in his name...wait what?

[Squidflakes]

In short, one should put one's faith in philosophies and methodologies that are mostly agreeable and reasonable. One should recognise the bible as the wrong choice upon cursory examination.

But that's not a choice you can dictate to anyone. You're free to put your faith in whatever philosophy you choose, and you're certainly free to disagree with someone's choice, but you can't argue the quality of what one chooses to believe.

In the other thread, Indigo made reference to the belief in Pink Unicorns having the same moral and religious weight as the idea of a Monotheistic deity, and I agree with her. When it comes to faith, all ideas are equally valid to the believer, and only to the believer.

The same goes with philosophy. All philosophical arguments are equally valid until you as an individual decide that one has more weight and merit than another.

In a real sense, religious and philosophical posits have no worth beyond what the individual assigns to them.

[Swordsman3003]

That is pretty much true. You can argue truth or falisity of the statement "these tires will keep you from slipping on wet roads."

You can't really argue "these tires are better." Try; it doesn't work.

[Squidflakes]

That is pretty much true. You can argue truth or falisity of the statement "these tires will keep you from slipping on wet roads."

You can't really argue "these tires are better." Try; it doesn't work.

That's a lot more concrete example than what I'm trying to put across. You could argue "These tires are better" and in that argument, you'd state the reasons why the tires are better than the ones they are being compared to, and why you assign value to that quality. Someone may not agree with your value system, but you can still falsify a statement based on quality.

However, you couldn't argue "My god is better." or "My god kill keep you from slipping on wet roads."

[Swordsman3003]

Try to argue that something concrete is better...

"There tires are better"
why
"they keep you from slipping on wet roads"
why is that better
"because you won't get hurt or die"
why is that better
"because you don't want to die"
why
...

You can't argue that something is better.

[Putaro]

However, you couldn't argue "My god is better." or "My god kill keep you from slipping on wet roads."

My god will keep me from slipping on wet roads!

I don't care if it rains or freezes
As long as I've got my Plastic Jesus
Glued to the dashboard of my car,
You can buy Him phosphorescent
Glows in the dark, He's Pink and Pleasant,
Take Him with you when you're travelling far

[Lowky]

However, you couldn't argue "My god is better." or "My god kill keep you from slipping on wet roads."

My god will keep me from slipping on wet roads!

I don't care if it rains or freezes
As long as I've got my Plastic Jesus
Glued to the dashboard of my car,
You can buy Him phosphorescent
Glows in the dark, He's Pink and Pleasant,
Take Him with you when you're travelling far

haven't heard that in a while. still brings a smile. Also good was will the fetus be aborted by Mojo Nixon and Jello Biafra. There was definitely a perverse part of me that always turned that up when I drove past the planned parenthood clinic with it's once a week protesters out front. What made that even funnier is they had to stay out by the road, but there was a starbucks in front of the planned parenthood lcinic, so it looked like starbucks was being accused of being baby killers.

[Linkara]

Actually I'm currently attempting to create a philosophy book called Modern Chivalry that DOES state the proposition that it is better to be alive than dead. I haven't gotten around to explaining it from a religious perspective, but from the atheistic perspective, if one is dead, there's nothing after death, so existence comes to an end. Since existence comes to an end, there is no longer perception, feeling, or, well, anything. I dare someone to argue that non-existence is better than existence. Especially since no one can "experience" non-existence and give it quality since, by its very definition, you're not existing in any way, shape, or form.

[Wilmo]

what about when life is pain?

I'll bet there are a decent number of people with terminal illness that may argue *for* the end of perception being better than constant excruciating pain.

[Honor]

o.0
oh my...
It is a horrible thing when some one looses their faith, in what ever it my be, and can't come to terms with it.
I hope he was able to find his peace.

Yeah... That's like saying "It's a horrible thing when a junkie decides to give up crack... It's so sad the way they stop having delusional halucinations all the time... Makes you want to cry, doesn't it?"

[Swordsman3003]

o.0
oh my...
It is a horrible thing when some one looses their faith, in what ever it my be, and can't come to terms with it.
I hope he was able to find his peace.

