2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 2

[GROTTO]

you forgot Jedi..how could you forget Jedi

An Absurdly Large Number Of Australians Say Their Religion Is The Force

And Australian atheists are not happy about it.

www.huffingtonpost.com.au

 

[FAITH]

Goodness is subjective. A persons' view on this would be influenced by the sum of the social relationships they've had in their lives and the social values and identities they hold as a result.

As for the how:


All things being equal, much the same as most religious people.

However placing things within a framework of good or bad is restrictive and doesn't reflect the complexity of the world.

Goodness in itself is not subjective, its objective surely?
Something is either good or not.

Surely a higher power with no limits and knows all is the only one who can say if something is right, wrong, good or bad?

If it's left into people, agreement will never be made.

 

[FAITH]

I don't think the premise to that question is sound.
In the first place, it would be my personal view and not an "atheist" view, because the only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in gods, everything else is up for grabs. There is no "atheist" view.

In the second place, I would say there is no difference between atheists and religious people in that regard, we would all, as human beings, judge "goodness" in the same way (on a scale from "not doing outright bad things" through to "spends every waking moment volunteering for good causes, giving significant $ to charities etc). The only difference is that maybe religious people might (a) see being religious / devout as "good", and (b) assume that religious people are more likely than atheists to have "good" attributes. Which of course I would disagree with.

So you agree with me that no one person has the power to know for certain if something or someone is good or bad?

 

[skam85]

you forgot Jedi..how could you forget Jedi

The sh*t will be with you, always.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

 

[skam85]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

View attachment 1022615

Looks like he'll have plenty more time for tennis now.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Goodness in itself is not subjective, its objective surely?

Are we talking the abstract concept of goodness?

If goodness is objective, what is it?

Something is either good or not.

Is something either hot or cold?

Depends entirely on ones' perspective. Perhaps hotness and coldness have a range? Perhaps it depends on the melting point of the element?

Maybe someone is used to the cold or the heat? Perhaps they have gloves on?

So in much the same way that hot or cold is too restrictive a framework for the data on temperature, good or not is too restrictive a framework for the data on goodness.

Surely a higher power with no limits and knows all is the only one who can say if something is right, wrong, good or bad?

One day if such a higher power decides to communicate such things to us we can see if it stops people holding their own opinions on things. If such a higher power has the processing capability to account for the individual thoughts and feelings of every sentient being in the universe in a addition to all over variables, even then it could arguably be their subjective opinion, just a well informed one.

If it's left into people, agreement will never be made.

Human development is built upon cooperation and agreement. We've done a pretty good job at cooperating and agreeing to particular things at particular times. Obviously the things humans agree on change, as the world changes. Like what religions view as good and bad, those views have definitely changed multiple times over the centuries, all the while the proclaimants adamant that each iteration is the indisputable word/s of god/s. We just have to take their word for it, so it is difficult to be sure whose word is what and from whom.

 

[Runnin Blue]

The last few pages of this thread...

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

View attachment 1022615

Shock split? Not shocked at all!

 

[FR0GGY]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

View attachment 1022615

Tbh I thought they had split a long time ago.

 

[cleanhands]

Tbh I thought they had split a long time ago.

Well before the tennis match with no fourth player involved?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

View attachment 1022615

I really need to know what Nadia Bartel thinks of all this

 

[FR0GGY]

Well before the tennis match with no fourth player involved?

Like years

 

[WetCrow1991]

Tania didn't like Nathans treatment of Treloar ......joking, but suffice to say Nathan had a lot of things on his mind

View attachment 1022615

But what are the intricacies of their relationship. We have a right to know!

 

[cleanhands]

Like years

Wow I’ve done a RipVanWinkle

 

[MatthewB]

I really need to know what Nadia Bartel thinks of all this

im sure there will be a article on it soon

 

[arrowman]

I'm going to make desperate attempt to keep this conversation on topic and not get modded out for derailing.

Goodness in itself is not subjective, its objective surely?
Something is either good or not.

Surely a higher power with no limits and knows all is the only one who can say if something is right, wrong, good or bad?

False premise / circular argument, not sure what is the right term.

