Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

123578

Comments

  • #202
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Is life expectancy increase such a good thing (considered broadly)? Would you see it as a good thing if we could slow down the ageing process and replace worn bits (90 is the new 60) and live relatively healthy lives up to a life expectancy of 120?

    Dying naturally of old age rather than through infant mortality, disease or malnutrition would seem like an advancement. During the times of Jesus, life expectancy was about 25, would you consider that better or worse than where we are now?
    Wouldn't we simply be consuming the resources of someone else down the line, even if those resources are found on Mars? I don't see that as an upwards movement (except in the number of years lived). It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.


    I posted to you on the onwards and upwards view of human rights before.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110102119&postcount=1170

    Sure, advancement has been made in some areas of human rights. But we've lost the right not to have humanity annihilated at the push of a button. Trampling on the right to life in such spectacular fashion simply wasn't a possibility before. Which is the bigger shift: LGBT rights advancement or the loss of the right not to have the threat of a nuclear firestorm hanging perpetually over our heads.

    What about the right to have some resources to consume when you're born. Those are being trampled on by consumption levels as never before - aided and abetted by your increasing life expectancy.

    What about the threat of Global Warming. At the moment you've a hope that mankind will face into this "in a spirit of unity and cooperation". Slow progress there - as I said, Boards.ie doesn't even have a forum dedicated to this area. Yet the right not to have your crops shrivelled or your house torn down in a cyclone has already bolted for many. Which the greater: LGBT rights advancement for a few people vs the lost rights for lots of people due to global warming?

    What about the right not to be turned into a consumption addict? Is it the natural state of humanity to queue around the block overnight to get your hands on the latest micro-iteration of the iphone? Is it really necessary (in the US) to have a typical Tesco-sized aisle dedicated to just peanut butter? What does Fast Fashion tell us about what we have become? And wireless phone charging! Oh, the technology!

    Technology is very alluring. But it has helped bring about all the above trampling on rights. It has enabled the headlong consumption of resources. It has brought the planet to the edge of ecocide and changed our very climate.

    Doubtlessly the person who views technology in a largely positive light will have the view that technology will be the thing to get us out of our trouble. Like the Irish politician said: we can have both (ever present) growth AND sustainability. Cake AND eat it.

    Personally (and I formed this view in the mid-90's when I realised the level of resource consumption + the exponential rate of increase in consumption vs. the amount of resources remaining) I think we're already over the side of the cliff.

    Slowly beginning to think about applying the brakes on the way down.


    To my mind, probably one of the most important social advances in recent times has been family planning. While pro-lifers witter on about the right to life, with its ever underlying misogynistic agenda, they fail spectacularly to discuss global population increase and its attendant resource requirements. Rather than following the 'go forth and multiply' imperative handed to society by Christianity, and spreading like a plague of locusts as a result, we are finally approaching a position where we can control our own numbers without being dependent on major culling events such as plague, famine, war or government enforced eugenics.

    Of all the many failures of the Christian tradition, the persistent peddling of the idea that we should continue to increase our numbers in the context of living on a planet of finite size and resources has to be one of the most damaging. In my opinion, the current younger generation is the most acutely aware of resource squandering and protecting our environment. The decision when or if to have children and how many is clearly part of that. Their questioning of archaic religious values that are entirely inappropriate to modern society is also a benefit.

    The religious notion of some kind of an afterlife doesn't help here either, in that it encourages the specious notion that in some way the destruction of our planet is somehow survivable by the chosen few. And of course every religious person considers themselves part of that number and anyone who disagrees excluded.


  • #203
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.

    I tread carefully, given an actual historian in our midst, but can I recommend O'Donnell's Faction Fighters of the 19th century as what is, to the best of my understanding, the most authoritative work on the topic. Best estimates have faction fighting dating from 1805 in Tipperary. No real interaction between this and anything else you've listed though later connected with Irish immigrants as described in 'The gangs of New York'.

    From memory, and I stand to be corrected here, there are theories that various forms of Irish stick fighting (bata, shilleliegh, etc...) originated through French fencing instructors being brought to Ireland in the hope raising insurgency against the British. So basically Catholics stirring the shít in the hope of displacing the protestants in a typical ugly display of Christian sectarian violence. :)


  • #204
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    That may be because Christianity makes a country strong, just like capitalism. There are plenty of exceptions of course. We Irish were into faction fights instead of hard work which is why the pagan vikings raided our country before being driven out by Brian Boru. Then it was straight back to faction fighting so the Normans came next, and the Brits later. When I see the goings on in the Dail, I have to question whether we Irish would be better off under German, Dutch or Swiss rule.



    Let's just put these inaccuracies to bed:

    Gealic Ireland was a secular society - the laws predated Christianity (tweaking did occur) and lasted until the violent imposition of English Common law in the late 16th/Early 17th century by the Christian monarchs of England (Catholic and Protestant). This makes Gaelic Ireland a uniquely stable society. It retained it's legal and societal system for over 2000 years. It took a full on conquest to destroy it.

    In terms of 'faction fighting' - there was no 'Ireland' as we see it. There was an island comprised of different territories controlled by autonomous or semi-autonomous extended patri-linear family groups which shared a common culture, language, and legal system but considered themselves to be individual countries and races. Over the course of 2000 odd years these territories changed, powerful clans rose and fell, alliances changed. But in a European context they remained remarkably stable.

