First off, before I get to something philosophical, there IS something that does not change. Names. And even, then, those change. How can we define a person then? When does something become not itself from change? Let us take an example. Say that we are an ancient Viking, repairing the axe of the founding father of our clan, who lived may generations before. This is his axe and has been so for several hundred years. However, sometimes the blade rusts or breaks, so we replaced it. And the handle rots and splinters, so we replace that too. After many generations, both the head of the axe and the shaft have changed many times, and the original materials are no longer there. However, it is still the same axe. It's identity is the same. Now, let us go back to Aristotle. Yes, after the discussion, we replaced a part of his mind, of his essence. His body too has changed, as have his opinions and beliefs over the years. However, he is the same person, even if we could not recognize him from several decades before. Just as the axe has completely changed many times, so do all people completely change over their lives. However, it is their meaning, it is their identity, that binds these people together. No, I do not speak of their name, for that too changes. I speak of what the Greeks called Meaning. I speak of genetics, if you are so inclined. We can change completely who we are, but not what we mean. This is why so many people thought of the concepts of true names, things that bind the fate of a group of individual beings together to make them one person.
From Plato to Vikings. This is the most intersting conversation ever. ...I'm gonna go scream WHAT AM I FIGHTING FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!? now.
I really only have one thing to say about religion. "I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to." ~George Carlin I respect you as individuals. I know you are all different. But I don't like Religion as an overarching concept. Enough said.
Truth is in the eyes of the beholder, many say. What is an axe? Is it a large, peculiar piece of metal on a stick? Is it a weapon of war? A tool? What if we take a specific axe? What separates it from a different axe? To this, I say that an axe is what we feel, what we think, when we experience the axe. What we feel when we touch it, heft it, smell the rust in the air as we polish it. Just as with any object, this axe is defined as the emotions and thoughts that we associate with it. The same goes for a person. We all have associations for all people we know, and even if the person changes completely, we will still have associations that we define as them. Of course, these associations change over time, as all things do, but they are still there. These associations. That is meaning.
Nope, sorry. Again, I respect you as an individual but I have no respect for religion at all. In my opinion it has done far more harm than good. I respect religious people but I do not respect religion, as I've said, sorry. I think its something that ultimately needs to disappear.
Well, that depends on what you define as religion. If you mean the heavily hierarchical structures designed to use spirituality to control people, then yes, this isn't the best thing to have. If you mean spirituality as a whole, then you disrespect the individual's choice to follow a certain path. After all, all religions are a certain path towards a spiritual wholeness, and while one needs to choose for themselves how to achieve this, it is ultimately up to them. It is part of who they are, and as such, by disrespecting that part of them, you disrespect them as a whole.
I do not mean spirituality as a whole, that would make me a hypocrite as I am not an Atheist myself, I am a deist. I'm talking strictly about organized religion.
Here's a riddle: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? Technically, according to the theory of evolution and to the observable fact of random mutations, it is technically the egg, since although a chicken must come from a chicken egg, the egg can come from a mutated proto-chicken. However, the point of the riddle, that two things are dependant on each other in a cycle, still stands. Same thing for space and time. One can not define space without first defining time in which this space exists. At the same time (no pun intended), one can not define time without the space it both contains and is within. That is why this definition is the biggest riddle of all physics. Again, to be perfectly truthful, it has been for a while now considered that time and space are one and the same, but we still can not define it as a whole or sepeately. Same thing for being, what the object is, and meaning, what the object means. It is perfectly true that an object can not have being, just as it is true that an object can not have being without meaning something. Which one, then, came first? The meaning, or the being? This too is a cycle, and until we hold the entire truth of one of them, we can not know the other.
Well sorry, its what I believe. As I said, I'm a deist. I think organized religion simply corrupts whatever Higher Power there may or may not be, as it leads to people making assumptions, such as coming up with a list of ten things you can and cannot do. Or saying things are arbitrarily bad or sinful. Why? Because God didn't write it. Man wrote it for one of two reasons. Because he either THOUGHT its what God wanted, or because he made it up to control people. You know why religion is nonsense, in my humble opinion? Because how do YOU know what God wants? How can YOU possibly understand a higher power, what it thinks is right and wrong, what it wants you to do, how do you know it even cares? Think about it. We're a tiny blue planet in the tiniest corner of a tiny galaxy in an INFINITE universe, which itself is TINY compared to the infinite Multiverse that exists if the Multiverse theory is correct. Why would he care about even humanity? We're so insignificant, so tiny. So that's why I don't like organized religion; how do you know what God wants, what God thinks is wrong? How do YOU know?
*schnuggles* First off, I don't want there to be hard feelings =3 I made this topic in the hope of spreading love and tolerance, and I won't be divided from you if I can help it because we have different beliefs. So if you really start to feel pissed with me because of what I argue, feel free to say so and we can stop. Secondly, your argument makes sense so long as we say that the only acceptable spirituality is your religion, i.e. totally unorganized deism. Unfortunately, that is a fairly small part of what mankind has done to define spirituality. Thus, like DanSze said, If you mean spirituality as a whole, then you disrespect the individual's choice to follow a certain path. After all, all religions are a certain path towards a spiritual wholeness, and while one needs to choose for themselves how to achieve this, it is ultimately up to them. As for how I know anything, I was never here to defend Catholicism because I think such would be inappropriate for this forum. I started out wanting to encourage my fellow bronies to be more thoughtful and aware of religious folks who aren't their enemies, and now I'm just finding what DanSze has to say to be interesting. Nevertheless, it is not and will not be my goal to defend my religion. On the contrary: there is that which is prior and that which is latter--cause and effect. With a cause, there will be an effect, but an effect cannot bring about a cause. It is absurd to think of dominoes that fall in a circle without there being a first push. It is true that some things that we describe in terms of words as separate are in fact one ontological being. For example, blood is both red and viscous. Nevertheless, blood is one thing with the effects of redness and viscosity; both the redness and the viscosity come about from one form that gives rise to these accidents. Thus, red blood and viscous blood is a tautology. If space-time is indeed one thing, then this is its case. Such is not the case in terms of that which is prior and that which is latter, however. Fire may cause a green leaf to become black ash, but a green leaf is not black ash. Now there may be cases where it is hard for us to see which of two things is a cause and which is an effect--but this is no demonstration that causal circles are possible. In any such case, there would be two possibilities--either that no priority exists, or that priority exists and we are unable to perceive it. If we accepted such arguments as a baselines, we would never have found out that the egg was in fact prior to the chicken. On the contrary, being is not what a thing is, but that it is. The brute fact of existence is prior to meaning because the brute fact of existence allows but does not imply a mind that can impose meaning on it--and as I said, without a mind, there is no meaning. Thus, meaning is an effect of being, not a tautology of it.
How do we know? Well, on second thought, I mustn't get ahead of myself. First things first, on the multiverse theory: I used to belive in the multiverse theory. However, recently, I realized it's flaw. Every action in the universe on any level is explainable through precise methods, even if we don't know these methods yet. This is the first assumption of physics. As such, if an action happens, there is a precise reason and way it happens. Ergo, every action, if it is observable, is singular. There is no other way it can happen without breaking a law of physics. As such, there can not be a multiverse unless the laws of physics change, which is not something that is likely. So there is one universe. This brings me to my second point. Is the universe infinite? Again, the answer is no. A better term to describe it is through borders. What is the border of a circle? It is what tells you where it is finite, where it ends. The universe is something like that circle, except of a much more complex shape, since it has no end. Think of it instead as a Mobius Solid. A Mobius solid is a shape that exists in n-dimensional space, but is twisted in n+1-dimensional pace. These solids all have interesting properties. For example, the only 3D shape that has this property is the Mobius Strip. It is a strip of paper twisted in such a way that it only has one side. As such, one can keep going on it forever without reaching and end, as long as you are in two dimensions. Now, what if this was in 11, or 12 dimensions, when we can only feel 4? We can not tell if the universe has an end then, so we call it infinite. As for religions, that is simple. How do we know that a God cares? Because that is an assumption of religion. That is what people choose to think, and that is what is true in their own reality. Too many people go down the wrong path because they forget that they can make their own truth, and that they can choose to live how they want. In the end, I return to a short four phrases. Where people blindly seek the truth, we know: Nothing is true. Where people blindly follow the butcher of the law, we know: Everything is permitted. The above is freedom. The only thing left for a truly free society once everyone follows the above is integrity.
Did the tree fall if we were not there to see it? Can something exist without being perceived? For that matter, can we perceive something without it having some meaning already? After all, we miss details and objects we deem as unimportant, and as such, to us they do not exist. And while this has reprecussions sometimes, we still persist in missing completely the existence of some items for the simple reason of them not having meaning. As such, being is given by meaning, just as being can give meaning. Also, one must realize that cause and effect does not contradict interdependance. An effect can not beget it's cause, true, but an effect can also be a cause, and it's effect can be it's cause. If you take a pendulum, for example, starting from an initial position where it is raised, you will see that this position causes the pendulum to descend in an arc. This descent, because of physics, causes an ascent to an opposite position, which then is the cause for a descent, which is a cause for a ascent, et cetera ad infinitum. Thus, being can be caused by meaning, and meaning by being, as two seperate cause and effect relationships.
I'm sorry if I've been rather... uncouth... in this thread. I'm not meaning to say your beliefs are any less valid than mine, I'm simply stating my position and I apologize if I have rubbed anyone the wrong way. I've just had overall bad experiences with religion. Actually nothing but bad experiences, but I suppose that not everyone that is religious is like that. I hope. I just think its better for one to think for themselves and if they are going to have spirituality to do it on their own, because I personally feel that Organized Religion limits your own creativity and your free will. Also apologies for my foul language, I have a bit of a sailor's mouth, especially over things I'm passionate about. I'll keep it to a minimum.
It's fine man, just remember that's it's literally against the rules to use any kind of foul language on the forums, we are a loving and tolerant community after all.
I am aware. Suffice to say I spend too much time on Ponychan, which has no profanity rule and I pretty much... run wild.
Alright, just be sure to watch your mouth, you know how unforgiving some admins and mods can be on these threads. :derpe:
