News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Jesus Camp(documentary)  (Read 8502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Interrogator_Chaplain

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1250
  • Just say you won't repent, I dare you.
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2008, 09:52:09 AM »
Watched it yesterday, (Thanks for the links) and boy, I knew this was happening but I didn't think these kids were being motivated into politics. If you want a horrifying future it will come when these kids get into politics. My biggest problem is that these people delude themselves into thinking that their way is the best way and that it's the best way for everyone else and damn what they think. That's what bothers me, someone telling me what's best for me, well guess what, only three people are going to tell me what to do, medical doctors, educators and me, oh make that four people, parents. Just plain freaky man, freaky that one day we might have athiest martyrs dying for their beliefs (or lack thereof depending on how you look at it).

Offline Postino

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • couldn't spell my way out of a wet paper bag
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2008, 07:21:32 PM »
Then please define "absolute morals"...

Is this a trick question? The idea is that morality is something with absolute poles. There is right and there is wrong, and they are distinct, objective concepts. Simple enough, I should think.

But right and wrong is not absolute, therefore neither is morality. Would it have been right to kill hitler the baby if you have the forknolege of what he would do as a grown man?

Quote
As for personal identity then all of the justifications are valid

That's a cop out. They're mutually exclusive.[/quote]

Sorry, lemme be more specific: 1/2, and 4 are not necessarily exclusive. We also seem to be mixing both personal identity and social responsibility. I would prefer to keep it to personal identity, justice and responsibility open up a whole new can of worms. On the otherhand I cannot argue that responsibility and identity are exclusive.

Quote
If perception is reality then I am whatever I perceive myself to be.

That's recursive, is it not? You have defined 'I' in terms of 'I'. It's not an adequate definition of 'I', or the self. Circular logic is to be avoided.
[/quote]

Everything I observe in the world works along cycles, why should my logic not? ;D

Here is something I think to be absolute: Preception is reality. You are correct in that I cannot define myself in vaccuum, it is a relative definition. However I can still make up all sorts of nonsense about my self identity due to my observation.


Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2008, 09:12:13 PM »
But right and wrong is not absolute, therefore neither is morality.

And now we're back to where we started.

Prove it. You're making the assertion that right and wrong aren't absolute and morality is relative. It's not self-evident. You need to make an actual argument why they aren't absolute.

Quote
Would it have been right to kill hitler the baby if you have the forknolege of what he would do as a grown man?

It's a dilemma. But there's no reason it can't have a right answer. I'm not going to tell you what it is, for it's a massive argument of nature versus nurture and our right to take a technically innocent life for future events and so on and I wouldn't claim to know the answer... but for it to prove that morality isn't absolute, you also need to prove that there is no correct answer to that question.

So put it this way. Suppose I hypothetically said - No. It would not have been right to kill baby Hitler. Absolute morality forbids it.

Is there any reason why that answer's unacceptable?

Quote
Sorry, lemme be more specific: 1/2, and 4 are not necessarily exclusive. We also seem to be mixing both personal identity and social responsibility. I would prefer to keep it to personal identity, justice and responsibility open up a whole new can of worms. On the otherhand I cannot argue that responsibility and identity are exclusive.

How can your identity be physical, defined by your body, and simultaneously non-physical, in the form of your memories? Suppose I take Person A. I then make a perfect clone of Person A, called Person B. Person B has all the memories of Person A. I then wipe Person A's memories, making them an amnesiac. This amnesiac A will be called Person C.

Who is Person A? B or C? Both? Neither? If 1/ or 2/ is our model, C is. If we go with 4/, B is A. If both are two, B is C... but can we not see that these are two different people? If neither, then what happened to A? Did we kill A? Do we think that identity depends on both spatio-temporal continuity and continuity of memory, and so A was killed the moment I wiped his memory, making B and C completely different people?

And just to throw that social justice wrench into the works, what if A had committed a crime and the police break down my door after this operation is complete. B and C are put on trial for what A did. Who, if anyone, can we punish? More importantly, why (or why not) can we punish that person?

Tricky, no?

Quote
Everything I observe in the world works along cycles, why should my logic not?

Because logic does not work like that. You proceed from premises to conclusions. Circular logic is invalid because there's no progression. It's a self-justifying assumption. What logic is supposed to do is work from given assumptions, premises, to their own necessary implications, conclusions.

