'Society Needs Religion' Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If emotions, numbers, and other abstract objects didn’t exist, it would be impossible to be aware of them or manipulate them. Unless you’re claiming to be from Vulcan, I’m pretty sure you experience emotions just like everyone else.

Or course, that doesn’t imply emotions are concrete objects. Just because you’re aware of an emotion inside your head doesn’t mean it physically exists in the universe, any more than being aware of a god inside your head means it physically exists in the universe. Buddha, Jesus, and Thor exist as abstract objects, but it doesn’t make them real in a material sense.[/quote]

No one experiences emotions the same. But I claim I don’t, and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Ah, so god exists. Why do you choose to believe and have faith in some abstract concepts and not others?[/quote]

If you have no emotions, how does that prove others don’t have emotions?

In an abstract object sense, all gods exist.

What abstract concepts are you under the impression I believe vs disbelieve?
[/quote]

You believe in numbers, right and wrong, est. On what bases do you choose what abstract concepts you do vs. don’t believe in?[/quote]

Give me an example of an abstract concept I don’t believe in. Why are you assuming there is one?[/quote]

god…[/quote]

Did you see my post above where I said all gods exist as abstract objects?

Just because I don’t believe your god is a concrete object with a material presence in the universe doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the existence of your god as an abstract object. You are the one implying that only concrete objects exist, not me. Your god exists in the very same sense that Thor, the Easter Bunny, and Fred Flinstone exist.

Where we disagree is on what kind of object your god is, not on whether your god exists in the metaphysical sense.[/quote]

Never said anything about a materialistic presence.

So numbers are like the easterbunny?[/quote]

Yes, in the sense that both are abstract objects. I can provide some links to introductory metaphysics if you’re interested in learning more.

You started our discussion with several mistaken assumptions about my beliefs. Hopefully you now recognize that my beliefs are internally consistent, whether or not you agree with them. If you don’t, that’s ok too :wink:

142

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If emotions, numbers, and other abstract objects didn’t exist, it would be impossible to be aware of them or manipulate them. Unless you’re claiming to be from Vulcan, I’m pretty sure you experience emotions just like everyone else.

Or course, that doesn’t imply emotions are concrete objects. Just because you’re aware of an emotion inside your head doesn’t mean it physically exists in the universe, any more than being aware of a god inside your head means it physically exists in the universe. Buddha, Jesus, and Thor exist as abstract objects, but it doesn’t make them real in a material sense.[/quote]

No one experiences emotions the same. But I claim I don’t, and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Ah, so god exists. Why do you choose to believe and have faith in some abstract concepts and not others?[/quote]

If you have no emotions, how does that prove others don’t have emotions?

In an abstract object sense, all gods exist.

What abstract concepts are you under the impression I believe vs disbelieve?
[/quote]

You believe in numbers, right and wrong, est. On what bases do you choose what abstract concepts you do vs. don’t believe in?[/quote]

Give me an example of an abstract concept I don’t believe in. Why are you assuming there is one?[/quote]

god…[/quote]

Did you see my post above where I said all gods exist as abstract objects?

Just because I don’t believe your god is a concrete object with a material presence in the universe doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the existence of your god as an abstract object. You are the one implying that only concrete objects exist, not me. Your god exists in the very same sense that Thor, the Easter Bunny, and Fred Flinstone exist.

Where we disagree is on what kind of object your god is, not on whether your god exists in the metaphysical sense.[/quote]

Never said anything about a materialistic presence.

So numbers are like the easterbunny?[/quote]

Yes, in the sense that both are abstract objects. I can provide some links to introductory metaphysics if you’re interested in learning more.

You started our discussion with several mistaken assumptions about my beliefs. Hopefully you now recognize that my beliefs are internally consistent, whether or not you agree with them. If you don’t, that’s ok too :wink:
[/quote]

Only that you accept the existence of everything, making your use of exist almost meaningless.

143

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I’ll even go on board that its Evil.
[/quote]

But you can’t. It’s an emotional preference. It doesn’t mean any more in reality than the preference of the Man-Boy love folks. Even if a moral value such as “must continue the species” (it can’t, if faith in the supernatural is to be excluded), pedophilia would not threaten the survival of the species. The species will survive a whole lot of nastiness. Rape, pedophilia, theft, even murder.

But it’s silliness, as there is no moral virtue such as “the human species must survive” to be found. Evolution doesn’t care if we go the way of the dinosaur. We survive or don’t. If rape and murder-cannibalism are the most likely survival mechanism in a particular environment those acts go from Evil to Good? That’s a morality that doesn’t even believe in itself.

Had we never successfully had widespread change of hearts and minds, slavery wouldn’t be a moral evil? With that knowledge we need only to not fall for supernatural (god-given rights) and emotional arguments to keep a Good from becoming an Evil. Instead, we can intellectually comfort ourselves, by keeping the EVIL a Good, with the foreknowledge that are only preferences. Good and Evil is what we wish to make of it. So relax, the slave trade was/is as Good for as long as we want it to be, and we can be comforted by that.

