FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Trembling Eagle on April 24, 2009, 02:32:44 AM
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
take the quiz post ur results
me
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.12&soc=-7.59)
-
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.12&soc=-5.08)
-
The Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54
(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/406/pcgraphpngphpec812soc5.png)
More liberal than Gandhi.
-
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/theatre/2003/02/images/rik_youngones_150.jpg)
fascist
-
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
-
I have a good feeling that I'll end up looking like a relative fascist on this board at the end of the day. I saw a TED talk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html) recently that said that we owe our political affiliation to our innate personality type, so I'll blame it on that... and good old fashioned Catholic guilt.
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.44
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.88&soc=1.44)
-
You and me, TE.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.50&soc=-7.85)
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44
I'm almost an anarchist.
-
Economic Left/Right -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.90
-
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc360/bpb_photos/political_spectrum.jpg)
-
What?
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=10.00&soc=10.00)
-
Shit!
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-10&soc=-10)
-
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.12&soc=-7.03)
I'm surprised no one has shown up as an Economic conservative + Social libertarian. I think that quadrant gets ignored way too much.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-10.00&soc=-7.74)
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l244/Andy1807/axeswithnames.gif)
-
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.88&soc=-4.21)
-
So you're Stalin, Gandhi, Thatcher, Friedman, and Hitler all rolled up into one delightful package, Andy?
-
Apparently, I'm closest to the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. That isn't too bad.
-
Your wish is granted, AM Thomas.
Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28
Bunch of commies.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.38&soc=-3.28)
-
Wow. Lotta loaded questions in that survey.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
(http://www.bigplastichead.com/images/one_offs/pc.png)
No surprises there.
-
These little quizzes are push polls. You can reword the questions and get different results.
I like this test: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
-
The one we've been doing, I believe, pushes you toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum. But it should be directionally correct.
-
Wow. Lotta loaded questions in that survey.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers
I thought these were the hardest.
-
My tension quotient:
Tension Quotient = 7%
(http://www.philosophersnet.com/images/tq2.jpg)
I may be wrong about literally everything, but at least I'm consistent.
-
I'm at 13% - still more consistent than the average slob!
(http://www.philosophersnet.com/images/tq3.jpg)
-
I disagree with the terms of the tension test. But by its lights I am average.
-
I have a TQ of 13%.
"You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists
The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless."
I don't agree with their analysis. On the one hand, I think art is a matter of taste. In applying my taste, I think Michaelangelo is pretty good. How is that a tension?
Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
65117 of the 147466 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?
I think this goes wrong when they add "and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other." Sure there is: my moral judgement is superior because it's fucking mine. What else can you say? Galactic energy beings wouldn't really give a shit about mammalian genocides on some obscure planet.
-
Yup, my problems were similar, yesno. Here's my list:
1. I can believe there are no objective moral standards yet possess my own subjective standards. When I say I believe genocide is bad, I'm not claiming that what I believe is universal.
2. The same holds for believing that it is always wrong to take another life yet having no problems with taking some lives. For example, I think abortion is murder, but I'm completely in favor of it.
3. I can consider atheism is a belief system because it requires the atheist to be certain about something that is unprovable, and that, in my view, requires faith.
4. How does my belief that judgments about art are matters of taste conflict with my personal opinion that Michelangelo is a good artist? Once more, I'm not attributing universal truth to my belief.
-
(http://imgur.com/DzHR.gif)
-
I am not on the spectrum because I'm a pragmatist.
-
is universal.
2. The same holds for believing that it is always wrong to take another life yet having no problems with taking some lives. For example, I think abortion is murder, but I'm completely in favor of it.
3. I can consider atheism is a belief system because it requires the atheist to be certain about something that is unprovable, and that, in my view, requires faith.
.
Abortion really is a tricky moral and philosophical dilemma and you don't have to be a right wing wacko to think so.