Yeah... That's like saying "It's a horrible thing when a junkie decides to give up crack... It's so sad the way they stop having delusional halucinations all the time... Makes you want to cry, doesn't it?"

bedroom talk will get you nowhere.

[BriHahn]

To warmachine: Squiddy once again said it better than I could have. Use his answer as if it were mine.

To Linkara: I don't know how you do that; I read something, I know what I want to say, but since I have this tendency to ramble somewhat in my speech, it gets worse for some reason in my typing. I've tried and tried to stop it, and I can't seem to get it to work. Any tips?

[Squidflakes]

Try to argue that something concrete is better...

"There tires are better"
why
"they keep you from slipping on wet roads"
why is that better
"because you won't get hurt or die"
why is that better
"because you don't want to die"
why
...

You can't argue that something is better.

These tires are better.

Why?

They keep you from slipping on wet roads.

Why is that better?

Because they were designed to keep you from slipping on wet roads, and provide 50% better wet traction than any competing tire.

Oh, that is better.


When arguing quality, the end result doesn't have to save your life all the time ;P

[Warmachine]

But that's [philosophy] not a choice you can dictate to anyone. You're free to put your faith in whatever philosophy you choose, and you're certainly free to disagree with someone's choice, but you can't argue the quality of what one chooses to believe.

The purpose of morality is to govern how people behave toward each other, including how other people should behave towards you and how you react to it. For example, you might consider it immoral for a stranger to walk into your house unannounced, even with good intentions, whereas that stranger would be mystified by your objection. Moral philosophy requires some commonality and consensus to be reached. This requires judgement and possible rejection of other people's philosophy.

Worse, some extremists believe they must commit what others regard as atrocities or impose their beliefs on others. Such people are following their own moral philosophy and believe their actions are justified and for the greater good. Their morality dictates that they must dictate their morality on others. Need we mention blocking or allowing abortions, teaching or not teaching biblical creationism, or suicide bombers or bulldozing their families homes? In a real sense, religious and philosophical posits have the worth other people try to impose on you.

Like porn? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it as unacceptable and oppose them. Think vivisection has worthwhile medical benefits? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it and oppose them. Think women should be allowed to have abortions? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it and oppose them.

In short, you have to judge the quality of philosophies because someone's trying to make it law or already made it law.


Even worse, the suspension of critical analysis required by many religions means people can be convinced to support something irrational. Even violence is possible. Or as Voltaire put it

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

From opposing sex shops to boycotting films to opposing the teaching of evolution to shunning friends to killing abortion doctors, many religions are the front runner for imposing on other people.

When someone believes a collection of brutal imperatives and atrocities written for an ancient, desert nation contains guidance for modern life, it is wise to disabuse them of this.

[Swordsman3003]

No, that makes them better AT keeping you on the road. That does not make them better tires.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

No, that makes them better AT keeping you on the road. That does not make them better tires.

Not true. If the nature of tires is to keep you on the road, then these are better tires because they better fulfill their objective.

[BriHahn]

But that's [philosophy] not a choice you can dictate to anyone. You're free to put your faith in whatever philosophy you choose, and you're certainly free to disagree with someone's choice, but you can't argue the quality of what one chooses to believe.

The purpose of morality is to govern how people behave toward each other, including how other people should behave towards you and how you react to it. For example, you might consider it immoral for a stranger to walk into your house unannounced, even with good intentions, whereas that stranger would be mystified by your objection. Moral philosophy requires some commonality and consensus to be reached. This requires judgement and possible rejection of other people's philosophy.

Worse, some extremists believe they must commit what others regard as atrocities or impose their beliefs on others. Such people are following their own moral philosophy and believe their actions are justified and for the greater good. Their morality dictates that they must dictate their morality on others. Need we mention blocking or allowing abortions, teaching or not teaching biblical creationism, or suicide bombers or bulldozing their families homes? In a real sense, religious and philosophical posits have the worth other people try to impose on you.

Like porn? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it as unacceptable and oppose them. Think vivisection has worthwhile medical benefits? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it and oppose them. Think women should be allowed to have abortions? Better judge philosophies that try to ban it and oppose them.