As long as I check out after having some fun, why should I care that the species extends past my own life? Or, as to what of state their survival continues in? Greed, charity, violence to achieve objectives, peace, contraception, abortion, broken homes, child bearing and rearing in intact homes, an inheritance or a debt to pass on (household and national) to some unborn bio-chemical machines with the same emergent properties as my own? Preferences.

I will put no man in office who believes my right to life is nothing more than his whim. Would you?

Do you folks really believe humanity would be better if, poof!, religious faith in Good and Evil was replaced with a transient morality (philosophically, whim, or biologically) morality, that none actually had faith in?[/quote]

Lol you want to respond to one line in a post that was a throwaway line? for real? GTFO. Yes it would be more moral if there was no religion. Prove that it wouldn’t be. That is how we believers do it eh? Oh and a bunch of gibberish about knowing my holy books all the while likely never read them.

So funny you should use slavery as there were several religions that were quite all right with it as was the bible. So there must of been some mistranslation of the old holy work there eh or perhaps we used some non religious means of discernment to decide it might indeed be wrong to enslave another human. We’ll give the anti slavery religions a pass on this one though they aren’t biblical literalists either.

If you are one of those fire breathing true believers of the old testament I can get on board. I don’t think some of our actions are going to be particularly moral but what the hell I like some of these moral rules…you might even say I prefer them.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Don’t touch my nuts bitch

Numbers 16:23, 31-33 is how I’d handle doctrinal dispute nom nom nom

Psalm 137:9 Abortions fuck yeah.

Acts 4-5 Capitalism bad Communism good.

Samuel 15:33 Killing is wrong so we are going to kill you for doing it. This one is a famous one!

Ezekiel 23:20-21 Why the brothers get all the hawt bitches :slight_smile:

Lev. 25:44, 1 Peter 2:18 I want Mexican slaves those Canadian slaves are lazy.

Ecclesiastes 8:15 This one is the linchpin of all my moral belief.

Matthew 28:18 and 1 John 5:19 are a puzzling conundrum to me. Help me my brothers.

Timothy 2:12 another strong contender for my favorite moral premise. Get me a sammich and shut it.

Judges 21 Feel free to rape away religious people.

Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 adultery not bad after all.

Leviticus 20:13 Kill the fags…note that only the receiver is to be killed as the ritual sodomy of the conquered warrior is ok.

So many precepts so little time.

Luke 16:17 This is why those there rules in the old testament are binding forever.

Mark 7:10 I guess I was wrong about killing your own kids.
[/quote]

The bible is a perfect example of how people make shit up and call it morality. If there is such a thing as universal morality, it is far more general than most believers make it out to be. Most of their moral beliefs are based on rules that contradict the rules made up by others, and sometimes even contradict themselves.

Morality isn’t a pristine sphere of black and white. Even for the most fundamentalist believers, it is easy to illustrate moral conundrums that don’t neatly fit into their rigid normative framework.

144

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I’ll even go on board that its Evil.
[/quote]

But you can’t. It’s an emotional preference. It doesn’t mean any more in reality than the preference of the Man-Boy love folks. Even if a moral value such as “must continue the species” (it can’t, if faith in the supernatural is to be excluded), pedophilia would not threaten the survival of the species. The species will survive a whole lot of nastiness. Rape, pedophilia, theft, even murder.

But it’s silliness, as there is no moral virtue such as “the human species must survive” to be found. Evolution doesn’t care if we go the way of the dinosaur. We survive or don’t. If rape and murder-cannibalism are the most likely survival mechanism in a particular environment those acts go from Evil to Good? That’s a morality that doesn’t even believe in itself.

Had we never successfully had widespread change of hearts and minds, slavery wouldn’t be a moral evil? With that knowledge we need only to not fall for supernatural (god-given rights) and emotional arguments to keep a Good from becoming an Evil. Instead, we can intellectually comfort ourselves, by keeping the EVIL a Good, with the foreknowledge that are only preferences. Good and Evil is what we wish to make of it. So relax, the slave trade was/is as Good for as long as we want it to be, and we can be comforted by that.

As long as I check out after having some fun, why should I care that the species extends past my own life? Or, as to what of state their survival continues in? Greed, charity, violence to achieve objectives, peace, contraception, abortion, broken homes, child bearing and rearing in intact homes, an inheritance or a debt to pass on (household and national) to some unborn bio-chemical machines with the same emergent properties as my own? Preferences.

I will put no man in office who believes my right to life is nothing more than his whim. Would you?

Do you folks really believe humanity would be better if, poof!, religious faith in Good and Evil was replaced with a transient morality (philosophically, whim, or biologically) morality, that none actually had faith in?[/quote]

Lol you want to respond to one line in a post that was a throwaway line? for real? GTFO. Yes it would be more moral if there was no religion. Prove that it wouldn’t be. That is how we believers do it eh? Oh and a bunch of gibberish about knowing my holy books all the while likely never read them.