    Boru (who did much to upset that power balance as he occupied other clan lands when the norm was to extract tribute from them) allied with Ostmen (of Norse/Irish descent) to drive out a later attempted invasion of Danes.
    So Boru fought alongside Norse 'vikings' to see off Danish 'vikings'.

    The Normans were mercenaries brought in by one deselected provincial king (Gealic kings were elected from a group of candidates determined by descent from a previous king) in an attempt to a) regain his kingdom contrary to the law and b) advance his aspirations to the High kingship (see ref to Boru's destabilisation of the political system). Strongbow offered to swear Feality to the then High King Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair who declined believing he could defeat them. Henry II of England only directly involved himself as he feared the setting up of an independent Norman kingdom in Ireland by lords who had sworn feality to him - and he hated Strongbow. Henry and Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair signed the Treaty of Windsor in 1175 which agreed that the Normans would hold what they had (around 1/3 of the Island) as the Lordship of Ireland under Henry's youngest son John (the spare to the spare heir) while the remain 2/3rds would remain Gaelic. Henry never expected that John would become king of England and that the Lordship of Ireland would become invested in the English crown. He wished it to be allied but independent. As a by the by -the fiercest opponents to the Tudor conquest were the Mayo Burkes who were of Norman descent.

    The Pope sanctioned English rule over Ireland twice - once to Henry II, second time to Mary Tudor. The first time was because the Gaelic church didn't proselytize as it recognised the separation of religious and civil societies - and it didn't send "Peter's Pence" to Rome. The second was confirmation of Henry VIII's breaking of the Treaty of Windsor and illegally declaring himself king of all Ireland - ironically an act he undertook as his break with Rome had voided the Vatican sanctioning of the Lordship of Ireland.

    The Swiss, by the way, were originally mercenaries who hired themselves out every year but worked out it was more efficient to stay home and just offer to guard the spoils of war for a monetary consideration. Germany was a collection of often warring states until 1871 - when Prussia officially beat out Austria for position of Top Kraut and Austria refused to join the party. The Dutch spent most of their history trying to gain independence from Spanish control and after they eventually succeeded tried to build an empire on the back of the huge profits from the Slave Trade. William of Orange only agreed to become king of England (his wife Mary was the daughter of James II) so he could use England's Protestant army in his never ending, religiously inspired, wars with Louis XIV of France.

    Now that we have put all that to bed can we get back to trying to work out what exactly antiskeptic's worldview is?


  • #205
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    IAmTheReign wrote: »
    If you're claiming that that quote is out of date and is no longer correct I'm assuming you have some sort of evidence showing that churches worldwide are actively moving towards acceptance of the concept?

    I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.




    It raises an interesting question though, if total depravity is not a belief shared among all Christians why do you believe it to be true? What is your justification for believing your particular flavour of Christianity above others?

    The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

    This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people


  • #206
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Dying naturally of old age rather than through infant mortality, disease or malnutrition would seem like an advancement. During the times of Jesus, life expectancy was about 25, would you consider that better or worse than where we are now?

    I've never heard of anyone dying of old age. I've heard of people dying of diseases associated with old age alright.
    Examples of aging-associated diseases are atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and Alzheimer's disease. The incidence of all of these diseases increases exponentially with age.

    And given folk very often don't want to die and want to squeeze the maximum amount of healthy life they can from their bodies there is good business to be had in staving off the effects of age related disease. Hence a whole raft of ways of pharmacologically achieving that end.

    Which extends the life of folk who would otherwise die at less old age than otherwise.

    This isn't about infant mortality. It's about the reach for longer (and healthier life).

    Which, as my point pointed out, merely consumes resources from those down the line. A somewhat questionable side effect (and there always is side effects) of this onwards and ever upwards advancement you laud.






    To my mind, probably one of the most important social advances in recent times has been family planning. While pro-lifers witter on about the right to life, with its ever underlying misogynistic agenda, they fail spectacularly to discuss global population increase and its attendant resource requirements. Rather than following the 'go forth and multiply' imperative handed to society by Christianity, and spreading like a plague of locusts as a result, we are finally approaching a position where we can control our own numbers without being dependent on major culling events such as plague, famine, war or government enforced eugenics.

    Of all the many failures of the Christian tradition, the persistent peddling of the idea that we should continue to increase our numbers in the context of living on a planet of finite size and resources has to be one of the most damaging. In my opinion, the current younger generation is the most acutely aware of resource squandering and protecting our environment. The decision when or if to have children and how many is clearly part of that. Their questioning of archaic religious values that are entirely inappropriate to modern society is also a benefit.

    The religious notion of some kind of an afterlife doesn't help here either, in that it encourages the specious notion that in some way the destruction of our planet is somehow survivable by the chosen few. And of course every religious person considers themselves part of that number and anyone who disagrees excluded.

    You didn't answer my response (in another thread) to your supposition on ever improving ethics (hip hip hooray for LGBT rights / oh dear for the whole of mankinds right to live on a planet that isn't being turned into a greenhouse)

    You didn't respond to a questioning of your ever onwards and upwards view in my last post either. Just a rant about Christianity.

    Touched a nerve have I?


  • #207
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    I think that's the kind of splendid out-of-the-box thinking which we, as a nation, should be encouraging in schools.

