Farmageddon said: Player1x3 said: Farmageddon said: sapphi_snake said: Farmageddon said: Some believe we're just born and make all those concepts up as we go :P When it comes to a single world religion, I really, really, really don't see that happening (besides maybe on an "official" level). Only shot would be if that one religion was non-religious. I don't think even extreme supernatural intervention would change that. I mean, assuming they don't just wipe our minds. Also, Player1x3, I see your vision of humans is as if we're removed from nature, special. I think this kind of argument about human nature can't really be settled between people with a creationist view and people with a more naturalistic one. How can this be? Well, I just don't see how, moving forward, will there be a time whithout people skeptical of religions and gods and etc. I don't see atheists and agnostics and laVey satanists and whatnot suddenly disappearing, specially on a global government where flow of information would be (presumably) very high. As long as there's religion there'll also be the ortodox types and the "I believe in something but don't fit any of this crap" Wiccan-type minorities. It just seems like this to me. Player1x3 said: What? No I dont believe in creationism, I simply believe that we have free will and that we make our choices but in the end our choices make us(shamelessly stolen from Bioshock), they determine weather or not we are greedy, destrctive etc etc... Well, what makes you believe our free will is so absolute and detached from nature then? If we're products of nature, so is our free will. And if our choice determines what we are, what determines them? Our "free will"? If our personality plays a role in determining our actions, and to these actions we attribute lables, why not carry them over for our personalities? Of course I'm not defending we're static, there's a lot of feedback and forth, but we are born with all of that in us, otherwise it would never surface. asz216 said: Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god. Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time.... I've in no way negated your free will.     Yeah, but the "proper" way would be to include the act of creation on that criticism. Simply knowing the future doesn't infringe on free will (whatever that really is), but if you're creator, all powerfull and all knowing then not only you could choose to create differently, you know how that would affect the entire future. So God would be essentially deciding on all of our actions at the moment of creation, thus negating free will. Of course that can be countered. You could go with something weird like every thought of God constitutes a reality in itself, but there's a better explanation that actually answers a lot more questions that is to say "God's atemporal". I mean, ok, it breaks all logic down in a sense and makes further inquiry kinda hard, (but hey, isn't that the definition of an all powerfull being? "Something capable of telling all logic and knowlodge to just GTFO"?), but other than  that it's actually quite elegant.

Not really, because god gave you free will in christian theology.  He SPECIFICALLY created man with free will and the ability to choose so that we could choose.

AS for the got being atemporal thing....

It doesn't really break all logic down as you might think... as actual current temoral theory is (I believe) that time is an illusion and it actually is all happening at the same time.

It only seems linear because it's the only way we can perceive it with our inferior consiousness.  If we had advanced brains we would be like the wormhole aliens on DS9, if you've ever seen deep space 9.

Wow, an educated discussion is going on, and I was just going to make a silly comment on:
How I would love an Earth Sphere Federation, so we can start having wars with the space colonies (because they rebel and want freedom, but we are not going to let that happen....so they do something stupid and cause an all out war, which typically ends with the hearts and minds of the youth). (Theme from Gundam Series).

This is the future that Gundam predicting.

sapphi_snake said: A. But does Christianity in any way or form have any relation to reality, as it claims? Any system can be thought up to pass Immanent Critique, however religions have no value outside of themselves (which would be somethign necessary for a belief system claiming to perfectly explain the world).  C1. Really? States as good by whom (not to mention that "it's good because I say it's good" is a logical error)? We were not referring to Christianity in this point, so you can't use Christianity as a referrence. We actually were not referring to any belief system whatsoever. I challenged you to prove that "helping others" is intrinsincly good, the same way being red is an intrinsic quality of fire ants. Of course, you will not be able to do this. "Goodness" is itself a subjective quality, which has no value outside a belief system. You can't prove that anything is objectively good. C2. No, I was not discussing free will because it had nothing to do with my issue with his statement. One has to either follow god's laws to get into heaven, or repent for his/her "sins" (thus acknowledging god's laws and their superiority). People who disagree with god are doomed to eternity in hell, because what they think is irrelevant.There is no room for individuality in Christianity, because ultimately you have to renounce it if you want to be "with god". Human laws are meant to assure a peaceful coexistence. They're meant to protect humans, and their individuality. If I find that a law is unfair, I can make attempts to change it. You cannot change god's laws, and they do not have human's best interest at heart. D. There's no point in seeign a movie, if knowing what happens is all that matters. Why are agency or experiencing life important in the first place? If God loves everybody, then why does he send people to hell. You can say that those who reject him chose to go to hell, but does anyone want eternal suffering? God is the one who created hell, and made it so those who reject him go there, so can it be said that he loves everyone, when he condems those who don't love him to eternal torture? Also, isn't your definition of immanent critique only limiting to internal critique?

