Do you belive in hell and if so who do you think is going to it? [Archive]

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 19:15

Someone said you where the antichrist? thats
The idea of a Christian camp sounds scary, do you live in America then?

No i live in england. i was told it would be a normal camp ( i was 11 at the time). Upon arriving i was issued with a bible. I decided to try and keep the atheism covert but it failed within two hours when I blurted out "dont you think this god stuff is abit like santa?".

Also on the antichrist remark came after sarcasticly praying to god for ninja pirates and when we went bowling (the only good bit "taken to the ciemea" ment go to a church to watch joseph and the multi fucking coloured dreamcoat), so anyways at bowling i called myself "king joe 666" on the score machines coz you know king joe backwards is joking and 666 is funny.

I was told i was the antichrist and going to hell (no joke the "christain leader" who must of being like 13 pulled me aside to say so) . That instantly made me thing "god, hes abit of a twat then or somthing along those lines.

So basicaly thats the off topic story of my atheism i think this helped coz i got latter sent to a christain school the next year and was quite confused with all these people pissing about over hell.

Dean

30th August 2008, 19:42

I believe in hell.

...just look around you.

Decolonize The Left

30th August 2008, 20:56

No, I don't believe in hell or its counterpart - heaven. Silly stories made up to help justify a moral code based upon submission to rules created by others cannot stand up to logic or reason. They are entertaining at best, they lead to massacring and torturing others for not believing in your stories at worst...

- August

Bright Banana Beard

30th August 2008, 21:15

We are in hell, the fun is only the moment away! :lol:

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 21:56

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 22:00

I believe in Hell and I believe in Heaven. I differ from Dean in thinking--this is a beautiful wonderful world. But I do believe in an afterlife. I can't prove there is one--and no one can prove there isn't, so it's a matter of faith not knowledge.

Who do you belive is going to hell and whats your response to Russels teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 22:10

Who do you belive is going to hell and whats your response to Russels teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

I have no idea who is going to hell. It's above my pay grade to decide. But if you want me to put in a good word for you....;)

As far as Russel's Teapot--it is mightily the same as Zeno's paradoxes.

E.g.

Achilles and the tortoise“In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, for example 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, in which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.--from Wiki

[Edit] You know Joe--when I was younger I was much more sure of how things happened and how things worked, but as I grow older the less certain things seem to be. I seem to see a lot more coincidences in life than reason might expect there to be. Nothing concrete, but I do think there is something going on beyond what our five stinking little senses show us. I could be wrong, but after a while you begin to wonder.

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 22:31

I have no idea who is going to hell. It's above my pay grade to decide. But if you want me to put in a good word for you....;)

I was more intrigued by peoples responses by expirances with nutters telling everyone they were going to burn in hell.

Also the bible quite clearly states jesus is going to put me in a big pit for quite a while. So if in the very (x1bil) unlikely case the bible is true its off to hell for me.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 22:35

I was more intrigued by peoples responses by expirances with nutters telling everyone they were going to burn in hell.

Also the bible quite clearly states jesus is going to put me in a big pit for quite a while. So if in the very (x1bil) unlikely case the bible is true its off to hell for me.

You then will be happy to know that many Fundamentalists think that I, a good Catholic, will burn in hellfire eternally.

Personally, I don't see if for you, though. (Well maybe a little barbecue for all those sex pic you put in my User PC. :lol:)

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 22:44

You put them in your pc!

i never expected you to save them!

(you mean CP right)?

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 22:49

You put them in your pc!

i never expected you to save them!

(you mean CP right)?

Yea, CP.

I'm RESTRICTED! I can't get in there at all. I can't change thing or respond to things or do anything in there. Do you see any comments by me? You Commies can do whatever you like in there.

When the Revolution comes--you are all going to PAY! :lol:

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 22:54

We pay quite alot as it is!

:laugh:

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 22:59

We pay quite alot as it is!

:laugh:

Love you, Joe. :lol: (In a hunting and fishing kind of way, that is. ;):lol:)

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 23:04

Hunting and fishing?

ALF will be after you
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/pictures/top_1.jpg

(With a milliaint get up and a bunny you know they mean business and wont just break into cancer reaserch labs) :rolleyes:

Qwerty Dvorak

30th August 2008, 23:07

30th August 2008, 23:10

Fucking no,i dont believe in hell.
who would going to it?of course those antichristes devils people called communists:lol:
hell is a really stupid thing,christians who support its existent are even more stupid.Basically its in crash of "ideas" christianity and hell.they tell you that "god" loves his people,he forgives them,but then they talk to you about hell where the good god will send you to burn:lol:Its one of the biggest stupiditys of theism especially christianism.

Fuserg9:star:

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 23:19

So who is going to hell TomK? Am I? Is anyone on this board?

I was told I was going to burn in hell for supporting this Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon). Not jokingly or passively either. People would follow me around on the street and tell me I was a traitor and I deserve to go to hell.

As I said, I haven't a clue who is going to Hell. Now, do I believe it's a bunch of devils with pitchforks with firey pits? No.

I think Hell is just a separation from God. Nothing more. And for a lot of people--maybe that would be just fine.

