|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted June 29, 2007 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He was pagan, not an atheist.
 Hitler was pagan?
Quote:
Atheists wouldn't be restricted by religious morals (on topics such as abortion, the death penalty, animal experimentation
Not supporting animal experimentation is not the matter of religious, but purely humane moral. It has nothing to do with religion, only with common sense (or cruelty, for those who support it).
Quote:
They can't see things from the point of view of a worm all the time. Nor do they need to.
I think he wasn't referring to seeing things from the points of animals, but of otherworldly entities. Besides, humans DO need to see things from the point of other living beings ALL THE TIME because we already saw what people who didn't think that way did to the planet (and mankind). On both bigger (destruction of forests which brings to lesser production of oxygen and often unexpected erosions) and smaller scales (for example when people brought goats to some island, then they started eating plants, which endangered some other species, so they went around in helicopters shooting goats). That's what usually happens cause people are just too dumb (excuse me, "don't need to see things from other angles").
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Very nice Titanium, very nice.
Just keep insulting religion, God and Jesus. It makes you cool, very cool.
Hey thanks. About time someone said something nice to me. 
Quote:
Yeah blame religion for all the genocides in the world.
Don't make up stuff.
Quote:
Seriously, don't you think atheist can commit genocides.
Hitler was an extreme atheist and look what he has done.
blah
Yes organised religion has committed genocide because religion was being subbordonnated secretly to politics.
You would be a fool if you think that the crusade was done to liberate the holy land, it was a lie to convince as many followers as they can, while in reality the crusade was for economical and political purposes.
Oh ok, so it wasn't religion.....
I see now. It was a lie spread by people of authority about a big man in the sky, involving some sort of punishment if you don't do what they say, and involving some sort of reward if you do what they say, and a reason not to fear death.
Clearly not religion at all.
And yes some of your sarcasm has rubbed off
Quote:
Finally I would like to ask why do you overestimate humans that much?
People often accuse religion of humancentrism but in reality I think that some atheists are humancentric.
They believe that reality is according to how WE percieve it and if WE can't see something or even understand it that means it doesn't exist. When you say God doesn't exist, you are using the strategy of:
"when in doubt, deny all terms and definitions", so you deny spirituality and faith among other notions.
We humans can not percieve the world as GOD does, we can not PERFECTLY understand Him as we would with a natural phenomenon prooved by science.
Our science, thought reliable, is to imperfect to proove the existence and inexistence of GOD.
Our science is imperfect? In respect to what?
This is a prime example of what a theist gets kicks out of. Putting down humanity and all it's achievements, bad or good.
Quote:
So in the end We don't KNOW if GOD exists or if he doesn't; some of US feels Him and believes in Him, others don't.
Believe in him because someone told them to, though.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hitler was pagan?
Yeah, he believed in something like the Norse gods.
Quote:
Not supporting animal experimentation is not the matter of religious, but purely humane moral. It has nothing to do with religion, only with common sense (or cruelty, for those who support it).
Humane moral partly arose from religion. And partly it arose from instinct. But if we evalued everything rationally, we would see that we need not always follow either.
Quote:
Besides, humans DO need to see things from the point of other living beings ALL THE TIME because we already saw what people who didn't think that way did to the planet (and mankind).
The human race always needs to look out for its own benefit, at the expense of other living things, if necessary. However, the human race needs to look beyond immediate benefit and see what would benefit it best in the long run.
Quote:
On both bigger (destruction of forests which brings to lesser production of oxygen and often unexpected erosions)
That is ultimately harmful to humans, so they should be more careful about it.
Quote:
and smaller scales (for example when people brought goats to some island, then they started eating plants, which endangered some other species, so they went around in helicopters shooting goats).
That's stupid. Why do humans need those other species of animals?
Quote:
Love
What is love? Love is two things.
1. Parental love: Parents care for their children out of an instinct for them to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.
2. Romantic love: People look for desirable mates, so that they can pass their genes on to the next generation. And they take care of their mates so they can do it again and again, and also mutually benefit each other in other ways (food, taking care of offspring, etc.).
And love stems from those two things, though we often don't realize it. Science has nothing to do with love. Science's and love's purposes sometimes cooperate (say, better health gotten through science helps reproduction of the human race), but science does other things as well (weapons research, birth control) that inhibit growth of the human race. But the original internal human impulses have quite different uses now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, he believed in something like the Norse gods.
Read this. It might help.
Quote:
But if we evalued everything rationally, we would see that we need not always follow either.
Indeed. As preached by above-mentioned Hitler.
Quote:
The human race always needs to look out for its own benefit, at the expense of other living things, if necessary.
So ridiculous, yet so true. That's what makes me sad I'm a human.
It actually wasn't Hitler's fault. We are fascist as a specie.
Quote:
That's stupid. Why do humans need those other species of animals?
They don't. But has it ever occured to you that there might be people out there that wish to STOP something from being exterminated for no reason? If you think about it REAL hard I think you might even partially understand that.
Quote:
Love is two things.
That, my friend, is probably the main difference between me and you. Love is not a thing; or two things. It can not be defined, by words or by science. You say that love is product of instinct, but it never occured to you that instinct might be product of love - so that people - and animals - though that's not so different as you preach - can protect their loved ones.
Science can not be compared to love, indeed. Because science is commercialized; a tool of whoever pays. While love is free. I just hope you haven't resigned yourself to man-made systems so much to forget about the concept of freedom. Though it wouldn't surprise me after what you said.
Life itself is not as fascist as you present it. One day you might even comprehend that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature, and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the state, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science."
To me, this sounds like a lot of religious people. Anyway, it's clear that Hitler wasn't an atheist.
Quote:
So ridiculous, yet so true. That's what makes me sad I'm a human.
It actually wasn't Hitler's fault. We are fascist as a specie.
Why would it make you sad? And we are not fascist as a species. Fascism is an economic method coupled with a system of government. Fascism is not necessarily racist. But even ordinary racism is different from the way we survive as a species. Racism is nothing more than a tool used by leaders who exploit it. And it often survives after these leaders are gone. The survival of the species is different. There is no fundamental difference between Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasians. It doesn't matter which race survives, they are all human. The distinction is made because they look different, of course, and because leaders wish to further their own power by creating hate against other races. But there is a fundmental difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Quote:
They don't. But has it ever occured to you that there might be people out there that wish to STOP something from being exterminated for no reason? If you think about it REAL hard I think you might even partially understand that.
I understand that there are such people. I don't agree with them, but I understand that they exist. And animals aren't being exterminated for no reason, they're being exterminated as a result of progress of the human race.
Quote:
You say that love is product of instinct, but it never occured to you that instinct might be product of love - so that people - and animals - though that's not so different as you preach - can protect their loved ones.
But why do they love those who are their loved ones? They love their friends (that arose from loyalty to the members of one's hunting group) and they love their family (that arose from needing to pass on genes).
The difference between humans and animals. You say that I preach that there is a significant difference, but I don't think that the difference is as great as you say that I say. Humans aren't different from animals, humans are animals. However, I am an animal that happens to be a human (as opposed to a fish or a dog). Thus, I want to further the progress and domination of humans, not that of fish or dogs. And if that's at the expense of other species, so be it.
Quote:
I just hope you haven't resigned yourself to man-made systems so much to forget about the concept of freedom.
