On Tue, 9 May 2017 20:14:36 -0400 John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/17, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
Investigation is a good idea. If I may what college? What were you planning to major in?
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
Think of a pendulum, now compare with what you just wrote............. The solution to your problem is not to "believe" or not to "believe" (belief is actually a REQUIREMENT of live since we could not decide about anything that is uncertain with out it). If you walk up to a person how do you tell whether or not they speak English well? Whether they can use big words? Do you start with something extremely simple or not? Or, for another example, Luke did not know whether or not he would succeed in completing the eoma68, or if it would be on time. He tries his best, but he still does not know if that is good enough.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
This is one of the last things you'll learn in philosophy.
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
Nonsense, we are in an action-reaction universe, observe the actions and you aught to be able to determine the reactions.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
Ouch! I had the identical experience, but I took the opportunity to read a nasty book to record all it's mistakes, thus I not only learned about the stupid things people write about but I am quite able to refute them. I always thought that fiction aught to reflect reality, to bring out what is. Spoke to my mother about you, see suggested watching a TV program on EWTN (not that I watch EWTN but maybe it would heklp...)
God the universe and everything By Matt Fradd On June 18 12:00 AM (EST?)
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense).
Ooh, it's coming to get you :)
Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
So people like Lyberta are causing genetic impurity and aught to be?
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
Then what do you support?
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses.
<snip> How about inherent insufficiency? Or you can just <--insert favourite word-->.
the very best, David
On 5/29/17, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense).
Ooh, it's coming to get you :)
Yes it is xD Spaghetti is gonna come to me in my dreams now and slap me (I'm very much kidding!)
Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
So people like Lyberta are causing genetic impurity and aught to be?
Of course not! It's a common misconception that Nietzsche was a Nazi, since the Nazi's borrowed from the fellow's philosophy. My understanding is the Nietzsche believed that Christianity intentionally promoted social systems and governing which inevitably would cause a significant minority to be suffering. The fellow endeavored to demonstrate by way of thought experiments how the Christian churches would in most cases fall apart if their weren't enough people to feel compassionate or sorrowful for. This is why Christians frequently are brought up to believe that it's not the governments place to help the suffering, and rather that should be the obligation of the pious.
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
Then what do you support?
I don't support any particular moral code or another, I believe there needs to be a much greater diversity of moral codes than we currently have, well-founded and sound even in the face of rigorous criticism. My own morals are formed quite synthetically, and formulated based around the idea that the universal ethic is a simple mandate for the maximal longterm diversity of conflict. To sum it up, I think of it like this: if a person dies, think of all of the conflicts both with themselves and others that they could have engaged in if they hadn't. Now if that person was a martyr for a cause you have something you can weigh, how much conflict would they have participated in versus how much conflict would their death inspire. One can also weigh destructive conflict negatively against one item or another, as I would probably refer to conflict which isn't destructive as progenitive.
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses.
<snip> How about inherent insufficiency? Or you can just <--insert favourite word-->.
Ultimately you will have conflict, if not with other humans then with the self or with physics :P
On 05/29/2017 11:08 PM, John Luke Gibson wrote:
On 5/29/17, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense).
Ooh, it's coming to get you :)
Yes it is xD Spaghetti is gonna come to me in my dreams now and slap me (I'm very much kidding!)
Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
So people like Lyberta are causing genetic impurity and aught to be?
Of course not! It's a common misconception that Nietzsche was a Nazi, since the Nazi's borrowed from the fellow's philosophy. My understanding is the Nietzsche believed that Christianity intentionally promoted social systems and governing which inevitably would cause a significant minority to be suffering. The fellow endeavored to demonstrate by way of thought experiments how the Christian churches would in most cases fall apart if their weren't enough people to feel compassionate or sorrowful for. This is why Christians frequently are brought up to believe that it's not the governments place to help the suffering, and rather that should be the obligation of the pious.
I disagree, I was brought up to believe that no matter who you are and where you are, you are to help the suffering, the poor, the sick, and the ill.
This is also the belief of jesus christ. But alas such a noble soul is found rarely today because not all of my brethren truly believe in him. aka they use it for power. Though I bet if not for religion we humans would have found some other way to screw up the world. Humans are very creative at being evil sometimes.
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
Then what do you support?
I don't support any particular moral code or another, I believe there needs to be a much greater diversity of moral codes than we currently have, well-founded and sound even in the face of rigorous criticism. My own morals are formed quite synthetically, and formulated based around the idea that the universal ethic is a simple mandate for the maximal longterm diversity of conflict. To sum it up, I think of it like this: if a person dies, think of all of the conflicts both with themselves and others that they could have engaged in if they hadn't. Now if that person was a martyr for a cause you have something you can weigh, how much conflict would they have participated in versus how much conflict would their death inspire. One can also weigh destructive conflict negatively against one item or another, as I would probably refer to conflict which isn't destructive as progenitive.