As far as the Treat of Lisbon goes--:rolleyes:

Pirate turtle the 11th

30th August 2008, 23:21

Qwerty Dvorak

30th August 2008, 23:24

As I said, I haven't a clue who is going to Hell. Now, do I believe it's a bunch of devils with pitchforks with firey pits? No.

I think Hell is just a separation from God. Nothing more. And for a lot of people--maybe that would be just fine.

As far as the Treat of Lisbon goes--:rolleyes:
Is that :rolleyes: to the Treaty itself or their reaction to it?

Bud Struggle

30th August 2008, 23:27

Is that :rolleyes: to the Treaty itself or their reaction to it?

Your "friends" reaction to it. Being American--the treaty means nothing to me either way.

For the most part politics has nothing to do with anyone going to hell or to heaven.

Qwerty Dvorak

30th August 2008, 23:31

Your "friends" reaction to it. Being American--the treaty means nothing to me either way.

For the most part politics has nothing to do with anyone going to hell or to heaven.
Obviously they were no friend. Seriously though, you have no idea the kind of people I came up against while campaigning for a Yes vote. It's scary.

Dean

30th August 2008, 23:35

I believe in Hell and I believe in Heaven. I differ from Dean in thinking--this is a beautiful wonderful world. But I do believe in an afterlife. I can't prove there is one--and no one can prove there isn't, so it's a matter of faith not knowledge.

"I see friends shaking hands, saying 'how do you do?' - they're really saying, 'I love you.'"

The world is wonderful, but its also shitty.

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 00:01

"I see friends shaking hands, saying 'how do you do?' - they're really saying, 'I love you.'"

The world is wonderful, but its also shitty.

But in the end it's not circumstances that shape the quality of your world--only you can do that.

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 00:04

Obviously they were no friend. Seriously though, you have no idea the kind of people I came up against while campaigning for a Yes vote. It's scary.

That's the problem with living in a small town. (Ireland.)

Qwerty Dvorak

31st August 2008, 00:06

That's the problem with living in a small town. (Ireland.)
You should take a look at your big city before you diss my small town :P

Dr Mindbender

31st August 2008, 00:07

any religion that uses this theological blackmail to get you to join is scum.

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 00:12

You should take a look at your big city before you diss my small town :P

Not dissing--but when people care so much about YOUR politics--it's a problem. In NYC, nobody cares. I go to lunch with all sorts of people that vote all sorts of ways--we discuss it and then move on--like we were discussing the weather.

It's get's a bit precious when people "don't like" the way that you vote.

Qwerty Dvorak

31st August 2008, 00:19

Not dissing--but when people care so much about YOUR politics--it's a problem. In NYC, nobody cares. I go to lunch with all sorts of people that vote all sorts of ways--we discuss it and then move on--like we were discussing the weather.

It's get's a bit precious when people "don't like" the way that you vote.
People don't generally care about your politics. We're a pretty apathetic population when it comes to politics actually. But we have our nutjobs like everyone else. The problem is that we also have a system whereby amendment of the Constitution requires a popular referendum, and that allows all kinds of fringe groups with their own agendas to come out of the woodwork. You'd really have to have been here during the Lisbon campaign to understand what I'm talking about.

mikelepore

31st August 2008, 00:20

It's not hard to see how the idea of hell arose. A long time ago people were abstracting what they thought was perfect in human life: if having power feels good then perfection must be all-powerful; if knowledge is good then perfection must be all-knowing. But, since they were accustomed to a class stratified society, they believed they also needed to ask: what is the perfect extension of the idea that slaves who disobey their masters and subjects who disobey their monarchs need to be tortured? Hell is the analog of that. Now that some of us are mentally free of the compulsive defense of class society, it must seem to us as thought the ancient God is a monster.

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 00:33

People don't generally care about your politics. We're a pretty apathetic population when it comes to politics actually. But we have our nutjobs like everyone else. The problem is that we also have a system whereby amendment of the Constitution requires a popular referendum, and that allows all kinds of fringe groups with their own agendas to come out of the woodwork. You'd really have to have been here during the Lisbon campaign to understand what I'm talking about.

Fair enough. I didn't quite understand how voting and politics works in Ireland. As far as the treaty goes--I haven't a clue if it's good or bad. I tried to read it, but without context--it's just another set of rules and regulations.

Best of luck with how things go with it.

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2008, 00:36

As I said, I haven't a clue who is going to Hell. Now, do I believe it's a bunch of devils with pitchforks with firey pits? No.

I think Hell is just a separation from God. Nothing more. And for a lot of people--maybe that would be just fine.

Ah, so it's much like the Buddhist notion of reincarnation and getting closer to Nirvana?

Oh, I also have other questions:
What, exactly, does it mean to be 'closer to god?'
What (not who), exactly, goes to hell?
Where is this thing which goes to hell/heaven?
How is it related to material things, like, say, all we can know?
Who decides who goes where? Where did this arbitrator come from?
Why do only people go these places, and not animals and plants?
Where is this place in relationship to three dimensional space and perhaps four dimensional spacetime?
Why is it highly likely that you can't answer these things but still believe in something which you can't explain, can't prove, and can't verify?

