Power Corrupts

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Power Corrupts
Thralni Master Member # 5977	written Saturday, April 22 2006 02:52 Profile Homepage #50 quote: Originally written by lord llama: god dose NOT have absolute power because he dose NOT exist...evidince:if god created everything who created him,and is there was some one created him who created that guy and so on for infinity and if they all created holy things to create y not created the galixy them selfs :confused: Well, that's what religion is, basically. Combine the problems, and blame them all together to one super-problem: God. Now try to find an explanation for god himself, and you're done. -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 \| Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00
Grain of Salt Infiltrator Member # 6652	written Saturday, April 22 2006 03:08 Profile #51 quote: Originally written by Mc 'mini' Thralni: Well, that's what religion is, basically. Combine the problems, and blame them all together to one super-problem: God. Now try to find an explanation for god himself, and you're done. This is basically why religion was started. People got upset when someone died. Therefore, to comfort themselves, they decided that that person went to Heaven. Later, some bright philosopher wondered how the entire race of humans came to exist. They decided that a powerful being created them. Then, some other bright philosopher decided to combine the beliefs, and write them down. There you have religion. Think about it. Out of all the other possibilities, is it likely that god exists? No. There is no proof of god existing. There is in fact much proof of god not existing. Therefore, what could cause the majority of humans to go along with that belief? Comfort, and later bandwagon. I would also like to quote the spirit, if not the letter, of a point Douglas Adams (an atheist) made in a speech. People have debates about politics. The different sides routinely call the other sides wrong. Yet no one worries about offending a viewer who just happens to subscribe to one side over the other. But hold a debate about religion, call someone's religion wrong, and everyone's all over you. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 \| Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, April 22 2006 03:21 Profile Homepage #52 If Douglas Adams already said it, why are you bothering to say it again? We want original and interesting ideas here, folks. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Saturday, April 22 2006 03:21 Profile Homepage #53 quote: Originally written by lord llama: god dose NOT have absolute power because he dose NOT exist...evidince:if god created everything who created him,and is there was some one created him who created that guy and so on for infinity and if they all created holy things to create y not created the galixy them selfs :confused: how do you like that i bet none of you ever thought of that..well maby a few but not many edit:also if some how god dose exist if you liked vilence but went to heavin wouldent heavin be a place were every one had bats and guns and killed eachother only to come back 1/2 a sec later to fight some more or if you liked vilence and went to h@11 wouldt h@11 have god and a bunch of monks siting wateing for you to meditate or something :eek: agaion bet you didnt think of this I am astounded. It's not often I've seen a philosophical argument so clear and at the same time so incoherent. What does "h@11" stand for? [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 03:22: Message edited by: Kuranes- ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Grain of Salt Infiltrator Member # 6652	written Saturday, April 22 2006 04:17 Profile #54 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: If Douglas Adams already said it, why are you bothering to say it again? We want original and interesting ideas here, folks. I am quoting a source for the purposes of my argument. Is that not allowed? I thought it was encouraged. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 \| Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, April 22 2006 04:39 Profile Homepage #55 Why are you quoting that source? Is it because you think people are more likely to agree with something if Douglas Adams said it than if you said it? If so, that's an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. In philosophy, if your arguments are good they'll stand on their own. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Grain of Salt Infiltrator Member # 6652	written Saturday, April 22 2006 04:43 Profile #56 I was quoting the source because I thought it was a good argument and did not want to be accused of plaigirism, not because I think people are more likely to agree with Douglas Adams than me. Can I not use an argument just because someone else said it? If you want me to remove the name I will. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 \| Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, April 22 2006 04:58 Profile Homepage #57 quote: Originally written by Wonko The Sane: I was quoting the source because I thought it was a good argument and did not want to be accused of plaigirism, not because I think people are more likely to agree with Douglas Adams than me. Can I not use an argument just because someone else said it? Well, that depends on why you're participating in this debate at all. Is it because you want to convince somebody of something? If so, give up now. Is it because you want to impress us with your intellectual abilities? If so, that'll require being able to come up with your own arguments. Is it because you want to practice your debating skills and hone your reasoning? If so, you'll achieve that better by learning to develop your own arguments too. Is it simply because you have an opinion on the issue and think it's vitally important that we all hear it? If so, get a blog. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lazarus. Lifecrafter Member # 6193	written Saturday, April 22 2006 05:39 Profile Homepage #58 quote: Originally written by Wonko The Sane: *Think about it. Out of all the other possibilities, is it likely* that god exists? No. There is no proof of god existing. There is in fact much proof of god not existing. This should answer how I remain theistic. The universe exists, as a mere mortal we see things as cause and effect, so if the universe exists it came from somewhere, which source is most likely? a. A coin was flipped 300 million times, and landed on edge every time. Now we have the universe. b. Something supernatural happened to create the universe. c. An outside force rigged the coin flip so it would land on edge. (Something governing the universe, not necessarily God.) This should answer llama's arguement as well. If "God doesn't exist because someone would have had to make him", then where did the Universe come from without God. Somewhere along the line something came from nothing, in our mortal perspective this is incomprehensible. So believe what you want, you'll still have to explain the unexplainable. (Or you could start arguing if the universe really exists; or something weird about time and the universe always existing. This would confuse me very much.) [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 05:44: Message edited by: Lazarus. ] -------------------- Guaranteed to blow your mind. Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot? Posts: 900 \| Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00**
Grain of Salt Infiltrator Member # 6652	written Saturday, April 22 2006 05:39 Profile #59 Why is anyone else participating in this debate? A combination of those reasons, I think. I'm not trying to impress anyone, I just want my opinion to be heard. Let's just stop veering this topic off-course and agree to disagree. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 \| Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, April 22 2006 05:40 Profile Homepage #60 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: If Douglas Adams already said it, why are you bothering to say it again? We want original and interesting ideas here, folks. Oh, come on, Thuryl, don't give him such a hard time. Doug Adams may have said it first, but did you read/hear that speech? This idea is new to this thread, at least. :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, April 22 2006 05:51 Profile Homepage #61 Hey, I don't have to be nice any more. :P -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
PoD person Shock Trooper Member # 4445	written Saturday, April 22 2006 07:00 Profile #62 quote: Originally written by Wonko The Sane: quote: Originally written by Mc 'mini' Thralni: Well, that's what religion is, basically. Combine the problems, and blame them all together to one super-problem: God. Now try to find an explanation for god himself, and you're done. This is basically why religion was started. People got upset when someone died. Therefore, to comfort themselves, they decided that that person went to Heaven. Later, some bright philosopher wondered how the entire race of humans came to exist. They decided that a powerful being created them. Then, some other bright philosopher decided to combine the beliefs, and write them down. There you have religion. Simplistic and patronizing explanations are great for belittling people who believe something you don't, but please refrain. Take it as a certainty that someone much, much smarter than you is religious. (And someone much, much smarter than me is an atheist) Anywho, you did bring up an interesting topic, namely, what social-scientific (i.e. not scientific as any physicist, chemist, or even biologist would define it) explanations can people come up with for the existence of religion? Mine runs thusly: Religion (specifically, belief in an afterlife, or reincarnation) is an evolutionary inducement to cooperation. Why religion to fill that role? Well, I take it as a given that there is some sort of rudimentary, sub-conscious game-theory decision tree algorithm in our brains. If each interaction between humans is modelled as a prisoner's dilemma (not too unreasonable, I hope), then it is most advantageous in any one case to "defect." Of course, over the long run (an infinite number of iterations) it is most advantageous for all the players to cooperate. But, individual humans will play a decidedly finite number of iterations. Thus, the question of whether it is most advantageous to "defect" or to "cooperate" is open. Belief in an eternal afterlife extends the number of future iterations to infinity, and brings society closer to the Nash equilibrium than it otherwise would be. (Of course, it has since been used as a means of "defecting;" I'm speaking in a general case about why it evolved) Posts: 293 \| Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, April 22 2006 07:10 Profile Homepage #63 Religion, and belief in life after death, are NOT the same thing... I know you know that, but one could very well imagine a belief system concerning life after death that does not involve god(s), demons, rituals that seem bizarre or outrageous to non-believers, or other typical trappings of religion. So the etiology doesn't really say anything about religion as a package. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
PoD person Shock Trooper Member # 4445	written Saturday, April 22 2006 07:39 Profile #64 quote: Originally written by Mathman v. Qwerty: Religion, and belief in life after death, are NOT the same thing... I know you know that, but one could very well imagine a belief system concerning life after death that does not involve god(s), demons, rituals that seem bizarre or outrageous to non-believers, or other typical trappings of religion. So the etiology doesn't really say anything about religion as a package. That's a good point, and a hard one to answer. The best I can come up with is that it requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics to extend one's concept of life beyond physical death. Evolution probably seized upon the first, not the most logical, mental inducement to pursue the Nash equilibrium. (It's also worth noting that observing death makes it pretty hard to believe that any life after death will be the same as life, so determining exactly what it is fell entirely upon the creative faculties of individual societies.) Some sort of community expression is also essential. Each individual, in order to be more likely to "cooperate," must have evidence that its fellows share its beliefs. Rituals considered outlandish by non-believers are probably best, because they can't be mistaken for the routines of everyday life. [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 07:49: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 \| Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Dolphin Shaper Member # 5437	written Saturday, April 22 2006 08:21 Profile #65 quote: Originally written by lord llama: god dose NOT have absolute power because he dose NOT exist...evidince:if god created everything who created him,and is there was some one created him who created that guy and so on for infinity and if they all created holy things to create y not created the galixy them selfs :confused: how do you like that i bet none of you ever thought of that..well maby a few but not many edit:also if some how god dose exist if you liked vilence but went to heavin wouldent heavin be a place were every one had bats and guns and killed eachother only to come back 1/2 a sec later to fight some more or if you liked vilence and went to h@11 wouldt h@11 have god and a bunch of monks siting wateing for you to meditate or something :eek: agaion bet you didnt think of this First of all everything had to come from something. If you want to say it wasn't God that's fine, but what was it? As far as violence and harming others as someone's form of heaven, well, unless you can show some holy text that says otherwise that would be considered evil. If someone's form of Heaven was to make others suffer I'd assume they would be born in "h@11". Posts: 2032 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, April 22 2006 08:21 Profile #66 Genetic evolution might conceivably be relevant, in that I think I remember reading of evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead with valuable items. That might indicate that the primitive roots of religion developed over evolutionarily long time scales. Or it might not. Most religions now extant, however, have undergone most of their development in historical times, in which the human genome has probably not changed appreciably. So if one speaks of religion evolving, one is probably thinking of memes rather than genes. And in this case one should especially consider the 'selfish meme' principle: being useful for humans is only one factor that may help an idea proliferate; anything else that works will do as well. Thus Richard Dawkins considers religion a virus. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Dintiradan Guardian Member # 6670	written Saturday, April 22 2006 08:40 Profile Homepage #67 This is a public service message: For the clarity of everyone on the boards, I have translated the following (all attempts have been made to preserve the original intention of the text): quote: god does NOT have absolute power because he does NOT exist. Evidence: if god created everything, then who created him? If someone else created him, who created that guy? This question continues ad infinitum. The question of how the galaxy was created remains. Ha ha! I thought of something no other philosopher has thought of in millenia. I bet no of you ever created a paradigim shift, eh? EDIT: What if your greatest pleasure was violence and you went to heaven? Wouldn't a portion of heaven be devoted to eternal violence? On the other hand, if violence was your greatest pleasure and you went to hell, wouldn't hell contain god and some monks waiting to rehabilitate you? Yet again, I though of something that you, the reader, were too stupid to think of. -------------------- Like any good translation, the words are different but the intent is the same. I won't offer my opinion on this passage; many others have done so already. 3DiT 5P3\|_I\|\\|G!1!!111!! 0]\/[g WTF [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 08:44: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 \| Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
WiKiSpidweb Infiltrator Member # 3441	written Saturday, April 22 2006 08:49 Profile Homepage #68 For the record how old is llama? -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 \| Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00
Tramist Warrior Member # 5310	written Saturday, April 22 2006 09:43 Profile #69 The bots have gone rampant! I wonder, exactly which state of rampancy are they in now? Posts: 57 \| Registered: Monday, December 20 2004 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Saturday, April 22 2006 09:53 Profile #70 There's simply insufficient evidence to responsibly assert that God exists. There isn't even the order of evidence on which we assert that, say, quarks exist - no meaningfully visible model of God has any apparent influence on the universe, which is an apathetic territory of apparent chaos. I privately hold to the belief there is a God, because I find it comforting - but when a situation would demand two different actions for a respectively God-bearing and Godless universe, I am constrained to act along the latter model. And that's it for me and God. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Saturday, April 22 2006 09:58 Profile Homepage #71 Two quick comments on Job: 1. Satan (or the Adversary) in Job is not much like the New Testament Satan. He is, as I understand it, an angel. He is definitely a servant of God. 2. The Adversary inflicts boils on Job along with all the other doom and gloom. Everything else is somehow undone (new wife and kids, etc.), but not the boils. Yes, Job gets a new life, but he's still horribly scarred and probably in pain. Moral? The source of the universe can't be used to support or deny the existence of God. The universe coming into being is a problem, because either it always existed, which is difficult to imagine, or it came into being spontaneously, which is even more difficult. God could bring the universe into being, but he would have to come from somewhere too. None of the events are obviously more or less improbable than the others, so there's no basis for believing one over the others. We could even have a series of gods creating each other until the last one makes the universe, but it doesn't help clarify anything. I don't see the problem with having an omnipotent and omniscient being, as far as we're concerned, who didn't self-created. Even if God 1 created God 2 and God 2 is in the Bible, he's still the absolutely superior being in any frame of reference relevant to humanity. We're firmly stuck in our own universe. —Alorael, who pins his hope of free will on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's not really a productive worry, though, because whether or not free will exists the world has to operate as though it does. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, April 22 2006 17:00 Profile Homepage #72 quote: Originally written by Recondite Anchorite: I don't see the problem with having an omnipotent and omniscient being, as far as we're concerned, who didn't self-created. Even if God 1 created God 2 and God 2 is in the Bible, he's still the absolutely superior being in any frame of reference relevant to humanity. We're firmly stuck in our own universe. Well, unless you're Gnostic. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Randomizer Law Bringer Member # 6785	written Saturday, April 22 2006 17:49 Profile #73 If we're going to get into the creation of the universe, then modern theory still doesn't go back to the absolute beginning. The Big Bang still doesn't adequately explain the origin of the starting point. After the initial almost infinitetesimal amount of time, theory can explain the formation of particles that eventually result in us posting in this forum. The difference between whether this is just the end result of a group of physical laws or God produced the result so it looks like it happen naturally is indistinguishable by us at the moment. So the arguments of Creationists (Intelligent Designers) over whether God created everything a few thousand years ago are flawed because there is no way to prove their time frame. Saying that we are too stupid to eventually figure out a way for life to have reached this point is a poor proof. Saying that life is too complex to evolve from simple molecules only means that the steps have been shown yet. In only the last few weeks two examples of "missing links" have been found in the fossil record. A snake that still has 2 legs like a lizard and a fish like creature that has arms. It's only a matter of time before the gaps will be filled in. Then the debate can go back to how can you prove something (God) that can't be detected. Posts: 4643 \| Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Robinator is a Beefcake Lifecrafter Member # 34	written Saturday, April 22 2006 18:02 Profile Homepage #74 There was this neat theory in Discover a while back that the Universe was created in a massive explosion when the planes of two parrallel universes intersected at some point in spacetime, which somehow triggered a big energy rush and the creation of a new Universe. It's a little hard to wrap one's brain around this, since cosmologists are always saying that all the parrallel universes of the multiverse are really all in the same place, just in different dimensions. It makes you want to drink a big cup of coffee and watch Spaceballs for a while. Douglas Adams probably got it right when he said the Universe was sneezed out by God, which leaves plenty of room for Creationists and Evolutionists. Or that the entire Universe will end and be replaced by one much more complicated once people figure out how it works, and that this has already happened more than once. Terry Prachett says that the Universe was created by two of the Starturtles that carry the worlds on their backs mated in a "Big Bang" theory. -------------------- Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. 'Spiderweb Software' anagrammmed: 'Word-bereft Awipe' Posts: 702 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00**