Repent for being a Mac user!!

[Valrus]

RacerX, you just itchin' for a fight!

I dunno... as much as I'd love to see this thread burst into flames, maybe you all should stop shooting daggers at each other from your keyboards.

But if you are going to fight, you know what you need?

Lasers.

That is all.

-the valrus

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by me
If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.

Originally posted by RacerX
This public statement has left me (and I suspect others) somewhat disturbed. Yes, this statement makes me afraid. Sorry if this hurts, but you made this statement in an open forum (not a privite message) and it is still in play for myself and others.

PM'd my way by RacerX, reproduced with permission
If you plan on staying in the thread, try to keep that anger in check. And for God sake ( ), fill in the holes that I pointed out. If you know anything about me by now, it should be that I can use peoples own word against them better than anyone. When I point things like that out to you, just remember what I would do if it was anyone else but you.

My main frustration with you RacerX is that while others can disagree with me (Bernie especially), they are willing to politely debate and still get their point across and still make me think twice about why I believe what I believe. You are a very good debater, but because you jump the gun sometimes, some of us [read: ME] don't follow as quickly. Which leads me to my explanation of my statement above that has generated so much fear…

Because you get to the point so quickly, often times I am asked to make decisions that I have not thought about before. You say you have never pressured me for a quick reply, which is true, but my method for debate is much more nitpicky and I find your bluntness overbearing at times. Such is the case for your questioning of whether or not I would adhere to morality if the Bible was proved false. I answered as honestly as I could at the time, which was "I don't know". That is not to say that I'll blow myself up or something crazy, it is simply that I would probably speed in my car more and live a life that could be summed up with two words: "Who cares?!?!" As it is, I believe in a sovereign God who is above all, holy, holy, holy. And I will attempt to live a life of perfection in keeping with the commandments of the Bible.

I hope that is a satisfactory ammendment.

 

[MDLarson]

So how did everybody do exactly? I got one direct hit and two bitten bullets. I kind of complain a little bit because I got snagged by technicalities, but at least I got the TPM medal of distinction! What's TPM stand for?

-Matt Larson, the crazy Christian Bible-banging fundamentalist freaky guy who just won't go away

 

[scruffy]

I've got a job interview! Tomorrow ! Morning ! For my first real computer job, and I haven't even officially done school yet. I'm so excited! Wish me luck, y'all.

To get back on topic then: Yes, I suspect we all need to chill out here, and make sure we don't come across as aggressive or condescending.

On the poll, I answered two ways, for different definitions of God - once as 'any supernatural being inconceivably more powerful than we', then again as 'the Tao'.

In the first go-round, I got a direct hit - I said one could reaonably assume there is no Loch Ness monster if nobody's managed to find evidence, and then that atheism is a matter of faith under lack of evidence. The problem was, I added some assumptions of my own - that the monster is a big lizardy creature that would occupy a significant volume of lake, and be visible to sonar and so on, so its not turning up if it did exist would be extremely unlikely.

In the second round, I got one bitten bullet, same as nkuvu. Basically, the problem there (in my opinion) was with the inherent assumption in some of the questions that 'God' is a sentient being with a mind that works like ours, i.e. with what we would call 'will', 'identity', etc.

Oh, and Matt - TPM = The Philosophers' Magazine

 

[simX]

I got two direct hits, but no bitten bullets.

The first direct hit was because I said that any being that was right to call God could do anything, but then I said that God couldn't make circles into squares.

The second direct hit was because I had first said that it was foolish to believe in God when there was an apparent lack of evidence, but then I answered no it wasn't foolish in the similar question later on – I guess in retrospect it was a direct contradiction, but I would probably agree with bernie: people can believe what they want, but I don't have that strong inner feeling.

 

[The Madhatter]

hey guys, I'll be absent a few days from the board, but as soon as I come back I'll see what I missed. I have to get my wisdom teeth pulled, so I will be even smarter when I return. Haha Hopefully I don't have any nerves wrapped around roots or anything nasty like that. Anyways, I'll be back ASAP.