By the way, did I mention you're made out of cream cheese? I know I can't prove it but I have some serious faith that it's true! Seriously! If you come to my meeting on Thursday, we can all sit in a specific pattern and hope that we all will be made out of cream cheese... it's delicious!

- August

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 00:48

Ah, so it's much like the Buddhist notion of reincarnation and getting closer to Nirvana?

Oh, I also have other questions:
What, exactly, does it mean to be 'closer to god?'
What (not who), exactly, goes to hell?
Where is this thing which goes to hell/heaven?
How is it related to material things, like, say, all we can know?
Who decides who goes where? Where did this arbitrator come from?
Why do only people go these places, and not animals and plants?
Where is this place in relationship to three dimensional space and perhaps four dimensional spacetime?
Why is it highly likely that you can't answer these things but still believe in something which you can't explain, can't prove, and can't verify?

By the way, did I mention you're made out of cream cheese? I know I can't prove it but I have some serious faith that it's true! Seriously! If you come to my meeting on Thursday, we can all sit in a specific pattern and hope that we all will be made out of cream cheese... it's delicious!

- August

I never said there were rational answers to any of these questions. In another thread I mentioned that there is merit of the irrational in life. And maybe that's the case here. There's no absolute that says that a rational existance is the BEST one to live. Communism being a "science" is as irrational belief as one could get--or even that Communism has any sort of "future" in the world. All pure "belief system." Do you believe that Communism is "better" than Capitalism? Belief again.

None of it's rational--yet you believe.

Nothing wrong with that--is it all "true"? We reall don't know.

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2008, 07:38

I never said there were rational answers to any of these questions. In another thread I mentioned that there is merit of the irrational in life. And maybe that's the case here. There's no absolute that says that a rational existance is the BEST one to live.

Sure there is - evolution. Rationality, namely, the ability to problem solve, has facilitated our evolution as a species to where we are today. Hence evolution by natural selection, or in short "the survival of the fittest," has deemed us quite fit. Will we kill ourselves off? Who knows? But at least we can rationalize it and do our best to live in harmony with the world which supports us.

Your claims are really quite silly. You want to claim that irrationality can be good at times, I agree - such as 'following one's instincts.' But in general, being rational is far superior by any sort of analysis than being irrational.

Communism being a "science" is as irrational belief as one could get--or even that Communism has any sort of "future" in the world.

Well now you're just putting words in people's mouths. Who has claimed that communism, a political ideology/philosophy, is a science? Unless you can quote someone, it appears as though you're trolling.

And no, believing that communism will arise in the future is not necessarily irrational. One would have to debate the merits of historical materialism to continue this point, but we can save this argument for another time - I wish to remain on topic.

All pure "belief system." Do you believe that Communism is "better" than Capitalism? Belief again.

None of it's rational--yet you believe.

Nothing wrong with that--is it all "true"? We reall don't know.

Clearly you cannot be serious with these statements. Beliefs can be justified or unjustified - hence they can be rational or irrational.

'Do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Irrational, yet you believe it anyway! We just don't know.' << Sounds like a theist in a corner...

- August

Bilan

31st August 2008, 10:10

Communists.

[email protected]

31st August 2008, 10:37

Pirate turtle the 11th

31st August 2008, 11:04

i do believe in hell and heaven .. there must be punishment and reward .. but i don't imagine it as it is described .. fire and barbique and these stuff .. i imagine it as a kinda psicological pain and punishment ... by the way there is anice song called " high way to hell " .. really nice music

What reason do you have for believing in this or is it just faith. Also who do you think is going to hell and why?

Bilan

31st August 2008, 11:23

i do believe in hell and heaven .. there must be punishment and reward .. but i don't imagine it as it is described .. fire and barbique and these stuff .. i imagine it as a kinda psicological pain and punishment ... by the way there is anice song called " high way to hell " .. really nice music

:lol::laugh:
And the lord said, beware, for your punishment for sin, is hell; where there will be fire, brimstone... and barbeques.

Decolonize The Left

31st August 2008, 18:44

:lol::laugh:
And the lord said, beware, for your punishment for sin, is hell; where there will be fire, brimstone... and barbeques.

And music!
http://soulassassins.com/wp-content/acdc_highway_to_hell.jpg

- August

Bud Struggle

31st August 2008, 19:40

Sure there is - evolution. Rationality, namely, the ability to problem solve, has facilitated our evolution as a species to where we are today. Hence evolution by natural selection, or in short "the survival of the fittest," has deemed us quite fit. Will we kill ourselves off? Who knows? But at least we can rationalize it and do our best to live in harmony with the world which supports us.People are marginally rational in general. And rationality does provide us with some interesting and needed tools in this universe--but that's not all there is to the universe. there is no real evidence that the universe is rational at all. Some things may seem rational like 2+2=4 but Newtonian physics seemed quite rational and turned out to be wrong--weh don't know how the universe is really built.

Your claims are really quite silly. You want to claim that irrationality can be good at times, I agree - such as 'following one's instincts.' But in general, being rational is far superior by any sort of analysis than being irrational. I'm never claimed that irrationality was good ALL of the time. There is a time for everything.

