Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by emplynx
I'm glad you feel that way, because I don't believe there will be any religion in hell.

*yawns* My, my . . . we've all heard that weak argument before. I mean, do you still think you can frighten us free-minded people with Hell? You can fear it all you want - it doesn't scare us.

[azalea]

I meant that the fact that humans don't eat their young is proof of the existence of God.

I am aware of my existence AND am able to understand what my existence means to others; therefore, God exists.

Thoughts? About the Missing Link, I mean.

By the way, it doesn't matter if I say I think He exists or He does exist. Since it's all relative and I'm saying it, one automatically knows that He exists to me and by my believing He exists it would make no sense for me to personalize my statement. If I believe He exists, I believe He exists for everybody whether they believe He exists or not. Right?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by azalea
I meant that the fact that humans don't eat their young is proof of the existence of God.

No, if anything, it's the proof of a more developed social code, a more complex behavioural mechanism.

And as a general rule this is true, BUT there are SOME cultures which have been known to eat their young, and again: not an absolute. Some humans do eat their young.

I am aware of my existence AND am able to understand what my existence means to others; therefore, God exists.

OR I am aware of my existance, and I am able to delude myself into thinking that God exists. (God being the judeo-christian one of course - can't have the other sort.)

Thoughts? About the Missing Link, I mean.

That's a misnomer. There is no missing link. Evolution is a series of gradual steps over the course of billions of years. There is not going to be some missing link that is going to make us go Hellujah! Eureka!

Posted by that sensationalist otherwise known as Emplynx
They did indeed sacrifice their children, but they did not, in fact, torture children for personal pleasure.

Oh, but the Inca did that as well. And furthermore, I believe that the Romans did this practice as well - and as for unwanted children, they just left them on the dump heap to die. Mayhaps some of these babies were tortured as well. I jolly well hope so, because I SO love to see innocent babies tortored!

But since you think that is OK BoP, I don't see why I shouldn't?

Geez you can be dense and annoying sometimes - no... ALL the time, Emp. You said that this example was absolute, and I merely qualified that it wasn't - Western civilisation and it's practices are not as widespread as you think - and just because our society is wonderful enough to work out the tortoring helpless organisms is not good, doesn't mean that other civilisations/societies fall into the same category.

[azalea]

[i]Originally posted by BeardofPants [/i ]



OR I am aware of my existance, and I am able to delude myself into thinking that God exists. (God being the judeo-christian one of course - can't have the other sort.)

That still doesn't refute my statement.

[i]
That's a misnomer. There is no missing link. Evolution is a series of gradual steps over the course of billions of years. There is not going to be some missing link that is going to make us go Hellujah! Eureka!

[/B]

Then how do you explain our ability to empathize (Theory of Mind, right? Animals don't have it). What about our capability for higher thought? To create for our pleasure OR to create to try to please others because we want them to be happy? Why do we want to make strangers happy? What about our ability to judge, to evaluate on the basis of self-made criteria? When you tickle an animal, does it laugh? If you act like you're ABOUT to tickle an animal? Does it laugh? Something must have happened during the course of evolution to make us different than every other animal on Earth. Surely you don't think my camera is a by-product of the survival instinct?

[Sween]

Serisoly i wouldnt mind going to hell i mean the suffering in the world god one sick puppy. If there is a god and he lets stuff like that go on he deserves to go to hell. but there is no god so its allright i suppose. Religions a joke

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by azalea
That still doesn't refute my statement.

Since your statement is of faith, and not fact, then it can't be refuted with fact. I'm not about to bandy about with something like that - you believe, good for you. I don't. Simple as that.

Then how do you explain our ability to empathize (Theory of Mind, right? Animals don't have it). What about our capability for higher thought? ... [abbreviated] Something must have happened during the course of evolution to make us different than every other animal on Earth. Surely you don't think my camera is a by-product of the survival instinct?

A series of progressive steps. Everything that makes us special - bipedalism, ToM, adaptivity, speech/language - these are all things that took millions of years to develop. As to when, and how they happened, well we don't know. But we can say that they developed gradually, and that they may or may not have converged onto each other.

And not everything boils down to natural selection: there are other selective measures. What I have to say is this: there is no one particular development that occured to make us what we are today, it was a series of developments - some convergent, some divergent. Some worked, some didn't.

But anyway, this is not really adhering to the topic at hand, which is dealing with absolutes vs relativism. And I would just like to mention this: everything about biological evolution is about adapting to the best possible fit. Thus it can be said that selection is dependent on a variety of factors, and is therefore, relative, not absolute.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by emplynx
I'm glad you feel that way, because I don't believe there will be any religion in hell.

Ah, but since hell is the product of religion, there is religion in hell.

As for the existance of god, a theory I've always liked, though don't really believe in, at least not now, (I used to...now I'm just completely atheist) is that god, or gods, only exist as long as people believe in them. When nobody believes in them, they 'die.'

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf

As for the existance of god, a theory I've always liked, though don't really believe in, at least not now, (I used to...now I'm just completely atheist) is that god, or gods, only exist as long as people believe in them. When nobody believes in them, they 'die.'

Terry Pratchett, eh? It *is* true to a certain extent. Ideologies are memes, which act like dna - they can replicate, protect themselves, and die.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Terry Pratchett, eh? It *is* true to a certain extent. Ideologies are memes, which act like dna - they can replicate, protect themselves, and die.

Neil Gaiman, actually. But true, that is also found in Terry Pratchett.
Yes, I would agree with that.

[Blackheart]

*insert maniacal laughter*

You will all writhe in the burning flatulance of the elder one's servants once I release the star from the firmament.