You are starting from the assumption that there is an objective measure of "good" (absolute, and beyond the general consensus that would exist for most "good" attributes, and therefore you need a higher power for that. I would say (1) it's not necessary - of any great utility - to have such an objective measure, (2) even if you thought it was necessary, it's not possible to achieve, and (3) the way you are proposing to achieve it is via an unknowable higher power whose opinion is only available to us through the beliefs of people who happen to believe in that higher power. Which is not "objective" unless you happen to believe not only in that higher power, but also take on faith the words of the people who claim to speak on behalf of that higher power.

We can to some extent achieve this objective determination via the higher power of a well informed and experienced recruiting team, but even then it is not perfect. It would be foolish to place all faith in Hamish Ogilvie for a 100% objective determination, but it is the best we can do. At least we can hear Hamish's assessments directly, and we don't have to take it on faith that the media department will report them accurately.

If it's left into people, agreement will never be made.

I think there would be very broad agreement across the population, both religious and non-religious people, about characteristics of a "good" person.

As I said before, perhaps the main disagreement between religious and non-religious people would be about whether being devout/religious is such a characteristic.

There is, however, clearly much scope for disagreement between people on who is the best player available at a given pick in the draft.

So you agree with me that no one person has the power to know for certain if something or someone is good or bad?

It's irrelevant to me, because I don't think it's necessary / important to have "the power to know for certain".

Even Hamish Ogilvie doesn't have that power.

 

[Crow Envy]

Meh, if Christmas didn't exist it would have had to have been invented as an end of year family gathering / holiday / celebration of whatever. It's not my fault it happens to coincide with a Christian festival. (And, of course, in turn was coopted from pagans.) I don't feel at all uncomfortable about it.

That’s New Years Eve/Day.

Easter?

 

[arrowman]

The sh*t will be with you, always.

This is not the sh*t you are looking for.

 

[arrowman]

That’s New Years Eve/Day.

No, Christmas / Saturnalia. OK, Roman, not pagan. Easter was the pagan thing.

 

[baldandbroke]

Not really.

Whilst I'm not sure of the existence of God or the afterlife, I'm also not sure that none of that exists.

I find atheists almost as tiresome as vegans telling people who eat meat that we are killing the planet.

Agnostics are the worst. Basically a religious person that wants to pretend they are not a religious person to try and avoid discussions with atheists.

You either believe in <insert whichever god represents the physical location you were born in> or you understand that it is all made up.

Do you go with the same logic of "I'm not saying I do believe in ghosts, but I'm not saying that don't believe in ghosts either."

 

[spenze]

I thought that was Jenny, the humanist.

You think that WetCrow is Jennys alter?

 

[GreyCrow]

A Non-Crows AFL discussion thread seems appealing right about now.

The Buckley banging Molik rumour will gain steam after it is revealed Nafe and Tania Buckley are spearating

 

[FAITH]

I'm going to make desperate attempt to keep this conversation on topic and not get modded out for derailing.


False premise / circular argument, not sure what is the right term.

You are starting from the assumption that there is an objective measure of "good" (absolute, and beyond the general consensus that would exist for most "good" attributes, and therefore you need a higher power for that. I would say (1) it's not necessary - of any great utility - to have such an objective measure, (2) even if you thought it was necessary, it's not possible to achieve, and (3) the way you are proposing to achieve it is via an unknowable higher power whose opinion is only available to us through the beliefs of people who happen to believe in that higher power. Which is not "objective" unless you happen to believe not only in that higher power, but also take on faith the words of the people who claim to speak on behalf of that higher power.

We can to some extent achieve this objective determination via the higher power of a well informed and experienced recruiting team, but even then it is not perfect. It would be foolish to place all faith in Hamish Ogilvie for a 100% objective determination, but it is the best we can do. At least we can hear Hamish's assessments directly, and we don't have to take it on faith that the media department will report them accurately.


I think there would be very broad agreement across the population, both religious and non-religious people, about characteristics of a "good" person.

As I said before, perhaps the main disagreement between religious and non-religious people would be about whether being devout/religious is such a characteristic.

There is, however, clearly much scope for disagreement between people on who is the best player available at a given pick in the draft.


It's irrelevant to me, because I don't think it's necessary / important to have "the power to know for certain".

Even Hamish Ogilvie doesn't have that power.

Interesting.
I don't agree with everything you said, but I respect your opinions.

 

[spenze]

So you agree with me that no one person has the power to know for certain if something or someone is good or bad?

Besides Santa