I ask you what gives you your self-identity - what are you, basically? If you say 'I am what I perceive myself to be', you are, in effect, saying 'I am I', which is glib but pointless. To explain by analogy, were you to ask me what a Zanthoid is, and I said 'a Zanthoid is a Zanthoid', or 'a Zanthoid is what a Zanthoid perceives itself to be'... you'd still have no idea what a Zanthoid is. I cannot define a Zanthoid in terms of its own Zanthoid-ness. I could, more accurately, say that a Zanthoid is a word I just made up, though.

Quote
Here is something I think to be absolute: Preception is reality.

A bit of an idealist, are you?
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Meneroth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Run, while you still have legs.
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2008, 11:43:49 PM »
perception is reality?


what????? so, going back to the traditional scape-goats, the nazi's. their "perception" of themselves as the master race, that was reality? how about this, i percieve myself to be the deadliest fighter on earth, or Postinio percieves himself to be the most beautiful person on earth. does that make it true? hell no.

perception is not reality. reality is reality. what we know, what we can take in with our five senses, that is reality, by the very definition of the fact. we can only sense what is real, that being the reality of things. gravity will always happen, people will always age, putting your hand on a stove will always burn you. that is reality.


as for the crazy christians, i really dont see it any different than the crazy muslims, just the opposite side. if one side has its nut-jobs, why wouldnt the other? its really not a big deal. kinda sad, but such is extremist religion.

Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2008, 01:02:10 AM »
what we know, what we can take in with our five senses, that is reality, by the very definition of the fact.

You're dreaming.

Literally. You cannot know that you are not, at this very moment, dreaming. Perhaps everything you see with your senses is a figment of your imagination or some grand illusion, and reality is something completely different. Of course, if you could prove beyond doubt that your senses are correct, you are not dreaming, no one is deceiving you, your senses are not in any way distorted... then you might have more of a point, but as it stands, you can't really define reality as what you sense.
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Postino

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • couldn't spell my way out of a wet paper bag
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2008, 01:47:09 AM »
what we know, what we can take in with our five senses, that is reality, by the very definition of the fact.

You're dreaming.

Literally. You cannot know that you are not, at this very moment, dreaming. Perhaps everything you see with your senses is a figment of your imagination or some grand illusion, and reality is something completely different. Of course, if you could prove beyond doubt that your senses are correct, you are not dreaming, no one is deceiving you, your senses are not in any way distorted... then you might have more of a point, but as it stands, you can't really define reality as what you sense.

Thats proof that perception is reality right there...thank you.

For proving the subjective nature of morality, moral disagreement proves it pretty well. Evangelicals think that liberals are attacking their moral base and therefore must create a political agenda to irradicate them. Liberals perceive the Religious Right is destroying the foundation of their secular nation and must also attack politically. Both groups they are morally obligated to fight for what they believe is right ad correct yet they are supporting two different "self-evident" truths. I don't think anyone in an objective observatory position could say that one is right and the other is wrong.

For logic...I was joking dude.

Quote
How can your identity be physical, defined by your body, and simultaneously non-physical, in the form of your memories? Suppose I take Person A. I then make a perfect clone of Person A, called Person B. Person B has all the memories of Person A. I then wipe Person A's memories, making them an amnesiac. This amnesiac A will be called Person C.
and
Quote
I ask you what gives you your self-identity - what are you, basically?

Society works on the presumption of 1/2(but mostly 1). Yet this does not give an identity to that person, only the location of their body. Identity is brought out from relative comparison and memories. I am I the person that occupies this pile of flesh, and that person is defined by the past experiences it has encountered and judges itself on what it observes from it's peers.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 01:49:44 AM by Postino »

Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2008, 02:14:30 AM »
Thats proof that perception is reality right there...thank you.

Oh no, that wasn't proof. All that shows is that we don't know what the true nature of reality is. (Incidentally, I was being glib. Descartes' First Meditation does it much better than I, though Descartes' conclusions from it are iffy.) It tells us nothing about what reality is. It's very easy to disprove something, but much harder to make a positive claim.

Quote
For proving the subjective nature of morality, moral disagreement proves it pretty well.

No, it doesn't. Consider the counter-example of physics. Two scientists might disagree over a matter of physics. The fact of disagreement does not prove that physical laws are subjective. How then can disagreement prove that moral laws are objective? As I said before, is it not possible that one or both of the disagreeing parties are simply wrong?

