Epicurus' Problem of Evil - Page 2 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
The Debate Club debating in a friendly environment

Reply

Old 01-17-2011, 10:51 AM   #11 (permalink)
True Grappler
 
IronMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 6,222
IronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A Baller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liddellianenko View Post
Have fun in London, it's a great city and I hear the snow makes it quite beautiful. No worries on the expansion, I enjoy the overall discussions anyway and it's pointless to try to contain subjects of this scope beyond a degree. It's pretty one-on-one so far anyway so I don't think there's a need for new threads yet.
That's totally fair.

London is an amazing city. Unfortunately, everyone is one the cloud there, so it's a bit of a pain in the ass for me to use the internet, since I can't access it that way. I was basically just using the facebook and skype apps on my phone to keep in touch with the states.


Quote:
Yes basically that's what I was suggesting. Most theological/spiritual schools of thinking think of thought (pardon the alliteration) and decision making originating in the Soul, not the mind. The mind, as you point out, is basically a state based receiver/processor/recorder of signals originating at a lower level, comparable to say a computer CPU.

So what would a Soul be? Perhaps something existing at a sub-quantum level, other realm, dark matter or whatever, that can influence the paths and choices made at the quantum level or even lower. Generally this is referred to as the Meta-Physical realm. In the computer analogy, this would be the live user that is entering input and control into the "dead" computer.
The problem is function. I'm not really sure what the function of mind is here. If we accept what folks like Dan Ariely and V.S. Ramachandran tell us about the role that brain function and circumstances play in guiding the decision making.

And, secondarily, even if it is the case that these things happen at the "sub-quantam level" does that still constitute a form of free will.

If the soul and the mind are distinct bodies (which I think is what you're proposing) and the mind is the body that experiences the world (which I think we're also both on the same page on) and the role of the soul is to make decisions independently of that experience of the world, then does the soul operate on different conditions than the experience of the world?

And if it doesn't, if decision making operates based on our experience of the world, and the understanding that we have in predicting what decisions will have positive causal impacts, then our understandings (which are presumably informed by experience, education and other external factors like brain states) are the primary process in decision making, then it seems to me that independent agency at the level of mind is impossible.

That's where my problem is.


Quote:
I don't want to get too sci-fi or cliche, because the short answer for all of the above is we don't know for sure, this is just theology and philosophy. But the idea has been remarkably consistent across all of human civilization ... soul, spirit and such. Every culture from Native American to East Asian to European has had some such concept which is remarkable consistent in it's working.

Before you refute it with "that's not evidence that it's true", I will admit that it's not. Like I said, I feel these things aren't meant to be proven beyond doubt, else they impinge on free will. It's all theory and hypothesis mixed with mythology and legend, but the point I'm trying to make is that philosophically and scientifically, free will cannot be unproven.
If you're claim is that a particular definition of free will is unfalsifiable (which is true in a lot of cases; Daniel Dennett presents a definition in Elbow Room that is totally unfalsifiable) then that's fine. But it seems to me that, if it cannot be disproven, then the value of the idea is fairly limited. I subscribe to Popper's view on this, fairly strictly, which goes something like this:

If a proposition cannot be disproven, then (from a scientific/philosophical standpoint) it cannot be formative in an empirical worldview.


Quote:
Well pardon me for introducing the word scientific, but it was you that introduced the word evidence. If you read what I wrote, I made zero attempt whatsoever to admit the emotional part as evidence, that part was for argument's sake only. To lend personal credibility to my line of thought.

This is a debate, not a scientific report. We are not sitting here writing peer-review reports on the latest anthropology finding in Africa, we are debating. All argument may be valid and useful, including Ethos and Pathos. It doesn't have to be strictly "evidence". It's not like I'm entirely omitting philosophical and scientific lines of explanation.
Actually, I don't really recognize pathos as valid in argument. It's fine if you want to use it, but (personally) I actually think most modern definitions of argument disqualify it.

You're right, though, in that I introduced "evidence," which is a term I use strictly applied to rational, deductive arguments.


Quote:
Right, there is such a thing as bogus science, the kind used by infomercials and dudes in the 1800s to sell electroshock as cure for hair loss etc. Usually based around bogus studies and false premise theories.
You'll get no argument from me here.

Quote:
And I said it's not that 76% that's relevant to our point on MMA, it the < 50% Practicing Christians under 35. I don't see many 60 year olds in MMA, so that demographic shouldn't be considered when looking for statistical trends and anomalies in MMA.

And while Atheists are still a minority in the under-35 age group in America, Non-Christians (including but not limited to Atheists/Agnostics) are actually a majority or about even.

One mistake I made was that I said, by statistical trend, it should be roughly 50-50 between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics at the top or any random slice of MMA or any other measure of achievement. What I meant was Christians-Non Christians, as you rightly pointed out, Christians-Atheists should be around 2:1.
Again, you're presuming that all MMA fighters come from the United States, since you're using American figures. You're also assuming that MMA draws equally from all backgrounds, which it doesn't.

Setting aside the anomaly of Brazilian fighters (who are almost all Catholic) and Japanese fighters (who are almost all atheists, with a few notable exceptions), there is a problem even in the U.S.

First: American MMA fighters tend to come from the lower economic brackets, which (statistically) dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

Second: They tend not to have post-collegiate education, which again dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

Third: They tend to come from conservative and rural communities, which also dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

The number of Christian NCAA wrestling champions is far higher than the number of non-Christian NCAA champions. Why? Because the communities where wrestling is practiced are largely very conservative and very Christian.


Quote:
Aldo is actually more of a practicing Baptist than a Catholic, he attends Baptist church every Sunday and sounds quite religious in his interviews. So it's not like he's a default token catholic christian.

Anderson has also expressed very strong religious sentiment in many of his interviews, is abound with religious symbolism (making the sign of the cross etc.) before his fights and so on so I don't know where you're coming from with his lack of devotion etc. It may be less than Aldo or whoever, but it's hard to have an exact barometer like that without really knowing the person.
Aldo's religious background is kind of ambiguous to me. I just know that he considers himself deeply religious, though I don't know how big a role denominal identification plays in that. In my experience, Brazilian protestants tend to be much more devote then Brazilian catholics, which I usually attribute to being a member of a religious minority, so that doesn't surprise me.

Anderson uses a lot of Christian iconography and definitely does identify that way. My point was about level of devoutness being varied. Anderson definitely does not practice Christianity to the same degree that (say) Aldo, or even Matt Hughes, does. I may be wrong about that, though, since all of this is second hand. I really don't like using second hand reports.


Quote:
Well some the figures are from Newsweek which in turn are from Pews anyway, I got them from a wiki link.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/04/t...ation-gap.html

The rest I filled in the blanks directly from Pews. And like I clarified, my mistake, I meant the ratio of Christians:Non-Christians, not Christians:Atheists.
Yeah, those are two hugely different things, though. Including something like "None of the Above" or a generic answer doesn't really help.

Quote:
Well not just that, I meant that along with being listed under a Christian denomination (so they're not just Theist but actually Christian), talking consistently along religious/virtue ethics based lines in interviews, Generally have that kind of rep and so on.

