Love

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm reminded of the 5 blind men feeling the elephant. One thought the body was a wall. Another thought the legs were tree trunks. Another thought the tail was a rope. The ears were thought to be palm fronds. The trunk was interpreted to be a snake.


It was still just a goddam elephant.

[rubliw]

I'm reminded of the 5 blind men feeling the elephant. One thought the body was a wall. Another thought the legs were tree trunks. Another thought the tail was a rope. The ears were thought to be palm fronds. The trunk was interpreted to be a snake.


It was still just a goddam elephant.

Well, things do exist as they are, apart from our beliefs about them, yes.  That idea has been and is essential to my view.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Well, things do exist as they are, apart from our beliefs about them, yes.  That idea has been and is essential to my view.

Yes, right up until the point where you smuggle in unfounded declarations and parade them as facts.

I say, "love is a biochemical reaction" and you say, yes, but that biochemical reaction gives our lives higher meaning and then whine that to say otherwise makes one a sociopath.

The only chemical reaction of transcendent signifigance is beer.

[MrsSmith]

Well, let me help you discern.  I reject Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and the Bible as the word of God divinely revealed.  False prophet, false book, false religion.  Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is the Word of God divinely revealed, original sin, eternal life, and on and on and on. There's at least a *minor* difference there.  I am sure of it.  

{apologies to Snuggle, but I just have to point out...} wilbur, you make it so obvious that you pride yourself on your intelligence, your knowledge, your rational outlook on life.  You make all your decisions by looking at all the facts, and then choose logically.  Yet here you make quite clear that you've made an eternal decision without ANY knowledge.  You've taken the opinions of those that also have no knowledge and based your decision on those opinions instead of learning the basic facts about Christ before deciding.  It's awfully hard to make intelligent, logical, rational decisions based on complete ignorance.

[rubliw]

{apologies to Snuggle, but I just have to point out...} wilbur, you make it so obvious that you pride yourself on your intelligence, your knowledge, your rational outlook on life.  You make all your decisions by looking at all the facts, and then choose logically.  Yet here you make quite clear that you've made an eternal decision without ANY knowledge.  You've taken the opinions of those that also have no knowledge and based your decision on those opinions instead of learning the basic facts about Christ before deciding.  It's awfully hard to make intelligent, logical, rational decisions based on complete ignorance.

Well, MrsSmith - I understand the greater points of Christian theology much more than you would ever give me credit for, and I know many of the arguments for and against the existence of God and for and against the truth of Christianity VERY well - I've studied much of the best that contemporary Christian philosophy has to offer, thank you very much.   And I really don't think there is any amount of expertise I could display on the topic that would get you to reverse your belief here.    

But as you do, you presume to be able to  peer inside my brain, and tell me whats in it.  But you simply cannot know what facts I have looked at, or what knowledge I do have, besides what little slices of it I have chosen to discuss over the internet.

And also given the absolutely tremendous effort I have to expel in our dialogs just to try and carry you to a point where you can properly  characterize my arguments (most of the time, it doesn't succeed) so that - finally - you might get to the level understanding that would allow you to raise relevant counterpoints, I can say quite confidently that most of the time - you simply fail to understand me.  Then, true to your form, you generally proceed to call me ignorant for it.  You still don't even understand my abortion arguments properly.  I would think it was a problem with my communication skills, if it wasnt for the fact that dozens others, in other internet conversations I have, can get the gist of what I say just fine - on the same topics.  The problem is you.

So, with all that in mind, your lectures really carry all the force of a wet noodle.

[rubliw]

Yes, right up until the point where you smuggle in unfounded declarations and parade them as facts.

I say, "love is a biochemical reaction" and you say, yes, but that biochemical reaction gives our lives higher meaning

I never qualified meaning with the term "higher".  In fact, I already conceded that there is no "higher" or ultimate meaning.  The concept itself is incoherent - even if God existed and created us for His purposes, or even if we are in a Godless universe.  Whatever one currently believes is the ultimate meaning, will remain so for only as long as no one thinks to ask, "Well, what is the meaning of that?".  

So that leaves us with a couple options.  One option might be to banish the term from our language entirely, but I hardly think its incoherency (only when coupled with qualifiers like "ultimate" or "higher") warrants something so rash.  We might simply remove the qualifiers and look for something real that the term might possibly refer too.  

I would say meaning arises, and refers to something real, when one the combination arises of sentience, a desire to act, and a compelling reason (or reasons) for that action.  In that sense, an act becomes meaningful - and the fact that we all die and the universe will end in billions of years does not detract from that at all, nor would the possibility of immortality and an everlasting universe make it more meaningful somehow.  

