I have to STOP!!

[Madiel]

     One of the truly awful things about "heaven" (along with everything else) is that there is no one to argue with.

I am not convinced by this assertion.

[drogulus]

     People are rarely killed by arguments. Arguments are what discussions are about. How can you discuss if you don't know what argument is being offered?

     Oh, there's no argument, people are just chatting......in a supportive environment maybe?

I am not convinced by this assertion.

     I'm way more not convinced than you are.

[Herman]

I understand what's bugging 71dB, but it's just a matter of how you look at differences of opinion.

Certainly where it's about taste in music, it doesn't really matter if someone else doesn't share your preference. He or she is a different person so it makes sense he or she likes something else.

The effort to persuade other people of one's pov is what causes a lot of aggravation. However, one can just say: "interesting you like this or that, chacun son gout.

[Madiel]

Drogulus, the Bible has several examples of people arguing with God and God seeming to cope with this just fine.

So I'm not convinced there'll be no arguing in heaven. It will just be pleasant and respectful and not lead to claims that someone is going to hell for their views.

Churches that think everyone must think and believe EXACTLY the same thing on absolutely everything are generally not the healthiest churches.

[71 dB]

I understand what's bugging 71dB, but it's just a matter of how you look at differences of opinion.

Debating online seems to deteriote my happiness and well-being plus nobody pays me for doing it so why do it? Just because internet makes it technically possible doesn't mean I should do it. It just took this long to see what I do to myself. Sure, every now and then there's positive experiences online, but the toxic negativity is just overhelming.

Everything is powerplay. Doesn't really matter if you are right or wrong. Power matters. Trump is in power so wind causes cancer. 99.9 % of scientists don't matter. They are not in power. The opinions of people in Hong Kong don't matter because they are not in power (meaning there is no real democracy). China is in power and it is a matter of time when they crush the people of Hong Kong. It's not feelings over facts or facts over feelings. It's (political and financial) power over both feelings AND facts.

[drogulus]

Drogulus, the Bible has several examples of people arguing with God and God seeming to cope with this just fine.

     Quiet, I'm having an argument with Godzilla in a Toho film.

     OK, we're done.
     

     

[Madiel]

     Quiet, I'm having an argument with Godzilla in a Toho film.
   

You're the one who mentioned "heaven". You don't have to believe in it to have a discussion about what the Bible actually says (which is at times in marked contrast to what some Christians think it says), anymore than you have to think Harry Potter is a documentary to read the text.

[drogulus]

     

You're the one who mentioned "heaven". You don't have to believe in it to have a discussion about what the Bible actually says (which is at times in marked contrast to what some Christians think it says), anymore than you have to think Harry Potter is a documentary to read the text.

     That's good to know, since I don't do "believe in". As far as what books say about the concept, they record beliefs that have passed down through time, they aren't evidence for the truth of any of them.

     When an argument is bolstered by an equally suspect authority nothing much is accomplished. That's what "believe in" is for. When all else fails, there's that.

     Monty Python had a sketch about theology, a block of flats that started shaking when people didn't believe in it.

[steve ridgway]

Debating online seems to deteriote my happiness and well-being plus nobody pays me for doing it so why do it? Just because internet makes it technically possible doesn't mean I should do it. It just took this long to see what I do to myself. Sure, every now and then there's positive experiences online, but the toxic negativity is just overhelming.

Everything is powerplay. Doesn't really matter if you are right or wrong. Power matters. Trump is in power so wind causes cancer. 99.9 % of scientists don't matter. They are not in power. The opinions of people in Hong Kong don't matter because they are not in power (meaning there is no real democracy). China is in power and it is a matter of time when they crush the people of Hong Kong. It's not feelings over facts or facts over feelings. It's (political and financial) power over both feelings AND facts.

Yes I am starting to feel more detached about the conflicts in the outside world and more interested in maintaining peace and order in my own mind and sphere of influence. The whole of human history could be summed up as people fought each other to get stuff and ideas are some of the weapons.

[greg]

Everything is powerplay. Doesn't really matter if you are right or wrong. Power matters. Trump is in power so wind causes cancer. 99.9 % of scientists don't matter. They are not in power. The opinions of people in Hong Kong don't matter because they are not in power (meaning there is no real democracy). China is in power and it is a matter of time when they crush the people of Hong Kong. It's not feelings over facts or facts over feelings. It's (political and financial) power over both feelings AND facts.

True. Power decides everything.
Everything, truth, meaning, justice is all underneath power.

So much that I feel like the concept of personal responsibility might be way overemphasized. I mean, it exists, but 90% of the stuff that happens to people is outside their control.

[Madiel]

     
     That's good to know, since I don't do "believe in". As far as what books say about the concept, they record beliefs that have passed down through time, they aren't evidence for the truth of any of them.

