That’s your opinion. Mine is that you don’t understand or won’t acknowledge analogies are not meant to be accurate in all aspects. That particular one is about the oneness of man as the body. It’s not about who is responsible for suffering. Your hammering on it about a point you want to make that it was never intended to address is a goofy waste of time.
Yet again I find myself roflmao.
you evidently missed this part.
I’m not trying to explain every detail because I’ve admitted that I don’t know. That is not illogical by any definition of the word.
The odd thing is it is you who are being illogical by trying to box me into a corner where I have to answer questions that I’ve already admitted I don’t know the answer to. I’ve tried to express my beliefs and you’ve said several times that you’re not interested in certain aspects of them. OkaY…NP. Then you try to semantically force an answer on the one aspect you are interested in and when you fail you claim it’s because I can’t coherently explain my beliefs.
Then you throw your hands up and say I’m the illogical one. I find that pretty amusing.
Not in the way you’ve implied it I haven’t.
From a purely logical point of view it seems that’s how it is, right?
It would also explain why the god wouldn’t reveal himself.
From a morals point of view, the concept is also admirably unwilling to sound stupid and bend and contort itself into complete disfigurement to put over a utopian ideal.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if humanity stumbled across an existential truth through gaming?
[bolding mine]This statement is false and illogical which Is why I find your smug dismissal of my thinking so amusing.
Incorrect. I repeat, “I don’t know” is an honest and completely logical answer.
I said I believe we are connected to God and each other and that changes the traditional argument about God being responsible for all human suffering. It’s an IF but IF it’s true it does indeed change that argument.
If I’m asked, “well then how does that work?” I honestly answer, “I don’t know” Nothing illogical there either.
It isn’t illogical to say, “I believe X may be true”
Holding a firm belief in the face of ample evidence to the contrary could be called illogical. Holding a provisional belief that posits a possibility and does not violate existing evidence is not illogical.
Why no I haven’t, but I’ve debated enough people who have to realize it doesn’t really count for much.
I’m not trying to make logic subjective. Logic requires clear definitions in order to work well. When you’re dealing with a lot of supposition, undefined parameters, and complete unknowns then we need to be more careful about throwing the term illogical around.
There’s a difference between, “that doesn’t seem logical to me” or the more definite “that isn’t logical” often people blurt out the latter when the first is the accurate one.
That last statement turned out to be inaccurate didn’t it?
You may not have noticed everybody’s belief system is somewhat provisional, and everybody operates on some degree of faith. That’s all humans. We operate day to day on what we believe to be true and valuable and meaningful until our experience and our acquired knowledge alters the details of our belief.
So, your snide little dig here is empty and meaningless.
{i’ve snipped the rest because it’s garbage}
So evidently you believe in mind reading. Is that a faith based belief? Should I ask you to defend it logically?
What a load.
I come to the SDMB for entertainment in the form of stimulating, sometimes thought provoking, sometimes funny, sometimes informative, conversation. Period!
I’m not trying to “win” a debate or convince anyone my belief system is correct. It’s just a simply exchange of ideas that I participate in while it remains interesting. I have no interest in playing games concerning someone else’s personal agenda. I try to respond politely until someone demonstrates they are not really listening or worth any more effort.
So you may interpret my “moving on” however you like but the fact is it’s because I find your method of debate uninteresting and not entertaining.
.
Please, let’s not pretend you were respectful.
Good stuff!
I know I officially ran for the hills some four days ago, but I came back for a little recreational lurking and it’s proven quite interesting.
begbert2, I love the RPG analogy and plan to discuss it among friends in Meatspace this week. Unfortunately, they don’t know who you are so I’ll just have to credit “some guy on the internet.” Hopefully you don’t mind. 
9thFloor, I hope you stick around. People on the board can be… frustrating to deal with, but I’ve enjoyed your posts in this thread and the appreciation you show for Logic. (I also tend to like people who are better at expressing my world view than I am.)
cosmosdan, I really can’t understand your belief system at all, but the nature of some of the “issues” we were having are certainly clearer to me now. Anyways, while I wouldn’t call it “Christianity”, I’m glad you’ve got a spiritual philosophy that works for you.
And now, back to the shadows I go. As you were.
Thanks, rM. Logic is my friend. 