But even if I was looking at JUST their thanking God, that would STILL put them quite firmly in the 64% theist category. Why on earth would they thank an imaginary creature they didn't think existed?

Maybe one or two at the top I said, and it's true unless you can provide me with better examples than MTB. As for proof, it would have to be some statement along the lines them openly proclaiming atheism/agnosticism ... because as I reasoned in my last point, thanking an entity you don't think exists counts as grounds for lunacy. NOT thanking an entity that you think EXISTS, well, could mean anything really.
There's the problem:

Christians evangelize. Atheists and (especially) agnostics don't. It doesn't come up in interviews. They just don't care very much.


Quote:
Agreed completely, I already mentioned Velasquez as an example of this. My point is that being a Christian "facilitates" it, not necessitates it.

People who are basically relativistic in thinking and are only being virtuous "for the heck of it" would, logically, find it far easier to abandon it in the face of tough trials or heavy temptations. I mean why resist? It's not like anyone's watching or there is such a thing as non-obvious or direct consequences. Or they would prefer to be virtuous in the ways convenient for them and not in others eg: a hollywood billionaire who gives millions to charity and then goes and cheats on his wife with a bunch of hookers and blow.

People with a real belief in God and the deeper rewards and tragedies of virtue ethics have an inherently higher psychological reason to stick to them. It's not a guarantee that they will of course, but to them the stakes are higher.

And this is just the psychological side of it, without even going into the possible existence of there actually BEING a God that really does reward virtue and give you spiritual strength etc. in that regard.
I have no argument with any of this, except that it doesn't actually seem to work that way.

Statistically, if you're an atheist, you're much less likely to go to prison than if you're a Christian.

I actually think that this has almost nothing to do with religion. I think it's motivated by sociology. Given that statistically being an atheist means a higher likelihood of post-secondary education and, as a result, higher rates of employment and income, then there's a major sociological disposition that indicates that (as a group) there would be lower rates of crime.


Quote:
I'm very sorry for that. Like I said there's no guarantee, and I believe religion is pointless without actively trying to live those principles of virtue day by day, more and more. I suppose our free will is always free. I hope and pray (hope you don't take too much offense at that) they recover swiftly and well. Don't know what else to say here really.

Except I suppose I have positive experiences to share in that regard; my closest uncle (mother's brother) had become addicted to coke, had beat up his wife after arguments, and cheated on her with hookers. She had gone to the cops and he had fled the country in fear.

I wrote and talked to him during this time and he was crying about not wanting to lose his marriage and his kids and how much he still loved her and them etc. The usual. In the lead up to this, we had discovered the problems almost a year ago and he had tried to quit 3 times and claimed he succeeded, but always tested negative and had cheated again. But after our extended discussions on God, faith (FYI I was the only Christian in my family, I was not born to it), morality and what was important to him in his life, he tried again.

This time, he succeeded. He's been tested clean for over two years now, they're back from the verge of divorce and his wife says she loves him again for the complete turnaround he made. He is loyal, a devoted father, and drugs free.

Again, this is not proof or even evidence of anything. Just thought I could share, so you see where I'm coming from.
That's fine, but since we agree that it's not evidence, I don't really feel like I can, or should, address it.

Quote:
Right, but the important part IMO is him saying "Teaching as doctrines the Commandments of men". That, and him mentioning Scribes as the corruptors.

The likely meaning that I take from this is that a lot of the ritual stuff that has been written in to the scrolls by the scribes as "doctrine" was really arbitrary ritual and "commandments of men" that were unrelated to the original virtue ethics commanded by God. We have to remember that at Jesus' time, there was no such thing as the Old Testament or a Bible, just a bunch of scrolls written by these very scribes under the tutelage of these very Pharisees/priests.
This is the problem: God's commands are not an invocation of virtue ethics. Divine command theory and virtue ethics are two totally separate theories of ethics, and the notion of "commandment" identifies with the former and not the later.

Quote:
I never said that Jesus was against ALL ritual. He was against ritual that was not part of the original Virtue Ethics based commandments of God. In this regard I believe it's pointless to say that "oh Christianity is based on Divine Command not Virtue Ethics", because by Jesus' teachings, the Divine Command WAS to follow Virtue Ethics. There is further proof of such things in things such as the sermon on the mount etc.

"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

Well then how do we know what parts of the OT are "Divine Command" and what are "Doctrines of Men"? Most Christians do this by going in precedence from the Gospels -> Rest of NT -> OT.
Actually, I don't think most Christians do that, as much as I'd like that.

The problem is that the Gospels, the Epistles and the entire Old Testament hinges on divine command theory.


Quote:
Even if GSP is 29, he has evolved a gazillion times more in his 7 year UFC career than Ortiz did in the same amount of time at the same age. Ortiz went from 22-29 doing nothing but one-trick pony basic TD + GnP and terrible standup, whereas GSP went from standup machine to takedown machine to BJJ black belt.

You can say the same for Aldo or Anderson, who have evolved far more since their early or even recent days than Ortiz in his prime.
You're romanticizing and overlooking the role that Ortiz played in MMA. He didn't evolve, which is exactly my point: that is what played a role in his becoming irrelevant, not his lack of religiosity. By the way, there are plenty of other (religious) UFC champions who fell out of the top for exactly the same reason.

It's easy to diminish Ortiz now because he's not a guy at the top, but he was, in his prime, one of the greatest champions in the history of the UFC. When GSP or Anderson or Aldo falls out of the top, we'll be able to assess their career with the same retrospect.


Quote:
And if you think I'm singling out Ortiz as an example of a cocky un-virtuous guy, give me another example of a douchy guy who you think has maintained success and focus the same way the guys I'm naming have. Frank Mir? Check. Brandon Vera? Check. Name your pick.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that both of those guys are Christians.

Also, I like Frank Mir, as a guy. He's very nice, very knowledgeable and if you're going to spot Matt Hughes for only being a douche during his use (or becoming less douchey over time) then you should extend the same benefit of the doubt to Frank Mir.


Quote:
Well the function of Temperance is to not drink too much, but the purpose of THAT is not circular right back to "having Temperance". You made up that circularity yourself.

The purpose of not drinking too much is so that we don't make errors in judgment regarding other virtues/sins, or become dependent/addicted on it. This is stated many times in the bible such as:

Ephesians 5:18 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

1 Corinthians 6:12 “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything." - Regarding addiction.

There are dozens more if you like, here's a link:

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html

Personally, I like to enjoy a few drinks with close friends, but I haven't gotten drunk since I was in college. If drinking in moderation is a problem, then yes, abstaining is best.
That's great: these are utilitarian justifications for abstaining from drinking. They are not based on virtue ethics.

My point was not that there aren't good reasons to abstain from drinking. There are. Those reasons are utilitarian in nature.

My point is that virtue ethics is circular.
__________________


Sig by Toxic

Barnett - Toquinho -Werdum - "Nurmie"
Z. Gurgel - Morango - Rocha - Tiequan
IronMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 01-29-2011, 11:58 PM   #12 (permalink)
Flyweight
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 237
mawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the roughmawrestler125 is a jewel in the rough
Didn't read everything, but I have the solution.