Starting with the supposition that human life has value and should be protected and nurtured whenever possible, if for no other reason than: my life is important and precious to me and I extend that to other humans. The question for me has always been when is the genetic material that makes up a child....human, surely a spermatozoa isn't (*ahem* or some of us would have committed genocide) but at 8 months along I think the child is unmistakably human. But then it does at 7 months too...it becomes a slippery slope. I'm not settled on the matter but I'm living with (in my own mind) once there is any possibility of the child living outside of the womb it is a human life and should be protected.
Don't get me started on the more complex animals, meat eating is becoming a hard position to defend for me.
On the atheism I don't believe it is a "belief system" in the way you are parsing it that smacks of a false equivalency. By belief system you are really just using a stand in for religion and religions require one to have faith which is belief with little to no factual testable evidence (such as God did it and no man can know God). Atheism rather is the rejection of the fantastic where there is no provable or plausible evidence. So can you PROVE to me there is no giant invisible jellybean at the center of the universe that controls all lottery numbers? Maybe but I can always come up with an excuse for why its not apparent in the data, most rational folks would dismiss the idea and go with the more simple answer that lottery numbers are a function of chance.
So atheism is seeing hoof prints and thinking horse instead of zebra.
-
Boring JP:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.38&soc=-0.77)
I think it's a decent questionnaire.
I believe in:
1. well regulated capitalism
2. helping the poorer classes - who always get screwed
3. Public morality can/should be written into law (for example outlawing porn and having socialized medicine)
4. Freedom from government creeps
-
So atheism is seeing hoof prints and thinking horse instead of zebra.
Ooooh I like that.
I like how it isn't condescendingly dismissive of people who are believers - I hate when atheists use occams razor as the begining and end of their argument against God. Just because it might be more "likely" to be a horse prints, doesn't mean it is not within the rhelm of possibility that a zebra made them.
Also I know well educated, thoughfull people for whom theism is the "horse" in that analogy (ie for them it is a simpler, more likely, more intuitive, more reasonable explanation is that God exists)
-
Welcome, brother JP.
Any other corporate types who are FOT? Do you fit in the bottom right quadrant as well?
-
Any other corporate types who are FOT? Do you fit in the bottom right quadrant as well?
I am a corporate type, but apparently one full of cognitive dissonance/guilt:
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
-
So atheism is seeing hoof prints and thinking horse instead of zebra.
Ooooh I like that.
I like how it isn't condescendingly dismissive of people who are believers - I hate when atheists use occams razor as the begining and end of their argument against God. Just because it might be more "likely" to be a horse prints, doesn't mean it is not within the rhelm of possibility that a zebra made them.
Also I know well educated, thoughfull people for whom theism is the "horse" in that analogy (ie for them it is a simpler, more likely, more intuitive, more reasonable explanation is that God exists)
Or rather seeing hoof prints and thinking: "hmm, 6 dimensional centaur archers that are invisible."
Just because some has a feeling or belief about something doesn't mean one should accept it as being either reasonable or logical. For example I don't even have to stretch with this, it's my real personal belief that steroids are a pretty harmless set of drugs and athletes and enthusiasts should be free to use them as they see fit. Would you accept that belief or would you require SOME evidence some testable verifiable data before the pharmacies start handing d-bol to your 17 year old?
That people hold strong emotional attachments to ideas and concepts doesn't legitimize them, we still have to deal with a rational world.
-
Who ever said that it did?
-
Who ever said that it did?
My point is: it doesn't take faith to not believe in the giant jellybean at the center of the galaxy that decides all lottery numbers. Even though you can't prove to me it doesn't. Rather, not believing in that extraordinary claim is the rational conclusion one would make dealing with existence as we know it. Similarly for atheists rejecting supernatural claims for the universe isn't faith but absence of faith.
-
To me, in these matters, any claim to certainty--which goes beyond rejecting countervailing claims based on imperfect or nonexistent evidence--involves faith of a sort. This is my opinion; I do not propose it as a universal standard.
-
Who ever said that it did?
My point is: it doesn't take faith to not believe in the giant jellybean at the center of the galaxy that decides all lottery numbers. Even though you can't prove to me it doesn't. Rather, not believing in that extraordinary claim is the rational conclusion one would make dealing with existence as we know it. Similarly for atheists rejecting supernatural claims for the universe isn't faith but absence of faith.