Well now you're just putting words in people's mouths. Who has claimed that communism, a political ideology/philosophy, is a science? Unless you can quote someone, it appears as though you're trolling. Actually I got the idea from Fredrick Crews book of esseys Skeptical Engagements. The article intitled Dialectical Immertalialism--(pg 141 in the softcover Oxford edition.) It's really a book on Freuidianism and those that love it, bit it's pretty interesting even if your aren't into psychology.

And no, believing that communism will arise in the future is not necessarily irrational. One would have to debate the merits of historical materialism to continue this point, but we can save this argument for another time - I wish to remain on topic. Fine.

Clearly you cannot be serious with these statements. Beliefs can be justified or unjustified - hence they can be rational or irrational.All sorts of seemingly "rational" beliefs are wrong, e.g Newtonian physics. Imagine explaining to Newton about "curved space." He would have thought that quiet irrational.

'Do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Irrational, yet you believe it anyway! We just don't know.' << Sounds like a theist in a corner...

- August

You have struck on the problem of what we believe and what we know--and in my estimation we "know" precious little.

Tom

Decolonize The Left

1st September 2008, 01:02

People are marginally rational in general. And rationality does provide us with some interesting and needed tools in this universe--but that's not all there is to the universe. there is no real evidence that the universe is rational at all. Some things may seem rational like 2+2=4 but Newtonian physics seemed quite rational and turned out to be wrong--weh don't know how the universe is really built.

Rationality is not truth (i.e. the universe is not rationality...) - it is a tool we use to understand our situation as human beings. And it is far better at this than other things, such as faith. Why? Because rationality is quite adequate for predicting future events and analyzing the past, whereas faith has nothing to do with anything... And it is our ability to analyze time, among other rational tools, that allows us to flourish as a species.

I'm never claimed that irrationality was good ALL of the time. There is a time for everything.

Fair enough.

Actually I got the idea from Fredrick Crews book of esseys Skeptical Engagements. The article intitled Dialectical Immertalialism--(pg 141 in the softcover Oxford edition.) It's really a book on Freuidianism and those that love it, bit it's pretty interesting even if your aren't into psychology.

Unfortunately, communism is tied to the hogwash of dialectics in the minds of many. But when we speak of Marxism we speak of historical materialism, not necessarily dialectical materialism.

All sorts of seemingly "rational" beliefs are wrong, e.g Newtonian physics. Imagine explaining to Newton about "curved space." He would have thought that quiet irrational.

Correct! Newton was wrong, or at least not as indepth as Einstein (nor could he be given the material limits of science). But we figured that out thanks to rationality... so you're point defeats itself.

Yes, there have been many irrational beliefs. But it is precisely due to our ability to rationalize that we can call these beliefs 'irrational' and abandon them as faulty. With faith you abandon nothing - the sky is actually made of concentric circles each with a different cover... - and so you change less. And sameness is death.

You have struck on the problem of what we believe and what we know--and in my estimation we "know" precious little.

And now we must debate epistemology. And I do want to debate, but I have to go to work - I shall tackle this lovely topic tomorrow.

- August

Bud Struggle

1st September 2008, 01:38

Rationality is not truth (i.e. the universe is not rationality...) - it is a tool we use to understand our situation as human beings. And it is far better at this than other things, such as faith. Why? Because rationality is quite adequate for predicting future events and analyzing the past, whereas faith has nothing to do with anything... And it is our ability to analyze time, among other rational tools, that allows us to flourish as a species.[quote] I agree it's a tool, and it predicts material events, one stick plus another stick makes two sticks--but the actual future--nothing could be further from the truth. Rationality can't predict Communism. It might predict that we'll live in a capitalist world--but it could never predict a Communist one--because Capitalism exists--Communism, not so much.

{quote]Unfortunately, communism is tied to the hogwash of dialectics in the minds of many. But when we speak of Marxism we speak of historical materialism, not necessarily dialectical materialism. Minds of many??? That's the mind of Marx! I'm not quite sure what Historical Materialism is, but it sounds like Hegel and thus Idealism. (Could be wrong there.)

Correct! Newton was wrong, or at least not as indepth as Einstein (nor could he be given the material limits of science). But we figured that out thanks to rationality... so you're point defeats itself. We figured nothing out--we just came to another conclusion about the universe that may be just as wrong as Newton's one was. You seem to assume that there is a "truth" to how things work and exist in the universe--I'm not so sure about that. But of course--I respect your faith. :)

Yes, there have been many irrational beliefs. But it is precisely due to our ability to rationalize that we can call these beliefs 'irrational' and abandon them as faulty. With faith you abandon nothing - the sky is actually made of concentric circles each with a different cover... - and so you change less. And sameness is death. sorry, I don't see us comming to "truth" through rationality, or at least any truth to explaine thing beyond the 1+1=2. I can see us getting closer and closer like Achilles and the Turtle, but in the end never beating the turtle in the race.

And now we must debate epistemology. And I do want to debate, but I have to go to work - I shall tackle this lovely topic tomorrow.

