by uomo_senza_nome ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 10 - 31 of 31 Search these comments
You ever read Socrates you idiot? Wow.
I have never read a book by Socrates. There's a really good reason why, maybe you can tell me.
Go for it...Plato Socrates and the Cave...read something from the greatest philosophers in the world.
Oh boy.
read a book by Socrates.
thunderlips11 says
read a book by Socrates.
Not possible.
1. There were no books at the time of Socrates, only scrolls.
2. Socrates did not write. Rather, his lectures and allegories where written down by his pupil, Plato.
I have never read a book by Socrates. There's a really good reason why, maybe you can tell me.
2. Socrates did not write. Rather, his lectures and allegories where written down by his pupil, Plato.
That's the reason. Six Pack of Virtual Beer for Dan.
But of course, you are smarter than they were....course. Wow.
What was Socrates put to death for again?
Oh yeah. Not believing in the city's gods, and corrupting the youth.
Back to the original question.
Here is the purpose of religious debate:
I think some clearification may be needed:
1) what is a debate? (this alone could take weeks of debate - hay, a funny!)
2) why debate? (again, a debate about why/when/how/ to debate)
3) what is religion? (hmmm, could take a while)
4) why debate religion? Well, you would debate cause, effect, base, attitude, direction, power, position, ... heck, exchange "religion" for "government" or "society" ... the same answers might be found. I dunno.
Nobody on here ever read anything wrote by Plato. You read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by Plato.
Nobody on here ever read anything wrote by Plato. You read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by someone that read something wrote by Plato.
I read the Symposium and the Republic. Granted, it was years ago.
Found the whole thing about the hermaphrodite being being split into two to be bizarre. The Symposium was interesting because it shows the basis for Western Civilization rests on a few drunken pederasts.
you read the original? Or a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation?
you read the original? Or a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation?
The latter, just like the The Order of Things, the Histories, the Conquest of Gaul, Germania, the OT, NT, and Koran.
Right.
It seems like most of what is wrote in those early collections, that is attributed to oral communications from earlier philosi, is questioned a great deal by anyone who lacks faith. The OT is an example.
You have faith that what you read was actually what Plato wrote, and that THAT was what Socretes said. That is faith. Right?
You have faith that what you read was actually what Plato wrote, and that THAT was what Socretes said. That is faith. Right?
Here's the difference, Bap. Plato presents Socrates as offering ideas - and debating others' ideas - about how the world is ordered and how people think. He isn't claiming that Socrates knows that 'true love' can only be between Men, and those who prefer to love Women aren't going to the Land of Ideal Forms, because the Omnipotent Creator God told him so. At most, Plato presents Socrates as one Fart Smeller, but he does not put Socrates on the level of an agent of the Absolute Divine Truth like Mohammed.
Plato's books summarize conversations arising out of the ancient Greek version of a Dorm Room Bull Session or a Salon Discussion.
The religious books are claimed as absolutely true words of the Sky God, as told to his Prophets.
Synopsis of a Bullshit Session vs. Absolute Claims of Divine Truth.
It's much more important that the latter suffer no bad translations or copyist errors, right?
The smartest people throughout the centuries acknowleged God or gods.
IF that graph had been drawn by Newton, Einstein or Hawking, I think instead of a simple line with slope - 1, they would have used something more like an exponential decay curve.
Obviously man never gets to where he knows everything. Especially concerning questions such as why ?
Here's an interesting question. On a scale of 0 to 10, with zero representing knowing nothing and 10 representing us knowing everything, where would you put us ?
Note: By knowing something I mean that at least one human has figured it out and it is accepted as probably true. What I don't mean by everything is knowing the nearly impossible (such as geography of planets on the other side of the universe).
Synopsis of a Bullshit Session vs. Absolute Claims of Divine Truth.
It's much more important that the latter suffer no bad translations or copyist errors, right?