One of the most annoying and ignorant things that atheists do is try and equate God with the absurd to make their point. The FSM/unicorn garbage.
The fact is there *is* evidence that there is a God but there's no evidence of a jellybean/FSM thing. Now you may not be satisfied with the evidence but that's where the discussion should take place.
-
I'm not like everybody else ... but I guess I'm pretty similar to a lot of youse guys.
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.00&soc=-6.15)
Anyways, why's everybody talking about the Spectrum? Is Blue Oyster Cult playing there? Are youse guys gonna smuggle in some pony kegs?
(http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/blog/images/2008/08/07/philadelphia_spectrum_being_demol_2.png)
-
Who ever said that it did?
My point is: it doesn't take faith to not believe in the giant jellybean at the center of the galaxy that decides all lottery numbers. Even though you can't prove to me it doesn't. Rather, not believing in that extraordinary claim is the rational conclusion one would make dealing with existence as we know it. Similarly for atheists rejecting supernatural claims for the universe isn't faith but absence of faith.
One of the most annoying and ignorant things that atheists do is try and equate God with the absurd to make their point. The FSM/unicorn garbage.
The fact is there *is* evidence that there is a God but there's no evidence of a jellybean/FSM thing. Now you may not be satisfied with the evidence but that's where the discussion should take place.
I'm an atheist, and the whole FSM/Unicorn thing just infuriates me whenever someone mentions it. It's just so played out, it's ridiculous.
-
To me, in these matters, any claim to certainty--which goes beyond rejecting countervailing claims based on imperfect or nonexistent evidence--involves faith of a sort. This is my opinion; I do not propose it as a universal standard.
Oh, dear, we agree on something else.
I distrust certainty most of all. Whenever three people are in total agreement about anything, I start thinking about Jonestown.
-
Or reaching for your revolver?
-
Or reaching for your revolver?
Mine has a magazine. Unless you were quoting from Moby?
-
Hell, I wasn't even quoting Mission of Burma. Apocryphal Hermann Goering all the way.
-
The fact is there *is* evidence that there is a God but there's no evidence of a jellybean/FSM thing. Now you may not be satisfied with the evidence but that's where the discussion should take place.
OK what is your evidence?
My evidence for the giant jellybean at the center of the universe is my own thoughts on it, the giant jellybean only communicates to humans through psychic projection (like Jesus). Therefore the fact that I feel his loving tentacles at my heart is proof enuff.
-
The fact is there *is* evidence that there is a God but there's no evidence of a jellybean/FSM thing. Now you may not be satisfied with the evidence but that's where the discussion should take place.
OK what is your evidence?
I wouldn't mind hearing the answer to this one. I guess people have wildly different ideas of what defines Evidence.
-
I never understand why people bring evidence and proof into the theism vs. atheism debate. One side is based on old books, stories and traditions and the other is based on science, something we don't fully understand. Neither would have any admissible evidence if this were a court case.
My personal belief is that if there is a God, he doesn't spend his all-powerful time caring about what people do or what people think of him. At best we would amuse him like ants in an ant farm (which aren't very amusing).
And to stay on subject, I'm a little south of Gandhi.
-
Someone should let Pastor Josh know that this thread is veering deep into his wheelhouse.
-
My personal belief is that if there is a God, he doesn't spend his all-powerful time caring about what people do or what people think of him. At best we would amuse him like ants in an ant farm (which aren't very amusing).
Sounds like this dude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak3z2Pm7Iwg
-
Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent to "any kind of conversation will eventually turn into a religious debate?"...not that I didn't contribute.
-
The fact is there *is* evidence that there is a God but there's no evidence of a jellybean/FSM thing. Now you may not be satisfied with the evidence but that's where the discussion should take place.
OK what is your evidence?
My evidence for the giant jellybean at the center of the universe is my own thoughts on it, the giant jellybean only communicates to humans through psychic projection (like Jesus). Therefore the fact that I feel his loving tentacles at my heart is proof enuff.
First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note.