So funny you should use slavery as there were several religions that were quite all right with it as was the bible. So there must of been some mistranslation of the old holy work there eh or perhaps we used some non religious means of discernment to decide it might indeed be wrong to enslave another human. We’ll give the anti slavery religions a pass on this one though they aren’t biblical literalists either.

If you are one of those fire breathing true believers of the old testament I can get on board. I don’t think some of our actions are going to be particularly moral but what the hell I like some of these moral rules…you might even say I prefer them.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Don’t touch my nuts bitch

Numbers 16:23, 31-33 is how I’d handle doctrinal dispute nom nom nom

Psalm 137:9 Abortions fuck yeah.

Acts 4-5 Capitalism bad Communism good.

Samuel 15:33 Killing is wrong so we are going to kill you for doing it. This one is a famous one!

Ezekiel 23:20-21 Why the brothers get all the hawt bitches :slight_smile:

Lev. 25:44, 1 Peter 2:18 I want Mexican slaves those Canadian slaves are lazy.

Ecclesiastes 8:15 This one is the linchpin of all my moral belief.

Matthew 28:18 and 1 John 5:19 are a puzzling conundrum to me. Help me my brothers.

Timothy 2:12 another strong contender for my favorite moral premise. Get me a sammich and shut it.

Judges 21 Feel free to rape away religious people.

Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 adultery not bad after all.

Leviticus 20:13 Kill the fags…note that only the receiver is to be killed as the ritual sodomy of the conquered warrior is ok.

So many precepts so little time.

Luke 16:17 This is why those there rules in the old testament are binding forever.

Mark 7:10 I guess I was wrong about killing your own kids.
[/quote]

The bible is a perfect example of how people make shit up and call it morality. If there is such a thing as universal morality, it is far more general than most believers make it out to be. Most of their moral beliefs are based on rules that contradict the rules made up by others, and sometimes even contradict themselves.

Morality isn’t a pristine sphere of black and white. Even for the most fundamentalist believers, it is easy to illustrate moral conundrums that don’t neatly fit into their rigid normative framework.
[/quote]

I think morality is black and white, but I think people confuse moral rules with specific action.

145

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Hateful anti intellectual hogwash.
[/quote]

146

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe I’m being rude. But it was made into a “defend Christianity via this wall of text,” when the argument was a bit more general than that. It comes off as throwing poop against the wall, and seeing what’ll stick. We’ve seen the wall of verse collection too many times. If you want answers about Christianity specifically, do some research. Back to the more generalized, first things, type of tone for me. Well, after I do my own homework![/quote]

Exactly. We’ve seen this “copy and paste from an atheist website in a matter of seconds then sling it on the TN PWI board and giggle while poor religious guy has to spend hours responding” schtick before.[/quote]

Except there actually is substance to the fundamental criticism.

Just because Christians believe it was the old covenant doesn’t change that they believe god, an omniscient, unchanging, benevolent being, actually made this covenant with a certain people at a certain time. THAT is the issue. If you’ve read the entire old testament, you are well aware of the commandments by god to kill infants, for example, not to mention god killing children himself. Such a being is far from benevolent, no matter when he made the covenant, or with whom.

Not to mention that there are several commandments in the new testament that some Christians conveniently ignore, like the commandment for women to be silent in church, to have long hair, to cover their heads, and to be subservient to their husbands. Very few Christians actually follow these commandments today.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m a lumberjack and I’m O.K.
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch,
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea.

I chop down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars

I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra.
I want to be a girlee
Just like my dear papa.
[/quote]

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If emotions, numbers, and other abstract objects didn’t exist, it would be impossible to be aware of them or manipulate them. Unless you’re claiming to be from Vulcan, I’m pretty sure you experience emotions just like everyone else.

Or course, that doesn’t imply emotions are concrete objects. Just because you’re aware of an emotion inside your head doesn’t mean it physically exists in the universe, any more than being aware of a god inside your head means it physically exists in the universe. Buddha, Jesus, and Thor exist as abstract objects, but it doesn’t make them real in a material sense.[/quote]

No one experiences emotions the same. But I claim I don’t, and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Ah, so god exists. Why do you choose to believe and have faith in some abstract concepts and not others?[/quote]

If you have no emotions, how does that prove others don’t have emotions?

In an abstract object sense, all gods exist.

What abstract concepts are you under the impression I believe vs disbelieve?
[/quote]

You believe in numbers, right and wrong, est. On what bases do you choose what abstract concepts you do vs. don’t believe in?[/quote]

Give me an example of an abstract concept I don’t believe in. Why are you assuming there is one?[/quote]

god…[/quote]

Did you see my post above where I said all gods exist as abstract objects?

Just because I don’t believe your god is a concrete object with a material presence in the universe doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the existence of your god as an abstract object. You are the one implying that only concrete objects exist, not me. Your god exists in the very same sense that Thor, the Easter Bunny, and Fred Flinstone exist.

Where we disagree is on what kind of object your god is, not on whether your god exists in the metaphysical sense.[/quote]

Never said anything about a materialistic presence.