1. God exists -Faulty premise
2. god is all benevolent
3. god is all knowing
4. god is all powerful
5. Evil exists.


God is imaginary and he does not exist. For that matter, evil does not exist either, nor good. The universe is ultimately indifferent to our existence. Good and evil are relative to our species. There is an objective good and evil, however, with regards to the human race. Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory.
mawrestler125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 12:14 AM   #13 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
enceledus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 1,440
enceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level nowenceledus is on another level now
This is one of the oldest philosophical arguments against god. It is an inherent contradiction in the agreed upon attributes of the Judeo-Christian god. A wonderful point to bring up when debating a Christian.

This argument is typically paired with another example of the same sort, being as such: "Can god create a stone too heavy for himself to lift?"

The Abrahamic concept of god is so flawed it is nearly impossible to rectify it into something reasonable..... but when worshipping a god who needs reason anyway?
__________________
"Existence precedes essence"

- Jean Paul Sartre

My podcast/blog: http://lifeashumans.blogspot.com/

Funniest thing you may ever find on the internet: www.gentlemanbob.com

or look for gentlemanbob on facebook

NPFFL: Cain Velasquez, Demian Maia, Lyoto Machida, Joseph Benavidez
enceledus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 01:41 AM   #14 (permalink)
True Grappler
 
IronMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 6,222
IronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A Baller
Quote:
Originally Posted by enceledus View Post
This is one of the oldest philosophical arguments against god. It is an inherent contradiction in the agreed upon attributes of the Judeo-Christian god. A wonderful point to bring up when debating a Christian.

This argument is typically paired with another example of the same sort, being as such: "Can god create a stone too heavy for himself to lift?"

The Abrahamic concept of god is so flawed it is nearly impossible to rectify it into something reasonable..... but when worshipping a god who needs reason anyway?
See, this is one of the things that I don't like about contemporary atheism. (yeah, I might as well have said that in my curmudgeonly old man voice; it's not that I don't like contemporary atheists or regard them as intellectually inferior, but it's a sticking point) It tends to leave out a lot of the history that underlies the arguments that it's attempting to deal with.

Epicurus wasn't responding to a "Judeo-Christian" (a term I hate, by the way; it has no root in the world at all; it became vogue in the 1950s among the members of the religious right to attempt to make themselves look more ecumenical) conception of God at all. He likely had no knowledge of the "Abrahamic" God (the God of the Israelites, at the time) at all.

The Problem of Evil is actually a response, not to Christianity, but to Aristotelean deism. The reason that it becomes deputized into arguments against contemporary Christianity (it absolutely will do no work in an argument against a Talmudic Jew, at least one familiar with the tradition of textual interpretation) because early Christians deputized Aristotelean cosmological arguments to justify the existence of God and, as such, made themselves vulnerable to the same concept that made the Aristotelean construction vulnerable to Epicurus' critique.

It's a great critique of contemporary Christian theology. But it is worth noting that is almost entirely due to a failure of Christian theology, not the concept.

There are many, many better reasons why the concept fails/sucks. I think the best critique belongs to Antony Flew in his 1950 paper "Theology and Falsification." But that's just me.
__________________


Sig by Toxic

Barnett - Toquinho -Werdum - "Nurmie"
Z. Gurgel - Morango - Rocha - Tiequan
IronMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2011, 05:50 AM   #15 (permalink)
KO artist
 
Liddellianenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 4,212
Liddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings SystemLiddellianenko Is Beyond A Rankings System
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
That's totally fair.

London is an amazing city. Unfortunately, everyone is one the cloud there, so it's a bit of a pain in the ass for me to use the internet, since I can't access it that way. I was basically just using the facebook and skype apps on my phone to keep in touch with the states.
Ugh hate "the cloud". It's just a hyped up regression back to the days of the dumb terminal with zero computing power connected to a mainframe somewhere. But that's just a tangent and this thread is already getting too huge haha.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
The problem is function. I'm not really sure what the function of mind is here. If we accept what folks like Dan Ariely and V.S. Ramachandran tell us about the role that brain function and circumstances play in guiding the decision making.

And, secondarily, even if it is the case that these things happen at the "sub-quantam level" does that still constitute a form of free will.

If the soul and the mind are distinct bodies (which I think is what you're proposing) and the mind is the body that experiences the world (which I think we're also both on the same page on) and the role of the soul is to make decisions independently of that experience of the world, then does the soul operate on different conditions than the experience of the world?

And if it doesn't, if decision making operates based on our experience of the world, and the understanding that we have in predicting what decisions will have positive causal impacts, then our understandings (which are presumably informed by experience, education and other external factors like brain states) are the primary process in decision making, then it seems to me that independent agency at the level of mind is impossible.

That's where my problem is.
Well the explanation I'm proposing, and that is generally understood from the concept of the soul across various cultures, is that the mind is just a computational and memory storage tool.

The functionality question you're asking really is something akin to "What is the function of a computer?" ... simple really, it's useful for processing information and storing/retrieving memories, and running/interacting in it's own virtual/digital world.

Heck think of it as a computer CPU running one big World of Warcraft MMORPG/Matrix type application if you want to simplify it, though it's more complex than that. But the true "free will" input comes from outside, from the user that is entering input and controlling the mouse and keyboard.

Similarly, the mind itself would be a proxy for the soul on another level. It is useful for storing the memories and experiences of this life, learning and refining skills applicable in it's own virtual world (this life), but the "decision-making" based on that information and computation is made by a user (soul) that is seeing all of this and entering live input where needed.

So basically it's more like your second "if decision making operates based on our experience of the world" scenario ... the input coming from the soul, coming from perhaps a quantum or sub-quantum/extra dimensional level, is aware of the experiences and worldly interactions of the mind and body through their composition down to the quantum level. Based on this information, the decision-making can be carried out by the soul the same way an MMORPG player can make decisions based on what he sees on the computer screen.

The mind itself has no independent decision making, but it's inputs are very much independent, as quantum mechanics have shown that particle mechanics at the quantum level are always random and cannot be predestined to be one way or another even if the entire states of particles are known (as postulated in LaPlace's demon). It is in the form of these random particle collissions that input is entered into the "real world" by the soul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
If you're claim is that a particular definition of free will is unfalsifiable (which is true in a lot of cases; Daniel Dennett presents a definition in Elbow Room that is totally unfalsifiable) then that's fine. But it seems to me that, if it cannot be disproven, then the value of the idea is fairly limited. I subscribe to Popper's view on this, fairly strictly, which goes something like this:

If a proposition cannot be disproven, then (from a scientific/philosophical standpoint) it cannot be formative in an empirical worldview.
I don't see why not ... if something cannot be proven one way or another, one is free to believe either side of the explanation based on logic and likelihood.

It's like saying in the 14th century or whenever the germ theory of disease came out almost two centuries before the microscope was invented to actually get empirical proof, "oh well just because you can't disprove these 'germs' doesn't mean they actually exist or have any relevance to disease theory. The theory makes a lot of logical sense of course, but one must continue to believe in Galens humors for healing, it's just stupid to believe otherwise!".