As far as the evidence in God:
Once piece is written testimonies of people who have seen God.
There is logical evidence that there is God.
There are a lot (billions) of *sincere* people who in their hearts have testimonies that while perhaps not as weighty as the testimony of people who have what we would describe as the more direct testimonies of seeing, provides evidence.
I honestly can see how some people may not find the evidence sufficient but I think its still substantial.
-
I never understand why people bring evidence and proof into the theism vs. atheism debate. One side is based on old books, stories and traditions and the other is based on science, something we don't fully understand. Neither would have any admissible evidence if this were a court case.
My personal belief is that if there is a God, he doesn't spend his all-powerful time caring about what people do or what people think of him. At best we would amuse him like ants in an ant farm (which aren't very amusing).
And to stay on subject, I'm a little south of Gandhi.
My original point wasn't judgment on theism vs. atheism, I was disagreeing with Sarah's assertion that religious belief and atheism both required leaps of faith since they profess to have a conclusion about the nature of the universe that was ultimately unknowable/provable.
Since we live in and deal with a rational world we know if you drop something it falls towards gravity, wood and paper is flammable, water freezes at 32 degrees F etc. All these are verifiable points that can be repeated and tested and the results can be compared. Over the course of human history through incremental observations about how the world works we have developed technology that aides us in our lives, for example the computers we are using now to communicate. The proof for supernatural forces in the world around us as far as I know is absent. So we get in our internal combustion engine vehicles to get to work by don't use our minds to teleport, or if we are injured in a accident and a limb is severed we go to a doctor that will physically reattach it and us treatment to deal with shock and infection. We don't go to a shaman to dance around the severed limb and sprinkle salt on it.
So my point remains that it doesn't take faith to profess a non-supernatural view of the universe merely it's the most logical conclusion that flows out of a understanding the processes of nature.
-
First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note.
If I say over and over and over, "Nixon was a criminal because recordings and written documentation clearly show that he was aware of, and helped mastermind the Watergate cover-up", it will get pretty tired. But does it become wrong?
-
First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note.
If I say over and over and over, "Nixon was a criminal because recordings and written documentation clearly show that he was aware of, and helped mastermind the Watergate cover-up", it will get pretty tired. But does it become wrong?
No but the frequency doesn't make it right either. The main point was that he doesn't actually believe what he is saying - the fact that it's a weak argument is far less important.
-
most logical conclusion
You may think it's the most logical - I just think that it must be acknowledged that it isn't the only conclusion worth considering. And frankly if the God argument weren't worth considering an all you wouldn't have considered it. (no one is actually believing in the jellybean thing because it's so *obviously* absurd)
Anyway I liked the fact that I thought TE was valuing two opposing viewpoints (theism vs atheism) which is why I chimed in - I think I misunderstood and the alternative viewpoint really isn't so legitimate to some of you guys.
-
most logical conclusion
You may think it's the most logical - I just think that it must be acknowledged that it isn't the only conclusion worth considering. And frankly if the God argument weren't worth considering an all you wouldn't have considered it. (no one is actually believing in the jellybean thing because it's so *obviously* absurd)
Anyway I liked the fact that I thought TE was valuing two opposing viewpoints (theism vs atheism) which is why I chimed in - I think I misunderstood and the alternative viewpoint really isn't so legitimate to some of you guys.
Oh I think it's legitimate. Spirituality definitely has a place in human life.
But I believe it's important to draw a distinction between the natural world and the supernatural. If your finger gets cut off you better get your ass to a doctor (a medical doctor).
-
most logical conclusion
You may think it's the most logical - I just think that it must be acknowledged that it isn't the only conclusion worth considering. And frankly if the God argument weren't worth considering an all you wouldn't have considered it. (no one is actually believing in the jellybean thing because it's so *obviously* absurd)
Anyway I liked the fact that I thought TE was valuing two opposing viewpoints (theism vs atheism) which is why I chimed in - I think I misunderstood and the alternative viewpoint really isn't so legitimate to some of you guys.
Oh I think it's legitimate. Spirituality definitely has a place in human life.