I agree 100%
I happen to believe that the Word of God was passed down in that exact Bull Session manner in the early human days. Just a bunch of guys around the camp fire listening to Gramps tell that flood story one more time. The transition to absolutes came later. And, then, in my opinion, when Jesus showed up he went about things old school style ... teaching God's word and sharing God's "intent" in a more laid-back manner while teaching in the churches, and that pissed off the absolutists running things at that time. Just my gut talking.
Reminds me of an old joke: "A young monk, new to the monastery, noticed that the scribes were copying the scriptures from copies, not originals. He expressed his concern to the abbot that any mistakes in the copies would be passed on, and the scriptures would become corrupted. The abbot replied that this is the way it had always been done but the point was valid, and he would check it out. He descended into the vaults to look over the originals, and he was gone a long time. With some concern, the young monk went looking for him and found him sobbing with abandon, his tears pouring upon his frock. "What is the matter, my good abbot?" asked the monk, to which the abbot choked out, "In the original, the word was 'celebrate'!""
Also, here's an epic facebook debate on discovery vs. Belief, pretty amazing:
IF that graph had been drawn by Newton, Einstein or Hawking, I think instead of a simple line with slope - 1, they would have used something more like an exponential decay curve.
That makes no sense for two reasons. First, the graph given by thunderlips11 shows the "role of god" as a function of "knowledge of man", not as a function of time. Even if mankind's knowledge was asymptotically approaching a finite value, the "role of god" as a function of knowledge would not be an exponential decay. Sure, the "role of god" as a function of time might, but not as a function of knowledge.
Second, if anything, mankind's knowledge has been increasing exponentially. We have learned more in the past century than in all centuries before that. We have learned more in the past 50 years than in the 200 before that. We have learned more in the past 25 years than in the 75 before that. If anything, you should be scared shitless how quickly man is learning things and acquiring power over nature.
Many of us are already at the "God explains nothing" point even without complete knowledge. Eventually, all this faith based nonsense will die out. The quicker the better, but it will go away.
It is as inevitable as ending slavery, woman's suffrage, gay marriage, and the rights of sentient robots (yeah, that's coming too baby, just give a century or two). Society will, by necessity, always move towards ending injustices in the long run despite whatever setbacks religion throws at it.
for there to be "injustices", there must be justice. From whence does man's faith/hope/belief in justice spark?
for there to be "injustices", there must be justice. From whence does man's faith/hope/belief in justice spark?
Same place as chimps', meerkats', squirrels' come from: social living and evolution. Our sense of justice is a fine tuning of work-a-day solutions to common problems in group living that any social species experiences. Watch Animal Planet; it's awesome.
then justice is not anchored, but slides along? That seems like a problem. I don't see how justice can be sought, if what justice is can be "adjusted" by time, event, or situation. That would make justice realitive. Is it?
who was the Socretes or Plato for the chimps, meerkats, squirrels, octopuss, intestinal tract bacteria? (just kidding, dont flip out. lol)
I happen to believe that there is such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong. God is the creator of all of them. God created them, and then named them, and then created beings and allowed them the freedom to choose between good/evil. Angles first, and then humans. God did not create the beings so they could find what is good or what is evil, that was already known and a given. Good and evil were created before Angles and man. So, in my humble mind, justice was created when good and evil were created, and just like simple things, such as getting in line to wait your turn, justice is a tool God gave to man to help man create complex social structures that function well. Justice, while open to personal interpratation, is not a subject to evolution. In my most humble opinion.
Aslo, I do not watch animal chows and affex human attributes to their actions. I have been up to my eyeballs in animals my entire life. They absolutly do have personality and act in particular ways. But, they do not human level good, evil, or justice, to any situation they face. They use safety, hunger, pack, heard, or flock if ut is a pack, heard, flock type of animal, and sex. I have not yet seen an animal seek justice. Heck, few humans today seek justice! lol
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,199,971 comments by 14,181 users - Ceffer online now