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses.
<snip> How about inherent insufficiency? Or you can just <--insert favourite word-->.
Ultimately you will have conflict, if not with other humans then with the self or with physics :P
Exactly my point. That is why we humans need God. To point out our flaws and then to help us to correct our actions. Those who rebel against this notion whether they think they believe or not are on shaky ground.
Especially those who pretend, they have no forgiveness to look forward to due to their pride.
I myself hope to never go down that road again... ps, I don't like capitalism so don't think I am conservatives what so ever... ;)
not all black people live in inner cities the same way not all christians are conservatives
my point stands..
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:18:09 -0400 zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
... That is why we humans need God. To point out our flaws and then to help us to correct our actions. Those who rebel against this notion whether they think they believe or not are on shaky ground.
I'd say that we humans need God period, he upholds our very existence every second. Our ultimate purpose is to have a relationship with Him and if we don't then we are not really alive. That's why it's so important to make everyone aware of this need. That's why Jesus' very last instruction to his followers was to 'spread the good news'.
As a christian I have a twofold duty: 1. Help the people around me to understand our most basic human need which is to have a relationship with God and to help them find and build that relationship. 2. Care for the other needs of my 'neighbours', such as food, water, having a home, etc.
The two go together but the first one is the most important because that is what makes the difference 'when we have shuffled off this mortal coil'
(I hope I'm not coming on too strong this time!)
/fuumind
Pardon me for saying, but the thought that I don't have enough common sense in my own dang head to know right from wrong, I find that a little offensive.
I learned honesty from a man named Tommy Locklear. You've never heard of him, but he was a wonderful and kind person, while he was around. You might be a little skeptical of my claim when you learn that Tommy was a local mechanic for most of his life -- mechanics not having much of a reputation for honesty in most places, or so I hear -- but I'll offer up a story as evidence that this fellow was perhaps the exception to prove the rule.
When my grandmother passed, she left behind, amongst many other things, her 1991 Ford Escort LX. Silver on the outside and light grey with dark grey and black accents, it was basically the color of a silent film. Not having much alternative, it quickly became Mom's car, for many, many years (she eventually bought a gently used '98 Saturn in the early 2000s, which replaced the Escort.) This was the sort of car where the speedometer pegged at 85, but you never actually wanted to go that fast in it. At 65mph, the car vibrated concerningly. At 75, one tended to be of the persuasion that the doors were about to fall off. We never did peg the speedometer, so I can't tell you what that was like. Mom wasn't much of one for lead-foot anyways... although there were times when that car went a little faster than it perhaps should have, so that we'd get someplace on time after leaving home late.
At some point in our lives, we moved from a little podunk town in North Carolina, to Chapel Hill (of UNC basketball fame) so that Mom could get some graduate school experience. It was during this time that our little Escort sedan sprung a rather nasty oil leak. Mom took it to some nearby garage and they read her like a book. Knowing she knew absolutely nothing about cars except how to drive them, they told her it would be thousands of dollars for a new head gasket. She decided -- luckily -- to get a second opinion from Tommy. Well... Tommy came and got the car and brought it back to our little podunk town (out of which he operated) and took it into the shop. We were along for the ride. He popped the hood, poked around a little, and put the car up on the lift before poking around a little more. Then he called Mom over. He pointed to a little plug in the bottom of the crankcase, and explained that the plug, which (although I'll never know for sure, I was too young at the time) was probably for draining the oil out of the sump, had a broken seal. He replaced the plug and its seal for the princely sum of fifteen dollars, and that was the end of the leak.
Tommy's whole life was filled with stories like that. He was an excellent mechanic for decades. He eventually had to stop working on cars, though, when his diabetes caught up with him enough to have his left leg amputated at the knees -- see, despite running a thriving business and being perhaps the most honest mechanic in town (and the town knew it!) he never could quite afford to keep the medication going that would have kept his diabetes in check... he eventually died, a few years ago, of a heart attack. I will note that the man that took over Tommy's garage after the amputation, pretty well ran it into the ground because he was not nearly as wholesome a man as Tommy was. Kind of a shame.
I guess the point here is, if we have good role models around us, we can learn from our fellow humans what we need to know. As for me, I'd rather live in the here and now than dwell on what might happen --but can't be known for sure-- in the hereafter. Besides... isn't there something a little bit sinister, in a "Hotel California" sort of a way, about essentially living in a dream where you can have anything you want as long as it's not waking up...? ;)
And so Tommy Locklear achieves what so many strive for, to be remembered, to have mattered. The ultimate compliment when ones dies "They were a good person, they will be missed"
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Pardon me for saying, but the thought that I don't have enough common sense in my own dang head to know right from wrong, I find that a little offensive.