    In final year Engineering in the UK, we had a visit by an entrepreneurial engineering company owner to give us a talk about engineering in the real world. Could have been James Dyson now I think back..

    Anyway, he described a problem. Lawnmowers. There were rotating drum mowers and hover mowers but they all had problems: they didn't cut wet grass well, they needed constant emptying, they had cables which got cut, they cut people. He wanted us to think of a new way to solve the problem.

    Half way through the set up of the problem I figured what he would ask us and set my mind to blue-skying a new design of lawnmower. No sooner was the challenge to us of his mouth than one wag piped up:

    "Modify grass seed so that it doesn't grow so fast"

    Everyone laughed except him. He responded..

    "As soon as you've finished with university come and see me and I'll give you a job"

    Watch Big Hands..


  • #208
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    IAmTheReign wrote: »
    I disagree, I think the issue of what you believe in is very relevant, considering that is the very subject of the thread.

    I don't see how but anyway
    You claim to believe in the concept of total depravity, which is definitely not a mainstream idea for people brought up in country dominated by the catholic church. In fact your entire argument for why you refuse to imagine an impartial observer is based on a belief that is not shared among all Christians.

    So what? Surely you're not suggesting that a majority view is the view that ought hold sway.

    Mark set up worldviews. He didn't say the worldview had to be a majority world view. It's not as if the idea of Total Depravity is cultish or insignificantly held to. There is a bigger world out there than Catholic Ireland.
    I also think it's ironic that earlier in the thread you were deriding cultural Catholics even though you claim not to follow any fixed views set by a particular church.

    I wasn't so much deriding as pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

    I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians


  • #209
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've never heard of anyone dying of old age. I've heard of people dying of diseases associated with old age alright.

    The exact cause of death is largely moot. People live longer and healthier lives than they did in the past. You seem to think this is not progress and hence a bad thing but I'd suggest you're in a tiny minority there. I agree many forms of natural death in old age are unpleasant and have no issue with people choosing a painless assisted death when they feel the time is right for them. That we now can consider this from a rational standpoint is also progress.
    Which, as my point pointed out, merely consumes resources from those down the line. A somewhat questionable side effect (and there always is side effects) of this onwards and ever upwards advancement you laud.
    You didn't answer my response (in another thread) to your supposition on ever improving ethics (hip hip hooray for LGBT rights / oh dear for the whole of mankinds right to live on a planet that isn't being turned into a greenhouse)

    You didn't respond to a questioning of your ever onwards and upwards view in my last post either. Just a rant about Christianity.

    You seemed to have missed my point entirely so, which also answered your questions. We have resource shortages because the amount of resources we consume, the amount of pollutants we create and our overall impact on the environment is largely function of the size of our population. The notion that we should or even can continue to grow the world population indefinitely is clearly idiotic, yet it still remains a central part of Christian dogma. As a species we clearly need to match our population size to a maximum dictated by sustainable renewable resources. Family planning allows us to do this without resorting to war, genocide or waiting on some natural culling event that would wipe out the larger part of the population. Technology is at the stage where we can automate all those tasks in the past that demanded a large workforce. As such we're arriving at a unique point in history where we get to choose our path forward rather than be dependent entirely on the forces of nature.

    Not sure what your gripe with LGBT people is either, you might want to explain that one. They do seem to occupy the forefront of your mind rather a lot for some reason.
    Touched a nerve have I?

    Far from it, I quite enjoy discussing these things. Not being in any way religious myself, I do struggle to find any logic in your line of argument but no doubt it is in there somewhere.


  • #210
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

    I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

    What makes self identify as a "Christian", and which parts of scripture do you either either interpret to suit yourself, or ignore ?
    You're one of those people who likes to preach all about what other people should be doing instead of what you should be doing.
    - How's that plank in your own eye ?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.


    You claimed that total depravity, which seems to be part of your core worldview was a mainstream idea. Myself and others on this thread have pointed it out that it is not exactly a widely held belief, and the other posters quote supports that. Now unless you can show that it is a belief that is growing in popularity among Christians I think we can all agree that it is not in fact a mainstream belief.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

    This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people

    This is exactly the place to get into those specifics! We're asking about YOUR worldview after all. Now you're saying this idea of total depravity makes best sense to you based on all the arguments. Can you explain what those arguments are, and why you feel they make the most sense to you specifically? Did you compare different Christian beliefs in order to come to your conclusion? What about the other Abrahamic faiths, did you consider those and their belief systems too?


  • #212
    IAmTheReign
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭IAmTheReign


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wasn't so much deriding as pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

    You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

    The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.


  • #213
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Iamthereign wrote:

    You obviously feel that there is such a thing as a 'not real' Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.

    Obviously I do think there are real Chtistians and folk who identify as Christians but who aren't really.

    You said I was deriding . Can we take it that wasn't shown by you. That that was an unsupported claim?
    So tell me what exactly is it that you think does make someone a Christian?

    They are born again by act of God. He takes that action when someone surrenders themselves to him a.k.a hoists the white flag on the rebellion against they were born into by very nature. The shape of that surrender will very tremendously from person to person, so there is no fixed formula for it, other than the person surrender. Surrender is the common ancestor as it were.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

    The irony is that in a thread about your worldviews you've continually dodged the question of what it is you believe. When I asked what to most Christians would be a relatively simple question of what denomination you belong to you couldn't even answer that. You said you were loosely evangelical and didn't follow fixed views from a central body. This is exactly the kind of handwavy response I would typically get from someone who claims to be Christian but never thinks too hard about it. You though do seem to be someone who has thought about it so I have to wonder why you are so reluctant to explain.

