I have no problem with God, you having that idea or anything...

But I want to challenge it, bounce my ideas of what God might be like off yours...

But all I get are Biblical verses or explanations relating to them in some form!
No original theological thought!

I'm not asking you to be an Aristotle St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas... just SOMETHING!



And then, for the political philosophies, and even moral and ethical philosophies that can have theories without getting involved with the Big G and JC... there they are again!

Sorry for the rant, but it IS a question- WHY do so many Christians (oddly enough, I'm a Jew, and talking with other Jews they often DO put aside God in questions that don't relate directly to Him... you'd think, as they've been around longer...) fall back on the Book so much?

@otto:

Wow... come off it, man, really now, it's not like they're annoying or anything, just that one bit... you treat religion like the plague...

And while I don't wholly disagree for big organized religions, you need to be a bit less dogmatic yourself in your ENIAL of even considering higher powers or causes.

The only people as close-minded as hard-core Christians are hard-core Atheists ;)

it's all you people have

You say this, "because they're arrogant and stubborn and they're a majority... it's they're nature. i try to ignore them when i can." after you say this, "when I ask a Christian to talk about..."

i think you meant denial... i'm not as hard core as you think, i just don't like the arrogance of religion

zaza that wasn't obi, it was me, come on get with the program

Perhaps you turn philosophical Christians (like myself) away when all you do is spout rhetoric. You're child-like and immature, and you wouldn't know real philosophy if it walked up and gave a treatise on the purpose of life. Yell at me if you want. I won't read this thread again.

Oh, and here's a thought. CAPSLOCKMAKESMECOOL!!!

BOLD IGNORE

I'm a christian and although yes I sometimes fall back on the ol' because God wanted it to or whatever, most of the time I leave religion out of the arguments unless it's already been brought up by someone else. Of course I may just be an exception.

that would make me happy, good old secularism, that's all i want

@otto
i always see you slagging off religion big time and claiming that all religious people are arrogant and what not... what has made you so angry at religion?
I'm always happy to answer questions philosophically without quoting the bible.

Okay, Obiwan

What concept would you like to discuss. I'm not sure to what extent I can accomodate you, but I'm willing to try. As far as quoting scripture, I do make an attempt to avoid scripture as the basis of an argument. Apparently not too successfully, but we can see. What's the topic?

just natural disdain, it's nothing personal, i was never raped by a minister or anything, i just don't like it. it smells foul to me, an abomination to reason

It's called belief. If it people didn't have it, there would be no religion. Why don't you bash Pagans too while you're at it?

And I hope you can find a better place to bash Christians than on a strategy game forum. Why not pick up your torch and go hunt them in RL too?

the pagans don't have power

@ottovanbis:

Really now, you're not on the Christian's side, and you're just messing up your own "anit-religion" cause by being so set in your own ideals and unable to shift...

Just stop, come down off your high horse... or form a third party (and we all know how THOSE do.) ;) (Uh-oh... Ron Paul supporters at 12 o'clock!) lol

@Crazy Anglican:

First, just to say it again... that is really an awesome name lol

I want to basically do what Plato does in "The Republic," in his though experiment of creating the "model State" from the ground up, starting with no one and adding people as needed (first farmers for food and weavers for clothes, then artisans for tools, sailors for fishing and trading, assistants to help with these, more farmers and weavers and artisans to fit growth, army for protection as growth continues... etc.)

And apply THAT to the process of our conceptualization of Life, the Universe, and Everything... what's most basic in existance (ie what starts everything) and move from there.

So, let's do this:

The above- let's reconceptualize the existance of everything from absolute SCRATCH!

Relgions, throw away your Books.
Atheists, throw away your Science/Logic (we have to define THAT, too, if from scratch)
Statesman, throw away your political ideals
Philosophers, throw away your idols (well that's me... bye, Nietzsche, Hobbes, and etc.)

Ready?

Go! :)

So, we have a blank slate of Nothingness.