Not all things in science are empirically proven ... Einstein's theory of relativity was revolutionary far before it could be empirically proven. It doesn't make people believing or analyzing the world using that theory idiots. Heck, even macro-evolution isn't empirically proven it's not like anyone's ever seen a species evolve into another, it's based on broad patterns in fossil history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
Again, you're presuming that all MMA fighters come from the United States, since you're using American figures. You're also assuming that MMA draws equally from all backgrounds, which it doesn't.

Setting aside the anomaly of Brazilian fighters (who are almost all Catholic) and Japanese fighters (who are almost all atheists, with a few notable exceptions), there is a problem even in the U.S.

First: American MMA fighters tend to come from the lower economic brackets, which (statistically) dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

Second: They tend not to have post-collegiate education, which again dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

Third: They tend to come from conservative and rural communities, which also dramatically increases the likelihood that someone will be religious.

The number of Christian NCAA wrestling champions is far higher than the number of non-Christian NCAA champions. Why? Because the communities where wrestling is practiced are largely very conservative and very Christian.
Well I already clarified that I wasn't just considering American fighters, I was just concentrating on them since we have reliable data for an detecting a statistical anomaly, in a country where there is more diversity in religion than say Brazil.

Just saying something to the effect of "Christians are dumb and uneducated, so you'll find more of them in MMA/sports" is a complete cop out. Some of the best wrestling programs in America are in California, East Coast etc., in the best funded universities, with all backgrounds of people competing in it.

I don't get this obsession with "post-collegiate" education as some sort of indicator of intellect either, and somehow people with just college degrees just being a bunch of unwashed bumpkins. If anything, useless MBAs with no real skills except claiming credit for others work are the dumbasses being fired first in today's economy.

Among the Christian fighters I mentioned, most if not all are college educated, so your casual assumption of assigning their religion to their "poverty/ignorance" is just another instance of an atheist superiority complex bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post

Yeah, those are two hugely different things, though. Including something like "None of the Above" or a generic answer doesn't really help.

There's the problem:

Christians evangelize. Atheists and (especially) agnostics don't. It doesn't come up in interviews. They just don't care very much.
Corrent on the Agnostics, dead wrong on atheists, at least based on any casual observation. Just go out on the internet, every comments thread, website, yahoo answers, stumbleupon, forum etc. is filled with absolutely virulent Christianity bashing. Every 13 year old with a keyboard is extolling the virtues of Flying Spaghetti Monster and patting himself on his back with a smug smile over his wit and "original" intellect. You yourself have started a thread on Pop atheism and how it's the trendy thing nowadays. It's not just the internet, I experience it over and over in my daily life.

If you want an example in MMA, take a look at this Frank Mir interview.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/s...article/765046

Quote:
He spoke at length on topics such as religion, calling it 'the retarded stepchild of philosophy'
Quote:
Right now I'm reading the God Delusion from Richard Dawkins and the new book from Christopher Hitchens"¦so I have been primarily focusing on religion of late."
"Just don't care" very much? Atheists go out of their way to ridicule religion the moment anyone listens. There is somehow this ridiculous pretense that they have a casual nonchalance about it, but the very fact that the entire religion registration thread has 95% atheists all spewing ridicule against the one Christian trying to defend his views is an indicator of just how much atheists "don't care".

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
I have no argument with any of this, except that it doesn't actually seem to work that way.

Statistically, if you're an atheist, you're much less likely to go to prison than if you're a Christian.

I actually think that this has almost nothing to do with religion. I think it's motivated by sociology. Given that statistically being an atheist means a higher likelihood of post-secondary education and, as a result, higher rates of employment and income, then there's a major sociological disposition that indicates that (as a group) there would be lower rates of crime.
Right, I'm sure those answers on prison surveys have nothing to do with the fact that their freedom depends on "proving" how reformed and good they are during parole hearings and otherwise, how their new found faith has changed their thinking and made them repent.

If you're going to quote a statistical anomaly, at least quote one where the respondants don't have an HUGE ulterior motive for a certain response. Like having a shot at freedom for example. At least in MMA or the free world people don't have that kind of motivation bias. You might as well cite me opinion polls of how much people in North Korea love their blessed leader Kim Jong Il.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
This is the problem: God's commands are not an invocation of virtue ethics. Divine command theory and virtue ethics are two totally separate theories of ethics, and the notion of "commandment" identifies with the former and not the later.



Actually, I don't think most Christians do that, as much as I'd like that.

The problem is that the Gospels, the Epistles and the entire Old Testament hinges on divine command theory.
Who made this arbitrary distinction that so and so falls under "divine command" and so and so under "virtue ethics"? It's so arbitrary to say, oh if God tells you to be virtuous, well that's a WHOLE ANOTHER thing than if someone else says it. It's the height of semantics.

Try to refute my point on the Gospels not projecting Virtue Ethics. All of of Jesus' words reinforce that virtue is rewarded and sin leads to destruction, that is the core of virtue ethics. How does it suddenly "change the theory" completely if God is the one encouraging virtue ethics?

Most Christians do actually tend to go in order from Gospels -> Epistles -> OT. One example is that you don't see most Christians holding a saturday sabbath, eating Kosher food etc. because of that very precedence i.e. in the Epistles it is stated that God made everything clean to eat and so the OT is negated in that regard.

Only a very small chunk of literalist Christians who think the Bible is the unfallible literal word-for-word written by God kind of thing pretend to take all parts the same, and even they I bet don't go around eating Kosher good and sacrificing bulls to archs. I'm not representing that literalist brand of Christian anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
You're romanticizing and overlooking the role that Ortiz played in MMA. He didn't evolve, which is exactly my point: that is what played a role in his becoming irrelevant, not his lack of religiosity. By the way, there are plenty of other (religious) UFC champions who fell out of the top for exactly the same reason.

It's easy to diminish Ortiz now because he's not a guy at the top, but he was, in his prime, one of the greatest champions in the history of the UFC. When GSP or Anderson or Aldo falls out of the top, we'll be able to assess their career with the same retrospect.
Name one religious (preferably more than token religious and someone who actually tried to be virtuous) UFC champ that fell as drastically and pathetically as Ortiz, at an early stage in his career?

GSP and Aldo may fall, but there is a huge difference in being taken out at 40 by the next young prodigy and being thrashed out by B-levels in your late 20s/early 30s.

Not to mention getting humiliated by an English street goon like Murray at the peak of his career and having his head stomped into the ground. What other guys at the top have such bad experiences? Oh they don't because they're not cocky douches like Ortiz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
Actually, I'm pretty sure that both of those guys are Christians.

Also, I like Frank Mir, as a guy. He's very nice, very knowledgeable and if you're going to spot Matt Hughes for only being a douche during his use (or becoming less douchey over time) then you should extend the same benefit of the doubt to Frank Mir.
Nope. As I already pointed out Mir is a virulent religion basher and atheist, which fits very well into my pattern of things not going right for cocky unrighteous guys. As far as giving him the benefit of the doubt, unlike Hughes Mir seems to make no effort to try to become nicer.

Hughes comes across as a giant douchebag at some points in his book, but you can see at least he's trying to rectify or change his behavior lately. He made amends with Tim Sylvia for example, and he comes across as less cocky nowadays than his early interviews.