It doesnt make any sense to say that planet earth does not exist, because eventually it won't.  So it is with meaning.

and then whine that to say otherwise makes one a sociopath.

Here is what I really said: "Unless one is a true sociopath, one's own preferences will always include some concern for the welfare of at least a few other people, and may even compel one to be altruistic, philanthropic, and even self-sacrificing - these things will tickle electrons, as you say."

I'm not quite sure how one can parse that sentence as, "If one denies ultimate meaning, one must be a sociopath".  That's not what I said at all.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I would say meaning arises, and refers to something real, when one the combination arises of sentience, a desire to act, and a compelling reason (or reasons) for that action.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

You're not saying anything beyond

being + will + reason = meaning

That is a declarative statement, not an explanatory statement.  It doesn't even rise to the level of descriptive because nothing explains HOW being + will = meaning.

It does nothing to explain WHAT that meaning is/should be.

Nor do you expolain the quality of meaning. Every person labelled as a tyrant assumes he has reasons for his actions. Even Hitler and emperor Tojo can be said to have loved their respective nations and their people and from that they reasoned as best they could the best course to make their nations and people prosper and they exercised their wills in accordance with their reasonings. So were their lives and loves meaningful?

Nor does it explain to WHOM the meaning belongs. There was a case in ancient Greece where an emancipated salve was murdered but as the salve was emanicipated there was no loss to her former master. Her parents were already dead and she had no husband or children. Since no one had suffered a loss except the girl herself and she was--obviously--no longer existent it was ruled that no crime had been committed.

If all meaning is doomed to end did it ever really mean anything at all? It seems to me that once the beholder of meaning ceases to be then any meaning held by that person ends with them.

WHEN does meaning begin and WHEN does it end? How about slaves and prisoners who are deprived of their ability to affect their wills? Does meaning exist if will is absent such as in the case of a mental defective be it congenital or accidental?

A "compelling reason" excludes about 95% of the world's population that simply exists by happenstance. This si such a lame descriptor one must wonder if you consider the elites of science, politics, art, law and philosophy as being the only ones worthy having their existence declared "meaningful".

Does the 12 year old Thai boy who is abducted, beaten, strung-out on opiates to secure his complaince then dressed as a girl to be peddled off to fat, rich STD-spreading whites have a meaningful existence? He has, after all, been denied both his will and any compelling reason for his being.

[MrsSmith]

Well, MrsSmith - I understand the greater points of Christian theology much more than you would ever give me credit for, and I know many of the arguments for and against the existence of God and for and against the truth of Christianity VERY well - I've studied much of the best that contemporary Christian philosophy has to offer, thank you very much.   And I really don't think there is any amount of expertise I could display on the topic that would get you to reverse your belief here.    

But as you do, you presume to be able to  peer inside my brain, and tell me whats in it.  But you simply cannot know what facts I have looked at, or what knowledge I do have, besides what little slices of it I have chosen to discuss over the internet.

And also given the absolutely tremendous effort I have to expel in our dialogs just to try and carry you to a point where you can properly  characterize my arguments (most of the time, it doesn't succeed) so that - finally - you might get to the level understanding that would allow you to raise relevant counterpoints, I can say quite confidently that most of the time - you simply fail to understand me.  Then, true to your form, you generally proceed to call me ignorant for it.  You still don't even understand my abortion arguments properly.  I would think it was a problem with my communication skills, if it wasnt for the fact that dozens others, in other internet conversations I have, can get the gist of what I say just fine - on the same topics.  The problem is you.

So, with all that in mind, your lectures really carry all the force of a wet noodle.

Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong.  Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything.  You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck.  I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.

[dutch508]

Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong.  Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything.  You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck.  I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.

Wilber,

Do you want me to break out the Book of Common Prayer (1639) on your ass?

I'll do it. I swear I will.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong.  Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything.  You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck.  I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.

To test your prospect I would hazard a guess that even someone as debased as I am could more accurately recite Christian doctrine than Charlotte the Spider's charity case here.

Wilber,

Do you want me to break out the Book of Common Prayer (1639) on your ass?

I'll do it. I swear I will.

I don't believe you have the stones to do it.

*poke-poke-poke*

[rubliw]

Every time you talk about theology or basic Christian beliefs, you are between 95 and 100% wrong.  Your complete ignorance has been pointed out by several people, yet you've never once demonstrated any attempt to learn anything.  You may have read a lot of philosophy, but you've never read anything accurate about Christianity or theology...or else, not one word of it stuck.  I don't have any trouble understanding your argument...but there isn't any IN your argument except non-facts and untruths.