    Saying I'm loosely evangelical isn't a dodge. How can it be if thats what I am?

    The reason I don't follow a mainstream or take my views from mission control is that I don't share the views of any central body. I don't see a particular problem with that whereas you do. Do you follow a mainstream belief system? Do you take your instruction from a central body (eg "the peer review journals says it, I believe it, that settles it" a la southern US Christians to think of but one section of Chrisitianity)

    As for dodging the thread. Well, we've seen its not so straightforward. Indeed, handwavvy seems to be about the core of the response to the problem of this impartial onlooker.


  • #214
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Nobelium wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    pointing out that self identification as a Christian doesn't necessarily make a Christian (if there is such a thing as a real Christian and a not real Christian).

    I'm not sure where the irony is supposed to occur here. Not following any fixed views set by a particular church wouldn't be the definition of a cultural Christian (which would seem to be required of me in order for there to be irony in my "deriding" cultural Christians

    What makes self identify as a "Christian", and which parts of scripture do you either either interpret to suit yourself, or ignore ?
    You're one of those people who likes to preach all about what other people should be doing instead of what you should be doing.
    - How's that plank in your own eye ?

    Your question is a bit garbled so I can't answer it.

    Your plank seems to rest on the view that all people who say they are Christians are Christians (contrary to my view). I doubt you can substantiate that.


  • #215
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    IAmTheReign wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm claiming the assertion that modern Christianity has moved on from the idea of total depravity (on which there are various views btw)isn't supported by citing the viewpoint of a specific branch of Christianity dating from the mid-1800's.


    You claimed that total depravity, which seems to be part of your core worldview was a mainstream idea. Myself and others on this thread have pointed it out that it is not exactly a widely held belief, and the other posters quote supports that. Now unless you can show that it is a belief that is growing in popularity among Christians I think we can all agree that it is not in fact a mainstream belief.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The same justification you presumably have for believing what you believe to be the most accurate take on something upon which people differ in view. What makes best sense to you, from all the arguments made.

    This probably isn't the best place to get into the theological specifics of how sin is thought to infect or influence people

    This is exactly the place to get into those specifics! We're asking about YOUR worldview after all. Now you're saying this idea of total depravity makes best sense to you based on all the arguments. Can you explain what those arguments are, and why you feel they make the most sense to you specifically? Did you compare different Christian beliefs in order to come to your conclusion? What about the other Abrahamic faiths, did you consider those and their belief systems too?

    I think you'll find you baited and switched. I didn't say that total depravity was a "mainstream idea". I did say it appeared in some recognised brands and in other subsets.

    I countered the suggestion that modern (i.e. today's) Christianity had moved on from Total Depravity, since the suggestion was based on a quote from a branch of Christianity, dated mid 1800's

    You would have to do something like find out how prevalent the view was then and how prevalent the view today in order to comment on what modern Christianity has done (whether moving on or otherwise). I'd emphasis 'you' since 'you' was making the claim about its fall from grace in modern times.

    A little bit of rigour goes a long way in these discussions. It avoids accidental bait and switches.

    As for your demand? Another bait and switch. I didn't enter this thread to address 'we're'. 'We're' is a group of atheists and agnostics with an antagonistic view towards all things theism. Pearls before swine (no offence but that's what I'd be doing since the evidence direction path demanded by "we're" would be .. drum roll ... empirical).

    The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

    Rigour, my friend.


  • #216
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The offer of the OP was for an impartial onlooker. Remember. Producing that onlooker is a problem that lies in the OP's court. I've no need or desire for a 'we're' desired change of tack.

    Rigour, my friend.

    So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?

    After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #217
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    The exact cause of death is largely moot. People live longer and healthier lives than they did in the past. You seem to think this is not progress and hence a bad thing but I'd suggest you're in a tiny minority there.

    Wonder why that is.
    That we now can consider this from a rational standpoint is also progress.

    So let's consider, rationally, our ever increasing lifespan from the viewpoint of finite resources and the effect on those further down the line.




    We have resource shortages because the amount of resources we consume, the amount of pollutants we create and our overall impact on the environment is largely function of the size of our population.

    We have resource shortages because resources are finite and we constantly consume. Whether we consume at a slower rate or a faster rate isn't relevant. What's relevant is that resources are finite.

    And a time will come (because it happens already) when someone will find their lives are a struggle for resources (and you know what that means, typically .. war) because ever longing living people wanted to, well, live ever longer.


    I mean, folk are downtrodden,killed, impoverished and diseased as we speak .. so that we can enjoy comparatively lavish lifestyles. Add 10 years to my life and that goes straight to those peoples bottom line - since I consume more in those 10 years. They've to cough up, perhaps with their blood, because I live longer. It's like .. maths.

    And you see longer life (for it is us in the West who are gaining the longer lives) as a good thing. Can you see the problem?



    sustainable renewable resources.

    Not all resources are sustainable renewable resources. Not by a long way. And whilst you might hope for a smooth, seamless transition to a brave new world the reality is that resource scarcity is a now-thing and means theft of resources - frequently involving enormous cost to the theftees.