Mir on the other hand goes out on a Brock trash talking spree followed by a psychotic obsession on "killing him in the cage". Why I should extend to him the same benefit I give Hughes, I have no idea. He is getting worse, not better.

Vera, yes, a bit more cloudy. He is a cradle catholic, but beyond that he makes ZERO mention of his religion or beliefs, or them playing any role in his life or inspiring him whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan View Post
That's great: these are utilitarian justifications for abstaining from drinking. They are not based on virtue ethics.

My point was not that there aren't good reasons to abstain from drinking. There are. Those reasons are utilitarian in nature.

My point is that virtue ethics is circular.
How are they not based on virtue ethics? The very line

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery" (i.e. Sin - opposite of virtue)

mentions that the reason to not drink too much is to not commit sins/debauchery/unrighteousness like cheating on your wife and sleeping with some skank etc. for example. If you don't believe in virtue ethics, you have no reason to dislike or look down on debauchery... the entire thing hinges on there being some sort of wrong consequences for that kind of thing. It is decidedly un-utilatarian and depends solely on thinking along virtue ethics lines, so I have no idea what your argument is here.

And it's not circular either, I don't know why you keep coming back with this thing. It's virtue ethics based i.e. Get too drunk -> Commit Sins -> Reap personal problems in love & life based on being unvirtuous. It's completely linear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mawrestler125 View Post
Didn't read everything, but I have the solution.

1. God exists -Faulty premise
2. god is all benevolent
3. god is all knowing
4. god is all powerful
5. Evil exists.


God is imaginary and he does not exist. For that matter, evil does not exist either, nor good. The universe is ultimately indifferent to our existence. Good and evil are relative to our species. There is an objective good and evil, however, with regards to the human race. Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory.
Just great, more opinion without any logical argument and even bothering to read the arguments presented here. You bring nothing to the thread except trying to reinforce your own bias and congratulating yourself over your flawless understanding of the world. Congratulations o sage! You have all the answers!
Liddellianenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 05:09 PM   #16 (permalink)
ROCKET FISTS
 
khoveraki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,743
khoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renownkhoveraki Is World Renown
As an agnostic I'm not on either side of this debate therefor I won't register, but I would like to add one thing:



The opening debate introduced one constant that I believe is flawed; which is assuming that seeing evil with the power to stop evil, is in itself evil. I'd like to cite a quick source that proposes a mental state of sadness or depression increases intellectual capacity.

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/lerne...ss_is_good.php


This study implies negativity; ie sadness or depression (malevolence) leads to, or is even the direct causal reason for, progress and inspiration which is inarguably benevolent.



I feel this will be retorted by the famous line:

Quote:
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
But I'd like to counter that with this from the standard American bible:

Quote:
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-9.htm

This seems to imply god wants us to suffer because of others, but to not retaliate, but instead learn, which goes hand in hand with the previously cited article.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent." This is the line in question because it's assuming a constant I disagree with. God can be able to prevent evil but unwilling, without being malevolent, for other reasons.
__________________
WAR CIGANO



sig credit to Limba

lobster train.
khoveraki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 02:23 AM   #17 (permalink)
True Grappler
 
IronMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 6,222
IronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A Baller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liddellianenko View Post
Well the explanation I'm proposing, and that is generally understood from the concept of the soul across various cultures, is that the mind is just a computational and memory storage tool.

The functionality question you're asking really is something akin to "What is the function of a computer?" ... simple really, it's useful for processing information and storing/retrieving memories, and running/interacting in it's own virtual/digital world.

Heck think of it as a computer CPU running one big World of Warcraft MMORPG/Matrix type application if you want to simplify it, though it's more complex than that. But the true "free will" input comes from outside, from the user that is entering input and controlling the mouse and keyboard.

Similarly, the mind itself would be a proxy for the soul on another level. It is useful for storing the memories and experiences of this life, learning and refining skills applicable in it's own virtual world (this life), but the "decision-making" based on that information and computation is made by a user (soul) that is seeing all of this and entering live input where needed.

So basically it's more like your second "if decision making operates based on our experience of the world" scenario ... the input coming from the soul, coming from perhaps a quantum or sub-quantum/extra dimensional level, is aware of the experiences and worldly interactions of the mind and body through their composition down to the quantum level. Based on this information, the decision-making can be carried out by the soul the same way an MMORPG player can make decisions based on what he sees on the computer screen.

The mind itself has no independent decision making, but it's inputs are very much independent, as quantum mechanics have shown that particle mechanics at the quantum level are always random and cannot be predestined to be one way or another even if the entire states of particles are known (as postulated in LaPlace's demon). It is in the form of these random particle collissions that input is entered into the "real world" by the soul.
I'm not sure I'm following this at all, which worries me a little.

Firstly, there is no concept of "the soul" that is cross cultural. Concepts of the soul in various cultures are radically different. The difference between Christian theology and Jewish theology, which are supposed to be at least similar on the issue, are not in the least. Getting into something like a Hindu/Buddhist or shamanistic/animistic view is even worse.

But lets see if I follow where you're going:

(P1) There is a soul which is external to the body.
(P2) The soul acts on the body (at the subatomic level) such that it has control over circumstances (brain states) which elicit particular behaviors.
(P3) Free will resides in the ability of the soul to manipulate behaviors independent of physical causality.

Do I have these wrong? They feel off to me.


Quote:
I don't see why not ... if something cannot be proven one way or another, one is free to believe either side of the explanation based on logic and likelihood.

It's like saying in the 14th century or whenever the germ theory of disease came out almost two centuries before the microscope was invented to actually get empirical proof, "oh well just because you can't disprove these 'germs' doesn't mean they actually exist or have any relevance to disease theory. The theory makes a lot of logical sense of course, but one must continue to believe in Galens humors for healing, it's just stupid to believe otherwise!".

Not all things in science are empirically proven ... Einstein's theory of relativity was revolutionary far before it could be empirically proven. It doesn't make people believing or analyzing the world using that theory idiots. Heck, even macro-evolution isn't empirically proven it's not like anyone's ever seen a species evolve into another, it's based on broad patterns in fossil history.
You're missing the point I was making in the comment.

If you hold a proposition to be true and there is no standard of evidence which could demonstrate the theory to be false, then the applied value of that theory is limited.

When germ theory and theories of evolution and relativity were formed, there was a clear standard of evidence for ways in which they could be demonstrated to be false.

Darwin discusses it extensively. Einstein does as well.

Is there evidence that could demonstrate that (your interpretation of) free will did not exist? Is there evidence that could demonstrate that (your interpretation of) God does not exist?

This is me regurgitating Popper and (later) Flew on falsifiability, but that's where I was getting the point from. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.


Quote:
Well I already clarified that I wasn't just considering American fighters, I was just concentrating on them since we have reliable data for an detecting a statistical anomaly, in a country where there is more diversity in religion than say Brazil.

Just saying something to the effect of "Christians are dumb and uneducated, so you'll find more of them in MMA/sports" is a complete cop out. Some of the best wrestling programs in America are in California, East Coast etc., in the best funded universities, with all backgrounds of people competing in it.