If I claim the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide, for example - this isn't because I am ignorant of or have failed to comprehend the theologies that attempt to explain how apparently evil actions can be good, when God does them.  On the contrary - I understand the theologies, I can accurately represent them in an argument, and I also happen to disagree with them.   

Or if I were to say that Christianity fails due to the evidential problem of evil, this isnt because I misunderstand or am ignorant of the theodicies that attempt to reconcile God with the existence of evil - its that I think they are implausible or incoherent, so I disagree with them.  So on and so forth.

You - and the "several people" you speak of - constantly confuse this sort of disagreement with ignorance.  It is not.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Evolution is built on genocide, it demands it and is powerless to stop it. Genocide is not right or wrong it is merely a fact, like helium, refraction and pi.

And since you reject the existence of God then your argument against genocide isn't with God (do you also argue with your unicorns?) it is with evolution.

[rubliw]

Evolution is built on genocide, it demands it and is powerless to stop it. Genocide is not right or wrong it is merely a fact, like helium, refraction and pi.

And since you reject the existence of God then your argument against genocide isn't with God (do you also argue with your unicorns?) it is with evolution.

Of course my argument isn't with God - its with the religious folk who believe in him.   And of course my argument isnt with evolution, because it cannot argue - it has no mind, and is therefore amoral.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Of course my argument isn't with God - its with the religious folk who believe in him.   And of course my argument isnt with evolution, because it cannot argue - it has no mind, and is therefore amoral.

But you claim "the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide" (not that you can define morally monstrous in materialist terms) but you argue in favor of a worldview predicated on genocide, i.e. you assert evolution born of naturalistic materialism is the proper worldview.

Christians can easily assert moral offenses as the precursors for a society's elimination. Evolution being mindless does not pick or choose according to moral precept only brute survivalism.

Now seeing as the underlying assumption is: there is no God, then we must assert the destruction of the Hittites or other societies by the Israelites is merely one population group competing with another for limited resources and Darwin told the Hittites to go **** themselves. Therefore, your complaint isn't about genocide but rather genocide cloaked in religious unction.

I find that to be an odd complaint because it doesn't really matter if we kill each other over the only potable water well in a 5 mile radius or because some guy told us he heard voices the dead guy in the conversation is still dead (and it's not like the Hittites weren't listening to their own disembodied voices).

[rubliw]

But you claim "the God of the OT is a moral monster for committing genocide" (not that you can define morally monstrous in materialist terms) but you argue in favor of a worldview predicated on genocide, i.e. you assert evolution born of naturalistic materialism is the proper worldview.

Christians can easily assert moral offenses as the precursors for a society's elimination. Evolution being mindless does not pick or choose according to moral precept only brute survivalism.

Now seeing as the underlying assumption is: there is no God, then we must assert the destruction of the Hittites or other societies by the Israelites is merely one population group competing with another for limited resources and Darwin told the Hittites to go **** themselves. Therefore, your complaint isn't about genocide but rather genocide cloaked in religious unction.

I find that to be an odd complaint because it doesn't really matter if we kill each other over the only potable water well in a 5 mile radius or because some guy told us he heard voices the dead guy in the conversation is still dead (and it's not like the Hittites weren't listening to their own disembodied voices).

The God - as portrayed in the OT - is a mindful being who acts deliberately.  The Israelites are beings who act deliberately.  Evolution cannot act deliberately, so this whole objection really makes little sense.   There's no contradiction condemning or praising deliberate agents for their deliberate acts, while believing things like evolution are true.  To suggest so is clearly absurd.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The God - as portrayed in the OT - is a mindful being who acts deliberately.  The Israelites are beings who act deliberately.  Evolution cannot act deliberately, so this whole objection really makes little sense.   There's no contradiction condemning or praising deliberate agents for their deliberate acts, while believing things like evolution are true.  To suggest so is clearly absurd.

You said genocide was morally monstrous.

[rubliw]

You said genocide was morally monstrous.

Genocide generally implies a deliberate act, on the part of a being or beings who can act deliberately.  If it doesnt have that component, I don't think genocide would be the right word - epidemic, or pandemic, maybe.   And I think I said God was the moral monster, for committing genocide, to boot.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Genocide generally implies a deliberate act, on the part of a being or beings who can act deliberately.  If it doesnt have that component, I don't think genocide would be the right word - epidemic, or pandemic, maybe.   And I think I said God was the moral monster, for committing genocide, to boot.

Well, since God doesn't figure into this equation then your charge of genocide can only apply to the population group acting out the extermination of another population group.