I learned honesty from a man named Tommy Locklear. You've never heard of him, but he was a wonderful and kind person, while he was around. You might be a little skeptical of my claim when you learn that Tommy was a local mechanic for most of his life -- mechanics not having much of a reputation for honesty in most places, or so I hear -- but I'll offer up a story as evidence that this fellow was perhaps the exception to prove the rule.
When my grandmother passed, she left behind, amongst many other things, her 1991 Ford Escort LX. Silver on the outside and light grey with dark grey and black accents, it was basically the color of a silent film. Not having much alternative, it quickly became Mom's car, for many, many years (she eventually bought a gently used '98 Saturn in the early 2000s, which replaced the Escort.) This was the sort of car where the speedometer pegged at 85, but you never actually wanted to go that fast in it. At 65mph, the car vibrated concerningly. At 75, one tended to be of the persuasion that the doors were about to fall off. We never did peg the speedometer, so I can't tell you what that was like. Mom wasn't much of one for lead-foot anyways... although there were times when that car went a little faster than it perhaps should have, so that we'd get someplace on time after leaving home late.
At some point in our lives, we moved from a little podunk town in North Carolina, to Chapel Hill (of UNC basketball fame) so that Mom could get some graduate school experience. It was during this time that our little Escort sedan sprung a rather nasty oil leak. Mom took it to some nearby garage and they read her like a book. Knowing she knew absolutely nothing about cars except how to drive them, they told her it would be thousands of dollars for a new head gasket. She decided -- luckily -- to get a second opinion from Tommy. Well... Tommy came and got the car and brought it back to our little podunk town (out of which he operated) and took it into the shop. We were along for the ride. He popped the hood, poked around a little, and put the car up on the lift before poking around a little more. Then he called Mom over. He pointed to a little plug in the bottom of the crankcase, and explained that the plug, which (although I'll never know for sure, I was too young at the time) was probably for draining the oil out of the sump, had a broken seal. He replaced the plug and its seal for the princely sum of fifteen dollars, and that was the end of the leak.
Tommy's whole life was filled with stories like that. He was an excellent mechanic for decades. He eventually had to stop working on cars, though, when his diabetes caught up with him enough to have his left leg amputated at the knees -- see, despite running a thriving business and being perhaps the most honest mechanic in town (and the town knew it!) he never could quite afford to keep the medication going that would have kept his diabetes in check... he eventually died, a few years ago, of a heart attack. I will note that the man that took over Tommy's garage after the amputation, pretty well ran it into the ground because he was not nearly as wholesome a man as Tommy was. Kind of a shame.
I guess the point here is, if we have good role models around us, we can learn from our fellow humans what we need to know. As for me, I'd rather live in the here and now than dwell on what might happen --but can't be known for sure-- in the hereafter. Besides... isn't there something a little bit sinister, in a "Hotel California" sort of a way, about essentially living in a dream where you can have anything you want as long as it's not waking up...? ;) _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
...you know, I never thought about that, but it's true. He got the only kind of immortality that really exists... he *is* remembered, and quite fondly so...
On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:10:33 -0400 Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
...
I'm not quite sure if you're replying to what I wrote or to what zap wrote or to both of us but I'll bite anyway. :)
I guess the point here is, if we have good role models around us, we can learn from our fellow humans what we need to know.
I quite agree! We all need of role models to mature! This is all well and good for the earthly life but it won't put you in a relationship with God. It *might* help you be a bit more open to Him though.
As for me, I'd rather live in the here and now than dwell on what might happen --but can't be known for sure-- in the hereafter. Besides... isn't there something a little bit sinister, in a "Hotel California" sort of a way, about essentially living in a dream where you can have anything you want as long as it's not waking up...? ;)
Well, science itself is something we also have to choose to belive in or not. If you take the reasoning all the way to the end you'd end up with 'I think therefor I am' I suppose... :)
/fuumind
Science is something I can and do believe in. I'll take what can be concretely proved over what can't, any day of the week.
That said, I do reserve a bit of reverence of a sort (for lack of a better term) for what cannot be determined through strictly Cartesian means (i.e. deconstructing a thing into its component elements, on the belief that the larger thing's functionality will become evident through said deconstruction)... it was Douglas Adams, I believe, who noted (quite truthfully) that, "[i]f you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat." There is something that is inescapably metaphysical about life itself and how it comes about, at least in this world at this time, and I have a sort of respect for that -- an understanding between me and the universe, if you will, that there may be something that science can't explain that's going on there.