- August

Well, it's all about epistomology in the end--isn't it? ;):)

Enjoy your work.

Tom

Decolonize The Left

1st September 2008, 07:59

Minds of many??? That's the mind of Marx! I'm not quite sure what Historical Materialism is, but it sounds like Hegel and thus Idealism. (Could be wrong there.)

No, dialectical materialism is different than historical materialism. Hegel was very fond of dialectics, and if you wish to dive into the absurdities of dialectics I recommend you speak to Rosa or read her many essays on the topic.

We figured nothing out--we just came to another conclusion about the universe that may be just as wrong as Newton's one was. You seem to assume that there is a "truth" to how things work and exist in the universe--I'm not so sure about that. But of course--I respect your faith. :)

Newton claimed that gravity was a "force" existing between objects of mass. Einstein further clarified this issue by explaining that the "force" was in fact a warping of the four-dimensional spacetime fabric. Thank you rationality!

Think about what you're claiming - if we've 'figured nothing out' we might still believe the sky is a series of concentric circles with different painted surfaces. It isn't... it's the universe... but hey, we didn't figure that out with a telescope...

sorry, I don't see us comming to "truth" through rationality, or at least any truth to explaine thing beyond the 1+1=2. I can see us getting closer and closer like Achilles and the Turtle, but in the end never beating the turtle in the race.

1+1=2 is a truth, yes. But this is merely a simplified example of mathematics, so by extension mathematics is a series of truths.

You seem to be hung up on the word 'truth' and it's meaning - hence why we must discuss epistemology.

Well, it's all about epistomology in the end--isn't it? ;):)

Enjoy your work.

Tom

Epistemology and many other things, yes. Let's talk.

According to standard epistemology, "knowledge" contains three fundamental conditions:
1) Belief
2) Justification
3) Truth

Therefore, in order for me to "know" something, I must (a) believe it to be the case, (b) have justification for it being the case, and (c) the case must be true.

Example: I claim "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." A skeptic rightly claims that I cannot know this. But now we must analyze my claim.
It is obvious that I believe the sun will rise, I have just claimed such.
I have justification, it has risen every day of the past, and this is due to the Earth orbiting around the sun and rotating at a specific angle so as to create what we call day and night.
But is it true? You seem to wish to claim that it isn't true until it's happened. And using formal logic, you are correct. I cannot 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow. But when we look at this claim practically, using pragmatic logic, we realize that I can claim that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow" because I am not using the word "know" in the strict sense, but rather is a casual sense.

Just like earlier when you claimed "we figured nothing out," you didn't actually mean that in the strict sense, for this would be absurd. After all, you followed that claim by noting that 1+1=2 is a truth (which is something we figured out).

So you can see that we can use the word "truth" in different ways. Similarly, we can use the word "know/knowledge" in different ways.

There is "Truth" and "truth."
"Truth" would be God, or 'that which cannot be proven/disproven' - namely, that which we cannot know. But you can see how it is absurd to use this sense of truth. Why describe something which by definition cannot be described/verified? (You may also note that "Truths" in the past have been used to persecute, isolate, exclude, destroy, and massacre many peoples across the world...)
On the other hand, "truth" is that which is fact - that which is objective. Science, mathematics, language, etc... are 'truths.'

- August

Bud Struggle

1st September 2008, 20:14

No, dialectical materialism is different than historical materialism. Hegel was very fond of dialectics, and if you wish to dive into the absurdities of dialectics I recommend you speak to Rosa or read her many essays on the topic. It's not exactly whhat the experts say about Communism--it is vastly dialectic. Butt, that's off topic.

Newton claimed that gravity was a "force" existing between objects of mass. Einstein further clarified this issue by explaining that the "force" was in fact a warping of the four-dimensional spacetime fabric. Thank you rationality! All nice, I'm sure, the "how." But neither explained "why" gravity exists. Is there a "reason"? I'm not sure, but continually asking the question "how" will never solve the problem.

Think about what you're claiming - if we've 'figured nothing out' we might still believe the sky is a series of concentric circles with different painted surfaces. It isn't... it's the universe... but hey, we didn't figure that out with a telescope... And yes we "see" things with a telescope--and we "see" things in the universe. We have five senses to explore the universe and well, let's say taste and smell are pretty useless. And touch--maybe something there. That leaves the limited to atmosphere 'hearing" and sight. Sight is mostly all we have. We have a perception of the universe almost wholly centered on sight. Fine, but my guess is that's there's a hundred other senses that we don't have that could give us a much better understanding of the universe.

The senses we have were developed to find food--and for nothing else--we've adapted them to do our bidding to understand reality. It's ok--but I don't give it much creedance.

There's a great deal out there that our hunter/gatherer senses don't tell us about. You see, I'm presupposing moue than we can gather--you seem to thing ait's about the same. Hence to episomology!

1+1=2 is a truth, yes. But this is merely a simplified example of mathematics, so by extension mathematics is a series of truths.

You seem to be hung up on the word 'truth' and it's meaning - hence why we must discuss epistemology. I just said that!

Epistemology and many other things, yes. Let's talk.