 

[nkuvu]

Oh sure, likely story. Once things start to get interesting, the main proponent for religion up and leaves, claiming "real life" issues. First Matt, now MadHatter, who's next? Sheesh.




This is a joke. This is only a joke. Had this been an actual criticism there would be more logical content and less rolling of eyes. This concludes this joke.

 

[RacerX]

An emergency had kept me out most of yesterday (and part of this morning). As one not to let things go unsaid, let see what we have to respond to...

by the Valrus
RacerX, you just itchin' for a fight!

No, but I have found from experience that walking away from one is the best way of being stabbed in the back. And Simone had no point in trying to take such a righteous attitude (or getting involve at all for that matter) in something that he was not a part of. His conduct in his posts provides him with no moral high ground on this issue, and I also hate it when people drag a thread off topic for personal reasons. Maybe he’ll get the point (but some how I doubt it).

poor Simone's attempt to be the center of attention
You don't care whatsoever about Matt's feelings.

You have no idea what I care about with regards to Matt, so your statement is pointless. The real reason this is going on is because you wanted try to make a point with me, not for Matt's sake. You are working very hard to escalate this because I bruised your ego at one point and you haven't gotten over it. Like I said, we should take it outside this thread because you, Simone, are being far more disruptive to this thread than Matt's out burst this morning.

Like I said, there is a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive, but apparently you seem to think the contrary.

And you seem to think that posting being vindictive and petty is okay by comparison. Anyone who holds a grudge as long as you Simone has real problems (most likely an inferiority complex, but who is to say). At any rate, try and get yourself in check here, your blood pressure is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

It seems to me that it's not me who's posting off-topic or who is having trouble making a coherent argument, RacerX, but you who is having trouble seeing the obvious connection.

Oh, no... to late, logic is out the window (Simone you are so predictable, ). My posts in this thread (up to my responses to your wounded-ego posts) have been very directed, very on topic, and stand on their own. I am not going to bring Matt into an argument with you (seeing as you should really never have been part of it to begin with), but you are going to need to show us where I was posting off-topic (please do a better job here than you did in the Sports thread).

Lets see if you can do a better job in the next exciting sentence (I can hardly wait)...

My point is that people are getting upset because of things that you have said, and you aren't one to say that they don't have these feelings. You could simply be a little more careful in the tone that you have in your posts.

People? As in many? Over what? (note to Simone: please provide a direct quote that is upsetting people)

I don't know, I think I can see the difference in my tone from a discussion to responding to a vindictive attack, but if you need more examples... please post off topic some more. Either that or move it out of the thread, your ego isn't going to be saved here.

(for others in this thread: I apologize for this and all future posts that may need to be made because Simone needed to get involved in something that didn’t concern him. I hope we can stay on topic, but I am going to respond to ALL of Simone’s post on this issue.)

 

[RacerX]

Matt,
Sorry about being so direct, and yes, the amendment does help ease my concerns.

_____________________________________

Though the thought of some members being shot at (e.g. Simone) is a somewhat amusing thought at this time, I was hoping more would take the time to give more full and complete response to at least some of the questions (sorta like Bernie and I did).

 

[bighairydog]

OK, this is a defense of Matt's original, unammended post, that got so much attention. Two disclaimers - 1) I know he has since ammended it, and 2) I am not implying what I think Matt thinks, just talking about the logic of a Christian mindset.

Originally posted by Matt
If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.

In this post, I'm not dealing with whether a Christian belief is logical, just with what the logical course of action would be if one did have such a belief. (most) Christians have a strong feeling that their god exists, and face it - If anybody had such a feeling, they would believe too. I am not questioning here the rationality behind this feeling.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a loyal Christian. You think that there is a god, who will reward you with Heaven if you are good. You think that the Bible is his 'life manual', telling you how to be good. Now you find out that the Bible is wrong. It is entirely rational at this point to become dissilusioned - what you thought was the right way to live your life, it now turns out is just a falliable book written by humans. That's quite a mindfsck!

Of course you would now question the laws of the land, which are for the most part based on Christian ethics.