Quote
Both groups they are morally obligated to fight for what they believe is right ad correct yet they are supporting two different "self-evident" truths.

So they are. It does not follow, though, that they are both necessarily right according to their own subjective standard. Certainly both groups believe they are right, but our beliefs are often wrong.

Quote
I don't think anyone in an objective observatory position could say that one is right and the other is wrong.

Evidently; that's what relativism is. You merely haven't provided an argument why no 'objective observatory position' could exist.

Quote
Society works on the presumption of 1/2(but mostly 1).

Society's laws are metaphysically inadequate. ;)

Quote
I am I the person that occupies this pile of flesh, and that person is defined by the past experiences it has encountered and judges itself on what it observes from it's peers.

What pile of flesh? I thought reality was perception? :P
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Postino

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • couldn't spell my way out of a wet paper bag
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2008, 01:28:30 PM »
Iran...I'm giving up.



Offline Squirrelloid

  • Honor Guard
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Only in darkness, light
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2008, 05:46:53 PM »
I'd like to note I mostly side with Locke on the matter of identity, and find the "Brave Officer" dilemma flawed.

The problem is that its not an A=B, B=C, therefore A=C case.  Identity changes over time as we accrue new memories (ie, experience new things).  So the Brave Officer is not the little boy who was whipped for stealing, he *was* the little boy who was whipped for stealing.

It may be better to take an example that we're more likely to agree on which is comparable.  Lets' say I get my first model kit, I build it in a particular way using particular components, I paint it, and call the finished thing Model A.  Now, its my first model, the paint job isn't all that good, so at some point I decide to repaint it.  Is it still the same model?  Now lets suppose I decide I want to convert it, so i remove an arm and add some bits - still the same model?  I get better and better, and one day I hack it up and take some of the pieces with a liberal dose of other bits and greenstuff and paint/build a golden daemon winner - did my first model win a golden daemon?  Later for whatever reason I hack it up again, and all the original components are finally removed and replaced by different ones - is it still my first model?  Is it still a golden daemon winner?  There is spatio-temporal continuity, but the entire kit has been replaced by other components.

Memory acquisition and loss works in a similar way.  Over time we lose some memories and gain others.  At some point the 80 year old might share no memories in common with the 10 year old he 'was' - are they really the same person?  Rather than saying they're the same person, it might be more accurate to say this person shares memories with that former person, and has spatio-temporal continuity with that person.  I mean, the only thing that the 80yo former brave officer shares with the whipped boy is a shared label.  He doesn't share the same body (as you noted, the body is continuously recreated), and he doesn't share the same mind.  By what metric is he the same person outside of having the same name (ie, label).
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels - Chip 4:2

Unusual SM armies

Angband Code:
S WI(x) !Xok ht->ho !C P88 DL:5000' A++ R+++ Sp+ w: mjolnir or wrestling
S(ToME) W H- D+ !c f- PV+ !s d !P M+
C-- S+ I- So- B- ac !GHB SQ RQ++ V- F: multipage inventory

Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2008, 06:33:24 PM »
The problem is that its not an A=B, B=C, therefore A=C case.  Identity changes over time as we accrue new memories (ie, experience new things).  So the Brave Officer is not the little boy who was whipped for stealing, he *was* the little boy who was whipped for stealing.

So you don't think identity is transitive?

The crux of the objection is this - if A is B, and B is C, then A must be C. You said that, but I would emphasise that I used the word 'is'. The word matters. One could replace 'is' with 'is five years old than', and while A could be five years older than B, and B five years older than C, that obviously doesn't make A five years older than C. Age is an intransitive relation.

Identity, though, seems to me to be thoroughly transitive. A is B, B is C, A is C. What you seem to be saying is that the relationship is not B is A, but that B was A. I don't think that substantially alters the problem, though. If the brave officer was once the schoolboy, and the general was once the brave officer, it ought still follow that the general was the schoolboy, once upon a time. Changing the verb tense doesn't solve the objection.