According to standard epistemology, "knowledge" contains three fundamental conditions:
1) Belief
2) Justification
3) Truth

Therefore, in order for me to "know" something, I must (a) believe it to be the case, (b) have justification for it being the case, and (c) the case must be true.

Example: I claim "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." A skeptic rightly claims that I cannot know this. But now we must analyze my claim.
It is obvious that I believe the sun will rise, I have just claimed such.
I have justification, it has risen every day of the past, and this is due to the Earth orbiting around the sun and rotating at a specific angle so as to create what we call day and night.
But is it true? You seem to wish to claim that it isn't true until it's happened. And using formal logic, you are correct. I cannot 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow. But when we look at this claim practically, using pragmatic logic, we realize that I can claim that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow" because I am not using the word "know" in the strict sense, but rather is a casual sense.

Just like earlier when you claimed "we figured nothing out," you didn't actually mean that in the strict sense, for this would be absurd. After all, you followed that claim by noting that 1+1=2 is a truth (which is something we figured out).

So you can see that we can use the word "truth" in different ways. Similarly, we can use the word "know/knowledge" in different ways.

There is "Truth" and "truth."
"Truth" would be God, or 'that which cannot be proven/disproven' - namely, that which we cannot know. But you can see how it is absurd to use this sense of truth. Why describe something which by definition cannot be described/verified? (You may also note that "Truths" in the past have been used to persecute, isolate, exclude, destroy, and massacre many peoples across the world...)
On the other hand, "truth" is that which is fact - that which is objective. Science, mathematics, language, etc... are 'truths.'

- August

No argument there. My question is never how things work--that's easy enough to solve (over time and much hard work) but why. Whis is it this way? What are/were the alternatives? What are the other parts of the universe that our five senses don't show? Is there a "spirit" to the universe that our senses don't show? Maybe some of us have a sense that others don't have that "shows" us that "spirit" in the uiniverse. I mean, who says we ALL have to be relogated to five senses?

I think it's irresponsible to negate that possibility of "more than the obvious" without proof.

Decolonize The Left

2nd September 2008, 01:21

All nice, I'm sure, the "how." But neither explained "why" gravity exists. Is there a "reason"? I'm not sure, but continually asking the question "how" will never solve the problem.

Ah, you seek the 'why.' Very well.

In a four-dimentional universe (our universe - though we only perceive three dimensions), time is included as a dimension. Hence space and time are part of the same framework in which all things exist (spacetime). Objects of mass, such as planets, you, my cellphone, distort this fabric, caused it to 'bend' in a sense. This is what we call gravity. This 'bending' or 'warping' of spacetime causes other objects of mass to move along the 'bend' towards the heavier object.

Why does this fabric exist? Not sure - it came into existence either with the big bang or is the framework through which the big bang came into existence.

It is possible that other universes (an infinity of universes to be exact) came into existence at the same time as our, in different dimensions, with different causual series and determining factors - hence it is possible that our universe is one of an infinite number all superimposed on top of one another.

Why does our universe exist? Who cares... it does.

And yes we "see" things with a telescope--and we "see" things in the universe. We have five senses to explore the universe and well, let's say taste and smell are pretty useless. And touch--maybe something there. That leaves the limited to atmosphere 'hearing" and sight. Sight is mostly all we have. We have a perception of the universe almost wholly centered on sight. Fine, but my guess is that's there's a hundred other senses that we don't have that could give us a much better understanding of the universe.

Actually smell is one of the strongest senses, triggering the deepest memories. Touch is absolutely vital to our proprioception. All of our sensory organs are vital to our survival.

But I gather the meaning of your overall argument and it has some merit. For example, other animals can 'see' infrared signals (insects for example) and we can't. Therefore there is an infrared world out there that we cannot perceive without the aid of technology.

But, almost all beings that we know of have evolved to use similar sensory organs to perceive the world. We cannot 'evolve new organs' willingly, so we must use the ones we have. Your arugment is ad infinitum and therefore fairly worthless - for of course there could be any number of sensory organs that could aid in any number of perceptions on the universe... but it's pointless to use this as an argument. I could argue that I could have six arms, and if I did I could type, drink my beer, eat some food, and draw a picture at the same time. But this is a silly conditional, it means nothing because I have two arms.

The senses we have were developed to find food--and for nothing else--we've adapted them to do our bidding to understand reality. It's ok--but I don't give it much creedance.

You are doing yourself a disservice by simplifying to this extent. Our senses evolved for far more purposes than just 'finding food.' We also needed to sense predators, be able to flee and seek shelter, hear/see/smell other beings of like-species and non-like species, etc...

There's a great deal out there that our hunter/gatherer senses don't tell us about. You see, I'm presupposing moue than we can gather--you seem to thing ait's about the same. Hence to episomology!

We have since evolved beyond being hunter/gatherers... the advent of agriculture is testimony to this.

I do not disagree with you presupposing more than we can sense - I think such imagination and creativity is excellent and vital. But the problem comes about when we legislate against other human beings on the basis of these presuppositions, such as say, with religion.