In short, you have to judge the quality of philosophies because someone's trying to make it law or already made it law.


Even worse, the suspension of critical analysis required by many religions means people can be convinced to support something irrational. Even violence is possible. Or as Voltaire put it

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

From opposing sex shops to boycotting films to opposing the teaching of evolution to shunning friends to killing abortion doctors, many religions are the front runner for imposing on other people.

When someone believes a collection of brutal imperatives and atrocities written for an ancient, desert nation contains guidance for modern life, it is wise to disabuse them of this.

Please don't tell me that's what you think I believe. I stated several times that I don't think the antiquated laws written in the Bible are useful, but if you look at the stories and see how the people in them reacted to certain situations, you can learn useful things. Under no circumstances do I think the Bible is a perfect guide for life, but there is good in it. It much resembles people, in that respect; we're none of us perfect, but there is good in all of us (even if it's buried way way WAY deep where no one ever sees it). That's what I look for when I look at what the Bible can tell us; what is useful, what makes sense to me, what I can honestly look at and say, "yes, I can believe that." It won't be the same as others, but it doesn't have to be.

I highly doubt that many people would agree with my beliefs on religion, but as I am in a wonderful church that encourages personal spiritual journeys, I haven't had a problem with people telling me what to believe, except when I get into debates with fundamentalists, which thankfully has happened only twice that I know of. I'm not about to say anyone else should follow my personal beliefs about God and religion, but I must ask honestly; why does it matter where I find my beliefs so long as I don't try to force them on others? Heck, I'll be honest; at least half of my beliefs came from something the teen novelist Christopher Pike wrote in a few of his books! These particular books dealt with death and it's aftermath, and some of the ways he described the aftermath of death, even though it was supposed to be fiction, just rung so true with me I sort of adopted them as my own beliefs. The rest of my beliefs come from a combination of my Methodist background, reading the stories of the Bible, and my psychology courses, and a little bit from talking religion with others in my church. But why would this affect anyone else if I'm not trying to push it on anyone else? I only mention them here because we got into this discussion in the first place; otherwise I keep them to myself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, does it matter where and how someone finds their beliefs so long as they come by them in a decent manner and don't try to force them on others? Why should I acknowledge what you seem to be saying; that the Bible is, in its entirety, useless? And believe me; I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not anger or upset; reading over my post, I realize it could look that way, but I promise, just curiosity.

[Swordsman3003]

No, that makes them better AT keeping you on the road. That does not make them better tires.

Not true. If the nature of tires is to keep you on the road, then these are better tires because they better fulfill their objective.

What if you want your tires to skid, such as in certain kinds of racing or perhaps for a movie stunt? Are these tires now "worse"? If you can call these tires 'better' than it should be an absolute statement. Saying that the tires provide better traction in water is absolute.

And regardless:
To be better, a thing must better fufill its objective or function?

If I compare two potatoes, is the one which [all other things the same] provides more nutrients a better potato? [probably]

If that is the case, then shouldn't a genetically engineered potato to provide more nutrients be a better potato? [you could argue this either way]

If I take a dog, and chop off all of its legs, is it a worse dog?

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

that depends on the purpose of that dog. if it is to provide companionship, it may in fact be a better dog because it is an almost guaranteed lap dog.

[Swordsman3003]

Well then there you go. Your definition of "better" is relative. You should start off with "IMHO....X is better"

I would say "X is better at killing roaches" or whatever.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

Well then there you go. Your definition of "better" is relative. You should start off with "IMHO....X is better"

I would say "X is better at killing roaches" or whatever.

On a side note, I LOATHE the acronym "IMHO". Whenever somebody uses that acronym it becomes a surefire sign that nothing humble is about to come.

My definition is not relative, by the way. My definition of "better" is that something fulfills its purpose more completely, more easily, or in another way is expedited. The application of "better" is relative.

For example, it is better to use a shotgun loaded with buck or bird shot than a pistol, given that the purpose of the firearm is to kill as many cats as possible with a minimum of fuss.

If the purpose of the firearm is to kill cats as accurately as possible, then a scatter gun is not the better choice.