So numbers are like the easterbunny?[/quote]

Yes, in the sense that both are abstract objects. I can provide some links to introductory metaphysics if you’re interested in learning more.

You started our discussion with several mistaken assumptions about my beliefs. Hopefully you now recognize that my beliefs are internally consistent, whether or not you agree with them. If you don’t, that’s ok too :wink:
[/quote]

Only that you accept the existence of everything, making your use of exist almost meaningless.[/quote]

How is it meaningless to recognize there are different kinds of existence? I’m not making this up, it is fundamental metaphysics.

Most people intuitively recognize that the number 3 is different than a chair. Both exist, but not in the same way.

Numbers exist, but only in an abstract sense. They aren’t material objects. If they didn’t exist in any sense, it would be impossible to be aware of them.

What about this are you disagreeing with?

149

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
[/quote]
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

.99999999_ to infinity does not equal 1, we round it to 1, but it is not exactly 1. Further it can’t ‘equal’ 1 because it’s not an equation, it’s a number.[/quote]

Actually, groo is correct. One classic proof:

1/9 = 0.111…
9 x 1/9 = 9 x 0.111…
1 = 0.999…

In fact, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (.4, .667, .88, etc.) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.3999… = .4. In all of these cases, two manifestly different decimals actually represent the same number.
[/quote]

Ok, I checked quite a few sources and the consensus is that when limits are discussed, then 1 is a viable equality, but in raw numbers this is not true. The common method of proof is to break fractions down to decimals and then work it backwards. This works in a practical sense, in that it captures the ‘essense’ of the fraction, but the reality that the decimals and the fractions are a little off. What I mean is that the decimals do not and perhaps cannot truly represent a fraction in in it’s totality.
So while 1/3+ 1/3 + 1/3 does equal 1, .333… + .333… + .333… does not equal 1, but equals an infinite series of repeating .9’s that infinitely approaches, but never reaches 1.
So it’s not a case were .99999… is the same number as 1, it’s that 1/3 isn’t accuratly represented in decimal form as an infinite series of repeating 3’s behind the decimal. If you cut yourself a 3rd of a pie, you are getting 1/3 of a pie, not .333… of a pie.
It basically says that base 10 cannot accurately represent all fractions. .9999… isn’t anymore 1 than 3.14 is pi.
It’s rounding, bottom line.[/quote]

I think it goes deeper than that. 1/3 in fact equals an infinite series of repeating threes following the decimal. They are mathematically equivalent numbers. The issue is that we can’t really comprehend what infinity means. Intuitively, we try to force it into finitude by saying it would never truly equal the number it approaches.

This is a decent summary of why people intuitively struggle with the
idea of 0.999… and 1 being the same number:

[quote]Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999…
and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep
misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of
infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the
confusion:

  1. Students are often “mentally committed to the notion that a number
    can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal.” Seeing two
    manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to
    be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly
    well-understood number 1.

  2. Some students interpret “0.999…” (or similar notation) as a large
    but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length.
    If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a
    last 9 “at infinity”.

  3. Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the
    limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed
    value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students
    accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit,
    they might read “0.999…” as meaning the sequence rather than its
    limit.[/quote]

150

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
An ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.

Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.

Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]

You overemphasize the wars fought over/due to religion. Compared to wars fought over land/resources/disputes it is a very low percentage. Before any of you huff and puff at this, take a look at the wars we have, here in North and South America have been involved in. Plenty of wars in the last 400 years but none due to religion.

Now take a real close look at Asia (Unification wars in China, feudal wars in Japan, The Hun’s expansion etc etc), Africa (greed, greed and more greed) and Europe (WWI and WWII were NOT fought over religious differences) and you will find that only a small percentage of wars have been fought due to religion.

Yes you have the Crusades and the like and the current terrible situations in many countries around the world but at any given time there are dozens of situations one can label as ‘war’ and again only a few are based on religion.

That is not to say God wars have not been fought, they have, and there have been plenty BUT compared to land/resources/disputes wars it has been relatively a minor part of why we as humans like to bash each other’s skulls in.

You mention reality but for those that believe God is a reality and most believers are peaceful and wish the best upon their fellow man. Without the ‘reality’ of their God they might feel differently. I wonder sometimes how many wars have been prevented because of faith!
It is when resources are scarce and fear abounds that people start using religion as a way to distinguish themselves from their neighbor so that one is psychologically able to fight and kill.

Ah well, rant over :)[/quote]

Since I never compared the wars fought over religion to wars fought for other reasons, I could hardly overemphasize them. I just pointed out that people have killed one another for religious reasons, and your post admits this.

And I made your final point myself, in the same post you quoted. I agree that religious beliefs can motivate people to be kind to others, regardless of the actual truth of those beliefs.
[/quote]

you overemphasized by ignoring wars fought for other reasons. Would we, by grounding ourselves in your reality also circumvent any other kind of war? What point are you trying to make? Blaming war on religious grounds is only true for a very limited amount of wars fought in the last 5000 years.