Then will woe stalk the land and you will curse the day that your mother bore you, for the old ones will not let you die, though you may beg for release.

I would happily stuff the entire planet right into a singularity.

Relativist meets relativity.

Oh.

By the way.

My "other" personality has unfortunately regained control.

Sorry about that, but what can you do? Anyway, enjoy what time you have left.

[BeardofPants]

Oh no...

[samwise of the shire]

This is just my opinion but i think religion is the cause of all wars and major suffering in the world.

Sween I have to ask you a question...if relegion is the cause of suffering in this world then what was the cause of sufffering in the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union was an ATHEISTIC country. In other words it was a country that did not believe in any form of god whether it was Jehovah or Themselves. So where did the suffering in the Soviet Union come from?
For those of you who want to mail me or whatnot the mail box and pm box are open for that.
Thank you,
Sotshire managment

[Sween]

the suffering in russia has to do with econimic depression after the fall of comunism. It has nothing to with religion granted so my statement all suffering a bit harsh. But most if not all wars which are the main cause of death and pain (bar desiease) are normally religion based.

I just think that faiths sepearte people on such a level more than race of skin colour ever could.

[samwise of the shire]

But Sween cummunisim is BASED on atheism. Lookit Marx, Wasn't HE an atheist? And he was the INVENTOR of communisim. Sween it was relegion that gave us something to mellow out the effects of war made by warring relegions. That would be Hospitals and doctors. Hospitals and surgeons are recorded in England and other places such as the Middle East and Asia as far back as Medival times (further actually because the first heart transplant took place in Greece).
England was at that time in history a CATHOLIC country and these hospitals were run by catholic nuns. The Middle East was(and still is)a country run by Islamic rule and they had some of the best doctors in history who actually KNEW what they were doing when it came to medicene. And Asia was(and still is) Buddist and they had some AWSOME natural remedies such as tea and the like. Of course all of those countries relied on superstition as much as anything, but even then superstition is only a belief of something more powerful then a mortal human being. And all of these relegions Buddism,Islam, and Christianity are at war with each other.
Yet because of relegions we now have English hospitals, Middle Eastern doctors, and Asian remedies, which combine to make healing EASIER and less painful then in past ages.
So yes relegions cause alot of wars(in fact we're in one now)but without them being cured from whatever ailments would be deadlier then catching the ailment. See what I'm getting at?
If not I'll post somemore LATER,
Cheers and may it STAY that way,
Sam

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Sam, I can't speak for Sween, but I don't think anyone said religion is all bad. It's been the cause of a lot of good in the past, as well as much that has not been so good. And I'm speaking about religion in general.

Also, atheism is a religion of sorts...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Also, atheism is a religion of sorts...

*whack*

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


*whack*

Hey! What was that for? *ow*

[Rána Eressëa]

Yes, some atheists have done evil things. Just like some religious people have done evil things.

I think as long as there's humans with the capacity of deep thought (not intelligent thought - because really, how are humans intelligent?) there will never be a peaceful, perfect, better world. Religious people and atheists alike have contributed to pain and suffering. But each side has exceptions - people who even with their beliefs, don't inflict pain upon others because of them.

A true atheist thinks this: just because there isn't a God, and we don't have to do "good" - it doesn't mean we have to do "evil" in return. We don't think: "Oh, there's no God! Let's wreck havoc on the world!"

But, anyways, why not?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Yeah, what is this obsession with doing good anyway? Evil is so much more fun...but of course, judgement of what is evil is all relative

On a serious note. . .

I just find it sick when people use religion, or god, as an excuse or reason to do wrong. Which is part of my reason for some sort of partial absolutism.

[Rána Eressëa]

Here's an interesting discovery...

Lucifer is not the true name of Satan. People have accidently refered him to that name due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12.

Lucifer IS Latin for "morning star" and according to Roman mythology, Lucifer is the bringer of light, the morning star who would later become Venus. If you would have properly read my last post, you would have seen that I was making the assertion that Lucifer is not the name of the Devil. In Isaiah 14 the KJV poorly translates "morning star" into the proper noun "Lucifer", but Isaiah 14 is not talking about Satan; it is talking about the King of Babylon. God is calling the king the morning star in order to say that the king of babylon was glorious but has now come to nothing.

Actually, "morning star" is the name of Jesus, according to Revelation 22:16. If Jesus name "morning star" was translated into a Latin proper noun, then Jesus' name would be Lucifer. But that's okay. You can call Jesus Lucifer if you want. Because Satan's name is not Lucifer, and, unlike Christ, Satan is not the bringer of light.

You can find that full story at: http://www.voy.com/6140/276.html

And here's an even better article on the subject of Satan. Very enlightening. Here's an excerpt:

It appears that the Hebrews did not have a devil-like power opposed to God. Satan, or the Satan as he is often called, is an angel in the court of God with the function of an accuser (see Job 1:6). There are also indications that along with all that is "good," all that is "evil" comes from God, not Satan. In Isaiah 45:7 God says: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things." Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia confirms the idea that there is a radical difference between how Satan is conceived in the Old Testament and how he is conceived in the New Testament, and that his new role did not develop from his original role: there are no references "to rebellious angels in any pre-Christian book. . . . The figure of Satan in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament respectively emphasizes the difference in conception. There is no development, but basic difference. . . . It is only in Christian literature that the Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God's enemy, has persisted" (Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia, A. M. Hyamson & A. M. Silberman eds., Shapiro, Valentine & Co, London, 1938, p. 36).

I figured I'd post this here since we are dealing with religion and there's no sense in starting a new topic over it.