If man is the product of evolution and evolution--as a matter of routine in its own defintion--displaces one population group with another I fail to see what your complaint is. You act as if humans--who are merely a certain sort of animal but animal nonetheless--reach a certain level of self-awareness and are suddenly to stop being products of the very processes that created them in the first place. Where is THAT written?

[rubliw]

Well, since God doesn't figure into this equation then your charge of genocide can only apply to the population group acting out the extermination of another population group.

God may not exist, but we can talk about his actions as a fictional character.  People who believe in Him hold Him up to the moral standard.  So its perfectly relevant, and important, to criticize the actions of this character.  So God really does enter into it, when condemning the things that he has done, in books about him - even though He does not exist.  Whats so difficult to understand about that?

If man is the product of evolution and evolution--as a matter of routine in its own defintion--displaces one population group with another I fail to see what your complaint is. You act as if humans--who are merely a certain sort of animal but animal nonetheless--reach a certain level of self-awareness and are suddenly to stop being products of the very processes that created them in the first place. Where is THAT written?

Just because we evolved and can observe natural selection, nothing compels us, nor gets us off the hook for committing atrocity.  It does not compel us to speed along natural selection, or to become its "agent" by actively "encouraging it". Nor is it even correct to say that displacing populations by way of genocide is the proper way to actually "be the product of the process that created us", if that's what one wants to do.  If you want to argue that, give it a shot - but I don't see it working.

Its pretty widely regarded that genetic diversity is one of the most important factors that contributes to a populations fitness.  So genocide - along with the unrest, instability, insecurity and discord it would create - really isnt any kind of way to "be the product of the process that created us".  It will generally put the population at risk - not carve out a new superspecies.

One stunningly obvious reason to condemn genocide, is that it makes the world a pretty miserable place to live.  Also, allowing genocide as a policy puts ME, and YOU at risk - so even if you cannot muster an ounce of regard for others, it makes sense to condemn it for self serving reasons.  One might even be able to say that avoiding misery is one way to "be the product of the process that created us".

And yes - we generally should start doing things differently, as we gain self-awareness.  Once a being has the capacity to think and act rationally, he ought to do so, because it will be in his own self-interest.  Genocides generally arent rational.  If one can think of a couple rational arguments to engage in genocide, there are still more powerful and rationally compelling arguments against it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

God may not exist, but we can talk about his actions as a fictional character.  People who believe in Him hold Him up to the moral standard.  So its perfectly relevant, and important, to criticize the actions of this character.  So God really does enter into it, when condemning the things that he has done, in books about him - even though He does not exist.  Whats so difficult to understand about that?

I'm dealing in existential fact at the moment.

Speaking of which:

Just because we evolved and can observe natural selection, nothing compels us, nor gets us off the hook for committing atrocity.  It does not compel us to speed along natural selection, or to become its "agent" by actively "encouraging it". Nor is it even correct to say that displacing populations by way of genocide is the proper way to actually "be the product of the process that created us", if that's what one wants to do.  If you want to argue that, give it a shot - but I don't see it working.

Nothing compels it but nothing forbids it either.

Its pretty widely regarded that genetic diversity is one of the most important factors that contributes to a populations fitness.  So genocide - along with the unrest, instability, insecurity and discord it would create - really isnt any kind of way to "be the product of the process that created us".  It will generally put the population at risk - not carve out a new superspecies.

This is you just babbling in circles. To say we must mourn the extinct because our own survival depends upon it ignores the fact that we DID survive and they did not.

You also claim genocide creates instability and unrest.

Nonsense. If anything it resolves such things.

Athens could not survive forever alongside Sparta, nor Rome alongside Carthage. Their mutual tumults dragged on for decades and it wasn't until one was defeated that the other was able to continue less troubled.

Would you have permitted an entrenched Nazi regime simply for the sake of bio-diversity?

One stunningly obvious reason to condemn genocide, is that it makes the world a pretty miserable place to live.  Also, allowing genocide as a policy puts ME, and YOU at risk - so even if you cannot muster an ounce of regard for others, it makes sense to condemn it for self serving reasons.  One might even be able to say that avoiding misery is one way to "be the product of the process that created us".

In the eyes of eternity we are already dead.

And yes - we generally should start doing things differently, as we gain self-awareness.  Once a being has the capacity to think and act rationally, he ought to do so, because it will be in his own self-interest.  Genocides generally arent rational.  If one can think of a couple rational arguments to engage in genocide, there are still more powerful and rationally compelling arguments against it.

Says who? The unicorns?