By freedom, do you mean free will? Because there is no such thing; it is an illusion. Even the most religious person probably admits that everything is made out of molecules, and molecules are made out of atoms. These atoms move and interact. And the way that they interact is set in stone. An atom is moving in one way, and it meets another atom. Depending on their composition and movement, they will interact in a predictable way. And all atoms are composed a certain way and moving a certain way. There can only be one outcome of their interactions. We may not know enough to predict everything, but we know that the outcome will not change, no matter what we do, because we are part of the outcome. If, for example, you found out that someone you love was going to commit suicide, and you stopped them, then the world was thus so that you would. If you didn't find out, and they succeeded, then the world was predetermined otherwise. But it's still predetermined either way (our knowledge and actions are predetermined as well, so we can't do anything about it). However, no one "predetermines" the world, it just is this way, and it always has been.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Garbax
Hired Hero
Struggling with RL
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 07:57 PM |
|
|
Hello again, just felt compelled to answer
Quote:
Why would it make you sad? And we are not fascist as a species. Fascism is an economic method coupled with a system of government. Fascism is not necessarily racist. But even ordinary racism is different from the way we survive as a species. Racism is nothing more than a tool used by leaders who exploit it. And it often survives after these leaders are gone. The survival of the species is different. There is no fundamental difference between Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasians. It doesn't matter which race survives, they are all human. The distinction is made because they look different, of course, and because leaders wish to further their own power by creating hate against other races. But there is a fundmental difference between humans and chimpanzees.
May i ask, does this fundamental differences gives us any right to do whatever we want to them? For the record, they're living beings, like us...
Quote:
I understand that there are such people. I don't agree with them, but I understand that they exist. And animals aren't being exterminated for no reason, they're being exterminated as a result of progress of the human race..
Did you know that this "progress" of the human race is ultimately leading our planet to it's demise? We are killing the planet because we are disrupting it's balance by exterminating this species, when we have nothing else to exterminate, we'll end up exterminating ourselves.
I'm not a tree-hugger, i eat my meat and stuff, i consider progress to be a good thing, but it should be done in a way that guarantees that there will be something for tomorrow, I guess it's called "sustained development" or something like that.
Quote:
The difference between humans and animals. You say that I preach that there is a significant difference, but I don't think that the difference is as great as you say that I say. Humans aren't different from animals, humans are animals. However, I am an animal that happens to be a human (as opposed to a fish or a dog). Thus, I want to further the progress and domination of humans, not that of fish or dogs. And if that's at the expense of other species, so be it.
Once again, progress is not a bad thing, what's wrong is not respecting the balance of nature so that we can assure a sustained progress and have something for our children, just squandering the resources of our planet would lead to our eventual destruction.
Quote:
By freedom, do you mean free will? Because there is no such thing; it is an illusion. Even the most religious person probably admits that everything is made out of molecules, and molecules are made out of atoms. These atoms move and interact. And the way that they interact is set in stone. An atom is moving in one way, and it meets another atom. Depending on their composition and movement, they will interact in a predictable way. And all atoms are composed a certain way and moving a certain way. There can only be one outcome of their interactions. We may not know enough to predict everything, but we know that the outcome will not change, no matter what we do, because we are part of the outcome. If, for example, you found out that someone you love was going to commit suicide, and you stopped them, then the world was thus so that you would. If you didn't find out, and they succeeded, then the world was predetermined otherwise. But it's still predetermined either way (our knowledge and actions are predetermined as well, so we can't do anything about it). However, no one "predetermines" the world, it just is this way, and it always has been.
I think you missed a point, We are not atoms and we have another qualities that they don't have.We have feelings and intelligence, we can make our own decisions, we can be unpredictable, we can judge a situation and react accordingly, those are things that atoms can't do.
By the way, you first say that the world was predetermined in some way or another, then shortly after you say that it can't be predetermined! Don't know if it's just me but i'm confused
From what you've written, i guess that you believe in fate and that it can't be chaged, no matter what we do, think or feel, it was already set that we would fell, think or do what we're doing
Anyway, i think we are getting a little off-topic
____________
Love is not blind, is retarded
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
May i ask, does this fundamental differences gives us any right to do whatever we want to them? For the record, they're living beings, like us...
They are not of our species. But that's not what gives us that right. We have the right to do anything they can't stop us from doing. That applies to us doing it to our own species as well.
Quote:
Did you know that this "progress" of the human race is ultimately leading our planet to it's demise? We are killing the planet because we are disrupting it's balance by exterminating this species, when we have nothing else to exterminate, we'll end up exterminating ourselves.
I'm not a tree-hugger, i eat my meat and stuff, i consider progress to be a good thing, but it should be done in a way that guarantees that there will be something for tomorrow, I guess it's called "sustained development" or something like that.
Well, by "progress" I meant "sustained development". I'm talking about progress that will not come back and hurt humans; I'm talking about progress that will stay.
Quote:
Once again, progress is not a bad thing, what's wrong is not respecting the balance of nature so that we can assure a sustained progress and have something for our children, just squandering the resources of our planet would lead to our eventual destruction.
Destruction is not always bad. As long as you're not the one being destroyed. On the other hand, if the destruction ends up harming all humans, then it is not progress.
Quote:
I think you missed a point, We are not atoms and we have another qualities that they don't have.We have feelings and intelligence, we can make our own decisions, we can be unpredictable, we can judge a situation and react accordingly, those are things that atoms can't do.
We are made of atoms. We have quantities that derive from the interactions of our atoms. Our feelings? Chemical reactions. Intelligence? Molecules in nerve cells that are made of molecules. Own decisions? If your molecules interact one way, you will decide one way. If another, then another. Judge a situation? Take in the result of the interaction of atoms via the interaction of atoms and process it using interaction of atoms. Things that atoms can't do? We are not individual atoms, we are made of lots of them, and their interactions can do things that the individual atoms can't.
Quote:
By the way, you first say that the world was predetermined in some way or another, then shortly after you say that it can't be predetermined! Don't know if it's just me but i'm confused
The world is predetermined, but no one predetermined it. It just is that way.
Quote:
From what you've written, i guess that you believe in fate and that it can't be chaged, no matter what we do, think or feel, it was already set that we would fell, think or do what we're doing
Exactly.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Garbax
Hired Hero
Struggling with RL
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 09:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They are not of our species. But that's not what gives us that right. We have the right to do anything they can't stop us from doing. That applies to us doing it to our own species as well.
Then that means i have the right to kill a baby? He/she won't stop me from doing it.
If i recall correctly, one of principles of the laws is that the limit to our freedom, or rights, is when we begin to harm or lessen the freedoms of our fellows.
(Sorry if it's not understandable, it's just that i don't know how to put it in english)
Quote:
Well, by "progress" I meant "sustained development". I'm talking about progress that will not come back and hurt humans; I'm talking about progress that will stay.
Good thing we agree on one topic
Quote:
Destruction is not always bad. As long as you're not the one being destroyed. On the other hand, if the destruction ends up harming all humans, then it is not progress.
It can be argued that destruction isn't always bad, but wouldn't you prefer to avoid destruction if possible? Even if doing so means, i dunno, less profit?
IMHO, i believe that, whenever possible, using destruction should be avoided, if it's not possible then think thoroughly about the consequences.
Quote:
We are made of atoms. We have quantities that derive from the interactions of our atoms. Our feelings? Chemical reactions. Intelligence? Molecules in nerve cells that are made of molecules. Own decisions? If your molecules interact one way, you will decide one way. If another, then another. Judge a situation? Take in the result of the interaction of atoms via the interaction of atoms and process it using interaction of atoms. Things that atoms can't do? We are not individual atoms, we are made of lots of them, and their interactions can do things that the individual atoms can't.
It's one way of seeing it, i just believe that we are more than the sum of our parts, this case atoms, it all reduces to how you see it, so i really find no point in discussing this bit.