Quote
It may be better to take an example that we're more likely to agree on which is comparable.  Lets' say I get my first model kit, I build it in a particular way using particular components, I paint it, and call the finished thing Model A.  Now, its my first model, the paint job isn't all that good, so at some point I decide to repaint it.  Is it still the same model?  Now lets suppose I decide I want to convert it, so i remove an arm and add some bits - still the same model?  I get better and better, and one day I hack it up and take some of the pieces with a liberal dose of other bits and greenstuff and paint/build a golden daemon winner - did my first model win a golden daemon?  Later for whatever reason I hack it up again, and all the original components are finally removed and replaced by different ones - is it still my first model?  Is it still a golden daemon winner?  There is spatio-temporal continuity, but the entire kit has been replaced by other components.

Your model is the Ship of Theseus. ;)

Is it the same? I'm not sure, though your question your sanity if you hacked up a Golden Daemon winner. :D My instinct says yes. Model A is the same model as Model B (the Golden Daemon winner) and is also the same model as Model C (all the original components removed) because the identity of the model is not bound up in any specific components but in the model as a whole.

Thus yes, you could say that C is a Golden Daemon winner. C, in its current state, might not win a Golden Daemon now, but that makes no difference. An old woman might have won a marathon in her youth, and could justifiably claim that she's won a marathon even though she's physically very different now. In a practical sense, that is.

Quote
I mean, the only thing that the 80yo former brave officer shares with the whipped boy is a shared label.  He doesn't share the same body (as you noted, the body is continuously recreated), and he doesn't share the same mind.  By what metric is he the same person outside of having the same name (ie, label).

That's the problem, isn't it? In daily life we would tend to recognise the old general as the same person as the whipped schoolboy.
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Squirrelloid

  • Honor Guard
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Only in darkness, light
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2008, 10:52:08 PM »
Quote
It may be better to take an example that we're more likely to agree on which is comparable.  Lets' say I get my first model kit, I build it in a particular way using particular components, I paint it, and call the finished thing Model A.  Now, its my first model, the paint job isn't all that good, so at some point I decide to repaint it.  Is it still the same model?  Now lets suppose I decide I want to convert it, so i remove an arm and add some bits - still the same model?  I get better and better, and one day I hack it up and take some of the pieces with a liberal dose of other bits and greenstuff and paint/build a golden daemon winner - did my first model win a golden daemon?  Later for whatever reason I hack it up again, and all the original components are finally removed and replaced by different ones - is it still my first model?  Is it still a golden daemon winner?  There is spatio-temporal continuity, but the entire kit has been replaced by other components.

Your model is the Ship of Theseus. ;)

Is it the same? I'm not sure, though your question your sanity if you hacked up a Golden Daemon winner. :D My instinct says yes. Model A is the same model as Model B (the Golden Daemon winner) and is also the same model as Model C (all the original components removed) because the identity of the model is not bound up in any specific components but in the model as a whole.

Thus yes, you could say that C is a Golden Daemon winner. C, in its current state, might not win a Golden Daemon now, but that makes no difference. An old woman might have won a marathon in her youth, and could justifiably claim that she's won a marathon even though she's physically very different now. In a practical sense, that is.

Apologies for only making an argument sound bite, but consider this: What if, having removed all the original components from that model, i recreate my original model (as all those components are now theoretically independent of the model).

Which model is model A?  Which model is a golden Daemon winner?  Does it matter how many components were both part of the original and the golden Daemon winner?  If I sell one (and only one) on ebay, can I claim it as a former Golden Daemon winner?  Which one do I have to sell?
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels - Chip 4:2

Unusual SM armies

Angband Code:
S WI(x) !Xok ht->ho !C P88 DL:5000' A++ R+++ Sp+ w: mjolnir or wrestling
S(ToME) W H- D+ !c f- PV+ !s d !P M+
C-- S+ I- So- B- ac !GHB SQ RQ++ V- F: multipage inventory

Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2008, 12:10:15 AM »
Apologies for only making an argument sound bite, but consider this: What if, having removed all the original components from that model, i recreate my original model (as all those components are now theoretically independent of the model).

No matter; I think we've both seen that puzzle before.

For me? While the recreation made of discarded parts is extremely similar to the Golden Daemon winner, it is not the Golden Daemon winner itself.

To be completely accurate, I think we should clarify our use of the term 'Golden Daemon winner'. That title is a label given to not only a specific model, but that specific model in a specific state, i.e. that state it was in when the competition was held. As time passes and its parts are replaced, the model's identity does not change even though all of its qualities do. The new model, constructed from the old parts, may well resemble the model at the time it won the award better, but it's still a different model.