No argument there. My question is never how things work--that's easy enough to solve (over time and much hard work) but why. Whis is it this way? What are/were the alternatives? What are the other parts of the universe that our five senses don't show? Is there a "spirit" to the universe that our senses don't show? Maybe some of us have a sense that others don't have that "shows" us that "spirit" in the uiniverse. I mean, who says we ALL have to be relogated to five senses?

I think it's irresponsible to negate that possibility of "more than the obvious" without proof.

I have no interest in negating possibilities - the infinite possibilities of the universe give me great joy. I do have an interest in negating oppressive and exploitative actual practices which result from faith in these possibilities.

- August

Bud Struggle

2nd September 2008, 20:50

Sorrt, It took me a while to get back here. We've been installing a new wireless router system in the house--not good.:(

Ah, you seek the 'why.' Very well.

In a four-dimentional universe (our universe - though we only perceive three dimensions), time is included as a dimension. Hence space and time are part of the same framework in which all things exist (spacetime). Objects of mass, such as planets, you, my cellphone, distort this fabric, caused it to 'bend' in a sense. This is what we call gravity. This 'bending' or 'warping' of spacetime causes other objects of mass to move along the 'bend' towards the heavier object. Fine--but nothing says any of that "had" to occur. in fact there's nothing that says any of that does occur in the universe--'cept for this little section that we're in right over here.

Why does this fabric exist? Not sure - it came into existence either with the big bang or is the framework through which the big bang came into existence. It's nice that you take it so granted that all of this is just the way it is because it is the way it is--and while a "reason" for all of this might be a bit much to ask for, some explaination for all of this and THEN our conciousness of all is in order.

It is possible that other universes (an infinity of universes to be exact) came into existence at the same time as our, in different dimensions, with different causual series and determining factors - hence it is possible that our universe is one of an infinite number all superimposed on top of one another. AND--maybe we sense those things--maybe we have senses that reveal those things to some of us. Not the big fat seeing, hearing, smelling senses--but just little nudges in the night--just like the kind that the animals got before that big tsunami in the Indian Ocean that made them flee to higher ground. I don't know--but I see all this as a lot more complicated than just what our five senses giv us.

Why does our universe exist? Who cares... it does. Well, there--that's how you deal with reality--others are not so fortunate and look in places hidden for some answers.

Actually smell is one of the strongest senses, triggering the deepest memories. Touch is absolutely vital to our proprioception. All of our sensory organs are vital to our survival.

But I gather the meaning of your overall argument and it has some merit. For example, other animals can 'see' infrared signals (insects for example) and we can't. Therefore there is an infrared world out there that we cannot perceive without the aid of technology. Right, and then there's easily other stuff we can't imagine. Just as if we couldn't smell--I doubt the homan race could "imagine" molecules being "diffused" into the air and us sensing their presence.

But, almost all beings that we know of have evolved to use similar sensory organs to perceive the world. We cannot 'evolve new organs' willingly, so we must use the ones we have. True--but what is to say that we all have the same amounts of senses--or even that all senses are "out there like the "big five" are?

Your arugment is ad infinitum and therefore fairly worthless - for of course there could be any number of sensory organs that could aid in any number of perceptions on the universe... but it's pointless to use this as an argument. I could argue that I could have six arms, and if I did I could type, drink my beer, eat some food, and draw a picture at the same time. But this is a silly conditional, it means nothing because I have two arms. YOU may not have those senses, but it doesn't mean that others don't.

You are doing yourself a disservice by simplifying to this extent. Our senses evolved for far more purposes than just 'finding food.' We also needed to sense predators, be able to flee and seek shelter, hear/see/smell other beings of like-species and non-like species, etc... Of course--I was simplifying a but--but our senses cerrtainly didn't evolve so that we could explore the universe.

I do not disagree with you presupposing more than we can sense - I think such imagination and creativity is excellent and vital. But the problem comes about when we legislate against other human beings on the basis of these presuppositions, such as say, with religion. Well, I agree there.

I have no interest in negating possibilities - the infinite possibilities of the universe give me great joy. I do have an interest in negating oppressive and exploitative actual practices which result from faith in these possibilities.

- August

I can agree there, too--but the use of faith and religion was and still is part of the trial and error process of man/woman understanding the universe. Soem parts of religion--just like some parts of science have proved to be dead ends--and that's fine, because without "knowing" the answers before hand--we have no choice but to experiment. I will say this--as a person that is quite epistomologically sceptical--you can't disregard any avenue of exploring the universe is you are truly curious about what is actually out there. Out of Alchemy came Chemistry. I see learning and understanding as a lot more than just a matter of reasoning and logic--

Tom

Decolonize The Left

4th September 2008, 07:46

Sorrt, It took me a while to get back here. We've been installing a new wireless router system in the house--not good.:(

No worries.

Fine--but nothing says any of that "had" to occur. in fact there's nothing that says any of that does occur in the universe--'cept for this little section that we're in right over here.

Ah, but you are mistaken. You see the fact that I am typing this response now means that I have to be sitting at my computer now. Which means that I have to be alive and as I am. Which means that I had to be born when I was born, which means that my parent's history had to have occurred as it did, which means that... etc... all the way back to the big bang.

