If everyone treats crackpot theories with "respect", then doesn't that just encourage them? Not that laughing will convince real crackpots, but it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.)
Yes, challenging a belief you don't agree with IS a form of respecting it, as long as you respect the possibility that someone reasonable could believe it.
I don't think respect encourages crackpot theories. Like you said, laughter doesn't often convince people to change their mind. I think more often laughter actually reinforces a person's dedication to a belief. "The world is against me" and all that.
It is hard to respect beliefs that seem deranged to you, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. It's a good idea not just for the sake of polite conversation, but more for your own sake - because you can't really be confident you are seeing things clearly if you disrespect the thing you disagree with. Most people I know who hold very extreme political opinions, I've noticed, continue to do so in some part because they are unable to respect the other viewpoint. They can't all be right; someone is deluding themselves with their disrespect.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:is it not rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child could have come from some prior existence?
No. That's not how rationality works. There is a middle step -- a causative or determinitive step -- that is missing. Compare:
"Is it not rational, on seeing a teapot, to believe that it must have been formed by the tears of gnomes?"
The answer is that, no, it is not rational. There may actually be other reasons behind your belief in teapot-making gnomes, and those reasons might potentially inform the rationality of this belief, but there's nothing inherent in the existence of the teapot that implies crying gnomes.
You are using the word "rational" as if it means the same thing as "common." Certainly it is common for people, upon seeing an infant, to conclude all kinds of silly stuff. That does not mean these are rational conclusions.
It is possible that you, having had some experiences with children, have concluded based on other information that they must have had some previous life. If this is the case, the rational argument for this view is not "I saw the kid being born" but rather "here are the things which, to me, suggest that this child had a previous life."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actual Afghanistan analysis, although I'm undecided on its conclusions
quote:Bottom line: China will find a way to benefit no matter what the United States does in Afghanistan. But it probably benefits more if we stay and add troops to the fight. The same goes for Russia. Because of continuing unrest in the Islamic southern tier of the former Soviet Union, Moscow has an interest in America stabilizing Afghanistan (though it would take a certain psychological pleasure from a humiliating American withdrawal).
In nuts-and-bolts terms, if we stay in Afghanistan and eventually succeed, other countries will benefit more than we will. China, India and Russia are all Asian powers, geographically proximate to Afghanistan and better able, therefore, to garner practical advantages from any stability our armed forces would make possible.
Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions.
Of course, one could make an excellent case that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan is precisely what would lead to our decline, by demoralizing our military, signaling to our friends worldwide that we cannot be counted on and demonstrating that our enemies have greater resolve than we do. That is why we have no choice in Afghanistan but to add troops and continue to fight.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The oldest and most unanswerable questions are: What is true? and What is the meaning of life? I doubt those answers will be found in Hatrack. I've stated repeatedly, there is a component of evidence and a component of faith. I do not intend to go in circles by pointing out that everything in life has a measure of faith. Scientific theories that have been revised or debunked shows the measure of faith in science. Faith that your next paycheck will come before your employer files for bankruptcy and faith that you will survive the commute to work in the morning. I do not know for certain if I will wake up in the morning but I have faith that I will...my confidence in my cardiovascular system is not foolish.
The only things certain in life are death and taxes. Of all things in human history, these two have always been supported by the evidence you seek.
There's such a thing as a difference in degree. Do you really mean to tell me that your belief your next paycheck is of the same level of certainty as your belief in your god? Of course not. One has evidence, the other doesn't. There are uncertainties in many things, but religion is the only one where people take a 99% uncertainty and turn it into a good thing by calling it faith! If your next paycheck required as much faith as your god does, would you not be out there looking for another job? But in matters which, you claim, are of importance eternally, not just for next week's grocery bill, you're happy to go along without evidence. Is this the behaviour of an adult taking responsibility for himself?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: people take a 99% uncertainty and turn it into a good thing by calling it faith!
its not a 99% uncertainty for many people. they might not be 100% confident either way but they have found a reasonable amount of certainty to justify applying faith to account for the difference. there is a degree of acceptable uncertainty in many things in life.
of course its already been established that you dont accept their "evidences" for believing so you conclude its a 99% uncertainty.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Is it not rational, on seeing a teapot, to believe that it must have been formed by the tears of gnomes?"
The answer is that, no, it is not rational.
This reminds me of that post you made where you were boggled by some person's subvariant of argument by obvious design extending to validation of any given Holy Book a/o Creed. "Looking at this beach, it is obvious that there is a creator, and obviously he does not want me to eat pork!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), I'd go with very yes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
