The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 06, 2012, 11:35:27 PM

Title: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 06, 2012, 11:35:27 PM
I'm making up a new rule, and naming it after myself.

The Diogenes The Cynic rule posits that in order to hold a belief non-dogmatically, and be able to discuss it rationally, a person must be able to articulate under what conditions they would abandon their belief.

I think using this nifty little tool could weed out a lot of people who can't be reasoned with.

But just for fun, apply it to your own most closely held beliefs, and tell us what would make you question them.

Example: I sincerely believe in the truth and validity of the Bible, but would question this belief if archeologists found a series of closely related stories that predated the Bible that talked about the same events, effectively showing an evolution to the Bible canon.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: alaric89 on August 06, 2012, 11:55:33 PM
I would abandon my belief in evolution if scientists found a new theory and gathered evidence supporting that theory. If someone found scripture made by neandrathals disputing the bible by saying they noticed that a frog turned into a lizard and wrote in urine on a cave wall "like, wow man, evolution..." I would assume that said cave man found some sort of drug.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: SeanD on August 08, 2012, 02:23:32 AM
The problem with this of course is that many people have not found the circumstance under which abandon beliefs.  Therefore they can not imagine it to post it.

I however may be willing to whore my beliefs and abandon them for a first class blow job.*



















*Dependent on looks of cocksucker and quality of said cock sucking.  Thus a decision of abandonment will not be decided until after the money shot.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 08, 2012, 03:56:09 AM
The problem with this of course is that many people have not found the circumstance under which abandon beliefs.  Therefore they can not imagine it to post it.

I however may be willing to whore my beliefs and abandon them for a first class blow job.*

*Dependent on looks of cocksucker and quality of said cock sucking.  Thus a decision of abandonment will not be decided until after the money shot.

C'mon man, you can't think of possible flaws in any of your beliefs?
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Turd Ferguson on August 08, 2012, 10:29:31 AM
I'd abandon my belief that I have no fucking clue how the universe was created and also have no fucking clue if there is a god or not, if god himself materialized right in front of me for proof, then explained to me how it all came about.


Of course, this could just be a demon or an alien sent to fuck with me and make me believe in something that isnt really the whole story.


Having said that, I guess there is really no scenario that would make me abandon my beliefs, because I would just think it was a grand conspiracy, set up to mess with my head.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 08, 2012, 08:22:59 PM
I'd abandon my belief that I have no fucking clue how the universe was created and also have no fucking clue if there is a god or not, if god himself materialized right in front of me for proof, then explained to me how it all came about.


Of course, this could just be a demon or an alien sent to fuck with me and make me believe in something that isnt really the whole story.


Having said that, I guess there is really no scenario that would make me abandon my beliefs, because I would just think it was a grand conspiracy, set up to mess with my head.

So, you're admitting you hold your beliefs dogmatically. At least you're honest about it.

BTW, G-d can't materialize in front of you, because G-d having a corporeal body would limit Him, thereby making him not all-powerful. Also, how do you know that what you know now isn't from an evil deceiver?
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Turd Ferguson on August 08, 2012, 08:57:23 PM
BTW, G-d can't materialize in front of you, because G-d having a corporeal body would limit Him, thereby making him not all-powerful.

Couldn't he just create a hologram of himself and blast it down to earth as a substitute?
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: dalebert on August 08, 2012, 09:26:02 PM
It's called an avatar. It's how deities interact with mortals. It's like a tiny piece of the deity or just a projection of the deity's mind. Not saying I believe in them or anything. Just it's a little silly to say deity X cannot do Y because he's all powerful. WUT
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: John Shaw on August 09, 2012, 12:37:22 AM
It's called an avatar. It's how deities interact with mortals.

It amuses me that Dungeons and Dragons abstractions* are more coherent and consistent than religious ones.




*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: dalebert on August 09, 2012, 01:43:40 AM
*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P

It's where I got the vocabulary initially, but the concept is fairly universal I think. In the show, Supernatural, it's called a vessel. Castielle (sp?) is an angel and he explains that his true form is vast and nearly beyond the comprehension of the human mind, but he inhabits a human body so he can interact with mortals. Similar idea.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: John Shaw on August 09, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P

It's where I got the vocabulary initially, but the concept is fairly universal I think. In the show, Supernatural, it's called a vessel. Castielle (sp?) is an angel and he explains that his true form is vast and nearly beyond the comprehension of the human mind, but he inhabits a human body so he can interact with mortals. Similar idea.

I was just making a D&D funny because I had nothing else useful to add.

Personally my favorite avatar of gawd was Bud Cort playing him at the beginning of Dogma as th old skee ball addict.

Because Bud Cort is a pimp.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Turd Ferguson on August 09, 2012, 02:42:01 PM
Because Bud Cort is a pimp.