You make it sound (and this might not be your intention) as if most wars are fought due to religion, which is patently false. When we get rid of ‘god wars’ as you call them, there will still be hundreds of other reasons to start a war. The world if full of examples even now. War has plagued humanity long before organized religion as well as when organized religion was nowhere near as powerful as say during the Dark Ages. Stating that religion is the opium of the masses is very adolescent in nature and your comments show very little knowledge of actual history.

On both sides of the fence too many ‘sound bites’ are used. Too bad because honest intellectual discussion has become nearly impossible between the atheist and the believer.[/quote]

No, I don’t make it sound like most wars are fought due to religion. I said very clearly that people have been killed in the name of religion, period. If religion didn’t exist, those people wouldn’t have been killed. You can’t excuse that by pointing at the atrocities that have been committed for other reasons, as if the lives of these people don’t matter.

You want honesty? Religion has been responsible for BOTH good and evil over the course of millennia. Do you deny this?

151

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

That is actually not true. In the pure abstract, 2+2=4 only because the conventions of algebra says it does. There is no physical 2 in existence and no physical meaning to addition if there was. It is all by convention. For example, in the convention of vector notation, 2+2 can be anywhere from 4 to 0.
[/quote]

I never said 2 or anything is physical. I am not arguing anything physical, but only metaphysical. And 2 + 2 can only equal 4. It’s not a vector, but a simple arithmetic equation and it’s true despite it’s application, despite recognition. It’s not arbitrary and it cannot be anything other than what it is.

[/quote]

Only because it is defined that way as noted when you say arithmetic. That is an agreed upon set of rules that define 2+2 as 4. So yes, it’s true when you define it as true and accept it as an axiom. But there is no truth to it outside of thought and arbitrary rules the human brain assigns. I can define and claim 2+2=100 according to my rules of math and have it just as true.
[/quote]
No law says you have to be right, but if you want the correct answer to 2+2 it’s 4, that is not arbitrary as it’s demanded by the equation. Assigning a wrong answer and believing it’s right does not actually speak to it’s correctness. It only says you are bad at math. Now the symbol to represent 4 can be somewhat arbitrary. It can be IV, or if you define 100 to actually mean 4 then that would be fine, but the equation demands the one and single answer. If you want to choose different symbols to represent it, doesn’t change it’s core validity.

No, it’s provable so long as you agree on the symbolic representation. The symbols can change but the meaning does not.

[quote]
In order to prove or disprove anything it must be physically expressed. Math does not exist of itself. It is at best an estimated model of physical behavior. Math is a science, and as such it losses all truth outside the physical.[/quote]
Math is a deductive logic actually. And yes we need to represent it to understand it, but it’s tenets do not change. 2+2 will always equal 4 forever and ever in any possible universe. It always has and always will. Changing it’s representation, does not change that fact.

152

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I’ll even go on board that its Evil.
[/quote]

But you can’t. It’s an emotional preference. It doesn’t mean any more in reality than the preference of the Man-Boy love folks. Even if a moral value such as “must continue the species” (it can’t, if faith in the supernatural is to be excluded), pedophilia would not threaten the survival of the species. The species will survive a whole lot of nastiness. Rape, pedophilia, theft, even murder.

But it’s silliness, as there is no moral virtue such as “the human species must survive” to be found. Evolution doesn’t care if we go the way of the dinosaur. We survive or don’t. If rape and murder-cannibalism are the most likely survival mechanism in a particular environment those acts go from Evil to Good? That’s a morality that doesn’t even believe in itself.

Had we never successfully had widespread change of hearts and minds, slavery wouldn’t be a moral evil? With that knowledge we need only to not fall for supernatural (god-given rights) and emotional arguments to keep a Good from becoming an Evil. Instead, we can intellectually comfort ourselves, by keeping the EVIL a Good, with the foreknowledge that are only preferences. Good and Evil is what we wish to make of it. So relax, the slave trade was/is as Good for as long as we want it to be, and we can be comforted by that.

As long as I check out after having some fun, why should I care that the species extends past my own life? Or, as to what of state their survival continues in? Greed, charity, violence to achieve objectives, peace, contraception, abortion, broken homes, child bearing and rearing in intact homes, an inheritance or a debt to pass on (household and national) to some unborn bio-chemical machines with the same emergent properties as my own? Preferences.

I will put no man in office who believes my right to life is nothing more than his whim. Would you?

Do you folks really believe humanity would be better if, poof!, religious faith in Good and Evil was replaced with a transient morality (philosophically, whim, or biologically) morality, that none actually had faith in?[/quote]

Lol you want to respond to one line in a post that was a throwaway line? for real? GTFO. Yes it would be more moral if there was no religion. Prove that it wouldn’t be. That is how we believers do it eh? Oh and a bunch of gibberish about knowing my holy books all the while likely never read them.

So funny you should use slavery as there were several religions that were quite all right with it as was the bible. So there must of been some mistranslation of the old holy work there eh or perhaps we used some non religious means of discernment to decide it might indeed be wrong to enslave another human. We’ll give the anti slavery religions a pass on this one though they aren’t biblical literalists either.