Back to talking specifically about Matt, Matt never said he would go out and rob a Drug Store, just that he would be less inclined to slavishly follow the rules laid down by the government, presumably because the connection between these rules and the word of god would have been removed. A more positive rephrasing of what he said might be "If I found out the bible was wrong, I would be more inclined to question authority" Questioning authority is in my opinion a good thing.

I think it wrong that Matt's post quoted above was treated with such distain. It would logical result of a major reshuffling of your beliefs, and whilst one might question Matt's beliefs, I don't think that that post is open to criticism, insofar as it is logical within the framework of his beliefs.

// ever the diplomat

Bernie )

 

[RacerX]

Let me explain where I am coming from with my moral and ethical structuring, and maybe you can see where I became alarmed by what Matt had originally said.

I believe that all acts that are moral and ethical are determined by duty and reason. Further I am of the belief that if you do something (anything) for a reward, it is a selfish act (even if the act seems good for all concerned). Any action which would meet my standards of being moral and ethical is always going to have negative consequences for the person doing the act (basically, no good deed goes unpunished type of thing).

Lets look at some (simple) examples:

(1) You are driving down the road and you see someone in need of help. The only thing you can count on is that you are going to be late by stopping (anything else is really beyond the foresight of your position). Do you stop to help someone even though it is going to cost you in some way?

(2) You have just left the drive thru at McDonald's, you have driven for a couple minutes before you notice that the cashier gave you a $10 bill in stead of the $5 you should have gotten (having worked at McDonald's as a teen, I remember that being off by more than $1 was enough to end someone's job). Do you turn back and return the money?

These are real choices, and for me there is no reward of heaven (or anything else for that matter) involved... and no question of what is the right thing to do.

The actions I would take would not change no matter how drastically my understanding of the world changes. These types of character traits are who I am independent of all external influences.

 

[bighairydog]

Racer - Whilst your last post gave interesting insights into your morality and outlook on life, the Law has little to say about what is the correct course of action under those circumstances, so questioning the law doesn't mean that you would question what to do in those situations. Therefore my previous post stands.

Also, I doubt that I have ever performed an unselfish act in my entire life. I have given back the extra to cashiers that gave me too much change, knowing that if I didn't do so It would be taken out of their wages, but I did so because it makes me happy to see somebody else happy as the direct result of my actions. In that sense, It was a selfish act - I did it to make me happy. Have you ever done anything that was entirely selfless? I put it to you that in *every* choice situation in your entire life, you did what you tought would make you happiest. I don't think humans are capable of doing anything else.

Take the example of the change from McDonalds. If you drove back then you would lose time, so perhaps feel angry at being late, but surely you drove back because you would have fealt worse through guilt at getting somebody fired if you didn't. In that sense, driving back was a selfish deed to maximise your own happiness.

Altruism is overrated IMHO.

Bernie )

 

[RacerX]

The answer to your question... yes.

And though I wish not to talk at length on the subject, I can say that my life and everything I had worked for to that point is gone because of my actions. And even knowing the consequences of those actions, I would do them again because they were the right thing to do. I have only the satisfaction (though no joy) of knowing that I was that person I always believed I would be when face with personal sacrifice of that magnitude.

I put it to you that in *every* choice situation in your entire life, you did what you tought would make you happiest. I don't think humans are capable of doing anything else.

I think only humans are capable of something else, it is the real difference. You may live that way, I could not.

 

[bighairydog]

That answer satisfies me - I think the difference in our points of view arise from my personal definition of what constitutes selfishness, and we are actually fairly similar morally.

Originally posted by RacerX
I wish not to talk at length on the subject

Agreed (we have argued on the same side splitting hairs before ;o) - another thread, another time perhaps.

I'm off to bed, for tomorrow I rise at 6:30 and hit the Bodlean library. A truely selfless act )

Bernie )

 

[RacerX]

Maybe I should clarify what I am saying. If your actions are based on the intention of doing the right thing, then the consequences and/or reward and the actual out come have no effect on the ethics and morality behind that act. If you do good deeds based on earning some reward (and not because it is the right thing to do), then that act is selfish no matter the rewards or outcome. If you save someone for a reward, then you are no hero because your motives are not those of a hero (that is, your motives were not selfless).

