Why should you care about history? Hmmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
Why should you care about history? Hmmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yes, everything that you have not personally validated is suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
What's wrong with your critique is that consciousness can only exist when there is something else there for comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Okay, give me the sensory data you have the proves that God is not existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yes, I don't want to take a swing at a potentially moving target. Tell me why I should care in explicit terms. I am sure you will find that objectivism does not handicap one to the level you think it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Not gonna let y'all steal my day cause I've got a big mid-term in a week. I'll return to this "debate" a little later.
Elaborate, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Yes, carried to it's logcial end, it is very handicapping and so impracticle that it doesn't matter. If you don't understand why history matters, I doubt it's worth my time to go any further with this "debate".Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Look, if you want to call "existence" "god" it is just an issue of diction. I don't care. But if you want to say that a deity created existence or something more then you will have to spell out exactly what it is that you are saying God is or God did for me to prove it is untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I fail to see how it is that dire. There is very little at risk when you acknowledge that historical accounts may not be wrong, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Don't have time to explain right now, but your flaw is your understanding of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I believe Randy would call that belief "silly". Okay, I'm really done for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Will definitely require some explanation. It has been stated on here somewhere that both myself and Guisslap have spent considerable time living our lives with the assumption that God exists. I know I was wrong. What don't you think we understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I agree with Guisslap. If my life were directly impacted by a single historical statement, I might want to check the validity of that statement. I'm not exactly sure what "history" you are claiming would require a faith-like belief in for me to justify living my life the way I am currently living it. In general, the particular factual details in history are interesting but unessential to my daily life, so I don't have a huge reason to challenge the validity of them. But your faith subsumes your rationality - there is a HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Nope... look at historical trends in the stock market (or housing market). For example, history tells us that growth in the housing market might soften, but it will never go down. So, I'm absolutely guaranteed a safe investment, right? Wrong. Generally it's historically true that the market is more resistant to depression than, say, the stock market, but if you say that "history says it is so, so it will always be so," you are placing way too much "faith" in history. In the end, you make a decision, but there is risk which you are not accounting for if you follow the history precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Similarly, if you look at the history of military maneuvers, you'll find that, in general, that this type of maneuver works to do this result. But are you going to argue that history establishes this as a fact? I wouldn't bet my regiment on it, even if my senses suggested something else was going on.
Further, most relevant history (modern) has sufficient corroboration that it can be accepted with a higher certainty than history from longer ago. Is that really a surprise?
And some history is backed up by scientific experiments (that I understand) to verify dates, etc., or by archeology.
Finally, there's a big difference between accepting history that makes sense relative to the context of my existence versus accepting history (on faith) that clearly makes no sense. The idea of someone being crucified does not seem that improbable, and I would be willing to accept if I had nothing at stake on the issue (I probably wouldn't bet a year's salary on the issue though, if I was offered the wager from a historian/archeologist who has spent considerable time studying the time period). That a deceased person regains consciousness several days after death and floats up into the sky is not something I'd accept readily, because it makes no sense in the context of my sensory experience.
But what in history are you suggesting that I'd really be missing?