If you are one of those fire breathing true believers of the old testament I can get on board. I don’t think some of our actions are going to be particularly moral but what the hell I like some of these moral rules…you might even say I prefer them.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Don’t touch my nuts bitch

Numbers 16:23, 31-33 is how I’d handle doctrinal dispute nom nom nom

Psalm 137:9 Abortions fuck yeah.

Acts 4-5 Capitalism bad Communism good.

Samuel 15:33 Killing is wrong so we are going to kill you for doing it. This one is a famous one!

Ezekiel 23:20-21 Why the brothers get all the hawt bitches :slight_smile:

Lev. 25:44, 1 Peter 2:18 I want Mexican slaves those Canadian slaves are lazy.

Ecclesiastes 8:15 This one is the linchpin of all my moral belief.

Matthew 28:18 and 1 John 5:19 are a puzzling conundrum to me. Help me my brothers.

Timothy 2:12 another strong contender for my favorite moral premise. Get me a sammich and shut it.

Judges 21 Feel free to rape away religious people.

Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 adultery not bad after all.

Leviticus 20:13 Kill the fags…note that only the receiver is to be killed as the ritual sodomy of the conquered warrior is ok.

So many precepts so little time.

Luke 16:17 This is why those there rules in the old testament are binding forever.

Mark 7:10 I guess I was wrong about killing your own kids.
[/quote]

The bible is a perfect example of how people make shit up and call it morality. If there is such a thing as universal morality, it is far more general than most believers make it out to be. Most of their moral beliefs are based on rules that contradict the rules made up by others, and sometimes even contradict themselves.

Morality isn’t a pristine sphere of black and white. Even for the most fundamentalist believers, it is easy to illustrate moral conundrums that don’t neatly fit into their rigid normative framework.
[/quote]

Oh? What morality is that, that is ‘made up’?

153

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

That is actually not true. In the pure abstract, 2+2=4 only because the conventions of algebra says it does. There is no physical 2 in existence and no physical meaning to addition if there was. It is all by convention. For example, in the convention of vector notation, 2+2 can be anywhere from 4 to 0.
[/quote]

I never said 2 or anything is physical. I am not arguing anything physical, but only metaphysical. And 2 + 2 can only equal 4. It’s not a vector, but a simple arithmetic equation and it’s true despite it’s application, despite recognition. It’s not arbitrary and it cannot be anything other than what it is.

[/quote]

Only because it is defined that way as noted when you say arithmetic. That is an agreed upon set of rules that define 2+2 as 4. So yes, it’s true when you define it as true and accept it as an axiom. But there is no truth to it outside of thought and arbitrary rules the human brain assigns. I can define and claim 2+2=100 according to my rules of math and have it just as true.
[/quote]
No law says you have to be right, but if you want the correct answer to 2+2 it’s 4, that is not arbitrary as it’s demanded by the equation. Assigning a wrong answer and believing it’s right does not actually speak to it’s correctness. It only says you are bad at math. Now the symbol to represent 4 can be somewhat arbitrary. It can be IV, or if you define 100 to actually mean 4 then that would be fine, but the equation demands the one and single answer. If you want to choose different symbols to represent it, doesn’t change it’s core validity.

No, it’s provable so long as you agree on the symbolic representation. The symbols can change but the meaning does not.

How can they be symbolic if there is nothing for them to represent.

2 apples in a jar with 2 more put in makes 4 in the jar. It works because the universe works that way. Without that verificaiton in the pure abstract sense, there is no truth to arithmatic. It is only equal to anything by convention. Like I said, I say 2+2 is 30. Prove otherwise without using anything physical.

There is no such abstract proof that 2+2=4.

154

Pat, I think it’s possible that ALL morality is made up, although it’s also possible that there are fundamental universal moral truths.

I was referring to the specific moral rules people make up, like it being wrong to take so many steps on the sabbath, or to wear mixed fibers, or to baptize by sprinkling rather than immersion, etc. The bible is filled with these made up rules, but of course so is every other holy book.

155

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
[/quote]
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

.99999999_ to infinity does not equal 1, we round it to 1, but it is not exactly 1. Further it can’t ‘equal’ 1 because it’s not an equation, it’s a number.[/quote]

Actually, groo is correct. One classic proof:

1/9 = 0.111…
9 x 1/9 = 9 x 0.111…
1 = 0.999…

In fact, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (.4, .667, .88, etc.) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.3999… = .4. In all of these cases, two manifestly different decimals actually represent the same number.
[/quote]