.....and he was also the inspiration for the Where's Waldo character.


(http://www.alifeatthemovies.com/images/2010/06/brewster-mccloud.jpg)
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: dalebert on August 09, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Because Bud Cort is a pimp.

He was awesome in Harold and Maude.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 10, 2012, 09:19:17 PM
BTW, G-d can't materialize in front of you, because G-d having a corporeal body would limit Him, thereby making him not all-powerful.

Couldn't he just create a hologram of himself and blast it down to earth as a substitute?

G-d's infinite, right? Can you subtract a number from infinity? Think back to high school math.

BTW, G-d can't make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, square circles, or anything else like that. Some things G-d "can't" do.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 10, 2012, 09:22:13 PM
It's called an avatar. It's how deities interact with mortals.

It amuses me that Dungeons and Dragons abstractions* are more coherent and consistent than religious ones.




*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P

For such a smart guy, you do have a big blindspot when it comes to this subject.

Its like object permanence. Stuff is still there, even if you don't see it, and things make sense to other people, even if they don't make sense to you. Have you considered that its you?
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: dalebert on August 10, 2012, 09:43:08 PM
G-d's infinite, right? Can you subtract a number from infinity? Think back to high school math.

BTW, G-d can't make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, square circles, or anything else like that. Some things G-d "can't" do.

None of that is any reason why God (if it exists) can't make an avatar.

You're sounding pretty dogmatic about this.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Turd Ferguson on August 10, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
It's called an avatar. It's how deities interact with mortals.

It amuses me that Dungeons and Dragons abstractions* are more coherent and consistent than religious ones.




*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P

For such a smart guy, you do have a big blindspot when it comes to this subject.

Its like object permanence. Stuff is still there, even if you don't see it, and things make sense to other people, even if they don't make sense to you. Have you considered that its you?


(http://www.elisabethhubert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pink-unicorn.png)
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on August 10, 2012, 10:05:36 PM
It's called an avatar. It's how deities interact with mortals.

It amuses me that Dungeons and Dragons abstractions* are more coherent and consistent than religious ones.




*Yeah yeah I know but I bet that's where you first heard of avatars, just like the rest of us. :-P

For such a smart guy, you do have a big blindspot when it comes to this subject.

Its like object permanence. Stuff is still there, even if you don't see it, and things make sense to other people, even if they don't make sense to you. Have you considered that its you?


(http://www.elisabethhubert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pinunicorn.png)

Thats almost amusing.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Bill Brasky on August 11, 2012, 03:50:29 AM
Believe what you want..

But  -- realize, everything you believe is probably the thread-bare ends of a tale of a tale. 

All that stuff is moral allegorical tools.  They say Jesus gave sight to the blind...  and really, shouldn't we all try to do that?  If we care about stuff, shouldn't we bleed a little for it? 

These are instructional tools, teaching devices.  C'mon, people. 

I would even go so far as to say Jesus was probably an actual person, who lived, and was crucified, and had a following.  Won't even dispute that.  Nor will I dispute any of the so-called deities who were living incarnate. 

What I question is, if they were actual deities.  I think they were just rock stars of their days.   



Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: dalebert on August 11, 2012, 10:44:32 AM
I would even go so far as to say Jesus was probably an actual person, who lived, and was crucified, and had a following.

I don't even believe that, personally. The evidence implies that Jesus' existence began about 100 years or so after he actually supposed to have been around. He seems concocted from a bunch of stories, many of which had been around since long before his birth and used for other messiahs/avatars of other religions.
Title: Re: Defeating Dogma
Post by: Bill Brasky on August 13, 2012, 02:21:27 AM
I would even go so far as to say Jesus was probably an actual person, who lived, and was crucified, and had a following.

I don't even believe that, personally. The evidence implies that Jesus' existence began about 100 years or so after he actually supposed to have been around. He seems concocted from a bunch of stories, many of which had been around since long before his birth and used for other messiahs/avatars of other religions.


I donno, wasn't around.  (hence, usage of the "probably")

Lots of historical figures are shrouded in controversy of their physical existence.  King Arthur is a good example of that. 

In any case, whether real, or created - there are basically two reasons to support their existence - it was probably hard to get myths to go "viral", and people like to exaggerate tales.  Therefore, I think its more likely that the person existed, and tales of grandeur were probably heaped upon the living dude, who was probably just some ultra-charismatic person.

The people who were "world-changers" during that era were already bigger than life, exalted as living gods.  All your Caesar types, Alexander the Great, the Pharaohs.. 

I'm not arguing pro or con, remember - I'm just saying, it seems more likely to me that there was some living person who that stuff was attributed to. 

Even if it was a scam, its much harder to pull off a scam with no dude playing the role.