neeeel
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by neeeel
-
-
Think about the townspeople who are saying alternately "good fortune" and "bad fortune". In what way can we say that either of their conclusions are a "bad outcome"? They aren't. They are either good or bad. The same applies to Genesis. I really don't understand how you can say the stories don't matter. I would never say that the "death" that results from eating the "fruit" in both stories is equal to one choice, to one half of the tree. It's the tree of good and evil. This is, ironically, the sticking point for you. As a strict rationalist, you can't see the Genesis story as anything but a black and white issue. There is no possibility of a view that paradigmatically transcends man's sense of good and evil. You don't have a problem with the Taoist story because it does not state explicitly that making the relative choice between good and evil leads to a philosophical death. But I can predict your reply. There is really no point in continuing the debate as it will only frustrate both of us. May I suggest we drop it and leave it open to others to chime in. Maybe they can shed a new light on the topic.
I didnt say the stories dont matter. I didnt say anything about one choice, or one half of the tree.
For the last time I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES THEMSELVES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THEM TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT, WHICH RESULTS IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN YOUR STATEMENTS. NOT THE STORIES, BUT YOUR STATEMENTS
do you get it now?
-
Do you or don't you equate evil with death? How do you define these terms as they relate to both stories?
Yes, the Taoist story's point is that we can never know the ultimate outcome of any chain of events. The Genesis story is saying the same thing, albeit in positive terms. God clearly says, "don't eat the fruit. it will lead to death" If the farmer follows the crowd and variously mourns and rejoices at each link in the chain/tree, he is lead into a philosophical death. He cuts himself off from the fluidity of outcomes by committing to any particular event as being good or bad.
Its irrelevant to my point whether I equate evil with death (I dont, but its irrelevant)
You are equating death as a bad outcome, I never mentioned evil. As I keep saying, its not about the story, or the genesis story, its about how you are relating the two with a logical contradiction
-
It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?
You are totally missing the point. I am finding it hard to comprehend how, since I have now repeated it two or three times
again:-
The story says we never know if an outcome will be good or bad
You are using this story, and then claiming that we know that the outcome of something will be bad.
-
It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?
You keep missing the point.
YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this
-
It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?
You keep missing the point.
YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this
-
You are wonderful and I applaud you!
Question: When the writer of "The Taoist Farmer" wrote,
"Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed."
was he suggesting that wisdom was in the townspeople's reaction to the series of events or in the farmer's response?
you are missing the point entirely
you are pointing to a story that says we can never know whether an action or outcome is good or bad
And then comparing that story to one where theres an outcome that you class as good ( and one outcome is bad)
ITs a contradiction
-
That's very funny and ironic! I've been lectured over and over again how atheism is not a belief in anything- and rightly so! You are actually saying that "not eating the fruit" is an action. I've heard about C.S. Lewis that when the gun of his argument misfired he would pistol whip his opponent. Thanks for the illustration.
no idea what this is, but unsurprisingly its not an answer to my critisism
Edit to add: belief is not the same as action.
And yes, atheism is the non belief in a god. You could claim, as some do that strong atheism is a belief, the belief in the non existence of god. But saying "I dont believe you" is not a belief
-
For the Taoist farmer to "eat the fruit" would be for him to agree with the townspeople. It sounds like you are saying the opposite. Is that true or am I reading you wrong? Can you clarify your position?
We can never know whats ultimately good or bad according to the story , but you are claiming that we know that its ultimately good to not eat the fruit, .
Its a contradiction.
You are using a story about how we cant know if something is good or not, to prove that an action is ultimately for the good
-
The Taoist Farmer 道人
近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」
Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what makes you think this is not a good thing?"
居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：「此何遽不能為禍乎！」
Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said: "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?"
家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」
The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said: "what makes you think this is not a good thing!"
居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保
One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he was lame, the old man and his son were both spared.
故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。
Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed.
The story in Genesis is much like this Taoist story. God instructs man not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree can be thought of as a series of events, choices, and consequences. The Taoist farmer is faced with the same choice. For him, to ‘eat the fruit’ is to decide what is ultimately good and bad. Wisdom is knowing these changes never reach an end and can never be fathomed. Therefore to ‘eat the fruit’ leads to death, philosophically speaking.