Quote
Which model is model A?  Which model is a golden Daemon winner?  Does it matter how many components were both part of the original and the golden Daemon winner?  If I sell one (and only one) on ebay, can I claim it as a former Golden Daemon winner?  Which one do I have to sell?

You claim it as a winner to sucker people into paying more for it, of course. That's how eBay works. ;)

In seriousness, I would say the (changed) original is the winner, because it's the model that the award was actually given to. The point may not console the buyer on eBay much, and they may prefer the other one if they're trying to get something that superficially looks like a Golden Daemon winner, but that does not change the other model's identity any.
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Postino

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • couldn't spell my way out of a wet paper bag
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2008, 01:57:32 AM »
you guys make me wish I had taken the philosophy regiment instead of the sociology one at college.

Offline Two Blades as One, Samurai Ichirou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 777
  • Old men start wars; Young boys die in them.
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2008, 12:49:19 PM »
Reading the first page, i just thought i'd point out that islam/judaism/and christianity all have the same "god". They just view the details differently.
Still I lay cold, my soul seeks light / my eyes are tired; my heart's last fight
Around my shell of wood and cloth / trickle sound of wound and loss.
Broken voices of tears and cry's / sorrow and love for a Nation's son's life.
Mother and Father alone in thought. / Of the bravery and pain in the battle we fought.
We move slowly we three welcomed home. / A parade of silence, hands and flags wave
Above our bodies, they gather as on, / Along this highway of heroes for two seconds of light.

Offline Seer Fox

  • The Cause of Cancer, Chernobyl and Multiple Orgasms
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • No. I'm not keeping the girl.
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2008, 03:17:24 PM »
Reading the above post, I'd just like to point out the sky is blue, it's just some people call it a different word depending on where they live.

Ciat,
Seer Fox
Well I'm not going to quote anything, so...I'll have to hunt down my old sig again.

How bothersome.

Offline Postino

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • couldn't spell my way out of a wet paper bag
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2008, 02:07:31 AM »
Reading the first page, i just thought i'd point out that islam/judaism/and christianity all have the same "god". They just view the details differently.

I already said so. ANd I don't think they view the detasils very differently at all. The semantics sure, but not the details.

Offline Rasmus

  • The Ratcatcher
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33046
  • Country: 00
  • Lost Roads are now found!
    • 40kOnline
  • Armies: Squats
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2008, 03:02:15 PM »
Reading the first page, i just thought i'd point out that islam/Judaism/and Christianity all have the same "god". They just view the details differently.
   I know plenty of people of all those three churches that dispute that very fact, especially the schism Christianity/Judaism vs Islam. A LOT of Christians post-911  cannot for their lives understand that they actually worship the same deity. Politics and faith. Urgh.

Lost Roads - finally released!


YouTube-clip of my Squat army.

Offline Kojiro

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Battles are not won on strength alone
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2008, 05:52:31 PM »
it is the unfortunate effect of religion. 
Mao was correct when he said, "Religion is the opium of the people."
Not only does Religion bring people comfort but it also makes them addicted to their beliefs, and any addiction is bad.
It would be fine if people understood that this was their own life choice and that not everyone is a member of their faith.  However, it appears that the religion of the books ignore this viewpoint the most.

OT:
This is entirely off topic but I am surprised I haven't seen Internet vs Scientology anywhere in this forum. 

Offline Irandrura

  • Only mildly annoying
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2008, 06:49:49 PM »
Mao was correct when he said, "Religion is the opium of the people."

That was Marx, not Mao, and I believe the actual term he used was 'opiate of the people'.

Quote
Not only does Religion bring people comfort but it also makes them addicted to their beliefs, and any addiction is bad.

I am addicted to water. Withdrawal symptoms would be extremely detrimental to my health and even fatal. I do not believe my addiction to water is a bad thing, though.
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Offline Kojiro

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Battles are not won on strength alone
Re: Jesus Camp(documentary)
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2008, 07:39:14 PM »
Addiction:the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma

Drinking water is not a habit or practice you develop.  It is a necessity.  Drinking on the other hand, which can be an addiction, is a choice.  You have the choice in refusing to drink alcohol.  That is why drinking is an addiction while drinking water is not. 

 


Powered by EzPortal