    In the context of current reality, adding ever increasing lifespan doesn't strike me as a good thing. Seeing it as a good thing whilst gazing longfully into a utopian future is bit too cake and eat it for me.


    Not sure what your gripe with LGBT people is either, you might want to explain that one. They do seem to occupy the forefront of your mind rather a lot for some reason.

    No particular gripe other than to point out that a human rights cause celebre du jour - posited as an example of great advancement kind of pales into insigificance when compared with the loss of the right not to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust or drink unadulterated drinking water.


    Far from it, I quite enjoy discussing these things. Not being in any way religious myself, I do struggle to find any logic in your line of argument but no doubt it is in there somewhere.

    You're not the only one struggling. Like I say: the transition to a Utopian world where population balances resources that can't be consumed (since they are all renewable) strikes me as somewhat fairytale-ish. It relies on a forward trajectory (based on loose hopes regarding the progression (and application) of technology, politics, law, etc) that has zero historical precedent.

    Reality has been (and can be expected to continue to be) is far messier than any such construction.

    I see nothing new under the sun (and nothing new to come under the sun). You see miraculous transformation looming. We worship very different gods.


  • #218
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So would it be fair to sum up your response to the OP's question of how you would justify your world view as "I can't" then?



    After all, you say that the reasons you've given apply to everyone, ie there is no impartial observer. Therefore you can't justify your views to ordinary mortals - is that it?

    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

    .


  • #219
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

    .

    Thats pretty much a cop out reply.


  • #220
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

    .

    Thats pretty much a cop out reply.

    Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.


  • #221
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Thats pretty much a reply without any substance to it. Timberrrrr indeed.

    Well that's pretty much every post you have written in this thread, you post an awful lot without actually replying to anything.

    Keep avoiding the questions, it's plain fir all to see.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

    .
    The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

    So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

    But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one. :)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #223
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    volchitsa wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    This counters, without explanation, his assumption (made without explanation) that there could be such a thing as an impartial onlooker. My answer stalemates the discussion. Which achieves balance. His undemonstrable assertion vs. my undemonstrable assertion.

    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    I'm quite content with stalemate. Stalemate undermines the strongly believed in certainty of the opposing worldview.

    .
    The OP posed a hypothetical situation, aka a thought experiment. It's a well known, and very useful philosophical technique. It doesn't actually have to be possible for it to work, In fact that's exactly what it's for, to remove real life constraints so as to see the underlying issues more clearly.

    So no, I don't agree that your refusal to even consider such a hypothetical situation on the grounds that it is impossible does anything other than make you look unsure of your own views and disingenuous about acknowledging this. No stalemate IMO.

    But sure, declare victory (or stalemate!) and run away if you wish - that's another well known technique too, albeit a less respectable one. :)

    I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

    Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

    Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

    Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

    Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

    In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

    Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

    To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

    -
    "Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

    I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.



    RIP thead.


  • #224
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My answer stalemates the discussion.
    That's over-egging your omelette by an egg or two.

    On the contrary, your answers make discussion impossible as you are not taking part in a discussion, but delivering what could be a post-modernist sermon which would leave Deepak bewildered, but knowing he's in the presence of a master.

    Your words circle each other like family members at a christmas dinner, an hour after the patriarch was found in the cold, damp and snowbound family pile, murdered. You join these innocent, but guilty words, into phrases with the specific gravity of lead and the crispness of porridge. Your phrases jostle against each other like logs in whitewater river, but without the energy or the spectacle, leaving only the clunking sounds and an air of damp. And these wooden phrases and damp flotsam merge into unhappy sentences, sad paragraphs and dismal posts - all with the penetrative power of a cream-cheese dildo.

    Good heavens, do you speak to people in real-life like you do here?


  • #225
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,389 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

    Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

    Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

    Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

    Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

    In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

    Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

    To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

    -
    "Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

    I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.


    RIP thead.
    This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

    Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

    You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

    And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
    TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #226
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

    It sure is easier to justify a religious world view to someone too young or uneducated to be able to reason.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #227
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If the OP asked the question and I had to give a short, direct answer I would say "there are no impartial onlookers and the hypothetical device is a nonsense".

    Why do you think that you are only person here saying the hypothetical device is nonsense? No one else sees an issue with it, another theist even answered the question posed by it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    When you're dealing with a worldview which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable, self-evident, you can't afford to ignore detail like this.

    Because doing so undermines your worldview, which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable and self-evident?


  • #228
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

    But you early said:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wouldn't need to convince someone if their eyes were already opened by God.

    So what you are really saying, as volchitsa and others earlier said is that you cannot explain or justify your beliefs unless the person already believes in god.
    So why wasn't this a problem in the "peak LGBT thread", when you were trying to convince robindch and smacl? Or any of the other times on this forum you argued your worldview?


  • #229
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Can I also remind you to to answer my post from the other day?

    Particularly the following part, as it is a question not impacted by the plausibility of the existence of the hypothetical onlooker:
    Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?


  • #230
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    volchitsa wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I know what a thought experiment is and what it does by way of removing constraints.

    Unfortunately however, Mark's hypothetical has been constructed to be bent - even if he, and you, have trouble graping that fact. It's not deliberate, just a reflection of how embedded your belief systems are.

    Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

    Fact. He can speak English - or a have access to Google Translate.

    Fact. He has experience in the empirical world. He would be no use if he was 3 months old.

    In short, he has 'eyes' to see, make sense of and evaluate Mark's case. All the basic elements required to arrive at Mark's belief system are contained within those characteristics. Mark has made him impartial - he hasn't formed a worldview. Great! But an onlooker has to be equipped to look on according to Marks requirements. An he is equipped thus.

    Mark hasn't said a word about the 'eye's to see my case. They are different eyes - not the same ones Mark requires. Sure, I'd need the same characteristics in an onlooker - but just because those are sufficient to assess Mark's worldview doesn't mean they are sufficient to assess all worldviews.

    To look on, the onlooker has not only to be impartial. He also has to have the right eyes.

    -
    "Abracadabra!" and a hypothetical impartial onlooker pulled out of a hat can't surmount the problem that Mark has granted eyes to suit his book.

    I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.


    RIP thead.
    This is just silly. Assuming that the two people can speak the same language is hardly a killer for a thought experiment. For instance.

    Your claim that all this cannot exist because one has to already be "the same" as you in some undefinable way to understand your opinion makes no sense, unless you are an alien species.

    You are in fact performing the "trick" that someone else was already mentioned as doing upthread, ie saying that he can prove that God exists to anyone who first takes the simple step of accepting that God exists.

    And you think you've managed a stalemate? Really?
    TBH I think realitykeeper, with fewer than half a dozen posts, has done a far better job. Because s/he has been willing to engage with the questions posed.

    Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment. Ignore the simple stuff and your experiment doesn't get off the ground.

    When building the hypothetical you start from the ground up. Sure, we can often leap forward without giving thought to the obvious. We take things for granted. Which is fine, so long as all parties are agreed on what's granted

    Point was, "same language" is one of the 'eyes to see' that in intrinsic to Mark's hypothetical. In picking something apparently whimsical, I was underlining that 'eyes to see' is a base requirement in order to be able to 'look upon'. Taking it for granted doesn't mean it isn't critical.

    You are absolutely correct as to "alien species" here. That happens when you encounter a class of person fundamentally different to you. The Bible does describe born agains as aliens in this world, as it happens.

    Mark's presumption is that there is no fundamental difference between the folk holding different worldviews, therefore the eyes that serve him via the impartial onlooker will necessarily serve everyone. That take stems from his worldview and is projected onto his 'impartial onlooker'.

    An impartial observer -on this point- wouldn't know whether the problem is me not being able to define (because there is nothing to define) or Mark not being able to see such as to understand the definition.

    Contrary to your idea: I can't necessarily prove God exists to someone who accepts God exists. Plenty of people accept God exists but by way of mental/logical assent. That doesn't make them born again. They don't accept on the basis of spiritual eyes open. And are as lost and blind as the athiest.

    -

    The dilemma: a person with spiritual eyes open, i.e. suitably equipped, just as Mark's impartial has been equipped, won't be impartial. That's not my problem. It merely means Mark's experiment isn't possible.

    If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.


  • #231
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

    If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

    With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Two people speaking the same language is a prerequisite for this experiment.

    If it can't be helped then it can't be helped. Not every experiment is doable.

    With respect, I think the only person speaking an alien language here is your good self. You would seem to have failed to effectively communicate your worldview to other posters here, yet at the same time, all other posters here seem to have no difficulty in comprehending and working with the hypothetical scenario in the opening post which you seem to struggle with. If you can't communicate your worldview to others here after endless pages of text it would seem unlikely you could do so to this imagined impartial onlooker.

    There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here (other than the impediment it causes to experiment progression).

    Others can't seem to leap beyond the position that "hypothetical" is some sort of magic word. As if by mere mention of it every problem is solved. They are happy to assign it all kinds of characteristics to this hypothetical - without saying they do that.

    You don't seem to be able to do much better than them. A few peanuts thrown in doesn't alter anything much.

    The alien reference hit the nail on the head - quite accidently. Deal with the problem that presents to the assumption regarding the impartials characteristics?

    Fat chance. But you're welcome to try.


  • #233
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

    Ain't that the truth.


  • #234
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

    we haven't seen any yet, just pages of make it up as you go along waffle.

    reminds me of those essay bots you can find online now . .just feed them with a few keywords, and they will compile pages of utterly meaningless prose for you.


  • #235
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no attempt to explain my worldview to anyone here

    Ain't that the truth.

    A mod who can't read an OP. Progress.

    Mod: Antiskeptic has received a yellow card for commenting on the poster not the post. Do not comment on this in-thread. If you wish to discuss it do so via PM


  • #236
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Fact. His onlooker can reason. He must be able to, to make sense of what Mark says to him.

    It sure is easier to justify a religious world view to someone too young or uneducated to be able to reason.

    An A&A who recognizes that an impartial onlooker needs to possess certain, developed characteristics.

    Top of the class!


  • #237
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My answer stalemates the discussion.
    That's over-egging your omelette by an egg or two.

    On the contrary, your answers make discussion impossible as you are not taking part in a discussion, but delivering what could be a post-modernist sermon which would leave Deepak bewildered, but knowing he's in the presence of a master.