“As you were” is terrific. I’m gonna use that to sign off on phone calls!
Just call him begbert2! LOL
I get that but my point is, wouldn’t you say from observing human growth including our social growth in recorded history that there seems to be some drive somewhere that moves mankind to strive to be better, to know more, to understand more?
I am talking in game quality of life. Regardless of what the avatars believe about the details of how the RPG is running and what may or may not happen at end game, we can play the game we’re in to the best of our ability, and improving quality of life can be part of it. All the rest will resolve itself at the appropriate time.
I’ve got no problem with people going about it in their own way. I do think the natural course of events must bring us to some confrontation and contention with others.
I’m talking about the human race. Although at any given moment personal motivations vary greatly as a whole there seems to be some desire to progress.
That’s true. I was just trying to relate the RPG scenario to the world as we know it.
Pretty wild. Of course most concepts of God paint him as timeless. The Book of Mormon says “The course of God is one eternal round”
So indeed, maybe once we enter heaven and “win” the game , we just play again using a different avatar. " I pick the Wookie"
I’ll remember/ It is okay to wonder if there are universal game goals and discuss that possibility with others right?
Well, I don’t want that. Believing there may be another level doesn’t have to restrict fun.
Deal 
I wouldn’t call it Christianity either and believe me the Christians I have discussed it with don’t.
Thanks for your kind words. I hope you understand that for me threads like this one are just a matter of discussing ideas. Typing out these thoughts and possibilities helps me to clarify them for myself, but what God may or may not be, or what happens after this life is not all that relevant to the philosophy that dictates my day to day actions.
see ya round.
It makes me happy that people find my zany ideas interesting; glad to be of help! And sure, I don’t mind being “some guy on the internet” or “begbert2”. If I was averse to it I…wouldn’t be on the internet, calling myself begbert2.
Probably not in the way you mean.
We have societal constructs in place to encourage people to “be better” or at least “not be homicidally worse”; however those are man-made constructs and don’t seem to be inherent parts of the game.
If you mean “know more, understand more” spiritually, I totally don’t see that. There is a strong human tendency to “seek comfort, accept comfort, and swallow whatever crazy notion provides comfort”, however, and that comfort often comes as a result of accepting some “spiritual” idea as being true, but to deduce that the spiritual search is the guiding factor would seem to me to require assuming the conclusion. From where I stand it looks like most people just want comfort and security and to not have to worry about the big questions.
If you mean “Know more, understand more” secular-factually, there there is totally not a general drive towards that in humanity. You get the occasional aberrant who is dedicated to the cause of truth and knowledge, and sometimes drags humanity along with him, but your average joe is not a scholar, researcher, inventor, or explorer.
Now, a return question for you: Wouldn’t you say from observing humans’ behavior in recorded history that there seems to be some drive somewhere that moves mankind to seek pleasure and fun, temporary benefit over long-term gain, personal benefit over the benefit of others? If there is evidence for drives like these in humanity, should they also be thought of as “game goals” of humanity?
Okay. I’m not sure that confrontation and contention is desirable or unavoidable; however I will freely concede that bickering over philosophies of life is natural.
I’m afraid I don’t see any such general desire to progress in the human race, especially not for any consistent or unified definition of ‘progression’.
No offense, but you have me convinced that you’re actually trying to relate the RPG scenario to the world as you know it, as you have previously decided from other models that it is. (I realize that from your personal perspective, distinguishing “your” and “our” views might be a little tricky.) Personally I don’t see this ‘marked tendency for growth’. If anything, humanity seems to be more analagous ( :eek: now I’m doing it) to a blind animal stumbling randomly around a room with good things and bad things in it; it will gradually stumble upon the things that are good for it, and probably usually sometimes hang onto those things, but the fact that it found those things doesn’t imply that it was led to them by some sort of guiding instinct.
Heh, isn’t it? And yeah, in the model I presented, the Players and Admins aren’t “timeless” ( 
), just eternal, and yes, once they achieve heaven they just pat themselves on the back and start again with a fresh, undeveloped avatar.
(This doesn’t mean they won’t eventually decide the game has gotten too civilized, though, and trade it in for version the new 43, which has dragons!)
Hmm, I dunno… That smells like prostelytization…
Well, okay, I’ll allow it. Just as long as you always remember that your speculation about Player and game goals is probably totally wrong. Enigmatic and unknowable, those Players and Admins are.
(It’s really about eating the snickers bars; you know it’s true.)
But acting on that belief does, doesn’t it? I mean, opportunity cost and all.
Unless of course you convince yourself that level-pursuit is itself fun, in which case, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect anybody else to have the same entertainment preferences as you. (Such assumptions often don’t end well, I can attest from personal experience. You regale them for a while about your cool new toy, and they start backing slowly away… 
)
It’s this second way that I mean it. Not everyone is an explorer but I think the explorers have an effect that over time, usually generations, changes the game and what becomes the norm or the mean for the other players.
Good point. I’d say that was a reasonable way of looking at things given the evidence. Still, even though killing, conquering, and taking the other players stuff, still is plentiful,{and would be the fun stuff in any RPG} over the centuries we have made progress toward human rights, peace, caring for the poor, education, etc. I suppose I cling to that as hope. Perhaps it’s a vain hope.
fair enough.
Also fair enough. I do.
I think it’s reasonable to believe there is no guiding instinct but I think it’s just as reasonable to believe there is, or there may be, and to want to explore that possibility. I recognize that humanity’s move toward peace and cooperation rather than killing each other may just be the survival mode of evolution as the lines of which tribe is my tribe begin to blur and disappear. That’s okay. All the supposition about the admins and what happens after end game have no real application in game except in how they affect the individual’s in game activity.
Pretty funny
Let’s play the game where the sentient race evolved from reptiles rather than primates.
I try another tact. If my speculation and the pursuit of trying to figure it out improves my game play and my enjoyment of the game, and by association improves the game experience of my nearby co players, I’ll continue that exploration. If it doesn’t, it’s time for a new approach.
snickers? Really? I thought it was the doritos…dam it
I’m interested in what you mean by acting on that belief dampens the fun of the game. Could you be more specific?
I can think of some examples in which that’s true but it’s also true that playing only for your own enjoyment can really screw the game for others.
for some players it’s all about imposing their will on other players, whether it’s taking their stuff and controlling their play, or constantly badgering them on how the game “should” be played.
I’ve also noticed a lot of players who seem so intimidated by the game that they look for other players to give them direction.
“Tell me how to play!”
“Just play, you’ll figure it out”
“But I want to do it right! Tell Me”
"But acting on that belief does, doesn’t it? I mean, opportunity cost and all."
By that, you’re referring to the enjoyment that you’re denied (opportunity cost) when avoiding something you otherwise would have done but for acting on the belief that there are other levels and what that implies, right?
It’s ironic for those concerned about not wanting to “screw the game for others” that acting on beliefs about purpose seems to do that very thing (the old ‘religion has caused more wars’ thing).
Does the idea of “playing only for your own enjoyment can really screw the game for others” matter in your RPG, bb2?
Sounds to me like playing for your own enjoyment in such a way that it screws the game for others would actually make the RPG more enjoyable for the players, if not for all the avatars collectively.
I’d say that if you want to play the game as though humanity is self-bettering, go for it! I think that humans are largely selfish, which can have an extremely similar effect to a humanity-bettering instinct if enough people in it see personal benefit to a bettered community, or if they see profit in spreading generally beneficial things (like inventions). And, even though I don’t think that most people contribute to a bettered humanity much, clearly when the dust settles, we’ve been in general advancing, for several values of “advancing”. (Perhaps not the ecological one though.)
Essentially we look at the world and infer different underlying mechanisms. I think on this, we can agree to disagree.
I thought this deserved special note, since human perception of the “admin(s)” and the post-end-game tends to have a huge effect on how many people play the game. That is what most of most religion is, after all; and whe you assume a rigid enough scoring system, only one play through the game, and drastic enough post-end-game consequences based on your score for that play, then you can be driven to do all sorts of crazy stuff in order to assist yourself an others in “scoring properly”.
On the other hand, in the RPG scenario as I’m presenting it, there is very little (and no lasting) penalty for playing any which way. This lack of penalty would drain the metaphysical impetus for people to act in strange ways or try to control other people’s behavior, which I see as a good thing. It’s a large reason I like the model, above and beyond the fact that it’s very simple and consistent.