"Information is not knowledge,
Knowledge is not wisdom,
Wisdom is not truth,
Truth is not beauty,
Beauty is not love,
Love is not music
and Music is THE BEST"
-Frank Zappa
Right,and to not eat the fruit is to decide what is ultimately good or bad. You totally misunderstood the Taoist story and then shoehorned it into your Christian narrative in a way that makes no sense
-
1
-
-
Yes and no....
No first
God made man good and man fell. A good but broken creation
Yes
As fallen people our choices are limited by a fallen broken nature
Grace does break out of that and we are remade
http://www.slideshare.net/insight#views/63015274/%3Frange%3D3m
Doesn't make sense. God made man good but by some mechanism that we never quite know, man somehow "becomes bad"? Come on, you need to do better than that. Gods creation became corrupted, but how,if God is all powerful and all knowing?
You can't just say "man fell" and think that is an explanation for anything
I'm no expert on this, but if God (of the Bible) is real, then there must be reasons for it. And I am not going to state the following like I am right, just ideas.
Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent. The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption. I don't know if you watched Stranger Things on Netflix, but the contrast between the kids and the adults were striking to me. All the adults had been corrupted in one way or another while the kids were innocent, even in their mistakes. Look how smart we are now, and look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.
There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology, basic learning and all that. Maybe that was the way he wanted us to stay.
Or it could all be crap, and in that case, nothing really matters, we could blow ourselves up tomorrow and be dust in the wind the day after that and the universe will no longer have a witness of its existence.
I have noticed that a lot of people do this, come up with some plausible explanation, and then use that as "proof" for the thing you are supporting. What ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion, without evidence to back up your theories. It's just "cool story bro" otherwise.
I'm no expert on this, but if God (of the Bible) is real, then there must be reasons for it. And I am not going to state the following like I am right, just ideas.
Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent. The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption. I don't know if you watched Stranger Things on Netflix, but the contrast between the kids and the adults were striking to me. All the adults had been corrupted in one way or another while the kids were innocent, even in their mistakes. Look how smart we are now, and look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.
There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology, basic learning and all that. Maybe that was the way he wanted us to stay.
Or it could all be crap, and in that case, nothing really matters, we could blow ourselves up tomorrow and be dust in the wind the day after that and the universe will no longer have a witness of its existence.
I have noticed people doing this quite a lot, come up with some plausible explanation and then use that explan to support the thing they are advocating for. But you have to realise that what ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion without evidence to back up your theories.
Anyone can come up with some plausible idea to explain something, doesn't mean it's true
-
it is possible in various ways to 'taste and see that the Lord is good' whith His help.
How?
-
I know of no unresolvable apparent contradiction in the Bible. I know quite a few atheists consider slam dunks. Perhaps you could pick a few as example?
the fact that god made us the way we are, and then punishes us for being the way we are, is a pretty hefty one for me ( no, I dont care or accept that "free will" is a rebuttal to this)
-
2
-
-
I've not had much success engaging them, it always feels more like a lecture since I'll begin with my bit and they'll squirm through it with "maybes" and generalities however it always feels like a one sided conversation that is usually over quickly. Whereas in a good conversation there would be back and forth questioning and a discussion, usually in the case of my parents it'll be my monologue followed by their monologue which will switch the topic and then it's over. In this case the "we can't all be clever" bit to end the conversation like you said.
To answer the other two questions, what was going on for me and why is it important to talk about stuff other than trivialities - well I was getting increasingly frustrated and bored during the conversation we were having (if it can be called that I may as well have not been there, a mirror could have played my part). I have a strong feeling my parents are not happy in the way they live their lives, my mother in particular does the whole running around after her mother thing. Part of me wants to wake her up to the miserable life that she's living, perhaps by getting her interested in deeper topics? With other people like my brother + some friends, I have absolutely no desire to talk to them about this stuff because I know they are not interested in it, I'm not entirely sure why I'm pushing it with my parents.