But I believe it's important to draw a distinction between the natural world and the supernatural. If your finger gets cut off you better get your ass to a doctor (a medical doctor).
I've never really thought of real spirituality as something supernatural. When I think of "spirituality" I think getting in touch with nature, meditating, psychedelic drugs, etc
-
I think I took this survey once before, and got the same result this time. Major lefty/libertarian. And I'm an ex-corporate type, but maybe the important part of that is ex.
I'm just to the left of Dave B, but slightly to the right of Sarah. Not that I'm surprised by that.
-
First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note.
As far as the evidence in God:
Once piece is written testimonies of people who have seen God.
There is logical evidence that there is God.
There are a lot (billions) of *sincere* people who in their hearts have testimonies that while perhaps not as weighty as the testimony of people who have what we would describe as the more direct testimonies of seeing, provides evidence.
I honestly can see how some people may not find the evidence sufficient but I think its still substantial.
Man this is really, really stupid.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-10.00&soc=7.28)
I don't know what I did wrong to not make it into the top left corner. Maybe I'm too soft on degenerate art.
-
First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note.
As far as the evidence in God:
Once piece is written testimonies of people who have seen God.
There is logical evidence that there is God.
There are a lot (billions) of *sincere* people who in their hearts have testimonies that while perhaps not as weighty as the testimony of people who have what we would describe as the more direct testimonies of seeing, provides evidence.
I honestly can see how some people may not find the evidence sufficient but I think its still substantial.
Man this is really, really stupid.
Really.
Is JP a troll?
-
Man this is really, really stupid.
I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.
I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries.
Thanks!
-
Man this is really, really stupid.
I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.
I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries.
Thanks!
wat
-
Is JP a troll?
Yes someone who believes in God and uses Windows XP - mind blowing.
-
:-\
-
All of this should be happening in the theology thread, where Pastor Josh can sort things out. Not here.
EDIT: Hey, I use Windows XP and sort of, kind of believe in god too.
-
I'd recommend "Is There a God?" by Richard Swinburne for the best argument answering "yes" I've ever seen.
It doesn't convince me for a variety of reasons, and in fact some other people I've read do a better job (e.g. Plantiga on God as a necessary being) but it's a good slim volume.
The case for a "being" that is the foundation of existence is hardly the same as the case for a space jellybean. "Being" is in quotation marks because God isn't just posited as one more object in the universe; his existence is qualitatively different than that of objects in the universe. The theist believes that it is necessary for God to exist; that is not possible for him not to exist; and that in every possible world you can imagine, there is a God, and the same one. God isn't a substitute for science; rather, God is the explanation of why science explains.
I'm still an atheist, because I think that nearly all of the theists are as flippant with atheists' arguments, which they fail to really tackle, as your average Internet atheist is with religion. At the end of the day, the null hypothesis wins a tie for me.
So anyway, JP, I'm on your side. Not because I think you're right, but because I think people are overly dismissive of the philosophical case for God nowadays. Richard Dawkins (who I think is right, in the end) is absurdly out of his depth when it comes to discussing philosophy.
ps: For what is, to me, the best analysis of the ultimate question of philosophy or what-do-you-call-it, I'd recommend the chapter "Why is there something rather than nothing" from Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations. It's an essentially atheist take on the same issues that lead many to believe in God, but one that never, unlike some popular science writers, begs the question ("the ultimate answer to why the universe exists is STRING!") or just says "we can never hope to know, so let's not talk about it."
-
Man this is really, really stupid.
I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.
I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries.
Thanks!
You don't have to be a luminary to think the threshold for "evidence of God" is somewhat higher than "people I know have met him!"
Good luck with your list!
-
I'd recommend "Is There a God?" by Richard Swinburne for the best argument answering "yes" I've ever seen.
It doesn't convince me for a variety of reasons, and in fact some other people I've read do a better job (e.g. Plantiga on God as a necessary being) but it's a good slim volume.