Quote:
The world is predetermined, but no one predetermined it. It just is that way.
Thanks , it's easier to understand now that i have a glimpse of what you believe. It's the way how you perceive the world and if it works for you, that's ok
It's just that i can't bring myself to surrender my free will (whether it really exist or is just an illusion), and think that i can't do nothing to change or improve what i am, maybe i'm delusional, but i like to believe that i can reach for more than what was given to me, that i can change my destiny, it makes me give the 110% for the things i care for, it's what it works for me.
____________
Love is not blind, is retarded
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 09:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then that means i have the right to kill a baby? He/she won't stop me from doing it.
Physically, you can do it. But three things might stop you:
1. Your "conscience". Its purpose is to preserve the species, and that would be acting against it.
2. The law. You might be afraid of getting caught, and not do it.
3. This one is hard to define simply. Basically, it's what everyone else would think. You would be afraid of being an outcast, or you'd worry that they were whispering, "Look, there goes the baby-killing murderer," behind your back.
Quote:
If i recall correctly, one of principles of the laws is that the limit to our freedom, or rights, is when we begin to harm or lessen the freedoms of our fellows.
That's correct. Laws are a mutual contract to prevent harm from large numbers of people at the cost of the benefit of a few people. It's beneficial, unless you're the one breaking the law. But you can murder. It's just that there will be consequences.
Quote:
It can be argued that destruction isn't always bad, but wouldn't you prefer to avoid destruction if possible?
I would prefer to avoid my destruction if possible. But the destruction of that which is not me (unless it was someone close to me, which would still harm me) would be all right if the benefit was worth it.
Quote:
It's one way of seeing it, i just believe that we are more than the sum of our parts, this case atoms, it all reduces to how you see it, so i really find no point in discussing this bit.
Well, I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 11:04 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:09, 29 Jun 2007.
|
Quote:
Why would it make you sad?
That's why.
Quote:
And animals aren't being exterminated for no reason, they're being exterminated as a result of progress of the human race.
This is the first time in my life that I don't know if someone's being sarcastic or not...
Let me put it this way.
If, hypotetically, an alien race came along, and did this:
to you, your mother, father and everyone close - and to all the people around the world - in the name of what they call progress, would it be ok?
Quote:
By freedom, do you mean free will? Because there is no such thing; it is an illusion. Even the most religious person probably admits that everything is made out of molecules, and molecules are made out of atoms. These atoms move and interact. And the way that they interact is set in stone. An atom is moving in one way, and it meets another atom. Depending on their composition and movement, they will interact in a predictable way. And all atoms are composed a certain way and moving a certain way. There can only be one outcome of their interactions. We may not know enough to predict everything, but we know that the outcome will not change, no matter what we do, because we are part of the outcome. If, for example, you found out that someone you love was going to commit suicide, and you stopped them, then the world was thus so that you would. If you didn't find out, and they succeeded, then the world was predetermined otherwise. But it's still predetermined either way (our knowledge and actions are predetermined as well, so we can't do anything about it). However, no one "predetermines" the world, it just is this way, and it always has been.
Yes, the classical load of random mentioning words like atom and molecule, which basically doesn't mean anything.
Have you ever wondered WHY we can't predict what other people will do? Because people command their own brain impulses - those aren't atoms or molecules with predefined routes - and that's what science has failed to explain. People think the way they choose to - because no matter what anyone says, people can NOT be THAT brainwashed to think exactly what some person tells them to think - and that leads to acts that can not be fully predicted. That is the concept of will. That's why science hasn't fully explored the brain yet.
What you were REFERRING to (in terms of things that happen and cannot happen otherwise) is destiny - some sort of a course of happenings - which actually does not lead us, but we create IT as we go. Only when we do something do we see that's what would happen. That's what most scientists basically agree with. Until we do something, we have a choice which writes further happenings in different courses.
Quote:
We have the right to do anything they can't stop us from doing.
You mixed up some hard things...
We are ABLE to do that, but we do not have the RIGHT.
Quote:
Our feelings? Chemical reactions.
Again, no, but products of brain impulses (I prefer to call it 'soul' but I see you tend to look down on anything that doesn't use fancy scientific terms - makes people look smarter I guess). Chemistry has not been able to define any feeling at all because it's not connected to matter but to energy - and not even energy gotten from chemical reactions - just energy.
If things were as simple as you put them, science would be able to prove them 50 years ago.
Quote:
Physically, you can do it. But three things might stop you:
1. Your "conscience". Its purpose is to preserve the species, and that would be acting against it.
2. The law. You might be afraid of getting caught, and not do it.
3. This one is hard to define simply. Basically, it's what everyone else would think. You would be afraid of being an outcast, or you'd worry that they were whispering, "Look, there goes the baby-killing murderer," behind your back.
Does it seem possible to you that consicence, as a codex to save the species, has appeared just like that in everyone's brains through evolution? Along with a given purpose - only one, just like that? Conscience will also prevent you from stealing or cheating on your wife; how would that endanger the specie? So first of all, things are not that way, and second of all, even if they were that would mean there has got to be a force - God, if you will - that created the system. Cause systems don't just appear around, especially not on an entire planet, in everyone's minds.
Quote:
I would prefer to avoid my destruction if possible. But the destruction of that which is not me (unless it was someone close to me, which would still harm me) would be all right if the benefit was worth it.
And if it's someone close to someone else, and that someone else decides to follow the same logic and takes something you really love from you?
I mean, following your simple system.
Quote:
Well, I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts.
Yes, cause that's what you want to see. Deny it or not, you sense as much as we do that what you said is simply not that way.
Take a body. Give it everything - warmth, chemical processes, energy, all desirable conditions - and it will still be a body.
What is easy to decode in all this isn't the world, but you. You were extremely pissed about everything and decided to try to see if there is some system to all this, so that you reduce your emotions to a minimum - and hence suffer as little as possible. And you found it. There are holes in it, there are untrue things, there's stuff you simply ignored or made up - but it's there and you think it makes you feel better. Trying to reduce yourself to the level of a robot, running away from pain and reality. I had much thoughts about that too; I had that period in my life - it all seemed so simple and rational... But sooner or later you will find out that any system a single man thinks up (and thinks its perfect) crumbles to ashes with certain events. And when it does crumble, all the depression you've pushed inside you over the time will spring out, and then you'll be REALLY screwed... Is that what you really want, to play robots and wait for the inevitable crash, or do you want to accept that some things in the world cannot be explained by us or anyone else, and move on, not always seeing just the bad side like pain, hatred and fear, but concentrating on what's good in the world to help you push on?
I guess it doesn't really matter to you - you'll die in a few decades anyway, just like me or everyone else. But it does matter to the planet itself and the species on it - along with generations to come.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 12:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why would it make you sad?
That's why.
You weren't there.
Quote:
Quote:
And animals aren't being exterminated for no reason, they're being exterminated as a result of progress of the human race.
This is the first time in my life that I don't know if someone's being sarcastic or not...
Let me put it this way.
If, hypotetically, an alien race came along, and did this:
to you, your mother, father and everyone close - and to all the people around the world - in the name of what they call progress, would it be ok?
It would be okay for them. It wouldn't be okay for me. The same with animals. They don't like it. I don't care.