So Bernie, if you go and give back the money because it is the right thing to do and you are rewarded by feeling good, then you did the right thing. If you wanted to feel good, so you returned the money to achieve this, then your motives were selfish (even if the act produces a good outcome for someone else).

This is where I have problems with the Heaven as a reward idea. If the only reason you are being a good person is to get to Heaven (even if it doesn't exist), then your motives are basically corrupt. My question has always been why would God reward people who are acting solely on the basis of getting a reward? In the end it makes religions suspect because I question the real motives behind them.

I'm off to bed...

Hope to talk to ya tomorrow then!

 

[bighairydog]

True, and an interesting take on the "is altruism possible" question. However, it isn't possible to separate 'doing the right thing' and acting selfishly, because they are the same. An example:

You give back the change to the cashier in McDonalds. You do this because you think that this is the right thing to do. If you had not done so, then you would feel bad for not having done the right thing. Therefore, surely this is indistinguishable from selfishness, as your actions avoided a bad feeling of guilt.

I think humans get their morality from what they think is the correct thing to do, and by thinking that something is the correct thing to do, they will be happier doing it than an immoral alternative. Therefore selfishness is a truism by co-definition, as I have defined being selfish as doing what you want to do, and defined what you want to do as what you actually do. I have therefore been introducing a null point into the debate, and should be put to sleep.

I really am going to bed now...

Bernie )

 

[xoot]

An anonymous comment about this thread:

<****> Oh, and *****, if you're bored and you don't mind reading through some sludge, would you look through the "Repent for being a Mac user" thread and tell me what you think about RacerX's comments?

 

[RacerX]

That is why I like to keep things in public! Read away!

 

[AdmiralAK]

this thread is still alive ?

 

[edX]

well, on this tangent to the main subject, i have to agree with Bernie. There is no such thing as a selfless act. all acts must be considered from a self view in some way or another. To try and raise one's moral and ethics beyond one's self is to deny the contributions of the subconscious and the emotions. That does not mean that all selfish acts are done for the sake of reward. From my point of view, all acts are rewarded - some more justly than others. Inaction is more likely to bring nothing back to oneself. But then one can selfishly avoid having negative actions return to them by avoiding the actions that bring them.

But to bring Coach's point of view in line with this way of thinking, i would say that empathy is one of the most fundamental tools in developing a less "self centered" set of morals and ethics. One must be able to put one's self in another's situation in order to know how they are effected/affected by one's actions. But this requires connecting one's sense of self and self gratification in order to accomplish. Or to put it another way, one cannot 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' until one has a firm grasp on how one would like others to do to them.

selfish, in the sense that Bernie is proposing is not a bad thing, or an immoral one. It is the foundation of human happiness. We know lots about what makes people unhappy and depressed. But one of the few things we know about what makes people happy is that acts done for someone else's benefit bring the giver longer lasting happiness than acts they do for their own benefit.

We also know that people who act too selfishly or selflessly (in the more classical sense) are more prone to depression and other problems in life. In other words, a good balance of both has been show to be the healthiest.

now back to Matt - so where is it written that the laws of the land are any of God's concern? well, at least the idea of following them? Wasn't it Jesus who challenged the laws of the land because they were in contrast with the laws of God? So following laws is not a demonstration orf morals and ethics. It is showing what a good follower you can be. So why would the truth or falsness of the bible have anything to do with your obeying the speed limit or such? And is it now possible, that just because the ethics and morals presented in the bible are pretty good ones even if they were laid forth by men?

my problem has never been with the morals and ethics presented in the bible. Having been raised Christian, i am aware that they form my training in the first levels of moral reasoning. But at some point one must ask "why" are these such important rules and how do i recognize the exceptions to the rules? That is my problem with bible thumpers who use the bible as their shield. "Because it says so" is not enough for higher levels of moral reasoning. It is better than having no morals or ethics at all, but it is lacking an important element or two that are needed to apply those morals in diverse situations.