I can’t see a thing wrong with this.
You can’t really fault people for being concerned about how to play; there’s this meme going around that if you play wrong, you’ll be smacked down hard. That’s an intimidating notion.
The people who go around spreading this meme should stop. I M H O.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’ll bring in 9thFloor; I think answering him will answer you.
Pretty much; that’s what opportunity cost is about after all: what you spend on one thing, you can’t spend on another. cosmosdan proposed that “Believing there may be another level doesn’t have to restrict fun”, and my response was, basically, “Wait, is that correct? Unless having and acting on that belief is fun for you, doesn’t spending time and effort on the belief take time away from your fun?” A minor point, really, but I have this bad habit of arguing minor points too.
It’s not that there’s necessarily something wrong with doing things for reasons other than fun either; simple fun’s a high priority for me but I know other people get their giggles from altruism or education or various other things. I was just questioning the notion that level-chasing wouldn’t cut into the fun-time, is all.
Firstly, the RPG model I proposed is pretty much an open sandbox; in my model, if you want to go around PKing people, you are fully able to try and do so. Of course if you do then other players who have avatars who are in the roles of ‘policeman’ are likely to see about bringing your fun, and perhaps your avatar, to an early end.
Similarly, if you go around ripping people off, mouthing off to people, being a jerk, bully, or thug - all of these actions have direct in-game consequences in the opinions of the avatars around you, which have a pretty high and moderately consistent response on your avatar’s quality of life, if the other avatars you injured get their hands on you. This is all independent of any extra end-game punishment, or anything like that; if you go around screwing the game for others; you up the odds that they’ll try to screw the game for you, no admin help needed.
Pseronally, I don’t even derive enjoyment from playing to screw others over, even in games, since I am highly aware of how much I would not enjoy the same happening to me. I mean, sure, at an abstract level I like winning and beating other people (in games) as much as the next guy, but I hate Hate HAte HATe HATE HATE losing to or being beaten by another human player. I mean if you want to see me go from pleased and happy to bitter and pissed in 1.2 seconds, screw me over in a board game. I don’t even have to entirely lose, just getting punked at all will ruin my fun.
In my pursuit of not getting punked, I start by myself refraining from punking people myself. People are nicer to you when you’re nice to them, after all. And it’s really not that hard to play nice; there are actually lots of ways to play the game that don’t “screw the game” for others.
(I’m actually so use to finding harmless entertainments for myself that I found it odd that cosmosdan went from “selfish entertaiment” to “screwing over others”. That’s just not a connection I can draw from my usual selfish entertainments.)
I have no respect for people who casually or deliberately hurt others in their pursuit of their personal desires. I see such thinking as a short-sighted and immature, based in a lack of empathy and on not recognizing how actions have consequences and what goes around does indeed occasionally come around. Still though, I didn’t build extra punishments for antisocial actions into my RPG model because I don’t think the model needs them (what which purely in-game retribution of various sorts), and because the promise of such extra-game punishments are so easily and so often used as threats to control others.
If Jeffery Dahmer was acting for his own enjoyment do you suppose he screwed the game for others? That’s an extreme example but there are lots more subtle ones that are the same principle.
Actually it’s believing everyone should be required share your or your groups belief and acting on that that screws the game for others. I already covered that when I mentioned the controlling others issue. It doesn’t matter if it’s labeled religion or nationalism, or whatever. It still sucks being the one forced to comply or die from the avatars view.
"This is all independent of any extra end-game punishment, or anything like that; if you go around screwing the game for others; you up the odds that they’ll try to screw the game for you, no admin help needed."
That’s secular morality, right? We’re on the same page if so; it can essentially be reduced to cause and effect, mathematics as it were.
Does your RPG concept contemplate the possibility of an avatar screwing over another avatar – and **not **suffering any ‘negative’ in-game results. Possible? No? I assume it does if you meant to use the term ‘odds’ literally as in chances.
I think human history has shown that the trend is clearly cause and effect and karma (secularly understood). But in every instance, for every avatar, in all cases, in equal measure?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect an avatar that made an entire lifestyle out of screwing everyone for the duration of his existence to escape any comeuppance of any kind, but for the sake of argument and to understand the proposed parameters of the concept how about in any one specific instance?