The case for a "being" that is the foundation of existence is hardly the same as the case for a space jellybean. "Being" is in quotation marks because God isn't just posited as one more object in the universe; his existence is qualitatively different than that of objects in the universe. The theist believes that it is necessary for God to exist; that is not possible for him not to exist; and that in every possible world you can imagine, there is a God, and the same one. God isn't a substitute for science; rather, God is the explanation of why science explains.
The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
-
FWIW, I don't think you're stupid, JP. I think your answer was pretty vague, though. If the question is, "What's your evidence?" and the response is that some nameless people have seen him, thus "there is logical evidence that there is God"....that's kind of a non-answer. It's what politicians do when they don't know the answer to something but don't feel comfortable simply saying, "I don't know".
I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.
-
I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.
Exactly - that's why they call it "faith".
-
FWIW, I don't think you're stupid, JP. I think your answer was pretty vague, though. If the question is, "What's your evidence?" and the response is that some nameless people have seen him, thus "there is logical evidence that there is God"....that's kind of a non-answer. It's what politicians do when they don't know the answer to something but don't feel comfortable simply saying, "I don't know".
I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.
Yes well I wrote it on my blackberry while picking up my daughter from a birthday party so I didn't really have time and typing ability to flesh out the entirety of the basis for my belief and include citations for the message board on saturday.
Also, just because ultimately I call myself a believer does not necessarily mean that I do so with an absence of evidence. For example I might *believe* that Cheney was complacent w/r/t 9-11, and there is evidence to support that, but I don't say I know that he was (I don't actually believe he was - but just sayin)
W/R/T "evidence of God" is somewhat higher than "people I know have met him!" Those testimonies I refer to would hold up in court - not that they would be *sufficient* they would be *evidence* and although I don't know anybody first hand who has met him - if I did, I think that would set the bar pretty high!
-
The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
False distinction. Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs. Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might. They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being. Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.
-
The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
False distinction. Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs. Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might. They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being. Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.
Then we're back to no proof of such a being. The world is full of pain and suffering the force you describe is either unable or unwilling to intervene in such matters.
-
The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
False distinction. Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs. Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might. They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being. Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.
Then we're back to no proof of such a being. The world is full of pain and suffering the force you describe is either unable or unwilling to intervene in such matters.
The argument from evil is probably the weakest you can make. The book I previously mentioned makes short work of it. Whole chapter on it. In essence, Swinburne argues that evil must exist to allow even greater good; the amount of good that could exist in a world without evil is less than the amount of good that can exist in a world with evil. The laws of physics which allow brains also allow tsunamis. Free will means there must be a possibility of evil. Etc. It would be impossible to have one without the other, and apart from some radical Islamic sects, no one believes that god can do the impossible (e.g. make 1+1=3).
Like I said, I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sick of ignorant Internet talking points. People thought of those kinds of arguments thousands of years ago. People in the past weren't stupid, although Cory Doctrow might think otherwise.
The case for atheism is simple: God isn't necessary to explain anything. Not existence itself, not consciousness, not morality. If there are things we don't understand, God might explain them, or so might any number of other things we can dream up. However, talk of "evidence" misses the point. Either everything is evidence for god or nothing is.
-
Before there was a flying spaghetti monster, there was Russell's teapot. Here is an analysis of that argument:
http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1169851433.shtml
People like Russell, Dawkins, and Dennett who compare God to a celestial teapot betray by so doing a failure to understand, and engage, the very sense of the theist's assertions. To sum up. (i) God is not a gratuitous posit in that there are many detailed arguments for the existence of God; (ii) God is not a physical being; (iii) God is not a being who simply exists alongside other beings. In all three respects, God is quite unlike a celestial teapot, a lunar unicorn, an invisible hippopotamus, and suchlike concoctions.
-
The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.
False distinction. Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs. Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might. They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being. Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.
Then we're back to no proof of such a being. The world is full of pain and suffering the force you describe is either unable or unwilling to intervene in such matters.
The argument from evil is probably the weakest you can make. The book I previously mentioned makes short work of it. Whole chapter on it. In essence, Swinburne argues that evil must exist to allow even greater good; the amount of good that could exist in a world without evil is less than the amount of good that can exist in a world with evil. The laws of physics which allow brains also allow tsunamis. Free will means there must be a possibility of evil. Etc. It would be impossible to have one without the other, and apart from some radical Islamic sects, no one believes that god can do the impossible (e.g. make 1+1=3).