But that's really about as close as I get to religion or faith. Organized religion, quite honestly, seems to me an exercise in podiatric self-marksmanship (if you'll forgive the euphemism) -- if the point of the whole thing is to bring you closer to God, why put structure and organization and the inevitable middlemen that such things bring with them, in between you and Him...? It simply doesn't make sense to me that, in order to speak to God, you have to go through something to the effect of a human bucket-brigade -- which sounds like an open opportunity for things to go like a game of Telephone, amongst the other disadvantages.
So you're a Protestant just not an *obedient* one.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:03 AM Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Science is something I can and do believe in. I'll take what can be concretely proved over what can't, any day of the week.
That said, I do reserve a bit of reverence of a sort (for lack of a better term) for what cannot be determined through strictly Cartesian means (i.e. deconstructing a thing into its component elements, on the belief that the larger thing's functionality will become evident through said deconstruction)... it was Douglas Adams, I believe, who noted (quite truthfully) that, "[i]f you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat." There is something that is inescapably metaphysical about life itself and how it comes about, at least in this world at this time, and I have a sort of respect for that -- an understanding between me and the universe, if you will, that there may be something that science can't explain that's going on there.
But that's really about as close as I get to religion or faith. Organized religion, quite honestly, seems to me an exercise in podiatric self-marksmanship (if you'll forgive the euphemism) -- if the point of the whole thing is to bring you closer to God, why put structure and organization and the inevitable middlemen that such things bring with them, in between you and Him...? It simply doesn't make sense to me that, in order to speak to God, you have to go through something to the effect of a human bucket-brigade -- which sounds like an open opportunity for things to go like a game of Telephone, amongst the other disadvantages. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
...I wouldn't even go that far. I would say that I have a very limited faith, insofar as I believe that living things have some sort of spirit or soul that gives them life. That's quite literally the extent of it. I certainly don't believe in some sort of supreme being or 'force' or anything like that. Mind you, I'm not closed to the idea, I just have no evidence that such a being/force/etc exists. Lacking that evidence forces the assumption that such a thing does not exist.
That would be where I'm at.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:28 AM Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
...I wouldn't even go that far. I would say that I have a very limited faith, insofar as I believe that living things have some sort of spirit or soul that gives them life. That's quite literally the extent of it. I certainly don't believe in some sort of supreme being or 'force' or anything like that. Mind you, I'm not closed to the idea, I just have no evidence that such a being/force/etc exists. Lacking that evidence forces the assumption that such a thing does not exist. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 5/30/17, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
...I wouldn't even go that far. I would say that I have a very limited faith, insofar as I believe that living things have some sort of spirit or soul that gives them life. That's quite literally the extent of it. I certainly don't believe in some sort of supreme being or 'force' or anything like that. Mind you, I'm not closed to the idea, I just have no evidence that such a being/force/etc exists. Lacking that evidence forces the assumption that such a thing does not exist.
You might want to investigate Shinto-ism.
On Tue, 30 May 2017 13:03:27 -0400 Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
if the point of the whole thing is to bring you closer to God, why put structure and organization and the inevitable middlemen that such things bring with them, in between you and Him...? It simply doesn't make sense to me that, in order to speak to God, you have to go through something to the effect of a human bucket-brigade -- which sounds like an open opportunity for things to go like a game of Telephone, amongst the other disadvantages.
I don't see any inevitable middlemen, at least not in christianity. Sure, there are priests and pastors and theologians and whatnot but they are not intermediaries. The best they can be is a help. They are people with whom I can discuss my thoughts and my doubts but they never define my thoughts and they never define my relationship with God. My relationship with God is owned by me and God alone.
Structure and organization is necessary for us christians in order to be able to coexist, just as it is for the rest of humanity. Without it there would be chaos!
The most important thing is that we seek intimacy with God, a relationship where we hold nothing back, because that's what life really is all about.
/fuumind
On Tue, 30 May 2017 18:41:19 +0200 fuumind fuumind@openmailbox.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:10:33 -0400 Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
As for me, I'd rather live in the here and now than dwell on what might happen --but can't be known for sure-- in the hereafter. Besides... isn't there something a little bit sinister, in a "Hotel California" sort of a way, about essentially living in a dream where you can have anything you want as long as it's not waking up...? ;)
Well, science itself is something we also have to choose to belive in or not. If you take the reasoning all the way to the end you'd end up with 'I think therefor I am' I suppose... :)
/fuumind
Then just don't stop thinking would be our motto. Which is why the above always makes me wonder why people try using such silly reasoning.
David
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Christopher Havel -
David Niklas -
doarkļ¼ mail.com
-
fuumind -
John Luke Gibson -
Peter Carlson -
zap