Ok, I checked quite a few sources and the consensus is that when limits are discussed, then 1 is a viable equality, but in raw numbers this is not true. The common method of proof is to break fractions down to decimals and then work it backwards. This works in a practical sense, in that it captures the ‘essense’ of the fraction, but the reality that the decimals and the fractions are a little off. What I mean is that the decimals do not and perhaps cannot truly represent a fraction in in it’s totality.
So while 1/3+ 1/3 + 1/3 does equal 1, .333… + .333… + .333… does not equal 1, but equals an infinite series of repeating .9’s that infinitely approaches, but never reaches 1.
So it’s not a case were .99999… is the same number as 1, it’s that 1/3 isn’t accuratly represented in decimal form as an infinite series of repeating 3’s behind the decimal. If you cut yourself a 3rd of a pie, you are getting 1/3 of a pie, not .333… of a pie.
It basically says that base 10 cannot accurately represent all fractions. .9999… isn’t anymore 1 than 3.14 is pi.
It’s rounding, bottom line.[/quote]

I think it goes deeper than that. 1/3 in fact equals an infinite series of repeating threes following the decimal. They are mathematically equivalent numbers. The issue is that we can’t really comprehend what infinity means. Intuitively, we try to force it into finitude by saying it would never truly equal the number it approaches.

This is a decent summary of why people intuitively struggle with the
idea of 0.999… and 1 being the same number:

[quote]Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999…
and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep
misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of
infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the
confusion:

  1. Students are often “mentally committed to the notion that a number
    can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal.” Seeing two
    manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to
    be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly
    well-understood number 1.

  2. Some students interpret “0.999…” (or similar notation) as a large
    but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length.
    If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a
    last 9 “at infinity”.

  3. Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the
    limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed
    value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students
    accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit,
    they might read “0.999…” as meaning the sequence rather than its
    limit.[/quote]

[/quote]

But that’s the thing, it doesn’t. .3333… * 3 = .99999… as a raw number but if it’s representing 1/3 then it does equal one. However, if you are using demcimal representations of fractions then because the fractions =1 so too must their decimal representation. All its says is that decimal representation of 1/3 isn’t completely accurate, unless the repeating 3 does stop at some point it’s not a real number. You cannot cut a pie by .333…, you cut it by 1/3. You could never cut a pie by .333… because you could never get to the actual point of being a third, because it’s infinte. So it gets ever closer, but never touches.
So it’s kinda both. In either case, the jury is out.
The raw number with no limit is .999… and not 1
The number as understood as representing a fraction and hence has an imposed limit then 3 * .333… =1, not .999…

All this really shows is the limitations of the symbols we use, not of the math.

156

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

That is actually not true. In the pure abstract, 2+2=4 only because the conventions of algebra says it does. There is no physical 2 in existence and no physical meaning to addition if there was. It is all by convention. For example, in the convention of vector notation, 2+2 can be anywhere from 4 to 0.
[/quote]

I never said 2 or anything is physical. I am not arguing anything physical, but only metaphysical. And 2 + 2 can only equal 4. It’s not a vector, but a simple arithmetic equation and it’s true despite it’s application, despite recognition. It’s not arbitrary and it cannot be anything other than what it is.

[/quote]

Only because it is defined that way as noted when you say arithmetic. That is an agreed upon set of rules that define 2+2 as 4. So yes, it’s true when you define it as true and accept it as an axiom. But there is no truth to it outside of thought and arbitrary rules the human brain assigns. I can define and claim 2+2=100 according to my rules of math and have it just as true.
[/quote]
No law says you have to be right, but if you want the correct answer to 2+2 it’s 4, that is not arbitrary as it’s demanded by the equation. Assigning a wrong answer and believing it’s right does not actually speak to it’s correctness. It only says you are bad at math. Now the symbol to represent 4 can be somewhat arbitrary. It can be IV, or if you define 100 to actually mean 4 then that would be fine, but the equation demands the one and single answer. If you want to choose different symbols to represent it, doesn’t change it’s core validity.

No, it’s provable so long as you agree on the symbolic representation. The symbols can change but the meaning does not.

How can they be symbolic if there is nothing for them to represent.

2 apples in a jar with 2 more put in makes 4 in the jar. It works because the universe works that way. Without that verificaiton in the pure abstract sense, there is no truth to arithmatic. It is only equal to anything by convention. Like I said, I say 2+2 is 30. Prove otherwise without using anything physical.

There is no such abstract proof that 2+2=4.[/quote]
Modern math would hold that natural numbers do have an existence though and that this is a premise everyone accepts. Also that any formal representation of such a system of natural numbers is going to be thusly incomplete. Using the natural numbers like you do for counting you can see the concept of 2 has a meaning separate to the two apples. You are comparing the set of two apples to the set of two which is how natural numbers are actually and incompletely defined and expressed to see that you in fact do have 2 apples.

So contemporary math would hold that the natural numbers are basic. Meaning they need no justification. Now this of course could be wrong, but it is how math currently thinks of the natural numbers(these are the counting numbers for anyone that isn’t sure: one apple two apple. first in line second in line etc), pretty much we all shorten this to number when we speak.