Quote:
Quote:
By freedom, do you mean free will? Because there is no such thing; it is an illusion. Even the most religious person probably admits that everything is made out of molecules, and molecules are made out of atoms. These atoms move and interact. And the way that they interact is set in stone. An atom is moving in one way, and it meets another atom. Depending on their composition and movement, they will interact in a predictable way. And all atoms are composed a certain way and moving a certain way. There can only be one outcome of their interactions. We may not know enough to predict everything, but we know that the outcome will not change, no matter what we do, because we are part of the outcome. If, for example, you found out that someone you love was going to commit suicide, and you stopped them, then the world was thus so that you would. If you didn't find out, and they succeeded, then the world was predetermined otherwise. But it's still predetermined either way (our knowledge and actions are predetermined as well, so we can't do anything about it). However, no one "predetermines" the world, it just is this way, and it always has been.
Yes, the classical load of random mentioning words like atom and molecule, which basically doesn't mean anything.
Have you ever wondered WHY we can't predict what other people will do?
Because we don't have information about the speed, direction, and compostion of every atom in their body. But we know that they are made of atoms, and have speed, direction, and a certain compostion, and we know how they interact on a basic level.
Quote:
Because people command their own brain impulses - those aren't atoms or molecules with predefined routes - and that's what science has failed to explain.
Just because we don't know now (except in basic terms) doesn't mean we'll never know. Science goes forward.
Quote:
People think the way they choose to - because no matter what anyone says, people can NOT be THAT brainwashed to think exactly what some person tells them to think - and that leads to acts that can not be fully predicted. That is the concept of will. That's why science hasn't fully explored the brain yet.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about free will as opposed to brainwashing. I'm talking about free will as opposed to predestination.
Quote:
What you were REFERRING to (in terms of things that happen and cannot happen otherwise) is destiny - some sort of a course of happenings - which actually does not lead us, but we create IT as we go. Only when we do something do we see that's what would happen. That's what most scientists basically agree with. Until we do something, we have a choice which writes further happenings in different courses.
We don't know enough to predict the future completely. Nor can we ever know enough (due to the Uncertainty Principle). But that doesn't mean that the future isn't set in stone. For example, you know that the Sun is hot. Do you know the exact temperature of the Sun? Of course not, but you still know that it's hot.
Quote:
Quote:
We have the right to do anything they can't stop us from doing.
You mixed up some hard things...
We are ABLE to do that, but we do not have the RIGHT.
If nothing stops us, then nothing stops us. If we are able to do something, what's to stop us (except for the things I mentioned)?
Quote:
Quote:
Our feelings? Chemical reactions.
Again, no, but products of brain impulses (I prefer to call it 'soul' but I see you tend to look down on anything that doesn't use fancy scientific terms - makes people look smarter I guess). Chemistry has not been able to define any feeling at all because it's not connected to matter but to energy - and not even energy gotten from chemical reactions - just energy.
Yes, of course, it depends on matter and energy. And just because we don't know the details, doesn't mean that they aren't there. People knew that the Earth was round before anyone sailed around it.
Quote:
If things were as simple as you put them, science would be able to prove them 50 years ago.
They're not that simple. I'm simplyfying them. But it's basically the way I'm saying.
Quote:
Quote:
Physically, you can do it. But three things might stop you:
1. Your "conscience". Its purpose is to preserve the species, and that would be acting against it.
2. The law. You might be afraid of getting caught, and not do it.
3. This one is hard to define simply. Basically, it's what everyone else would think. You would be afraid of being an outcast, or you'd worry that they were whispering, "Look, there goes the baby-killing murderer," behind your back.
Does it seem possible to you that consicence, as a codex to save the species, has appeared just like that in everyone's brains through evolution?
It appeared gradually, over time, in many species. Apes have a form of "conscience". Fish have a far more rudimentary form.
Quote:
Along with a given purpose - only one, just like that? Conscience will also prevent you from stealing or cheating on your wife; how would that endanger the specie?
Conscience did not just come from evolution. The way we are raised also contributes to it. We are told from a young age, "Stealing is bad! Cheating on your wife is bad!", so we pause before doing it.
Quote:
So first of all, things are not that way, and second of all, even if they were that would mean there has got to be a force - God, if you will - that created the system. Cause systems don't just appear around, especially not on an entire planet, in everyone's minds.
It's not in everyone's mind. Humans are the vast minority of living things. Most have a simpler system. It evolved over time. It didn't just appear. But no one created it.
Quote:
Quote:
I would prefer to avoid my destruction if possible. But the destruction of that which is not me (unless it was someone close to me, which would still harm me) would be all right if the benefit was worth it.
And if it's someone close to someone else, and that someone else decides to follow the same logic and takes something you really love from you?
I mean, following your simple system.
I wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did it.
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I don't think we are more than the sum of our parts.
Yes, cause that's what you want to see. Deny it or not, you sense as much as we do that what you said is simply not that way.
Take a body. Give it everything - warmth, chemical processes, energy, all desirable conditions - and it will still be a body.
Are you talking about a dead body? We don't know enough to bring the dead back to life, and their brains deteriorate quickly anyway, so it would have to be done quickly. However, if we knew everything exactly (which we don't), we could.
Quote:
What is easy to decode in all this isn't the world, but you. You were extremely pissed about everything and decided to try to see if there is some system to all this, so that you reduce your emotions to a minimum - and hence suffer as little as possible.
I was extemely pissed? Presumptive, aren't you? And there is a system.
Quote:
And you found it. There are holes in it, there are untrue things, there's stuff you simply ignored or made up - but it's there and you think it makes you feel better. Trying to reduce yourself to the level of a robot, running away from pain and reality. I had much thoughts about that too; I had that period in my life - it all seemed so simple and rational... But sooner or later you will find out that any system a single man thinks up (and thinks its perfect) crumbles to ashes with certain events. And when it does crumble, all the depression you've pushed inside you over the time will spring out, and then you'll be REALLY screwed... Is that what you really want, to play robots and wait for the inevitable crash, or do you want to accept that some things in the world cannot be explained by us or anyone else, and move on, not always seeing just the bad side like pain, hatred and fear, but concentrating on what's good in the world to help you push on?
I guess it doesn't really matter to you - you'll die in a few decades anyway, just like me or everyone else. But it does matter to the planet itself and the species on it - along with generations to come.
Summary of that part of your post:
I'm older and wiser than you, so shut up and listen to me. You're wrong, I'm right. Don't keep your emotions inside, be emo instead.
No, thanks. I don't have any kind of depression cooped up inside me. And "good" and "bad" are basically word used to describe what you like and what you don't like.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 10:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You weren't there.
I didn't have to be.
Quote:
It would be okay for them. It wouldn't be okay for me. The same with animals. They don't like it. I don't care.
Yes, but does that philosophy seem good to you? Do you really want to live by those rules?
Quote:
Because we don't have information about the speed, direction, and compostion of every atom in their body. But we know that they are made of atoms, and have speed, direction, and a certain compostion, and we know how they interact on a basic level.
Yes, but they are still unpredictable - that's why the living beings are living. Because they move their atoms on their own. We control those atoms, somehow. That's the part unexplained by science.
Quote:
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about free will as opposed to brainwashing. I'm talking about free will as opposed to predestination.
We create predestination. Only when we do something can we say "that was predestination". Predestination has its courses that we can change as we go in life - it isn't defined as a line by itself. And even if it is, it still depends on our choices (at least our small part of the line).
Quote:
We don't know enough to predict the future completely. Nor can we ever know enough (due to the Uncertainty Principle). But that doesn't mean that the future isn't set in stone.
Yes, but our future being set in stone doesn't mean we don't have free will. The future is set in stone because it is a set of people's choices too. Like I said, it's not about how destiny commands us but how we create it as we go. It has nothing to do with us not having free will.
Quote:
For example, you know that the Sun is hot. Do you know the exact temperature of the Sun? Of course not, but you still know that it's hot.
The Sun's central temperature is 15 x 10(6) K (15 000 000 K). It changes constantly, making more precise calculations impossible overall - this is the average temperature.
Quote:
If nothing stops us, then nothing stops us. If we are able to do something, what's to stop us (except for the things I mentioned)?
You still don't get it. There's nothing (besides your conscience) to STOP you, but you do not have the RIGHT. As simple as that.
Quote:
Yes, of course, it depends on matter and energy. And just because we don't know the details, doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Even if it does, that matter is commanded somehow by us, and energy comes from within us. That's the point - and like I said that part was science unable to explain - our brains act as transmission points for brainwaves which it sends out as we will.
Quote:
It appeared gradually, over time, in many species. Apes have a form of "conscience". Fish have a far more rudimentary form.
Compare the size of the brain of a fish and of an ape. Fish have space for nothing more than rudimentary; while apes have parental instincts and more. Yes, that might be connected to saving the specie, but how did it just appear there? No conscience, no conscience, no conscience, CONSCIENCE.
Quote:
Conscience did not just come from evolution. The way we are raised also contributes to it. We are told from a young age, "Stealing is bad! Cheating on your wife is bad!", so we pause before doing it.
Isn't it bad?
But how did people conclude it's bad in the first place? When there was no one to teach them.
Quote:
It's not in everyone's mind. Humans are the vast minority of living things. Most have a simpler system. It evolved over time.
Why have only we evolved? And how many bad things has that brought to the world (for both us and other living organisms)?
Quote:
I wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did it.
Of course you wouldn't like it. They would have the RIGHT to do it. Imagine how would it feel? If someone took something from you away, for all eternity, because you did something horrible to him? Then not only are you horrible as a person, but also a material loser.
Quote:
Are you talking about a dead body? We don't know enough to bring the dead back to life, and their brains deteriorate quickly anyway, so it would have to be done quickly. However, if we knew everything exactly (which we don't), we could.
If you hypotetically had a body that is perfectly unharmed, a new brain, all the organs and everything, you still couldn't bring the being back to life. If you could, what would be the difference between them and robots?
Quote:
I was extemely pissed? Presumptive, aren't you?
Of course I am too, but I don't decide to hide behind a ridiculous robot costume.
Quote:
I'm older and wiser than you, so shut up and listen to me. You're wrong, I'm right. Don't keep your emotions inside, be emo instead.
If that's how you see it, then I cannot help you. I was talking from personal experience.
But look what they've done to you: the society has taught you that everyone who shows their emotions is emo and gay. Your dad or something taught you it's macho to push them inside you and have a nervous breakdown. Denying your own nature makes you feel like a 'man'. Very well, leave on your dream then. When it all crumbles to ashes it won't be my fault. In the end, nature embraces us all anyway
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 02:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You weren't there.
I didn't have to be.
If you weren't there, you have nothing to complain about.
Quote:
Quote:
It would be okay for them. It wouldn't be okay for me. The same with animals. They don't like it. I don't care.
Yes, but does that philosophy seem good to you? Do you really want to live by those rules?
It's not a question of whether I want to live by those rules. Those rules exist. It's a question of whether I acknowledge them or not.
Quote:
Quote:
Because we don't have information about the speed, direction, and compostion of every atom in their body. But we know that they are made of atoms, and have speed, direction, and a certain compostion, and we know how they interact on a basic level.
Yes, but they are still unpredictable - that's why the living beings are living. Because they move their atoms on their own. We control those atoms, somehow. That's the part unexplained by science.
We do not control those atoms. Those atoms are what we are. We don't move the atoms on our own. We are the atoms. We don't even exist, except as a sum of our atoms.
Quote:
Quote:
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about free will as opposed to brainwashing. I'm talking about free will as opposed to predestination.
We create predestination. Only when we do something can we say "that was predestination". Predestination has its courses that we can change as we go in life - it isn't defined as a line by itself. And even if it is, it still depends on our choices (at least our small part of the line).
We can create nothing. Everything that will be created is set in stone, and its method of creation is as well. Our choices are merely part of things' matter of creation, set in stone like everything else.
Quote:
Quote:
We don't know enough to predict the future completely. Nor can we ever know enough (due to the Uncertainty Principle). But that doesn't mean that the future isn't set in stone.
Yes, but our future being set in stone doesn't mean we don't have free will. The future is set in stone because it is a set of people's choices too. Like I said, it's not about how destiny commands us but how we create it as we go. It has nothing to do with us not having free will.
If the future is set in stone, that means we can't change it.
Quote:
Quote:
For example, you know that the Sun is hot. Do you know the exact temperature of the Sun? Of course not, but you still know that it's hot.
The Sun's central temperature is 15 x 10(6) K (15 000 000 K). It changes constantly, making more precise calculations impossible overall - this is the average temperature.
All right, that was a bad example. A better one (if you're not bald): Do you know how many hairs you have? No, but you know that you have hair.
Quote:
Quote:
If nothing stops us, then nothing stops us. If we are able to do something, what's to stop us (except for the things I mentioned)?
You still don't get it. There's nothing (besides your conscience) to STOP you, but you do not have the RIGHT. As simple as that.
Then what is the RIGHT
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, of course, it depends on matter and energy. And just because we don't know the details, doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Even if it does, that matter is commanded somehow by us, and energy comes from within us. That's the point - and like I said that part was science unable to explain - our brains act as transmission points for brainwaves which it sends out as we will.
We don't control matter and energy! We are the matter and energy.
Quote:
Quote:
It appeared gradually, over time, in many species. Apes have a form of "conscience". Fish have a far more rudimentary form.
Compare the size of the brain of a fish and of an ape. Fish have space for nothing more than rudimentary; while apes have parental instincts and more. Yes, that might be connected to saving the specie, but how did it just appear there? No conscience, no conscience, no conscience, CONSCIENCE.
They evolved over time, as innate behaviors. Basic conscience, Advanced conscience, human conscience.
Quote:
Quote:
Conscience did not just come from evolution. The way we are raised also contributes to it. We are told from a young age, "Stealing is bad! Cheating on your wife is bad!", so we pause before doing it.
Isn't it bad?
But how did people conclude it's bad in the first place? When there was no one to teach them.
It violates the social contract of the human race. "I won't harm you if you don't harm me." You can break the social contract if necessary, and, if nobody finds out, then everything will be fine (except for your conscience).
Quote:
Quote:
It's not in everyone's mind. Humans are the vast minority of living things. Most have a simpler system. It evolved over time.
Why have only we evolved? And how many bad things has that brought to the world (for both us and other living organisms)?
Humans often don't look to the future in the great long run. And everyone has evolved, not just humans. From the human's point of view, humans have the most evolved conscience, but how would it look from something else's?
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't like it, but I would understand why they did it.
Of course you wouldn't like it. They would have the RIGHT to do it. Imagine how would it feel? If someone took something from you away, for all eternity, because you did something horrible to him? Then not only are you horrible as a person, but also a material loser.
There's no such thing as RIGHT. There are things we CAN do and there are things we CAN'T do. Those things are further subdivided into what would be advantageous for us to do (what we SHOULD do) and what would be disadvantageous for us to do (what we SHOULDN'T do).
Quote:
Quote:
Are you talking about a dead body? We don't know enough to bring the dead back to life, and their brains deteriorate quickly anyway, so it would have to be done quickly. However, if we knew everything exactly (which we don't), we could.