     When an argument is bolstered by an equally suspect authority nothing much is accomplished. That's what "believe in" is for. When all else fails, there's that.

     Monty Python had a sketch about theology, a block of flats that started shaking when people didn't believe in it.

Lol. So what was your source for making a claim about "heaven" in the first place? Clearly you had one.

Never mind. Because all this conversation is now doing is illustrating what I find to be one of the classic problems of arguing on the internet, and one of the most profoundly irritating. So let's just leave it as the model "answer" for the thread.

[drogulus]

      We disagree about the point of argument, which takes me back to my original position that it's useful and essential to intellectual life, as well as fun for all ages, except babies who haven't yet learned how.
     

[Madiel]

You don't know that we disagree about the point of argument. We haven't discussed the point of argument.

All that we've discussed is your assertion that "heaven" doesn't have argument, which is fruitless because I can't get past the first step of establishing where your conception of "heaven" even comes from. For all I know it's purely an invention of your own mind and doesn't correspond with anyone else's conception of "heaven" at all.

Making the whole discussion about as effective as me deciding for some reason known only to me that heaven forbids the consumption of apricots, and then complaining that heaven is going to be missing my favourite fruit.

And that's one of the classic problems of arguing on the internet that I find so exasperating: an argument only works if you all start from the same basic premises, and I find that attempting to engage people on the basis of their own apparent premises rarely works because then they just spiral off anywhere they feel like. As you are doing. I can't debate "heaven" with you because I can't tell whether you just made "heaven" up entirely on your own or whether you recognise that there are established religions that have conceptions of heaven, regardless of whether you agree with those religions, that we can start from.

You are your own arbiter of truth, rendering argument utterly impossible.

[Madiel]

Might I add, it does rather seem you think that the discussion is about whether heaven actually exists, when I haven't made any statement about that.

Nothing I've said depends on that any more than your original statement critiquing heaven depends on that. All it depends on is CONCEPTIONS of heaven existing. And me trying to figure out whether some external source told you in some way that heaven doesn't have argument (in which case I can assess the source and your use of it), or whether you just made up your own conception of heaven that you probably don't believe in for the sole purpose of critiquing it, which just makes your original remark masturbatory.

[drogulus]

     You can ride horses, you can have a concept of a horse, but you can't ride a horse concept.

     

I can't debate "heaven" with you because I can't tell whether you just made "heaven" up entirely on your own or whether you recognise that there are established religions that have conceptions of heaven, regardless of whether you agree with those religions, that we can start from.

     I made it up just like everyone else did, but not very differently. There's no beer, for example. But my point about the value of argument was to use an imaginary realm where people don't argue. Since it's not a place but a "concept horse" it doesn't have to exactly conform to a particular tradition, the one with apricots any any other. The generic version will do. It's not like I have to book a flight or anything.

[Madiel]

So you made a point about argument by using a conception of heaven that is fundamentally unarguable because you yourself created it and get to decide what it looks like.

Yeah. Good one.

As I said a couple of posts ago, I think what you've demonstrated is one of the fundamental problems with arguing on the internet. Without common external reference points it's useless. Your conception of heaven is just... yours.

EDIT: And you invented a heaven you don't like so you could tell us what was wrong with it. Seems slightly masochistic. 

[drogulus]

So you made a point about argument by using a conception of heaven that is fundamentally unarguable because you yourself created it and get to decide what it looks like.

Yeah. Good one.

 

   Thanks, but I'm not taking special credit for using the bare-bones generic "no x in heaven" for all kinds of stuff people won't do there.

[JBS]

I might point out that at least one version of heaven, the traditional Jewish one, assumes friendly debate and argument (on topics of traditional Jewish law and lore) is an essential part of the heavenly lifestyle.

[drogulus]

I might point out that at least one version of heaven, the traditional Jewish one, assumes friendly debate and argument (on topics of traditional Jewish law and lore) is an essential part of the heavenly lifestyle.

     Jews are awesome! I read they got the 7 heavens idea from the Babylonians, and the Greeks introduced the idea of an immortal soul. These days Jews don't try to ride concept horses like that. It's the history of their religion. Preserving that is an essential part of preserving themselves.

     

[JBS]

     Jews are awesome! I read they got the 7 heavens idea from the Babylonians, and the Greeks introduced the idea of an immortal soul. These days Jews don't try to ride concept horses like that. It's the history of their religion. Preserving that is an essential part of preserving themselves.

   

Too much credit for the Greeks. The idea of a soul surviving physical death is already found (although not necessarily the idea of heaven as a reward) in various early strata of the Bible, as well as Egyptian and Persian religion. If anything, the Greeks got it from Egypt and Persia.