A)  This statement is totally irrelevent to the topic at hand.

C1) Except we were talking about Christianity.  This whole conversation is framed around "that statement is nothing but contradictions."   Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did.  Helping others is seen by all cultures as good.  People have a strong pack mentality.  If you think there is another culture where it was infact seen as bad to help others, feel free to show it.  Well, actually you won't be able to, because if such a beleif existed, there would be no culture... since that's what culture is generally based around..

C2)  You do realize that nothing here actually rebutted what I was saying right?  All you've said is "Man's laws are better then gods!"   I see you keep trying to spin this off into a greater debate,

D)  I see you don't know Eastern Orthrodox theology as well as you think.  According to the Eastern orthodox church, one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to go into heaven. 

Heaven and Hell are states of being in the presense of god.  Those who are in gods presense who lived a good life withing him, are filled with the eternal happieness and harmony of the creator... they are in "Heaven".   Those who are in gods presense who lived poorly and rejected god, live in "hell" because they know they failed their creator and strayed from their purpose in life. 

God doesn't send you anywhere.  You end up sending yourself "there".  Which isn't so much there as it is a state of being.

 

Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim.  Saying a statement is nothing but contradictions is also an internal criticism.

Kasz216 said: A)  This statement is totally irrelevent to the topic at hand. C1) Except we were talking about Christianity.  This whole conversation is framed around "that statement is nothing but contradictions."   Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did.  Helping others is seen by all cultures as good.  People have a strong pack mentality.  If you think there is another culture where it was infact seen as bad to help others, feel free to show it.  Well, actually you won't be able to, because if such a beleif existed, there would be no culture... since that's what culture is generally based around.. C2)  You do realize that nothing here actually rebutted what I was saying right?  All you've said is "Man's laws are better then gods!"   I see you keep trying to spin this off into a greater debate, D)  I see you don't know Eastern Orthrodox theology as well as you think.  According to the Eastern orthodox church, one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to go into heaven.  Heaven and Hell are states of being in the presense of god.  Those who are in gods presense who lived a good life withing him, are filled with the eternal happieness and harmony of the creator... they are in "Heaven".   Those who are in gods presense who lived poorly and rejected god, live in "hell" because they know they failed their creator and strayed from their purpose in life.  God doesn't send you anywhere.  You end up sending yourself "there".  Which isn't so much there as it is a state of being.   Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim.  Saying a statement is nothing but contradictions is also an internal criticism.

C1. No, this point had nothing to do with Christianity. If you interpreted it as that, that's your problem.

Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did.  Helping others is seen by all cultures as good.

You did not. The fact that all cultures see helping other as good is both false, and even if true, does not prove what I asked you to. I asked you to prove that an goodness is an intrisic quality of helping others, meaning not a quality attributed by a culture to said practice (which is sibjective, because what one culture considers to be "good", another one can consider to be "bad"). I'm waiting for you to prove that (which you cannot).

D. Hell is presented in Eastern Orthodox theology as a place of punishment, and eternal torture. God is the "great architect", he's the one that designed EVERYTHING, including the consiquence of disobeying him. So the reason people end up in hell is because he designed things that way. Never heard that "one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to get into heaven", but one does need to believe in god, accept god, accept Jesus, respect god's commands, repent for their sins... yeah, but they don't have to actually be Eastern Orthodox.

Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim.

Not according to Habermas.

sapphi_snake said: Kasz216 said: A)  This statement is totally irrelevent to the topic at hand. C1) Except we were talking about Christianity.  This whole conversation is framed around "that statement is nothing but contradictions."   Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did.  Helping others is seen by all cultures as good.  People have a strong pack mentality.  If you think there is another culture where it was infact seen as bad to help others, feel free to show it.  Well, actually you won't be able to, because if such a beleif existed, there would be no culture... since that's what culture is generally based around.. C2)  You do realize that nothing here actually rebutted what I was saying right?  All you've said is "Man's laws are better then gods!"   I see you keep trying to spin this off into a greater debate, D)  I see you don't know Eastern Orthrodox theology as well as you think.  According to the Eastern orthodox church, one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to go into heaven.  Heaven and Hell are states of being in the presense of god.  Those who are in gods presense who lived a good life withing him, are filled with the eternal happieness and harmony of the creator... they are in "Heaven".   Those who are in gods presense who lived poorly and rejected god, live in "hell" because they know they failed their creator and strayed from their purpose in life.  God doesn't send you anywhere.  You end up sending yourself "there".  Which isn't so much there as it is a state of being.   Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim.  Saying a statement is nothing but contradictions is also an internal criticism. C1. No, this point had nothing to do with Christianity. If you interpreted it as that, that's your problem. Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did.  Helping others is seen by all cultures as good. You did not. The fact that all cultures see helping other as good is both false, and even if true, does not prove what I asked you to. I asked you to prove that an goodness is an intrisic quality of helping others, meaning not a quality attributed by a culture to said practice (which is sibjective, because what one culture considers to be "good", another one can consider to be "bad"). I'm waiting for you to prove that (which you cannot). D. Hell is presented in Eastern Orthodox theology as a place of punishment, and eternal torture. God is the "great architect", he's the one that designed EVERYTHING, including the consiquence of disobeying him. So the reason people end up in hell is because he designed things that way. Never heard that "one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to get into heaven", but one does need to believe in god, accept god, accept Jesus, respect god's commands, repent for their sins... yeah, but they don't have to actually be Eastern Orthodox. Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim.  Not according to Habermas.

C1) How does what he said have nothing to do with Christianity?

B.  Show one culture where this exists.  You say you've shown it, but all you've done is said "this exists" without even being able to go so far as name a specific culture.

C) Yes I can, and I did.  There will NEVER be a society or culture that belives helping others isn't good, because culture couldn't exist otherwise, and therefore good and evil couldn't exist otherwise.

 

D) Actually, no, your wrong.

On both counts.  Hell is a state of being primarily and a place secondly, and god doesn't send you anywhere... and in general you still don't get Eastern Orthodx Christianity.  I can't blame you though, if I got dragged to a church I didn't believe in, I suppose I wouldn't pay any attention either.  Though, then again I doubt i'd be argueing about it.

 

"God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to raise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction

 

And considering you didn't even know what immanent critque was 72 hours ago, i'm guessing your just throwing a name out there without any clue what he was actually talking about.

A very dangerous thing to do when talking about philosphers.  

Espiecally when you are trying to disregard moral universalism.

Because well... he's a moral universalist... and generally that's part of his problem with immanent critique.

Basically to adopt his point, you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism.  

Either stance I really wouldn't have atrributed to you, because it would either suggest that

A) Homosexuality was evil, but isn't in some parts of Europe and in the USA, but STILL is evil in some parts of the world like Africa and China.

or

B) That murdering a child is neither good nor evil, no matter how you get pissed off when his murderer gets released early from jail and gets a new life.

 

However by argueing that there are no moral universalism or moral absolutes you are argueing one of the above two positions.

Well that and he thought that rather then immanent crique having just one person, should have more then one uninterested party having an arguement rather then one person argueing himself... since it's hard for most people to outhink each other in a chess game and similarly without two unimpassioned indivudals, the single indivdual may miss proper criticism or create improper criticism because... well it's hard for most people to argue themselves or play chess vs themselves.

In otherwords, at this point you basically have to sacrifice an arguement, with basically no payoff here, since the two arguements basically contradict your points, yet not mine.  If anything, all Habermas' views do is suggest you were even less qualfied to judge that statement then I suggested... and in general if anything would help christianity in the process and not hurt it.

Acevil said: Wow, an educated discussion is going on, and I was just going to make a silly comment on: How I would love an Earth Sphere Federation, so we can start having wars with the space colonies (because they rebel and want freedom, but we are not going to let that happen....so they do something stupid and cause an all out war, which typically ends with the hearts and minds of the youth). (Theme from Gundam Series). This is the future that Gundam predicting.

But then there would be a world wide hate law against those who were half masks that cover their eyes!

Blacksaber said: Acevil said: Wow, an educated discussion is going on, and I was just going to make a silly comment on: How I would love an Earth Sphere Federation, so we can start having wars with the space colonies (because they rebel and want freedom, but we are not going to let that happen....so they do something stupid and cause an all out war, which typically ends with the hearts and minds of the youth). (Theme from Gundam Series). This is the future that Gundam predicting. But then there would be a world wide hate law against those who were half masks that cover their eyes!

Unless they pilot red armored mechs and sometimes even go as far to wear strange outfits. 

Kasz216 said: C1) How does what he said have nothing to do with Christianity? B.  Show one culture where this exists.  You say you've shown it, but all you've done is said "this exists" without even being able to go so far as name a specific culture. C) Yes I can, and I did.  There will NEVER be a society or culture that belives helping others isn't good, because culture couldn't exist otherwise, and therefore good and evil couldn't exist otherwise.   D) Actually, no, your wrong. On both counts.  Hell is a state of being primarily and a place secondly, and god doesn't send you anywhere... and in general you still don't get Eastern Orthodx Christianity.  I can't blame you though, if I got dragged to a church I didn't believe in, I suppose I wouldn't pay any attention either.  Though, then again I doubt i'd be argueing about it.   "God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to raise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction   And considering you didn't even know what immanent critque was 72 hours ago, i'm guessing your just throwing a name out there without any clue what he was actually talking about. A very dangerous thing to do when talking about philosphers.   Espiecally when you are trying to disregard moral universalism. Because well... he's a moral universalist... and generally that's part of his problem with immanent critique. Basically to adopt his point, you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism.   Either stance I really wouldn't have atrributed to you, because it would either suggest that A) Homosexuality was evil, but isn't in some parts of Europe and in the USA, but STILL is evil in some parts of the world like Africa and China. or B) That murdering a child is neither good nor evil, no matter how you get pissed off when his murderer gets released early from jail and gets a new life.   However by argueing that there are no moral universalism or moral absolutes you are argueing one of the above two positions. Well that and he thought that rather then immanent crique having just one person, should have more then one uninterested party having an arguement rather then one person argueing himself... since it's hard for most people to outhink each other in a chess game and similarly without two unimpassioned indivudals, the single indivdual may miss proper criticism or create improper criticism because... well it's hard for most people to argue themselves or play chess vs themselves. In otherwords, at this point you basically have to sacrifice an arguement, with basically no payoff here, since the two arguements basically contradict your points, yet not mine.  If anything, all Habermas' views do is suggest you were even less qualfied to judge that statement then I suggested... and in general if anything would help christianity in the process and not hurt it.

C1. This point was not regarding what he said.

B. I read an article 1-2 years ago about different stages of morality, or something of the sort (can't remember exactly), where at the end it was mentioned that that model cannot be applied universally, because there are cultures which have different views of morality than those of European descent. They gave some ribe (that no longer exists) from Polynesia or Microniesia as an example (in this tribe lying, cheating, stealing, murder etc. were considered virtues). The tribe was obvioulsy not very successful, but what's important is that they did find the opposite of "helping others" to be moral, while they found helping others as a sign of weakness and stupidity.

C. If you did, I don't see your proof. Culture has no interest in reality, so it's quite irrelevant that cultures attribute the trait of "goodness" to anything (that is, if we're talking about actual reality, and not the reality constructed by culture). If goodness were an intrisic quality of helping others, then it wouldn't require to be attributed by a culture. Also, what makes you think that "good" and "evil" objectively exist? You can only define them based on perspective (what's "good" for one person, may be "evil" for someone else).

D. Wow, that quote is such mumbo jombo. I think I'm gonna stay out of such pointless discussions in the future.

you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism

The underlined makes no sense. Moral relativism does claim that there are no moral absolutes (if it claimed otherwise then it would be moral absolutism, and not moral relativism). I also don't see how, if there are no moral absolutes and morality depends strictly on subjective criteria, that one can say that anything really is, or isn't, moral.

Kasz216 said: Farmageddon said: Player1x3 said: Farmageddon said: sapphi_snake said: Farmageddon said: Some believe we're just born and make all those concepts up as we go :P When it comes to a single world religion, I really, really, really don't see that happening (besides maybe on an "official" level). Only shot would be if that one religion was non-religious. I don't think even extreme supernatural intervention would change that. I mean, assuming they don't just wipe our minds. Also, Player1x3, I see your vision of humans is as if we're removed from nature, special. I think this kind of argument about human nature can't really be settled between people with a creationist view and people with a more naturalistic one. How can this be? Well, I just don't see how, moving forward, will there be a time whithout people skeptical of religions and gods and etc. I don't see atheists and agnostics and laVey satanists and whatnot suddenly disappearing, specially on a global government where flow of information would be (presumably) very high. As long as there's religion there'll also be the ortodox types and the "I believe in something but don't fit any of this crap" Wiccan-type minorities. It just seems like this to me. Player1x3 said: What? No I dont believe in creationism, I simply believe that we have free will and that we make our choices but in the end our choices make us(shamelessly stolen from Bioshock), they determine weather or not we are greedy, destrctive etc etc... Well, what makes you believe our free will is so absolute and detached from nature then? If we're products of nature, so is our free will. And if our choice determines what we are, what determines them? Our "free will"? If our personality plays a role in determining our actions, and to these actions we attribute lables, why not carry them over for our personalities? Of course I'm not defending we're static, there's a lot of feedback and forth, but we are born with all of that in us, otherwise it would never surface. asz216 said: Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god. Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time.... I've in no way negated your free will.     Yeah, but the "proper" way would be to include the act of creation on that criticism. Simply knowing the future doesn't infringe on free will (whatever that really is), but if you're creator, all powerfull and all knowing then not only you could choose to create differently, you know how that would affect the entire future. So God would be essentially deciding on all of our actions at the moment of creation, thus negating free will. Of course that can be countered. You could go with something weird like every thought of God constitutes a reality in itself, but there's a better explanation that actually answers a lot more questions that is to say "God's atemporal". I mean, ok, it breaks all logic down in a sense and makes further inquiry kinda hard, (but hey, isn't that the definition of an all powerfull being? "Something capable of telling all logic and knowlodge to just GTFO"?), but other than  that it's actually quite elegant. Not really, because god gave you free will in christian theology.  He SPECIFICALLY created man with free will and the ability to choose so that we could choose. AS for the got being atemporal thing.... It doesn't really break all logic down as you might think... as actual current temoral theory is (I believe) that time is an illusion and it actually is all happening at the same time. It only seems linear because it's the only way we can perceive it with our inferior consiousness.  If we had advanced brains we would be like the wormhole aliens on DS9, if you've ever seen deep space 9.

Cause and consequence. If you take a linear time where God at the creations chooses to create (as in, has options, since he's all powerfull) and knows the consequences of each possible initial state, then there's no room for free will. Unless of course God temporarily blindfolds Himself and trhow the proverbial dice and calls that free will, but that brings a whole new load of problems, doesn't it? And yeah, it doesn't really break logic down, but it's kinda hard to think about consequences without time, thus the "in a sense". As you put it, it transcends us (in deeper ways than omni-something) and is really hard to even talk about, as our language is adapted to our existence. I mean, come on, 'time is an illusion and everything is really happening at the same time'? It sounds awfull. Edit: Vgchartz formating seems to have proken to me, so sorry for the blocky text.

binary solo said: manuel said: badgenome said: When governments can barely manage a single country, how the hell would one manage the entire world? I am skeptical. This. And 1 currency? Nah, not going to happen. Look at the disaster that is the Euro. And that's only a few countries and not nearly 200. Not true. Sci fi tells us that the future for humanity is a one world govt and a single currency. All the Earth based sci-fi I've read/seen has it that way, so it must be true. It's sci-fi authorss core business to predict the future and they are all pretty much agreed on these points.

Like with all works of fiction, the worlds created by them represents ideas the writers have.  And if the minds of them are from geeks, as they usually are, you will end up with a perspective that is common, but may or may not be correct.  About all sci-fi writers also write about there being aliens out there.  Just because about all of them do, doesn't mean that there are.  It is just a collective bias out there.

You know, there may even be an end to what we know as currency at this time.  Fiat money systems could break down, and something else rise up to replace it.  Then, you may not end up with one currency, but thousands and millions of different ones, floating around in a market system, traded the way FOREX does now, which represent contracts to acquire goods and services at a future date.  We may also end up with anarchy and no governments.  The future could be a variant on the Madmax world, but maybe holding together, with no one single currency.

The reality is that we don't know.  Also, it isn't the core business of sci-fi writers to predict the future, but to write entertaining fiction based around science, as opposed to magic.  They do make interesting observations, and sometimes do good jobs predicting.