So you see that it did "have to happen this way." Why? Because it is happening.

It's nice that you take it so granted that all of this is just the way it is because it is the way it is--and while a "reason" for all of this might be a bit much to ask for, some explaination for all of this and THEN our conciousness of all is in order.

We have plenty good reasons for consciousness, life, human beings, etc... We don't have a reason for the big bang. And given that the big bang was the origin of our universe (read: everything), it seems unlikely that we'll get one - possible, but unlikely.

AND--maybe we sense those things--maybe we have senses that reveal those things to some of us. Not the big fat seeing, hearing, smelling senses--but just little nudges in the night--just like the kind that the animals got before that big tsunami in the Indian Ocean that made them flee to higher ground. I don't know--but I see all this as a lot more complicated than just what our five senses giv us.

Tom, once again, I agree with you that there probably are more aspects to this universe than we can sense with our five senses. Agreed.

But when people started positing "spirits" or "souls" or "God" we have issues. Why? Because there are material consequences to these made-up stories.

Well, there--that's how you deal with reality--others are not so fortunate and look in places hidden for some answers.

Fortunate? It's called acceptance.

Believers of religion and those who "look in places hidden for some answers" (which I read as 'make stuff up') are in denial. Life is. The universe is. You are. All you know is this one life - your experience.

"So live as though you must wish to live again." - Nietzsche

YOU may not have those senses, but it doesn't mean that others don't.

Your skepticism of my claim is noted, but you have no evidence for these 'senses.' Hence I cannot accept you inducing that they exist.

I can agree there, too--but the use of faith and religion was and still is part of the trial and error process of man/woman understanding the universe. Soem parts of religion--just like some parts of science have proved to be dead ends--and that's fine, because without "knowing" the answers before hand--we have no choice but to experiment. I will say this--as a person that is quite epistomologically sceptical--you can't disregard any avenue of exploring the universe is you are truly curious about what is actually out there. Out of Alchemy came Chemistry. I see learning and understanding as a lot more than just a matter of reasoning and logic--

I totally agree that religion was/is an avenue for "exploring the universe." Although vague, this is a true statement. BUT, religion has many, many, many, many problems - problems which mean that the facets of "exploring the universe" are outweighed by the oppressive nature of these facets.

For example, I could "explore the universe" by murdering millions in a creative fashion to "discover" the human reaction to this certain type of mass murder. But this is not acceptable.

- August

TheCultofAbeLincoln

4th September 2008, 09:11

I reamber being scared shitless of hell when i was a little kid. But now i iz an atheist mofo.

So now you aren't scared of the possibility?

I am. Hell would suck ass.

Random Precision

4th September 2008, 14:57

Unfortunately, communism is tied to the hogwash of dialectics in the minds of many. But when we speak of Marxism we speak of historical materialism, not necessarily dialectical materialism.

Have you seriously studied the dialectic and decided that it's "hogwash", or are you just taking Rosa at her word? Because it seems like an awful lot of people on this site declare that dialectics are meaningless, whatever, without having any idea what the dialectic is or why it is essential to the Marxist method.

Decolonize The Left

4th September 2008, 17:51

So now you aren't scared of the possibility?

I am. Hell would suck ass.

A lot of things would suck ass.

For example:
A place where there was nothing but dust.
A place where there was nothing but feces.
A place where you could only have one sense at a time and each time you had one everything occurred in the other four.
Etc...

So are you afraid of these places too? You should be. I was outside last night and a tree bent over (it was gushing rainbows) and told me that those who don't believe in pixie fairies which guide all people to all places will be punished be eternal suffering in one of those lands... I was totally sober.

I'll also be needing some money because the pixie fairies can only speak to me so if you want to get a good word in you'd better pay me...

Have you seriously studied the dialectic and decided that it's "hogwash", or are you just taking Rosa at her word? Because it seems like an awful lot of people on this site declare that dialectics are meaningless, whatever, without having any idea what the dialectic is or why it is essential to the Marxist method.

I have studied Marxism, Hegel, and dialectics, though not nearly as seriously as Rosa, or probably others on this site. But I don't need to devote my life to it's study, it is simple enough in it's basic stage:

"Dialectics are based around three concepts:

1: Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides.

2: Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other.

3: Change moves in spirals not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")"

(Wikipedia.org - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics#Marxist_dialectics)

As anyone with a brain can understand, the first concept is posited without justification. Who says everything is made out of opposing forces/sides? Where are these forces? What are they made of? How can something be made of opposing sides within a three-dimensional framework? Etc...

Furthermore, gradual change leads to a lot of things. Yet "turning points" are entirely based upon one's perspective. To someone with a much finer point of analysis, a small change might seem large as a turning point. To someone with a much larger point of analysis, this "turning point" might be small indeed.

And finally, change doesn't move in any shape at all - it's change! It is constant and always happening, it has no form for it is the change of form.

This is why I called it 'hogwash.' It seems to me as though it's another fancy of individuals who desire to posit some grand scheme upon existence and nature, like... say... those who are religious... I'm sorry for citing wikipedia but I have to go to work soon and don't have time to make this any more academic.

- August