Like I said, I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sick of ignorant Internet talking points. People thought of those kinds of arguments thousands of years ago. People in the past weren't stupid, although Cory Doctrow might think otherwise.
The case for atheism is simple: God isn't necessary to explain anything. Not existence itself, not consciousness, not morality. If there are things we don't understand, God might explain them, or so might any number of other things we can dream up. However, talk of "evidence" misses the point. Either everything is evidence for god or nothing is.
So the God you're arguing for now is akin to the person who sets fires so he can come to the rescue or the mothers that make their children sick so they can nurse them. Then with the 1+1 thing you have a God that can't make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it, in other words a being limited by the physics and rules of the natural/observable universe. I've never heard religious folks describe him as such.
-
The free will argument (that if you want free will, you have to have the possibility of evil and there's nothing god can do to get rid of evil without getting rid of free will) seems pretty damn solid to me, and not at all like Münchausen syndrome by proxy.
I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all th' Ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood & them who faild;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have givn sincere
Of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love,
Where onely what they needs must do, appeard,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When Will and Reason (Reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoild,
Made passive both, had servd necessitie,
Not mee.
I've never heard religious folks describe him as such.
Pretty much the entire Western religious tradition describes God as incapable of logical impossibilities. Crack Aquinas much?
-
The free will argument (that if you want free will, you have to have the possibility of evil and there's nothing god can do to get rid of evil without getting rid of free will) seems pretty damn solid to me, and not at all like Münchausen syndrome by proxy.
I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all th' Ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood & them who faild;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have givn sincere
Of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love,
Where onely what they needs must do, appeard,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When Will and Reason (Reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoild,
Made passive both, had servd necessitie,
Not mee.
I've never heard religious folks describe him as such.
Pretty much the entire Western religious tradition describes God as incapable of logical impossibilities. Crack Aquinas much?
ha.
-
I like the notion that God suffers from Munchausen by proxy syndrome.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-10.00&soc=7.28)
I don't know what I did wrong to not make it into the top left corner. Maybe I'm too soft on degenerate art.
Hey Grote, what did you do to get that result? Ask yourself, "What would Stalin do?"
I'm impressed. I wouldn't have had a clue how to answer those questions to get that kind of result. I can imagine how to get into the upper right corner. I'd ask myself, what would cousin Laura do?
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-10.00&soc=7.28)
I don't know what I did wrong to not make it into the top left corner. Maybe I'm too soft on degenerate art.
Hey Grote, what did you do to get that result? Ask yourself, "What would Stalin do?"
I'm impressed. I wouldn't have had a clue how to answer those questions to get that kind of result. I can imagine how to get into the upper right corner. I'd ask myself, what would cousin Laura do?
I just followed my heart.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1010.00&soc=10.00)
-
Shit, I guess this means Yesno is gonna purge me.
-
Shit, I guess this means Yesno is gonna purge me.
No, I just have a nice camp out in the country to take you to. You're lucky you don't wear glasses.
-
Please don't throw me in the pokey for 40 years because of what I believe. I have no power! I am of no danger to your established racist social hierarchy!
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee183/gaughin/pcgraphpngphp-1.png)
Economic -5.5
Social -3.79
And yet I am a church-going Southerner! It boggles
-
I'm at 13% - still more consistent than the average slob!
(http://www.philosophersnet.com/images/tq3.jpg)
I am 27% tense, but I feel more like 127%
-
Oh, bummer, is my insupportable belief in a God gonna get me thrown under a bus? I bet Bonnie gets to live, because she's cute. Damn inconsistent non-believers. At least agree to kill us all!