157

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
[/quote]
Actually, you kinda made my point for me. I am not concerned with people’s understanding of math or numbers. Understanding is irrelevant to it. It is what it is despite peoples understanding of it. People understand it with their minds, but it doesn’t exist in people’s minds, it exists outside of that. Mathematical truths are true whether anybody knows it or not.
I am simply saying it’s a metaphysical object, not a mental construct. A mental construct would begin and end with the mind, math does not. If we all die, 2+2 will still equal 4.

.99999999_ to infinity does not equal 1, we round it to 1, but it is not exactly 1. Further it can’t ‘equal’ 1 because it’s not an equation, it’s a number.[/quote]

Actually, groo is correct. One classic proof:

1/9 = 0.111…
9 x 1/9 = 9 x 0.111…
1 = 0.999…

In fact, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (.4, .667, .88, etc.) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.3999… = .4. In all of these cases, two manifestly different decimals actually represent the same number.
[/quote]

Ok, I checked quite a few sources and the consensus is that when limits are discussed, then 1 is a viable equality, but in raw numbers this is not true. The common method of proof is to break fractions down to decimals and then work it backwards. This works in a practical sense, in that it captures the ‘essense’ of the fraction, but the reality that the decimals and the fractions are a little off. What I mean is that the decimals do not and perhaps cannot truly represent a fraction in in it’s totality.
So while 1/3+ 1/3 + 1/3 does equal 1, .333… + .333… + .333… does not equal 1, but equals an infinite series of repeating .9’s that infinitely approaches, but never reaches 1.
So it’s not a case were .99999… is the same number as 1, it’s that 1/3 isn’t accuratly represented in decimal form as an infinite series of repeating 3’s behind the decimal. If you cut yourself a 3rd of a pie, you are getting 1/3 of a pie, not .333… of a pie.
It basically says that base 10 cannot accurately represent all fractions. .9999… isn’t anymore 1 than 3.14 is pi.
It’s rounding, bottom line.[/quote]

I think it goes deeper than that. 1/3 in fact equals an infinite series of repeating threes following the decimal. They are mathematically equivalent numbers. The issue is that we can’t really comprehend what infinity means. Intuitively, we try to force it into finitude by saying it would never truly equal the number it approaches.

This is a decent summary of why people intuitively struggle with the
idea of 0.999… and 1 being the same number:

[quote]Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999…
and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep
misgivings over the limit concept and disagreements over the nature of
infinitesimals. There are many common contributing factors to the
confusion:

  1. Students are often “mentally committed to the notion that a number
    can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal.” Seeing two
    manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to
    be a paradox, which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly
    well-understood number 1.

  2. Some students interpret “0.999…” (or similar notation) as a large
    but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length.
    If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a
    last 9 “at infinity”.

  3. Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the
    limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed
    value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students
    accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit,
    they might read “0.999…” as meaning the sequence rather than its
    limit.[/quote]

[/quote]

It could possible be though, that .333… as being 1/3 isn’t infinite, but does resolve in to a real number? Has anybody ever worked it to its conclusion?

In any event if .333 as 1/3 is truly infinite, then .333… is close to 1/3, but not actually spot on 1/3. If you want to represent 1/3 with 100% accuracy then you right it as 1/3. If you want use a calculator, then .333… is sufficient.

Technically you cannot calculate on infinitely stringing numbers because the calculation will never complete. So you represent it to a point an calculate on that.

158

Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.

Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:

x = 0.999…

10x = 9.999…

10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…

9x = 9

x = 1

159

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I think it’s possible that ALL morality is made up, although it’s also possible that there are fundamental universal moral truths.
[/quote]
Uh, you can’t have it both ways, made up and fundamental moral truths. Either, there are universal morals truths that morality is based on, or it’s made up and arbitrary.

[quote]
I was referring to the specific moral rules people make up, like it being wrong to take so many steps on the sabbath, or to wear mixed fibers, or to baptize by sprinkling rather than immersion, etc. The bible is filled with these made up rules, but of course so is every other holy book.[/quote]

Mosaic law aren’t in themselves moral laws. Keep in mind that the Pentateuch was not only a holy book, but also the constitution of ancient Israel too. And don’t forget that for may hundreds of years through ancient Israel, the mosaic law was lost and forgotten and I think it was King Josiah who rediscovered it. So in the beginning it was only kept through Joshua, got lost with the Judges and was rediscovered many years later. Not even King David followed mosaic law, it was missing.

160

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what is the decimal answer when you divide 1 by 3? The two are mathematically identical, because 1/3 = 0.333… The same number is decimally represented in two different ways.

Don’t get hung up on the fractional example. Here’s another algebraic proof that doesn’t use fractions:

x = 0.999…

10x = 9.999…

10x - x = 9.999… - 0.999…

9x = 9

x = 1[/quote]

The fractional examples are the point.
Your example works out like this:
10(.999)=9.999
10(.999)-.999=8.991
9(.999)=8.991

Again if you don’t set a limit you can never complete your calculation. So you have to limit or you are calculating infinately cannot actually derive an answer.
Therefore 3/3 does not equal .999, it equals 1. 1/3 does not equal exactly .3333… it just comes damn close.
Cut me exactly .333… piece of an apple.