What's the first thing we can/need to construct to create Everything that does NOT depend on prior knowledge, as this has to be the foundation (ie, "science" requires a pre-concept of cause-and-effect/measurability/numbers, and "religion" requires the prior knowledge of what the dogma is... so both those are out, science and established religions, at least for now... unless anyone contests that?)

in a blank slate of nothingness we have nothing, and that is all. without prior knowlege there is nothing to move on to, could you grant the tabula rasa concept maybe?

What's the topic, in this debate of nothingness...?

"reconceptualize the existance of everything from absolute SCRATCH!"

No, lets not. Why would we want to burn all of the world's thought from the past millenia on no apparent basis?

There's nothing we can debate. We apparently have to through away anything to go mental a la Descartes.

I'd say the place to begin would be self-awareness. If I am to perceive nothingness then I must be able to perceive.

@otto:

What's tabula rasa?

And I'll rephrase:

In our MINDS it is a blank slate right now, we're trying to BUILD the idea of existance from scratch, from the basest ideas, and moving up.

And I'd put foward this:

All knowledge that we can logically attain is derived from the senses, or that's my position at the outset here, and all of those are faliable.

SO we can't know ANYTHING as of yet.

HOWEVER, recall FEELING.

I mean internal feeling, such as feeling sadness or happiness.

Now, generally speaking you might say at this point "Well, that depends on knowledge of what your are upset about or what you are happy about" to which I respond, "Yes, but you HAVE those concepts at the start, in their most basic form, and nothing is required to give you those. For example, anyone and everyone, no matter how intelligent, dumb, strong, or disabled will KNOW what happinesss or, at the very least, pain and sadness ARE... they may not be able to articulate those feelings, but they will know what they are, they are inborn features that all human beings have."

So I posit that THIS is the first block in our interpretation of the Universe:

We feel and know at least basic feelings, and from THIS we derive ideals that FIT those feelings, preferrably to strengthen them (ie, we form the idea of the five senses from our wanting something "happy" to see, taste, touch, etc. and also here we might find religion, as that may make us feel happy to feel "protected" as it were... and for negative feelings we again have the senses, and from those such things as stubbing your toe to feeling a bullet hit your chest, and here, as sadness and pain are negative, we get the opposite of the religious Deity, which would be Sin/Devil/Something Upleasant to Cause us Pain.)

obi this is totally enlightenment based stuff, come on. you don't know what the idea of the tabula rasa is, john locke ring a bell??? tabula rasa means blank slate, i was referring to locke's argument on experience and self-awareness that's already been pointed out.

i disagree with you obi on the "inborn features" bit you argue, ever read 1984?

so we are talking about...nothingness...really? i want you guys to try and think about nothing. absolutely nothing. can you do it? i know i can't...

@obi, "What's the first thing we can/need to construct to create Everything that does NOT depend on prior knowledge, as this has to be the foundation ..." well, i can tell you for sure, the first thing we have to have in order to create Everything, is Something. Something had to create Everything.

i think that's a good start eh? Everything could NOT have come from, nothing.

really, are you sure?

@otto:

Not a fan of Locke's, I always preferred Hobbes and Nietzsche lol

And I'm familiar with 1984, but not encyclopedically... how would you say that'd damage my claiming we all at least have a sense of emotion (happy, sad, pain, etc.) EVEN if they can be manipulated to a state's wish and ideal (if that's what you're getting at) then actually that would seem to back up my argument, as for the sate to manipulate and mold those emotional states to their desires, they'd need those things to exist to mold them... even Hume's property argument can't rid us of having emotions, I think, as emotions aren't gained through the five senses (and thus become properties) but rather are shaped by them.

The ideas of thought and emotion must exist...

or rather, not even the ideas-

the EXISTANCE of thought (logical or otherwise, as we have yet to determine that) and emotion must exist... at least that's as basic as humans can get, so in my opinion either we start there and build up or consider if there is some "higher power" or something that we are otherwise lacking to start off of