If you hypotetically had a body that is perfectly unharmed, a new brain, all the organs and everything, you still couldn't bring the being back to life. If you could, what would be the difference between them and robots?
If everything was exactly the same, then you could bring people back to life. The difference is that robots are
1. Manmade
2. Far easier to repair.
Quote:
Quote:
I was extemely pissed? Presumptive, aren't you?
Of course I am too, but I don't decide to hide behind a ridiculous robot costume.
I'm not hiding behind anything.
Quote:
But look what they've done to you: the society has taught you that everyone who shows their emotions is emo and gay. Your dad or something taught you it's macho to push them inside you and have a nervous breakdown. Denying your own nature makes you feel like a 'man'. Very well, leave on your dream then. When it all crumbles to ashes it won't be my fault. In the end, nature embraces us all anyway
I'm not going to have any nervous breakdown; I don't push any emotions inside. I don't deny my own nature, this is my nature. But we all end up feeding the worms.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It would be okay for them. It wouldn't be okay for me. The same with animals. They don't like it. I don't care.
You know, this is what I call the 'evil' atheists.
Why not kill each other then? (ofc, for a reason, f.eg.: "In the name of science!").
I mean, you probably agree with the scientists who sacrifice human beings with their experiments... this is NO BETTER than killing everyone "in the name of God"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 06:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It would be okay for them. It wouldn't be okay for me. The same with animals. They don't like it. I don't care.
You know, this is what I call the 'evil' atheists.
Why not kill each other then? (ofc, for a reason, f.eg.: "In the name of science!").
I mean, you probably agree with the scientists who sacrifice human beings with their experiments... this is NO BETTER than killing everyone "in the name of God"
Whether in the name of science or not, I wouldn't want me or anyone close to me to be killed. And let's just use everyone who's on death row for scientific experiments, since they're going to die anyway. And human experiments accomplishes stuff, unlike killing "in the name of God".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you weren't there, you have nothing to complain about.
On the other hand, I was there when they bombed my country.
I have seen all that senseless pain and destruction with my two eyes, and if you ever experienced anything like that in your oh so robotic life you wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else. Besides, what I've experienced is still nothing compared to nuclear destruction. And if you really can't see the consequences of nuclear bombings for the entire world, you're either blind or dumb.
Quote:
It's not a question of whether I want to live by those rules. Those rules exist. It's a question of whether I acknowledge them or not.
Now imagine medieval Church. It also wasn't a question if people wanted to live by their rules - they existed and seemed undefeatable. It was also a question of whether people acknowledge them or not.
Those like you acknowledged them and did nothing for true progress of mankind. Those who refused to acknowledge it and rebelled actually did something.
Quote:
We do not control those atoms. Those atoms are what we are. We don't move the atoms on our own.
We are atoms, yes - and we move ourselves. About the "We don't even exist, except as a sum of our atoms" part, do you even read what you write? We are atoms, yes, atoms that colaborate and fill each other, making us exist. You just don't seem to get it.
I mean, please, don't go into further scientific discussion, you have neither proof nor knowledge for that (and neither do I) and it will always remain a laic conversation in those waters.
Quote:
We can create nothing. Everything that will be created is set in stone, and its method of creation is as well. Our choices are merely part of things' matter of creation, set in stone like everything else.
You're running in circles. Whatever we create was supposed to be created, but that doesn't mean we didn't create it. Things don't create themselves, and destiny by itself doesn't create them either.
Quote:
If the future is set in stone, that means we can't change it.
Yes but since we don't know it, we don't know what is supposed to happen, and so still have a choice. It's just that, whatever choice we make, it was supposed for us to make it. But that doesn't mean that isn't reasonable or that we don't have free will. We do have free will, and not only that, but our entire future depends on it.
Quote:
All right, that was a bad example. A better one (if you're not bald): Do you know how many hairs you have? No, but you know that you have hair.
What does that have to do with anything?
Besides, hair is countable. If I hire a team of scientists, they will be able to count my hair.
Quote:
Then what is the RIGHT
There can be NO RIGHT for harming other creatures unless it's for basic natural purposes such as feeding. Harming from curiosity or some temporary, unneeded material gain makes you far worse than animals (which we are).
Quote:
We don't control matter and energy! We are the matter and energy.
Yes, but we control ourselves. If we didn't control ourselves, we'd be unable to move or even breathe.
Quote:
They evolved over time, as innate behaviors. Basic conscience, Advanced conscience, human conscience.
Define basic and advanced conscience. Conscience is conscience - it's simply exists or not. How can you have ammounts of conscience? And if you do, how is it measured?
Quote:
It violates the social contract of the human race. "I won't harm you if you don't harm me." You can break the social contract if necessary, and, if nobody finds out, then everything will be fine (except for your conscience).
The social contract is there for a reason. Breaking it would be harmful for the entire race. That is one law that was ought to be respected. And it should not only be respected, but we should try to expand it on the entire planetary ecosystem as well (basically it already existed, but humans violated it and crushed the balance, causing... well I think you're aware of what that caused).
Quote:
Humans often don't look to the future in the great long run. And everyone has evolved, not just humans. From the human's point of view, humans have the most evolved conscience, but how would it look from something else's?
My mistake. What I meant was how come only we evolved in terms of intelligence. And how devolved we have in terms of wisdom.
Quote:
There's no such thing as RIGHT. There are things we CAN do and there are things we CAN'T do. Those things are further subdivided into what would be advantageous for us to do (what we SHOULD do) and what would be disadvantageous for us to do (what we SHOULDN'T do).
It's pretty simple - it's based on the social contract you mentioned. If someone breaks the contract and kills your family, you have the right to exact punishment. Not only that, but the society itself can exact it too - by prison or death sentences etc.
Quote:
If everything was exactly the same, then you could bring people back to life.
No, unfortunately, you couldn't, or else research on that matter would be far more explored. When something dies, it's dead and tends to stay that way. That's the natural course.
Quote:
I don't deny my own nature, this is my nature.
This is your way away from nature. This is denying all moral and reason that people have gained over eons of death and torture. So many of us died so that others have a chance to learn from their mistakes, and now you simply ignore that. When you realise that, your attitudes will change drastically. I can promise you.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2007 10:28 PM |
|
|
|
100% agree with baklava.. it's so easy to make judgements sitting before a brand new PC, in a warm home, at peaceful times, raised in a caring family, being rich and happy. I think that those judgements would drastically change after some hard life experiences - war, poverty, famine. Also when it comes to life, faith and such. Don't be so puffed up, guys, since you and I have most likely seen nothing and experienced nothing. Baklava has seen things and just because of it he is a bit more privileged to speak about life. Seriously.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 12:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you weren't there, you have nothing to complain about.
On the other hand, I was there when they bombed my country.
You can be angry about that. I can be ambivalent about that.
Quote:
I have seen all that senseless pain and destruction with my two eyes, and if you ever experienced anything like that in your oh so robotic life you wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else. Besides, what I've experienced is still nothing compared to nuclear destruction. And if you really can't see the consequences of nuclear bombings for the entire world, you're either blind or dumb.
I wouldn't want nuclear destruction for the whole world! That's dumb; that would be harmful for me in many ways.
Quote:
Quote:
It's not a question of whether I want to live by those rules. Those rules exist. It's a question of whether I acknowledge them or not.
Now imagine medieval Church. It also wasn't a question if people wanted to live by their rules - they existed and seemed undefeatable. It was also a question of whether people acknowledge them or not.
Those like you acknowledged them and did nothing for true progress of mankind. Those who refused to acknowledge it and rebelled actually did something.
With the medieval Church, it was at least possible to imagine defying an organization. With this, it's completely different, it's denying existance.
Quote:
Quote:
We do not control those atoms. Those atoms are what we are. We don't move the atoms on our own.
We are atoms, yes - and we move ourselves. About the "We don't even exist, except as a sum of our atoms" part, do you even read what you write? We are atoms, yes, atoms that colaborate and fill each other, making us exist. You just don't seem to get it.
If you want to put it that way, then yes. We are atoms that collaborate and fill each other, making us exist. And we are the sum of atoms.
Quote:
Quote:
We can create nothing. Everything that will be created is set in stone, and its method of creation is as well. Our choices are merely part of things' matter of creation, set in stone like everything else.
You're running in circles. Whatever we create was supposed to be created, but that doesn't mean we didn't create it. Things don't create themselves, and destiny by itself doesn't create them either.
We are the means of its creation, and the means are set in stone.
Quote:
Quote:
If the future is set in stone, that means we can't change it.
Yes but since we don't know it, we don't know what is supposed to happen, and so still have a choice.
We have the illusion of a choice, since, as you said,
Quote:
It's just that, whatever choice we make, it was supposed for us to make it.
So, if we can't really change our choices (since the change is already predicted), then we don't have free will.
Quote:
Quote:
All right, that was a bad example. A better one (if you're not bald): Do you know how many hairs you have? No, but you know that you have hair.
What does that have to do with anything?
Besides, hair is countable. If I hire a team of scientists, they will be able to count my hair.
It's similar, only a team of scientists can't precisely count every aspect of every atom. But that doesn't mean the aspects aren't there.
Quote:
Quote:
Then what is the RIGHT
There can be NO RIGHT for harming other creatures unless it's for basic natural purposes such as feeding. Harming from curiosity or some temporary, unneeded material gain makes you far worse than animals (which we are).
You didn't answer my question. My question is, "What is the RIGHT?", not "When do we have the RIGHT?".
Quote:
Quote:
We don't control matter and energy! We are the matter and energy.
Yes, but we control ourselves. If we didn't control ourselves, we'd be unable to move or even breathe.
We exist as nothing more than the sum of our parts. Your lungs expand and contract, and you breathe. It's a part that moves. And it's made of smaller parts.
Quote:
Quote:
They evolved over time, as innate behaviors. Basic conscience, Advanced conscience, human conscience.
Define basic and advanced conscience. Conscience is conscience - it's simply exists or not. How can you have ammounts of conscience? And if you do, how is it measured?
Perhaps conscience is not the right word here. But what humans call "conscience" was initally a survival mechanism.
Quote:
Quote:
It violates the social contract of the human race. "I won't harm you if you don't harm me." You can break the social contract if necessary, and, if nobody finds out, then everything will be fine (except for your conscience).
The social contract is there for a reason. Breaking it would be harmful for the entire race. That is one law that was ought to be respected. And it should not only be respected, but we should try to expand it on the entire planetary ecosystem as well (basically it already existed, but humans violated it and crushed the balance, causing... well I think you're aware of what that caused).
We CAN break the social contract, but, at the same time, we must make sure that it's not broken by everyone. The social contract also tries to punish those who break it, but if you can get away with it, by all means, go ahead.
Quote:
Quote:
There's no such thing as RIGHT. There are things we CAN do and there are things we CAN'T do. Those things are further subdivided into what would be advantageous for us to do (what we SHOULD do) and what would be disadvantageous for us to do (what we SHOULDN'T do).
It's pretty simple - it's based on the social contract you mentioned. If someone breaks the contract and kills your family, you have the right to exact punishment. Not only that, but the society itself can exact it too - by prison or death sentences etc.
Indeed. I agree 100% with you here. But you CAN murder, but you should know that it's not likely for it to be ultimately advantageous for you, so you SHOULDN'T murder.
Quote:
Quote:
If everything was exactly the same, then you could bring people back to life.
No, unfortunately, you couldn't, or else research on that matter would be far more explored. When something dies, it's dead and tends to stay that way. That's the natural course.
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to make everything exactly the same? It's impossible. And it's incredibly difficult to make it almost the same, and restore the lost things to the brain and the rest of the body. It's far beyond modern science; I'm not sure whether it can ever be reached, but, theoretically, it's possible.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't deny my own nature, this is my nature.
This is your way away from nature. This is denying all moral and reason that people have gained over eons of death and torture. So many of us died so that others have a chance to learn from their mistakes, and now you simply ignore that. When you realise that, your attitudes will change drastically. I can promise you.
How many Christian martyrs have died for a falsehood? Very many. And I don't want to embrace their falsehood, regardless of their sacrifice.
Quote:
100% agree with baklava.. it's so easy to make judgements sitting before a brand new PC, in a warm home, at peaceful times, raised in a caring family, being rich and happy. I think that those judgements would drastically change after some hard life experiences - war, poverty, famine. Also when it comes to life, faith and such. Don't be so puffed up, guys, since you and I have most likely seen nothing and experienced nothing. Baklava has seen things and just because of it he is a bit more privileged to speak about life. Seriously.
Yes, I'm very lucky to live in such a family. Perhaps my judgments would change if my situation would change, but, by everything I know and can infer, I am right. And my sanity and judgment might be affected by tragedy, so I might be more correct now than I would be then.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 02:43 PM |
|
|
@Doomforge, thanks for the support dude, these I-know-everything-although-I've-never-left-my-cosy-home and I-don't-understand-why-you're-complaining-about-death-and-pain-since-I've-never-experienced-that-but-I-don't-care kids are really starting to get me down 
Quote:
You can be angry about that. I can be ambivalent about that.
Of course. You can turn your deaf side to all the tragedies in the world. Have you ever wondered that they may happen to you eventually, if you let them be everywhere else in the world? Common sense.
Quote:
I wouldn't want nuclear destruction for the whole world! That's dumb; that would be harmful for me in many ways.
Even a single nuclear explosion is harmful - both physically and spiritually. And nuclear tests are done to practice complete nuclear destruction...
Quote:
With the medieval Church, it was at least possible to imagine defying an organization. With this, it's completely different, it's denying existance.
Existance? I don't think so. What you refer to is a system that can be changed as much as the Church. Existance is a far different thing.
Quote:
So, if we can't really change our choices (since the change is already predicted), then we don't have free wil
You don't get it.
This is like the "What's older, hen or egg" discussions.
It IS set in stone, but we are able to decide WHAT is set in stone. Destiny is written as we go; whatever happens, we can say it was destiny. You will pick what you want to pick anyway. You will never choose what you don't want to choose. And destiny writes itself further from there.
Quote:
It's similar, only a team of scientists can't precisely count every aspect of every atom. But that doesn't mean the aspects aren't there.
The aspects of atoms are predictable, but not their paths themselves. Especially when it comes to living beings. I mean, I'm trying to explain that to you for 3 pages now... Beings which have choices (never mind if they're 'set in stone' or not, it's unpredictable anyway) and tha makes it completely impossible to predict anything about them. Unless you beleive in the horoscope (which, especially from your point of view, would be ridiculous).
Quote:
You didn't answer my question. My question is, "What is the RIGHT?", not "When do we have the RIGHT?".
The right which we were talking about, my seemingly slow-understanding friend, is the reason - or a moral allowance - to do something to someone based on what that someone has done to you - good or bad. If someone does something good to you, you will try your best to do something good for him too, to get even. If someone does something bad to you, you do something bad to him, to get even. Balance. Social contract.
Quote:
We exist as nothing more than the sum of our parts. Your lungs expand and contract, and you breathe. It's a part that moves.
Mhm. And what makes it move? The "sum of our parts" are lifeless bodies. They need the essence of life to come to the living - and that essence is unreachable. For us.
Quote:
Perhaps conscience is not the right word here. But what humans call "conscience" was initally a survival mechanism.
So there's some sort of other conscience? Different than ours?
Oh would you please explain conscience to me?
Quote:
We CAN break the social contract, but, at the same time, we must make sure that it's not broken by everyone. The social contract also tries to punish those who break it, but if you can get away with it, by all means, go ahead.
Yes, but the more people break the contract, larger the chance they'll get away with it. In the long run, that leads to damnation of the specie, although one might enjoy the temporary benefits he got.
Quote:
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to make everything exactly the same? It's impossible. And it's incredibly difficult to make it almost the same, and restore the lost things to the brain and the rest of the body. It's far beyond modern science; I'm not sure whether it can ever be reached, but, theoretically, it's possible.
I don't think it's even theoretically possible. You cannot bring energy to an unliving body. It has to be infused while the child is still in the womb - that's the point of pregnancy. To give the child enough energy to be able to receive more later. If you have a simple body of a grown man you can't bring him enough energy whatever circumstances you make.
Quote:
How many Christian martyrs have died for a falsehood? Very many. And I don't want to embrace their falsehood, regardless of their sacrifice.
You didn't understand me. Many people died for nothing - out of greed, lust, stubborness, whatever - but the point is we must learn by their mistakes and make sure those things don't happen to us. By embracing further greed, lust and similar you bring yourself and the world to a risk of all those senseless deaths happening again.
At the final part of your post, tragedies are a part of human life. Through them, we learn to be more compassionate and caring for other people; trying to expand peace and love however we can, instead of sitting somewhere at home, blissfully unaware of the real world, and theoreticizing on the mechanics of life with ridiculous theories and even more ridiculous claims.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2007 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You can be angry about that. I can be ambivalent about that.
Of course. You can turn your deaf side to all the tragedies in the world. Have you ever wondered that they may happen to you eventually, if you let them be everywhere else in the world? Common sense.
I am but one person. And I am in no important cultural or governmental position. My actions can hardly cause major tragedies.
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't want nuclear destruction for the whole world! That's dumb; that would be harmful for me in many ways.
Even a single nuclear explosion is harmful - both physically and spiritually. And nuclear tests are done to practice complete nuclear destruction...
Nothing can harm anything spiritually, because nothing like "spirit" exists. It may harm them emotionally, but those are just chemical reactioins. And nuclear tests are done to test nuclear bombs. 1 nuclear explosion =/= total nuclear destruction.
Quote:
Quote:
With the medieval Church, it was at least possible to imagine defying an organization. With this, it's completely different, it's denying existance.
Existance? I don't think so. What you refer to is a system that can be changed as much as the Church. Existance is a far different thing.
No, this system is existance.
Quote:
Quote:
So, if we can't really change our choices (since the change is already predicted), then we don't have free wil
You don't get it.
This is like the "What's older, hen or egg" discussions.
It IS set in stone, but we are able to decide WHAT is set in stone. Destiny is written as we go; whatever happens, we can say it was destiny. You will pick what you want to pick anyway. You will never choose what you don't want to choose. And destiny writes itself further from there.
Yes, we should still choose however we want to choose, but our choices are already set in stone, so we can't truly change them, because all of the changes we make are already predicted, so if we change our minds, we were predestined to change our minds.
[quotte]Quote:
It's similar, only a team of scientists can't precisely count every aspect of every atom. But that doesn't mean the aspects aren't there.
The aspects of atoms are predictable, but not their paths themselves. Especially when it comes to living beings. I mean, I'm trying to explain that to you for 3 pages now... Beings which have choices (never mind if they're 'set in stone' or not, it's unpredictable anyway) and tha makes it completely impossible to predict anything about them. Unless you beleive in the horoscope (which, especially from your point of view, would be ridiculous).
No, I don't believe in the horoscope. But, according to the Uncertaintly principle, you can either know the path of an atom accurately and the other aspects inaccurately, or vice versa. So we can't know both to the point of prediction, and, even if we could, there are far too many atoms to be able to predict the actions of the whole universe. And living beings are not really that different from other things.
Quote:
Quote:
You didn't answer my question. My question is, "What is the RIGHT?", not "When do we have the RIGHT?".
The right which we were talking about, my seemingly slow-understanding friend, is the reason - or a moral allowance - to do something to someone based on what that someone has done to you - good or bad. If someone does something good to you, you will try your best to do something good for him too, to get even. If someone does something bad to you, you do something bad to him, to get even. Balance. Social contract.
So you connect RIGHTS to the social contract. Okay, granted.
Quote:
Quote:
We exist as nothing more than the sum of our parts. Your lungs expand and contract, and you breathe. It's a part that moves.
Mhm. And what makes it move? The "sum of our parts" are lifeless bodies. They need the essence of life to come to the living - and that essence is unreachable. For us.
The essence of life? Is that some kind of "vital force"? The sum of our parts when we are living are living things. The sum of our parts when we are dead are dead things. The parts are different, so the sums are different as well.
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps conscience is not the right word here. But what humans call "conscience" was initally a survival mechanism.
So there's some sort of other conscience? Different than ours?
Oh would you please explain conscience to me?
Conscience is based on the social contract and the pack survival mechanism. And other advanced (from the human point of view) have a simpler social contract. And those simpler still have group survival mechanisms.
Quote:
Quote:
We CAN break the social contract, but, at the same time, we must make sure that it's not broken by everyone. The social contract also tries to punish those who break it, but if you can get away with it, by all means, go ahead.
Yes, but the more people break the contract, larger the chance they'll get away with it. In the long run, that leads to damnation of the specie, although one might enjoy the temporary benefits he got.
Yes. That's why you should break the social contract when it is advantageous to you, and in a manner that doesn't encourage anyone to follow.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any idea of how hard it is to make everything exactly the same? It's impossible. And it's incredibly difficult to make it almost the same, and restore the lost things to the brain and the rest of the body. It's far beyond modern science; I'm not sure whether it can ever be reached, but, theoretically, it's possible.
I don't think it's even theoretically possible. You cannot bring energy to an unliving body. It has to be infused while the child is still in the womb - that's the point of pregnancy. To give the child enough energy to be able to receive more later. If you have a simple body of a grown man you can't bring him enough energy whatever circumstances you make.
There's no such thing as a "vital force". The way you use the term "energy" is inconsistent with the scientific definition.
Quote:
Quote:
How many Christian martyrs have died for a falsehood? Very many. And I don't want to embrace their falsehood, regardless of their sacrifice.
You didn't understand me. Many people died for nothing - out of greed, lust, stubborness, whatever - but the point is we must learn by their mistakes and make sure those things don't happen to us. By embracing further greed, lust and similar you bring yourself and the world to a risk of all those senseless deaths happening again.
"Greed" is just a word used to vilefy taking things against the social contract (it's bad when everyone does it, but it's not bad when I do it). "Lust" is similar. We must learn to not be greedy or lustful so obviously.
Quote:
At the final part of your post, tragedies are a part of human life. Through them, we learn to be more compassionate and caring for other people; trying to expand peace and love however we can, instead of sitting somewhere at home, blissfully unaware of the real world, and theoreticizing on the mechanics of life with ridiculous theories and even more ridiculous claims.
Compassion? Caring? Important parts of species survival. But I can survive while harming the rest of the species. Ridiculous claims? Just because you can't disprove them...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