-
I declare us to be thusly ranked*
1 dave from knoxville 0
2 JonFromMaplewood 5.86
3 Gilly 7.3285
4 daveB! Oakland! 7.8196
5 Big Plastic Head 8.2354
6 masterofsparks 8.9693
7 Regular Joe 9.9269
8 jbissell 12.2621
9 AM Thomas 13.122
10 The Regulator Guy 13.2808
11 Bryan 16.4429
12 Martin 20.4836
13 Trembling Eagle 21.3044
14 Sarah 35.8525
15 Julie 39.5369
16 sleepyjack 40.4573
17 buffcoat 118.6345
Guess what's the basis for the ranking?
Unless you included only a graph and no numbers, or you were exactly in a corner or exactly in the center, which means you're joking or lying
-
I don't want to guess. Tell.
-
I can never resist a pretty font.
It's "With regards to this test, most like dave from knoxville."
Now I bet you can guess what THIS one is
1 Sarah 0
2 Trembling Eagle 3.5569
3 Bryan 4.0034
4 Martin 6.2621
5 Regular Joe 8.3744
6 AM Thomas 8.7985
7 daveB! Oakland! 11.5281
8 JonFromMaplewood 13.2025
9 Big Plastic Head 15.4549
10 masterofsparks 27.2548
11 dave from knoxville 35.8525
12 Gilly 54.41
13 The Regulator Guy 78.3953
14 jbissell 78.7456
15 Julie 92.6344
16 sleepyjack 150.2068
17 buffcoat 256.436
-
Hey, I scored the most and I'm in last. What is this, golf?
-
We're all winners, buffcoat. ;D
-
Except for the ones that aren't.
When I get back home I will rank them according to who's closest to you, Buffcoat, but frankly, there aren't going to be kids for you to play with in Faschville.
Just kidding
-
Except for the ones that aren't.
When I get back home I will rank smoke the ganja them according to who's closest to you, Buffcoat, but frankly, there aren't going to be kids for you to play with in Faschville I love Trotsky and Che Guevara. Down with capitalism, down with America!
Just No kidding
Fixed, hippie.
-
In all seriousness, it's hilarious for me to be the most right-wing person on this board. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and on the political boards I frequent I'm a moderate-liberal.
The FOT is a seriously left-leaning bunch economically, and there are no moral conservatives (at least among those who dared to fill in the quiz).
I guess there's something about Tom that just doesn't appeal to the Christian Right. It's not because of the swearing or sex talk - do they just not like wit and high-toned sarcasm?
Maybe the idea of a fontasy town runs counter to literalism somehow?
-
Buffcoat is the least like me? And yet we jibe on so many fronts! It just goes to show you . . . something.
-
neat-o
-
Buffcoat is the least like me? And yet we jibe on so many fronts! It just goes to show you . . . something.
We both dislike a bunch of things, we just have different opinions about what should be done about it? :)
-
I think it means curmudgeon trumps everything.
-
I think it means curmudgeon trumps everything.
Thank goodness for that.
-
These tests always force me into the left/libertarian corner. But I'm such a traditionalist I was recently outraged when I heard that some British judges were going to stop wearing wigs. Meanwhile, most American "conservatives" hardly seem concerned with keeping the torch of Western civilization burning bright.
-
These tests always force me into the left/libertarian corner. But I'm such a traditionalist I was recently outraged when I heard that some British judges were going to stop wearing wigs. Meanwhile, most American "conservatives" hardly seem concerned with keeping the torch of Western civilization burning bright.
You're the last of a dying breed. Bill O'Reilly would be proud.
-
I probably should have posted this at mostlikebuffcoat.com
1 buffcoat 0
2 Julie 50.4832
3 The Regulator Guy 53.5725
4 jbissell 54.8488
5 sleepyjack 74.986
6 Gilly 75.49
7 masterofsparks 117.1012
8 dave from knoxville 118.6345
9 Big Plastic Head 146.0153
10 JonFromMaplewood 159.0725
11 daveB! Oakland! 161.5013
12 AM Thomas 170.3125
13 Martin 186.7793
14 Regular Joe 187.3576
15 Bryan 197.957
16 Trembling Eagle 200.8261
17 Sarah 256.436
-
These tests always force me into the left/libertarian corner. But I'm such a traditionalist I was recently outraged when I heard that some British judges were going to stop wearing wigs.
This made me laugh.