I didnt realise that you were actually talking about your parents in the OP, that it was them you were having the conversations with. Its interesting that you state that you have no desire to talk to your brother and friends about it. I think that tells us something, since it seems obvious that your parents arent interested either. So it seems like "getting through" to your parents has more significance, which makes sense, but what significance does it have, what does it mean? Do you like/love your parents? Do you think they are nice people? Perhaps you believe that if you can get them interested and having conversations and learning self knowledge, they will become nice people?
-
1
-
-
The issue i am having is that i don't feel like i can truly speak my mind with here in fear of pushing here away, and this is not something i know for sure other then i feel a bit of disgust in her towards me when i speak about imigration, refugees, islam and such. (she totally respects my anarchistic views tho! even if she is for more of a socialistic society)
Why would you want to marry someone who you cant speak your mind to?
Why would you want to marry someone who finds you disgusting?
-
what is "the effort" that she wants you to make? What would that involve?
-
I was listening to a podcast the other day where stef was talking ( about parents or authority figures, but I think it applies here) about how if a reaction to something seems wierd or exaggerated or out of place, there is probably something going on for the person having the reaction.
I wonder whats going on for you? How did your parents react when you tried to bring up some important ( to you) topic? Why is it important to you to talk to people about stuff other than trivialities?
I would guess the "we cant all be clever" line is being used to try and bring you back into line, to socially control you and stop you from questioning things. It doesnt sound like they are giving you a compliment.
-
1
-
-
The question is not necessarily "was I abused" but "did I get what I needed when I was growing up".
Did you get the love, support,advice and protection you needed in order to grow up confident and happy?
-
1
-
-
If by "enforce statelessness" you mean stop people who want to set up a state from doing so then yes, if someone tries to do that you need to stop them. But I don't think there's been any evidence presented that only a state can stop a new state from forming.
No. In a free society, people would be free to set up a state, and live under it. Obviously, they would have to have their own land, they couldnt just set up anywhere they wanted, and if they started using violence or coercion on people who hadnt agreed to be in their state, then that would be a problem.
-
he says they give the correct interpretation of the world, in that , they are reacting to light rays that are really there, and exist, and to chemicals and electric currents that are really there, and exist. So he is correct in that sense. but eyes dont interpret.
-
I would imagine everyone does this. I dont see how they dont. You carry the people you know, or who are important to you, around with you , in your head. In fact, you only relate to the people you carry around in your head, and not to the actual real people. But thats another thing.
so yes, I often have conversations with people in my head, my therapist, my parents, my friends, Why would you fight it? Thats like fighting breathing. You can be aware of it, and acknowledge it, and let it be without attributing significance to it, if thats what you want.
-
no, objectively true means, its true whether or not anyone believes it
As I said, objectively christian doesnt make sense, for the reason you state.
-
I've been asking people here what other definition they have for 'objectively' and no one has come forth.
really? No one came forth, challenged your definition of objectively, and gave an alternative?
It seems like you are just trying to claim someone ( and his "followers") and bring them into your in-group. Ie, you are trying to claim Stef ( and therefore FDR members) as christian.
Objectively christian doesnt make sense. Objective describes something that is outside all minds, outside all "personal beliefs or feelings". This includes your beliefs and feelings. If something is objectively true, then its true whether or not anyone believes it.
For someone to be objectively christian, it would have to be true whether or not anyone believed it.
Dogs have some human traits, can we then claim that they are objectively human?
-
Brace yourself for the "unchosen X of the gaps" strategy. Insert a desire in there somewhere, as if everything mental was desire.
Whatever it is, something unchosen must be shoved into the gap, because we've already established the premise that mental states are unchosen. If they're unchosen then they're unchosen, as the Determinist says, unaware of the circular logic.
Whereas the "they are chosen therefore they are chosen" is not at all circular
-
I can put my big boy pants on and not be offended. I get that it's my choice to be offended. But that doesn't change the fact that Kevin Beal hasn't been refuted. Kevin made about a bajillion arguments and they all go unrefuted, but people have the gall to get bitchy at him when they make one argument, have it refuted, when they expected they were correct, but they really weren't.
I made arguments that werent refuted
Tundras argument hasnt been refuted either.
And some people think God has no sense of humor
in Science & Technology
Posted
people might think that I have no sense of humour, but I dont get it