    Your words circle each other like family members at a christmas dinner, an hour after the patriarch was found in the cold, damp and snowbound family pile, murdered. You join these innocent, but guilty words, into phrases with the specific gravity of lead and the crispness of porridge. Your phrases jostle against each other like logs in whitewater river, but without the energy or the spectacle, leaving only the clunking sounds and an air of damp. And these wooden phrases and damp flotsam merge into unhappy sentences, sad paragraphs and dismal posts - all with the penetrative power of a cream-cheese dildo.

    Good heavens, do you speak to people in real-life like you do here?

    I could ask you the same question. Trying out your new Thesaurus app or summit?


  • #238
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've pointed out that eyes to see my worldview mean born again and being able to see God. No other eyes fit. Box ticked for onlooker. But terminal damage to the impartial bit.

    But you early said:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wouldn't need to convince someone if their eyes were already opened by God.

    So what you are really saying, as volchitsa and others earlier said is that you cannot explain or justify your beliefs unless the person already believes in god.
    So why wasn't this a problem in the "peak LGBT thread", when you were trying to convince robindch and smacl? Or any of the other times on this forum you argued your worldview?

    There is no need to justify my position to a believer (obviously). I can't justify (although I can explain, a different threshold altogether) to a blind person.

    We can say that you can't explain or justify your position unless the impartial hypo onlooker possesses a particular set of characteristics.

    Clearly characteristics are important.

    -

    As to why elsewhere? I have no problem talking about my worldview elsewhere. I take account of the blindness and argue a particular way for a particular reason.

    Typically the reason is as here, to drive things to stalemate. Stalemate is an end in itself.


  • #239
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    Why do you think that you are only person here saying the hypothetical device is nonsense? No one else sees an issue with it, another theist even answered the question posed by it.

    I seem to be the only person who wants to look under hypo's bonnet. When I see he is powered by an empirical, rational engine... well that's why I won't get on board.
    Because doing so undermines your worldview, which constantly assumes itself correct, unassailable and self-evident?

    True enough. All that's left is the argument.

    Careful argument.

    And your chief problems in argument are that:

    a) your hypoman is stacked with characteristics that favour your view.

    b) he can't have characteristics that permit him to look at my view without destroying his impartiality.

    Now you either dismantle that or we stalemate.


  • #240
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Nobelium wrote: »
    ..
    reminds me of those essay bots you can find online now . .just feed them with a few keywords, and they will compile pages of utterly meaningless prose for you.

    Can't say I've ever tried one. Can't say I ever needed to try one.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I could ask you the same question.
    As a matter of fact, yes, I do sometimes - when the occasion permits, as the company and wine allow, so too does the tone rise to meet the challenge.

    Anyway, I've answered you - can you answer me? Do you speak in real-life as you do here?

    I can't help but notice that the absent-minded, hand-wavey tone which you used a few years ago still allowed you at the time to answer the odd question. But in more recent months, the ghost of occasionally clear thoughts and comments of times past has departed, leaving waffle of the highest order, devoid of any discernible meaning, purpose or value.


  • #242
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Can I also remind you to to answer my post from the other day?

    Particularly the following part, as it is a question not impacted by the plausibility of the existence of the hypothetical onlooker:
    Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?

    To know something doesn't mean what you know is actually the case. You could be a brain in a jar prodded into knowing what you know by an alien.

    Knowing is provisional, ultimately.

    Leaving aside those concerns, knowing is a function of 'personal satisfaction'.

    That is to say, a person assigns knowledge-value to the various ways in which they observe themselves and their interaction with the world.

    They notice their interaction with the empirical environment, e.g. cause and effect. They notice they can make errors and notice others like them make errors. The knowledge-value assigned to their empirical observations is tempered by their propensity to err.

    They notice though, that combining notes with others reduces the level of error. And so, by this method knowledge-value (or their sense of satisfaction) increases compared to their going it alone.

    Ditto their reasoning self and the systems that hone and build upon the individuals capability in that regard.

    Hone and build upon ...
    in the individuals opinion that is. Others views might inform and support his opinion, adding more conviction that he is right - if he finds it satisfactory to take others views into account. But he is the ultimate assessor regarding the worth of these developments. If he is satisfied that what they produce is something he considers iron-clad, then he calls that something 'knowledge'.

    The fact remains however: he is the judge of what he is prepared to accept as knowledge. There can be no other way than self-satisfaction .. the individual as arbitrator. There is no higher judge than that.

    It doesn't matter whether you know empiricism is true (or feel more convinced by it than any alternative) or whether God is true. It is the individual who observes his interaction with his environment and assesses the place and worth of the information he receives from it.

    Now you will probably say that we can err. Which means I can err. So where are the checks? What system do I deploy, just as Science is deployed, to offset personal error.

    The observation "I err" is a personal one. That I decide I err is the motivation to seek a remedy to error.

    But if I don't make that observation about myself (because nothing happens to cause me to observe self-error) then there is no need to refer to an external checking system.

    This is not to say that I think my theology is without error. I don't have a developed view on infants and the matter of 'own choice in salvation' question, for example. And up to relatively recently I thought God instructed genocide-like war. Now, I think that view an error.

    But that's a different class of problem to the one of knowing God (of the Bible) exists as described therein (meek, gentle, love).

    Regarding that latter, I know he exists because every means I have of observing my environment (which include the empirical, reasoned and spiritual) points overwhelmingly to that conclusion.