I don't get this obsession with "post-collegiate" education as some sort of indicator of intellect either, and somehow people with just college degrees just being a bunch of unwashed bumpkins. If anything, useless MBAs with no real skills except claiming credit for others work are the dumbasses being fired first in today's economy.

Among the Christian fighters I mentioned, most if not all are college educated, so your casual assumption of assigning their religion to their "poverty/ignorance" is just another instance of an atheist superiority complex bias.
It's not an atheist superiority complex bias.

Post-graduate education directly correlates to higher income levels. That's a fact.

Also, when you say that "most of the top wrestling programs in the country exist in California and the East Coast," you're just plain wrong. Cornell (1) and Penn State (3)have a great wrestling programs, but of the top 25 programs in the country, 14 of them are in the midwest, one is in California (Cal Poly) and 5 or 6 (depending on how you count) are in the midwest.

Here's the difference, the midwestern schools produce a disproportionate number of the top MMA fighters. Though, realistically, very few collegiate wrestlers go on to become high profile MMA fighters, just because there are so few high profile MMA fighters contrasted with All-Americans.

Very few MMA fighters come from middle- or upper-class backgrounds. That was my point. It's not a pejorative, it's strictly observational.


Quote:
Corrent on the Agnostics, dead wrong on atheists, at least based on any casual observation. Just go out on the internet, every comments thread, website, yahoo answers, stumbleupon, forum etc. is filled with absolutely virulent Christianity bashing. Every 13 year old with a keyboard is extolling the virtues of Flying Spaghetti Monster and patting himself on his back with a smug smile over his wit and "original" intellect. You yourself have started a thread on Pop atheism and how it's the trendy thing nowadays. It's not just the internet, I experience it over and over in my daily life.

If you want an example in MMA, take a look at this Frank Mir interview.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/s...article/765046

"Just don't care" very much? Atheists go out of their way to ridicule religion the moment anyone listens. There is somehow this ridiculous pretense that they have a casual nonchalance about it, but the very fact that the entire religion registration thread has 95% atheists all spewing ridicule against the one Christian trying to defend his views is an indicator of just how much atheists "don't care".
Actually, this particular criticism is fine. The point I was trying to make was about the advocacy of conversion, but that's actually a reasonable defense.

By the way, my criticism of "pop atheism" is not a critique of "mocking religion." Nietzsche does it (very, very well) and so did plenty of other philosophers. My critique is of the grounding of popular arguments (like the Pastafarian approach) and their relevance with respect to the way that they treat traditional philosophical arguments which are just orders of magnitude more powerful, because the analogies are more grounded and the historical impetus and lengthy debate makes them more easily defended.


Quote:
Right, I'm sure those answers on prison surveys have nothing to do with the fact that their freedom depends on "proving" how reformed and good they are during parole hearings and otherwise, how their new found faith has changed their thinking and made them repent.

If you're going to quote a statistical anomaly, at least quote one where the respondants don't have an HUGE ulterior motive for a certain response. Like having a shot at freedom for example. At least in MMA or the free world people don't have that kind of motivation bias. You might as well cite me opinion polls of how much people in North Korea love their blessed leader Kim Jong Il.
All of the polling is conducted anonymously, as is standard operating procedure for any reasonable polling sample. The idea that asserting "I've converted to Christianity" would make it more likely for a prisoner to get out on good behavior is a little troubling, but I guess given the general association of the words "Christian" and "good person" that isn't surprising.

Quote:
Who made this arbitrary distinction that so and so falls under "divine command" and so and so under "virtue ethics"? It's so arbitrary to say, oh if God tells you to be virtuous, well that's a WHOLE ANOTHER thing than if someone else says it. It's the height of semantics.
You're missing the distinction here.

Divine command theory perhaps I should've used the term "theological voluntarism") is the theory that the moral value of an action is derived from the moral command from god.

Virtue ethics is the theory that the moral value of the action is derived from the way in which the action promotes intrinsically virtuous behavior, behavior which forms habits that lead to personal betterment.

These are mutually exclusive because they both independently derive the concept of "moral action." It's not semantic.


Quote:
Try to refute my point on the Gospels not projecting Virtue Ethics. All of of Jesus' words reinforce that virtue is rewarded and sin leads to destruction, that is the core of virtue ethics. How does it suddenly "change the theory" completely if God is the one encouraging virtue ethics?

Most Christians do actually tend to go in order from Gospels -> Epistles -> OT. One example is that you don't see most Christians holding a saturday sabbath, eating Kosher food etc. because of that very precedence i.e. in the Epistles it is stated that God made everything clean to eat and so the OT is negated in that regard.

Only a very small chunk of literalist Christians who think the Bible is the unfallible literal word-for-word written by God kind of thing pretend to take all parts the same, and even they I bet don't go around eating Kosher good and sacrificing bulls to archs. I'm not representing that literalist brand of Christian anyway.
Actually, polling indicates that number isn't very small at all. And I'm pretty sure that the section you're alluding to is in Acts, though I'd have to double check. But that's beside the point.

But I'm trying to get some terms ironed out here. I probably should have done this earlier.

Ethics is the practice of moral actions, and so different systems of ethics differ because they differ in defining what constitutes a moral action, a "good" action.

Theological volunteerism (the term I'm switching to because, as SEP points out "Divine Command Theory" is a weak term) determines the moral value of an action based on the expressed view of God in the text.

Virtue ethics determines the moral value of an action based on whether or not the action promotes a virtue in and of itself.

God can promote virtue ethics. My point is that he doesn't. The text in the Bible clearly does not instruct you to partake in the action because of the intrinsic character of the action (the virtue that it cultivates) but because of the instruction from God.

Also, the opposite of virtue isn't "Sin." The opposite of virtue is vice, which (accord to virtue ethicists) is simply the antithesis of the intrinsic moral character of a particular virtue.

A "Sin" is an action of inferior moral quality. "Sin" is synonymous with "bad action."

If God supported virtue ethics in the text, then a "Sin" would be an action that promoted "vice," in contrast to "virtue."


Quote:
Name one religious (preferably more than token religious and someone who actually tried to be virtuous) UFC champ that fell as drastically and pathetically as Ortiz, at an early stage in his career?
There is no parallel for Ortiz at any stage of his career. How many UFC champions had defended their title 6 times at the age of 28? Frank Shamrock, who left the UFC and didn't really fight anymore until '07?Hughes was 31, or around there, when he had his initial loss to B.J. Penn, but even that's a little ridiculous as a comparison.

But what if we go back 15 years to a fellow named Royce Gracie, who at 29 years old had won three of four UFC tournaments, was a poster child for the sport including the second most prominent member of his generation in the family. A practicing Catholic, to the best of my knowledge, fell from grace after his embarrassing draw with Ken Shamrock leaving the sport for almost five years in disgrace.

It's not as dramatic but Ortiz's issues far predate his becoming champion of the UFC. I think it's fair hard to make someone a poster child for secular UFC champions when he has a life as screwed up as Tito's prior to coming into the organization.

That, of course, is my point.


Quote:
GSP and Aldo may fall, but there is a huge difference in being taken out at 40 by the next young prodigy and being thrashed out by B-levels in your late 20s/early 30s.

Not to mention getting humiliated by an English street goon like Murray at the peak of his career and having his head stomped into the ground. What other guys at the top have such bad experiences? Oh they don't because they're not cocky douches like Ortiz.
There are two problems with this. The first is that your history is wrong. At no point in his career has Ortiz ever been thrashed by a "B-level." His losses since losing his title to Randy Couture are to Couture, Chuck Liddell, Lyoto Machida, Forrest Griffin and Matt Hamill. The fight with Hamill took place when Ortiz was 35, an age where fighters who generally peak early are often considered "past their prime."

Of those guys I just named, all but one of them (Hamill, obviously) was either a title holder at the time or was a title holder either a year before or after the belt was held.

And, again, while I think there's legitimate criticism to be made of Ortiz for "not fighting anybody" during the period following his first loss to Chuck Liddell, and not performing that well against the decent competition he did face, I don't know who you're thinking of when talking about getting "thrashed out by B-level guys."

You can keep bashing Ortiz is you want to, but calling his ego responsible for a loss in a street fight is a little ridiculous. Despite the fact that I'm one of the firmest defenders of that story as true (having multiple second hand accounts of it which seem reliable) street fights are horrible indicators of MMA performance, and the idea that there wasn't a sucker punch involved, or some sort of mitigating factor, especially given the fogginess of the circumstances and the shadiness of Murray, is a little ridiculous.

Also, you're welcome to consider Lee Murray a shady SOB, but please have some respect for his ability as a fighter.


Quote:
Nope. As I already pointed out Mir is a virulent religion basher and atheist, which fits very well into my pattern of things not going right for cocky unrighteous guys. As far as giving him the benefit of the doubt, unlike Hughes Mir seems to make no effort to try to become nicer.

Hughes comes across as a giant douchebag at some points in his book, but you can see at least he's trying to rectify or change his behavior lately. He made amends with Tim Sylvia for example, and he comes across as less cocky nowadays than his early interviews.

Mir on the other hand goes out on a Brock trash talking spree followed by a psychotic obsession on "killing him in the cage". Why I should extend to him the same benefit I give Hughes, I have no idea. He is getting worse, not better.
Apart from your very selective reading of Mir interviews (I strongly recommend listening to his discussion of the second Lesnar fight) I'm making a point that you're giving Hughes a generous reading and Mir a harsh one. And I think that's still right.

Hughes doesn't just come off as a douchebag in his book, he comes off as disingenuous. I'm happy to give Hughes the generous reading, because I have reason to believe he's a nice guy under other circumstances.

I also have reason to believe that Mir is a nice guy. He's also a smart guy, and he gets himself hyped up for fights the same way that a large number of fighters do, by thinking of his opponent as the enemy. If you read his interviews and you think "this guy is a sadistic bastard," that's fine. But present the context of it, understand the function that it serves in that context and then see if that animosity exists outside of that context.

Like Hughes, sometimes Mir just says stuff that sounds arrogant or disingenuous or stupid. But, like Hughes, sometimes Mir has moments of lucidity, and I'm willing to be that those moments of lucidity that I can see indicate a person who has some emotional depth, and isn't just a heel.


Quote:
Vera, yes, a bit more cloudy. He is a cradle catholic, but beyond that he makes ZERO mention of his religion or beliefs, or them playing any role in his life or inspiring him whatsoever.
Fine. I've already excluded this as an irrelevant standard of evidence, so if you want to pull a No True Scotsman, I really don't care that much.

Quote:
How are they not based on virtue ethics? The very line

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery" (i.e. Sin - opposite of virtue)

mentions that the reason to not drink too much is to not commit sins/debauchery/unrighteousness like cheating on your wife and sleeping with some skank etc. for example. If you don't believe in virtue ethics, you have no reason to dislike or look down on debauchery... the entire thing hinges on there being some sort of wrong consequences for that kind of thing. It is decidedly un-utilatarian and depends solely on thinking along virtue ethics lines, so I have no idea what your argument is here.

And it's not circular either, I don't know why you keep coming back with this thing. It's virtue ethics based i.e. Get too drunk -> Commit Sins -> Reap personal problems in love & life based on being unvirtuous. It's completely linear.
Again, you think that "sin" is the opposite of "virtue." This is not right.

"Sin" is the Biblical generic for "immoral action," or "bad action." "Vice" is the opposite of virtue.

Again, if the reason not to partake in drink were because of the intrinsic promotion of vice in the act of drinking, then that would be a promotion of virtue ethics.

Actually, in hindsight, this isn't even theological volunteerism. This is utilitarianism/consequentialism. It isn't related to the promotion of vice in character, but to external, material consequences.


Quote:
Just great, more opinion without any logical argument and even bothering to read the arguments presented here. You bring nothing to the thread except trying to reinforce your own bias and congratulating yourself over your flawless understanding of the world. Congratulations o sage! You have all the answers!
I realize this isn't directed at me, but as someone who criticized my tone early in this thread, and as someone who presumably doesn't appreciate hypocrisy, this is a little ridiculous.

EDIT: Khov asked me to check out his post. I've been swamped with some non-MMA work recently, so I haven't been around that much, but I figured I'd make the appropriate edits to address his post and try to get this rolling again, regardless of whether or not I have time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by khoveraki
The opening debate introduced one constant that I believe is flawed; which is assuming that seeing evil with the power to stop evil, is in itself evil. I'd like to cite a quick source that proposes a mental state of sadness or depression increases intellectual capacity.

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/lerne...ss_is_good.php


This study implies negativity; ie sadness or depression (malevolence) leads to, or is even the direct causal reason for, progress and inspiration which is inarguably benevolent.
It's not that simple. Here we get into an issue of necessary and sufficient conditions. One can argue that some degree of suffering is causally necessary for producing the "best possible world." One of my professors (who teaches Leibniz; one of the more interesting philosophers to work on this problem) pointed it out rather simply: There is a possible world with the maximum amount of suffering which can be responsible for human progress, where no suffering is not responsible for some sort of progress.

Obviously, this is a utilitarian model of "world assessment," but I've found it pretty compelling. Here's the thing: that property is not a property of the actual world.

Nietzsche (unlike Leibniz, not a Christian) said something to the effect of: "That which doesn't destroy me makes me stronger." That's great. Those things which don't destroy you may occur in the "best of all possible worlds." However, one would presume, then, that those things which might destroy you would be conspicuously absent. In the actual world, there are plenty of things that can destroy you.

I'm not a cynic. I don't think the world is a 'bad' place, where everyone is out to get you. But every year diarrhea kills 1.5 million children under the age of 5. That's not offering inspiration or progress.


Quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent." This is the line in question because it's assuming a constant I disagree with. God can be able to prevent evil but unwilling, without being malevolent, for other reasons.
If (and only if) you only observe a very limited scope of the 'evil' in the world, you can justify the abstinence of God. Perhaps you can justify the suffering caused by human agents, if you believe in human agency. I don't. That's a metaphysical and ethical position, and I feel like I've defended it reasonably well up to this point.

Even if that isn't the case, though, you still have 1.5 million kids under 5 dying as a result of diarrhea. Are human agents responsible? Only in their failure to act, in which case they are in the same moral category as God. The difference, of course, is that the power of human agents is limited (by time, resources, infrastructure, etc.), while the power of God is not. To allow children to die when one has the means to prevent it, you may not want to apply the term 'evil,' but it is certain disturbing.
__________________


Sig by Toxic

Barnett - Toquinho -Werdum - "Nurmie"
Z. Gurgel - Morango - Rocha - Tiequan
IronMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 04:22 AM   #18 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
hadoq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,018
hadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledgehadoq Is True Champion Of Knowledge
Just registered for debate, I hope it'll be alright.

So I'll try to get back on 1st topic/OP here

Again, I think the problem here is people interpreting what shouldn't be.

as I see it, we each have both god and evil in ourselves, it's a struggle that takes place every day, in each of our decisions.

Going for an evil way would probably bring immediate and easy reward, but long term issues
Going for a good way is harder, but rewarding in the long run, making us better human beings overall

And this is where free will comes into play, we are given the choice between good and evil, and this choice will determine our life (and possibly afterlife, I don't yet have a clear opinion on this one)


God has a say in this battle as god is a part of each of us (as well as his/hers/its counterpart)

The battle between good & evil doesn't take place in our world, but in our hearts, in our very lives.

Comes judgment day (whatever that means), the way we chose to live our lives will determine our fate.

We're sinners, evil is inside of each and everyone of us, if we embrace god, it/he/she'll help us to overcome this inner evil (or the famous "inner me/enemy" slice was talking about, in the sense that we are our worst enemies).

if you have faith, you'll be able to fight against your evil part, faith gives you the courage and strength to get back up and get better every day, to deal with the worst that happens to you.

As I see it, evil has a purpose and this purpose is to test our faith, or even reveal it.
hadoq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 12:35 AM   #19 (permalink)
CoutureCop
 
Davisty69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 6,091
Davisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For GreatnessDavisty69 Is Destined For Greatness
Quote:
Originally Posted by hadoq View Post
Just registered for debate, I hope it'll be alright.

So I'll try to get back on 1st topic/OP here

Again, I think the problem here is people interpreting what shouldn't be.

as I see it, we each have both god and evil in ourselves, it's a struggle that takes place every day, in each of our decisions.

Going for an evil way would probably bring immediate and easy reward, but long term issues
Going for a good way is harder, but rewarding in the long run, making us better human beings overall

And this is where free will comes into play, we are given the choice between good and evil, and this choice will determine our life (and possibly afterlife, I don't yet have a clear opinion on this one)


God has a say in this battle as god is a part of each of us (as well as his/hers/its counterpart)

The battle between good & evil doesn't take place in our world, but in our hearts, in our very lives.

Comes judgment day (whatever that means), the way we chose to live our lives will determine our fate.

We're sinners, evil is inside of each and everyone of us, if we embrace god, it/he/she'll help us to overcome this inner evil (or the famous "inner me/enemy" slice was talking about, in the sense that we are our worst enemies).

if you have faith, you'll be able to fight against your evil part, faith gives you the courage and strength to get back up and get better every day, to deal with the worst that happens to you.

As I see it, evil has a purpose and this purpose is to test our faith, or even reveal it.
Sorry bud, but you are confusing the Problem of evil. It implies the standard Judeo christian version of GOD, which presupposes certain characteristics of said GOD.

Your ideas of GOD are all well and good, but they don't apply to this argument.

As to the argument, I would love to post imput but You two guys have said so much on it I don't even know where to begin.

(p.s., I got my bachelors in Philosophy, and love this topic, so I'd love to get involved if any of you want to bring up any part of it again. )
__________________

Check out MMAforum.com's
Top 25 Fights to show a new MMA fan!!

http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/69374-to...ml#post1079252
Davisty69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 12:54 PM   #20 (permalink)
True Grappler
 
IronMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 6,222
IronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A BallerIronMan Is A Baller
I'll respond to both posts, because I think there are some things that need to be addressed in both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadoq View Post
Just registered for debate, I hope it'll be alright.

So I'll try to get back on 1st topic/OP here
Sounds good. Glad to have you on the thread.

Quote:
Again, I think the problem here is people interpreting what shouldn't be.

as I see it, we each have both god and evil in ourselves, it's a struggle that takes place every day, in each of our decisions.

Going for an evil way would probably bring immediate and easy reward, but long term issues
Going for a good way is harder, but rewarding in the long run, making us better human beings overall

And this is where free will comes into play, we are given the choice between good and evil, and this choice will determine our life (and possibly afterlife, I don't yet have a clear opinion on this one)
The issue isn't why good people do bad things. The "free will" argument is fine (though still has some implications) with respect to personal decision making.

The issue is why 4 year olds die from famine and diarrhea. Could a compassionate being, with the capacity to stop it, allow it to happen?

Epicurus doesn't seem to think so. Neither do I.


Quote:
God has a say in this battle as god is a part of each of us (as well as his/hers/its counterpart)

The battle between good & evil doesn't take place in our world, but in our hearts, in our very lives.

Comes judgment day (whatever that means), the way we chose to live our lives will determine our fate.

We're sinners, evil is inside of each and everyone of us, if we embrace god, it/he/she'll help us to overcome this inner evil (or the famous "inner me/enemy" slice was talking about, in the sense that we are our worst enemies).

if you have faith, you'll be able to fight against your evil part, faith gives you the courage and strength to get back up and get better every day, to deal with the worst that happens to you.
Again, all of this is referential to personal decision making, which isn't the issue.

Quote:
As I see it, evil has a purpose and this purpose is to test our faith, or even reveal it.
The way I've qualified the word "evil" in the last two pages of posts makes it a little tricky for your claim here.

Do you mean to say that a child who dies from dehydration induced by diarrhea has to do so to test our faith? Or a child who dies from progeria? Or a child who is born with his heart outside of his body?

That seems pretty ethically problematic for God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Davisty69 View Post
Sorry bud, but you are confusing the Problem of evil. It implies the standard Judeo christian version of GOD, which presupposes certain characteristics of said GOD.

Your ideas of GOD are all well and good, but they don't apply to this argument.

As to the argument, I would love to post imput but You two guys have said so much on it I don't even know where to begin.

(p.s., I got my bachelors in Philosophy, and love this topic, so I'd love to get involved if any of you want to bring up any part of it again. )
Feel free to jump in wherever you see a quibble, D. That's what I tend to do in threads, as a general rule.

This is off topic, but you'll not that I bolded the word "Judeo-Christian." This is probably the most irritating term that ever comes up. It's a word invented by right-wing Christians in the U.S. during the 1950s to help deputize Orthodox and Conservative Jews into the conservative "family values" movement.

This conception of God does not have nearly the prevalence in Jewish theology that it does in Christian theology. I've written a little bit on this topic (though, if I recall, this discussion occurs primarily in the footnotes) in an article I published last year. (the PDF is available if you click "The Two Gods of Monotheism")
__________________


Sig by Toxic

Barnett - Toquinho -Werdum - "Nurmie"
Z. Gurgel - Morango - Rocha - Tiequan
IronMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios