The votes are in: Jesus wins

[PrincepsAmerica]

This is sort of how it works: Cartesian writes a book called 'Poached: My Life As An Egg Or How I Learned To Come Out Of My Shell And Not Get Fried'. The next day, he's trampled to death by a team of wild horses. We get into our time machine and go two thousand years into the future. You stop people randomly on the street and say 'Can I talk to you about CartesianFart?' and they say, 'You mean the poached egg? Sorry, I dont like discussing religion.'

Riiiight. And we go back 2000 years and oh isn't that interesting he's still just a guy writing a book.

So, you got some real reasoning there, that you could explain? Cause thats basically nonsense.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

This is sort of how it works: Cartesian writes a book called 'Poached: My Life As An Egg Or How I Learned To Come Out Of My Shell And Not Get Fried'. The next day, he's trampled to death by a team of wild horses. We get into our time machine and go two thousand years into the future. You stop people randomly on the street and say 'Can I talk to you about CartesianFart?' and they say, 'You mean the poached egg? Sorry, I dont like discussing religion.'

It seems to follow then, by that reasoning, that for the period in time when blacks were seen as inferior to whites by the majority, they actually were inferior.

 

[punkbass2000]

I am a Poached Egg.There,i said it and i believe that is the reality.

But you don't actually believe it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally Posted by G.K. Chesterton
If Mr. Bernard Shaw comes up to me and says, "Will something," that is tantamount to saying, "I do not mind what you will," and that is tantamount to saying, "I have no will in the matter." You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson feels an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will—will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.
The worship of will is the negation of will. To admire mere choice is to refuse to choose.

Princeps, what Chesterton fails to realize is that he actually has no disagreement with it at all. He's actually saying that we have morality because we will it. We have laws because we collectively will it. How does that disprove or argue against the fact that humans create their own reality?

 

[CartesianFart]

But you don't actually believe it.

What is the difference between imagining and actually and then saying "I am a poached egg?"

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Riiiight. And we go back 2000 years and oh isn't that interesting he's still just a guy writing a book.

So, you got some real reasoning there, that you could explain? Cause thats basically nonsense.

Have you got some real reasoning there yourself? Simply saying that something is nonsense, isnt an argument.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Princeps, what Chesterton fails to realize is that he actually has no disagreement with it at all. He's actually saying that we have morality because we will it. We have laws because we collectively will it. How does that disprove or argue against the fact that humans create their own reality?

It disputes what you were implying about morals and values being invented because if they are invented they are valueless, they are immoral. It is only if we are, however darkly, interpreting values that are truly inherent in the world that those values mean anything.

Otherwise its exactly as I said before. If we create reality, think about that fully for a second, we are just comparing imaginary worlds. Judgement, action, morality, decisions, debate all become meaningless when it comes down to me saying "I want the world to be Middle-Earth." And you retorting "No I want the world to be the Star Wars universe." Theres no discussion to be had there unless we start truly referencing a real reality, common to the both of us that we can compare our interpretations to.

What is so confusing about this, this the basis of all human thought and communication.

Have you got some real reasoning there yourself? Simply saying that something is nonsense, isnt an argument.

I wish there was a more civil way to say it. I didn't mean nonsense in the blustering, combative way it is sometimes used. If you took it that way I apologize. I meant it most emphatically in the sense that what you said had no sense or reasoning. You just stated a hypothetical situation with no other reasoning or evidence present to directly explain your point.

 

[punkbass2000]

What is the difference between imagining and actually and then saying "I am a poached egg?"

Belief makes all the difference.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It seems to follow then, by that reasoning, that for the period in time when blacks were seen as inferior to whites by the majority, they actually were inferior.

If you asked a white person during that period of time, chances are they would say yes, they are. Quite possibly many slaves would have felt the same back then, because of the environment they lived in.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Belief makes all the difference.

It doesn't make physical difference.

If you asked a white person during that period of time, chances are they would say yes, they are. Quite possibly many slaves would have felt the same back then, because of the environment they lived in.

That's not the point though. The point is that it doesn't make it true.

 

[CartesianFart]

Belief makes all the difference.

If you infer that belief is what differentiate 'imagination' and 'actuality' then you have to make an empty assumption of your beliefs is existing objectively.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

That's not the point though. The point is that it doesn't make it true.

Alright, lets put it this way: Today, at this moment, we believe blacks, whites, Asians and what have you are all brothers. We believe all men are created equally (speaking of the 18th century). Now if we were to go 200 years into the future and find that for some reason, Norwegians are seen as subhuman and theyre enslaved, would that mean that we in the 21st century were wrong when we thought all men are equals? Are the beliefs of the current generation always the correct beliefs? Or arent they?

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Alright, lets put it this way: Today, at this moment, we believe blacks, whites, Asians and what have you are all brothers. We believe all men are created equally (speaking of the 18th century). Now if we were to go 200 years into the future and find that for some reason, Norwegians are seen as subhuman and theyre enslaved, would that mean that we in the 21st century were wrong when we thought all men are equals? Are the beliefs of the current generation always the correct beliefs? Or arent they?

We're saying that the time period has nothing to do with the truth of beliefs. Why would it? If only one homeless guy a thousand years ago truly believed that there was another continent between the Orient and the Occident that has no bearing on whether or not North America exists. Just as if we believed with all our collective hearts that we did not exist that would not change the fact that we either do or don't and that all evidence seems to point to the affirmative.

The point you seem to be akwardly pointing to is that ideas can motivate people just as surely as mechanical nature can. This in itself is very true. But if that is your point you also took it on one very messed up tangent.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It disputes what you were implying about morals and values being invented because if they are invented they are valueless, they are immoral. It is only if we are, however darkly, interpreting values that are truly inherent in the world that those values mean anything.

Sorry Princeps, but whether you or Chesterton realize it, right there before your very eyes in black and white, the man is saying flat out that we want morality, so we will it into being, that we want laws, so we will them into being. This silly person is worshiping will, so therefore by his own logic, he's negating it. Come on man, Im sure you can dig up better dead guys than this, he literally doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I think by taking him out of context, I misrepresented him. He was making an ironical point that what the people willed was precisely what the "Will-mongers" generally didn't want, that is 'traditional morality'. If they willed evil Chesterton would just as easily point it out. That's all. You should read him regardless, everyone should.

 

[CartesianFart]

Save yourself,PrincepsA.The dude is a hack and a sad one worse than Pascal by using ironic prose as to alleviate his doubt of fidelity to the truth and the Christian Truth.

Sad character.

 

[punkbass2000]

It doesn't make physical difference.

Do you believe that?

 

[punkbass2000]

If you infer that belief is what differentiate 'imagination' and 'actuality' then you have to make an empty assumption of your beliefs is existing objectively.

What exists objectively?

 

[Smidlee]

Even if you have a crew obfuscating the truth, it's tough to hide the fact that the Flood never happened.

I'm not too sure about this. I still believe the Flood did happen even though I agree creationist's flood models come a little short. All the facts doesn't seem to fit anyone's interpretion of the past.

 

[Sidhe]

What exists objectively?

A resort to objectivity is not an end to an argument, of course everything is subjective, but, just throwing objectivity into a debate is lazy. It also leads to nihilism which is as pointless as solipsism. What exists?