    Does that mean my knowing can't be wrong? Of course not - I could be a brain in a jar. But such concerns are pointless, I halt at "I know."

    Just as empiricism and rationality presumably strike you so is it for me regarding God's existence: what makes the most sense, is most coherent, provides most predictabilty gets the tag "I know".

    It satisfies me the most - especially because the existence of others contradictory knowledge can be explained within the framework of what I know.

    I know why you stop at empiricism and reason: it's the limit of the environment you operate in, so you hold to it because that makes most sense to you. I know why there are so many gods (and have pointed out their common feature and source elsewhere).

    There is nothing external to my view which can't be explained ( to my satisfaction) within my view.

    And self-satisfaction is the root of all knowledge.


  • #243
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I could ask you the same question.
    As a matter of fact, yes, I do sometimes - when the occasion permits, as the company and wine allow, so too does the tone rise to meet the challenge.

    Anyway, I've answered you - can you answer me? Do you speak in real-life as you do here?

    I can't help but notice that the absent-minded, hand-wavey tone which you used a few years ago still allowed you at the time to answer the odd question. But in more recent months, the ghost of occasionally clear thoughts and comments of times past has departed, leaving waffle of the highest order, devoid of any discernible meaning, purpose or value.

    I would speak like this when the occasion and company permit. Add wine and things tend to simplify down.

    Lest you suggest hooking up to a wine drip: it is the case that complex problems require complex answers. And in written word that creates difficulties.

    Suffice to say however, I'm not prepared to respond with an "oh no he isn't" when dealing with similar level claims to the contrary (on the matter of an onlookers supposed impartiality in this instance).

    The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?


  • #244
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?
    Well, as the forum charter says, A+A is a discussion forum and like a few people have pointed out, including one of your friendly forum moderators, you've yet to raise your posts to the standard of actual discussion.

    We'll keep an eye on how this goes, but honestly, it's going nowhere at the moment.


  • #245
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?
    Well, as the forum charter says, A+A is a discussion forum and like a few people have pointed out, including one of your friendly forum moderators, you've yet to raise your posts to the standard of actual discussion.

    We'll keep an eye on how this goes, but honestly, it's going nowhere at the moment.

    Hmmm.

    In that case it would seem best to go bite sized steps.

    The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

    What's your view? I'm not so much focusing on whether this particular hypothetical is a valid one. I'm looking first at the general position.


  • #246
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

    Of course it can. How else do you think an atheist could converse with a theist about the notion of a God or gods? :)


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Note to posters.

    Robindch has pronounced his overarching view on my posting. Whilst I wouldn't at all agree, when in Rome you must pay heed to the Romans.

    I would acknowledge that multi-focus on multi-issues makes for unwieldy posts, a discussion forum problem generally.

    There is the prospect of thread being pulled because I'm not discussing in the manner deemed appropriate. The fix is to go bite-sized and progress a little at a time.

    My post to robindch above thus.


  • #248
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

    Of course it can. How else do you think an atheist could converse with a theist about the notion of a God or gods? :)

    ☺

    An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.


  • #249
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    ☺

    An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.


    With respect antiskeptic, I cannot help but wonder what you will respond to.
    I am genuinely interested in hearing/learning/ understanding (even with-in the limits of my world view - not a lot I can do about those) about your worldview. I find it is possible to understand other people's views/beliefs without agreeing with them but in order to even attempt to do that there has to be some actual discussion which contains actual information.



    Among your lengthy posts are hidden nuggets of your beliefs, but when people try and find out why you believe what you believe (i.e the theological basis) which is often not 'mainstream' or shared by others who call themselves Christian it all gets wordy nothinghood.


    It took me a long time to understand Calvin, I could even see why he believed what he believed as he provided a thorough theological roadmap I could follow. I do not agree with Calvin as we differ in the core principle of considering the Bible as the word of God but I could read what he read and think yes, I see how Calvin came to that conclusion based on the texts.
    Same with Luther. Same with Knox. Same with Zwingli. Same with the Anabaptists. I would like to do the same with antiskeptic as I am interested.


  • #250
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    @ Bannsside.

    Firstly my apols at the ad hom. Not so much because it was an ad hom (which can technically be avoided by ridiculing a poster by ridiculing his post) but because it cast asparagus on your integrity as a mod.

    The intention was to point out this isn't a thread for me addressing athiests, its a thread for addressing an impartial onlooker.

    I have no problem presenting or arguing my theology - Calvinism, for example, can be dismantled (or neutralised) biblically without needing to hold the Bible to be the word of God. It can be done internally, within the Bible even if considering the Bible a fiction.

    But here isn't the place.


  • #251
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.

    I would have thought it was entirely on-topic. Your previous post asked whether adding the word hypothetical to something that we otherwise might consider nonsense stopped that thing being nonsense. The answer is yes, we use the word hypothetical for precisely this purpose as it demands suspension of disbelief. It essentially provides a mechanism to bridge the gap in a discussion between two incompatible points of view. From the Cambridge dictionary "hypothetical: imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true"

    So for example, many atheists such as myself consider the notion of a god or gods existing as nonsensical but we have no problem dealing with the hypothetical scenario that they exist for the purpose of discussion. It is worth remembering here that what is or is not nonsense is largely subjective until proven otherwise.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement